BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat

BattleTech Player Boards => Fan Designs and Rules => Aerospace => Topic started by: Alsadius on 03 June 2018, 18:21:39

Title: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 03 June 2018, 18:21:39
I have an experiment in mind, and I'd like to get some other interested folks to help make it happen. We see a lot of WarShip designs posted here, but they're almost all standalones, not part of a complete, unified force. I'm a bit of a stickler for complete, unified forces (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=57949.0), so I want to try something different. Inspired by Jellico's classic essay on SLDF doctrine (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Essay:_SLDF_Naval_Doctrine) and an (https://navalgazing.obormot.net/So-You-Want-to-Build-a-Modern-Navy-Part-1) ongoing (https://navalgazing.obormot.net/So-You-Want-to-Build-a-Modern-Navy-Part-2) series (https://navalgazing.obormot.net/So-You-Want-to-Build-a-Modern-Navy-Coast-Guard-Part-1) on a wet-navy blog I like, I want to do a group challenge where everyone plays a nation and tries to build a fleet from the ground up.

We'll start at the dawn of the WarShip, in the 2300s, and then follow the various fleets through the Age of War, and ideally go as late as the early Succession Wars when the WarShip fleets were effectively eliminated. One person will be GM, adjudicating how the in-universe combat turns out and giving a sense of the economic limitations that everyone is operating under. Everyone else takes one of the great houses, and tries to guide them into having the best navy around. I expect we'd move fairly slowly, perhaps one new design a week per person, with a new design being introduced every 10-20 years in-universe. I assume I'll probably be GM, but if someone's really keen I can step back.

So, who's game?

GAME STATUS - Last Updated: February 11th
Turn 1(2350-2359) (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421728#msg1421728)
Turn 2(2360-2369) (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1424612#msg1424612)
Turn 3(2370-2379) (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1429848#msg1429848)
Turn 4(2380-2389) (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1434030#msg1434030)
Turn 5(2390-2399) (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1440488#msg1440488)
Turn 6(2400-2409) (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1452784#msg1452784)
Turn 7(2410-2419) (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1481240#msg1481240) - Incomplete

This game is now finished. Thanks to all who played.

Start date is the year 2350, and we'll proceed at a rate of ten years per turn, with turns happening about once every two weeks when all goes well. The master construction tool will be CryHavoc's spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-CDKf4BJghLS2B52_9O5q4deG8h5G2A9W-hDcBHGcUY/edit#gid=0). Save a copy to your own Google Drive to use it. There's a spreadsheet tracking technology, rules, ship designs, and fleets available here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rzh-GEbKmiqNfPPj-zQj-9ZqiWKz11MmtqM73815wOo/edit?usp=sharing). A set of links to all full ship designs posted thus far is available here (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1455413#msg1455413).
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 03 June 2018, 19:35:19
Might I recommend 2400 as the start date. There's really no one who can challenge the Hegemony in 2300 and the historical texts say it took roughly 70 years for everyone else to catch up on the warship front. There's also the huge economic limitations placed on everyone maintaining the communication command circuits before HPGs.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 03 June 2018, 20:06:13
Might I recommend 2400 as the start date. There's really no one who can challenge the Hegemony in 2300 and the historical texts say it took roughly 70 years for everyone else to catch up on the warship front. There's also the huge economic limitations placed on everyone maintaining the communication command circuits before HPGs.

I'm flexible on details. I was thinking mid-2300s, so everyone would have at least the start of a navy, but I didn't have an exact start year in mind.

And to be clear, this isn't intended as a game where "catching up" in raw weight of metal is the goal, per se - this isn't a wargame where the TH player can just kill everyone, it's a forum game where the process of figuring out how to catch up may be interesting in its own right. The German fleet in 1900 would be an interesting design challenge, even if the process of actually fighting it out with the Brits would be horribly lopsided (as, indeed, it was IRL). What would you do as Reynard Davion or Robert Marsden if you know the Terrans have a gigantic lead in naval forces and you want to try to close the gap to make your empire less vulnerable?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Sharpnel on 04 June 2018, 03:47:10
Nevermind
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 04 June 2018, 04:14:26
Hmm...initially my thought would be making carriers and lots of them.  ASF's can provide all the punch needed and if you're shipping nukes with your fighter strikes then you could bathe the terran battle line in nuclear fire.  Basically its the Junne Ecole idea the French had.

 Several younger officers had the idea that the way to counter the British fleet in the late 1800s was to spam torpedo boats and use them to swarm and sink the RN battleships.  They were cheaper, quicker and easier to build and put less strain on France's ship building industry which simply could not keep up with the UK at that point.  At this point the RN was pumping out the 9 strong Majestic class which the French simply couldn't even come close to matching.  So the idea won support of various Admirals and eventually became the corner stone of French naval doctrine for a good few years. 

The torpedo boat swarms were accompanied by large numbers of long range cruisers who's job was to go commerce hunting either in the Med or Atlantic and sever the UK's trade lifelines (as submarines were barely a thing and were basically a barely mobile minefield rather than the weapons they would become). 

So basically you can't match the Terran's for tonnage or firepower, so go at them a different way and that way would be carriers i'd say.

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 04 June 2018, 06:20:24
That is certainly an option. Just to give an example of what I had in mind, let's play that one out. I'll assume you're FedSuns for the sake of this, and I put together a quick and dirty design that'd work in the mid-2300s(350 kton, 3/5, 100 SI, 700 tons=280 points of standard armor, 144 fighters, 12x NAC/20, 20x NL/45, and the usual various sundries, total cost $6.77 billion, BV 77,784).

Quote
The newly-designed Marauder-class light carriers got their first workout against a surprisingly organized band of pirates on the rimward stretches of the Federated Suns. Calling themselves the "Taurians", they were originally thought to be Capellan colonists until further contact was established. The only large-scale battle was fought at the zenith jump point in Rollis in 2368, when an AFFS task force advanced on the planet and was surprised by Taurian forces jumping into their midst. Despite the element of surprise, the decision by Rear Admiral Markwardt to keep an active fighter patrol in space while her ships were recharging proved to be a wise one. Her gunnery crews proved ill-prepared and displayed very poor marksmanship in the fight, but the fighters proved sufficient to harry the light Taurian corvettes and prevent them from driving home any serious attacks. The FSS Marauder was significantly damaged in the fight, and spent nine months in dock after returning to Federated Suns space repairing its damage, but recordings suggest that a lucky fighter strike on the largest Taurian ship convinced their forces to break away before they could finish the Marauder off. However, an unarmoured JumpShip was destroyed with a fully loaded DropShip still attached, and 31 fighters were lost in the fighting.

I rolled for skill and luck on each side, and then took into account descriptions of the ships on each side, to determine a plausible path for the battle to take. In this case, the Taurians got a better skill roll(so they got the drop on your forces), but the FedSuns got the better luck roll. The fight was based on a fight in the fluff, where the Taurians killed two WS and captured a third, because the Davion vessels were too heavy and slow to maneuver, so the carrier design definitely turned out to be an improvement.

I want to use battle reports like this, instead of raw stat comparisons, because it's how real navies learn about their strengths and weaknesses. In eras where fighting is light, the wrong lessons can very easily be learned purely by chance - e.g., how the battle of Lissa convinced 19th century naval engineers that rams were useful weapons, because it happened in a brief period where armour technology had advanced faster than gun technology (https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Lissa).
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 04 June 2018, 07:26:26
In the Davion and Davion (Deceased) novel the FedSuns has the same basic issue, and adopt a fighter heavy doctrine for their fleet with a new carrier that was based on the older New Syrtis Class (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/New_Syrtis_(WarShip_class) ) with the argument being that Carriers offered more flexibility and were more suvivable than a Battleship, and even if a BB or BC was damaged but victorious, she could spend months in a yard getting repaired. A CV can lob its fighters at long range and try and run if something goes wrong.  There was also a lighter carrier based on the Robinson class transport and in the story these proved to be quite decisive in several critical engagements.

And yeah the Battle of Lissa was a bit of an oddity and it did lead to the construction of some truly mostrous guns 100+ ton breech loaded ones being the upper end of the armour/weapon debate at that time which was countered by 41-inches of armour on HMS Inflexible. 

Fighters offer a cheap and relatively expendable way of dealing with WarShips, the other houses have to think outside the box if they want to challenge the Hegemony, or at least make themselves enough of a threat to do so. 
You could even make a 'MTB' on dropships and swarm with them, a dropper with a few missile launch tubes in the nose and away you go.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 04 June 2018, 08:59:05
Here's a dinky little carrier based on the Vincent, I stripped out the NAC-10's and added a lot of barracuda's with decent ammo, some large lasers and MG's as the AMS
But her main punch comes from 48 fighters carried onboard, as well as the flexibility of 12 small craft which I'd see as being tankers or a kind of SAR, and maybe some kind of AWACS to help coordinate them.  There's also a small NCSS as she's basically a flying airbase and that would improve her sensors and control for fighter direction, last thing you want is someone sneaking up on you.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Kalamazoo Class Light Carrier
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $5,492,278,000.00
Magazine Cost: $3,220,000.00
BV2: 12,968

Mass: 420,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive

Safe Thrust: 4
Maximum Thrust: 6

Armor Type: Ferro-Carbide

Armament:
20 Capital Launcher Barracuda
20 Laser Large
20 Machine Gun (IS)

Class/Model/Name: Kalamazoo Class Light Carrier
Mass: 420,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 100,800.00
Thrust
Safe: 4
Maximum: 6
Controls: 1,050.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (10 Integrity) 190,050.00
Jump Sail: (4 Integrity) 51.00
Structural Integrity: 40 16,800.00
Total Heat Sinks: 668(1336) Double 175.00
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 10000 points 4,080.00
Fire Control Computers: 0.00
Armor: 216 pts Ferro-Carbide 270.00

Fore: 38
Fore-Left/Right: 35/35
Aft-Left/Right: 35/35
Aft: 38

Dropship Capacity: 0
Grav Decks:
Small: 1 (100 meter) 50.00

Escape Pods: 28 196.00
Life Boats: 28 196.00

Crew And Passengers:

28 Officers in Steerage Quarters 140.00
101 Crew in Steerage Quarters 505.00
33 Gunners and Others in Steerage Quarters 165.00
156 Bay Personnel

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass

4 Capital Launcher Barracuda Nose 40 80 (8-C) Extreme-C 360.00
4 Laser Large Nose 32 32 (3.2-C) 20.00
4 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 8 (0.8-C) 2.00

4 Capital Launcher Barracuda FL 40 80 (8-C) 360.00
4 Laser Large FL 32 32 (3.2-C) 20.00
4 Machine Gun (IS) FL 8 (0.8-C) 2.00

4 Capital Launcher Barracuda FR 40 80 (8-C) 360.00
4 Laser Large FR 32 32 (3.2-C) 20.00
4 Machine Gun (IS) FR 8 (0.8-C) 2.00

4 Capital Launcher Barracuda LBS 40 80 (8-C) 360.00
4 Laser Large LBS 32 32 (3.2-C) 20.00
4 Machine Gun (IS) LBS 8 (0.8-C) 2.00

4 Capital Launcher Barracuda RBS 40 80 (8-C) 360.00
4 Laser Large RBS 32 32 (3.2-C) 20.00
4 Machine Gun (IS) RBS 8 (0.8-C) 2.00


Ammo Rounds

Capital Launcher Barracuda Ammo 500
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 4000

Aerospace Group

48 x Fighters
12 x Small Craft

Cargo - 81,842 tons

6,120,202


'Cheap' at 6,120,202 credits too.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 04 June 2018, 11:59:14

Would it be an idea to have really old ships use only SC bays (for SC and ASF)?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 04 June 2018, 16:06:32
How come no on builds battlestars? I find it odd that everyone try to enforce this blue water separation of roles between battleships and carriers. I mean its totally unessicary in the game. Aerospace fighters can't project power. Over the same comparable ranges in space that real world fights can. You don't get the long range over the horizon type fighter strikes that you have in the real. A carrier/battleship combo could very effectively anchor a battle line and later form the core of a good defenses in depth
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Sharpnel on 04 June 2018, 16:13:53
Well that didn't work
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 04 June 2018, 16:15:33
They do and did, the McKenna and Texas could easily be called a 'battlestar' like ship, they carry 60 fighters and 6 DropShips which can and probably will include a carrier DropShip in there for yet more fighter spam  (seriously, slap two Lee CV's on a McKenna and you'd be laughing with 140 fighters).   They also have lots of armour and guns and really are only able to be supported by a near post scarcity society like the Hegemony was. 

I'm sure they could carry more fighters but because the way the original ship rules were done, which seems to be this;

1 - Load numbers into a smoothbore breech loaded cannon.
2 - Fire at a large white peice of cloth 50 feet from the cannon muzzle.
3 - Look at where the numbers landed and what they total, go with those.

Repeat steps 1 - 3 for EVERY ship.

Which is the only way I can explain some ships having utterly bonkers designs, stats and numbers, usually in the cargo department or the Texas having NO frontal or rear firing guns. Why? Because! And so on.  So yeah you could probably fit a few dozen more fighters into a McKenna if you was willing to sacrifice some of the cargo space that allows you to loose a super-liner in, but really you'd have to basically re-do the whole line of ships.  I did that with Matt Plog and Shimmering sword to make the art look decent instead of the god aweful refits of 3057 (although I did insist that some ships look a bit like them because some of the designs were nice, but the artwork wasnt), but you'd still have to re-do all the numbers and the like, to try bring them a bit more up to date instead of being..well...'quirky' if I was being polite.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 04 June 2018, 16:29:30
How come no on builds battlestars? I find it odd that everyone try to enforce this blue water separation of roles between battleships and carriers. I mean its totally unessicary in the game. Aerospace fighters can't project power. Over the same comparable ranges in space that real world fights can. You don't get the long range over the horizon type fighter strikes that you have in the real. A carrier/battleship combo could very effectively anchor a battle line and later form the core of a good defenses in depth

BT is more battlestar-friendly than most settings, IMO. As Marauder said, there's a lot of them in canon. It's just a shame that the canon WarShip designs suffer so badly from rulebook obsolescence - the original Atlas and Marauder hold up fine, but the old WS are just confounding under modern rules. And even then, I think there needs to be a new rule set to deal with certain things(AMS are horrifyingly broken right now, for one).

Also, I see a lot of people discussing this idea - is anyone interested in joining?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 04 June 2018, 17:01:00
How come no on builds battlestars? I find it odd that everyone try to enforce this blue water separation of roles between battleships and carriers. I mean its totally unessicary in the game. Aerospace fighters can't project power. Over the same comparable ranges in space that real world fights can. You don't get the long range over the horizon type fighter strikes that you have in the real. A carrier/battleship combo could very effectively anchor a battle line and later form the core of a good defenses in depth

Many warships carry fighter screens in battletech. They don't call them battlestars, because that's a unique designation to a specific universe. You'll find the term battlecarrier a lot more common.

However, there are three major factors on why everything isn't a full-on carrier in addition to it's other roles:

1-After the death of the star league and the succession wars, the only major powers with full warship fleets was the clans... and their rules of engagement encouraged dueling, which made the fighter screen much less useful. They also heavily encouraged mech supremacy over aerospace supremacy, so most found a mech battle preferable over air/space strikes, further reducing the desire for balanced, or even in some cases balanced, aerospace forces.
2-Dropships. Dropships can be used to customize the role of a warship. Need a carrier, toss on several titan dropships and you have one. This also means that everything with a jumpdrive is potentially a carrier. It's why warships with 6+ dropship collars are so valuable as well.
3-Putting all your eggs in one basket is not always a good idea. Between jump mishaps, ambushes, and the like, focusing that much force in one location makes it vulnerable. It can all be lost in an instant if the wrong thing happens. By diversifying such loads among the dropships that can be detached and often fend for themselves, they payload of deadly and dangerous fighters is far less vulnerable to catastrophe.

Bonus reason-Almost none of the canon designs are made efficiently. They are often designed purposely with horrible flaws in them. This is largely due to rules and system changes over time.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 04 June 2018, 17:47:45
I guess considering the era that these ships fly in I don't consider 60 fighters even close to an adequate strike group core. At minimum I'd consider 144 to 168 fighters a good core for a fleet in that era.

The 3057 clan ships are a real problem. Since the visuals are considered cannon then in my mind the stats and write-ups have got to be retconed. They just don't work and those ships represent a huge missed opportunity for naval tech advancement. The jihad source books show us that they don't represent late block variants of the ships since all the WOB SL ships were exodus vintage but are marked specifically as 2750 version. The writeup need to reflect the new art and if you are making such huge changes why wouldn't you altar the weapons to better suit the new combat style the clans use in naval battles?

BT is more battlestar-friendly than most settings, IMO. As Marauder said, there's a lot of them in canon. It's just a shame that the canon WarShip designs suffer so badly from rulebook obsolescence - the original Atlas and Marauder hold up fine, but the old WS are just confounding under modern rules. And even then, I think there needs to be a new rule set to deal with certain things(AMS are horrifyingly broken right now, for one).

Also, I see a lot of people discussing this idea - is anyone interested in joining?

That's something I'm looking into however its not as easy as it sounds while preserving and reconciling all the existing cannon. The AMS issue is emblematic of the overall problem of how mech scale guns are treated in a capital scale game. They are just way to powerful however anything that nurfs them back to were they belong is tantamount to a death sentence for the modern spheriod fleets and the usefulness of combat dropers. There's no easy fix that's for sure.

Many warships carry fighter screens in battletech. They don't call them battlestars, because that's a unique designation to a specific universe. You'll find the term battlecarrier a lot more common.

However, there are three major factors on why everything isn't a full-on carrier in addition to it's other roles:

1-After the death of the star league and the succession wars, the only major powers with full warship fleets was the clans... and their rules of engagement encouraged dueling, which made the fighter screen much less useful. They also heavily encouraged mech supremacy over aerospace supremacy, so most found a mech battle preferable over air/space strikes, further reducing the desire for balanced, or even in some cases balanced, aerospace forces.
2-Dropships. Dropships can be used to customize the role of a warship. Need a carrier, toss on several titan dropships and you have one. This also means that everything with a jumpdrive is potentially a carrier. It's why warships with 6+ dropship collars are so valuable as well.
3-Putting all your eggs in one basket is not always a good idea. Between jump mishaps, ambushes, and the like, focusing that much force in one location makes it vulnerable. It can all be lost in an instant if the wrong thing happens. By diversifying such loads among the dropships that can be detached and often fend for themselves, they payload of deadly and dangerous fighters is far less vulnerable to catastrophe.

Bonus reason-Almost none of the canon designs are made efficiently. They are often designed purposely with horrible flaws in them. This is largely due to rules and system changes over time.

I sat battlestar because everyone instantly knows what kind of warship I mean no explanation need. Of course BT is going to call it something else just like they call bolters gyro jets.

Reason 1 I agree 100%

Reason 2 I concede that this is how the system currently works but personally consider this horribly inefficient waste of the strike package fleet concept for fleets large enough to actually use it. Not the tiny anemic battles fleet in the current cannon.

Reason 3 again I'm thinking big fleets. 250 battlestars vs the 250 McKennas the SL built is hardly an all in 1 basket strategy. Granted losing a battlestar hurts more then a McKenna but that extra versatility and combat power means fewer battlestars come under close range attack in the first place.

Bonus Reason. Well yea this is kind of necessary as a narrative tool. Besides if everything was uber optimized there would never be any need to fight a battle. You would just look at the orders of battle and you would see from the start who's going to win.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 04 June 2018, 18:03:39
I sat battlestar because everyone instantly knows what kind of warship I mean no explanation need. Of course BT is going to call it something else just like they call bolters gyro jets.

No worries, I only mentioned it in case you missed stuff while searching the forums :thumbsup: What term you use is largely irrelevant as long as people understand you.

Reason 2 I concede that this is how the system currently works but personally consider this horribly inefficient waste of the strike package fleet concept for fleets large enough to actually use it. Not the tiny anemic battles fleet in the current cannon.

Reason 3 again I'm thinking big fleets. 250 battlestars vs the 250 McKennas the SL built is hardly an all in 1 basket strategy. Granted losing a battlestar hurts more then a McKenna but that extra versatility and combat power means fewer battlestars come under close range attack in the first place.
Yeah, I was only really talking about the current canon universe with that. Design wise, absent of fluff, there is almost no reason for every design to not max out their armor for their current SI, and to have enough AMS to be immune to missile fire for as long as ammo holds out. 150 fighters does take up 22,500 tons, which a lot of cruiser sized and bigger ships have available in cargo easily, but some smaller ships might balk at. Also, ton for ton, there are some capital weapons that are basically worthless and should never be taken, and others that should always be the primary armament of basically everything.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 04 June 2018, 20:42:57
Yeah, I was only really talking about the current canon universe with that. Design wise, absent of fluff, there is almost no reason for every design to not max out their armor for their current SI, and to have enough AMS to be immune to missile fire for as long as ammo holds out. 150 fighters does take up 22,500 tons, which a lot of cruiser sized and bigger ships have available in cargo easily, but some smaller ships might balk at. Also, ton for ton, there are some capital weapons that are basically worthless and should never be taken, and others that should always be the primary armament of basically everything.

I absolutely hate how the game uses an AMS designed to shoot down what amounts to big model rockets to shoot down 1 ton cap missiles. It's absolutely loudacriss.

150 fighters is about right for a cruiser. 300 for a battlestar. 60 to 100 for a destroyer or frigate.

The damage curve on cap weapons doesn't match the one for mech scale weapons. Quite a few cap weapons have what I consider uselessly low amounts of damage. I'm not a fan of the whole damage bays thing either. I would have done something different. Of course I'm a big turret fan.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 05 June 2018, 00:19:15
AMS works fine in space in my head, its a small lump of metal moving exceptionally fast hitting something thats also moving at absurd speed coming the other way, and that other thing is full of fuel etc.  The kinetic energy from a colission at the speeds we're probalby looking at here would be enough to wreck or detonate a missile.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Tyler Jorgensson on 05 June 2018, 02:17:34
A couple of random thoughts although I haven't touched anything in BT aerospace related (short of testing the construction rules and not posting the designs)

First: See Leviathan II and Leviathan III. Huge naval contingent (on top of a massive Dreadnought of course). Having an entire Galaxy of fighters on three ships and dozens of dropships to back them up... enough said.

Second: Dropships. Their was a thread I'll have to find about Castrums versus modern Warships. An interesting topic but I still favor the idea that heavy dropships might be a way to try and expand an army's race: similar to the torpedo boat idea brought up by Marauder.

Third: Finally there is the idea of death by a thousand cuts. How many Mako or Foxes could theoretically take on a McKenna? What about a design built small but packing a punch to work in groups. Slap a couple NL/45s, a missile or two, a dozen fighters and a pair of dropships or two and click copy and paste. A proto-SDS style fleet without the SDS.

Just random thoughts
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 05 June 2018, 08:35:45
AMS works fine in space in my head, its a small lump of metal moving exceptionally fast hitting something thats also moving at absurd speed coming the other way, and that other thing is full of fuel etc.  The kinetic energy from a colission at the speeds we're probalby looking at here would be enough to wreck or detonate a missile.

That part is fine, the part I have a problem with is it's unlimited activations per turn on large spaceships
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Vehrec on 05 June 2018, 08:41:17
I think that a 2300 start year means that you probably have a lot of people starting not with warships, but with Dropshuttles, heavily armed ones, acting as either escorts or attack ships against merchant shipping.  Those are the leaves of the great tree of a black-navy, and when the seed sprouts it gives first a green shoot and leaves to gather strength for establishing it's trunk and so on.  Especially in a pre-HPG era, commerce raiding is gonna be a primary activity for most fleets, especially against the Terran Hegemony which you can't face in a straight fight.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 05 June 2018, 09:06:58
A couple of random thoughts although I haven't touched anything in BT aerospace related (short of testing the construction rules and not posting the designs)

First: See Leviathan II and Leviathan III. Huge naval contingent (on top of a massive Dreadnought of course). Having an entire Galaxy of fighters on three ships and dozens of dropships to back them up... enough said.

Second: Dropships. Their was a thread I'll have to find about Castrums versus modern Warships. An interesting topic but I still favor the idea that heavy dropships might be a way to try and expand an army's race: similar to the torpedo boat idea brought up by Marauder.

Third: Finally there is the idea of death by a thousand cuts. How many Mako or Foxes could theoretically take on a McKenna? What about a design built small but packing a punch to work in groups. Slap a couple NL/45s, a missile or two, a dozen fighters and a pair of dropships or two and click copy and paste. A proto-SDS style fleet without the SDS.

Just random thoughts

Agreed on all counts, except one. The Leviathan 3 is a gigantic investment, and while it's individually quite scary, it's balanced somewhat by the extreme cost. You can get 3 McKennas for the cost of two Lev3's, and if you up-armoured the McKenna to the value allowed under the new rules I think that'd be a pretty fair fight - the McKennas would be on the back foot as regards fighter escorts, but their long-range firepower is superior, and they'll get a lot more threshold crits with those big batteries. Or if you're worried about fighters, use a pair of McKennas and a pair of Volgas.

I think that a 2300 start year means that you probably have a lot of people starting not with warships, but with Dropshuttles, heavily armed ones, acting as either escorts or attack ships against merchant shipping.  Those are the leaves of the great tree of a black-navy, and when the seed sprouts it gives first a green shoot and leaves to gather strength for establishing it's trunk and so on.  Especially in a pre-HPG era, commerce raiding is gonna be a primary activity for most fleets, especially against the Terran Hegemony which you can't face in a straight fight.

Yup, that'd probably be how some fleets would start. Players will have access to compact KF drives from the start(and to be clear, it will start in the 2300s, not exactly the year 2300 - a couple people raising this point make me think some time around 2350 or so would be better). But you can structure this a few different ways, and I'd be curious to see what'd come out of it.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Retry on 05 June 2018, 09:34:25
Agreed on all counts, except one. The Leviathan 3 is a gigantic investment, and while it's individually quite scary, it's balanced somewhat by the extreme cost. You can get 3 McKennas for the cost of two Lev3's, and if you up-armoured the McKenna to the value allowed under the new rules I think that'd be a pretty fair fight - the McKennas would be on the back foot as regards fighter escorts, but their long-range firepower is superior, and they'll get a lot more threshold crits with those big batteries. Or if you're worried about fighters, use a pair of McKennas and a pair of Volgas.
Since the Lev III has 1000 capital-scale points per arc, and the max capital-scale damage any arc can do in one hit is 70 because of bay hits, the McKennas aren't getting any threshold crits on a Lev.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 05 June 2018, 10:00:21
You can threshold a Levi but you have to charge it at full speed and it has to charge you and you have to have either a large cluster of NACs or paried heavy gausses, the closing speed damage boost should in theory put you up above the 100 point damage threshold. JUST.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 05 June 2018, 11:12:46
You can threshold a Levi but you have to charge it at full speed and it has to charge you and you have to have either a large cluster of NACs or paried heavy gausses, the closing speed damage boost should in theory put you up above the 100 point damage threshold. JUST.

Or you can somehow manage to hit it with a heavy mass driver, that'll also do the job.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 05 June 2018, 11:33:49
Since the Lev III has 1000 capital-scale points per arc, and the max capital-scale damage any arc can do in one hit is 70 because of bay hits, the McKennas aren't getting any threshold crits on a Lev.

I think this is one of those cases where I'm thinking of an optional rule as the default - thresholds going down with battle damage will probably allow the McKenna to get thresholds first, but that's not vanilla rules. (Same as how I'm so used to 20+ damage PSRs increasing in difficulty with the amount of damage done and standing still being -1 to hit, because that's how it works in my MegaMek games.)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 June 2018, 12:04:31
This sounds like my sort of catnip.  Im totally down.

Some questions:
1.)  Where are you looking at on a scale of Fluff-----Munchkin in designs?  Real world designers try to build the best thing they can within their constraints.  Battletech designs are often intentionally suboptimal.  Something like the '4 corners' layout would, once put into practice, revolutionize in-universe warship building the way AON armor and all-big-gun armament did real world warships.

2.)  What optional rules, if any, are you considering?  I know theres been discussion of 'how to fix the warship rules' relating to warship armor vs. standard scale weaponry and how anti-missile systems work.  This is particularly salient in light of question #1, given the phenomenal firepower of standard scale weaponry per ton when compared to capital weaponry.  Replacing big guns with small ones costs you some range, but you can easily get enough firepower to simply erase ANYTHING that does come within your range - and you also immunize yourself against fighters.  It is too good.

3.)  We need to know what resources are.  How many slipways?  How big?  Whats the procurement budget in general terms?  Do we care about listed costs as a hard reality thing, or is it more fluff?  Whats our air arm look like?  Can we afford to grow it if we want to go CV heavy?  Do we need to restrict fighter usage because the Government says air assets are for ground support?  Whats our existing force like, or are we designing from an initial clean sheet?  ((Compact Cores are Discovered!  The Hegemony is building a Navy, and now YOU SHOULD TOO!))  We build very differently if we have infinite budget and limited slipways than we do with infinite slipways and limited budget.  We build very differently depending on how maintenance costs compare to construction costs, and how attrition units cost in production vs. maintenance.  We build very differently if a ship is expected to last 5 years or 250 years.

4.)  What is our threat environment?  What are our opponents like?  Who do we expect them to be?  Do we expect nukes to figure in every engagement, or do we believe (truly or falsely) that We Just Dont Do That?  Designs for a "Davion and Davion-Deceased" universe are going to look very different from a "Ares Accords Control" universe?

5.)  Whats our strategic posture/anticipated mission?  A 'defensive' force intended to stop enemy planetary landings looks different than an offensive force intended to support an invasion looks different from a commerce raiding force from a commerce protection force from a blah blah blah.

I'm not saying you have to set out all of this!  But more information is good, and I look forward to seeing the different solutions various players propose to various problems.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 05 June 2018, 12:28:51
This sounds like my sort of catnip.  Im totally down.

 :D

Some questions:
1.)  Where are you looking at on a scale of Fluff-----Munchkin in designs?  Real world designers try to build the best thing they can within their constraints.  Battletech designs are often intentionally suboptimal.  Something like the '4 corners' layout would, once put into practice, revolutionize in-universe warship building the way AON armor and all-big-gun armament did real world warships.

70/30? I want to use BT construction rules, but I don't intend to adjudicate battles with BT combat rules. A "4 corners" layout would be legal, but I'd be much more likely to have a battle wind up with someone getting into your blind spot, or to have half your anti-fighter weapons blown apart by one PPC barrage, if you try to munchkin like that. This is part of the appeal of using battle reports as the means to communicate back to you guys what works and what doesn't - I can avoid the official AMS rules(and thus make sure we don't obsolete a whole weapon class) without needing to specify exactly what I'm using in its place. Real military designers don't get to design around a given set of dice roll statistics.

2.)  What optional rules, if any, are you considering?  I know theres been discussion of 'how to fix the warship rules' relating to warship armor vs. standard scale weaponry and how anti-missile systems work.  This is particularly salient in light of question #1, given the phenomenal firepower of standard scale weaponry per ton when compared to capital weaponry.  Replacing big guns with small ones costs you some range, but you can easily get enough firepower to simply erase ANYTHING that does come within your range - and you also immunize yourself against fighters.  It is too good.

I don't have a formal rule set you could use to play tabletop written up, but I'll be going with common sense. AMS knocks down missiles, and more is better, but you don't get immunity. Fighters can threaten warships, but not using Mech-scale small lasers - I'll probably fluff it that armour resists small weapons, but that capital missiles are fitted to bomb hardpoints on fighters as an anti-shipping weapon. Using Mech-scale weapons to attack WarShips will work once you've already breached their armour and you just want to trash the guts of the ship, or if you want to attack systems on the surface of the ship(blinding sensors, attacking light AA mounts, etc.), but it'll do very little to intact armour plates.

3.)  We need to know what resources are.  How many slipways?  How big?  Whats the procurement budget in general terms?  Do we care about listed costs as a hard reality thing, or is it more fluff?  Whats our air arm look like?  Can we afford to grow it if we want to go CV heavy?  Do we need to restrict fighter usage because the Government says air assets are for ground support?  Whats our existing force like, or are we designing from an initial clean sheet?  ((Compact Cores are Discovered!  The Hegemony is building a Navy, and now YOU SHOULD TOO!))  We build very differently if we have infinite budget and limited slipways than we do with infinite slipways and limited budget.  We build very differently depending on how maintenance costs compare to construction costs, and how attrition units cost in production vs. maintenance.  We build very differently if a ship is expected to last 5 years or 250 years.

It'll probably vary by faction and over time. As of 2350, probably one or two yards that can each build a single-digit number of ships, a few supporting factories to make the specialty equipment(naval guns, etc.), and a budget in the range of perhaps a hundred billion a year. That will increase over time, and then decrease rapidly when the nukes start flying post-Amaris. I'm not sure if I'll add an economic simulation aspect to this or not - I like the idea, but it could be complicated, and the tradeoffs(i.e., a lower budget for ground forces) would need to be included for it to be fair.

Re ship durability, in canon they routinely lasted centuries. (Helps that there's no water to corrode them and tech progress is rather slow, of course). I assume a typical design can be operated for a couple centuries as long as it gets proper maintenance throughout.

4.)  What is our threat environment?  What are our opponents like?  Who do we expect them to be?  Do we expect nukes to figure in every engagement, or do we believe (truly or falsely) that We Just Dont Do That?  Designs for a "Davion and Davion-Deceased" universe are going to look very different from a "Ares Accords Control" universe?

Your opponents are each other, so I leave that to your twisted imaginations  >:D

I will say that I'll definitely read the fluff and follow through on your stated doctrine whenever plausible. If you say you're operating your empire on a no-first-nuke rule and trying to use your L-F batteries solely to disengage from fights going badly, then I'll have your admirals work to follow through on that doctrine in practice. A force designed around high strategic mobility and nodal defence will play differently than one designed around offensive pirate point invasions, or one designed around massed fighter strikes in set-piece battles.

5.)  Whats our strategic posture/anticipated mission?  A 'defensive' force intended to stop enemy planetary landings looks different than an offensive force intended to support an invasion looks different from a commerce raiding force from a commerce protection force from a blah blah blah.

I'm not saying you have to set out all of this!  But more information is good, and I look forward to seeing the different solutions various players propose to various problems.

As above, you're different empires that have a tendancy to fight each other. It's still the standard BT universe, so ground forces are primary, and naval vessels are used in a supporting role more often than not. You still want to conquer planets, gain factories, and the like. This won't be a railroaded RPG campaign - I'm pretty much willing to roll with any ideas you might have. Just be aware that (much like IRL) some ideas are very bad.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 June 2018, 12:47:15
:D

70/30? I want to use BT construction rules, but I don't intend to adjudicate battles with BT combat rules. A "4 corners" layout would be legal, but I'd be much more likely to have a battle wind up with someone getting into your blind spot, or to have half your anti-fighter weapons blown apart by one PPC barrage, if you try to munchkin like that. This is part of the appeal of using battle reports as the means to communicate back to you guys what works and what doesn't - I can avoid the official AMS rules(and thus make sure we don't obsolete a whole weapon class) without needing to specify exactly what I'm using in its place. Real military designers don't get to design around a given set of dice roll statistics.

I don't have a formal rule set you could use to play tabletop written up, but I'll be going with common sense. AMS knocks down missiles, and more is better, but you don't get immunity. Fighters can threaten warships, but not using Mech-scale small lasers - I'll probably fluff it that armour resists small weapons, but that capital missiles are fitted to bomb hardpoints on fighters as an anti-shipping weapon. Using Mech-scale weapons to attack WarShips will work once you've already breached their armour and you just want to trash the guts of the ship, or if you want to attack systems on the surface of the ship(blinding sensors, attacking light AA mounts, etc.), but it'll do very little to intact armour plates.

It'll probably vary by faction and over time. As of 2350, probably one or two yards that can each build a single-digit number of ships, a few supporting factories to make the specialty equipment(naval guns, etc.), and a budget in the range of perhaps a hundred billion a year. That will increase over time, and then decrease rapidly when the nukes start flying post-Amaris. I'm not sure if I'll add an economic simulation aspect to this or not - I like the idea, but it could be complicated, and the tradeoffs(i.e., a lower budget for ground forces) would need to be included for it to be fair.

Re ship durability, in canon they routinely lasted centuries. (Helps that there's no water to corrode them and tech progress is rather slow, of course). I assume a typical design can be operated for a couple centuries as long as it gets proper maintenance throughout.

Your opponents are each other, so I leave that to your twisted imaginations  >:D

I will say that I'll definitely read the fluff and follow through on your stated doctrine whenever plausible. If you say you're operating your empire on a no-first-nuke rule and trying to use your L-F batteries solely to disengage from fights going badly, then I'll have your admirals work to follow through on that doctrine in practice. A force designed around high strategic mobility and nodal defence will play differently than one designed around offensive pirate point invasions, or one designed around massed fighter strikes in set-piece battles.

As above, you're different empires that have a tendancy to fight each other. It's still the standard BT universe, so ground forces are primary, and naval vessels are used in a supporting role more often than not. You still want to conquer planets, gain factories, and the like. This won't be a railroaded RPG campaign - I'm pretty much willing to roll with any ideas you might have. Just be aware that (much like IRL) some ideas are very bad.

Think about what level of control you want from your players.  Are they in charge of naval procurement? In charge of naval strategy? In charge of the whole house, and were just focused here on the naval side of things?

I do ask that you hold up an 'are you sure' sign when a player starts to do some things that are Very Bad Ideas.  Some ideas are very bad, but its not always possible for the player to see into the GM's head - things that would be medium reasonable in front of one GM are insanely stupid in front of a second and the Best.  Idea.  Evar. in front of a third, because each GM has their own picture of the universe in their head.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 05 June 2018, 13:07:23
Think about what level of control you want from your players.  Are they in charge of naval procurement? In charge of naval strategy? In charge of the whole house, and were just focused here on the naval side of things?

I do ask that you hold up an 'are you sure' sign when a player starts to do some things that are Very Bad Ideas.  Some ideas are very bad, but its not always possible for the player to see into the GM's head - things that would be medium reasonable in front of one GM are insanely stupid in front of a second and the Best.  Idea.  Evar. in front of a third, because each GM has their own picture of the universe in their head.

Both reasonable requests. I was thinking that players would be in charge of naval design and procurement at a minimum, and if they're like me then they'll almost instantly use that to take control of strategy and support infrastructure as well. If players are somewhat less enthusiastic, then it can be filled in fairly easily. And yes, you're all running large organizations, so there'll be advisors who have things to say about decisions if need be. That said, some decisions may be perfectly reasonable, and merely unlucky - deploying a generation of cargo-heavy ships when you happen to spend the next 30 years fighting all your battles on the defensive will make you feel a bit dumb, and getting bad luck rolls in the battle where your tactics are first tried out might lead you to think that a perfectly reasonable tactic is actually a dog.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 June 2018, 13:38:07
I was thinking more ‘very bad ideas’ as in my prior ‘rules say that 700 PPCs are 700 capital damage I want that for my broadside’ point, which you clarified as ‘sure the strict rules say that but its silly and doesnt work that way’.  Obviously if I build a 5/8 force of Commerce Raider light cruisers and the opponent throws his whole 2/3 Battleship Wall of Battle at my capital, Im going to have a Very Bad Day.

Dont stop me from being Jackie Fisher.  He was often wrong, but those were reasonable wrong for the information he had. Just give me a heads up if its clear my mental picture of how things work is utterly off base, like ‘Hey, youve got 1000 fighters on this thing.  Your House cant possibly build enough fighters to fill those’
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 05 June 2018, 13:46:14
I was thinking more ‘very bad ideas’ as in my prior ‘rules say that 700 PPCs are 700 capital damage I want that for my broadside’ point, which you clarified as ‘sure the strict rules say that but its silly and doesnt work that way’.  Obviously if I build a 5/8 force of Commerce Raider light cruisers and the opponent throws his whole 2/3 Battleship Wall of Battle at my capital, Im going to have a Very Bad Day.

Dont stop me from being Jackie Fisher.  He was often wrong, but those were reasonable wrong for the information he had. Just give me a heads up if its clear my mental picture of how things work is utterly off base, like ‘Hey, youve got 1000 fighters on this thing.  Your House cant possibly build enough fighters to fill those’

Yeah, we're very much on the same page here.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 June 2018, 14:29:38
Also, I see a lot of people discussing this idea - is anyone interested in joining?

In case I was unclear - I look forward to processing my first turn.  When can I expect it and do you need my email?

 ;)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 05 June 2018, 14:41:28
In case I was unclear - I look forward to processing my first turn.  When can I expect it and do you need my email?

 ;)

I figured as much from "I'm totally down" ;)

I'd like to get 5 players, if we can. If we're lacking that in a reasonable period of time(let's say a week from now?), I'll proceed with fewer and people can jump in down the line. Feel free to work on your planning for the first turn, or to make suggestions for how you'd like to see this run.

I don't expect email will be needed - I was figuring forum posts and PM's would be sufficient. Were you thinking of a particular need for email? I've run face-to-face RPGs before, but never via forum, so I'm not sure if I'm overlooking something.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 05 June 2018, 14:48:25

I am getting ideas, however I am bit short on time lately, but I would like to try.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 05 June 2018, 15:04:37
I am getting ideas, however I am bit short on time lately, but I would like to try.

Great, we're up to two.

Remember also that you won't need to produce three new ships every round or anything. Sarna shows 39 Terran Hegemony designs (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Category:Terran_Hegemony_WarShip_classes), and that covered 480 years(and includes some re-makes, like the three Lolas, as well as stuff like the Bug-Eye that I doubt anyone here will bother making). Even if a round is a decade, you'll probably wind up making no new submissions in many of your rounds. Also, if we get more than five interested parties, I'm cool with people forming teams.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 June 2018, 16:10:17
I figured as much from "I'm totally down" ;)

I'd like to get 5 players, if we can. If we're lacking that in a reasonable period of time(let's say a week from now?), I'll proceed with fewer and people can jump in down the line. Feel free to work on your planning for the first turn, or to make suggestions for how you'd like to see this run.

I don't expect email will be needed - I was figuring forum posts and PM's would be sufficient. Were you thinking of a particular need for email? I've run face-to-face RPGs before, but never via forum, so I'm not sure if I'm overlooking something.

Forum posts and PMs would probably be enough.
Maybe something like:

Turn 1, 2350-2360
The Terran Hegemony has been building Warships - heavily armed Jumpships - using compact core technology.  This technology has reached the hands of our designers, and we must decide how to secure the future of the $StarNation in this dangerous era.

Your total budget for Naval Construction is $300 Billion CBills

CAPITAL PRODUCTION:
As this is the first turn, your fledgling design bureaus may only design, prototype, and enter into production one new capital vessel.  Warship prices vary based on size and dropship carriage, and larger warships tend to be cheaper relative to their combat power than smaller vessels.  A Typical 500,000 Ton Warship likely costs around ~10 Billion C-Bills.

Capital Production Assets:
Yard Space:  4 Million Tons Total Construction
Maximum Slipway Size:  400,000 Tons


DROPSHIP PRODUCTION:
As this is the first turn, your fledgling design bureaus may only design, prototype, and enter into production one new combat dropship.  Transport and Cargo Dropships are outside the scope of this simulation.  If you do not choose to design combat dropships, your level of investment will be taken into account by the GM to indicate the priority your navy places on combat dropship production and operation.  Combat Dropships are very expensive relative to their mass and tend to suffer heavier casualties in combat, but may be produced very quickly compared to warships.  A 10,000 Ton Combat Dropship costs ~2.5 B C-Bills

Dropship Production Assets:
Yard Space:  Unlimited
Maximum Dropship Size:  Any


FIGHTER PRODUCTION:
As this is the first turn, your fledgling design bureaus may only design, prototype, and enter into production one new aerospace fighter.  If you do not choose to design fighters your level of investment will be taken into account by the GM to indicate the priority your navy places on fighter production and operation.  Aerospace fighters are relatively inexpensive and may be produced in vast quantities, but require carriers to operate and suffer from higher operational costs, operational losses, and fuel restrictions that make make them difficult to employ.  A typical 50 Ton Fighter costs ~ 2.5 Million CBills

INVESTMENT:
Any C-Bills left unspent may be allocated to other uses you believe beneficial to the future of your star nation.  The GM will adjudicate what impact this has, if any.

OPERATIONS AND DOCTRINE:
Please indicate here what sort of naval operations you want your navy to prioritize.  Are they clearing the way for invasion fleets?  Are they engaged in commerce raiding? Are they defending the borders?
How aggressively will your fleet operate?  Will it seek out engagement?  Will it accept only on the most favourable of terms?  Is it strictly limited to a suvival/fleet in being doctrine, where you are willing to risk the loss of all but the most important of worlds to retain the strength of your fleet?
What is your policy towards Nuclear Weapons?  Nuclear munitions are a major advantage, but may anger other powers, and the Terran Hegemony is still the largest fish in space...

((Etc - just an initial thought))

((Also, if we get more than 5 interest parties, Im all for playing one of the major periphery powers.  Long live the RWR!))

((Also, Also - we will need to all be using the same design software, because I believe 0 of us are interested in building warships by hand, but we need to be getting the same answers.  Whatever everyone chooses is fine, although I haven't budgeted for Heavy Metal this quarter.))
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Tyler Jorgensson on 05 June 2018, 18:43:22
I have no were enough time so count me out.... however I would LOVE to read the results and watch. If it's not going to be in this thread please link it.

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 05 June 2018, 21:39:13
Haven't had much experience with 'Ship buildin but I'll have a go, even have a few ships built that could exist alongside the TAS Dreadnought to start me off

My main issue is going to be the fluff side of things, see how it goes
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 06 June 2018, 07:13:46
Haven't had much experience with 'Ship buildin but I'll have a go, even have a few ships built that could exist alongside the TAS Dreadnought to start me off

My main issue is going to be the fluff side of things, see how it goes

And then there were three.

I have no were enough time so count me out.... however I would LOVE to read the results and watch. If it's not going to be in this thread please link it.

It'll be in this thread.

(snip)

Not a bad starting point - I'll fiddle with it a bit, but you've given me some things to think about.

As for construction tools, I think the only one worth a damn that's up to date is Cryhavoc's Google Sheet. HM Aero is outdated, and MML's WarShip construction won't go public until after we're underway.

As for things you can buy, I've got the following list for right now. Thoughts?

* WarShips/Space Stations (as calculated cost, though lead ship of a new class costs double, and lead ship of a new variant costs +50%. Round all costs to the nearest million C-bills)
* JumpShips (500M, not differentiated)
* DropShips (small = 300M, medium = 500M, large = 1,000M. Cargo/ground unit transports are not differentiated beyond that, carriers store 12/36/108 fighters, PWS rules TBD)
* Small Craft (combat = 20M, shuttle = 10M)
* Fighters (light = 2M, medium = 4M, heavy = 6M, or once XL engines come online you can buy advanced versions for 3x the cost)
* Yard space (rules TBD)
* Training (rules TBD)
* Maintenance (rules TBD)
* Research (one tech will be released every round, each million spent is a ballot. Winner can use the tech for a round before everyone else gets access)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 06 June 2018, 07:27:20
I'd like to point out to anyone who needs it that my warship construction spreadsheet calculated C-bill costs as well, and handles primitive jumpship design too.

However my dropship sheet doesn't do c-bills. Use them each however you like. Links in my signature.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 06 June 2018, 07:27:36
Are we intentionally lowering the cost of droppers?  I can live with that (because their costs are -crazy-, due to the modifier) but its a significant change.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 06 June 2018, 07:47:18
I'd like to point out to anyone who needs it that my warship construction spreadsheet calculated C-bill costs as well, and handles primitive jumpship design too.

However my dropship sheet doesn't do c-bills. Use them each however you like. Links in my signature.

Yeah, the fact that the WS sheet calculates cost is also a big part of its appeal here. It also does stations, right?

And I was planning to abstract away DropShip design, so I doubt I'll ask players to use that construction tool.

Are we intentionally lowering the cost of droppers?  I can live with that (because their costs are -crazy-, due to the modifier) but its a significant change.

The DropShips themselves aren't all that expensive. I'll double-check those numbers, but I think that was what I wrote down when going through my books last night. (I'm at the office now, so I can't confirm). The collars to attach them, OTOH, can easily run a couple bil if they're on a WarShip, especially one with a L-F battery. My impression was always that the DS itself was the cheaper part of the system.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 06 June 2018, 07:54:24
Also consider that drop ships and jumpships as we know them today haven't been invited yet which severely limits DS size since its still got to be carried internally
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 06 June 2018, 08:03:51
Yeah, the fact that the WS sheet calculates cost is also a big part of its appeal here. It also does stations, right?

And I was planning to abstract away DropShip design, so I doubt I'll ask players to use that construction tool.

The DropShips themselves aren't all that expensive. I'll double-check those numbers, but I think that was what I wrote down when going through my books last night. (I'm at the office now, so I can't confirm). The collars to attach them, OTOH, can easily run a couple bil if they're on a WarShip, especially one with a L-F battery. My impression was always that the DS itself was the cheaper part of the system.

I was getting my numbers from a spreadsheet I didnt write.  Ill hand math a quick dropper by the current rules and see what I get.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 06 June 2018, 08:04:35
Also consider that drop ships and jumpships as we know them today haven't been invited yet which severely limits DS size since its still got to be carried internally

I've seen mixed information on that - there's some suggestions that DS don't exist until 2470, but then I see designs like the Saturn (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Saturn_(DropShip)) from the 2200s. The Jumbo (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Jumbo) from the early 2400s was almost certainly too big to carry internally. Where can I get a definite answer here? I feel like I'm looking in the wrong place(s).
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 06 June 2018, 08:57:44
Yeah, the fact that the WS sheet calculates cost is also a big part of its appeal here. It also does stations, right?

Yes it does. It does Warships, Jumpships, Stations, and Primitive Jumpships.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 06 June 2018, 10:13:54
I'm using the spreadsheet done by Amaris Fan Club - I encountered it before yours, and its working for me.
Mostly its that I can use it at work - my work hates google docs. :)

http://www.mediafire.com/view/lgg3098a6a73ur7/Warship%20Design%20Spreadsheet%20-%20Dec%202013.xlsx


Its discussed in this thread:
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,35566.new.html#new

Unfortunately, Amaris Fan Club hasnt posted in a year, and that thread is from 2013, so I cant say where we are in terms of currency - but shes worked well for me, and I like the extra fluffy fiddly bits. :)

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 06 June 2018, 10:50:36
I've seen mixed information on that - there's some suggestions that DS don't exist until 2470, but then I see designs like the Saturn (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Saturn_(DropShip)) from the 2200s. The Jumbo (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Jumbo) from the early 2400s was almost certainly too big to carry internally. Where can I get a definite answer here? I feel like I'm looking in the wrong place(s).
Before 2470 you have dropshuttles, but they could either be mobile (fit in DS bays) or exceed 5000 tons and be stuck in system.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 06 June 2018, 10:57:55
* Small Craft (combat = 20M, shuttle = 10M)
The combat option is a bit expensive, why not both 10M or calculated. See examples:
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=58804.0
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=30150.0
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 06 June 2018, 11:26:29
Suggested rules for shipyard space:

Shipyards have 10 levels. Each yard can produce an average of two ships a turn(i.e., one every 5 years), with maximum size equal to level*250,000 tons. Shipyards can be created at level 1 or upgraded by one level per turn, at a cost of 10 billion times the new level. If the system where the shipyard is located already has a yard of equal or larger size, this cost is halved. There is no limit to the number of yards that can be located in a single system, though be aware that over-concentration leaves you more vulnerable to attack. To simplify bookkeeping, repairing ships will not generally consume yard space, and there is no production speed bonus for producing smaller ships in a bigger yard.

Station/JS/DS/small craft/fighter space is limited only by funds, to keep bookkeeping simple.

Suggested rules for maintenance and training:

A typical ship or station design costs 1% of its original cost per year in maintenance, crew training, and upkeep. This is doubled if it has been out of production for at least 20 years, due to scarcity of parts. (To prevent excessive munchkining, re-starting a stopped line is treated as a new variant of the ship, with the +50% cost associated with that). A ship can be put into mothballs to reduce its maintenance cost by 80%, but re-activating it will cost the equivalent of a decade's standard maintenance.

Players can under-fund or over-fund maintenance on their ships if desired, which will have some effects on their performance in combat. No firm rules here, but tl;dr occasional maintenance holidays have fairly small impacts, especially if you catch up by over-funding later, but persistent under-funding will have serious effects. Over-funding won't have a huge effect, but a player who wants to focus on high-quality units may gain some benefit from doing so.

JS/DS/small craft/fighter maintenance is ignored. However, regular attrition of these units is to be expected, so replacement costs will be relevant.

Suggested rules for randomization:

Each turn, I'll make a roll on a random event table for each faction. Each new ship design will get a roll on a random quirk table. Both of these tables will be of my devising. Don't expect huge effects, but a ship might be a hangar queen(2x maintenance costs), or easy to modify(no cost to creating new variants), and a player might get a brilliant admiral(+1 to command skill rolls) or a terrible recession (-10% to budget next turn).

Suggested rules for finance:

Players get income based on how large and successful their empire is. Successful conquests will increase your budget, and losing territory(either permanently, or having it temporarily devastated in attacks) will reduce it. I'll mostly play this one by ear.

Surpluses can be saved, but no interest will accrue. Deficits can be run, but each million C-bills of overspending reduces your income for the next round by two million. No deficit can be run that would reduce the next turn's income below zero.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 06 June 2018, 11:26:51
Before 2470 you have dropshuttles, but they could either be mobile (fit in DS bays) or exceed 5000 tons and be stuck in system.

Ah, okay. Where are the rules for DS bays?

The combat option is a bit expensive, why not both 10M or calculated. See examples:
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=58804.0
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=30150.0

I was thinking of units that were quite a bit more capable than that in combat. I confess, I haven't played with SC much, so maybe I'm overvaluing them.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 06 June 2018, 12:03:42
Ah, okay. Where are the rules for DS bays?
See IO page 119, 126-127


Quote
I was thinking of units that were quite a bit more capable than that in combat. I confess, I haven't played with SC much, so maybe I'm overvaluing them.
The Pleiades examples is actually relatively decent, the rare combat SCs are about as effective as medium ASFs. SC only become dangerous with advanced technology such as DHS and Gauss Rifles.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 06 June 2018, 12:25:54
Consider starting with JS/DS/ASFs in use.  Cuts down on the total new unit types people have to remember.

Rules sound good, but you know how much time you have.  Unless it adds something you find particularly important,, recommend that simpler is usually better.

Then again, Ive already designed my fleet standard ASF, and dont know what nation i have.  So who knows?


Player Count:
Looks like me, Maingunnery, and Smegish so far.  Anyone else chimed in?  How do we want to pass out great houses?  Do we know what the situation of the various houses was in 2550?

Im looking at the maps on Sarna, for 2570, which should be close...

By comparison to the modern era:
1.)  Everyone loses space to the Hegemony.  Unsuprising.
2.)  DC has about the same border with the FedSuns, but has lost a lot of space to the LC compared to 3025
3.)  Fedsuns control somewhat less Capellan Space than they do in 3025
4.)  Cap Con picks up a lot of FWL Space
5.)  FWL looses space to the CapCon, and the Commonwealth, compared to 3025.
6.)  Strong LC in this era - it controls sections of FWL space and large sections of DC space, comapred to 3025.

Looks like the LC is the winner in this era.  Maybe 10% larger than the Fed Suns.
FS is a bit reduced, compared to 3025., but a solid #2
DC is quite weak compared to 3025.. about 2/3 the size of the FS or LC.
Cap Con and FWL are of similar size - but even between them, no larger than the FS or LC.
The whole of the FWL/DC/CC Axis (if it exists!) is similar in size to the FS/LC, if not a bit smaller.

Hmm.  Hopefully the great powers are somewhat more equal 'under the hood'.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 06 June 2018, 13:54:49
See IO page 119, 126-127

The Pleiades examples is actually relatively decent, the rare combat SCs are about as effective as medium ASFs. SC only become dangerous with advanced technology such as DHS and Gauss Rifles.

I'm going to need to buy IO and CO for this, aren't I?

And if that's the case, then we can just drop the "combat SC" entry. Call them all 10 mil per, don't worry about dividing them up.

Consider starting with JS/DS/ASFs in use.  Cuts down on the total new unit types people have to remember.

Rules sound good, but you know how much time you have.  Unless it adds something you find particularly important,, recommend that simpler is usually better.

Then again, Ive already designed my fleet standard ASF, and dont know what nation i have.  So who knows?


Player Count:
Looks like me, Maingunnery, and Smegish so far.  Anyone else chimed in?  How do we want to pass out great houses?  Do we know what the situation of the various houses was in 2550?

Yeah, I'm trying to strip out a lot of the record-keeping. I know I have to run this thing, so I'm trying not to multiply needlessly. It'll be complex enough as-is. And that's the same player count I have, though a RL buddy of mine might be interested as well. Passing out houses I figured we'd do by a preference list, and randomization insofar as they differ. (I thought of giving priority to people who join first, but that might push latecomers away, and it prevents things like your offer to play the RWR if we have a lot of people.) As for the situations of the houses, I'll need to do some research. Note that some of the secondary houses had not yet been folded in by this point - the RWR, the United Hindu Collective (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/United_Hindu_Collective), etc. - but I doubt players will want to play factions with an expiry date.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 06 June 2018, 14:57:58
I'm using the spreadsheet done by Amaris Fan Club - I encountered it before yours, and its working for me.
Mostly its that I can use it at work - my work hates google docs. :)

Hey as long as you have something that works, that's what matters. I only made mine because I couldn't find one that worked for me. I actually chose google docs for mine for similar reasons.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 06 June 2018, 15:48:54
I'm going to need to buy IO and CO for this, aren't I?

 - but I doubt players will want to play factions with an expiry date.

1.)  RE:  IO and CO... "I NEED FIVE VOLUNTEERS!"  "... what for, Drill Seargeant?"  "I NEED FOUR VOLUNTEERS...."

2.)  Well, as soon as you hand it to players and let them make decisions, its not just a design exercise, its an AU.  Who says that the RWR has an expiration date? :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Tyler Jorgensson on 06 June 2018, 16:31:59
Finmark Republic is a go!
2.)  Well, as soon as you hand it to players and let them make decisions, its not just a design exercise, its an AU.  Who says that the RWR has an expiration date? :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 06 June 2018, 19:57:06
Looking for year in service dates for the various Warship Armors - Cannot locate in Tech Manual or Strat Ops.  Should I be looking elsewhere?

Edit:

Per Sarna:
Ferro-Carbide:  Aegis, 2372
Lamellor Ferro-Carbide:  Black Lion, 2691

Will update as I find earlier dates.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 06 June 2018, 20:46:56
Well, as soon as you hand it to players and let them make decisions, its not just a design exercise, its an AU.  Who says that the RWR has an expiration date? :)

I like the way you think, but players are effectively Cabinet-level, not national leaders. Things like the Amaris coup(and the SLDF response) are out of player control.

Looking for year in service dates for the various Warship Armors - Cannot locate in Tech Manual or Strat Ops.  Should I be looking elsewhere?

Edit:

Per Sarna:
Ferro-Carbide:  Aegis, 2372
Lamellor Ferro-Carbide:  Black Lion, 2691

Will update as I find earlier dates.

I was working on the tech list - SO page 158 shows improved ferro-aluminum 2350, ferro-carbide 2370, and lamellor ferro-carbide 2615. Weirdly, regular ferro-aluminum is 2571, 200+ years after the improved version, so I may juggle those around a bit. (I'm using historical tech dates as inspiration, not a hard-and-fast list - there's too many short bursts of growth and long droughts for a game like this. Also I want to keep the exact order of tech development a secret to avoid metagaming.)

Edit: Here's the list of canonical invention dates I've pulled from my sourcebooks for any even-somewhat-relevant technologies I could find. If you think I'm missing something, let me know.
Tech   Canon Introduction
Improved Ferro-Aluminum   2350
Vehicular Drop Chute   2351
NPPC   2356
SRM   2370
Ferro-Carbide   2370
Castle Brian   2391
Small Laser   2400
LRM   2400
Medium Laser   2400
Large Laser   2430
Mechs   2443
AC/10   2460
PPC   2460
Mech Cubicle   2470
Spheroid DropShip   2470
CASE   2476
Aerodyne DropShip   2480
Endo Steel   2487
AC/20   2500
L-F Battery   2529
Double HS   2567
Ferro-Aluminum   2571
Ferro Fibre   2571
Active Probe   2576
XL Engine   2579
Narc   2587
Gauss Rifle   2590
LB-10X   2595
ECM   2597
Artemis IV   2598
TAG   2600
Pulse Lasers   2609
Lamellor Ferro-Carbide   2615
AMS   2617
ER Large Laser   2620
HyperPulse Generators   2629
UAC/5   2640
Streak SRM-2   2647
Mobile HPG   2655
LAMs   2688
Caspar Drones   2690
Light Power Armor   2710
Mass Driver   2715
ER PPC   2760
Bearings-Only Launches   (Not specified - assumed to be fairly early)
Bracket Fire   (Not specified - assumed to be late Star League)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 06 June 2018, 20:56:14
I like the way you think, but players are effectively Cabinet-level, not national leaders. Things like the Amaris coup(and the SLDF response) are out of player control.

I was working on the tech list - SO page 158 shows improved ferro-aluminum 2350, ferro-carbide 2370, and lamellor ferro-carbide 2615. Weirdly, regular ferro-aluminum is 2571, 200+ years after the improved version, so I may juggle those around a bit. (I'm using historical tech dates as inspiration, not a hard-and-fast list - there's too many short bursts of growth and long droughts for a game like this. Also I want to keep the exact order of tech development a secret to avoid metagaming.)

1.)  Cabinet Level Officers:  Aff.  But things are going to butterly rapidly, unless you want to use the decisions of Our Inscrutable Masters to nudge things back onto the default track.  That might be something to consider now - how far are we willing to wander into AU territory?  If EVERY fleet officer says ‘no first use’ and makes it stick, the Succession Wars look very different...

2.)  Armor and Tech Advance:  IF Ferro-Carbide is already in play, (timeline says yes) then we lose some interesting upteching - because theres only Lamellor Ferro Carbide for an upgrade to go from there.  Depending on how you feel about AUs - you might say that only standard Plate exists at game on.  More tech steps.

3.)  Strat Ops - 158.  I missed that each way several times.  Thank you.

4.)  Hunh.  Tech Advance speeds are crazy fast.  Only 100 years between PPCs and DHS?  I assume anything not listed (AC/5?) are older.
Do we want to make sure the basics (3025 gear) are in play at game on?  Or go strict progression?  Or something else?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 06 June 2018, 21:02:32
Canon says IFA is brand-new at our start date, and FC doesn't exist for a couple decades yet. I may juggle that a bit, depending. There'll be upgrades to be had, don't worry. (Note, for example, that your best small guns at the game start are AC/5s - LRMs, PPCs, LLs, and AC/10s don't yet exist. NPPCs don't exist, naval missiles are lacking for fancy firing options, and as previously discussed we don't have DropShips yet. Heck, mechs are almost a century away.)

Also, note my edit to my previous post - I have a full tech list there(or at least, nearly-full).
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 06 June 2018, 21:13:48
Yeah.  AC/5 as anti fighter defense.  At least the -fighters- are no better armed.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 06 June 2018, 21:23:02
4.)  Hunh.  Tech Advance speeds are crazy fast.  Only 100 years between PPCs and DHS?  I assume anything not listed (AC/5?) are older.
Do we want to make sure the basics (3025 gear) are in play at game on?  Or go strict progression?  Or something else?

At game start, the only available mech-scale weapons are AC/2, AC/5 and MG, I think. WarShips have a wider selection, weirdly - all NACs, all NLs, and all standard missiles are available. And TBH, I'm okay with that. It gives us places to go, and because we're not fighting the battles out, the light weapon shortage isn't a huge problem. MGs are your point defence, light ACs for anti-fighter work, and capital missiles on fighter hardpoints for anti-shipping strikes. It's enough to start.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 06 June 2018, 21:28:07
I can jam with it.

Question:  if I buy say 1000 Generic Fighters in 2550... and never lose them....  do they remain AC/5 armed sad sacks forever?  I suppose since we dont play it out and that scale is generic, it doesnt -matter-
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 07 June 2018, 02:27:22
Few points/questions:

1) Just because some piece of tech has been invented by the dirty Terrans, quite likely to be anything between 10-50 years before the rest of us get access to enough of it to do anything with it. The TH (and SLDF) kept a few things to themselves for a LONG time in OTL after all.

2) A thought occurred to me that we aren't necessarily limited to 5 players, we could just keep the Hegemony, and split the rest of the IS evenly between however many players we have, who cook up their own little factions. Would be extra work though of course.

3) Techmanual or TO (forget which one its in) doesn't say anything about it, but were all calibres of NAC available at once, or where they build in bigger sizes slowly over time, like regular ACs? Book just says released this date, same with NLs and the Cap Missiles.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 07 June 2018, 08:53:50
I can jam with it.

Question:  if I buy say 1000 Generic Fighters in 2550... and never lose them....  do they remain AC/5 armed sad sacks forever?  I suppose since we dont play it out and that scale is generic, it doesnt -matter-

That was basically my thinking. I'm seriously considering not offering different fighter sizes at all, and simply treating them as an undifferentiated mass(or maybe offering basic/advanced when XLFE come on line). Tracking which ones are of which vintage is too much bookkeeping, IMO. We'll just pretend that fighter upgrades come out of the Army's budget ;) .

Few points/questions:

1) Just because some piece of tech has been invented by the dirty Terrans, quite likely to be anything between 10-50 years before the rest of us get access to enough of it to do anything with it. The TH (and SLDF) kept a few things to themselves for a LONG time in OTL after all.

2) A thought occurred to me that we aren't necessarily limited to 5 players, we could just keep the Hegemony, and split the rest of the IS evenly between however many players we have, who cook up their own little factions. Would be extra work though of course.

3) Techmanual or TO (forget which one its in) doesn't say anything about it, but were all calibres of NAC available at once, or where they build in bigger sizes slowly over time, like regular ACs? Book just says released this date, same with NLs and the Cap Missiles.

1) I've factored that in, to some extent. Whoever invents a tech gets to use it for a full decade before anyone else can. That's one turn, but a lot can happen in one of these turns. (It seemed the best and most realistic way to incentivize research)

2) That sounds really painful. I was planning to lean on canon pretty hard to come up with battle scenarios and political developments, and of course most players are more attached to the canon empires than any homebrew ones. Also, we're still at 3 players, so I'm not feeling the pinch yet.

3) I don't have my TO in front of me, but I think they all came out at basically the same time. There may have been a few years in between, but not many, and it was something like 150 years before our start date. Which makes sense, really - historical battleship guns were in a similar size class if you consider their mountings (the triple turret of a Yamato weighed over 3000 tons all-in), and if they were ever considered viable weapons again, they'd be built without too much delay. The slow introduction of ACs on land is probably less realistic, but because that's a part of the universe that we're not focusing on, it doesn't matter so much.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 07 June 2018, 09:18:09
That was basically my thinking. I'm seriously considering not offering different fighter sizes at all, and simply treating them as an undifferentiated mass(or maybe offering basic/advanced when XLFE come on line). Tracking which ones are of which vintage is too much bookkeeping, IMO. We'll just pretend that fighter upgrades come out of the Army's budget ;) .

Im fine with that.  I'm still going to design the fleet fighters I'm using, all the way down to quirks (will probably budget extra to allow an imbalance of positive quirks).  I'm not asking that anyone else care or do so, but the completest in me compels it. :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 07 June 2018, 09:57:15
I think that Ferro aluminum is actually back developed from improved Ferro aluminum in the way ppcs come from nppcs because only fighters and drop ships really use ferro aluminum. Warships and jumpships don't use it
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 07 June 2018, 11:20:43
RE:  Start Date:

Free Worlds League:  2271
Terran Hegemony:  2315
Federated Suns:  2317
Draconis Combine:  2319
Lyran Commonwealth: 2341
Capellan Confederation Founded:  2367

In 2350, all the great powers are fledglings, barring the FWL.  The Capellan Confederation does not yet exist!  :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 07 June 2018, 11:31:11
Im fine with that.  I'm still going to design the fleet fighters I'm using, all the way down to quirks (will probably budget extra to allow an imbalance of positive quirks).  I'm not asking that anyone else care or do so, but the completest in me compels it. :)

Heh. I understand the sentiment, but others should not feel any need to follow in your footsteps.

I think that Ferro aluminum is actually back developed from improved Ferro aluminum in the way ppcs come from nppcs because only fighters and drop ships really use ferro aluminum. Warships and jumpships don't use it

True, but then the names are really strange. Why is it called "improved"?

RE:  Start Date:

Free Worlds League:  2271
Terran Hegemony:  2315
Federated Suns:  2317
Draconis Combine:  2319
Lyran Commonwealth: 2341
Capellan Confederation Founded:  2367

In 2350, all the great powers are fledglings, barring the FWL.  The Capellan Confederation does not yet exist!  :)

True, but they all derive from earlier powers. The Capellan Commonality started in 2310, which itself derives from the Capellan Hegemony in 2270. The Liao player would probably start as the Commonality, and grow rapidly through merger.

Still, it's an interesting point. I didn't realize that the great houses started so late as that - it's easy enough to integrate, but I didn't think of it. I guess this will be part of why your navies are all so new - the nations themselves are quite new.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 07 June 2018, 12:16:25
Okay, so here's what the powers of the era seem to be like as of 2350:

Terran Hegemony: Powerful, expansionist, fairly stable after McKenna's coup in 2314. Easily the top dog.

Lyran Commonwealth: Newly formed in a three-nation merger. Government still isn't terribly functional, and won't be for a while.

Free Worlds League: Best-established of the big five, fairly stable and well-run.

Capellan Commonality: Fairly small, has corruption problems, not well-regarded by its populace.

Sarna Supremacy: Not much info. Seems generally competent, if small.

Tikonov Grand Union: Falling apart, generally in horrible shape.

Chesterton Trade Federation: Almost no info available, may already be defunct.

Federated Suns: Not much info, seems generally competent.

United Hindu Collective: Small, big believers in armed neutrality.

Draconis Combine: Large, expansionist, currently tied up pacifying Rasalhague.

Principality of Rasalhague: Currently being turned into a puppet state by the Dracs - effectively a guerrilla force, not a nation.

Rim Worlds Republic: Politically shady, but fairly functional as a nation. Busy throwing off their pirate roots and building up educational infrastructure.

Taurian Concordat: Small, fairly effective for its size, not yet known to the universe at large.

(The Outworlds Alliance, Magistracy of Canopus, and Marian Hegemony don't yet exist. I don't know of any other obscure powers not listed here.)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 07 June 2018, 12:34:21

Alsadius, do you want us to send faction preference lists by PM?


Also, I think that the UNIVERSAL TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT TABLE in IO will be quite vital, example:
Primitive Armor  ~2300 (TH) ~2315 (All)
Aerospace Armor  ~2470 (TH) 2470 (All)
Improved Ferro-Aluminum Armor  ~2520 (TH)  3052 (FS/LC)*
Ferro-Carbide Armor  ~2570 (TH)  3055 (LC/DC)*
Lamellor Ferro-Carbide Armor  ~2615 (TH)  3055 (FS/FW/CC)*

So we start with primitive armor and slowly go to standard, but the old houses will have to import the good stuff from the hegemony. The situation was likely a bargaining chip for the formation of the Star League.....
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 07 June 2018, 12:51:03
I don't think anyone should play the Hegemony. Their production capacity is so far above everyone else that they will quickly just crush anyone they choose.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 07 June 2018, 12:56:25
I don't think anyone should play the Hegemony. Their production capacity is so far above everyone else that they will quickly just crush anyone they choose.

My understanding is we are setting Naval Production and Policy, not national Policy/Warmaking.  So if a player was 'playing' the Terran Hegemony, later Star League, they wouldnt get to go steamroll people, just define how they are using their navy. 

That said, my understanding was that the focus was on the Great Houses, not the superpower or minor powers.  And though RP ripples and the willingness of our soon-to-be-long-suffering staff might let 'extinct' powers survive in this reality, I think the creators intent was aimed at having players play the Five Great Houses.

My thought is to worry about the Hegemony, etc. if we go past 5 people interested. Were at 3.  Are you wanting in, Fox?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 07 June 2018, 13:01:07
Alsadius, do you want us to send faction preference lists by PM?

Yes, but not until we have a final player count.

Also, I think that the UNIVERSAL TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT TABLE in IO will be quite vital

Yup, that's good stuff. I'll buy IO for sure. (I've been meaning to do that for a while anyway, tbh)

I don't think anyone should play the Hegemony. Their production capacity is so far above everyone else that they will quickly just crush anyone they choose.

Agreed. They don't span the whole time period if we go post-Amaris, they're far too strong for balance, and they seem better as a GM tool than a player. Marcus' commentary is correct here - I'll think about maybe including the TH if we get a bunch more people, but for now it's not something I have planned.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 07 June 2018, 13:07:11
Good because they had 8 to 10 times the fleet power of everyone else in cannon. If hate to see what a competent player could do with that.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 07 June 2018, 13:09:23
Good because they had 8 to 10 times the fleet power of everyone else in cannon. If hate to see what a competent player could do with that.

Convince everyone else to invest heavily in border fortifications around the TH and bury their grievances against each other?  >:D
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 07 June 2018, 16:59:41
At the start of the star league you could add all the ships in the 5 houses and they would still be out numbered. Earth had a 70 year head start I'm not sure fortifications would be enough.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 07 June 2018, 17:08:34
At the start of the star league you could add all the ships in the 5 houses and they would still be out numbered. Earth had a 70 year head start I'm not sure fortifications would be enough.

1.)  Historically, we know that the Hegemony/League was the 500LB Gorilla.  So did everyone at the time.  If the Houses are dancing to your Star League Tune, already (and they did), what need to spend blood and treasure conquering them?  They are keeping one another nicely amused bickering among themselves, anyway.

2.)  Even if a player controlled Terra it would not matter.  For this exercise that player controls naval procurement (What to buy), policy, and doctrine.  The player is Lord of the Admiralty, not Lord of the Star League.  He cannot declare war.  He merely designs, prioritizes, cares for, builds, supports, and rebuilds the Navy.  The 1st Lord/1st Prince/Chancellor/Etc., all NPCs, decide if and how and when it is used.  Ergo, no player is taking the Terran Hegemony on a Conquering Spree.


3.)  There is no 3.


Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 07 June 2018, 18:45:20
Would you allow the Marian Hegemony to assemble a navy?

Then I'll nibble abit...

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 07 June 2018, 20:15:57
What do we want the starting yards sized at?  250?  500?  750?

Looking at Big Ships and their YIS.. focusing on non-Terran (we presume the Hegemony will have more advanced yards)

Winchester - 740kt CA, Taurian Corncordat, 2364
Du Shi Wang - 900kt BB, Duchy of Liao, 2380
Defender - 960kt BC, FedSuns, 2360. 1st Fed Sun Warship

Suggest:  1 Yard handling 1MT.  More smaller.  Some variation based on power - but note the size of vessels being produced by DUCHY of Liao and Taurian Concordiat.

Number of smaller yards TBD by your intended budget and your feel for fleet sizes.  Anticipate that fleets will burgeon early due to cheaper construction, and production will likely slow with the introduction of collars and batteries.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 07 June 2018, 20:55:42
Would you allow the Marian Hegemony to assemble a navy?

Then I'll nibble abit...

TT

I have no particular objection to someone playing Periphery if they want, but the Hegemony doesn't exist until 2920. Would you take the Taurians in their place? If not, I can give it some thought.

Edit: Actually, if you want the Marians, I can roll with it. I'll just steal plot points from the other Periphery nations to give you content.

What do we want the starting yards sized at?  250?  500?  750?

Looking at Big Ships and their YIS.. focusing on non-Terran (we presume the Hegemony will have more advanced yards)

Winchester - 740kt CA, Taurian Corncordat, 2364
Du Shi Wang - 900kt BB, Duchy of Liao, 2380
Defender - 960kt BC, FedSuns, 2360. 1st Fed Sun Warship

Suggest:  1 Yard handling 1MT.  More smaller.  Some variation based on power - but note the size of vessels being produced by DUCHY of Liao and Taurian Concordiat.

Number of smaller yards TBD by your intended budget and your feel for fleet sizes.  Anticipate that fleets will burgeon early due to cheaper construction, and production will likely slow with the introduction of collars and batteries.

I was thinking that players would get a few, sized in the 250-750 range. If we take the DC as the empire that most has its stuff together right now, perhaps a couple size-3 and three or four size-1, spread across maybe three systems(size 3/1/1 in Luthien, size 3/1 in New Samarkand, and size 1 in Midway, perhaps). You can upgrade to level 4 and build a few million-ton ships if you want to jump right into it, or start a bit slower with a cruiser and an escort design. (We'll say, for simplicity, that upgrades are instant)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 08 June 2018, 02:29:41
1.)  Historically, we know that the Hegemony/League was the 500LB Gorilla.  So did everyone at the time.  If the Houses are dancing to your Star League Tune, already (and they did), what need to spend blood and treasure conquering them?  They are keeping one another nicely amused bickering among themselves, anyway.

2.)  Even if a player controlled Terra it would not matter.  For this exercise that player controls naval procurement (What to buy), policy, and doctrine.  The player is Lord of the Admiralty, not Lord of the Star League.  He cannot declare war.  He merely designs, prioritizes, cares for, builds, supports, and rebuilds the Navy.  The 1st Lord/1st Prince/Chancellor/Etc., all NPCs, decide if and how and when it is used.  Ergo, no player is taking the Terran Hegemony on a Conquering Spree.


3.)  There is no 3.

The point is what every one else spends every 10 years Terra does that every 6 months. They aren't a 500lb gorrila they care a damned lyploradon and everyone else is just a bottle nosed dolphin.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 08 June 2018, 03:39:21
I'd say it's best if the Hegemony stays a GM-controlled tech developer and occasional Act of Herb, to drive plot elements and maybe knock down a player that got a bit too big for his britches, just to show who is still top dog.

"Whats that? You built a 1.5MT monster of a battleship before anyone else has anything half that size, and bankrupted your country doing it? Be a shame if something were to... happen to it..." >:D

Not to be nasty, just for the TH to maintain their supremacy, noone gets to 'Kills it with my Battleships' better than they do after all :P
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 08 June 2018, 06:42:56
Side topic - Robot units, based on reading too many Bolo/Ship Who X/etc. stories over the years...


Is it just me, or do they spend a -lot- of text in IO for something that boils down to ‘these systems are bad, don’t bother’?

Oh, well.  Back to the future of the past....  :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 08 June 2018, 10:41:03
What do we want the starting yards sized at?  250?  500?  750?
IO has guidelines for that.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 08 June 2018, 12:42:51
Side topic - Robot units, based on reading too many Bolo/Ship Who X/etc. stories over the years...


Is it just me, or do they spend a -lot- of text in IO for something that boils down to ‘these systems are bad, don’t bother’?

Oh, well.  Back to the future of the past....  :)

Its not that bad the automated bay systems seam pretty useful and the "Casper 2"system looks achievable maybe but not sure what the prerequisite would be since WoB had access the the SDS Casper info.

IO has guidelines for that.

I would have thought that would be in Campain Operations
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 08 June 2018, 12:46:49
Its not that bad the automated bay systems seam pretty useful and the "Casper 2"system looks achievable maybe but not sure what the prerequisite would be since WoB had access the the SDS Casper info.

I would have thought that would be in Campain Operations

Theres just this part of my sci-fi fan soul that wants supertech warships to have a ships AI - either in cooperation with a human crew, or CASPAR style - but fully awake/self aware. 

Of course, down that road lies the Dazzling Culture, which is awesome, but not Battletech.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 08 June 2018, 13:06:00
The SDS Casper system is damn close. The Star league was probably 50 years away. From something like that.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 08 June 2018, 14:10:45
So with our GM allowing the Marian Hegemony, which True Tanker requested, I see us at 4...

marcussmythe
Smegish
Maingunnery
True Tanker


Cryhavok?  Starfox?  Marauder?  Yall all seemed to have an interest...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 08 June 2018, 17:07:39
I'd love too but I have no pc, I'm working from a cell. I can parooze pdfs but any design work I do is long form and I don't have the free time for that. Sorry
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 08 June 2018, 22:42:00
So I've given a few more thoughts to the tech progression and available stuff for purchase.

- I'm going to swap around armour types as discussed earlier. The sequence will be Ferro-Aluminum(on fighters/DropShips) > Improved Ferro-Aluminum (on WarShips) > Ferro-Carbide > Lamellor Ferro-Carbide.

- I have a full tech list now. With the exception of the juggled armours and the fire-control techs that have no date I can find, everything is introduced within 60 years of its canon introduction date. (As stated previously, I won't be giving details here to avoid metagaming, but if you pull out TM/TO you can figure out most of it).

- Drop Shuttles are a tech that's a little too weird to include from the get-go. Instead, I'll fluff it that they're small DropShips. Medium and large DropShips will be tech unlocks, with timing based on the invention of spheroid and aerodyne DropShips. As such, docking collars are available at game start.

- I think my previous list was tracking too many small units. Fighters will be reduced to standard and advanced(i.e., XLFE designs), small craft are merged, and the different DropShip roles are merged - there'll be enough of them that you can use carrier or ground-attack models as needed for any given operation, so we'll assume that they swap as needed. (Feel free to give me doctrine on which ones your admirals like to use, however - I will definitely keep that in mind)

- Here's the full list of purchasable items that I've come up with thus far. Items requiring an unlock are in italics:

For Castles Brian and stations, I'll only track them system-by-system in shipyard systems - when you build new ones, tell me if they're going to a shipyard system or into the general supply. Ones not allocated to shipyard systems will simply be kept as a general count for your nation as a whole, and I'll assume that they're allocated sensibly(border worlds, large commercial hubs, major factory complexes, etc.)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 09 June 2018, 00:28:34
I am more interested in spectating than playing.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 09 June 2018, 12:05:45
Suggestion Ferro Aluminum is Ferro Fiberous for fighters. Considering having advanced armor for asf available to early could be somewhat disruptive make it available for Dropships first then unlock it for fighters some time after ifa comes online.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 09 June 2018, 13:35:23
So I've given a few more thoughts to the tech progression and available stuff for purchase.

- I'm going to swap around armour types as discussed earlier. The sequence will be Ferro-Aluminum(on fighters/DropShips) > Improved Ferro-Aluminum (on WarShips) > Ferro-Carbide > Lamellor Ferro-Carbide.

- I have a full tech list now. With the exception of the juggled armours and the fire-control techs that have no date I can find, everything is introduced within 60 years of its canon introduction date. (As stated previously, I won't be giving details here to avoid metagaming, but if you pull out TM/TO you can figure out most of it).

- Drop Shuttles are a tech that's a little too weird to include from the get-go. Instead, I'll fluff it that they're small DropShips. Medium and large DropShips will be tech unlocks, with timing based on the invention of spheroid and aerodyne DropShips. As such, docking collars are available at game start.

- I think my previous list was tracking too many small units. Fighters will be reduced to standard and advanced(i.e., XLFE designs), small craft are merged, and the different DropShip roles are merged - there'll be enough of them that you can use carrier or ground-attack models as needed for any given operation, so we'll assume that they swap as needed. (Feel free to give me doctrine on which ones your admirals like to use, however - I will definitely keep that in mind)

- Here's the full list of purchasable items that I've come up with thus far. Items requiring an unlock are in italics:
  • Fighters: Standard $5M, Improved $15M (requires XL Fusion Engines)
  • Small Craft: $10M
  • DropShips: Light(12 fighters) $300M, Medium(36 fighters) $500M (requires Spheroid DropShip), Large(108 fighters) $1,000M (requires Aerodyne DropShip)
  • JumpShips: $500M
  • WarShips/Stations: As StratOps costs, rounded to nearest $1M. Double for lead unit of a class, +50% for lead unit of a variant sub-class.
  • Castle Brian: $5,000M (requires Castles Brian)
  • Shipyards: $10,000M times the new level to upgrade a shipyard one level. Halve this cost if a yard of equal or larger size already exists in the same system.
  • Maintenance: Baseline expense is 1% of each active WarShip's base cost per year (=10% per turn). Players can pay more or less as desired. (Note that the out-of-production penalty has been removed)
  • Research: Each $1M is one ballot. The winner gets the new tech 10 years before everyone else.
  • Anything else you can think of: Talk to me, and we'll see what we can do.

For Castles Brian and stations, I'll only track them system-by-system in shipyard systems - when you build new ones, tell me if they're going to a shipyard system or into the general supply. Ones not allocated to shipyard systems will simply be kept as a general count for your nation as a whole, and I'll assume that they're allocated sensibly(border worlds, large commercial hubs, major factory complexes, etc.)

1.)  Costs still look low to me on carrier/combat droppers, but as discussed Im not losing sleep over it - the ‘offical’ price for dropships is scary high.

2.)  Im curious to see what everyone does with the design space.

3.)  Id love a 5th player.  Dont know anyone active on these forums, not already involved in the thread, who would be interested, though.  :(

4.)  Logistics.  Obviously, we dont want to play Ledgertech.  That said, may i assume that having cargo space, drop collars for cargo droppers, and/or fleet colliers is a thing that will be felt, in its presence or absence?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 09 June 2018, 16:59:25
Will that Light/Med/Large Dropship definition have a weight restriction, or just a limit on how many Aero it can hold?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 09 June 2018, 19:22:01
Suggestion Ferro Aluminum is Ferro Fiberous for fighters. Considering having advanced armor for asf available to early could be somewhat disruptive make it available for Dropships first then unlock it for fighters some time after ifa comes online.

I'm less worried here, because players don't need to make fighter or DropShip designs. I can treat it as a mild performance boost, and not worry much about details.

1.)  Costs still look low to me on carrier/combat droppers, but as discussed Im not losing sleep over it - the ‘offical’ price for dropships is scary high.

2.)  Im curious to see what everyone does with the design space.

3.)  Id love a 5th player.  Dont know anyone active on these forums, not already involved in the thread, who would be interested, though.  :(

4.)  Logistics.  Obviously, we dont want to play Ledgertech.  That said, may i assume that having cargo space, drop collars for cargo droppers, and/or fleet colliers is a thing that will be felt, in its presence or absence?

1) In context, a small DS being $300M when a full 3-collar JS is $500M seems reasonable to me. If anything, I always thought of the DS as being cheaper relative to JS than that.

2) Agreed.

3) Given one of the players is playing Periphery, we'd need 6 to fill all the houses. I think we should just go ahead once I get everything ready, and leave the other empires free for players to jump in if desired.

4) I won't explicitly track cargo, but it is definitely a number I'll pay attention to in designs. Cargo actually matters more in this setting than it would in vanilla, because of how I'm fluffing the fighter strike rules - when a single fighter can carry close to its own weight in capital missiles for anti-WS attacks, you really need to have a lot of cargo if you want to launch a lot of fighter strikes. A ship with minimal cargo can defend a system well enough, or launch a quick attack across a border, but it'll be a disaster if you try to take one on a deep strike without a proper fleet train.

Will that Light/Med/Large Dropship definition have a weight restriction, or just a limit on how many Aero it can hold?

I simplified it, because I don't expect players to construct anything besides WarShips. If you never build a DS and never move ground units explicitly, the only number that matters is the fighter capacity of a carrier-fit DS. If you actually want to build the designs, we'll say 5,000 tons and 20,000 tons - as with most other things in this game aside from WS, feel free to get ambitious if you really want to.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 09 June 2018, 19:54:31
Also, given that I'm planning to just go ahead with the players we have, please post your nation preferences below. Here (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1418814#msg1418814) is a list of nations in the era.

Easy difficulty: Terran Hegemony(off-limits)

Normal difficulty: Federated Suns, Free Worlds League, Draconis Combine

Hard difficulty: Lyran Commonwealth, Capellan Commonality, Sarna Supremacy

Very Hard difficulty: Rim Worlds Republic, United Hindu Collective, Taurian Concordat, Tikonov Grand Union, Marian Hegemony(anachronistic)

Insane difficulty: Principality of Rasalhague, any single-system pirate kingdom you care to name

Note that any nations which wind up merging(most notably the CC/SS/TGU and the FS/UHC) should probably only have a single human player between them. If two players really want to play two nations in a single set out, one of you will need to bounce to an NPC nation when the merger happens.

Any late-coming players can also take over NPC nations if they want to, but be aware that those NPC nations will perhaps develop in ways you're not a big fan of. We won't start for a few days yet, while I finalize the starting setup in detail, so there's still a bit of time to jump in.

I'm also about to update the top post in this thread with info on everything.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 09 June 2018, 20:54:00
To make sure that everyone knows what's available, here's a master technology list. I'll update this every turn, as new technologies come out.

Game Start
Unit Types: WarShip, Space Station, JumpShip, DropShip(small only), Small Craft, Aerospace Fighter, Atmospheric Fighter, Combat Vehicle

Mech-scale weapons: AC/5, AC/2, Machine Gun

WarShip-scale weapons: All NAC sizes, all NL sizes, and Barracuda/White Shark/Killer Whale/AR-10.

Relevant Support Equipment: Standard Armor, Single Heat Sinks, Standard/Compact/Sub-Compact K-F Drives, Docking Collars, Naval Comm-Scanner Suite, Grav Decks, Cargo(all types), Crew Quarters(all types), Unit Bays(for all existent unit types), Escape Pods/Lifeboats, Naval Repair Facilities, Naval Tug Adaptor, Energy Storage Battery

Notes:
- Standard-scale weapons attacking WarShips are much less effective than in standard rules. Instead, fighters can mount capital missiles to their bomb hardpoints to conduct anti-shipping strikes.
- AMS systems(and things used for similar roles, like Machine Guns in the pre-AMS era) are much less effective than in canon rules.
- Bearings-only capital missile launches, tele-operated missiles, and bracket fire are not yet available.
- Drop shuttles are not used(we'll pretend they're the same thing a small DropShips).

Future Technologies
Here is a list of future technologies that will be introduced. These are sorted by canon introduction date(except as noted here (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1419323#msg1419323), but I've modified the start dates to make it so that you get one new tech per turn. All game introduction dates are within 60 years of canon. Note that some of these techs are technically for Mech-sized equipment, but have been assumed to also allow upgrades to equivalent WarShip-scale equipment as well(Active Probe, CASE, etc.).

Code: [Select]
Ferro-Aluminum 2350
Vehicular Drop Chute 2351
NPPC 2356
SRM 2370
Improved Ferro-Aluminum 2370
Castles Brian 2391
Small/Medium Laser 2400
LRM 2400
Large Laser 2430
Mechs 2443
Naval Gauss 2448
AC/10 2460
PPC 2460
Medium DropShip 2470
CASE 2476
Large DropShip 2480
AC/20 2500
L-F Battery 2529
Double Heat Sink 2567
Ferro-Carbide 2571
Active Probe 2576
XL Fusion Engine 2579
Narc 2587
Gauss Rifle 2590
LB-10X 2595
ECM 2597
Artemis IV 2598
Pulse Lasers 2609
Lamellor Ferro-Carbide 2615
AMS 2617
ER Large Laser 2620
HyperPulse Generators 2629
Chameleon/Null-Sig 2630
UAC/5 2640
Streak SRM 2647
Mobile HPG 2655
LAMs 2688
Caspar Drones 2690
Light Power Armor 2710
Mass Driver 2715
Reinforced Repair Bay 2750
ER PPC 2760
Bearings-Only Launches (not specified)
Bracket Fire (not specified)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 09 June 2018, 22:20:34
Okay, in light of information presented:
1.)  Lyran Commonwealth.  I know they are just starting out, bt historically they are an evonimic powerhouse and I like the flavor.  Im willing to have a rougher time of it in the early turns.
2.)  Fed Suns.  Davionista, since back in the day.
3.)  Free Wolds League; cause purple and eagles and and Rome and Greece.
4.)  DC or Cap Com or whatever, if other people really want the first three.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 10 June 2018, 02:26:41
Guess my order of preference is:

1) Draconis Combine
2) Lyran Commonwealth
3) Free Worlds League
4) Cappellan Commonality
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 10 June 2018, 02:53:10
1) Free Worlds League
2) Lyran Commonwealth
3) single-system pirate kingdom



ps. If I understand the tech list properly, then we don't have to bother with primitive technology? Just design our units as intro and add extra tech if necessary?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 10 June 2018, 04:12:45
Sorry i've been a bit quiet, been busy! So whats the idea and stuff? Been out of town and unable to access net properly.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 10 June 2018, 05:29:00
Sorry i've been a bit quiet, been busy! So whats the idea and stuff? Been out of town and unable to access net properly.

Long story short, you get to play fleet commander to one of the nations, starting in 2350. You'll design the nation's WarShip fleet as well as buying your supporting infrastructure and small units. I'll run the nations through the political and military events of the era, giving you battle reports to show you how your ships are performing in combat against each other and against NPC nations like the Terran Hegemony. You'll take that info and use it to design newer and better units as the timeline progresses and you get access to new technology.

It's more about the design than it is a wargame, as you don't have control over your nation's foreign policy and can't treat it like a 4X game where you gobble up everyone who opposes you. You do control naval doctrine etc., which gives you a lot of operational control, but it's up to the civilian leadership NPCs who the target of your attentions will be. But if you want an excuse to design a whole lot of WarShips with a single overarching purpose, doctrine, and style, this is for you.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 10 June 2018, 05:47:48
Sure why not, i'll take over the Taurians if no one else wants them.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 10 June 2018, 08:48:08
Thats an interesting map.  North East,North West, South-West Inner Sphere Players, and South West and South East Periphery Players.

I hope the NPC empires are active...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 10 June 2018, 10:54:09
The NPC empires will be around, though I'll be keeping them as close to canon as practical.

Assuming nobody jumps in to take them over, here's the historical production order for each NPC empire, as derived from Sarna:
Terran Hegemony
In Service:
Dreadnought (960 kt, 3/5, battleship) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Dreadnought_(WarShip_class))
Dart (680kt, 2/3, cruiser) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Dart_(WarShip_class))
Black Lion I (720kt, 3/5, battlecruiser) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Black_Lion_I)
Bonaventure (240kt, 4/6, corvette) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Bonaventure)
Cruiser (500kt, 4/6, cruiser[obviously]) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Cruiser)
Lola I (680kt, 4/6, destroyer) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Lola_I)
Vigilant (140kt, 3/5, scout) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Vigilant)

New Construction:
2350: Quixote (780kt, 2/3, frigate) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Quixote)
2351: Essex I (560kt, 3/5, destroyer) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Essex_I)
2368: Monsoon (1.31MT, 2/3, battleship) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Monsoon)
2372: Aegis (745kt, 2/3, cruiser) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Aegis)
2407: Tracker (120kt, 4/6, scout) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Tracker)
2432: Vincent (412kt, 4/6, corvette) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Vincent)
2440: Riga (750kt, 3/5, frigate) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Riga_(WarShip_class))
2447: Nightwing (100kt, 3/5, scout) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Nightwing)
2448: Farragut (1.68MT, 3/5, battleship) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Farragut)
2520: Baron (480kt, 2/3, destroyer) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Baron)
2531: Avatar (830kt, 3/5, cruiser) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Avatar_(WarShip_class))
2542: Congress (760kt, 3/5, escort) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Congress)
2582: Kimagure (780kt, 5/8, cruiser) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Kimagure)
2600: Newgrange (2.3MT, 2/3, yardship) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Newgrange)
2603: Carrack (300kt, 3/5, transport (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Carrack)
2606: Whirlwind (520kt, 4/6, destroyer) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Whirlwind)
2611: Potemkin (1.51MT, 2/3, transport) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Potemkin)
2618: Texas (1.56MT, 3/5, battleship) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Texas)
2620: Bug-Eye (6100 tons, 5/8, scout) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Bug-Eye)
2622: Lola II (680kt, 4/6, destroyer) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Lola_II)
2632: Carson (510kt, 2/3, destroyer) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Carson_(WarShip_class))
2645: Naga (540kt, 2/3, destroyer) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Naga_(WarShip_class))
2652: McKenna (1.93MT, 3/5, battleship) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/McKenna_(WarShip_class))
2662: Lola III (678kt, 4/6, destroyer) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Lola_III)
2668: Cameron (859kt, 2/3, cruiser) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Cameron_(WarShip_class))
2691: Black Lion II (802kt, 3/5, battlecruiser) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Black_Lion)
2709: Volga (780kt, 2/3, transport) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Volga)
2711: Essex II (620kt, 3/5, destroyer) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Essex)
2727: Luxor (890kt, 3/5, cruiser) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Luxor)
2735: Sovetskii Soyuz (823kt, 2/3, cruiser) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Sovetskii_Soyuz)
2749: Enterprise (1.6MT, 4/6, carrier) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Enterprise_(WarShip_class)) - boondoggle, never used

The SLDF also purchased some Davion I (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Davion_I_(WarShip_class)), and possibly other ships.

As a side note, looking at the tech timelines makes me impressed at just how many of these ships are obvious anachronisms - lots of them use things like AC/10 or AMS or DropShip collars decades before they actually existed. We'll just pretend that's not the case in this setting, I guess - if I have enough time to introduce customized versions of these, they'll be fixed up in the process. Also, only one ship seems to actually use drop shuttles, so I feel justified ignoring them.

Federated Suns
2360: Defender (960kt, 5/8, battlecruiser) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Defender_(WarShip_class))
2510: Davion I (520kt, 4/6, destroyer) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Davion_I_(WarShip_class))
2542: Congress (760kt, 3/5, frigate) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Congress)
2552: Davion II (580kt, 4/6, destroyer) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Davion_II_(WarShip_class))
2557: New Syrtis (920kt, 4/6, carrier) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/New_Syrtis_(WarShip_class))
2560: Robinson (400kt, 3/5, transport) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Robinson_(WarShip_class))
"Pre-2600": Kitty Hawk (unknown stats, carrier) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Kitty_Hawk_(WarShip_class)) - probably apocryphal

Capellan Confederation
2380: Du Shi Wang (900kt, 3/5, battleship) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Du_Shi_Wang)
2731: Soyal (1.5MT, 6/9, Mass Driver cruiser) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Soyal) - Sarna says 6/10 speed. I don't have the source book, but 6/9 bring rounded up seems more plausible.
Some Essex I (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Essex_I) and Aegis (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Aegis) seem to have been imported from the SLDF when they were obsolete. There's also mention of light escorts, but no stats.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 10 June 2018, 13:30:03
Well looks like Aquillas for me!  >:D

Darn Taurians and stupid Terrans! Getting all the best tech... grumble grumble.  :(

TT
 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 11 June 2018, 08:07:56
A few minor notes from PM conversations and general reading I've been doing:

- While the shipyard space you have is intended for WarShips, it can also be used for JumpShips if desired. Don't bother building civilian designs(it's a waste of yard space, and I don't want to be bothered tracking them), but if you want an armed JS like the Comitatus (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Comitatus), it's perfectly legal.

- There's a rule in canon that you need 10 rounds per launcher, but canon ships don't seem to follow it. I won't require you to either. However, be aware that 10 rounds per launcher is not a whole lot of ammo, and going ammo-light may affect you in combat - e.g., if enemy ships manage to stay at extreme range, your captain will be left with several very unappealing choices about what to do with his firepower. I don't mean to say it's always stupid, but like most ways of compromising on "soft stats", there are ways that it could potentially bite you.

- Feel free to suggest alternate uses for your cash beyond what I've outlined. For example, hiring mercenaries is common and respected in this era, and while there are no WarShip-owning mercenaries, you might want to bulk out your fighter ranks. Also, ships were bought and sold between friendly powers in canon and IRL, so if the Lyran player wants to cause headaches for the FWL player, you might decide to sell some old ships to the Marians. The NPC leadership will get a veto, depending on how friendly your nations actually are and how much of your fleet you're trying to sell, but it is an option. I'm sure you'll come up with a couple more - if you're in doubt, run it by me. I'll try to accommodate you whenever I can manage it and it makes sense.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 11 June 2018, 08:40:14
Reposting from a PM I set, at Alsadius' request.  Note that some of the questions presented below are already answered above:

Quote
Learned something:

If you double the mass of a ship, you much less than double its cost.  Bigger is (much) cheaper per mass.

This has some interesting knock on effects, but the one that strikes me:

The Star League designs are actually much, much better than I thought.

Its cheaper (as an example) to build 4 ‘roomy hulls’ with 10% or so mass as cargo, than it is to build 4 smaller hulls and a 5th collier to support them on long deployments.

Similarly, its much less expensive than you might think to go from 3/5 to the -exact- same capability on a 5/8.  Its still not cheap... in general each point of thrust coats you 20% of your force - but it might be a cost you can live with.

Final thoughts - Missiles and Rules and Ammo.  Rules say minimum 10 rounds per gun.  Am considering large missile broadsides with 5 ready rounds per launcher.  Math siggests this is more than enough to be decisive.  Lots of ships shot themselvs dry in one engagement, historically.

Final thoughts:  Fighters and Bay doors.  Theres some funny rules that limit launch rates by the number of doors assigned to your fighter bays.  If enforced, there really wont ever be ‘true’ carriers, because it takes hours to launch a strike...since were not playing tactical battles, how do you see that working out?  Could one pay extra for -more- launch doors than the default rules allow?  Certainly ‘cut holes in side of ship’ cannot be lostech...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 11 June 2018, 08:50:27
My reply, as posted to PM:

Cost efficiency is an interesting question. You increase the risk of a "golden BB" blowing up your mega-ship, but you also probably get more bang for your buck. Historically, it was mostly the big gun arms race that drove ship sizes up, as they needed more ability to armor their critical sections and carry bigger guns. Once armor stopped being a factor after WW2, ship sizes have stayed basically constant - carriers are big enough to mount a flight deck, frigates and cruisers and destroyers are big enough to mount a helipad, a radar, and some missiles, and subs are big enough to mount their engine and weapon systems. There's also the problem of one big ship being in one place at a time - one McKenna might beat two Lolas in a fight, but if you send two Lolas after two different systems, one is going to get through. In a raid-heavy environment like 1SW, that might mean your big ships come out badly.

Re fleet supply concerns, you can also use civilian JumpShips and DropShips for that, which are probably cheaper per ton carried than a Soyuz. More vulnerable, of course, but it's a trade-off that poorer nations might be happy to make. It also means they can act as trade ships in peacetime, which helps your economy. I suspect most houses use a mix - a few cargo-heavy ships for deep strikes, some armed merchants as a fleet train, cargo DropShips to give the fleet extra legs, and vacuuming up every merchantman you can find when a war starts.

Re ammo loads, the rules do say minimum 10 rounds per gun, but I won't enforce that - canonical ship designs don't(e.g., look at the missile loads on the AR-10s on the McKenna), and ships that want to shoot themselves dry are fine by me.

Re bay doors, it's less of a concern than you might think, unless you do something truly insane like the Enterprise that mounts almost a thousand fighters. IIRC, the rules are two fighters per door per turn, and a WS can mount a couple dozen doors pretty easily. You only need one or two for the cargo bay, so you can have the ability to launch a few squadrons a turn. RL carriers only have four or so catapults, and they can't all be used at once - they still get good-sized strike forces into the air when needed, because you spend the necessary time getting your forces into the sky and then start the attack.

Given we're not playing tactical battles, I doubt it'll come up much in practice. if someone designs a ship with 100+ fighters and one door they run the risk of losing a fight from fighter traffic jams, but I doubt anyone will ever do that given that doors are free and fairly numerous.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 11 June 2018, 09:24:21
Posting designs:

Where are you people getting your lovely, formatted layouts that you can post smoothly to the forums?  No matter how much time I spend fiddling, I cant make it work right - to the point that I'm considering doing TRO entries in a word document and posting that, but thats hard for people to read, here.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 11 June 2018, 09:58:07
On Cryhavoc's sheet, there's a tab labelled "TRO Workup". Copy each of the blocks from that into the forum thread, with a couple line breaks between each, and put it inside {code}{/code} tags so that it's not two pages long.

(I used to hand-format mine to look better and have everything line up neatly, but that's a pain and doesn't add much, so I stopped bothering)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 11 June 2018, 10:02:16
On Cryhavoc's sheet, there's a tab labelled "TRO Workup". Copy each of the blocks from that into the forum thread, with a couple line breaks between each, and put it inside {code}{/code} tags so that it's not two pages long.

(I used to hand-format mine to look better and have everything line up neatly, but that's a pain and doesn't add much, so I stopped bothering)

As an additional note, on the TRO work-up section, you'll need to add in cargo bays/doors by hand.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 11 June 2018, 10:11:05
As an additional note, on the TRO work-up section, you'll need to add in cargo bays/doors by hand.

Or add the following formula to cell V2 on the TRO Workup tab:
Code: [Select]
=IFERROR(FILTER(EquipedName,(EquipedType="Equipment")+(EquipedType="Bay")),"None")
This doesn't give the number of doors per bay, however - you'll need to add that by hand. It also assumes no mixed-type bays, no shared doors, etc., so it's a bit less flexible than the actual rules are.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 11 June 2018, 10:21:53
Yet Another Stupid Question:

How are we handling Refits?  Because given the tech improvements, I foresee a lot of desire to refit, but on the gripping hand, figuring out how to price refits seems difficult to me.  Ripping out AC/5s for PPC emplacements should be a trivial cost on a warship scale.  Stripping the hull plating would be a step up from that.  Replacing Naval Missile Launchers with Naval PPCs is getting expensive, and then there is replacing engines - which (I would think) starts turning into 'not worth it'.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 11 June 2018, 10:36:21
Yet Another Stupid Question:

How are we handling Refits?  Because given the tech improvements, I foresee a lot of desire to refit, but on the gripping hand, figuring out how to price refits seems difficult to me.  Ripping out AC/5s for PPC emplacements should be a trivial cost on a warship scale.  Stripping the hull plating would be a step up from that.  Replacing Naval Missile Launchers with Naval PPCs is getting expensive, and then there is replacing engines - which (I would think) starts turning into 'not worth it'.

Ooh, good one. I hadn't thought of that. I have a couple ideas off the top of my head:

1) Add up the costs of all the new gear and multiply it by something to represent the refit - triple it, perhaps. Each refit takes one year in a shipyard of appropriate size(so you can do five refits in the same time as one new build)

2) Create a variant model(complete with the 50% of the ship's unit cost being spent on miscellaneous design expenses), and then refit ships to the new model for only the price difference. Again, refits take one year.

I think I like #2 better(having it as an explicit variant will make it easier to track, and the big up-front cost discourages doing it lightly) but it seems like it could be a bit punitive. That said, given that the most common refit will probably involve using new armor types, perhaps this is cheaper than it ought to be - I don't think any RL ships ever replaced their armour like that, even in the era of rapid advance in the late 19th century, so it's got to be tough. IDK.

Any suggestions?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 11 June 2018, 10:53:00
Ooh, good one. I hadn't thought of that. I have a couple ideas off the top of my head:

1) Add up the costs of all the new gear and multiply it by something to represent the refit - triple it, perhaps. Each refit takes one year in a shipyard of appropriate size(so you can do five refits in the same time as one new build)

2) Create a variant model(complete with the 50% of the ship's unit cost being spent on miscellaneous design expenses), and then refit ships to the new model for only the price difference. Again, refits take one year.

I think I like #2 better(having it as an explicit variant will make it easier to track, and the big up-front cost discourages doing it lightly) but it seems like it could be a bit punitive. That said, given that the most common refit will probably involve using new armor types, perhaps this is cheaper than it ought to be - I don't think any RL ships ever replaced their armour like that, even in the era of rapid advance in the late 19th century, so it's got to be tough. IDK.

Any suggestions?

I like #2.  I almost said we should charge a multiplier for the new equipment, but then I considered the fact that people refitted ships into carrying L-F Batteries.  If you MULTIPLY the cost of a L-F Battery Refit by even 2 or 3 times, especially on a ship with multiple docking collars, it will quickly become cheaper to build new ships and straight up scrap the old ones.

What other questions/thoughts do people have, and what do we lack of being ready to start?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 11 June 2018, 10:58:53
I need to create the starting situations for each player - beginning shipyards and beginning income. Other than that, I think I can do everything else as we go.

If someone is feeling really ambitious, a list of plausible shipyard locations for each power (including CC and FS) would be really appreciated. I'm already happy with the DC yards, so no need to work on those.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 11 June 2018, 12:18:16
How many are you looking for?
Ive got 2-3 each for FWL, LC, and CC.

 FedSuns is hard - all their listed yards are tied to modern production, and the famous McKenna yards arent built yet.

Ill see if I can find anything for the Taurians and Marians as well.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 11 June 2018, 12:25:51
How many are you looking for?
Ive got 2-3 each for FWL, LC, and CC.

 FedSuns is hard - all their listed yards are tied to modern production, and the famous McKenna yards arent built yet.

Ill see if I can find anything for the Taurians and Marians as well.

2-3 is fine, as long as each of the two still-functional predecessor states to the CC(i.e., the Capellan Commonality and the Sarna Supremacy) has at least one. See this map (http://cfw.sarna.net/wiki/images/9/98/CC2366.jpg?timestamp=20120111170823).

Re the FedSuns, I'll work on that. I'll go for era-appropriate shipyards if I can find them, but if the data isn't available, I'll just pick important planets to use instead. Probably New Avalon, Robinson, and New Syrtis, since they're the regional capitals.

Also, don't worry about the Taurians and the Marians - they're each basically single-system polities at this point, it's obvious where their yards will be.

Edit: Researching the FS shipyards, there's no mention of when most of them started, but Kathil/Delevan/Layover/Panpour were producing >90% of the heavy naval assets of the FedSuns before Galax opened up, so I'll assume that small seeds of those manufacturing lines exist right now. Panpour is part of the UHC for the time being, and Kathil is described as being unimportant until the Reunification War, so I'll say that Delevan(near the capital) and Layover(close to the DC/TH borders) are the major yards. New Syrtis(near the CC/Taurian borders) produces JumpShips and is remarked to be a major mining world, so we'll give it a small yard. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 11 June 2018, 12:27:47
Amusingly, the LC has no yards over either Tharkad or Hesperus...

Maybe Ill build up superyards over Hesperus.  Might as well put all the eggs in the universes largest basket, right?  What could -possibly- go wrong... right?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 11 June 2018, 13:17:14
Possibilities Below:

Lyran Commonwealth Shipyards

Tamar:  Bolson-Tamar Shipyards.  Tharkad Class of 900Kt Built in 2690
New Kyoto:  Bolson Shipyards.  Mako Class of 200Kt built in 2375.
Alarion:  Port Sydney Naval Yards (Ioto Galactic Enterpirses/Bowie Industries).  Commonwealth Class of 700K built in 2375.


Free Worlds League Shipyards

Loyalty:  SelaSys Yards.  League Class of 500Kt built in 2368
Atreus:  Imstar Yards:  Productive post clan invasion, but may have been in service in 2350.
Clipperton:  Irian Technologies.  Productive post clan invasion, may have been in service in 2350.  Irian Technologies is old and big.
Irian:  As Clipperton, above.  Also home of Irian Technologies.

Capellan Commonality

Capella:  Dehli Warships.  Soyal Class of 1.5Mt built in 2731

Sarna Supremacy

No listed worlds with yards.  Likely candidates for a yard include
Axton:  Home of Wangker Aerospace
Sarna:  Capital.  Future location of Tengo Aerospace (2750).  "Dense Population"  "Heavily Industrialzed Continents"

Duchy of Liao

The Du Shi Wang (2380, 900kt) lists as being built in the Duchy of Liao.  No worlds of the Duchy are listed as major manufacturers.  Candidates below:

Aldebaran:  "Jumpship Drydock" in system.
Genoa:  "Minor Economic Powerhouse"
Liao:  Likely ruled out.  Despite being the capital, Liao is primarily agricultural - as is most of the Duchy.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 11 June 2018, 20:25:10
Im not sure there are any real yards anywhere in the inner sphere other than maybe the FWL. Remember. There historically there where no major naval engagements before the Reunifacation Wars and no one even had a warship besides the Terrans for another 20 years. The real golden age of naval battles ran from the Aramis coup to the end of the 1st Succession War.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 11 June 2018, 20:56:20
Given that I see at least two yards above with known production in 2375 (and this list is complied in a brief Sarna search), I do not think it does meaningful violence to our knowledge of IS history to allow production starting for a ‘game turn’ of 2350-2360.  While houses may have waited another decade or two historically, I dont find it necessary to believe that they had no choice - and as soon as you give players any agency in a historical setting, you are off into AU territory in any event.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 11 June 2018, 23:46:39
Thanks for that research, Marcus. So, here's our starting shipyards and incomes.

Player Nations

Lyran Commonwealth: Budget $80B. Shipyards 3/3 Alarion, 3/1 New Kyoto, 1 Tamar, 1 Gibbs

Free Worlds League: Budget $100B. Shipyards 3/1 Atreus, 3/1 Irian, 3/1 Loyalty

Draconis Combine: Budget $100B. Shipyards 3/1/1 Luthien, 3/1 New Samarkand, 1 Midway.

Taurian Concordat: Budget $10B. Shipyard 1 Taurus.

Marian Hegemony: Budget $10B. Shipyard 1 Alphard.

NPC Nations

Terran Hegemony: Budget $750B. Shipyards 6/44/333/2222/11111 Terra, 4/2/1/1 Keid, 3/1 Thorin, 3/1 Terra Firma, 3/1 New Earth, 3/1 Yorii, 3/1 Graham IV

Federated Suns: Budget $90B. Shipyards 3/1 Delevan, 3/1 Layover, 1 New Syrtis.
United Hindu Collective: Budget $20B. Shipyard 3/1 Panpour.

Capellan Commonality: Budget $25B. Shipyard 2/1 Capella.
Sarna Supremacy: Budget $25B. Shipyard 2/1 Sarna.
Duchy of Liao: Budget $15B. Shipyard 2/1 Aldebaran.
Sian Commonwealth: Budget $10B. No yards.
St. Ives Mercantile League: Budget $10B. No yards.
Tikonov Grand Union: Budget $5B. No yards.

Rim Worlds Republic: Budget $20B. Shipyard 2/1 Finmark, 1 Apollo.

Principality of Rasalhague: Budget $1B. No yards.


That should hopefully be enough for everyone to get started. I'll start working through this mass of NPC players over the next couple days.

Also, a couple small rule changes. First, if you choose to build ships with standard KF drives in your yards (i.e., armed merchantmen or primitive WarShips), your yards produce them twice as fast as compact KF drive ships(ie., true WarShips). You can produce four standard-drive ships per yard per turn. Second, we'll go with my option #2 for refit rules - if you want to refit ships or stations, create a new variant by spending 50% of the unit cost on R&D, and then upgrade them for the cost difference.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 12 June 2018, 00:44:40
One question, what about DropShips?  I would assume that these would be built at the same yard, but to what amount per turn or are we just concentrating on WarShip designs?  Same question for fighters/small craft.

And i'll assume you want fluff etc for the ships?  And is it a bad thing that i've already got two designs done and am working on the fluff :D
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 12 June 2018, 05:12:42
One question, what about DropShips?  I would assume that these would be built at the same yard, but to what amount per turn or are we just concentrating on WarShip designs?  Same question for fighters/small craft.

And i'll assume you want fluff etc for the ships?  And is it a bad thing that i've already got two designs done and am working on the fluff :D

DropShips are less cutting-edge than WarShips, and most of them can be civilian designs(even navies need a lot of cargo models). Also, they use different factory space in canon. We're assuming that the combination of the two leaves you with sufficient DropShip capacity to not worry very much about the details. Ditto fighters and small craft. The only things that are production-limited are WarShips and armed JumpShips, and even then the only reason AJS are on that list is because they'll probably use the same production lines. I'll admit that this may be somewhat unrealistic, especially for the Periphery powers, but it's a lot simpler this way. If you want to be realistic, just avoid buying thousands of them.

As for fluff, it's not strictly necessary, but it's appreciated.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 12 June 2018, 06:24:52
The TCN - Year One.

The year 2350 was one of great importance for the Taurian Concordat, it marked the completion of their first shipyard in orbit over Taurus and was seen as a major stepping point along the road to prosperity and security. 
The newly appointed Director of Naval Construction was empowered to begin immediate construction on ships that could be used to expand the Concordat and explore the outlying region around Detroit for suitable colonies and resources. 
Exploration would be undertaken by the older Aquilla class ships whilst the Taurus Naval Yard would work on construction of the first ships that would ensure the security of Taurus and the Concordat’s territories.
Its not surprising that the Concordat’s first designs were based on the Aquilla class that had brought the refugees to their new worlds.  Their first effort was  classed as a Destroyer called the Independence class.  At 75,000 tons the ship looked like a scaled down Aquilla and used many of the technologies present in the larger design.  The main visual differences were that the Independence was much more bulky and blocky thanks to its layers of armour and its weapon emplacements.

Designed to patrol Taurian space, the Independence lacked the large cargo capacity of the Aquilla class and had a shorter range, but still more than enough to reach the Taurian holdings.  The construction of the Independence also helped with the rapid industrialization of Taurus and brought in jobs and economic stability with a surge in asteroid mining and a large number of factories being constructed that could produce parts for ships and vehicles on the ground. 

The Independence was quite simply armed with a series of autocannons and missiles for anti-shipping work and the larger White Shark launchers (called the SS-M-500 ‘Rapier’ or just Rapier in Taurian service) could be fitted with nuclear warheads.
The ship also carried berths for a dozen fighters, four small craft and could dock one DropShip making her a quite flexible unit. 

Also at the TNY the Taurians first cruiser was taking shape, again, based on the Aquilla class and weighing the same at 100,000 tons the Bull Run class cruiser was in reality a scaled up Independence class ship, mirroring its armament choices and layout but with greater firepower including a pair of the newly developed SS-M-600 ‘Shipwreck’ missile launchers (Killer Whales).  Capable of carrying 24 fighters as well as 4 small craft and 1 DropShip the Bull Run was designed as a Flotilla leader and command ship.  Six Independence class ships were authorized as were a pair of Bull Run class vessels and these would form the First and Second Naval Squadrons of the Taurian Navy.

Although the construction of these eight ships was considerable, it was still well under the naval budget limits, with the excess being spent on R&D as well as overhauls and refits.  The TNC or Taurian Naval College also began construction during this period and it would admit its first class in 2358 to further assist in the growth of the TCN.

Independence Class Destroyer

At over 300 meters and massing 75,000 tons the Independence class would be considered small by later JumpShip standards but for her time she was quite large.  Heavily influenced by the Aquilla design the Independence copied many systems from the larger vessel and would feature a scaled down reactor system that was almost identical save being two thirds the size.  Armed well enough to be considered a threat to other WarShips the Independence could engage at long and shorter ranges with its mix of autocannons and missiles.  The hanger for a dozen fighters was quite prominent, even if it did make the design more cramped to serve upon and set a standard for the TCN and their marrage of fighters with WarShips.  Unfortunately weight constraints limited the rear firepower and because of the bulk of the transit drives there was less protection on the ships aft quarters. 

Despite these failings the Independence was an object of immense pride when the first ships left the yards over Taurus and the class would remain in service until eventually displaced by more modern ships.  But despite this, the Independence class was not scrapped but put into reserve or assigned to training flotillas, and because the class was cheap to produce, many ships were held in Mothballs, waiting for reactivation should the Concordat be threatened.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Independence Class Destroyer

Tech: Inner Sphere

Ship Cost: $4,566,634,000.00
Magazine Cost: $1,843,360.00
BV2: 12,476

Mass: 75,000
K-F Drive System: Primitive

Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive

Safe Thrust: 2
Maximum Thrust: 3

Armor Type: Standard

Armament:

6 Naval AC 10
2 Capital Launcher White Shark
5 Capital Launcher Barracuda
32 AC 2

Class/Model/Name: Independence Class Destroyer

Mass: 75,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 9,000.00
Thrust
Safe: 2
Maximum: 3
Controls: 188.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Primitive (4 Integrity) 37,500.00
Jump Sail: (3 Integrity) 34.00
Structural Integrity: 30 2,250.00
Total Heat Sinks: 419 Single 280.00
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 12000 points 1,224.00
Fire Control Computers: 0.00

Armor: 200 pts Standard 250.00

Fore: 40
Fore-Left/Right: 35/35
Aft-Left/Right: 30/30
Aft: 30

Dropship Capacity: 1 1,000.00
Grav Decks:
Small: 1 (100 meter) 50.00

Escape Pods: 10 70.00
Life Boats: 9 63.00

Crew And Passengers:
14 Officers in Steerage Quarters 70.00
46 Crew in Steerage Quarters 230.00
19 Gunners and Others in Steerage Quarters 95.00
44 Bay Personnel 0.00
20 Marines 100.00

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass

2 Naval AC 10 Nose 60 200 (20-C) Long-C 4,000.00
2 Capital Launcher White Shark Nose 30 60 (6-C) 240.00
4 AC 2 Nose 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00

1 Naval AC 10 FL 30 100 (10-C) 2,000.00
2 Capital Launcher Barracuda FL 20 40 (4-C) 180.00
4 AC 2 FL 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00

1 Naval AC 10 FR 30 100 (10-C) 2,000.00
2 Capital Launcher Barracuda FR 20 40 (4-C) 180.00
4 AC 2 FR 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00

1 Naval AC 10 LBS 30 100 (10-C) 2,000.00
4 AC 2 LBS 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00

1 Naval AC 10 RBS 30 100 (10-C) 2,000.00
4 AC 2 RBS 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00

4 AC 2 AL 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00

4 AC 2 AR 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00

1 Capital Launcher Barracuda Aft 10 20 (2-C) 90.00
4 AC 2 Aft 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00


Ammo Rounds
Naval AC 10 Ammo 120
Capital Launcher White Shark Ammo 30
Capital Launcher Barracuda Ammo 80
AC 2 Ammo 2,880

Aerospace group

12 x Fighters
4 x Small Craft
1 x DropShip Docking collar

Total cost including ammo - $6,409,514

Producing eight of the class would cost $51,276,112 including magazine costs

Bull Run Class Cruiser

The Aquilla TCS Onondaga would be the base frame for the TCN’s first ‘cruiser’ and at 100,000 tons the ship was large for the time.  Sharing many parts with the Aquilla and Independence class ships the Bull Run class was built to be a squadron and flotilla leader, acting as a command ship for the groups of Independence class ships that would patrol Taurian space. 
In essence ‘the same but more’ the Bull Run increased the armament and fighter capacity of the Independence at a cost in endurance.  Despite their lack of range the class still had enough firepower to make a potential attacker sit up and take notice and was felt to be well protected against the fighters and attack shuttles of the time.
Unfortunately the Bull Runs were horribly cramped thanks to their rather large crews and this made them unpopular to serve on.  Like the Independence class the Bull Runs were phased out as more modern ships came online but of the sixteen built, a dozen were held in mothballs although most would eventually be stripped for parts and eventually scrapped.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Bull Run Class Cruiser

Tech: Inner Sphere

Ship Cost: $4,691,926,000.00
Magazine Cost: $1,979,360.00
BV2: 16,137

Mass: 100,000
K-F Drive System: Primitive
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 2
Maximum Thrust: 3
Armor Type: Standard

Armament:

9 Naval AC 10
2 Capital Launcher White Shark
5 Capital Launcher Barracuda
32 AC 2
16 Machine Gun (IS)


Class/Model/Name: Bull Run Class Cruiser
Mass: 100,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 12,000.00

Thrust
Safe: 2
Maximum: 3

Controls: 250.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Primitive (4 Integrity) 50,000.00
Jump Sail: (3 Integrity) 35.00
Structural Integrity: 40 4,000.00
Total Heat Sinks: 374 Single 220.00
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 18000 points 1,836.00
Fire Control Computers: 0.00

Armor: 264 pts Standard 330.00

Fore: 52
Fore-Left/Right: 40/40
Aft-Left/Right: 40/40
Aft: 52

Dropship Capacity: 1 1,000.00
Grav Decks:
Small: 1 (100 meter) 50.00

Escape Pods: 10 70.00
Life Boats: 10 70.00

Crew And Passengers:
16 Officers in Steerage Quarters 80.00
49 Crew in Steerage Quarters 245.00
25 Gunners and Others in Steerage Quarters 125.00
68 Bay Personnel 0.00
20 Marines 100.00

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass

3 Naval AC 10 Nose 90 300 (30-C) Long-C 6,000.00
2 Capital Launcher White Shark Nose 30 60 (6-C) 240.00
4 AC 2 Nose 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00
4 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 8 (0.8-C) 2.00

1 Naval AC 10 FL 30 100 (10-C) 2,000.00
2 Capital Launcher Barracuda FL 20 40 (4-C) 180.00
4 AC 2 FL 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00

1 Naval AC 10 FR 30 100 (10-C) 2,000.00
2 Capital Launcher Barracuda FR 20 40 (4-C) 180.00
4 AC 2 FR 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00

2 Naval AC 10 LBS 60 200 (20-C) 4,000.00
4 AC 2 LBS 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00
4 Machine Gun (IS) LBS 8 (0.8-C) 2.00

2 Naval AC 10 RBS 60 200 (20-C) 4,000.00
4 AC 2 RBS 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00
4 Machine Gun (IS) RBS 8 (0.8-C) 2.00

4 AC 2 AL 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00

4 AC 2 AR 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00

1 Capital Launcher Barracuda Aft 10 20 (2-C) 90.00
4 AC 2 Aft 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00
4 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 8 (0.8-C) 2.00


Ammo Rounds
Naval AC 10 Ammo 330
Capital Launcher White Shark Ammo 30
Capital Launcher Barracuda Ammo 80
AC 2 Ammo 2880
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 3200

Aerospace Group

24 x Fighters
4 x Small Craft
1 x DropShip Collar

Cargo 2570 tons

Total cost including ammunition - $7,271,286


6 x Independence - 38,457,084
2 x Bull Run - 14,542,572


Total - 52,999,656.00

Marathon Class IPS

The Marathon class of Interstellar Patrol Ship was the TCN’s equivalent of a corvette and was designed to be cheap to build and operate, requiring minimal crew whilst having enough of a punch to threaten larger ships or deal with any Pirate craft it might encounter.  At 50,000 tons the ship would be outmassed by later DropShips and it was very cramped, lacking in many basic amenities and even a grav-deck.  But the stripped-down hull and its powerful reactors did have one advantage, it was fast.  Capable of pulling up to 3g of sustained thrust. 
But with all the yards occupied it was not able to build the Marathon class until the Independence and Bull Run class were completed and construction of the class was not authorized at first although there was the budget to build them and they were seen as a useful screening element to any future formation.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Marathon Class IPS
Mass: 50,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 12,000.00
Thrust
Safe: 4
Maximum: 6
Controls: 125.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Primitive (3 Integrity) 25,000.00
Jump Sail: (3 Integrity) 33.00
Structural Integrity: 25 1,250.00
Total Heat Sinks: 154 Single
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 20000 points 2,040.00
Fire Control Computers: 0.00

Armor: 157 pts Standard 196.00

Fore: 18
Fore-Left/Right: 16/16
Aft-Left/Right: 14/14
Aft: 15

Dropship Capacity: 0
Grav Decks:
None
Escape Pods: 5 35.00
Life Boats: 5 35.00

Crew And Passengers:

12 Officers in Steerage Quarters 60.00
43 Crew in Steerage Quarters 215.00
8 Gunners and Others in Steerage Quarters 40.00
5 Bay Personnel

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass

1 Capital Launcher White Shark Nose 15 30 (3-C) Extreme-C 120.00
2 AC 2 Nose 2 4 (0.4-C) 12.00

1 Capital Launcher Barracuda FL 10 20 (2-C) 90.00
2 AC 2 FL 2 4 (0.4-C) 12.00

1 Capital Launcher Barracuda FR 10 20 (2-C) 90.00
2 AC 2 FR 2 4 (0.4-C) 12.00

1 Naval AC 10 LBS 30 100 (10-C) 2,000.00

1 Naval AC 10 RBS 30 100 (10-C) 2,000.00

3 AC 5 AL 3 15 (1.5-C) 24.00

3 AC 5 AR 3 15 (1.5-C) 24.00

1 Capital Launcher Barracuda Aft 10 20 (2-C) 90.00

Ammo Rounds

Capital Launcher Killer Whale Ammo 25
Capital Launcher Barracuda Ammo 40
Naval AC 10 Ammo 50
AC 5 Ammo 360
AC 2 Ammo 810

Aerospace group

1 x Small craft

Cargo capacity - 1,200 tons

(http://www.smikesworld.dk/smworld/b5wallpapers/7tango7_skylark.jpg)

A digital rendering of the Marathon class ship shows its small size and stripped down nature as well as its forwards launch bay for its shuttle.


Any thoughts and comments are most welcome!








Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 12 June 2018, 06:37:51
Let's knock off some of the easy nations on the NPC side.

The Principality of Rasalhague is buying 200 fighters(200*5 = 1,000), and nothing else. They're trying to smuggle them in with hopes of ambushing a major Draconis convoy, if they can.

The Tikonov Grand Union is being wracked by riots right now, along with economic chaos and recent invasions, even though it's technically at peace right now. They've decided to invest in a rapid-reaction force for their army. They're buying a JumpShip(500), three DropShips to fill its collars(3*300 = 900), and a dozen fighters(12*5=60) for the carrier-fit DS to allow forces to be moved between planets. To assist planetary forces, they're buying two hundred shuttles (200=10 = 2,000) to be loaned out to police and army forces on major planets as a rapid-reaction force against cities that are particularly restive, and three hundred planet-based fighters(300*5 = 1,500) for use in extreme cases. A small research program(40) is initiated with a focus on fighter-equippable nonlethal weaponry for riot control.

(Out of character note - the research goal is just fluff. They have no control over what gets researched.)

The Rim Worlds Republic is in the middle of going Meiji, trying to build up educational infrastructure while not freaking out their neighbours too badly. As such, WarShips are on their back burner. They're buying a dozen civilian JumpShips (12*500 = 6,000) and the DropShips to match (36*300 = 10,800), in hopes of building up a merchant marine that can discover Inner Sphere technology faster, and perhaps spur colonists to consider RWR planets. Not wanting to neglect home defence entirely, they're also investing in twenty wings of fighters(18 per wing, 360*5 = 1,800) for planetary defence, and starting a broad-based research effort to catch up with Inner Sphere technology levels(1,400).

I was going to have the SIML and UHC buy a lot of stations, but the spreadsheet doesn't do station cost calculations correctly. I'll release an updated version of the spreadsheet soon-ish, and run those nations once I've done that. Besides, I have to head to work. I should at least be able to figure out Terran shipyards at that point.

I've also started a Google Docs sheet to keep a master list of everything in a more usable format than the forum thread. It's not finished, but see here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rzh-GEbKmiqNfPPj-zQj-9ZqiWKz11MmtqM73815wOo/edit?usp=sharing) for what I do have.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 12 June 2018, 07:26:18
Marauder - I love it.   Very Taurian/Minor power.  Also, I am ashamed.  -takes my pile of munchkined murderdeathkill designs and scraps, starts over-

Questions: 
1.)  Are we limited to Primitive Drives?  I thought we had compact cores - or is Marauder being Periphery Appropriate?

2.)  A class I yard can build 2 Class 1 Ships (250k).  A class 3 yard 2 class 3 ships (750k).  Can a Class 3 yard build 6 Class 1 ships?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 12 June 2018, 07:33:14
Thank you :D

I'm being peripherpy appropriate, if we're building the navy from the ground up, i'd want to start with technology thats familiar and common at the time, so the primitive jumpship core is, in my mind common enough faire that even the Taurians with their limited industrial base can build them, mainly thanks to just throwing enough manpower at it and having abundant resources fairly available to hand.

Also i'm going, at first for quantity, and once yards, doctrine and training are established fully as well as the industry to support them, then we'll see a doctrinal shift and change.

And by habit I try not to make munchy designs, yeah its easy to do a 2.5MT ship with a cargo bay of 2000 tons and the rest going into weapons and armour, but its harder and more challenging and, I find it more enjoyable to make a ship that's at least close to canon and without reaching for the big wheel of edam cheese.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 12 June 2018, 07:59:04
Thank you :D

I'm being peripherpy appropriate, if we're building the navy from the ground up, i'd want to start with technology thats familiar and common at the time, so the primitive jumpship core is, in my mind common enough faire that even the Taurians with their limited industrial base can build them, mainly thanks to just throwing enough manpower at it and having abundant resources fairly available to hand.

Also i'm going, at first for quantity, and once yards, doctrine and training are established fully as well as the industry to support them, then we'll see a doctrinal shift and change.

And by habit I try not to make munchy designs, yeah its easy to do a 2.5MT ship with a cargo bay of 2000 tons and the rest going into weapons and armour, but its harder and more challenging and, I find it more enjoyable to make a ship that's at least close to canon and without reaching for the big wheel of edam cheese.

I think Im going to split the baby.  Optimize hard, but not for the usual things.  Balance  SI tonnage to throweight tonnage, mount enough cargo to not sweat fleet resupply (as unlike the Hegemony, -I- have no interest in projecting power across the entire inner sphere - so ‘a lot’ of cargo for me is way less than SL standard).

Basically a confortable, roomy, sustainable fleet, heavy on soft stats, that Mahan would approve of.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 12 June 2018, 08:00:42
That makes perfect sense :) Whilst the TCN at the start is very much a littorial navy and yeah the cargo space on the SLDF ships was absurd, but then again that's mostly due to the fluff for them being done before the rules were a thing, which left so many with great globs of cargo space.

I can also see the Taurians producing a fair few dropships, and I plan to make a Drost equivalent especially the assault dropship which came out and patrol ships like that would basically be the bread and butter of a Taurian worlds defences, with dropships and fighters being the main defence until the fleet gets there.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 12 June 2018, 08:04:59
Well, as I said above - the SLN isnt -that bad- once you look at their deployment areas and the fact that a 1.5 MT ship costs way, way less than 3x500kt ships.  Easy enough to just upgrade the carto space on a 700kt cruiser into a 1MT cruiser, and leave everything else the same.

Im waffling between my first hulls being maid-of-all-work corvettes or some serious batleline DDs.  I just hate building little guys on turn 1 that Im going to be buying over and over and over, in terms of maintenance - but no fleet ever complained that it had -too many- light, multipurpose hulls...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 12 June 2018, 08:10:43
Oh indeed with the SLN its not the one Essex II you've got to worry about, its her three other mates and the Sov Soy leading them that you also need to pay attention to :p
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 12 June 2018, 08:21:37
Marauder: That is way, way higher than your budget. Remember, lead ships cost double. The first Independence costs 9,134M and the first Bull Run costs 9,384M. You have a total budget of 10,000M, and while I'm allowing deficits, the rules are punitive and the deficit cap is too low for you to build both. From fluff, I'd suggest you build one Independence, buy the support craft to go along with it(12*5+4*10+1*300 = 400M), and spend the other 466M on research and/or system defence.

Marcus: You have compact cores, and even sub-compact(Bug-Eye) cores. You don't need to use them, though. And no, big yards can't pump out zillions of small ships. You in particular have far too much yard space for your budget(because I gave the Lyrans lots of yards to represent industrial muscle and comparatively little budget due to political chaos), and some of the yard space will probably sit idle. Once your politics get under control in a few turns, it'll be less pinched.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 12 June 2018, 08:30:28
I thought the budget was 10 billion, not 10 million hence my confusion.  Also where are the rules about costs and the like? I don't recall seeing them anywhere.

aurian Concordat: Budget $10B. Shipyard 1 Taurus.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 12 June 2018, 08:33:01
Im well aware of my oversized yards.  Wasnt planning on usig them to build a swarm, but was curious.

 Im not going to be building anything like a full production schedule.  I think a flight of committee-designed corvettes to represent different interests from 9 different archons.

Im also -painfully- aware of where a few of those yards are located!  Right on my borders...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 12 June 2018, 09:20:08
I thought the budget was 10 billion, not 10 million hence my confusion.  Also where are the rules about costs and the like? I don't recall seeing them anywhere.

Taurian Concordat: Budget $10B. Shipyard 1 Taurus.

Your budget is $10B = $10,000M. If you mean my cost list, it's here (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1419323#msg1419323). If you mean the official cost calculation process, it's described in StratOps, but the spreadsheet calculates them for you. It's wrong for stations(it assumes they have a K-F drive, which drives up the cost like crazy), but the ship numbers seem accurate. Your post had costs in it for your first two ships, which is what I used to come up with those numbers:
Quote
Class/Model/Name:   Independence Class Destroyer

Tech:    Inner Sphere

Ship Cost:   $4,566,634,000.00
Quote
Class/Model/Name:   Bull Run Class Cruiser

Tech:    Inner Sphere

Ship Cost:   $4,691,926,000.00

Double those values due to lead-ship costs, and you get the $9,134M and $9,384M I quoted. So you can afford one, but not both just yet. Save the other one for a turn or two down the line, perhaps. They're very reasonable Taurian starter designs, both in stats and in fluff, but you're a small nation. Doing R&D and production on two new WarShip designs at once is just too much for you to handle right now. (FYI, budgets will mostly go up over time as your empires develop, and of course you'll also build up a backlog of existing designs that can be built more cheaply)

Edit: I just realized number systems might be the issue here. I'm Canadian, and we use the American numbering system - commas are thousand separators, periods start the decimal, and a billion is 10^9. If any of you are from other parts of the world, some of these conventions may be different. To type it up in an unambiguous way, the Taurian budget is $10 000 000 000, or 10 000 million.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 12 June 2018, 09:25:51
OH!

I think I may know what went wrong here....

Is it possible that Alsadius is in the U.S., and marauder in Britain or thereabout?

In BRITIAN, 1000 Million is a MILLIARD.  A MILLION Millions is called a Billion.

In the UNITED STATES, 1000 Million is called a Billion, and a MILLION Millions is called a Trillion.

I think the design intent is that budgets are in U.S. Billions, 1x10 to the 9th CBill equivalents.

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 12 June 2018, 09:30:02
yep I'm a Brit, so when I saw 10B that meant 10 billion which is a hell of a lot more than 10 million :D  So basically the budget is 10 million Cbills.  Okay :p

Unfortunately, I'm probably gonna have to drop out, I was doing the ships and fluff as a distraction during breaks at work, but I don't really have the ability or time to take part in a full on campaign I am afraid.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 12 June 2018, 09:37:07
yep I'm a Brit, so when I saw 10B that meant 10 billion which is a hell of a lot more than 10 million :D  So basically the budget is 10 million Cbills.  Okay :p

Unfortunately, I'm probably gonna have to drop out, I was doing the ships and fluff as a distraction during breaks at work, but I don't really have the ability or time to take part in a full on campaign I am afraid.

10 American-billion is still quite a lot more than 10 million, but it's quite a bit less than 10 British-billion. You can afford one or two ships a round at that price, plus various sundries. And tbh, you've already done enough work to last the first several turns, so you can coast on that for the time being. I don't intend for this to be a killer pace - one new design and a bit of fluff every week is more than enough, especially for a Periphery player.

(Heck, even if you're sure about dropping out, I'll be using them for the first few turns regardless. Less work for me, and they really are good designs.)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 12 June 2018, 09:40:24
10 Milliard by your standards, I believe.  Your budget would be 10 Thousand Million.

And please dont drop out!  Your like one of the major warship guys.  I reckon a turn every week or two should be easy enough for your time schedule, and I really like your designs.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 12 June 2018, 09:47:13
okay okay, you twisted my arm :D

And speaking of Warships

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61530.0

Have a read of that if you want and if you feel like it, lemme know what you think :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 12 June 2018, 12:19:06
Lyran Commonwealth Turn 1, 2350-2360.

This one is a NOVEL, because it covers doctrine, deployment, design rationales, and the like clear.  Expect later turns to be much more cut and dried, unless those things change.

This post may be edited to include a fluff/RP post or two going into more detail on doctrine, and/or an RP piece set from the POV of the LCN First Lord of Admiralty 2350, Jacqueline Angler.

Code: [Select]
Lyran Commonwealth, Turn Beginning 2350
Starting Funds:  0
Income:  80,000,000,000
Starting Shipyards: Alarion: 3/3  New Kyoto: 3/1  Tamar 1  Gibbs 1
Starting Warships: None
Starting Jumpships:  None
Starting Dropships:  None
Starting Fighters:  None



Expenditure Cost
Maintenance 0
Prototype Production: 1 Heimdaller FF 10.234B
Standard Production:  5 Heimdaller FF 25.635B
Jumpship Production: 30         15B
Dropship Production: 0 0
Small Craft:  240 (4 Regiments) 2.4B
Fighter:  4,800 Fighters (80 Regiments) 24B
Research:  2.731 Billion 2.731B
Total: 80B



Lyran Commonwealth, Turn Ending 2360
Ending Funds:  0
Ending Shipyards: Alarion: 3/3  New Kyoto: 3/1  Tamar 1  Gibbs 1
Ending Warships:  Heimdaller FF x6 30.702B
Ending Jumpships:  30
Ending Dropships:  0
Ending Small Craft 240 (4 Regiments)
Ending Fighters: 4,800 (80 Regiments)


Rationale/Explanation:
The first flight of Heimdaller class 240Kt Frigates are intended as multi-purpose, maid-of-all-work ships, able to deploy
20 fighters, two brigades of troops, suppress enemy fighter strikes with their 150 Barracuda missile tubes, or stand off
and hopefully dissuade (or arrange to disengage from) larger enemy vessels with those same massed missile launches.

Jumpship production is intended to encourage trade and ties between the three realms of the new LC.  Any unused
warship yard space will also be made available to building unlisted jump ships for the civilian market at cost.  In
exchange for this, all interstellar carriers are subject to being nationalized in times of national crisis, as well as expected
to carry consumables (fuel, food, parts, etc) as required for any LCN ship operating in their area.

The lack of Dropship production is based on the lack of docking collars on LCN Warships.  Civilian shipping concerns are
considered to provide their own dropships when using LCN “Military Reserve” Jumpships.

Heavy Small Craft (and -massive- fighter) production is for utility and defensive purposes.  The LC is surrounded by
larger, not necessarily friendly, powers.  It further has two of its shipyards located almost on the border with those
powers.  Fighters represent an essentially defensive posture, as a few regiments of fighters, coupled with the heavy
ammunition and fuel loads carried by a planet, can far more effectively defend a world than the same C-Bills in Warship.
All fighters not carried on ships may be considered deployed to forward -Naval- fighter bases, where they will defend the
world and its assets against hostile landing, as well as operating in support of ground forces if the enemy is able to land.
Lyran fighters are designed and optimized for this purpose.

The remainder spent on research (equivalent to half of a 7th frigate!) may be misspent (I am still not certain R&D is a
worthwhile expenditure under these rules, given the fact that it gives only a 1 turn advantage), but it fits the fluff of the
nation and no navy has long prospered by ignoring the advance of technology, so the LCN will not.


Naval Doctrine:
1.) The Seat of Purpose is on the Land.  All Naval activities (including destruction of enemy naval assets) exist to
further territorial purposes.  Commerce Protection is still a territorial purpose.  The massive fighter regiments are
primarily defensive. 

2.) Calculated Risk.  Lyran ships will generally be tough for their class (14% mass to SI) and with extensive defensive
armaments.  Fighters are primarily a defensive and second-strike weapon.  They are expected to use this resilience to
take calculated risk.  Vessels are not to be risked without a reasonable chance for commensurate gain, with the
exception of the defense of civilian lives.  So long as the sacrifice has even a chance of making a meaningful difference,
Lyran ships are expected to fight to the last to allow civilians a chance for shelter, succor, or flight, and to risk
themselves in support of troops.  This is not entirely altruistic, as a Navy that the Army loves is a Navy that gets more
money, in a battlemech centric universe. :)

3.) Extended Deployment/Agile Posture:  Lyran ships are intentionally and heavily over-engineered and provisioned.
This is reflected in power systems (200% of required heatsinks), the lack of bay quarters (all personnel in full up
quarters – this improves morale on long deployments and reduces supply usage), quirks (easy to maintain), extensive
small craft loadouts, the presence of marines on every ship (useful for flag showing, customs, etc), largish cargo holds
(though smaller than Star League, the LCN does not need to deploy for years across the entire periphery), commonly
installed Large Comm-Sensor Suites, and the like.  Lyran ships do not operate Drop Ships or a Jump Ship/Drop Ship
Fleet Train, being provisioned to function without them.  Each ship has two crews, one relieving the other.

The intention is that Lyran ships should need little yard time or rest/replenishment time, and be ready to respond at all
times to any opportunity presented.  To this end, the large cargo holds are a reserve – on deployment in friendly or
neutral space, Lyran vessels will where possible take on supplies from civilian bases, so that their onboard cargo serves
as reserve if they are required to go forward for offensive action.

4.) WMD Policy:  Biological and Chemical Agents will not be used, developed, deployed, or carried.  Nuclear weapons
are carried.  Nuclear weapons are on a strict ‘no first use’ policy, but once an enemy has used them, they are weapons
free and will be used without restriction against naval targets.  Nuclear weapons will not be used against a planetary
surface.  Warship weaponry may be used as fire support, but only well outside civilian areas.  There is no justification
sufficient for mass civilian casualties, and even limited civilian casualties (such as are common in commerce warfare)
will be avoided when operationally possible.


Heimdaller (Frigate)

   The Heimdaller frigate was the first warship laid down by the nascent Lyran Commonwealth in 2350.  Originally envisioned as a fast, well armed heavy destroyer capable of 4G’s acceleration and carrying heavy broadside armament, the intent was for the Heimdaller to be able to stand as a military equal with anything being produced by the surrounding states, and even to if necessary stand-off forces from the nascent Terran Hegemony, if that giant should turn its attention to conquest.

   This was not to be.  First Lord Jaqueline Angler, 1st Baron Angler, TVR, FR, ACM, was to be disappointed as her budget, plans, and priorities were ‘nibbled to death by ducks’.  The 9 Archons of the Lyran Commonwealth did not speak with a single voice.  The Army wanted an armed transport.  The Naval Aviation advocates demanded vast flight decks and enough docking collars to support a virtual cloud of light, dropship hulled carriers.  Military Manufacturers wanted something carrying as many, and as large, a set of guns as possible – except for the ones that wanted as many Capital Missile Launchers as possible.  Leaders of border worlds wanted warship monitors and defense satellites stationed over their worlds.  The great trading cartels wanted armed jumpships, but would settle for ‘Warships’ that were essentially vast cargo holds with some notional weapons.

   It should have been a disaster.  Instead, Lord Angler engaged in a series of compromises with the vessel, and the naval procurement board, trading favors like horses from one concern to another.   The Army got transport for a heavy armored brigade and an infantry brigade, and a promise that the navy would look out for them.  The Naval Air arm got a flight of fighters shipboard, and an order for a massive fleet of new Aerospace Fighters – which were then parceled out to naval air bases along the threatened boarder worlds.  The Manufacturers got missile launchers, and a promise to buy more missiles.  The cartels got additional jumpship production on the condition that the navy have use of those jumpships when necessity demanded it.

   And Jane Angler, TVR, FR, ACM, got a warship.  What was left after the horse-trading finished was a capable, flexible ‘maid of all work’.  The over-large hullform originally designed is expensive to produce (Heimdaller costs nearly half as much as the originally planned warship – which would have been three times her size) but saves space for many items that normally are secondary priorities.  Her over-large engine spaces and downrated drives result in the GN-3 Ginny “Torchdrives” requiring little maintenance, and that easy to perform.  Crew berthing spaces are extensive for even the lowest rating or private, improving morale and efficiency on long deployments.  Spare space that once was intended to carry Naval Cannon ports is packed with advanced sensors and monitoring equipment, complete with redundant systems.  Extensive small boat bays and the presence of a company of marines allows the vessel to serve as relief, support, or customs duty – and those same boat bays allow it to deploy its carried armored brigade in just a handful of trips.

   All of this flexibility and sustainability does not come for free.  Capital armament is limited to an array of light capital missiles, license-built McRoss Industries knockoffs of the Hegemony Barracuda based on plans sourced from DiTron Industries.  The phenomenal number of tubes allows the Heimdaller to sweep the skies of enemy fighters, or threaten even larger ships from extreme ranges, but reloads are limited – the Heimdaller will have to roll ship to present fresh ammunition supplies after a mere five salvos.  Much debate was had over the -choice- of capital missile, with strong advocates existing for both the medium and heavy weight missiles - both outperform the Barracuda in firepower per ton, and the medium weight 'White Shark' clone was notable for its armor piercing qualities.  The light missile was ultimately chosen for its greater accuracy, both in having a built in anti-fighter guidance system, and because the missile itself is more accurate against all targets than almost any other naval weapon.* 

Further, the heavy internal bracing and structural members of the planned heavy destroyer were greatly reduced in the smaller frigate – leaving the Heimdaller far more fragile than Admiral Angler intended.

   For all her flaws, compromises, and drawbacks, the Heimdaller proved a generally useful light warship, as much at home transporting and supporting troops as she is doing customs work, anti-piracy patrols, showing the flag, or providing escort to ‘true’ capital ships.  Indeed, the LCN was much taken with the positive qualities that came from the original, unintentional downsizing, and in many ways the Heimdaller set the pattern for what would follow.

*Footnote:  The Humble Barracuda, while having slightly less absolute range than the NL/55 or HNPPC, actually has a longer 'Short' 'Medium' and 'Long' Bracket than -any- other naval weapon, due to having a double-sized 'short' range (Barracuda is 'Short' from 1-20, 'Medium' from 21-30, etc.  All other naval weapons have equally sized brackets).  As a result, the Barracuda is firing at 'Medium' at least as soon as the big energy naval weapons, and is actually at THN 6 Medium while the mighty NAC/30, king of Naval Weapons, is still in its THN 10 extreme bracket.  A small advantage, but potentially a telling one for one turn of nearly unreturned fire.

Code: [Select]
Heimdaller FF
Tech: Inner Sphere
Introduced: 2350
Mass: 240,000 tons
Length: 857 meters
Width:  133 meters
Height:  90 meters
Sail Diameter: 773 meters
Fuel: 2,000 tons (5,000)
Tons/Burn-day: 39.52
Safe Thrust: 3
Maximum Thrust: 5
Sail Integrity: 4
KF Drive Integrity: 7
Heat Sinks: 3,320 (200%)
Structural Integrity: 60
BV2: 104,620
Cost:  $5.127B

Armor
Fore: 20
Fore-Sides: 34
Aft-Sides: 40
Aft: 40

Cargo
Bay 1 (Nose): 20 Fighters (4 Doors)
Bay 2 (RBS):  9 Small Craft, 9 Light Vehicles, 9 Heavy Vehicles (3 Doors)
Bay 3 (LBS):  9 Small Craft, 9 Light Vehicles, 9 Heavy Vehicles (3 Doors)
Bay 3 (Aft):  84 Marines, 252 Infantry (0 Doors)
Bay 4 (Aft):  8190 Tons Cargo (1 Door)
(Typical Cargo is 1 Year of Food, 2,400 Tons Spare Parts/Supplies, and 4000 Tons mission tailored)

DropShip Capacity: 0
Grav Decks: 1 (80 meters diameter)
Escape Pods: 80
Life Boats: 80

Crew:  618 (Includes Vehicle Crews and 1 Tech per 2 Vehicles/Spacecraft)
Marines:    84
Troops: 252
All Crew, Marines, Troops in 1st/2nd Class Quarters

Ammunition: 750 Barracuda Missiles
16000 AC/5 Rounds
16000 MG Rounds

Notes:
Large NCSS
Mounts 288 tons of Standard armor. 
200% of required heat sinks
Quirks:  Easy to Maintain, Improved Communications, Poor Performance


Weapons:

Nose:
10 Barracuda (50 Rnds)
20 AC/5 (2000 Rnds)
20 MG (2000 Rnds)


Fore Left/Right:
20 Barracuda (100 Rnds)
20 AC/5 (2000 Rnds)
20 MG (2000 Rnds)

Broadside:
20 Barracuda (100 Rnds)
20 AC/5 (2000 Rnds)
20 MG (2000 Rnds)

Aft Left/Right:
20 Barracuda (100 Rnds)
20 AC/5 (2000 Rnds)
20 MG (2000 Rnds)

Rear:
20 Barracuda (100 Rnds)
20 AC/5 (2000 Rnds)
20 MG (2000 Rnds)


Shu Heavy Fighter

Named for the Egyptian Goddess of the wind that stood between the realms of Earth and Sky, the Shu Heavy Fighter was the result of a design competition announced in 2340 to build what would become the primary naval fighter of the budding LCN.

Two primary designs made it into the final phase.  The leading entry, from Bowie Industries, topped out the fighter weight class and practically dripped with firepower, its wide flying wings supporting a full 8 autocannon.  Firepower demonstrations never failed to impress the politicians, and it was looking as if Bowie had a lock on the contract as it entered the final phase.

CBM Corporation of Donegal’s lighter Shu class fighter, though still formally a ‘heavy’ unit, offered less than half of the firepower of the Bowie entry, in exchange for greater performance and much greater resilience.  Though the Naval Procurement office preferred the lighter craft, it was in the process of being overruled by those who held the purse strings, and CBM Corporation publicly challenged Bowie Industries to a fly off, with the contract on the line.  Unable to back out without losing face, Bowie agreed.

The initial stages of the competition involved testing handling, time-to-climb, endurance, and firepower tests.  Both designs performed well, but the Shu’s minor advantage in maneuverability was more than offset by the massive firepower of the Bowie’s 8 cannon as the test entered into its final phase.

The final round of testing was atmospheric combat maneuvering.  Here the Shu’s performance mattered more, but even with an advantage in hits scored, the Bowie entry looked too far ahead to catch.  In the closing minutes of the timed match, the Bowie fighter lost control in a close pass, driving itself headlong into the Shu.

The Shu’s reinforced structure and 23 tons of armor plate sheared through the Bowie’s wing as if the heavier fighter was made of tissue.  The heavier fighter had sacrificed almost all armor protection in the name of firepower, and its structure collapsed on impact.  The Shu was thrown out of control, but the pilot recovered in time to look over his shoulder and see the Bowie’s pilot floating to the ground under a canopy.

When asked about this surprising turn of events, the test pilot for CMB Corporation merely winked and said ‘Are you kidding?  It was a shoo-in.”

CBM Corporation of Donegal Licensed its winner to Lockheed of Gibbs, as it was unable to complete all orders itself.  This competition and purchase set the pattern for future aerospace procurement in the Lyran Commonwealth.  Even centuries later, it is stated as an important day for the Lyran Air Forces, with one historian reported as saying “Imagine if Bowie got the contract?  Centuries later our entire heavy air force would have consisted of flying wings with more guns than sense.”

Code: [Select]
Type: SH-2 Shu
Technology Base: Inner Sphere
Tonnage: 85
YIS: 2350
Cost: ~5,000,000

Equipment: Mass
Engine: 340 VOX         27
Safe Thrust: 6
Maximum Thrust         9
Structural Integrity 8
Heat Sinks 10 0
Fuel 400 5
Cockpit 3
Armor Factor: 368 23
Armor
Value
Nose 128
Wings 90
Aft 60

Weapons and Ammo Location
3xAC/5 Nose 24
Ammo, AC/5 (60)         Nose 3

Quirks:
Easy to Pilot, Easy to Maintain, Atmospheric Flyer, Poor Cooling Jacket (Autocannon)


SH-2B Shu
Bomber/Strike Variant.  Removes 2 Autocannon and 2 Tons of Ammo.  Replaces with 18 Tons Cargo.  Equipping the Shu
with a large internal bomb bay forced several adjustments to the reaction control system and internal linkages, so that
the SH-2B became a bit of a hanger queen compared to its fighter cousins and lost its gentle and forgiving nature in the
air.
Quirks:  Internal Bomb Bay, Difficult to Maintain, Hard to Pilot
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 12 June 2018, 17:15:59
Marian Hegemony: Budget $10M. Shipyard 1 Alphard

I'm restructuring the above to match American English. Better for me...

Marians are currently spending half their load on Mariany things...

Greasing the Patricians hands and working the systems that govern the Hegemony, while the Plebeians, middle-class, toil at making life easy for themselves with the various slaves doing the actual work!

Senate decreed the purchase of several Aquilla class Jumpships and Aerospace Fighter Squadrons. While these will take time to acquire, the Imperator has suggested that some of the fundings should go towards Foreign Intelligence gatherings.

The construction of a pair of Saturn Patrol Dropships should help with the incoming traffic, with a Squadron always on patrol. Currently a Friendly Envoy is on her way to the Taurian Concordat with hopes of a Reseach and Buying Technology survey.

(  >:D You all know me... I have something up my sleeve... )

Imperator Pi
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 12 June 2018, 18:10:42
Two late questions:
1) Is the Naval Laser AAA mode available right out of the gate, or is it a tech like bracketing to be discovered later?

2) Should we be posting our turn budgets openly, or PM'ing em to Mr GM? Would prevent all of us knowing exactly what everyone's fleet compositon is. Maybe the start of turn report includes the number of ships (but not specific #'s per class) and total tonnage of the fleet for each faction, with only that player and the GM knowing the real truth?

For the sake of keeping an even playing field, I'll post my budget openly -when its finished. Just a thought for the future.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 12 June 2018, 18:21:02
Nibbled to death by ducks? Londo would be so proud lol
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 12 June 2018, 18:29:01
The Lyran Commonwealth is an open society.  We encourage the free flow of goods, ideas, and information.  :)

My sense is that for management purposes, easier to keep everything public.  Also lets observers have something to observe.  I anticipate everyone will be pursuing their own doctrine, rather than trying to mirror/counter opponents moves - and if people juggle their builds turn to turn to counter one another, they risk ruining their own force’s coherence.

My unsolicited vote is to allow AA targeting for Naval Lasers - EVERY naval weapon exists in the shadow of the NAC, so Im down for helping the others any way I can.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 12 June 2018, 18:31:08
Nibbled to death by ducks? Londo would be so proud lol

Oh, the whole thing is just stuffed to sickness with references and nods.  If it were for any kind of offical publication, Id -have- to take 3/4ths of them out.  Here I indulge myself for my own and hopefully shared amusement.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 12 June 2018, 18:52:13
@ marcussmythe PM sent...

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: DOC_Agren on 12 June 2018, 21:17:41
I have not time to take part but this is going to be interesting to watch
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 13 June 2018, 06:48:00
We already have Barracudas with their to-hit bonus, so AAA targeting doesn't seem like anything new. Also, I don't have room for it on my tech list. So yeah, it's active now.

I'd prefer public posts for turns. It's a lot easier for me - I don't need a black ops rule set, I'm not the only one who has to double-check the calculations, and it's more fun for the observers. If you guys all feel differently I can work with PM turns, but I'll only switch this up if most of you feel strongly.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 13 June 2018, 06:52:43
Thought for the day - LNCSS's get EXPENSIVE... I think it may have cost me a big chunk of another ship.  :(
Oh, well.  What price initiative?

Other thoughts - upgrading crew quarters.  Steerage/Bay quarters are cheap as chips in tonnage compared to actual, and leaving your flight crews in them makes for better looking cargo hold sizes - but it may be a false economy.  When I ran the numbers on the Heimdaller, she actually had ~far~ longer legs with her infantry and flight crew in formal quarters than when they were in bay quarters, even if I devoted all of the tonnage saved into food stores!  I dont want to think about how well that recycling technology must work.

Of course, the downside is that if you arent carrying the troops and vehicles, you cant put something ELSE in that tonnage.  But everything is trade-offs.

*EDIT*
I know we cant direct our research.  But for whatever it is worth, I'd like to state that Lyran Naval Researchers are -fascinated- by computers, AI, and autonomous systems.  Better guidance systems for missiles, better targeting systems for guns, pilot aids, better autopilots, Strong General AI.  You know, stuff. :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 13 June 2018, 15:07:29
Rules Question: 

For purposes of this exercise, are we using Standard or Advanced Aerospace Ranges?

I know you arent gaming out the battles, but the rules still define the weapon characteristics of the universe - characteristics of which the naval designers would be aware.

My suggestion is that the the advanced, individual ranges give us a more interesting design space and a rationale for a greater spread of weapons.  As you noted in your capital weapon analysis, the NAC/30 is king.  It reaches to long, and is just as accurate to the edge of long as a HNPPC or NL/55 - with the result that those weapons are not good choices.  (Effective attack in the extreme band is basically impossible - base THN of 10, plus EM and ECM renders extreme range fire basically meaningless). Under advanced ranges, the HNPPC not only reaches further, but has better brackets even as the range closes - such that it may have better THNs than the NAC even if both ate in range, and allow something like McKenna to use that accuracy advantage within -effective- ranges to show strongly against a NAC heavy design.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 13 June 2018, 15:16:41
the NAC/30 is king

Not to derail, but the NAC/30 can only be king if you are not using weapon bays or bracketing fire. A mix of NAC/20's and /10's are better, since you can reach the 70 point max for weapon bays, and hit the full 4-weapon bonus for bracketing fire, neither of which can an NAC/30 do, making it less dangerous.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 13 June 2018, 15:26:57
Not to derail, but the NAC/30 can only be king if you are not using weapon bays or bracketing fire. A mix of NAC/20's and /10's are better, since you can reach the 70 point max for weapon bays, and hit the full 4-weapon bonus for bracketing fire, neither of which can an NAC/30 do, making it less dangerous.

Well, we certainly arent bracketing as Houses in 2350.  :)

Its a good point, and not a derail.  But under your conditions, Id just run 3 NAC20s and an NAC10, reach to long, bracket fully - and were still left with the NAC as king, just changed which one(s).  :)

I wanna scratch my head and go ‘hmm’, not have a clear winner choice - and I think the individual ranges (and espc accuracy based on them) helps with that.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 13 June 2018, 18:11:58
Personally I'm getting around the bracketing problem by using multiple 2-gun bays rather than making bays that do 70 damage.

One last question I swear: How would I cost additional training? Can't match the Hegemony in numbers or ship quality, but crew quality is doable. And I want my navigators to be able to nail those pirate points.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 13 June 2018, 18:17:21
Personally I'm getting around the bracketing problem by using multiple 2-gun bays rather than making bays that do 70 damage.

One last question I swear: How would I cost additional training? Can't match the Hegemony in numbers or ship quality, but crew quality is doable. And I want my navigators to be able to nail those pirate points.

My understanding is that better training is reflected in spending more on maintenance.  The default maintenance cost for a vessel is 1% per year (so 10% per turn).  You may choose to spend more, or less, with consequences to be determined by the GM.

I have -assumed- in my production schedule that you don't pay to maintain new builds, as they would be active for 5 of your ten years (if they were the first production out of a yard) or only leaving the slipways as the turn ends (if they were the last production out of the yard).  Rather than figure out which ship was finished when, I'm going to do maintenance each turn, for the whole turn, based on hulls in service at the beginning of the turn, unless the GM objects.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 13 June 2018, 21:21:06
Another thought occurred to me that I'll ask about before it's an issue: If we decide to stop building a certain ship class -probably due to cost of construction , but want to avoid the maintenance costs going through the roof could we dedicate a shipyard capable of building said class to making spare parts for it, during which time the yard can do nothing else?

Also, I'm assuming a yard that was built/upgraded this turn can't do anything else.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 13 June 2018, 21:54:56
If I wanted to be gamey with my autocannon bays, I'd use two 30s and a 10. Bracketing to -2 is almost always better than doing it to -3(-3 is only better at super-high THNs), and the bay is 9000 tons instead of 9500. As for ranges more generally, I'm cool with thinking of the advanced ranges. The NAC/25 suffers less that way, for one. It won't be modelled explicitly, but I'll keep it in mind. I'll also assume that Gauss weapons do well at longer ranges compared to anything else, to make up for their anemic damage per ton.

Training and crew skill is covered in maintenance costs, yes. For super-skilled crews, make a point of over-funding your maintenance budget. And to confirm, there are no maintenance costs during the turn you build a ship, only on subsequent turns. The bookkeeping is much simpler that way, for all of us.

I've made no assumptions about spare parts for out-of-production units. I gave some thought to it, but dismissed it for excess bookkeeping. Don't worry about that. Also, I've assumed that shipyard upgrades are instant - build with them right away, if you like. It's a bit less realistic, but I want players to be able to exploit an opportunity quickly if they see the need for it.

Also, I have an updated spreadsheet that I'm testing out, which seems to have proper prices for stations. I'll post it when I have a bit more time to confirm everything, but I've used it and can thus take the UHC's turn. The UHC is looking for options that will allow it to defend its own space effectively, without the high costs and temptation to foreign wars presented by a true WarShip fleet. As such, space stations have great appeal, particularly stations that can also support their merchant fleet. Thus was born the Pratham jump point station. Carrying an energy storage battery to allow faster K-F charging for merchant vessels, the Pratham also mounts a variety of long-range weaponry and a strong fighter wing to allow for significant firepower across the vast spaces of a recharge point. A small cargo hold to allow for transshipping, a few spare passenger bunks, and small craft to move goods round out the station facilities. The first Pratham was launched at the zenith point of Panpour in 2353, and by the end of the decade a total of six Prathams were in service.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Pratham Jump Point Station
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $504,500,000.00
Magazine Cost: $9,036,000.00
BV2: 26,113

Mass: 200,000
K-F Drive System: None
Power Plant: Station-Keeping Drive
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
36 Naval Laser 55
36 Capital Launcher Killer Whale
48 Machine Gun (IS)

Class/Model/Name: Pratham Jump Point Station
Mass: 200,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 2,400
Controls: 200
Structural Integrity: 1 2,000
Total Heat Sinks: 3114 Single 3,000
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 5000 points 1,020
Fire Control Computers: 0
Armor: 432 pts Standard 720
Fore: 72
Fore-Left/Right: 72/72
Aft-Left/Right: 72/72
Aft: 72

Grav Decks:
Medium: 2 200
Escape Pods: 32 224
Life Boats: 32 224

Crew And Passengers:
29 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 290
56 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 392
80 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 560
165 Bay Personnel (See 2nd Class Passengers)
12 1st Class Passengers 120
170 2nd Class Passengers 1,190
20 Steerage Passengers 100

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
6 Naval Laser 55 Nose 510 330 (33-C) Extreme-C 6,600
6 Naval Laser 55 Aft 510 330 (33-C) Extreme-C 6,600
6 Naval Laser 55 FR 510 330 (33-C) Extreme-C 6,600
6 Naval Laser 55 FL 510 330 (33-C) Extreme-C 6,600
6 Naval Laser 55 AR 510 330 (33-C) Extreme-C 6,600
6 Naval Laser 55 AL 510 330 (33-C) Extreme-C 6,600
6 Capital Launcher Killer Whale Nose 120 240 (24-C) Extreme-C 900
6 Capital Launcher Killer Whale Aft 120 240 (24-C) Extreme-C 900
6 Capital Launcher Killer Whale FR 120 240 (24-C) Extreme-C 900
6 Capital Launcher Killer Whale FL 120 240 (24-C) Extreme-C 900
6 Capital Launcher Killer Whale AR 120 240 (24-C) Extreme-C 900
6 Capital Launcher Killer Whale AL 120 240 (24-C) Extreme-C 900
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

Ammo Rounds Mass
Capital Launcher Killer Whale Ammo 450 22,500.00
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 7200 36.00

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
1 Energy Storage Battery 100,000 N/A
60 Bay Fighter 9,000 6
9 Bay Small Craft 1,800 2
9,000 Cargo, Standard 9,000 3

To ensure the proper defense of the nation, large fighter wings have been established on each core planet, and a substantial investment has been made in DropShips that can be militarized at need.

UHC budget: $20B
Pratham prototype = $1.01B
plus 5x Pratham = $2.525B (2 in Panpour, 4 unspecified)
1,200 fighter = $6B
200 small craft = $2B
24 light DropShip = $7.2B
Research = $1.265B
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 14 June 2018, 04:42:21
See how this goes...

Draconis Combine Admiralty Doctrine

Design

The High Command in the DCA agreed quickly that matching the Hegemony in numbers or size of their ship in the short term was impossible, so instead they have focused on simplifying their designs by standardising on one type of each weapon as follows: The 35cm Naval Laser, the class 20 Naval Autocannon, the Killer Whale capital missiles, with the AC-5 and Machine guns for anti-fighter and point defense work. The admiralty also decided that using multiple twin turrets over single, multiple gun turrets gave the best balance of increasing the chances of a hit without sacrificing too much striking power with each volley. Using this standard across the fleet with aid mass production, logistics and training.

The pair of docking collars typically seen on DCA ships are generally used as an aid to resupply or to transport the first wave of an invasion force, while the subsequent waves arrive on 'convential' JumpShips after the jump point has been secured.

Crews

DCA crews are trained hard and often, but their reward is better than average crew quarters – for all but the marine contingent anyway – compared to the JumpShip fleet. The admiralty came to the conclusion that while the Combine cannot match the Terrans in ship size, crew quality is a very different story. Every effort is taken to improve the fleets performance, including special privileges for the best performing officers and crew, as well as transfers to the far less luxurious confines of the JumpShip fleet for those that are not up to scratch, where many volunteers can be found to fill their place of honour. Of special note are the navigators on board, who are rigorously trained, and are required to make 5 successful jumps into 'pirate points' in a conventional JumpShip before qualifying to be assigned to a WarShip.

Usage

Captains are trained to act like a stalking tiger, waiting for the proper moment to pounce, whilst using surprise as much as possible in the emptiness of space. One-on-one engagements with an equal opponent are to be avoided as a rule, although that rule is often waived in the defense of DCMS convoys, Prefecture or District capitals or express orders from a superior. It is better to wait for the advantage in size or numbers before striking.

Chemical weapons (beyond non-lethal agents like tear gas) are strictly banned, and orbital bombardment is performed only as a response to Ground-to-Orbit fire, or against forces deploying WMDs against DCMS ground troops. If the launch site of said WMDs (whether chemical, biological or nuclear) happens to be in a populated area, then they should not have tried to use civilians as a human shield. Such bombardment is to be conducted with the fleets Naval Lasers, to both save NAC ammunition and keep collateral damage to within acceptable limits.

Nuclear weapons are issued to the fleet – typically 3-4 warheads for each launcher- but their use to be used in large fleet engagements, or if outnumbered and unable to avoid action. Normal use would be mixing nuclear warheads amongst a volley of conventional missiles (typically two launchers per volley), to both conserve warheads, and to force a shell game of sorts onto the enemy point defense, improving the odds of one of the nuclear warheads getting through.

The current deployment of the fleet is in 3 pairs, with each Fubuki escorted by a Kutai patrolling the Lyran and Davion borders -the admiralty thought that tempting the Hegemony with their brand new fleet before it was up to strength was a foolish idea- while the remaining two Kutais assist in subjugating the Principality of Rasalhague. The future plan for the fleet involves building as many 6 ship squadrons (2 Kutais, 2 Fubukis, and 2 as yet unfinished, but larger ships) as the budget will allow, deploying them at District capitals -and as sufficient numbers enter service- Prefecture capitals as a rapid reaction force to foreign aggression.

Fighters

The current fleet includes two classes of warship, both containing a wing of 36 fighters, predominately used for self-defence against enemy strike fighters and capital missiles. While the fleets fighter corps is also trained in the anti-shipping role, keeping their carrier vessel safe from the enemy is deemed a more important role.

The rest of the DCA's fighter corps not assigned to WarShips is either in training, or deployed in garrison positions on the border, or guarding important worlds such as Prefecture/District capitals and worlds with shipyards in orbit, usually assigned in individual 36-fighter wings.

JumpShips

The DCAs small JumpShip fleet is used almost exclusively to supply the fleet and act as couriers, though transporting the DCMS in offensive operations is also in their perview. Internal movements of the DCMS within the Combine however is typically done with their own tiny Jumpship fleet, or by commandeering civilian craft unless the DCA is given specific orders otherwise.


And now for the budget:

Code: [Select]
(All Costs in Millions)
Money Available 100,000

Avaliable Shipyards
Luthien 3/1/1
New Samarkand 3/1
Midway 1

Maintanence None
Prototype Cost Kutai 6,092
Fubuki 7,241

Construction # Built Price per unit Total Cost
Shipyards Luthien (Both 1's > 2's) 10,000 20,000
Warships Kutai 4 6,092 24,368
Fubuki 2 7,241 14,482
Jumpships 20 500 10,000
Dropships 16 300 4,800
Fighters 50 x 36 Wing 1800 5 9000
Small Craft 144 10 1440
Research 2 1000 2000

Total Spent 99,423
Remaining 577

And finally, the Ships themselves, designed by the DCA's master of engineering, Kouzou Fuyutsuki:

Kutai (Corvette)
Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Kutai
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $6,091,888,000.00
Magazine Cost: $3,464,000.00
BV2: 15,629

Mass: 200,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 4
Maximum Thrust: 6
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
10 Capital Launcher Killer Whale
48 AC 5
32 Machine Gun (IS)
24 Naval Laser 35

Designed as the fleets first line of defence, able to act as a picket ship, escort larger vessels or patrolling the Combines long borders. With it's main firepower consisting of Naval Lasers, with a handful of Killer Whales and a hefty battery of autocannons for anti-fighter duties with deep ammunition bins, the Kutai can serve in the field for some time without resupply in the most part, keeping the Dragon and his people safe from piracy and the occaisonal raid from a great house. The small NCSS system installed gives the ship a great advantage as a picket or pirate hunting ship, with very little escaping the notice of its gaze.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Kutai
Mass:                    200,000

Equipment:                 Mass
Drive:                          48,000.00
Thrust
Safe: 4
Maximum: 6
Controls:                     500.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (6 Integrity) 90,500.00
Jump Sail: (3 Integrity)           40.00
Structural Integrity: 40         8,000.00
Total Heat Sinks: 1496 Single 1,142.00
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 40000 points 8,160.00
Fire Control Computers: 0.00
Armor: 120 pts Standard          160.00
Fore:         20
Fore-Left/Right:20/20
Aft-Left/Right: 20/20
Aft:           20
 
Dropship Capacity: 2 2,000.00
Grav Decks:
Small: 2 100.00
Medium: 0.00
Large: 0.00
Escape Pods: 0.00
Life Boats: 22 154.00

Crew And Passengers:
24 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 240.00
61 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 427.00
54 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 378.00
132 Bay Personnel 0.00
1st Class Passengers 0.00
2nd Class Passengers 0.00
50 Steerage Marines 250.00

Fighter Bay (36) 3 Doors     5,400.00
Small Craft (12) 2 Doors     2,400.00
Cargo             2 Doors     5,721.00
NCSS (Small)                     100.00

The luxurious quarters are fairly standard aboard DCA vessels, the admiralty having the belief that officers and crew that are given better living conditions then their JumpShip compatriots will fight harder to keep them. The engine is capable of a full 3Gs of thrust, allowing the ship to outrun most pirate vessels, and keep pace with friendly fleet elements, the 8,000 tons of fuel is sufficient to keep both the ship and its fighter complement in the field for an extended time. The armour is much thinner than the larger Fubuki-class, but there is a limit on how much can be fitted to a ship this size, so it was deemed acceptable.

As per DCA doctrine, the fighter wing is largely for self-defence, while the large contingent of small craft allow for quick resupply or aid in customs duties, along with the ships contingent of 50 Marines.

Code: [Select]
# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
2 Killer Whale Nose 40 80 (8-C) E-C 300.00
4 AC 5 Nose 4 20 (2-C) L 32.00
4 AC 5 Nose 4 20 (2-C) L 32.00
2 MG Nose 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00
2 MG Nose 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00
2 Naval Laser 35 FL 104 70 (7-C) L-C 1,400.00
2 Naval Laser 35 FL 104 70 (7-C) L-C 1,400.00
4 AC 5 FL 4 20 (2-C) L 32.00
4 AC 5 FL 4 20 (2-C) L 32.00
2 MG FL 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00
2 MG FL 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00
2 Naval Laser 35 FR 104 70 (7-C) L-C 1,400.00
2 Naval Laser 35 FR 104 70 (7-C) L-C 1,400.00
4 AC 5 FR 4 20 (2-C) L 32.00
4 AC 5 FR 4 20 (2-C) L 32.00
2 MG FR 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00
2 MG FR 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00
2 Killer Whale LBS 40 80 (8-C) E-C 300.00
2 Killer Whale LBS 40 80 (8-C) E-C 300.00
2 Naval Laser 35 LBS 104 70 (7-C) L-C 1,400.00
2 Naval Laser 35 LBS 104 70 (7-C) L-C 1,400.00
2 MG LBS 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00
2 MG LBS 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00
2 Killer Whale RBS 40 80 (8-C) E-C 300.00
2 Killer Whale RBS 40 80 (8-C) E-C 300.00
2 Naval Laser 35 RBS 104 70 (7-C) L-C 1,400.00
2 Naval Laser 35 RBS 104 70 (7-C) L-C 1,400.00
2 MG RBS 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00
2 MG RBS 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00
2 Naval Laser 35 AL 104 70 (7-C) L-C 1,400.00
2 Naval Laser 35 AL 104 70 (7-C) L-C 1,400.00
4 AC 5 AL 4 20 (2-C) L 32.00
4 AC 5 AL 4 20 (2-C) L 32.00
2 MG AL 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00
2 MG AL 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00
2 Naval Laser 35 AR 104 70 (7-C) L-C 1,400.00
2 Naval Laser 35 AR 104 70 (7-C) L-C 1,400.00
4 AC 5 AR 4 20 (2-C) L 32.00
4 AC 5 AR 4 20 (2-C) L 32.00
2 MG AR 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00
2 MG AR 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00
4 AC 5 Aft 4 20 (2-C) L 32.00
4 AC 5 Aft 4 20 (2-C) L 32.00
2 MG Aft 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00
2 MG Aft 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00

Killer Whale Missiles  150 (15 per tube)         7,500.00
AC/5 Ammo            1920 (160 Rds/bay) 96.00
MG Ammo               6400 (400 Rds/Bay) 32.00

Having all sorts of problems with formatting from that spreadsheet...

EDIT: Along with a slight adjustment/addition to the Kutai's fluff, I give you the Fubuki:

Fubuki (Destroyer)
Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Fubuki
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $7,240,978,000.00
Magazine Cost: $21,728,000.00
BV2: 57,421

Mass: 420,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 3
Maximum Thrust: 5
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
22 Naval Laser 35
26 Naval AC 20
64 AC 5
32 Machine Gun (IS)
8 Capital Launcher Killer Whale

Whilst the Kutai is designed as an escort or patrol vessel, the Fubuki is intended to be a ship killer, first and foremost. It keeps the bulk of the weapons of the smaller vessel, losing only a pair of missile tubes off the nose and a handful of NL 35s, whilst also packing 13 turrets mounting twin Naval AC 20s to pound the enemy into submission. Only capable of 2.5Gs at full thrust, outrunning the enemy is unlikely to be an option, but the speed was seen as acceptable for it's assigned role in the nascent DCA. A more than solid internal structure allowed the designers to fit the Fubuki with armour equal to almost any ship of equivalent size, allowing the ship to close to effective weapon range. The standard 2 drop collars, 36-fighter wing and dozen small craft allow the ship to defend itself, perform boarding actions for customs duties if needed, or lead the opening wave of an invasion, whichever role is needed.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Fubuki
Mass: 420,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 75,600.00
Thrust
Safe: 3
Maximum: 5
Controls: 1,050.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (10 Integrity) 190,050.00
Jump Sail: (4 Integrity) 51.00
Structural Integrity: 80 33,600.00
Total Heat Sinks: 2928 Single 2,495.00
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 20000 points 8,160.00
Fire Control Computers: 0.00
Armor: 317 pts Standard 672.00
Fore: 53
Fore-Left/Right: 53/53
Aft-Left/Right: 53/53
Aft: 52

Dropship Capacity: 2 2,000.00
Grav Decks:
Small: 2 100.00
Medium: 0.00
Large: 0.00
Escape Pods: 0.00
Life Boats: 42 294.00

Crew And Passengers:
34 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 340.00
95 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 665.00
72 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 504.00
132 Bay Personnel 0.00
1st Class Passengers 0.00
2nd Class Passengers 0.00
50 Steerage Marines 250.00

Fighter Bay (36) 3 Doors   5,400.00
Small Craft (12) 2 Doors   2,400.00
Cargo   2 Doors      7769.00

Code: [Select]
# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Mass
2 Naval Laser 35 Nose 104 70 (7-C) 1,400.00
2 Naval Laser 35 Nose 104 70 (7-C) 1,400.00
2 Naval AC 20 Nose 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
4 AC 5 Nose 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
4 AC 5 Nose 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
2 MGs Nose 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
2 MGs Nose 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
2 Naval Laser 35 FR 104 70 (7-C) 1,400.00
2 Naval Laser 35 FR 104 70 (7-C) 1,400.00
2 Naval AC 20 FR 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
2 Naval AC 20 FR 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
4 AC 5 FR 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
4 AC 5 FR 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
2 MG FR 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
2 MG FR 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
2 Naval Laser 35 FL 104 70 (7-C) 1,400.00
2 Naval Laser 35 FL 104 70 (7-C) 1,400.00
2 Naval AC 20 FL 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
2 Naval AC 20 FL 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
4 AC 5 FL 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
4 AC 5 FL 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
2 MG FL 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
2 MG FL 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
2 Killer Whale LBS 40 80 (8-C) 300.00
2 Killer Whale LBS 40 80 (8-C) 300.00
2 Naval AC 20 LBS 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
2 Naval AC 20 LBS 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
4 AC 5 LBS 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
4 AC 5 LBS 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
2 MG LBS 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
2 MG LBS 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
2 Killer Whale RBS 40 80 (8-C) 300.00
2 Killer Whale RBS 40 80 (8-C) 300.00
2 Naval AC 20 RBS 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
2 Naval AC 20 RBS 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
4 AC 5 RBS 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
4 AC 5 RBS 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
2 MG RBS 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
2 MG RBS 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
2 Naval Laser 35 AR 104 70 (7-C) 1,400.00
2 Naval Laser 35 AR 104 70 (7-C) 1,400.00
2 Naval AC 20 AR 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
2 Naval AC 20 AR 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
4 AC 5 AR 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
4 AC 5 AR 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
2 MG AR 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
2 MG AR 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
2 Naval Laser 35 AL 104 70 (7-C) 1,400.00
2 Naval Laser 35 AL 104 70 (7-C) 1,400.00
2 Naval AC 20 AL 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
2 Naval AC 20 AL 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
4 AC 5 AL 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
4 AC 5 AL 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
2 MG AL 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
2 MG AL 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
2 Naval Laser 35 Aft 104 70 (7-C) 1,400.00
4 AC 5 Aft 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
4 AC 5 Aft 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
2 MG Aft 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
2 MG Aft 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 14 June 2018, 06:37:10
Smegish: For formatting the sheet's output, just copy each block of text from the spreadsheet into a single set of Code tags, and hit Enter twice after each block. It leaves them split up and fairly easy to read, and means it's more compact on our screens.


The St. Ives Mercantile League has recently decided that the wasteful duplication inherent within private industry is antithetical to the interests of the nation. To further national unity and efficient progress, the nation is taking the lead in guiding the industry of the nation. Economies of scale are being used to encourage faster and more efficient transport inside the nation's borders.

The most visible sign of the SIML's new approach to industrial operations is the Chongzhi Recharge Station. Unlike other stations designed as dual-purpose military installations, the SIML wished to keep this as a pure civilian design. Some compromises were eventually struck, giving the station batteries of light autocannons to allow self-defence, as well as armour to survive an attack from external enemies, but the focus of the station is the four gigantic energy storage batteries, which allow several JumpShips to recharge their drives at once. Large cargo-handling facilities round out the ship. Crew quarters are somewhat more spartan than other nations may be accustomed to, but the noble workers of St. Ives need no such luxuries to keep working for the good of the state.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Chongzhi Recharge Station
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $338,495,000.00
Magazine Cost: $123,750.00
BV2: 12,883

Mass: 500,000
K-F Drive System: None
Power Plant: Station-Keeping Drive
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
90 AC 2

Class/Model/Name: Chongzhi Recharge Station
Mass: 500,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 6,000
Controls: 500
Structural Integrity: 1 5,000
Total Heat Sinks: 154 Single 0
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 3000 points 1,224
Fire Control Computers: 0
Armor: 690 pts Standard 1,725
Fore: 115
Fore-Left/Right: 115/115
Aft-Left/Right: 115/115
Aft: 115

Grav Decks:
Medium: 2 200
Escape Pods: 40 280
Life Boats: 40 280

Crew And Passengers:
28 Officers in 2nd Class Quarters 196
117 Crew in Steerage Quarters 585
15 Gunners and Others in Steerage Quarters 75
160 Bay Personnel (See Steerage Passengers)
10 2nd Class Passengers 70
160 Steerage Passengers 800

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
15 AC 2 Nose 15 30 (3-C) Long 90
15 AC 2 Aft 15 30 (3-C) Long 90
15 AC 2 FR 15 30 (3-C) Long 90
15 AC 2 FL 15 30 (3-C) Long 90
15 AC 2 AR 15 30 (3-C) Long 90
15 AC 2 AL 15 30 (3-C) Long 90

Ammo Rounds Mass
AC 2 Ammo 5625 125.00

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
4 Energy Storage Battery 400,000
32 Bay Small Craft 6,400 8
76,000 Cargo, Standard 76,000 7

After constructing several Chongzhi stations, the leaders of the SIML realized that JumpShip traffic was lower than anticipated, so a new effort to expand the JumpShip fleet was initiated late in the decade.

Budget: $10,000M
Prototype Chongzhi: $677M
10x Chongzhi: $3,385M
400x small craft: $4,000M
JumpShip: $500M
3x light DropShip: $900M
Research: $538M
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 14 June 2018, 07:15:29
Smegish - I like her.  I also like how even on turn 1, we can see fleet doctrine heading out into different directions.  Will be interesting to see whst happens when thise doctrines clash.  Whats going to be -real- interesting is if someone starts nuking warships - thats going to collapse the design space metaposition into a ‘dont let one missile through and fire all zee missiles’. 

I may nudge the Archons into trying to get their heads together with the Terran Hegemony about making first use of nukes against any target a War Crime resulting in being at war with the Hegemony (and everyone else).  Given their absolute and unassailable numeric advantage, Id think the Hegemony would like ‘no nukes’ to be the rule of the day.  OTOH, if we start nuking each other (and they stay out of it), we’ll have to build for that environment, and it might end up with them being ill suited to fight a nuclear war between ships.  Well, ill suited for ten years.  Next turn they prototype and mass produce something thats better than all of us put together....

Alsasdius - I know it seems like make work, but all those stations/what nots/minor powers things are things that would exist in the universe and make it richer.  If its coolsies, could one of those recharge station designs be licensed from St. Ives or somewhere?  Would save me prototype costs and the design time, and Id reckon id pay some percentage of the prototype cost to buy the design. Something like that would go nicely with my civilian jumpship fleet and economic plans.

Similarly - as Ive more yards than money, could I build warships for other people?  I reckon build my own designs at say 10% markup, or prototype and build to suit at cost (including protitype cosr!), but in the latter case Id retain the right to build the design I prototyped for personal use.

Edit:  -whistles-  Fubuki is mean.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 14 June 2018, 07:39:41
Licensing designs was something I was going to do myself in the Capellan zone. That's partially metagaming, as they're merging in a couple turns and it means I'll need to track fewer designs, but it's also perfectly logical.

Let's say that NPC nations will offer standard licensing terms, to keep it simple - any nation that doesn't share a border will sell a license for any design using established technology(i.e., nothing discovered in the last two turns) for half of the prototype cost. So for $169m, you can start building Chongzhi stations under license, for example. No approval required, just budget for it and write it up. If you want to license a design from a nation you do border (probably the Terrans, but others might come up), PM me - it might happen, but it'll depend on the political situation. The same goes for selling ships or design licenses to each other - your political masters won't mind as long as you're not equipping potential enemies, and if you are then PM me.

Also, I'm making a point of using different doctrines for different nations, but I'm glad to see you guys also following suit. This is pretty much exactly what I was hoping to see. :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 14 June 2018, 07:44:04

Edit:  -whistles-  Fubuki is mean.

Likely to run into problems of not being fast enough later, also will probably need to upgun the NL turrets sometime in the future, might be able to put that off until I can swap em for N/PPCs. For now, just don't let her get close.

Wanted to avoid having ships that suited every circumstance perfectly right out of the gate when we're supposed to be running a crash building program, and also didn't want to meta-game into building weird (to me anyway) mixed-gun bays that just happened to hit the 70 damage cap.

Also, for those smaller powers that don't share a border with the Combine; whether that's the Taurians; Canopians; Marians; or various parts of what will be the Confederation, the Combine may have a little something available for export in the coming decades. Just don't tell anyone where it came from or we stop doing business with you. ;)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 14 June 2018, 07:58:35
Likely to run into problems of not being fast enough later, also will probably need to upgun the NL turrets sometime in the future, might be able to put that off until I can swap em for N/PPCs. For now, just don't let her get close.

Wanted to avoid having ships that suited every circumstance perfectly right out of the gate when we're supposed to be running a crash building program, and also didn't want to meta-game into building weird (to me anyway) mixed-gun bays that just happened to hit the 70 damage cap.

Also, for those smaller powers that don't share a border with the Combine; whether that's the Taurians; Canopians; Marians; or various parts of what will be the Confederation, the Combine may have a little something available for export in the coming decades. Just don't tell anyone where it came from or we stop doing business with you. ;)

Well, the Star League Navy soldiered on at 3/5 as its main fleet speed for its entire existence... heck, look at Aegis, 2/3.

The thing about speed... think of speed not in terms of lost warload, but in cost. 
IN GENERAL... if a 3/5 ship has an arbitrary combat load of 100Kt split between SI and Guns, its 4/6 cousin has 80Kt, and a 5/8 version has 60Kt.  You can retain that 100Kt combat load by upping your total size... this has the knock on effects of making your ship larger, and as a result 25% more expensive.  You also eat it in SI, assuming your going for a balanced build.. youll have about the same armor points, maybe a bit more, but your more fragile under the shell.  This could get bad in big fleet engagements, where the real measure of ships lifespan is not total armor, but 'facing+2xSI', since in big fleet engagements, ships will die before they can roll ship.

Thus you get roughly 4x4/6 ships for the cost of 5x3/5 ships.  If your going for 5/8, the size goes much bigger, and your now getting about 3 ships instead of 5.  What price thrust, when thrust gives no operational or strategic mobility, purely tactical?  My gut feel is that a 4/6 fleet may have an advantage over a 3/5 fleet (can choose engagement range), but will have the same disadvantage against a 5/8 fleet.  Whereas the 5/8 fleet is basically helpless in front of the 3/5 fleet.. it can run freely, but if it stands, an 5v3 advantage in firepower and armor means that the fast fleet will die, and wont accomplish much along the way.

Another consideration is cargo space.  I've chosen to go for a 5-7% mass fraction in cargo.. amusingly, about as much as a point of thrust.  So my fleet 'costs' like a 4/6 fleet, only its a 3/5 with on board cargo.  I think its worth it to not fiddle fart with collars and droppers, but Your Mileage Will Vary.

PS:  Regarding Costs... just wait till LF Batteries come along.  It goes nuts fast.

PPS:  I notice we are all loving to build things that dont cost upkeep early.  Recharge stations, fighters, droppers, jumpers, whatever fits - and avoiding going into massive warship production until the battle reports start saying what works and what doesnt.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 14 June 2018, 09:33:17
A speed advantage only has tactical value if you use it to either force a beneficial engagement range, or to avoid poor fights entirely. So if you're loaded to the gills with NAC/40s and move at 5/8, that can have real value by letting you force a close-in knife fight. Ditto if you go with bearings-only missile launches from more-than-extreme range, later in our setting. But if you and your opponent are both using vanilla multi-range designs, then the ability to dictate engagement range doesn't matter much, because you don't have a useful range to dictate. Options are good in combat, of course, and it's not totally worthless(after all, maybe your opponent is going to bring some NAC/40 ships and you can keep him from closing with you), but speed by itself isn't all that decisive unless it lets you do something you couldn't otherwise do. This is not a Mech fight (or a Fisherian wet dream) where speed is actually a real form of armour.

I tend to think of WarShip fights in terms of the RL battleship era - not exclusively, but more than any other obvious comparison. The 3/5 fleet is basically the American "Standard Battleship" design - not terribly fast, because the assumption is that you don't need to be terribly fast if you can attack him at a point he needs to defend, and that if you can force such a decisive engagement you'll be the one carrying the most guns and armour to the fight. Conversely, the British battlecruiser designs(and to some extent the Queen Elizabeths) were designed to give the fleet a "fast wing" to allow for flanking maneuvers in a battle, and if Jutland had gone a bit differently it may have worked very well for them. The differences in cargo/fuel capacity that were needed(based on the expected distance between the fight and the nearest base) also map very closely to the relative cargo sizes for SLDF and House ships. And in that era, just consider the doctrinal differences implied between a Scharnhorst, a Yamato, an Iowa, and an un-modernized Royal Sovereign, or even between armoured carriers and unarmoured carriers.

Also, while I'm mostly cranking out light units and stations so far, remember that I haven't actually resolved any nations with shipyard space except the UHC, and the UHC never built any WarShips at all in canon. The Terran Hegemony is going to be building a lot of ships, I promise you, and all of you seem to be going for ships as well. We're going to get a couple fights this round(the Sarna Supremacy attack on the Tikonov Grand Union is coming up, and there's all the usual pirate suppression and general skirmishing to worry about as well), so you can see how that works out.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 14 June 2018, 09:59:52
One thing I don't think we should fall into is OTPing. At the moment, folks are designing missile boats and there's NOTHING to defend against them. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 14 June 2018, 10:11:29
One thing I don't think we should fall into is OTPing. At the moment, folks are designing missile boats and there's NOTHING to defend against them.

1) OTP?

2) In game rules, non-AMS weapons can be used for anti-missile work. I'm making them a bit better, so that missiles(and particularly, nuclear-armed missiles) aren't overwhelmingly powerful, but anti-missile work will still be tough until the AMS comes out. Right now in a naval context, the AC/5 is the primary anti-fighter weapon, the machine gun is generally used against missiles, and the AC/2 is something of a dual-purpose weapon - not great at either role, but it can at least try at both.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 14 June 2018, 10:19:30
What kind of weapons moding is going to be allowed? Can the players try and make their own guns?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 14 June 2018, 10:37:38
What kind of weapons moding is going to be allowed? Can the players try and make their own guns?

Nah, that just gets crazy for something like this. Either I try to keep them from getting too powerful, in which case they're boring, or they get too good and obsolete all the canon stuff(as well as making the spreadsheet we're all using for design useless). If you want to play with the fluff a bit, go for it, but no new stats blocks for weapons will be added aside from canon techs getting unlocked.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 14 June 2018, 10:42:59
One thing I don't think we should fall into is OTPing. At the moment, folks are designing missile boats and there's NOTHING to defend against them.

Weve seen ship designs from 2 major powers.    Out of 3 designs, there's one real missile boat in there (mine).

For defending against missiles?  I recommend Armor.  Seriously.  Missiles are terrible in damage per ton, and their extreme engagement range advantage evaporates once you look at the numbers.  Extreme is 10, plus ECM - automiss.  Long is 11 with ECM, 12 on a nose shot, 13 on a passing shot.  Maybe not quite automiss, but you cant afford to fire many missiles at those ranges.  (note that the NAC boat has the ammo to take any shot on a 12 or less, because NAC ammo is trivial.  Laser ammo is less than trivial).

So much for long and extended range.  Now, there is some interesting room for decisive engagement at medium.  Decisive engagement is possible at medium range because target numbers start allowing significant hits, though barely.
 (9 after ECM, so 10/11s).  You've got a window of advantage for a missile design vs. a NAC design - the missile design hits medium sooner (espec. the barracuda) but its a half-dozen hexes or less.  If the missile boat goes ammo light, it can try for an advantage against the NAC boat while its in medium and the NAC is still making showy useless fireworks at long, but thats a small window of space and time.  Once the NAC boat hits medium, a 'full ammo' Missile boat loses its firepower advantage, and a 'light ammo' missile boat better hope to win in a turn or two - because its going to be dry soon.

If point defense meaningfully reduces large missile launches, it will make large missile launches objectively worse than NLs or (as always) NACs.  And they will thus not be used.  Small launches will be eaten alive by any PDS that can threaten a large one.

A couple of things change this paradigm:
1.)  Waypoint and Bearing Only:  Lets the Missile boat engage effectively at range 50-plus-a-little.  Cryhavock suggests that any missile may perform as if it were at short using bearing only launches - my geometry suggests id rather set my missiles for medium against a canny opponent with even a 3/5 drive.  5/8 ships are going to make the missile users head hurt.. but still, weve got the -possiblity- of effective engagement out to range 50 plus a little.  That's not nothing, and Id consider a manticore style fleet once Waypoint and Bearing Only hits.  But Id be willing to fight against it, too.

2.)  Nukes.  Once the Nukes start getting used, the warship era ends in pyrotechnics.  Its all missiles and ASFs with nuke missiles.  Mostly ASFs with nukes, because they have more range, and everyone can kill anything they can get in range.  We can put our NACS and NPPCs and Armor away, because everything dies in nuclear fireballs long before those things matter.  Suggested force composition is warships that carry fighters and also dropships that carry fighters, so you can keep the enemy nukes as far away as possible.

Closing Thought:  Naval ECM really collapses the design space to 'medium range'.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 14 June 2018, 12:31:47
Crew Training:
If 10% of build value is default, whats the sense of where, budget wise, ships stat behaving like Veterans or Elites?  Is it unknowable?

Also, whats the upper limit if meaningful expenditure on such training?  Do we have a sense of where we hit ‘throwing away money’?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 14 June 2018, 12:50:53
Nah, that just gets crazy for something like this. Either I try to keep them from getting too powerful, in which case they're boring, or they get too good and obsolete all the canon stuff(as well as making the spreadsheet we're all using for design useless). If you want to play with the fluff a bit, go for it, but no new stats blocks for weapons will be added aside from canon techs getting unlocked.

That's ok based on sticking close to the fluff right now all I got are plasma cannons which are years away and a couple of ac tweeks but neither of those are complete yet. Long barrels/reinforced breach for longer range and enhanced autoloader double rof.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 14 June 2018, 12:54:37
Crew Training:
If 10% of build value is default, whats the sense of where, budget wise, ships stat behaving like Veterans or Elites?  Is it unknowable?

Also, whats the upper limit if meaningful expenditure on such training?  Do we have a sense of where we hit ‘throwing away money’?

Expect diminishing returns, but remember that a lot of those costs are on things like large-scale exercises, live-fire training for your troops, establishment of command schools, increased pay to attract better people, and so on. Those are big expenses, and much more than the "baseline" for maintenance, but you can spend quite a lot on them without being wasteful if crew skills are your goal. The big concern is starving your construction budget too far, because one ship commanded by Horatio Nelson and crewed by the best in the fleet probably still loses to ten equal ships commanded by a moderately competent midshipman.

As a rough guideline, a ship at 10% of baseline maintenance is in mothballs with a skeleton maintenance crew, a ship at 50% of baseline maintenance is good breeding grounds for a mutiny, the Terran Hegemony will always keep their units at 100% of baseline maintenance(seems like a good way to have it be a true baseline), and when you get much above 200% of baseline maintenance the admiral running the training programs starts to think that live-fire nuclear weapon exercises for every fighter pilot might be a good way to use up his annual budget.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 14 June 2018, 13:12:44
Thank you for the timely response!

I was looking at whether its worth spending dough trying to train gunnery, specifically, because of the terrible things EWar does to THNs in space between warships.

Im not even joking - I was running numbers and kept getting answers like 'this ship literally cannot kill itself at extreme or long range, and might well run out of ammo before it can kill itself at medium range'

And yeah, since maintenance is a % function, its a hard limit on fleet sizes.

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 14 June 2018, 13:27:41
Remember a few things.

- ECM is a tech on the tech list. There are EW systems in use right now, but they're not very good, and they'll get better when ECM tech comes out. As a result, it has less of an effect on long-range firepower in this era than you might expect from game rules.

We're using fluff rules, not exact combat rules - extreme-range engagements have low hit chances, but they aren't going to be literally zero within the weapon's effective envelope, even if the StratOps math says it's a 13+ to hit.

- Maintenance costs are a softer limit than you might be worried about. Economies grow over time, and over time old ships will go into mothballs or be retired entirely. It's still a real and important limit, and from a gameplay point of view it creates an incentive to either upgrade or trash your old ships, but it's not hard-and-fast - it's a soft cap.

- We're building up to something called "the Age of War" right now. What makes you think that long-term logistic growth functions are going to be the true limit on your fleet's size?  >:D
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 14 June 2018, 13:42:40
Remember a few things.

- ECM is a tech on the tech list. There are EW systems in use right now, but they're not very good, and they'll get better when ECM tech comes out. As a result, it has less of an effect on long-range firepower in this era than you might expect from game rules.

We're using fluff rules, not exact combat rules - extreme-range engagements have low hit chances, but they aren't going to be literally zero within the weapon's effective envelope, even if the StratOps math says it's a 13+ to hit.

- Maintenance costs are a softer limit than you might be worried about. Economies grow over time, and over time old ships will go into mothballs or be retired entirely. It's still a real and important limit, and from a gameplay point of view it creates an incentive to either upgrade or trash your old ships, but it's not hard-and-fast - it's a soft cap.

- We're building up to something called "the Age of War" right now. What makes you think that long-term logistic growth functions are going to be the true limit on your fleet's size?  >:D

Hmm.  Okay.  That helps some.  Ive got two heavy destroyers Im fiddling with - ones a NAC design, brick with guns, balanced SI to Weapons load,  and the other Something Completely Different.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 14 June 2018, 13:52:43

Can someone please double check the armor calculation in that google doc?
Heavy Metal Pro gets more armor points out of the same weight of armor.


Also the bays aren't properly given out.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 14 June 2018, 14:05:09
Can someone please double check the armor calculation in that google doc?
Heavy Metal Pro gets more armor points out of the same weight of armor.


Also the bays aren't properly given out.

I THINK the google doc doesn't show the 'Armor on each facing equal to 10% of SI'.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 14 June 2018, 14:42:47
Yeah, there's a few known bugs with the spreadsheet.

- Station cost calculations aren't working right - they are assumed to have K-F drives, which are pricey, and the cost multiplier is too low. This makes cheap stations too expensive and expensive stations too cheap. No quick fix here, unfortunately.

- The "free" armor per facing isn't added. Don't worry about this, I'll tack it onto your designs.

- In my experience, bays work well enough with the formula I gave up-thread. Alternately, just write them in by hand.

- I may also cut out all the Clantech and later weapons from the sheet, as we won't be using them for months, if ever. That should make it a bit less unwieldy to fit your ships out.

I'll get that version posted by this weekend.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 14 June 2018, 14:45:55
My designs have the armor in already, so no need to add.

I can migrate to the other sheet if required, but would mildly prefer not to - I cant google doc at work, and work downtime is my design time.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 14 June 2018, 14:51:22
I also added the Free-SI armour
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 14 June 2018, 14:52:15
Make my life easy, why don't you? Monsters  ;)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 14 June 2018, 15:28:48
Finally done, fixed everything I could find in google docs...


Free Worlds League
For decades the FWL had been preparing for a WarShip construction surge, however it was caught off guard as it found itself in an arms race with its neighbors. The original idea was that all the FWL capital shipyards would be brought to an equal level and then producing large amounts of general purpose Battlecruisers.
But with the active arms race, the FWL was forced to kickstart and adapt the old plan. Some of these changes include a rapid build-up of non-capital assets and the construction of an improvised corvette-class. These would hopefully help to keep the FWL save until the new fleet was online.

Code: [Select]
(All Costs in Millions)
Money Available 100,000

Avaliable Shipyards
Atreus 3/1
Irian 3/1
Loyalty 3/1

Maintenance None
Prototype Cost Phalanx 4,631
Heracles 8,874

Construction # Built Price per unit Total Cost
Shipyard Upgrades Atreus B (1->2) 10,000 10,000
Warships Phalanx 2 4,631 9,262
Heracles 6 8,874 53,244
Jumpships 5 500 2,500
Dropships 27 300 8,100
Fighters 8 x 36 Wing 288 5 1,440
Small Craft 90 10 900
Research 1049   1 1,049

Total Spent 100,000
Remaining 0
-

The first Battlecruiser of the FWL is the Herculas-class. Each ship of the class is named after a planet in the FWL, and all parts of the FWL will get representation. These ships are designed so that they can be deployed in groups or perform solo missions, such as convoy duty. It has enough cargo for average deployments, but won't be able to support any invasion or base construction by itself. This leaves the transport duties to DropShips and JumpShips.
The Herculas excels in broadside exchanges, as it mounts 8 Naval Autocannons on each side. In case it is outranged it can salvo Barracuda missiles at distant targets. This is enhanced by several wings of on-board Aerospace Fighters and Small Craft, which provide it with deeper defense and extended strike capacity.


Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Heracles Battlecruiser
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $8,873,716,000.00
Magazine Cost: $41,192,000.00
BV2: 76,290

Mass: 750,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 3
Maximum Thrust: 5
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
48 AC 5
48 Machine Gun (IS)
20 Naval AC 30
40 Capital Launcher Barracuda



Class/Model/Name: Heracles Battlecruiser
Mass: 750,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 135,000.00
Thrust
Safe: 3
Maximum: 5
Controls: 1,875.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (16 Integrity) 339,375.00
Jump Sail: (5 Integrity) 68.00
Structural Integrity: 90 67,500.00
Total Heat Sinks: 2448 Single 1,884.00
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 35000 points 14,280.00
Fire Control Computers: 0.00
Armor: 594 pts Standard 1,349.00
Fore: 100
Fore-Left/Right: 101/101
Aft-Left/Right: 101/101
Aft: 90

Dropship Capacity: 2 2,000.00
Grav Decks:
Small: 2 100.00
Medium: 0.00
Large: 0 0.00
Escape Pods: 50 350.00
Life Boats: 50 350.00

Crew And Passengers:
46 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 460.00
149 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 1,043.00
76 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 532.00
264 Bay Personnel 0.00
90 Steerage (Marines) 450.00


   Bay 1:  Fighters (36) with 6 doors                                5,400.00
   Bay 2:  Fighters (36) with 6 doors                                5,400.00
   Bay 3:  Small Craft (12) with 3 door                              2,400.00
           Cargo (1) with 1 door                                    83,628.00


# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
8 AC 5 Nose 8 40 (4-C) Medium 64.00
8 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 16 (1.6-C) 4.00
2 Naval AC 30 Nose 200 600 (60-C) 7,000.00
2 Naval AC 30 FR 200 600 (60-C) 7,000.00
2 Naval AC 30 FR 200 600 (60-C) 7,000.00
8 AC 5 FR 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
8 Machine Gun (IS) FR 16 (1.6-C) 4.00
2 Naval AC 30 FL 200 600 (60-C) 7,000.00
2 Naval AC 30 FL 200 600 (60-C) 7,000.00
8 AC 5 FL 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
8 Machine Gun (IS) FL 16 (1.6-C) 4.00
20 Capital Launcher Barracuda RBS 200 400 (40-C) 1,800.00
20 Capital Launcher Barracuda LBS 200 400 (40-C) 1,800.00
2 Naval AC 30 AR 200 600 (60-C) 7,000.00
2 Naval AC 30 AR 200 600 (60-C) 7,000.00
8 AC 5 AR 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
8 Machine Gun (IS) AR 16 (1.6-C) 4.00
2 Naval AC 30 AL 200 600 (60-C) 7,000.00
2 Naval AC 30 AL 200 600 (60-C) 7,000.00
8 AC 5 AL 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
8 Machine Gun (IS) AL 16 (1.6-C) 4.00
8 AC 5 Aft 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
8 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 16 (1.6-C) 4.00
2 Naval AC 30 Aft 200 600 (60-C) 7,000.00



Ammo Rounds Mass
AC 5 Ammo 2400 120.00
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 2400 12.00
Naval AC 30 Ammo 520 416.00
Capital Launcher Barracuda Ammo 400 12,000.00

 
-

The Phalanx Corvette can be described as a temporary solution. The class allows for construction at partly completed yards, while also using some of the same components as the larger Herculas-class Battlecruisers. Most notably it uses a lower amount of the same planetary engine assemblies as used by FWL Battlecruisers, this provides the phalanx with enough thrust to control most engagements. The excessive investment in thrust came at the expense of armor and firepower, but this is acceptable as its primary targets are enemy logistic units of any invading forces.
With most of its firepower on the aft-section it can easily harass at high speeds, but if enemies come too close, it will have to rely on its aerospace fighters and point defense small craft.


Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Phalanx
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $4,630,528,000.00
Magazine Cost: $2,457,640.00
BV2: 8,541

Mass: 250,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 6
Maximum Thrust: 9
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
60 AC 2
88 Machine Gun (IS)
12 Capital Launcher Killer Whale


Class/Model/Name: Phalanx
Mass: 250,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 90,000.00
Thrust
Safe: 6
Maximum: 9
Controls: 625.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (7 Integrity) 113,125.00
Jump Sail: (4 Integrity) 43.00
Structural Integrity: 35 8,750.00
Total Heat Sinks: 469 Single
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 30000 points 12,240.00
Fire Control Computers: 0.00
Armor: 70 pts Standard 174.00
Fore: 10
Fore-Left/Right: 16/16
Aft-Left/Right: 18/18
Aft: 16

Dropship Capacity: 0 0.00
Grav Decks:
Small: 0.00
Medium: 0.00
Large: 0.00
Escape Pods: 0.00
Life Boats: 0.00

Crew And Passengers:
23 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 230.00
72 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 504.00
37 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 259.00
54 Bay Personnel 0.00



Cargo:
   Bay 1:  Fighters (18) with 6 doors                                2,700.00
   Bay 2:  Cargo (1) with 1 door                                    11,888.00
           Small Craft (6) with 3 doors                              1,200.00


# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
20 AC 2 Nose 20 40 (4-C) Long 120.00
20 AC 2 RBS 20 40 (4-C) 120.00
20 AC 2 LBS 20 40 (4-C) 120.00
20 Machine Gun (IS) FR 40 (4-C) 10.00
20 Machine Gun (IS) FL 40 (4-C) 10.00
16 Machine Gun (IS) AR 32 (3.2-C) 8.00
16 Machine Gun (IS) AL 32 (3.2-C) 8.00
16 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 32 (3.2-C) 8.00
4 Capital Launcher Killer Whale AR 80 160 (16-C) 600.00
4 Capital Launcher Killer Whale AL 80 160 (16-C) 600.00
4 Capital Launcher Killer Whale Aft 80 160 (16-C) 600.00



Ammo Rounds Mass
AC 2 Ammo 1620 36.00
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 4400 22.00
Capital Launcher Killer Whale Ammo 120 6,000.00


-



Goalkeeper Point-Defense Small Craft (but with machine guns)
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=58802.0


Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 14 June 2018, 16:08:00
Thanks for your submission. Good stuff, but I've got a few minor notes:

- You said the Heracles has 16 AC on each side in the fluff, but the stats block only shows 10 per broadside. I'm assuming the stats block is correct, but I mention it in case you accidentally posted an old version.

- You seem to have intended the Heracles to have an "average" cargo hold, but 84k tons on a 750k ton ship is about the same mass fraction for cargo as a SLDF ship - that's only slightly smaller than a Black Lion's cargo hold. Cargo is useful in this setting, but I wanted to make sure that you were designing what you intended to be designing.

- A couple of you have now assumed that research needs to be bought by the billion(Or milliard, if you prefer. Maybe we should compromise on "billiard" :P ). I intended that it can be bought by the million, to soak up small amounts of money that you may have lying around. Keeping it to round billions isn't a problem, but don't feel obliged to do so - you can spend $1,049M on research if you want to. Each *million* is a ballot in the raffle, so the money is not wasted. It's the same amount of work for me, I just add up all of the spending and use a random number generator to pick the winner either way.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 14 June 2018, 16:22:33
Thanks for your submission. Good stuff, but I've got a few minor notes:

- You said the Heracles has 16 AC on each side in the fluff, but the stats block only shows 10 per broadside. I'm assuming the stats block is correct, but I mention it in case you accidentally posted an old version.
Old Fluff, fixed it.

Quote
- You seem to have intended the Heracles to have an "average" cargo hold, but 84k tons on a 750k ton ship is about the same mass fraction for cargo as a SLDF ship - that's only slightly smaller than a Black Lion's cargo hold. Cargo is useful in this setting, but I wanted to make sure that you were designing what you intended to be designing.
I aim for around 10%, with SLDF having 15-20%.

Quote
- A couple of you have now assumed that research needs to be bought by the billion(Or milliard, if you prefer. Maybe we should compromise on "billiard" :P ). I intended that it can be bought by the million, to soak up small amounts of money that you may have lying around. Keeping it to round billions isn't a problem, but don't feel obliged to do so - you can spend $1,049M on research if you want to. Each *million* is a ballot in the raffle, so the money is not wasted. It's the same amount of work for me, I just add up all of the spending and use a random number generator to pick the winner either way.
Sure lets spend 1,049.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 14 June 2018, 17:50:05
Marian Action News Network ( MANN )
Nova Roma, Alphard
Palace of Imperator Pi

" His lordship has announced his desire to increase the Hegemony thru trade and tribulations, beginning with encompassing the Lothian League and Illyrian Palatinate as soon as possible. He express's his order with conscripts of anyone seventeen years of age or older, women volunteers may apply at any recruitment location throughout the realm. Service will be for two tours of five years mandatory, further tours will increase payments and possible Legionnaire status. We need you all. Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to learn more, contact your local recruitment officer today. "

 ;D

There went another 100 Million well spent for a realm-wide recruitment drive!

TT

Update: Current budget, 498,999,500. Also how long is a Turn?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 14 June 2018, 19:34:20
It seems that in a recent windstorm, a tree decided to make friends with my phone line. Since I don't have internet at home, and my work internet blocks Google Sheets, that means I can't really do much design work. As such, I'm going to be slower about posting the other turns, and the promised spreadsheet update won't happen until it's fixed. I'll still poke away at what I can, though - the Terran ships are all designed for me(more or less), so I'll try to get their turn processed, and maybe some of the other small Capellan nations.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 14 June 2018, 19:44:50
It seems that in a recent windstorm, a tree decided to make friends with my phone line. Since I don't have internet at home, and my work internet blocks Google Sheets, that means I can't really do much design work. As such, I'm going to be slower about posting the other turns, and the promised spreadsheet update won't happen until it's fixed. I'll still poke away at what I can, though - the Terran ships are all designed for me(more or less), so I'll try to get their turn processed, and maybe some of the other small Capellan nations.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/lgg3098a6a73ur7/Warship+Design+Spreadsheet+-+Dec+2013.xlsx

There is a big section for cool, unofficial toys towards the bottom that you can just skip, but it gives numbers within a small percentage of the ones from the other spreadsheet, and gives you a bit more control of details/has some fun fluff sections that I enjoy.

As for minor nations - dont exhaust yourself doing them.  Make a design for each, if that, and then just put them on 'auto production' for a while.  Your ~real~ work lies in writing fluff and makign interactions between these fleets, dont spend all your energy before you get to doing that part.

If you can tell me what you want, I can put my hand to building a few designs for said minor powers?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 14 June 2018, 22:42:52
HPG: Lyran Commonwealth
From: Aedificium Navis, Legatus Cornius, aide to General Pomii, Commander of Naval Studies
Subject: Procurement of Jumpship request

Dear Sir or Madame,

We are requesting a small Class of Jump capable ship in the ancient Aquilla-class Primitive Jumper, but only more modern. If you'd be so kind to send us a quote. We would be happy to pay for several vessels in the following years to come. Please note our attached parameters. We hope for a friendly alliance with the Commonwealth for years to come.

With Regards,
Legatus Cornius
Imperial Hegemony Navy

Attached Parameters:
Quote
O:-)  ::) >:D

Current Budget: 10 Billion ( Millard )

Costs:
66x Fighters: Standard $330M
10x Ares Mark 1 ACC Small Craft: $100M
2x Saturn-class Drop Ships: $600M
1x Recruitment Drive: $100M

Ending turn: $8 Billion 887 Million and zero cents banked.

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 14 June 2018, 23:38:18
The DCA's design board have put together a schematic - though as yet no prototype exists - for a 100kt spy/Q-ship made to appear as an updated Aquila Jumpship, that with approval could be made available for export to minor powers who are no threat to the Combine and lack WarShip production facilities of their own.

If they choose to use such vessels to harass the Commonwealth or Fed Suns, that is their choice and is not stipulated anywhere in the contract for such vessels, thank you very much for asking.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 15 June 2018, 06:16:08
I like doing some amount of design, and it'll probably settle down after the first turn, so I'm not too worried about burnout just yet. Right now I've built most of the easy nations, though. I have a friend who I'm trying to convince to join, so I'm leaving the FedSuns for last in case he jumps in. That leaves the Terrans, whose designs are already built(though they may need to be adapted slightly to our tech base), and some Capellan nations.

Sarna is heading towards an attack on the TGU, so they're not building ships this turn, only light craft that will be ready in time. The Liaos canonically had a level 4 shipyard within a few turns, so I'm trying to see if building that up makes sense at all. The budget is extremely tight, but maybe I can make it fly. Sian and Capella are closest to being free agents - I'm thinking one of them might make a deal with Liao to offer capital for shipyard expansion in exchange for the right to buy ships. We know that deal will be made obsolete by a merger, but they don't. Sian in particular may find that to be a good deal, because they're the richest nation with no yard space of their own, and a cheap Du Shi Wang in future seems better than an expensive rushed corvette design right now in some ways. Capella will probably prefer the early build, because they actually have the yards for it - a light ship would suit them, perhaps an aggressive commerce raider, since they know they'll be fighting asymmetric wars against most possible opponents.

I think that's everyone? So there's not much actual design work to be done, really. I just need to get some uninterrupted time. And on your side, I think you've all submitted your turns except for getting a final budget from Taurus.

EDIT: An update regarding my flying tree attack - repair techs should be out tomorrow, so I ought to be able to get this sorted by the end of the weekend.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 15 June 2018, 12:03:03
Rules As Written, AR-10s are just plain bad.  The real cost of missiles is in ammo, not launchers, and the real value of missiles is in launch rate.  I note the advice in Alsadius's writeup.. "Dont mount an AR-10.  Mount two other launchers and fire twice as many missiles..."

Even the fact of reduced fire control space kinda goes poof, cause fire control weight isnt the killer on launchers... the killer is ammo weight.

So, in the name of fun gaming - may I assume AR-10s are for 'reasons' not a pants-on-head bad idea, and that similarly the advantages of Killer Whales in raw impact and White Sharks in penetration make up for their disadvantage in accuracy in ways the tabletop rules do not reflect?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 15 June 2018, 12:24:24
Fire control weight is no big deal if launchers are all you have in the arc, but not everyone builds ships like the Heimdaller with a pure missile load. If you load it like (e.g.) a McKenna and have HNPPC and NAC/40 floating around in large numbers, fire control weight starts to look more threatening. Also, the AR/10 does have the advantage that you can alter the ammo load in a way that you can't for the single-type launchers - if your fleet's escort arm got hammered in the last battle, you can swap to Barracuda ammo, whereas if you need to do raw DPS, you can switch to Killer Whale. You can't do that if you mounted the White Shark launchers to save 130 tons per.

Also, the rule change where you don't need to mount 10 rounds of every type really helps the AR-10. Five of each missile is 600 tons, or 850 once you include the launcher, and that is both enough ammo for a decent-duration battle and pretty good weight efficiency(compare it to a NL/45 at 900 tons, for example).

The versatility does come at a price, and you won't always want to pay that price. But tbh even if I was building a munchkin vanilla ship, I'd mount them on some designs. The weapon mix of NL/45, AR-10, and NAC/20 turns your ship into one hell of a Swiss army knife - I'd happily mount a load like that for a SLDF cruiser, especially once bracket fire comes on the scene. It can just do everything.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 15 June 2018, 12:37:39
Fair.  The sense and understanding of the LCN shipwrights is that they'd rather pay more tonnage and be more likely to HIT with a small, multipurpose missile than mount multiple launcher types (and risk some standing idle), or a single multiple use launcher (and reduce throwweight), but for other navies in other situations, that may well be correct.

Agreed on the NL/NAC/Missile mix ship.  Ive got a design a lot like that, and its tempting.  But for me...

"The Inherent Tactical Qualities of All-Big-Gun, One-Caliber Battleships of High Speed, Large Displacement and Gun-Power" - William Sims  (Though I may here disagree with Sims on the value of TACTICAL speed in this setting)

For the record, the first thing that happens when I'm the king who redoes the warship rules is that I'm taking the fire control tonnage rules out behind the woodshed and putting them out of our misery.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 15 June 2018, 12:45:01
I don't think the firecontrol tonnage rules are per say the problem. The problem is the fact that warships can mount huge amounts of mech scale guns which factually should be either completely useless or have ranges so short that relying on them for the bulk of your firepower should be tantamount to suicide. ASF complicate the situation and I have yet to find a workable solution that doesn't just turn ASFs not highly mobile nuke launchers.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 15 June 2018, 12:49:40
I don't think the firecontrol tonnage rules are per say the problem. The problem is the fact that warships can mount huge amounts of mech scale guns which factually should be either completely useless or have ranges so short that relying on them for the bulk of your firepower should be tantamount to suicide. ASF complicate the situation and I have yet to find a workable solution that doesn't just turn ASFs not highly mobile nuke launchers.

Fortunately, for purposes of this narrative exercise, the GM has stated that normal scale weapons are essentially ineffectual against capital scale armor.  ASFs carry capital missiles which they use if trying to harm warships - think not unlike a WW2 Torpedo-Bomber.  An ASF can probably lug a Killer Whale, at hideous impact on its agility and vulnerability.  This makes the need to escort those fighters A Thing - so we get interesting situations where a commander has to figure out how to configure his birds (though at our scale, played here, we do not address it, save perhaps to dictate general doctrine).

As for Nukes... I feel that nukes have the same impact on the warship scale game that they do on the 'mech scale game.  They flip the table, give everyone the bird, and storm off.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 15 June 2018, 13:21:03
Fair.  The sense and understanding of the LCN shipwrights is that they'd rather pay more tonnage and be more likely to HIT with a small, multipurpose missile than mount multiple launcher types (and risk some standing idle), or a single multiple use launcher (and reduce throwweight), but for other navies in other situations, that may well be correct.

Agreed on the NL/NAC/Missile mix ship.  Ive got a design a lot like that, and its tempting.  But for me...

"The Inherent Tactical Qualities of All-Big-Gun, One-Caliber Battleships of High Speed, Large Displacement and Gun-Power" - William Sims  (Though I may here disagree with Sims on the value of TACTICAL speed in this setting)

For the record, the first thing that happens when I'm the king who redoes the warship rules is that I'm taking the fire control tonnage rules out behind the woodshed and putting them out of our misery.

Ooh, excellent article. I found it online (https://books.google.ca/books?id=36EvBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=%22The+Inherent+Tactical+Qualities+of+All-Big-Gun,+One-Caliber+Battleships+of+High+Speed,+Large+Displacement+and+Gun-Power%22+-+William+Sims&source=bl&ots=U5_U1Pe8mo&sig=6NoVlnpsUKdD8pw4Y6UCtcef6Sw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivnILontbbAhVihq0KHZ6yB9oQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Inherent%20Tactical%20Qualities%20of%20All-Big-Gun%2C%20One-Caliber%20Battleships%20of%20High%20Speed%2C%20Large%20Displacement%20and%20Gun-Power%22%20-%20William%20Sims&f=false).

As for fire control rules, they're designed to prevent light weapon spam. They're bad at it, but they're better than nothing. That failure was one of the motivations for this post (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=60602.0), however.

Fortunately, for purposes of this narrative exercise, the GM has stated that normal scale weapons are essentially ineffectual against capital scale armor.  ASFs carry capital missiles which they use if trying to harm warships - think not unlike a WW2 Torpedo-Bomber.  An ASF can probably lug a Killer Whale, at hideous impact on its agility and vulnerability.  This makes the need to escort those fighters A Thing - so we get interesting situations where a commander has to figure out how to configure his birds (though at our scale, played here, we do not address it, save perhaps to dictate general doctrine).

As for Nukes... I feel that nukes have the same impact on the warship scale game that they do on the 'mech scale game.  They flip the table, give everyone the bird, and storm off.

Pretty much. I actually somewhat regret even mentioning nuke tactics, because they totally destroy the game in practice.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 15 June 2018, 13:50:37
Ooh, excellent article. I found it online (https://books.google.ca/books?id=36EvBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=%22The+Inherent+Tactical+Qualities+of+All-Big-Gun,+One-Caliber+Battleships+of+High+Speed,+Large+Displacement+and+Gun-Power%22+-+William+Sims&source=bl&ots=U5_U1Pe8mo&sig=6NoVlnpsUKdD8pw4Y6UCtcef6Sw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivnILontbbAhVihq0KHZ6yB9oQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Inherent%20Tactical%20Qualities%20of%20All-Big-Gun%2C%20One-Caliber%20Battleships%20of%20High%20Speed%2C%20Large%20Displacement%20and%20Gun-Power%22%20-%20William%20Sims&f=false).

As for fire control rules, they're designed to prevent light weapon spam. They're bad at it, but they're better than nothing. That failure was one of the motivations for this post (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=60602.0), however.

Pretty much. I actually somewhat regret even mentioning nuke tactics, because they totally destroy the game in practice.

Well, ruling that standard weapons dont hurt capships fixes standard weapon spam, too.   :)

I know Sims disagrees with Mahan in that article, but its worth noting that the US ended up with Sim’s armaments with Mahan’s speed and strategy.  Im adopting their ideas, leavened by Hughe’s thoughts on effective attack and the salvo model, as my guiding lights here.  Ill also note that I think US Battleship Doctrine was -right-, and Iowa was a mistake, or would have been, were it not for the need for that speed to match the speed carriers required.  Hughes raised an interesting point once that you might be better off with a slower carrier with more, VTOL, fighters than the 30 knot speedboats we have.  I dont think hes right, but its a question worth asking.

For nukes?  My headcannon is to ignore them entirely.  Or more to the point - to assume capital weapons already are nuclear, or nuclear in scale of energy transferred.  Thus theres no ‘nuclear option’ to upgrade to, and NACs and Naval Lasers still make sense.  Hell, for our game, that was part of my rationale for the Heimdall - adopt a no first use policy, and have so many tubes that its clear that doing so means everyone loses.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 15 June 2018, 13:55:30
For nukes?  My headcannon is to ignore them entirely.  Or more to the point - to assume capital weapons already are nuclear, or nuclear in scale of energy transferred.  Thus theres no ‘nuclear option’ to upgrade to, and NACs and Naval Lasers still make sense.  Hell, for our game, that was part of my rationale for the Heimdall - adopt a no first use policy, and have so many tubes that its clear that doing so means everyone loses.
Good idea.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 15 June 2018, 14:41:26
That failure was one of the motivations for this post (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=60602.0), however.

Cant see how I managed to miss that first time around.  If you can get a job rewriting the warship rules for Catalyst, please do so.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 15 June 2018, 14:53:06
Hey what about really low tech, like Rifled Cannons and Rocket Launchers? Their pre-starflight tech that's canon.

Just throwing you people off balance and not to look behind my tinfoiled curtains!

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 15 June 2018, 14:55:24
Hey what about really low tech, like Rifled Cannons and Rocket Launchers? Their pre-starflight tech that's canon.

Just throwing you people off balance and not to look behind my tinfoiled curtains!

TT

I believe I am safe in assuming that Rifled Cannon and Rocket Launchers, 'mech scale, do not have an appreciable impact on Warships.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 15 June 2018, 15:00:09
So no to Macross Missile Spams?

 :'(

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 15 June 2018, 15:05:05
So no to Macross Missile Spams?

 :'(

TT

Umm, have you SEEN my frigate design?  Im just not doing it with mech-scale rocket launchers. :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 15 June 2018, 15:05:59
Funny story - I have a much more thorough capital rules re-work that's half-finished, and MLRS systems feature as one of the options for anti-small-unit work. For example, what would you think of a LRM-600? It'd be 30x one-shot LRM-20s, all stapled together, weighing maybe 100 tons. Any or all of those LRM-20s can be fired at a time, so you can use it to thicken up anti-fighter defences for a while, or barf it all out at once if you think you're about to die. Sounds like a fun little installation for WarShip self-defence, no?  >:D
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 15 June 2018, 15:18:28
Well instigate it!

And yes I have... the Heimdaller. I'm thinking dirty here.

Cheap one shot Bays, on the fly.

Like 1 hex range so very, very short legs. Rocket Launcher -10 has same range as AC/5, weighs in @ .5 tons...say a minimum of 5 tons, or 100 rockets per bay to be useful. You ca go up to the 70 Cap limit if you want.

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 15 June 2018, 15:25:54
Funny story - I have a much more thorough capital rules re-work that's half-finished, and MLRS systems feature as one of the options for anti-small-unit work. For example, what would you think of a LRM-600? It'd be 30x one-shot LRM-20s, all stapled together, weighing maybe 100 tons. Any or all of those LRM-20s can be fired at a time, so you can use it to thicken up anti-fighter defences for a while, or barf it all out at once if you think you're about to die. Sounds like a fun little installation for WarShip self-defence, no?  >:D

Id be tempted to try it out, but I'm always leery of point defense that runs dry.  OTOH, if offense runs dry, you might be better off able to fire all your ponit defense at ONCE, rather than fire less bullets forever.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 15 June 2018, 15:30:56
Id be tempted to try it out, but I'm always leery of point defense that runs dry.  OTOH, if offense runs dry, you might be better off able to fire all your ponit defense at ONCE, rather than fire less bullets forever.

Traditional PD systems would also exist. But remember the rule about how fighters carry capital missiles as "torpedo bombers"? That idea came from this re-work, and it sure sounds like it'd encourage attacks to come in discrete waves, not in steady streams. An equal mass of PPCs is better against a steady stream of fighters, but having a PD system that can shoot back in waves is the sort of thing that could be pretty useful too. Despite the lower theoretical long-term damage potential, it can use it all at the moment when the fighters are actually nearby. (Or at least, that was my thinking)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 15 June 2018, 15:38:30
Right.  If incoming attacks come in crushing salvos of limited number, you just need to defeat enough of enough salvos to buy your own weapons time to win.  The purpose of defense is to buy time for offense to work, after all, not to allow you to cruise back and forth indefinitely, with impunity, in threatened space.  Nothing does that.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 15 June 2018, 17:45:09
I had thought about some changes I may have made if I was in charge of the Warship rule changes in the past.
My first thought was to dump the Fire Control tonnage and just limit of capital guns per arc from a fixed 20 to an amount that varied on ship tonnage, with say 5 standard guns counting as 1 capital, And also limiting how many guns could be in a bay based on that tonnage - a 1.5MT ship can mount bigger turrets then a 200kt one after all.

Just my $2,000ZWD
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 16 June 2018, 00:30:18
I'm a perponet of using turrets on capital ships personally. Yes I know it complicates construction and firing arcs but its the next logical evolution of capital weapons.

On point defense I think that AMS range and engagement ability needs to be hit by the need hammer hard. They can't realisticly engage beyond 1 or 2 km and any single mount engaging more than 6 or 7 missiles in a 60sec turn is ludicrous in the extreme.

I had a bit of an idea while at work. The solution to mech weapon spam is simple dropships and warships can't use them. Instead there needs to be specific capital and sub capital mounts like the quad boffors 40mm AA mounts from ww2. Your lrm 600 is a good example too. spaceships get their own guns that fighters can't use and vice versa. Now to read your article
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 16 June 2018, 08:37:45
Proposition:
Recommend tying maintenance fraction to ship mass, rather than ship cost. 
Suggest 1-3 Milliard per Megaton of hull.

Rationale(1):  Maintenance represents training and repairs at least as much as it does 'parts and labor'.  Hull size is a strong indicator of crew and training requirements.  KF Drives/Docking Collars/LF Batteries seem less intimately tied to those costs, despite large impact on ship costs.

Rationale(2):  Greater size flexibility.  Big ships are -cheap- compared to small ships, so we currently want to build them as large as possible.  If the big ship is cheaper to build, at least let it be proportionately expensive to maintain.  Encourages relevance of smaller hulls - I fear economic pressures are going to turn it into Nelsonian '3rd Rates and 5th Rates and nothing else' - which admitted fits what the SLN ended up building.

Rationale (3):  Justifies use of docking collars, and later LF-Batteries.  If the docking collar and batteries are (essentially) 1-time costs, rather than continual costs, they are a sensible investment for a fleet that expects to not be replacing ships often, such as the SLN.  (Fleets that expect continuous heavy losses will still want to build cheap ships).

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 16 June 2018, 09:02:37
But alot of that fancy, expensive electronics are also finicky and in need of constant, expensive maintenance. Regardless of the ship you put it in.

Perhaps split it down the middle, paying 5% of the ships cost plus some amount based purely on size? Bit of a headache to figure out though

Personally I'm good how it is
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 16 June 2018, 09:23:29
After reading twice I think it's an idea that sounds good to start but in execution quickly becomes very cumbersome. Personally I found B5 Wars to be one of the best pen and paper spaceship damage setups. Is simple yet robust. And pretty flexible. The systems record sheets aren't as construction friendly though.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 16 June 2018, 10:05:52
But alot of that fancy, expensive electronics are also finicky and in need of constant, expensive maintenance. Regardless of the ship you put it in.

Perhaps split it down the middle, paying 5% of the ships cost plus some amount based purely on size? Bit of a headache to figure out though

Personally I'm good how it is

No for splitting it.  Thats more complexity, which we dont need. 

Honestly, if your fine the way it is, so am I.  My long term plans are already based on the current rules.  Im just over here trying to upset my own applecart.  :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 16 June 2018, 19:28:40
I'd rather just keep it as-is, tbh. Yes, big ships are cheaper, but you need to factor in shipyard costs. The ability to build a Leviathan costs $550B in this system, and that gets you two a turn. Even if those two are each $10B cheaper than the equivalent power of smaller ships, you need 28 turns to break even on construction, or 16 turns to break even on construction+maintenance. The game only goes 33 turns before the Succession Wars start. A player who drops the money needed to produce large battleships will profit from it over the long run(especially if they're as big as the Terrans and can build and run multiple lines to get a discount), but you don't necessarily need to go big in order to be competitive.

Also, I have my internet back. Therefore, it's Super Happy Terran Hegemony Will Crush You All Fun Time!  ;D

It was more of a task than I expected to get the THN ships out into the spreadsheet. Not because there was a lot to enter, but because the numbers I had available simply do not match StratOps rules. Most of the time I could just modify the cargo bay a bit to match, but the Cruiser is a particular offender here - it claims to have a 10,000 ton DropShuttle bay and 94,000 tons of cargo, but the total mass available for those things is under 7,000 tons. I gave it 2 collars and a bit under 5k tons of cargo - if it'd been just a bit lighter, I'd have started stripping guns. I also gave the Bonaventure a LNCSS, because its sensors are praised and the ship would be utter trash without something like that to give it a role.

The THN is listed as having 7 Dreadnoughts as a total production run, and to simplify the rest of its standing fleet, I gave it 10 of every other ship except the Lola(which is only a few years old, and thus is assumed to have only 4). This gives a total base maintenance cost of $43.487B, and as previously stated the THN will always pay exactly 100%. I've also assumed that the existing ships have a full complement of support craft, so 80 DropShips, 416 small craft, and 144 fighters.

(ahem)

The Terran Hegemony has taken note of the increased militarization of the outer colonies. In accordance with its long-standing policy of maintaining military superiority over any plausible combination of opponents, the Director-General has approved a major new construction program for the Terran Hegemony Navy.

The major shipyard complexes at Terra and Keid have been upgraded significantly. All class-4 yards have been upgraded, as well as two class-3 yards at Terra and one class-2 yard at each planet. This initiative has been budgeted at $170B.

Two new ship classes are entering service - the Quixote missile frigate, and the Essex destroyer. Prototype costs for these ships are estimated at $17.749B.

The 2350 Naval Bill outlines a total of $441.284B in new construction. The following ships are projected to enter service within the decade planned:
- 12x Quixote missile frigate
- 4x Black Lion battlecruiser
- 6x Lola destroyer
- 4x Dart cruiser
- 6x Essex destroyer
- 6x Cruiser cruiser
- 8x Bonaventure scout
- 16x Vigilant corvette

Numerous support craft have also been ordered, both to stock the new ships and to provide system defences for major systems. A total of 150 DropShips, 600 small craft, and 3,000 fighters will be purchased, for a total of $66B.

The balance of the THN's budget, $11.48B, has been allocated to research and development efforts, to ensure that it remains the peer of any rival nation.


Seriously, it is simply ridiculous what you can do with the THN's budget. For my NPC minor nations, I'm trying to keep them in line with their canon personas and roles, but I'm trying to play them smart so that they'll be capable opponents. For the Hegemony, writing up this list makes me want to play them stupid. I won't make new designs, specifically so that they're stuck with their grossly suboptimal canon designs. If they were playing as smart as you guys or the CC/FS, you wouldn't be able to win even any tactical victories, let alone strategic ones.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 16 June 2018, 20:03:44
So gentlemen, I suggest we form the Star League early, with all of us ganging up on the Hegemony before they're COMPLETELY untouchable...

But you could slowly play them less stupid as time went on, but give us a hope by enforcing certain minimum %'s of ship tonnage spent on cargo, bigger engines than really needed and so on :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 16 June 2018, 20:13:47
If they were playing as smart as you guys or the CC/FS, you wouldn't be able to win even any tactical victories, let alone strategic ones.

Im not sure my first turn qualifies as smart.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 16 June 2018, 20:32:47
Most of the planets you guys own were unseen by human eyes 200 years ago, and a lot of them still have populations in the single-digit millions. The TH is comprised mostly of economically developed planets - note which planet has as much shipyard capacity as the rest of the known universe combined, for example. Your economies will grow a heck of a lot faster than the Terran economy will, because there's a lot fewer limits on your growth.

The Star League was a fairly stable force because it's united, but once that stability broke down, Kerensky felt the need to Brave Sir Robin his way out of there despite being noticeably stronger than any of the other houses. Once the Star League broke, there was no putting it back together, because the necessary dominance of the Terran Hegemony was lost. And that wasn't just battle damage, either - the 200 years of the Star League had been better for the successor states than the Terrans, and even on an economic basis they were not nearly so dominant as they'd previously been when it was formed. Compare the US in 1946 to the US today, for example - still the strongest nation around, but it has real economic competition in a way that it didn't previously.

Also, it helps that they were a very passive force, all things considered. The Star League was formed as part of a peace treaty between Marik and Liao, remember - the Terrans had been thinking of the idea, but they weren't really the ones who got the ball rolling. After James McKenna's reconquest of the inner worlds, the THN was almost entirely idle as far as I can tell. It's a Sword of Damocles hanging over everyone's heads, but it's not likely to swing much.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 16 June 2018, 21:11:37
does a 2350 map of the sphere exist? best I can find is the various faction maps at their creation, and then 2571 when the Reunification War kicks off. Nothing in between

I'm currently basing any future plans on the fact the 2571 map is more or less correct, minus the fact I don't own those dirty Norsemen yet ;)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 16 June 2018, 21:26:57
does a 2350 map of the sphere exist? best I can find is the various faction maps at their creation, and then 2571 when the Reunification War kicks off. Nothing in between

I'm currently basing any future plans on the fact the 2571 map is more or less correct, minus the fact I don't own those dirty Norsemen yet ;)

Well, we know out of character that thise maps are in large part correct.  The people in universe dont.  This has some knock on effects -

I -know- that those Heracles Class Battlecruisers are not going to show up over Tharkad on Turn 2 and annex the Commonwealth.  (And it would be silly if they did - my caljtal isnt there yet!). 

But in universe, my 1st Lord is dealing with Archons using words like ‘Battlecruiser Gap’ and ‘Existential Threat’.  Of course, shes also hearing words like ‘overpriced’ ‘useless’ ‘showboat’. While surrounded by stronger powers with much less head-up-ass than the current LC leadership.

So we split the baby, build something to appease the scared politicians who cant tell one warship from another, to show the army guys how useful an all in one multi-brigaide assault ship is arent they nice shouldnt the govt give us more money to build more for you guys did we mention every private gets his own bunk, and then we build a pile of jumpers and put them on long term loan to whichever megacartel is making us happiest.

We write doctrine to deal with larger/stronger enemy fleets and hope it works, we appease the competing government interests while laying down ships well aware thst -noone- knows what the conflict paradigm looks like in 20 years - or for that matter right now! 

So if the LC turns look wierd, thats why.

If a 2350 map exists, I have not found it, though it would please me to do so.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 16 June 2018, 21:31:02
And you suddenly producing a BC is likely to lead to the Coordinator forcing me to do the same... fortunately Fubukis big sister is already in the planning office.

She's rich(ly oppointed), she's beautiful, she's got huuuugggeee.... tracts of land...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 16 June 2018, 21:34:35
And you suddenly producing a BC is likely to lead to the Coordinator forcing me to do the same... fortunately Fubukis big sister is already in the planning office.

She's rich(ly oppointed), she's beautiful, she's got huuuugggeee.... tracts of land...

Honestly, if I already had Fubuki, Id have to wonder if its worth prototyping a 750, or serial producing more of her while upping my yard size to build something that can overmatch heracles, rather than merely fighting her.

It is a little wierd inasmuch as the DC will never -see- a Heracles.  But you -do- have to assume that I’ll build in response to her.  On the flip side... your current in universe problem is Rasalhaugian Patriots.  Does the Coordinator think that Battlecruisers will help with that problem?

Hmm.  Now that I think on it, a 750 KT version of Potemkin might be exactly what the doctor ordered.  Invade all the things, in safety and comfort.  Tweak collar load up or down depending on budget and how happy you want to make the army.  Make the coordinator happy.  Make the army happy.  Make your deep and burning love for Naval Autocannon happy.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 16 June 2018, 22:09:14
As you said, I know it can probably do the job if built in sufficient numbers, but Mr Kurita may very well want a Big Ship to equal the Big Ship you're building in response to Marik's Big Ship :P

And that's assuming he doesn't want the DCA to somehow match the Terrans within his lifetime   ::)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 16 June 2018, 22:15:29
does a 2350 map of the sphere exist? best I can find is the various faction maps at their creation, and then 2571 when the Reunification War kicks off. Nothing in between

I'm currently basing any future plans on the fact the 2571 map is more or less correct, minus the fact I don't own those dirty Norsemen yet ;)

I have no better map than those. If you want to confirm any particulars, load up the planet on Sarna - they seem to all have pretty good timelines of ownership, and that'll give you a sense of how any given border may have moved. But yes, that assumption matches what I've been using for general purposes.

---

The Capellan Commonality has, after a substantial analysis of their naval situation, decided to eschew the concept of building a true black-water navy as being beyond their means. Capella simply does not have the industrial muscle to build a true navy from scratch, nor can it easily change that fact. Instead, the Capellans have decided to fall back on a traditional technique for asymmetrical naval warfare - commerce raiding. The Qinru Zhe is one of the fastest ships in production, and while its armament is relatively light, it is more than sufficient to destroy any civilian craft or infrastructure that it may be sent against, or to challenge smaller WarShips. It also mounts a state-of-the-art sensor suite, designed to allow it to choose its battles as effectively as possible. The ship is designed for lengthy deployments, with a generous fuel reserve, a larger cargo bay than many of its peers, and eschewing capital missiles to ensure that its guns do not run dry before it can return to base. Two squads of marines and two shuttle bays also allow the ship to capture enemies intact and return them home under a prize crew, in some circumstances.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Qinru Zhe
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $7,946,314,000.00
Magazine Cost: $11,757,600.00
BV2: 54,753

Mass: 480,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 5
Maximum Thrust: 8
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
4 Naval AC 30
16 Naval Laser 55
120 AC 2

Class/Model/Name: Qinru Zhe
Mass: 480,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 144,000
Thrust
Safe: 5
Maximum: 8
Controls: 1,200
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (11 Integrity) 217,200
Jump Sail: (4 Integrity) 54
Structural Integrity: 80 38,400
Total Heat Sinks: 1021 Single 440
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 12500 points 5,100
Fire Control Computers: 0
Armor: 308 pts Standard 768
Fore: 70
Fore-Left/Right: 60/60
Aft-Left/Right: 60/60
Aft: 46

Dropship Capacity: 2 2,000
Grav Decks:
Small: 2 100
Medium: 0
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 20 140
Life Boats: 20 140

Crew And Passengers:
33 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 330
108 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 756
52 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 364
10 Bay Personnel 0
60 2nd Class Passengers 420

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
4 Naval AC 30 Nose 400 1200 (120-C) Long-C 14,000
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
15 AC 2 Nose 15 30 (3-C) Long 90
15 AC 2 Aft 15 30 (3-C) Long 90
15 AC 2 RBS 15 30 (3-C) Long 90
15 AC 2 LBS 15 30 (3-C) Long 90
15 AC 2 FR 15 30 (3-C) Long 90
15 AC 2 FL 15 30 (3-C) Long 90
15 AC 2 AR 15 30 (3-C) Long 90
15 AC 2 AL 15 30 (3-C) Long 90

Ammo Rounds Mass
Naval AC 30 Ammo 160 128.00
AC 2 Ammo 10800 240.00

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
35,000 Cargo, Standard 35,000 2
1 NCSS Large 500
2 Bay Small Craft 400 2

The Capellans have chosen to build two Qinru Zhe raiders, as well as publicizing them heavily in order to warn off other nations who might be interested in attacking. They have also invested in blueprints for a Chongzhi recharge station, with the intent of developing a network to allow faster redeployment of their raiders in wartime.

Prototype cost = $7.946B
2x Qinru Zhe = $15.893B
40x small craft = $400m
Chongzhi license = $169m (transferred to SIML)
Chongzhi = $338m
Research = $254m

---

The Sarna Supremacy has taken an interest in the chaos in Tikonov, and wishes to assist its neighbours...directly, shall we say. Since the campaign is planned for the near future, the long lead time needed for a new WarShip design is deemed to be uneconomical by the Premier. Instead, a large order of DropShips equipped to carry heavy vehicles is placed with various suppliers, as well as a small number equipped for fighter operations, and Sarna-flagged merchant ships are subject to many random inspections to ascertain their readiness for military operations(as required in an obscure provision of the Sarna Maritime Regulations).

72x DropShip = $21.6B
100x small craft = $1B
300x fighter = $1.5B
Research = $900m
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 16 June 2018, 22:32:59
I like Quinrue Zee.  Thats a classic response for a completely overmatched naval power.  Guerre de course.  Jejune Ecole.  She cant win a fight with a ‘real’ warship, hell, she’ll have problems with a beefy corvette.  But she should almost never have to be on a fight she didnt pick.

Hell, at the risk of Rule whatever it is, Im watching each of us do various different versions of IRL minor powers faced with the IRL Naval hegemon of their era.  Its really cool for a certain very narrow flavor of nerd.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 17 June 2018, 02:54:02
No fighters... no AMS unless AC/2s count... good thing it has alot of engine, its going to do alot of running away.

Reckon a Heimdallrr will take it apart (eventually), nevermind the Leagues little beastie.

And unless we're ignoring the 70 point Bay limit, I assume those NAC/30s are in twin turrets, and just listed as one big bay because it was easier?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 17 June 2018, 04:57:01
1.)  Bays are entirely artificial/management construct - id be aurprised if we are using them.l, other than as a handy counting tool.

2.)  She doesnt have to fight Heimdaller, or anyone, really.  Light that giant fusion torch and head for the hill.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 17 June 2018, 07:44:28
I counted all the worlds big enough to bother putting on the maps.

Lyran Commonwealth Predecessor States, 2330:  ~120
Lyran Commonwealth, 2571 ~330

Gives me a sense of scale, expected growth, and also tells me how many recharge stations to buy. :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 17 June 2018, 08:11:01
Hell, at the risk of Rule whatever it is, Im watching each of us do various different versions of IRL minor powers faced with the IRL Naval hegemon of their era. Its really cool for a certain very narrow flavor of nerd.

Which sums up this whole thread, really. And I'm not worried about rules of that sort. The game keeps us on topic over the long run, and a thread like this is pretty self-segregating, especially on a quiet board - I don't think we're polluting anyone else's feed, so I doubt the mods mind some amount of RL naval discussion on the side.

No fighters... no AMS unless AC/2s count... good thing it has alot of engine, its going to do alot of running away.

Reckon a Heimdallrr will take it apart (eventually), nevermind the Leagues little beastie.

And unless we're ignoring the 70 point Bay limit, I assume those NAC/30s are in twin turrets, and just listed as one big bay because it was easier?

Fighters eat up a lot of supply mass, and don't do much that this ship needs. It's designed to kill civilian ships or light combatants - one NAC/30 will scramble the eggs of a DropShip (given that they're all <5k tons at this point) or a JumpShip. They're actually four single turrets, just to increase your total chances of landing a hit - I don't bother breaking out the bays on my designs, because it's annoying with the spreadsheet, but that was how I thought of it. Even if you are facing real enemies, a single NAC/30 will be a threshold crit on any WarShip in this era, and the nose mount combined with the giant engines means she can do one heck of a high-speed closing engagement, so keeping them as singles is probably ideal(even if it'll be regretted in a century as defences get stronger).

So yeah, it'll lose badly to a ship designed for pitched battles, but what else would the Capellans do? They can't win those battles even if they optimize their designs for it, so they're just tossing the whole concept over one shoulder. You're seeing this in a lot of nations in the Capellan zone - they're all implementing strategies of desperation in one form or another, because they're small nations sandwiched together in a very dangerous part of the galaxy, and none of them have the resources to stand alone. They'll be merging in less than 20 years, because this is the sort of situation where merging with all your enemies just to make sure you can survive makes sense. The FWL attacked them recently, the FS is going to attack them this turn, and the TH is vomiting out more ships in a year than the whole zone is in a decade - this is full-on "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons" territory. And designs like this are part of the process of them consciously realizing it.

---

Marauder has re-considered his previous involvement in this due to personal commitments, and has told me that he's dropping out after all. He'll still be around, just not running a nation.

As such, I'll be drawing up the Taurian budget. It's basically in line with what I suggested to him before - one Independence($9.134B with prototype costs), the support craft to fill it out(one DropShip, 4 small craft, and 12 fighters for a total of $400m), 60 more fighters for system defence($300m), and $166m on research.

---

The Duchy of Liao believes that the only plausible solution to an inferior economic position is building the largest, most effective individual units possible, and accepting the resulting numerical inferiority in hopes of having a force that can defeat enemy detachments without suffering attritional losses. Unfortunately for the Duchy of Liao, they do not have shipyards suitable for the construction of such units, nor do they have the staggering sums needed to build such yards or the allies to borrow the yard space. As such their designs like the mighty Du Shi Wang will remain on the drawing board for the time being.

Instead, the Duchy has decided to invest in the most capable hull that they can build with current technology. The Quzhujian destroyer is short-legged, cramped, and contains few facilities for long-term occupation by its crew, and constructing it stretched the Duchy's finances and shipyards to their limits. However, it has six of the largest guns of any ship known, speed superior to most of its competitors, a powerful strike fighter force, and possibly the strongest set of active and passive defences of any ship in active service.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Quzhujian
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $5,997,876,000.00
Magazine Cost: $31,720,000.00
BV2: 54,012

Mass: 500,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 4
Maximum Thrust: 6
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
6 Naval AC 40
24 Capital Launcher AR-10
16 Naval Laser 55
80 Machine Gun (IS)
32 AC 5

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

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 120,000
Thrust
Safe: 4
Maximum: 6
Controls: 1,250
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (12 Integrity) 226,250
Jump Sail: (4 Integrity) 55
Structural Integrity: 120 60,000
Total Heat Sinks: 1225 Single 691
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 5000 points 2,040
Fire Control Computers: 0
Armor: 480 pts Standard 1,200
Fore: 100
Fore-Left/Right: 100/100
Aft-Left/Right: 90/90
Aft: 72

Dropship Capacity: 0
Grav Decks:
Small: 0
Medium: 0
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 20 140
Life Boats: 20 140

Crew And Passengers:
36 Officers in 2nd Class Quarters 252
109 Crew in Steerage Quarters 545
65 Gunners and Others in Steerage Quarters 325
126 Bay Personnel 0

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
2 Naval AC 40 Nose 270 800 (80-C) Medium-C 9,000
2 Naval AC 40 LBS 270 800 (80-C) Medium-C 9,000
2 Naval AC 40 RBS 270 800 (80-C) Medium-C 9,000
6 Capital Launcher AR-10 FL Extreme-C 1,500
6 Capital Launcher AR-10 FR Extreme-C 1,500
6 Capital Launcher AR-10 AL Extreme-C 1,500
6 Capital Launcher AR-10 AR Extreme-C 1,500
4 Naval Laser 55 Nose 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
4 Naval Laser 55 LBS 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
4 Naval Laser 55 RBS 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
4 Naval Laser 55 Aft 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
10 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 20 (2-C) Short-PDS 5
10 Machine Gun (IS) LBS 20 (2-C) Short-PDS 5
10 Machine Gun (IS) RBS 20 (2-C) Short-PDS 5
10 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 20 (2-C) Short-PDS 5
10 Machine Gun (IS) FL 20 (2-C) Short-PDS 5
10 Machine Gun (IS) FR 20 (2-C) Short-PDS 5
10 Machine Gun (IS) AL 20 (2-C) Short-PDS 5
10 Machine Gun (IS) AR 20 (2-C) Short-PDS 5
4 AC 5 Nose 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
4 AC 5 LBS 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
4 AC 5 RBS 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
4 AC 5 Aft 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
4 AC 5 FL 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
4 AC 5 FR 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
4 AC 5 AL 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
4 AC 5 AR 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32

Ammo Rounds Mass
Naval AC 40 Ammo 180 216.00
Capital Launcher Barracuda Ammo 120 3,600.00
Capital Launcher Killer Whale Ammo 120 6,000.00
Capital Launcher White Shark Ammo 120 4,800.00
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 8000 40.00
AC 5 Ammo 3200 160.00

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
13,000 Cargo, Standard 13,000 2
48 Bay Fighter 7,200 8
6 Bay Small Craft 1,200 2

In order to defray the fearsome cost of these ships, and to ensure some funds may be available for shipyard expansion in future, the Duchy has also secured an export agreement with the Sian Commonwealth for the second Quzhujian off their lines at a total cost of $8 billion, payable during the development process. While this rather unusual arrangement has attracted notice, both for the lower price than is typical in the export market and the unusual level of trust that the Commonwealth is placing in Liao designers, spokesmen for both nations assure the public that it is merely a financial arrangement that better suited the needs of the two realms than a typical cash-on-delivery agreement would, and that nothing more should be read into it except a desire for shared peace and prosperity in the Capellan zone.

Budget: $15B
Prototype expense: $5.998B
2x Quzhujian: $11.996B
(Export proceeds: $8B gain)
300 fighter: $1.5B
50 small craft: $500m
Research: $306m

Remaining: $2.7B

---

The Sian Commonwealth was struggling with its desire for a navy to defend against the threat of new Heracles construction for over a year with no plausible solutions being found. Discussions of licensing Pratham defence stations, or even of trying to build a new shipyard industry from scratch, foundered upon the impracticality of actually producing a useful defence with the Commonwealth's limited budget. However, upon reading of the extremely ambitious Liao ship-building plans, an emissary was dispatched to discuss the possibility of purchasing a ship from Liao shipyards. The Commonwealth's navy was unhappy with the design in some particulars, as their larger astrographic size makes the cramped quarters distinctly unpleasant for the ship's crews. However, no other navy was willing to offer shipyard space for a price that the Commonwealth could afford, and so a deal was almost inevitable. As a compromise, they have decided to begin building a dedicated fleet supply train, commencing with a single JumpShip carrying a DropShip designed for crew recreation and storage of additional supplies.

Budget: $10B
Quzhujian import: $8B
12 fighter: $600m
30 small craft: $300m
1x JumpShip: $500m
1x DropShip: $300m
Research: $300m
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 17 June 2018, 09:47:53
Quote
Fighters eat up a lot of supply mass, and don't do much that this ship needs. It's designed to kill civilian ships or light combatants - one NAC/30 will scramble the eggs of a DropShip (given that they're all <5k tons at this point) or a JumpShip.

Most naval vessels don't have 'kill other naval vessels in a stand up fight' as their main job.  Ive the same concerns for her future that I do for any commerce raider - your one bad break from seeing her lost behind enemy lines - but she does the job shes intended to.  I might have gone smaller/cheaper, but thats horses for courses and all about what sort of defenses you expect to hit.

Quote
Marauder has re-considered his previous involvement in this due to personal commitments, and has told me that he's dropping out after all. He'll still be around, just not running a nation.

Damn.  *waves to Marauder*  Well, if your not playing, feel free to kibbutz publically or privately.  I may pick your brain.

Quote
The Duchy of Liao believes that the only plausible solution to an inferior economic position is building the largest, most effective individual units possible, and accepting the resulting numerical inferiority in hopes of having a force that can defeat enemy detachments without suffering attritional losses.
Hmm.  If the Duchy of Liao was Japanese rather than Chinese in extraction, they'd just about have to name her Yamato.

Quote
However, no other navy was willing to offer shipyard space for a price that the Commonwealth could afford, and so a deal was almost inevitable.

*sniff*  *sob*  They never even ASKED. 
~lol~  Srsly though, makes sense with the upcoming merger.


Side note:  I looked at what 1 Jumpship with 3x5000 ton dropships can haul.  Call it about 7.5KT of cargo, MSRP 1.4 Billion.  Im seriously considering setting aside yard space for full up freighters.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 17 June 2018, 09:50:55
~deleted~
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 17 June 2018, 10:02:36
Hmm.  If the Duchy of Liao was Japanese rather than Chinese in extraction, they'd just about have to name her Yamato.

*sniff*  *sob*  They never even ASKED. 
~lol~  Srsly though, makes sense with the upcoming merger.


Side note:  I looked at what 1 Jumpship with 3x5000 ton dropships can haul.  Call it about 7.5KT of cargo, MSRP 1.4 Billion.  Im seriously considering setting aside yard space for full up freighters.

Yeah, the Yamato is what they want, but they can't build it. As a result, the Quzhujian is a typical hard-stats-only ship for secondary powers that want to look scary but don't expect to fight much, because that's what they can actually make.

And yes, the choice of licensing partners in the Capellan zone is largely metagame-based. It's a plausible deal, but they aren't going to start shopping the other realms for the time being.

Freighters are a reasonable choice in this era, for sure. They can't swap DropShips at the jump point to allow goods to fly towards the planets while they're charging, so their strategic movement speed will be much lower, but the raw goods per C-Bill isn't bad at all until there's larger DropShips to compete with them.

---

I've finally gotten around to publishing the master spreadsheet with amendments. Stations costs are properly calculated(no K-F and x5 multiplier, instead of K-F and x2 multiplier like before), the free armour per facing is included in the total armor point cap, and all post-2780 weapons have been removed from the list of options. You can find it here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XW-l5w0nuEvtdhDpGjDDQICX2oPaJEEUwMI2xBSOlTA/edit#gid=0). I've never shared a Google Sheets doc like this before, so please make sure that the "Save a Copy" function works the same as it does on CryHavoc's sheet.

---

EDIT: This has been retconned away due to Kiviar taking over as Federated Suns player

The FedSuns pose a more interesting challenge than the other NPC realms. In-game because they have enough canon designs that I feel a need to work with what they have, but the designs are in some ways worse than the SLDF ships, and out-of-game because a couple people have mused about taking them over and so I was trying not to plan out too much of their turn until now. (You can still take over if you like, but you're stuck with this turn now. Muahaha, etc.)

In canon, the first FedSuns ship was the Defender, launched in 2360. Instead of filling that gap with a new ship, I've decided to move it up to 2350. (They only built six in canon, and had no new designs until 2510, so I'll be gap-filling down the line. But I'll start here.)

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Defender
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $11,661,986,000.00
Magazine Cost: $75,392,000.00
BV2: 102,348

Mass: 960,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 5
Maximum Thrust: 8
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
5 Naval AC 35
21 Naval AC 25
82 AC 5
47 Machine Gun (IS)

Class/Model/Name: Defender
Mass: 960,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 288,000
Thrust
Safe: 5
Maximum: 8
Controls: 2,400
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (20 Integrity) 434,400
Jump Sail: (5 Integrity) 78
Structural Integrity: 40 38,400
Total Heat Sinks: 1703 Single 900
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 7500 points 3,060
Fire Control Computers: 5
Armor: 330 pts Standard 765
Fore: 65
Fore-Left/Right: 60/60
Aft-Left/Right: 50/50
Aft: 45

Dropship Capacity: 4 4,000
Grav Decks:
Small: 0
Medium: 2 200
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 35 245
Life Boats: 35 245

Crew And Passengers:
48 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 480
189 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 1,323
48 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 336
100 Bay Personnel 0
12 1st Class Passengers 120
33 2nd Class Passengers 231

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
1 Naval AC 35 Nose 120 350 (35-C) Medium-C 4,000
2 Naval AC 35 RBS 240 700 (70-C) Medium-C 8,000
2 Naval AC 35 LBS 240 700 (70-C) Medium-C 8,000
9 Naval AC 25 Nose 765 2250 (225-C) Long-C 27,000
6 Naval AC 25 RBS 510 1500 (150-C) Long-C 18,000
6 Naval AC 25 LBS 510 1500 (150-C) Long-C 18,000
4 AC 5 Nose 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
4 AC 5 RBS 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
4 AC 5 LBS 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
20 AC 5 Aft 20 100 (10-C) Medium 160
10 AC 5 FR 10 50 (5-C) Medium 80
10 AC 5 FL 10 50 (5-C) Medium 80
15 AC 5 AR 15 75 (7.5-C) Medium 120
15 AC 5 AL 15 75 (7.5-C) Medium 120
6 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 12 (1.2-C) Short-PDS 3
6 Machine Gun (IS) RBS 12 (1.2-C) Short-PDS 3
6 Machine Gun (IS) LBS 12 (1.2-C) Short-PDS 3
5 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 10 (1-C) Short-PDS 3
6 Machine Gun (IS) FR 12 (1.2-C) Short-PDS 3
6 Machine Gun (IS) FL 12 (1.2-C) Short-PDS 3
6 Machine Gun (IS) AR 12 (1.2-C) Short-PDS 3
6 Machine Gun (IS) AL 12 (1.2-C) Short-PDS 3

Ammo Rounds Mass
Naval AC 25 Ammo 1050 630.00
Naval AC 35 Ammo 250 250.00
AC 5 Ammo 8200 410.00
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 9400 47.00

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
20 Bay Small Craft 4,000 10
95,795 Cargo, Standard 95,795 6


Of course, this is a size 4 ship, and the FedSuns has no size 4 yards. As such, the yard at Delevan is being expanded to a size 4, which will allow two of these monsters to come off the lines.

Budget: $90B
Delevan upgrade (3>4): $40B
Defender R&D: $11.662B
2x Defender: $23.324B
12x DropShip: $3.6B
100x Small Craft: $1B
1800x fighter: $9B
Research: $1.414B

And that, finally, concludes design and budgeting for NPC nations. Next post: Actual combat results!
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 17 June 2018, 10:24:00
Freighters are a reasonable choice in this era, for sure. They can't swap DropShips at the jump point to allow goods to fly towards the planets while they're charging, so their strategic movement speed will be much lower, but the raw goods per C-Bill isn't bad at all until there's larger DropShips to compete with them.

Yes, but maybe I dont WANT my transport assets hanging around at the Jumppoint flapping in the breeze. :)

Beyond that.  May I assume that the Army is handling its OWN transport, just like the Merchants are handling THEIR OWN jumpships and dropships, and anything I build in that direction is essentially value added to those sectors of my nation.  And yes, the idea of a 'warfreighter' is done with malice aforethought.  It becomes a collier, or invasion transport, or fast fighter resupply, and all without leaving jumpships hanging lonely at the jumppoint.



Quote
I've finally gotten around to publishing the master spreadsheet with amendments. Stations costs are properly calculated(no K-F and x5 multiplier, instead of K-F and x2 multiplier like before), the free armour per facing is included in the total armor point cap, and all post-2780 weapons have been removed from the list of options. You can find it here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XW-l5w0nuEvtdhDpGjDDQICX2oPaJEEUwMI2xBSOlTA/edit#gid=0). I've never shared a Google Sheets doc like this before, so please make sure that the "Save a Copy" function works the same as it does on CryHavoc's sheet.
 

Is there any way to turn that into a shareable excel spreadsheet?  No Google Docs for this boy.  :(

Quote
....but the designs are in some ways worse than the SLDF ships.


And that, finally, concludes design and budgeting for NPC nations. Next post: Actual combat results!

Well, Defender is a hellva commerce raider/battle-cruiser.  Run things down, nothing can run away... shes basically a giant version of the Capellan commerce raider next door.  Maybe she is just 'same, only more and better, cause Fedsuns and Freedom!'

Lyran observers are looking forward to reports of what actually happens (probalby not much, turn 1)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 17 June 2018, 11:28:49
Next post: Actually not combat results!

The buddy of mine who was thinking of playing FedSuns has decided to jump in. So, the above FedSuns turn is retconned away, and I'll wait for his post to see what happens next. I'll get as much of the non-FS stuff as I can written up while he figures out his plans. There'll be a total of three battles to report, though mostly small ones.

Quote
Beyond that.  May I assume that the Army is handling its OWN transport, just like the Merchants are handling THEIR OWN jumpships and dropships, and anything I build in that direction is essentially value added to those sectors of my nation.

Merchants buy their own ships, and you do not need to help them(though you can, if desired). Army transport is part of your budget, though in practice most nations in this era just press civilian transports into service when needed. Wars are mostly short and sharp, so it hasn't cost anyone too much as of yet. Overly ambitious attempts to press civilian ships into service can have some consequences, but nobody's really been burned by them yet, and nobody has enough cash to replace it all with militarized ships yet.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 17 June 2018, 12:07:55
There in universe reason for the lack of house ships at this point was that at first no one had enough to make real naval battles an attractive thing considering the cost and second after the Aries convention everyone focused on ground battles to the exclusion of all else. This created an artificial political situation that I don't believe would actually persist in real life. Naval interdiction of attacking forces is just too useful.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 17 June 2018, 13:58:54
Hi, I'm the friend that Alsadius dragooned in to taking over the Federated Suns.

I've put together two warships for my first turn.

In the first half of the 24th century the ideal of maneuver warfare gripped the military planners of the fledgling Federated Suns. With larger and more industrially advanced neighbors it was understood that to survive any large-scale interstellar war the Federated Suns must be able to, 1) disrupt any hostile power's command and logistical infrastructure so that it becomes difficult for them to mount any consolidated action,  and 2) hit the enemy with pin-point strikes with maximal power without being drawn in to a protracted battle.

To enact this theory, the newly-formed AFFS commissioned the design of two classes of warship

First off the Albion-class frigate:
 
Built to be fast enough to outrun anything it can't kill, the Albion class of frigates were designed primarily as raiders. Its armament consisted of a powerful array of 6 class 20 naval autocannons mounted in the nose, as well as a pair on either side. The Albion was designed to win its fights as quickly as possible from outside the effective weapon range of most dropships. To protect against lighter threats the Albion also mounted an impressive array of anti-fighter weapons, as well as a single squadron of aerospace fighters.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Albion-class frigate
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $7,088,697,600.00
Magazine Cost: $38,635,000.00
BV2: 51,268

Mass: 400,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 5
Maximum Thrust: 8
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
10 Naval AC 20
64 AC 5
39 Machine Gun (IS)

Mass: 400,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 120,000.00
Thrust
Safe: 5
Maximum: 8
Controls: 1,000.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (10 Integrity) 181,000.00
Jump Sail: (4 Integrity) 50.00
Structural Integrity: 150 60,000.00
Total Heat Sinks: 534 Single
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 10372 points 4,231.98
Fire Control Computers: 0.00
Armor: 480 pts Standard 1,200.00
Fore: 120
Fore-Left/Right: 95/95
Aft-Left/Right: 90/90
Aft: 80

Dropship Capacity: 2 2,000.00
Grav Decks:
Small: 1 50.00
Medium: 0.00
Large: 0.00
Escape Pods: 25 175.00
Life Boats: 0.00

Crew And Passengers:
26 Officers in 2nd Class Quarters 182.00
99 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 693.00
28 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 196.00
12 Bay Personnel 0.00
2 1st Class Passengers 20.00
10 2nd Class Passengers 70.00
Steerage Passengers 0.00

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
6 Naval AC 20 Nose 360 1200 (120-C) Long-C 15,000.00
4 AC 5 Nose 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
4 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 8 (0.8-C) 2.00
10 AC 5 FR 10 50 (5-C) 80.00
5 Machine Gun (IS) FR 10 (1-C) 2.50
10 AC 5 FL 10 50 (5-C) 80.00
5 Machine Gun (IS) FL 10 (1-C) 2.50
2 Naval AC 20 LBS 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
5 AC 5 LBS 5 25 (2.5-C) 40.00
5 Machine Gun (IS) LBS 10 (1-C) 2.50
2 Naval AC 20 RBS 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
5 AC 5 RBS 5 25 (2.5-C) 40.00
5 Machine Gun (IS) RBS 10 (1-C) 2.50
10 AC 5 AR 10 50 (5-C) 80.00
5 Machine Gun (IS) AR 10 (1-C) 2.50
10 AC 5 AL 10 50 (5-C) 80.00
5 Machine Gun (IS) AL 10 (1-C) 2.50
10 AC 5 Aft 10 50 (5-C) 80.00
5 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 10 (1-C) 2.50

Ammo Rounds
Naval AC 20 Ammo 1600
AC 5 Ammo 1000
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 2000

And secondly the Galahad-class heavy cruiser

Designed as the 'hammer' of the new Federated Suns Navy, the Galahad-class, much like its smaller cousin the Albion, was designed around the concept of speed and applied firepower. Similarly to the Albion the Galahad's main firepower also comes primarily from a nose-mounted array of autocannons. 8 class 40 naval autocannons allow the Galahad to obliterate the armour on any contemporary warship in short order. However, should the ship find itself in a less ideal position, the ship's sides bristle with class 20 and class 35 naval autocannons as well. 2 squadrons of fighters, 12 capital-class missile launchers and a wide array of anti-fighter ballistic weapons round out the Galahad's armament allowing it to strike, and incapacitate threats at nearly any range.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Galahad-class heavy cruiser
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $10,787,586,000.00
Magazine Cost: $115,190,000.00
BV2: 115,920

Mass: 900,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 4
Maximum Thrust: 6
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
8 Naval AC 40
12 Capital Launcher Killer Whale
22 AC 5
48 Machine Gun (IS)
10 Naval AC 20
12 Naval AC 35


Class/Model/Name: Galahad-class heavy-cruiser
Mass: 900,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 216,000.00
Thrust
Safe: 4
Maximum: 6
Controls: 2,250.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (19 Integrity) 407,250.00
Jump Sail: (5 Integrity) 75.00
Structural Integrity: 140 126,000.00
Total Heat Sinks: 1990 Single 1,288.00
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 10000 points 4,080.00
Fire Control Computers: 0.00
Armor: 1008 pts Standard 2,520.00
Fore: 200
Fore-Left/Right: 192/192
Aft-Left/Right: 172/172
Aft: 164

Dropship Capacity: 3 3,000.00
Grav Decks:
Small: 0.00
Medium: 1 100.00
Large: 0.00
Escape Pods: 50 350.00
Life Boats: 0.00

Crew And Passengers:
47 Officers in 2nd Class Quarters 329.00
178 Crew in Steerage Quarters 890.00
54 Gunners and Others in Steerage Quarters 270.00
39 Bay Personnel 0.00
1 1st Class Passengers 10.00
10 2nd Class Passengers 70.00
10 Steerage Passengers 50.00

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
8 Naval AC 40 Nose 1080 3200 (320-C) Medium-C 36,000.00
4 Capital Launcher Killer Whale Nose 80 160 (16-C) 600.00
2 AC 5 Nose 2 10 (1-C) 16.00
6 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 12 (1.2-C) 3.00
3 Naval AC 20 FR 180 600 (60-C) 7,500.00
2 AC 5 FR 2 10 (1-C) 16.00
6 Machine Gun (IS) FR 12 (1.2-C) 3.00
3 Naval AC 20 FL 180 600 (60-C) 7,500.00
2 AC 5 FL 2 10 (1-C) 16.00
6 Machine Gun (IS) FL 12 (1.2-C) 3.00
6 Naval AC 35 RBS 720 2100 (210-C) 24,000.00
4 AC 5 RBS 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
6 Machine Gun (IS) RBS 12 (1.2-C) 3.00
6 Naval AC 35 LBS 720 2100 (210-C) 24,000.00
4 AC 5 LBS 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
6 Machine Gun (IS) LBS 12 (1.2-C) 3.00
2 Naval AC 20 AR 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
2 AC 5 AR 2 10 (1-C) 16.00
6 Machine Gun (IS) AR 12 (1.2-C) 3.00
2 Naval AC 20 AL 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
2 AC 5 AL 2 10 (1-C) 16.00
6 Machine Gun (IS) AL 12 (1.2-C) 3.00
8 Capital Launcher Killer Whale Aft 160 320 (32-C) 1,200.00
4 AC 5 Aft 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
6 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 12 (1.2-C) 3.00

Ammo Rounds Mass Equipment
Capital Launcher Killer Whale Ammo 144 7,200.00 None
Naval AC 40 Ammo 320 384.00
naval ac 20 ammo 640 256.00
AC 5 Ammo 2000 100.00
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 4000 20.00
Naval AC 35 Ammo 480 480.00


Budget: $90B
Upgrades:
Delevan upgrade (3>4): $40B

Design:
Galahad R&D: $10.787B
Albion R&D: $7.088B

Construction:
1x Galahad: $10.787B
2x Albion: 14.176
6x DropShip: $1.8B
50x Small Craft: $0.5B
800x fighter: $4B
Research: $862M
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 17 June 2018, 14:15:13
Turn 1: 2350-2359

Player Turns:
Lyran Commonwealth: Budget $80B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1420335#msg1420335)
Free Worlds League: Budget $100B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421006#msg1421006)
Draconis Combine: Budget $100B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1420809#msg1420809)
Marian Hegemony: Budget $10B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421102#msg1421102)
Federated Suns: Budget $90B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421719#msg1421719)

NPC Turns:
Terran Hegemony: Budget $750B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421565#msg1421565)
United Hindu Collective: Budget $20B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1420772#msg1420772)
Capellan Commonality: Budget $25B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421609#msg1421609)
Sarna Supremacy: Budget $25B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421609#msg1421609)
Duchy of Liao: Budget $15B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421660#msg1421660)
Sian Commonwealth: Budget $10B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421660#msg1421660)
St. Ives Mercantile League: Budget $10B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1420827#msg1420827)
Tikonov Grand Union: Budget $5B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1420223#msg1420223)
Rim Worlds Republic: Budget $20B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1420223#msg1420223)
Taurian Concordat: Budget $10B. (Designs (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1420220#msg1420220), Budget (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421660#msg1421660))
Principality of Rasalhague: Budget $1B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1420223#msg1420223)

Astropolitical Summary:
- The Draconis Combine's efforts to pacify the Rasalhague region continue. Significant counter-insurgency efforts are made within the region, but the conflict shows no signs of stopping yet.
- The Sarna Supremacy invades the Tikonov Grand Union in 2351, seeing to capitalize on chaos within the region by attacking Algol and Slocum. By the end of 2352, the Tikonov forces have largely stopped fighting, and a ceasefire is brokered by the Capellans. The Sarna Supremacy takes control New Aragon in the peace treaty.
- The Federated Suns also take note of the chaos in the Capellan regions, and in 2357 they invade the planet of Bell, demanding Chesterton and Highspire as well. A joint force from Capella, Sarna, and Tikonov counterattack in 2358 to recapture Bell, but the entire civilian population of 15,000 has mysteriously vanished by the time they arrive. In the end, the Federated Suns acquires Chesterton, but its other gains are lost in the peace settlement.
- In 2358, Seluk Tucas is elected Prime Minister of the Capellan Commonality. An aggressive opportunist, he begins attempting to unify the Capellan region under his own leadership, by using a combination of defence pacts and extortion to convince Tikonov to hand over the planet of Algot to his allies in Sarna.

Combat Results:
A note before we start. For each battle, I'll outline a plausible fight that happens this turn, and get a sense of what forces will be dedicated to it. For each side, I'll roll three dice - crew skill, command skill, and luck. Crew skill represents fighter pilot effectiveness, quality of gunnery, and so on. Command skill is about trying to make the battle happen in the way that best suits your forces - a great result might be an ambush, or a lengthy stern chase against a slower enemy with short-ranged weapons. Luck should be obvious. These rolls can be modified depending on maintenance levels, support infrastructure, notable canon personas having an impact, and so on. I'll take it all together, and write up a battle for each.

The only notable space battle during Sarna's invasion of Tikonov happened three days after the invasion fleet appeared at a pirate point Algol. A retired captain vacationing on Algol managed to, by sheer force of personality, scrounge up almost every ship that could fly on the entire planet, hastily converting the one DropShip on ground into an impromptu tanker for his fighters and shuttles, and sending his forces on a roundabout route after the Sarnish JumpShips. Barely escaping detection by the inbound DropShips, they sprang upon the JumpShips which had been left with an escort that didn't bother to scout due to overconfidence on the part of its commander. While the Sarnish forces fought well once they got over their initial surprise, they were badly mauled by the initial missile strike from the ragtag force, and lost two JumpShips and one DropShip outright before the fighters could mount an effective defence. Once the defenders rallied, the Tikonov forces realized they were doomed and attempted to surrender, but according to records from the Sarnish command ship, communication difficulties led to the surrender request not being noticed until nearly the end. Only one Tikonov pilot, a junior police shuttle pilot from the planet's capital, managed to survive the battle. 11 Sarnish fighters were lost, but 21 Tikonov fighters and 13 Tikonov shuttles were destroyed in the process.

---

The Draconis Combine's attempt to clamp down on the insurgency in Rasalhague was mostly fought on the ground, with one notable exception. Unbeknownst to the Dracs, the Rasalhague forces had managed to find a supplier for modern fighters, and had secreted over a dozen wings on Trondheim waiting for their chance to strike at a convoy. They got their chance in November of 2355. A major troop convoy of eight fully loaded JumpShips entered the system at the nadir point, and the Rasalhague fighter flotilla was ready to strike. They attempted to ambush the inbound DropShips about three hours away from the planet, and their navigation and preparation were both superb. Against any other convoy, their attack would have been a glowing success. However, this was not any other convoy. This convoy had the brand-new DCS Kutai escorting it, on its first-ever combat mission. The Kutai's new sensor system detected the inbound fighters, and while the result was actually dismissed as a probable glitch by the duty captain due to the unlikelihood of such a large force being in that place at that time, the warning was sufficient to ensure that their weapons were warming up when the fighters arrived. In the end, that may have been the difference between victory and defeat.

The Kutai's fire was occasionally interrupted by issues with the new equipment, and the point-defence machine guns performed somewhat worse than had been hoped. The DropShip weapons barely got online at all. Conversely the Rasalhague forces performed well for pilots with no combat experience, adjusting targeting solutions on the fly once they realized what the escort they faced was, and nearly managed to overwhelm the Kutai entirely. However, once the machine guns began firing properly, at least two potentially-fatal missiles were shot down in the nick of time. Fighters attempted to fire their on-board cannons into the gaping wounds in the Kutai's frontal armour, but their inexperience began to show here, as their lack of evasive maneuvers meant that many were shot down before their fire could cause significant damage. In the end, only 32 Rasalhague pilots out of 200 survived to surrender, but they destroyed four DropShips and 13 fighters in the process, and came within inches of destroying the Kutai itself.

---

After the Federated Suns moved into the Tikonov Grand Union in 2357, analysts were expecting no major response to the invasion, given how totally the Tikonov forces were routed by the end of 2352. However, an unlikely alliance of Sarna and Capella came to Tikonov's aid by the beginning of 2358. After marshaling their forces of over two dozen JumpShips led by theCCS Qinru Zhe, the combined fleet set out for the world of Highspire to commence the liberation of Tikonov space. However, on their way towards the planet, a Federated Suns JumpShip had snuck away and summoned reinforcements. The FSS Albion jumped to a pirate point some twelve hours ahead of the "Capellan Coalition" fleet, and proceeded to set an ambush. Knowing that no faster ship was in service anywhere, that the Qinru Zhe's primary weaponry was shorter-ranged than his autocannons, and that the raider carried no fighters, the captain of the Albion dictated a combat strategy of maintaining a range just outside effective range for the NAC/30, and trying to hammer the ship to scrap from afar.

Unfortunately, Federated Suns intelligence on the Qinru Zhe was grossly inadequate, and had neglected to understand either the extremely long range of its lasers, the fact that the Capellan ship was just as agile as their own, or the superiority of Capellan sensors. The Capellan captain embraced the long-range fight, and the gunnery of his crew was almost as accurate in combat conditions as it had been in excercises while they were working up. The Albion was hammered by over two dozen hits from naval lasers in the early part of the fight, landing only two hits in reply. The Albion's captain panicked, and sent his meager fighter force on a strike mission to try to allow his ship to escape, but despite valiant efforts by the pilots, the entire strike force was annihilated by defensive fire from the Qinru Zhe. The Albion's doom seemed certain, but at this point the Capellan force's commander broke off the fight due to a distress call from his transport ships(which were engaged in landing on the planet at the time). It was hoped that the Albion had been crippled enough to slow it down and allow for the Qinru Zhe to catch up, but that was not to be - one of the few systems that actually remained undamaged in the fight was the Albion's engines, and by the time that the Qinru Zhe had realized that the Albion was making its escape, it was too far away to overhaul before it could jump out of the system and limp back to base.

Research:
LC: $2,731m
FWL: $1,049m
DC: $2,000m
FS: $862m

TH: $11,480m
UHC: $1,265m
CC: $254m
SS: $900m
TC: $166m
DoL: $306m
SC: $300m
SIML: $538m
TGU: $40m
RWR: $1,400m

TOTAL = $23,291m

I'm not sure if I actually want to keep the winner a secret like I was saying, but I will for now(unless it's a human, of course - check your PMs to see if you won, I'll send out the notice before I post this).

What do you guys think?

Budgets for Turn 2:
Most budgets remain unchanged for the time being. The TGU drops from $5B to $2B due to its hideous losses and damage, while the Sarna Supremacy and Federated Suns each gain $1B to represent their gains in combat.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 17 June 2018, 15:49:59
Awesome stuff!  I can only imagine the amount of work that goes into this on your end - thank you in advance.

I would NOT have expected that outcome between the Green and Gold Navies!

Also - I see little in keeping it secret.  Itll be obvious when the turn is posted.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 17 June 2018, 16:06:28
What about my results in the attempted takeovers of the Lothian League and Illyrian Palatinate?

Post 190, two above my budget posting.

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 17 June 2018, 16:25:05
Awesome stuff!  I can only imagine the amount of work that goes into this on your end - thank you in advance.

I would NOT have expected that outcome between the Green and Gold Navies!

Also - I see little in keeping it secret.  Itll be obvious when the turn is posted.

That was a tough one to write. Both sides rolled badly, but the FS commander in particular had a pants-on-head result on the dice, which is why he took bad intel at face value, damn near got his ship shot out from under him before he realized it was wrong, and then panicked and basically murdered his own fighter wing. Still, it felt a bit cruel to kill a ship on turn 1 when we only have a few. The Kutai was saved by the Rasalhaguers simply not having much force(they actually rolled quite well to get as close as they did to killing it), but the Albion could really have gone either way, and I mulled over it for a while before deciding to be merciful.

What about my results in the attempted takeovers of the Lothian League and Illyrian Palatinate?

Post 190, two above my budget posting.

Perhaps I misread you, but that seemed like a statement of policy, not an actual military campaign. You don't have any force with which to conquer them, which I took to be the reason why you were trying to recruit new troops.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 17 June 2018, 16:57:50
but the FS commander in particular had a pants-on-head result on the dice,

I'll have to write something up for that when I do my turn, felt like I was reading about the Lyrans there.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 17 June 2018, 18:12:52
I am intentionally aiming to make the Lyran Admiralty as unlike the Lyran Ground Forces as possible.  Social Generals my ass.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 17 June 2018, 18:43:47
I'll have to write something up for that when I do my turn, felt like I was reading about the Lyrans there.

(insert obvious FedCom joke here)

---

Thinking this over and seeing your responses, it's pretty clear that secret techs are dumb in this system. The winner was the Terran Hegemony, getting Ferro-Aluminum armor for its support ships. (To be clear, FA armor doesn't help WarShips or stations. It's only usable on fighters, small craft, and DropShips. Improved Ferro-Aluminum is the one that'll affect your ships.)

Also, I know I was mulling over the concept of random effects for each player each turn, or on each design, some pages ago on this thread. I'm ditching that as well - it's a lot of work for a fairly small impact, and that's not really worth it.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 17 June 2018, 21:29:34
Kiviar - how much cargo volume does that big bruiser have?  Shes got great speed, armor, and firepower - Im trying to figure out where the corners were cut.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 17 June 2018, 21:30:41
What about my results in the attempted takeovers of the Lothian League and Illyrian Palatinate?

Post 190, two above my budget posting.

TT
Perhaps I misread you, but that seemed like a statement of policy, not an actual military campaign. You don't have any force with which to conquer them, which I took to be the reason why you were trying to recruit new troops.

Yeah I forgot to get a jumper... AM ratifying this.

---------------------------------------------

Marian Action News Network ( MANN )
Nova Roma, Alphard
Comitium Curia, Senate Grounds

Camera pans from right to left as sounds of loud talking in many languages is heard. A heavy gravel is heard silence pursues.

" Lordships, Ladies and Senators... " states a gravelly old voice. " It has come to the attention of the crown that our nearest threat is many jumps away, but not to worry. A call for recruitment has been made. It is the lordship's wish that our ground force to seize control over the various petty realms in our immediate midst and for that he has raised some minor taxes... " Loud grumblings and minor curses are heard. " How ever... " continues the voice, more loudly to be heard. " his lordship has deemed to expand the Navis ( Latin: Navy ) trough any acquisitions or other means. "

HPGs have been sent out via PMs. Alsadius I'm requesting Smegish and Marcussmythe to supply me with some goods.

Will record with official prices and update my budget later this week.

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 17 June 2018, 22:02:20
NVM.  I am an idiot.  Got Galahad and Albion mixed up and was trying to figure out what Quinru Zhe was able to do to threaten a Galahad.  QZ vs Albion is conflict of the commerce raiders.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Vition2 on 17 June 2018, 22:18:17
Kiviar - how much cargo volume does that big bruiser have?  Shes got great speed, armor, and firepower - Im trying to figure out where the corners were cut.

I'm calculating just under 10kt - but I could be missing something.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 17 June 2018, 23:10:11
I'm calculating just under 10kt - but I could be missing something.

Ahh.  That will do it.  Maybe a bit more?  I notice she saves tonnage by cramming crew into steerage.  Still, thats a lot of gun and a lot of armor and speed....  ‘Elan, Tojours  Elan...”
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 17 June 2018, 23:11:21
QZ vs Albion is conflict of the commerce raiders.

Yeah, Alsadius and I were basically on the same page re strategy and design from the moment he mentioned this to me, so it's no surprise that we ended up making the same basic ship.

As for the Galahad, its firepower and protection did indeed come at the cost of cargo and ammunition. It has a small (at least compared to canon designs) ~13k of cargo, and only 12 reloads per killer-whale tube. But, it's meant for hit-and-run attacks on hard targets and not for crusading across the Inner Sphere.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 18 June 2018, 00:56:35
Oh wow! You've put a hell of a lot of work into this :D
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 18 June 2018, 01:26:46
Question about maintenance: How much of this stuff are we paying maintenance on? All of it? Just the Warships?

Makes a big difference to budgets, especially tight ones.

EDIT: Also, is there an average loss rate on Fighters, Dropships and such? Normal losses due to training accidents, piracy losses and general wear and tear and such. Perhaps x amount lost per world controlled? Double/triple if in serious action?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 18 June 2018, 05:25:17
Just warships, IIRC.  The whole economy would grind to a halt, otherwise.

As for fighter losses, I think were skipping ‘training accident’ figter losses, for simplicity. I assume once fighter losses get significant, the ST will tell us about them.

In fact - Im assuming the ST will tell us about any changes to our OOB.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 18 June 2018, 09:50:51
I'm torn, tbh. It's probably simpler to just ignore losses of that sort, but they'll happen, and I don't especially want to be writing up loss lists for every faction every turn based on combat - the losses given in my battle reports above should be taken out of your stockpiles, of course, but there is also other combat happening that doesn't get reported. A flat 5-10% attrition rate might actually make sense.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 18 June 2018, 10:01:16
We can do flat fighter attrition if you want, but it might be easier paperwork wise to just ‘maintain’ fighers like you do warships, as they also eat food, fuel, training.  Or just assume that fighter replacement is covered in ‘budget dust - other’ much like fighter upgrades.

I’d do meaningful fighter losses (like what happened to Rasalhauge) as any other combat losses (like nearly happened to some ships)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Vition2 on 18 June 2018, 11:55:51
A flat 5-10% attrition rate might actually make sense.
A quick suggestion: use 5% (unless engaged in an actual full-scale war, in which case up the off-screen casualties to around 15%), I did a fairly comprehensive review of how much clans should expect to need to replace with their much higher levels of regular conflict, and came to a conclusion of about 12.66% losses - the Inner Sphere should normally be significantly less than this.

As for training accidents, a reminder that ASF are significantly more robust than current day fighters, to the point that lawn-darting during training is not likely to cause significant destroyed fighters - you'll suffer larger losses in personnel but the equipment will very often be either repairable or salvageable.

In case you want to take a look and pick it over, here's the link: https://www.ourbattletech.com/forum/index.php?topic=3530.msg44105#msg44105
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 18 June 2018, 12:47:43
As for training accidents, a reminder that ASF are significantly more robust than current day fighters, to the point that lawn-darting during training is not likely to cause significant destroyed fighters - you'll suffer larger losses in personnel but the equipment will very often be either repairable or salvageable.

A well armored medium or heavy fighter can use lithobreaking suprisingly safely.  LCF-R20 could probably kill mechs by ramming them, if the rules permitted.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 18 June 2018, 15:42:05
Someone-not-me should start and keep up a TRO for this thread.  Maybe an editable post, no replies, updated as new ships come out.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 18 June 2018, 16:09:24
Someone-not-me should start and keep up a TRO for this thread.  Maybe an editable post, no replies, updated as new ships come out.

That's what I intend the Google Docs spreadsheet to be, though it's not nearly there yet. Not proper TRO format, admittedly, but easy to see everything in one place.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 18 June 2018, 18:25:31
Request for Clarification:  Maintenance costs for Space Stations, yes/no?  Checked back through the thread and saw yes in some places and no in others.  Given that currently only things with K-F drives pay maintenance, ‘no’ makes sense to me- espc as some stations (recharge stations leap to mind, or repair) would likely pay their own way by charging civilians for use - but Im easy either way.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 18 June 2018, 19:46:56
Any jump-point station that mounts a recharge array will pay for itself in normal use through civilian fees, so no maintenance on those. (Within reasonable limits, of course - you can't post 473 stations at a single jump point and have them all be free. Let's cap it at two per system.). Non-charging stations will cost the same percentage as WarShips.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 18 June 2018, 21:11:15
How about repair costs for ships noted as taking heavy damage? Equal to maintenance, making that ship cost double for this turn?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 18 June 2018, 21:15:42
What about the use of Habitats? Smallest one is 120K while the larger one is closer to half million. Also I can't wait for the TH Gatekeeper Stations, the non-militarized Drake SDS version and later the Pavise M-9!

Also, as since I'm a small fishy in this here ocean of over bloated Megladonish Whales.... is there any way of " Researching: Mining Techniques " e.g. paying say 1B for a small percentage of increase by 25% higher per turn ( decade )? But put a cap on how much money one can use to get more.

TT

Current budget: $18 Billion 887 Million
Turn: 2
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 18 June 2018, 21:36:27
Any jump-point station that mounts a recharge array will pay for itself in normal use through civilian fees, so no maintenance on those. (Within reasonable limits, of course - you can't post 473 stations at a single jump point and have them all be free. Let's cap it at two per system.). Non-charging stations will cost the same percentage as WarShips.

Under this ruling, I will either be building deathstars with a recharge array to cover their maintenance, or I will not do so out of good taste and feel bad a little bad every turn when I pay maintenance.

The more I think about it, might be best to just charge maintenance for all stations, fighters, droppers, jumpers, all of it, (and if the GM thinks that repair or charging stations are economically beneficial, then bump budgets to reflect increased economic activity).

Or perhaps to only charge maintenance on warships.  I fear going down a rabbit hole of ‘maintain this thing, and maintain it harder if you got in a bad fight, but not that thing, and some of these things but not others depending on if they have a special battery, and no maintenance on fighters but we do have to Loss a certain percentage a turn to combat accidents....

(Ill also note that I bought fighters in large numbers on Turn 1 specifically because of the lack of maintenance.  Its NBD, cause its early days and not -that- much money - but lets be careful changing rules going forward)

I want a player considering joining us to have as few barriers to entry as possible.  Consider the confusion of billions vs. milliards.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 18 June 2018, 21:39:17
What about the use of Habitats? Smallest one is 120K while the larger one is closer to half million. Also I can't wait for the TH Gatekeeper Stations, the non-militarized Drake SDS version and later the Pavise M-9!

Also, as since I'm a small fishy in this here ocean of over bloated Megladonish Whales.... is there any way of " Researching: Mining Techniques " e.g. paying say 1B for a small percentage of increase by 25% higher per turn ( decade )? But put a cap on how much money one can use to get more.

TT

Investing in the economy in non-naval ways is I think maybe outside our wheelhouse as Cheifs of Naval Operations.  Even in naval ways (jumpship fleets, recharge stations, what you will) Im more comfortable with handling it in a narrative rather than mechanical fashion.  I fear we may get distracted from the point of the exercise - warship design - by our desire to play GalCiv/MOO.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 18 June 2018, 22:05:59
I fear we may get distracted from the point of the exercise - warship design - by our desire to play GalCiv/MOO.

Trying to get more military fundings, my economy is shot, hell I don't have much in the way of funds to begin with.

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 18 June 2018, 22:18:36
Well, then Id spend my budget on jumpships and dropships so your army can conquer stuff, jumpships also support trade, and maybe a recharge station or two.

Also?  Let time pass.  Its just now 2360.  Id aim for slow, long growth, and trying to dodge the reuinfication war (somehow) and the deveststion of the succession wars (somehow).  Your in for the very, very long game.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 19 June 2018, 03:42:01
Well, guess I'll start us off for this turn.

This is assuming maintenance on everything, 5% loss rate on fighters (rounded casualties up to nearest 36-fighter wing for own sanity and to represent losses in Rasalhague) and paying an extra 10% maintenance on DCS Kutai for repairs.

Code: [Select]
Year: 2360 Value in Millions
Money Available 100,000
Remaining from Last Turn 577
Income Trojan Lease 2 to Marians 1000 2000

Available Shipyards
Luthien 3/2/2
New Samarkand 3/1
Midway 1

Repairs DCS Kutai 609

Maintenance 62350 12% 7482

Prototype Cost Trojan 4,031
Atago 9,339

Construction Unit Price
Shipyards New Samarkand New Lvl 1 5000 5000
Warships Kutai 2 6,092 12,184
Fubuki 1 7,241 7,241
Trojan 2 4,031 8,062
Atago 3 9,339 33,012
Jumpships 10 500 5000
Dropships 22 300 6,600
Fighters 25 x 36 900 5 4,500
Small Craft 72 10 720
Research 3,792 1 3,792

Total Spent 102577


Remaining 0

Next Turn Maintenance 12% 15,193

Start Turn In Service NumberValue BV
Warships Atago 0 0 83558
Fubuki 2 14482 57421
Kutai 4 24368 15629
Trojan 0 0 15229

Jumpships 20 10000
Dropships 12 3600

Fighters 1692 8460 47 Wings
Small Craft 144 1440
Total 62350
Maintanence 12% 7482

End Turn In Service

Warships Atago 3 28017
Fubuki 3 21723
Kutai 6 36552
Trojan 0 0

Jumpships 30 15000
Dropships 34 10200

Fighters 2592 12960 72 Wings of 36
Small Craft 216 2160

And the new ships. First off the Trojan-class spy/Q-ship/corvette


Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Trojan
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $4,031,166,000.00
Magazine Cost: $3,560,000.00
BV2: 15,229

Mass: 100,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 3
Maximum Thrust: 5
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
1 Naval AC 40
72 AC 5
32 Machine Gun (IS)
16 Naval Laser 35

Designed as a covert operations ship at first, the Trojan is designed to look exactly like an Aquila-class to enable to to blend into civilian traffic as it spies on the Combines enemies. The ship even acts as a standard cargo hauler to maintain its cover, though crew are careful to never allow anyone else aboard. While they looks like copies of old rust buckets, the internals are entirely modern; with a compact core; upgraded defenses against small craft and missiles; and naval lasers hidden behind carefully designed retractable covers in each quarter. But the big surprise for this ship is the massive naval autocannon hidden in the nose of the ship in the centre of the now superfluous ram-scoop.


While stronger and better armoured than the old Aquila, this ship is not intended to see action against a true warship, though the BFG in the nose does give a cunning captain a chance if they can get close before striking. Crew quarters are relatively spartan for a DCA vessel, with the space saved used to add space for up to a 60-man group of special agents, to be delivered wherever they are needed.

DCA captains, as well as the rest of the senior officers on board are aware that they must remain undetected, and their true origin must be kept a secret at all costs. To that end there are scuttling charges positioned against both the fuel tank and NAC magazine, to ensure that if an enemy tries to seize the ship, they will gain nothing from the ship or crew.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Trojan
Mass: 100,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 18,000.00
Thrust
Safe: 3
Maximum: 5
Controls: 250.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (4 Integrity) 45,250.00
Jump Sail: (3 Integrity) 35.00
Structural Integrity: 30 3,000.00
Total Heat Sinks: 1039 Single 805.00
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 40000 points 4,080.00
Fire Control Computers: 0.00
Armor: 48 pts Standard 60.00
Fore: 12
Fore-Left/Right: 11/11
Aft-Left/Right: 11/11
Aft: 10

Dropship Capacity: 0 0.00
Grav Decks:
Small: 1 50.00
Life Boats: 22 154.00

Bay #1: Fighters (12) - 1 Door
Bay #2: Small Craft (12) - 1 Door
Bay #3: Cargo (6288 Tons) - 2 Doors

Crew And Passengers:
18 Officers in 2nd Class Quarters 126.00
47 Crew in Steerage Quarters 235.00
41 Gunners and Others in Steerage Quarters 205.00
84 Bay Personnel 0.00
1st Class Passengers 0.00
60 2nd Class Special Ops 420.00
50 Steerage Marines 250.00



Code: [Select]
# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
1 Naval AC 40 Nose 135 400 (40-C) Medium-C 4,500.00
8 AC 5 Nose 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
4 MGs Nose 8 (0.8-C) 2.00
4 Naval Laser 35 FR 208 140 (14-C) 2,800.00
8 AC 5 FR 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
4 MGs FR 8 (0.8-C) 2.00
4 Naval Laser 35 FL 208 140 (14-C) 2,800.00
8 AC 5 FL 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
4 MGs FL 8 (0.8-C) 2.00
12 AC 5 LBS 12 60 (6-C) 96.00
4 MGs LBS 8 (0.8-C) 2.00
12 AC 5 RBS 12 60 (6-C) 96.00
4 MGs RBS 8 (0.8-C) 2.00
4 Naval Laser 35 AR 208 140 (14-C) 2,800.00
8 AC 5 AR 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
4 MGs AR 8 (0.8-C) 2.00
4 Naval Laser 35 AL 208 140 (14-C) 2,800.00
8 AC 5 AL 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
4 MGs AL 8 (0.8-C) 2.00
8 AC 5 Aft 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
4 MGs Aft 8 (0.8-C) 2.00

Ammo Rounds Mass
Naval AC 40 Ammo 20 24.00
AC 5 Ammo 2880 144.00
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 6400 32.00

NCSS (Small) 100.00

Due to a deal reached with the Marian Hegemony, who were desperate for any ship they could get, both of the brand new Trojans have been leased to the Hegemony for 60 years.

And next, the Atago:

Atago-class (Cruiser)

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Atago
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $9,399,368,000.00
Magazine Cost: $27,816,000.00
BV2: 83,558

Mass: 750,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 3
Maximum Thrust: 5
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
38 Naval AC 20
48 AC 5
24 Machine Gun (IS)
28 Naval Laser 35

Designed as a cruiser and battlegroup command ship, the original plans called for the Atago to have a sizeable cargo bay to support ground assaults on foreign worlds, but the discovery of the Suns-built Galahad led to the Coordinator Gendo Kurita pushing for a redesign with heavier firepower to beat the Feddie design into submission should it be encountered. An impressive array of Naval Autocannon and Naval Lasers can unleash fire in all directions, while the thick armour and reinforced structure enable it to take a beating and remain fully operational. With a fully equipped suite for a fleet admiral and his staff and enhanced sensors to feed him all the information he needs to achieve victory. Two wings of fighters serve aboard, giving plenty of protection from the kind of trouble the Rasalhagians gave the DCS Kutai just a few years past.

The Coordinator was most pleased by the final design, even to the point of sending his son - Shinji - on a tour of the recently subjugated Rasalhague worlds abord the DCS Atago, to better show his more intellectually minded son the power he shall one day hold, and its costs and responsibilities.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Atago
Mass: 750,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 135,000.00
Thrust
Safe: 3
Maximum: 5
Controls: 1,875.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (16 Integrity) 339,375.00
Jump Sail: (5 Integrity) 68.00
Structural Integrity: 140 105,000.00
Total Heat Sinks: 3784 Single 3,220.00
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 20000 points 8,160.00
Fire Control Computers: 0.00
Armor: 840 pts Standard 2,100.00
Fore: 154
Fore-Left/Right: 165/165
Aft-Left/Right: 165/165
Aft: 110

Dropship Capacity: 2 2,000.00
Grav Decks:
Small: 2 100.00
Escape Pods: 30 210.00
Life Boats: 30 210.00

Bay #1: Fighters (72) – 6 Doors
Bay #2: Small Craft (12) – 2 Doors
Bay #3: Cargo (20151 Tons) – 2 Doors

Crew And Passengers:
48 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 480.00
147 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 1,029.00
90 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 630.00
204 Bay Personnel 0.00
20 1st Class Passengers 200.00
60 2nd Class Passengers 420.00
100 Steerage Marines 500.00



Code: [Select]
# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
6 Naval AC 20 Nose 360 1200 (120-C) Long-C 15,000.00
8 AC 5 Nose 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
4 Machine Gun (IS)Nose 8 (0.8-C) 2.00
4 Naval AC 20 FR 240 800 (80-C) 10,000.00
8 AC 5 FR 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
4 Naval Laser 35 FR 208 140 (14-C) 2,800.00
4 Machine Gun (IS)FR 8 (0.8-C) 2.00
4 Naval AC 20 FL 240 800 (80-C) 10,000.00
8 AC 5 FL 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
4 Naval Laser 35 FL 208 140 (14-C) 2,800.00
4 Machine Gun (IS)FL 8 (0.8-C) 2.00
8 Naval AC 20 LBS 480 1600 (160-C) 20,000.00
6 Naval Laser 35 LBS 312 210 (21-C) 4,200.00
8 Naval AC 20 RBS 480 1600 (160-C) 20,000.00
6 Naval Laser 35 RBS 312 210 (21-C) 4,200.00
4 Naval AC 20 AR 240 800 (80-C) 10,000.00
8 AC 5 AR 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
2 Naval Laser 35 AR 104 70 (7-C) 1,400.00
4 Machine Gun (IS)AR 8 (0.8-C) 2.00
4 Naval AC 20 AL 240 800 (80-C) 10,000.00
8 AC 5 AL 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
2 Naval Laser 35 AL 104 70 (7-C) 1,400.00
4 Machine Gun (IS)AL 8 (0.8-C) 2.00
4 Naval Laser 35 Aft 208 140 (14-C) 2,800.00
8 AC 5 Aft 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
4 Machine Gun (IS)Aft 8 (0.8-C) 2.00

Ammo Rounds Mass
Naval AC 20 Ammo 1140 456.00
AC 5 Ammo 1920 96.00
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 4800 24.00
NCSS (Large)   500.00

Code: [Select]
Fleet Deployment

Galedon Prefecture (Davion Front)
Atago-class Kashima
Fubuki-class Yudachi
Kutai-class Pesht, Arkab

Benjamin Prefecture (Steiner Front)
Atago-class Takao
Fubuki-class Fubuki
Kutai-class Galedon, Benjamin

Pesht Prefecture (Rasalhague Front)
Atago-class Atago
Fubuki-class Ibuki
Kutai-class Kutai, Luthien

Each of the Atago and Fubuki class are escorted by a Kutai at all times, after the near disaster in Trondheim, no ship travels alone.
If this slows the subjugation of the Rasalhague people, so be it.

*OOC: If you want to run the NAC/40 as a spinal mount -working like a mass driver- due to its location I am cool with that. Also, while I have bunched all the identical guns in one location into one listing to clean things up, assume all capital guns are in twin turrets, ACs and MGs in quad turrets. NAC/20s have 30 rounds per gun, AC/5s have 40 rounds/gun, MGs have 200 rounds/gun.

Yes, the Coordinators son is going to be on a ship in a warzone, feel free to have fun with that if you like Mr GM.

EDIT: Due to the exorbitant price, some last minute adjustments were made to Atago's design, removing two dropship collars in favour of more cargo space. Information above has been corrected to suit, including budget.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 20 June 2018, 07:48:34
You may take it as a complement that I have been trying, and have failed, to design something on the same displacement as Atago that could fight her 1:1.  NAC 20 may be my favourite gun for firepower to weight, solid armor, etc. 

As for cargo and deployment times - I think we may be assuming more supply requirement than makes sense.  You need gas... but at most 40tons/day.  So 8000 tons of fuel is 200 days at a 1 G burn.  Unless the warship is jumping in system and immediatley lighting off its drives, 200 burn days seem good for a year unrefueled - if ships casually and constantly made 1 g burns, we could save money on grav decks.  :)  And fuel is hydrogen, right?  As long as the ship is over a friendly world, just buy it.

Ditto food.  With the recycling characterstics of actual shipboard quarters, its pretty easy to put a year or more of food on these things.  Its easy to forget how insanely huge warships are, and how equally tiny their crews.

Whats left?  Spare parts?  Unless your rebuilding major structural elements, it seems that most of what you need is spares - and that most broken things would get recycled/repaired, not thrown out.  I dont know what % of her mass a modern warship deploys with in spare parts, but if the answer is more than 1 or 2, i would be quite surprised.

Now - Ammo and Fighters might get you there.  Ammo is hard to figure out how to budget.   Historically, ships often shot themselves dry in an engagement or two.  With NACs, this is not a concern.  Its trivial to load enough ammo that the ship will never run out in any reasonable scenario.  And hey, mount some lasers for when you really need to fire for free.  Missiles are a different story - a missile armed ship is going to need resupply after an engagement or two.  But how much of its life is a ship firing in anger?  And again, after a real engagement, your probably wanting to get back to the barn anyway to bang out the dents.

Fighters may be another story - espc if your usng them to drop bombs/capital missiles on targets that cant fight back.  You could blow through 5 tons of fuel and 20 tons of ammo or more for every strike bird every day.  That will empty even a McKenna’s cargo bays pretty quickly. 

To which it seems the answer is ‘dont use warships to move air-to-ground munitons across space.  Do your naval support of ground operations with orbital laser fire’.  Youll still need to suppress enemy fighters or engage in anti-shipping work, but thats gonna be less bad on supplies.

TLDR - I think that we are overestimating supply requirements.  Perhaps as an attempt to justify star league designs and disdain the ‘munchkin ships’ with 2000 tons of cargo with out brilliant understanding of logistics.  Now, Mijolnir and her ilk go too far the other way - but I think once you go past about maybe 4/5% ‘generic cargo’ after food and fuel, your probably building an invasion support ship, or some kind of generstion ship.  Which is fine, if that is your mission.  But if the mission of a warship is to go on patrol for say 6 months and win a fight against a peer if it happens and project force/control space where she is, I think that we are high-balling the supply required.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 20 June 2018, 09:39:20
A few thoughts:

1) You're right that recharge stations having free maintenance is too easy to max-min. They'll cost maintenance, but a good network of recharge stations will help your economy and thus your budget, so they'll generally pay for themselves indirectly. That should prevent munchkin-ing. (As a side note, I'll adjust the budgets for economic growth next turn. It was too much to worry about all at once when I needed to do all the first-turn setup stuff as well.)

2) The more I think about it, the more that I think a policy of free maintenance on the things we're supposed to be treating as secondary, and very expensive maintenance for things we're treating as primary, is leading to perverse incentives. I expect maintenance should exist for everything, in one form or another(whether it's attrition or a cost). No details yet - it's been a busy couple days.

3) Ammo is a huge investment in mass for any form of carrier(fighters can easily shoot off roughly their own mass in one strike if they want to, and you want the ability to launch at least a few strikes), and remember that strategic fuel use isn't the only fuel use - on a tactical level, it gets burned far faster. You also need spare parts, and on ships where some items weigh in the hundreds of thousands of tons, spare parts will be seriously heavy. You can also use the mass for crew amenities, support for ground troops, and so on. It's not essential, but it's useful, particularly for ships that'll be out and about for a very long time. If you're just sitting at your base all the time and only sortie defensively, then it'll be much less of a concern.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 20 June 2018, 09:52:08
A few thoughts:

1) You're right that recharge stations having free maintenance is too easy to max-min. They'll cost maintenance, but a good network of recharge stations will help your economy and thus your budget, so they'll generally pay for themselves indirectly. That should prevent munchkin-ing. (As a side note, I'll adjust the budgets for economic growth next turn. It was too much to worry about all at once when I needed to do all the first-turn setup stuff as well.)

2) The more I think about it, the more that I think a policy of free maintenance on the things we're supposed to be treating as secondary, and very expensive maintenance for things we're treating as primary, is leading to perverse incentives. I expect maintenance should exist for everything, in one form or another(whether it's attrition or a cost). No details yet - it's been a busy couple days.

3) Ammo is a huge investment in mass for any form of carrier(fighters can easily shoot off roughly their own mass in one strike if they want to, and you want the ability to launch at least a few strikes), and remember that strategic fuel use isn't the only fuel use - on a tactical level, it gets burned far faster. You also need spare parts, and on ships where some items weigh in the hundreds of thousands of tons, spare parts will be seriously heavy. You can also use the mass for crew amenities, support for ground troops, and so on. It's not essential, but it's useful, particularly for ships that'll be out and about for a very long time. If you're just sitting at your base all the time and only sortie defensively, then it'll be much less of a concern.

Until I hear otherwise from you, I will budget as if all things  which are not shipyards carry the same 10% maintenance as warships, and I will presume that 10% covers non-campaign-posting losses.  To this end I will keep a running total of the production cost of all eauipment in use at end of turn so next turns maintenance may be planned appropriately.

I think Im okay with shipyards not costing maintenance, due to the massive outlay.  Also, theres no real way to ‘game’ them.  I do not believe a perverse incentive to build shipyards exists - theres a very practical incentive (big ships gud!) and an OMG cost to doing so.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 20 June 2018, 10:33:08
Right - I was thinking "everything except yard space", but I guess I never actually mentioned that above. Your maintenance on the yards is the cost of constructing ships.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 20 June 2018, 11:01:34
Endurance:  Cause I care about these things.

Fuel and Food we know.  We can solve for that really simple.  I like 200 burn days and a year of food... thats a year without ever seeing a friend.

Ammo is easy.  Load what you think you need.  Figure out how many fights you want to have before you RTB.  Ammo is trivial for anything but missiles - I tend to budget about 5 rounds of max rate fire per tube, for 10 rounds of combat.  This may get me in trouble if my captains empty bays on bad shots - but once you start nearing 10 rounds per launcher, missiles start to become bad systems. 

Fighters:  If we assume 3 strikes in combat without any attriton, thats 150 tons per fighter.  Youll probably lose some so that goes further, but better safe.  Say another 50 tons per fighter to cover spares and randomly lost birds on deployment.  100 tons avgas for each?  The math here is nice because a fighter bay weighs 150 tons.  If you then budget twice your bay weight in cargo, is that enough to consider it good and go on?

After all of the above, and assuming our mission is NOT to transport or feed troops, just to sail and patrol and show flag and yadda, whats a reasonable mass fraction for cargo for 6 month deployment?  For a year?

Edit:  I know these are messy questions.  If my design enginners ‘guess wrong’, then we can always do things like sail ships with less than full fighter carriage, etc. for peacetime patrols, design colliers, etc. (Since most of ship cost is in KF drive, colliers are strange).  Dont feel pressures to give a perfect answer, just a ballpark gut guess.  I know IRL busy and has priority, and I think i speak for all in saying how much we appreciate the time your spending on this.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 20 June 2018, 11:35:57
I don't have a hard-and-fast number in mind - as with all things, there are diminishing returns. The SLDF builds their ships to be a jack-of-all-trades fleet that can go very long distances with minimal support, if needed, so consider that to be the high end. Canonical non-SLDF ships, particularly in the invasion era, have extremely small bays - the extreme of this is probably the Leviathan II, which has less than 25,000 tons of cargo for a 2,500,000 ton ship with 300 fighters and even a few capital missile tubes. That'd be a monster in the Clan homeworlds, because distances are so short, but in the Inner Sphere it's profoundly short-legged(doubly so when you're using up a lot of that cargo for anti-shipping fighter missiles, which canon doesn't do). Even the less roomy of the House ships tend to do 2-5% cargo.

TBH, I don't know what sort of mountain of spare parts would use up that much mass on a ship, if you're not transporting ground forces or acting as a collier. But based on maxims like "amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics", I assume there's something. You can optimize your WarShips by offloading that cargo need onto a fleet train, and using DS/JS to haul it for you instead of parking it inside your WS. That's far cheaper, and probably more effective in a vacuum. The risk you're running there is that your train could get blown up, but if you avoid that fate it leaves you with ships more powerful than those of someone who carries the cargo inside (very expensive) thick armour plate.

As a rule of thumb, I'd say that a ship that plans to stay fairly close to its bases will use perhaps 5% of its mass for spare parts and food, and a ship that plans to roam long distances(say, the length of a border, with some wandering along the way or sticking around for patrol duty) will need more like 10% of its mass for spare parts and food. Extra ammunition, ground troops, spare fighters, and so on will all be in addition to that. You can carry that in your hull, on your collars, or in your fleet train as you see fit.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 20 June 2018, 11:42:10
I don't have a hard-and-fast number in mind - as with all things, there are diminishing returns. The SLDF builds their ships to be a jack-of-all-trades fleet that can go very long distances with minimal support, if needed, so consider that to be the high end. Canonical non-SLDF ships, particularly in the invasion era, have extremely small bays - the extreme of this is probably the Leviathan II, which has less than 25,000 tons of cargo for a 2,500,000 ton ship with 300 fighters and even a few capital missile tubes. That'd be a monster in the Clan homeworlds, because distances are so short, but in the Inner Sphere it's profoundly short-legged(doubly so when you're using up a lot of that cargo for anti-shipping fighter missiles, which canon doesn't do). Even the less roomy of the House ships tend to do 2-5% cargo.

TBH, I don't know what sort of mountain of spare parts would use up that much mass on a ship, if you're not transporting ground forces or acting as a collier. But based on maxims like "amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics", I assume there's something. You can optimize your WarShips by offloading that cargo need onto a fleet train, and using DS/JS to haul it for you instead of parking it inside your WS. That's far cheaper, and probably more effective in a vacuum. The risk you're running there is that your train could get blown up, but if you avoid that fate it leaves you with ships more powerful than those of someone who carries the cargo inside (very expensive) thick armour plate.

As a rule of thumb, I'd say that a ship that plans to stay fairly close to its bases will use perhaps 5% of its mass for spare parts and food, and a ship that plans to roam long distances(say, the length of a border, with some wandering along the way or sticking around for patrol duty) will need more like 10% of its mass for spare parts and food. Extra ammunition, ground troops, spare fighters, and so on will all be in addition to that. You can carry that in your hull, on your collars, or in your fleet train as you see fit.

Okay! Thats a number we can work with. 

For the record its going to be almost ALL spare parts.  Food is a tiny mass fraction, espc if you budget space to put your bay crews into quarters rather than leaving them in the bays ('Quarters' apparently have really cool recycling that 'Bay' lacks.)

Ill have to look at what this does to the design space/spare cubage at various masses and thrusts.  Its not quite the Tyranny of the Rocket Equation, but between the size of the KF Drive and the size of main drives, things get cramped really, really quick.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 20 June 2018, 12:33:11
The Merc source books usually go very heavy into mantaince stuff. I would suggest that carriers not pay separate cost for the airing however. Ill look around and see how far back you want me to go?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 20 June 2018, 12:59:08

Switching to more fighter production and banking excess for the future.
Also I am assuming just 10% maintenance for all assets (even fighters), for sanity sake.

Code: [Select]
Turn 2350 2360

Available Shipyards
Atreus (3-1*) (3-2*)
Irian (3-1) (3-1)
Loyalty (3-1) (3-1)

Current Assets Qty Total Qty Total
Fighters 0 0 288 1.440
Small Craft 0 0 90 900
Dropships 0 0 27 8.100
Jumpships 0 0 5 2.500
Phalanx (4631) 0 0 2 9.262
Heracles (8874) 0 0 6 53.244
[Insert] (0) 0 0 0 0
[Insert] (0) 0 0 0 0

(All Costs in Millions)
Banked 0 0
Budget 100.000 100.000

Maintenance Costs 0 7.545
Prototype Costs 13.505 0
Shipyard Upgrades* 1 10.000 1 15.000
Research 1.049 0

Construction
Fighters 288 1.440 648 3.240
Small Craft 90 900 84 840
Dropships 27 8.100 12 3.600
Jumpships 5 2.500 0 0
Phalanx (4631) 2 9.262 2 9.262
Heracles (8874) 6 53.244 6 53.244

Total Spent 100.000 92.731
Remaining 0 7.269



Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 20 June 2018, 19:41:23
(As a side note, I'll adjust the budgets for economic growth next turn. It was too much to worry about all at once when I needed to do all the first-turn setup stuff as well.)

Thank you.  I was feeling rather stupid for buying a huge pile of jumpers on turn one, for economic reasons, and then maintaining them, instead of just building wallers.  :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 21 June 2018, 13:30:44
Lyran Commonwealth, Turn 2

First Lord Jaqueline Angler had had, she was certain, less enjoyable mornings.  Maybe sometime in her middy year, involving tequila.  But she could not remember those mornings clearly.  This one was going to be painfully clear for a long time.

"Could you give me the Hegemony numbers again?"

Earmon Dalinger took an unnecessary look down at his notes.  “4 Battlecruisers, 10 Cruisers, 12 Missile Frigates, 12 Destroyers, 16 Corvettes, and 8 Scouts, Mam…” 

 “Thank you, Earmon.  That’s what I thought you said.  And the other two?”

“Six Battlecruisers for the Free Worlds League.  Probably better than the Hegemony Version, though I won’t tell them that if you don’t.  I wouldn’t go near one of them without three of our Frigates under my command.  Lots of heavy cannon, good cruising range, serious fighter complement.  Ive forwarded the details to your noteputer.  Looks like they are expanding their heavy yards – expect that number to climb as soon as the secondary yards come online.  Also a few commerce raiders, but nothing that has any business sharing space with a real warship”

“The Sna… the Combine is being a bit less ambitious.  Kutai is a bit on the agile side, but shes only notionally armed.  8 Naval Lasers and 4 Heavy Capital Missiles on the broadside, and her armor is mainly made of hopes and prayers.  Fubuki is another story… Destroyer class, 12 Class 20 NACs on the broadside – a good choice, I think.  I want some of those guns… backed up by some more light naval lasers.  She would probably take a Heimdaller, though she wouldn’t like it.  Still, all told, with only 4 Kutai and 2 Fubuki, we could probably match them in a stand up fight.”

Angler shook her head.  “The Combine isn’t the problem.  They are busy subjugating Rasalhauge.  I doubt they will stop there, but I think it’ll be something for my sucessor to worry about.  I’m not going to lose sleep over the Hegemony any more than a dinosaur loses sleep over asteroids.  Cant change it.  Why worry.”

“The pressing naval problem is the League.  They know they can’t match the Hegemony any more than we can – than all of us can, together.  Their other neighbor is in a warring states period.. hnh... and if they wanted to bite off pieces of Sian or Sarna, they don’t need six Battlecruisers to do that – they need troop transports.  Jumpships.  Dropships.  Are they building those?”

“No Mam.”  Baron Dalinger watched his old friend with some concern.  She wasn’t a young woman when they first starting working together ten years ago, and the office was aging her fast.  She looked.. tired.  Still, part of his job was to be her sounding board – she was always at her best talking aloud, talking through, a problem in front of an audience – an audience she could trust to speak up if necessary, but which would mostly let her vocalize the problem.

“No, they are not.  So those BCs have to be pointed north.  DAMN the Office of Naval Intelligence for not telling us what they were doing.  We’re a full yard cycle behind and there is no catch-up… not unless the Archons suddenly decide that they want to start paying for parity.  Who was it that said there’s nothing more expensive than a second-best navy?  Nevermind.  It doesn’t matter.”

“And so?”

“We go with proposal 3.  One is off the table… I wanted Kvasir’s as much as the next woman, but she cant overmatch Heracles 1:1, and were going to have to.  We cant afford the time to build up the yards for 4, so the Buri design proposal will have to wait.”
“What about the Kvasir V?”  Dalinger had long been a leading advocate of naval aerospace power, and Angler had wanted to be convinced, but…

“I know the simulations look good.  But those poor brave stupid Rashalhauge patriots couldn’t kill ONE Kutai with TWO HUNDRED fighters, whatever the simulations say.  And Kutai is as you said protected by wishes and optimism.  Heracles actually has armor.”

“But the -drives-, Mam…”

“Again, I know.  But ‘Speed, firepower, armor, pick two’.  And if our girls and boys are fighting, their fighting over either our own civilians, or over some enemy real estate that Command says is worth dying for.  Give me half again our budget and a few decades to catch up, and we can have nice things.  But we don’t have the budget.  Or the decades.  Or, apparently, nice things.  So we build hammers.”

“And the other proposals?”

“Were going to need the recharge stations.  Strategic speed matters more than tactical speed anyway, and if we are outnumbered, we need an edge in strategic agility.  Start production.”

“What about Project Nauglamir?”

“Not yet.  If we build Nauglamir the era of squadrons and sparring is over.  Its all going to be entire navies and death rides and all or nothing.  I don’t want to go there unless we're forced to.”

“Very good, Mam.”

Code: [Select]
Lyran Commonwealth, Turn Beginning 2360
Starting Funds:  0
Starting Shipyards: Alarion: 3/3  New Kyoto: 3/1  Tamar 1  Gibbs 1
Starting Warships:  Heimdaller FF x6 30.438B
Starting Jumpships:  30 15B
Starting Dropships:  0
Starting Small Craft 240 (4 Regiments) 2.4B
Starting Fighters: 4,800 (80 Regiments) 24B
Assets: 71.838


Expenditure Cost (Billions)
Maintenance 7.183 (100%)   
Prototype CA Tyr 7.405
Prototype Station Ribe .175
ProductionTyr x 6 44.3
Production Station Ribe x60 10.5
Jumpship Production: 0
Dropship Production: 0
Small Craft: 0
Fighters: 0
Research:  0
Total: 69.562
Remainder: 10.437


Lyran Commonwealth, Turn Ending 2370
Ending Funds: (with 1B from Marian Hegemony)                                    11.437
Ending Shipyards: Alarion: 3/3  New Kyoto: 3/1  Tamar 1  Gibbs 1
Ending Warships:  Heimdaller FFx6 30.438
Tyr CAx 6 44.3
Ending Stations:                        Ribe Recharge Station x60 10.5
Ending Jumpships:  30 15
Ending Dropships:  0
Ending Small Craft: 240 2.4
Ending Fighters:         4800 24
Asset Value 126.638

Tyr (Heavy Cruiser)

“A good gun causes victory, armor only postpones defeat”
   -Vice Admiral Stephan Osipovic Makarov (Terran, 1849-1904)   

By as early as 2360, the Lyran Admiralty realized it had a problem.  While its general-purpose frigates were able to fill almost any role that could be required of them, one of the roles they were not well suited for was ‘heavy ship of the wall’.  And the Lyran’s neighbors were mass producing heavy warships.

   Long term plans were set aside in the name of immediate answers to a large, and growing, gap in heavy ships of the wall.  A long series of designs was proposed, and discarded.  Giant warships were proposed, a million tons or more.  But the yards to build them did not exist and would not exist for the foreseeable future – the Lyran Navy was charged with defending the Commonwealth with the budget it had, not given the budget it needed to defend the commonwealth.   Carriers were suggested and serious considered, but the inability of 200 Rasalhague fighters to finish off a single, ill-armed and armored light cruiser did not instill First Lord Angler with confidence.  Speed and extreme range firepower was considered – excellent for attritional battle, but useless if a larger navy came to a Lyran world willing to fight.

    This final point carried the day.  Drives only increase tactical mobility.  Operational mobility, throughout a system, is limited by the human body – no warship can burn at more than 1G for long without crippling its crew.   Strategic mobility is limited by the KF-Drive, by onboard supplies, and by the presence or absence of quick charging facilities.  Supplies can be laid on, and quick-charging stations can be built.

   This left tactical mobility.  It had been assumed that 2.5G’s emergency thrust was the minimum required for ‘comfortable’ tactical mobility for modern warships.  But was it?  Navies do not drive into black space looking for one another to fight for the honor of claiming that black space.  Navies fight over objectives.  Jumppoints.  Planets.  Shipyards.  An attacker need only make their way to the target, and the defender should already be there.  These are the product of operational and strategic mobility.  Tactical mobility was useful only for controlling the range of the engagement, and allow a weaker force to defer engagement.  And tactical mobility was exceptionally expensive.  Every half-G of standard thrust consumed about 6% of the raw mass of a vessel.  But after installing a KF Drive and sufficient bunkerage to be useful for more than hanging over a friendly jumppoint or on top of a vulnerable fleet train, that 6% of mass grew to represent a huge proportion of what was left for weapons.

   And the purpose of a warship is to deliver fire, and to protect that fire long enough to accomplish its goal.

   Unburdened from the need for advantageous tactical mobility, and backed up by recharge-resupply stations and significant onboard stowage, the Tyr focuses on  that firepower.   Mobility is poor by modern warship standards – capable of no more than 1.5Gs of sustained thrust.  Resilience is no better than average for a ship of her mass.  All of this is in service of weapons bays that stagger anything in production when she left the slipways.  80 point-defense machine gun mounts are scattered across the nose and side aspects of the ship.  Anti-fighter work is performed by 80 Barracuda missile tubes – chosen for the role for their ability to accurately destroy enemy fighters from the edge of those own fighters launch envelope (forcing enemy fighters to shoot at long range and poor accuracy, or weather an incoming missile storm while burdened with attack munitions.  When not used in that role, those same launchers serve to supplement the broadside fire that is the Tyr’s reason for existence.

   Each side mounts 16 Heavy Naval Lasers, chosen for their ability to match range with any other weapon in space, and to ensure that Tyr is not left unable to reply against a more agile foe.  Backing those lasers up in that role are 20 tubes each for Killer Whale and White Shark Missiles, supported by the Barracuda tubes.  This allows Tyr to match the extended-range firepower of any vessel in space, before its heavy guns come into play. 

   The main broadside weight comes from three triple NAC/20 mounts on each corner.  While slightly less weight efficient than the more commonly chosen NAC/30, the Tyr’s designers had mass to burn, and accuracy of fire is at least as important as its weight.  Any opponent attempting to duck ‘under’ the Tyr’s missile and laser firepower to deliver its own Naval Autocannon hammer blows will find itself facing 18-NAC broadsides, each likely with more range and accuracy than its own… and the missiles and lasers are still firing, and still hitting…

   She is not without her detractors.   Fighter and small craft carriage is light, sacrificed in honor of gunpower and long deployment times.  Armor could be heavier if the more robust 2.5G design had been chosen.  And more than one commander expressed a desire for far greater tactical agility.  But time had run out, and the Commonwealth needed something.

   Only time would tell if she got what she needed.

Code: [Select]
Tyr (CA)
Tech: Inner Sphere
Introduced: 2360
Mass: 750,000 tons
Length: 1243 meters
Width:  321 meters
Height:  220 meters
Sail Diameter: 1245 meters
Fuel: 4,000 tons (10,000)
Tons/Burn-day: 39.52
Safe Thrust: 2
Maximum Thrust: 3
Sail Integrity: 5
KF Drive Integrity: 16
Heat Sinks: 7,080 (100%)
Structural Integrity: 90
BV2: 274,103
Cost:  $7.405B  (Loaded)

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

Cargo
Bay 1 (Nose): 84 Marines
Bay 2 (RBS):  10 Fighters, 3 Small Craft (6 Doors)
Bay 3 (LBS):  10 Fighters, 3 Small Craft (6 Doors)
Bay 4 (Aft):  50,121 Tons Cargo (2 Doors)


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

Crew:  488
Marines:    84

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

Ammunition: 400 Barracuda Missiles
  200 White Shark Missiles
  200 Killer Whale Missiles
8000 MG Rounds

Notes:
Small NCSS
Mounts 1,350 tons of Standard armor. 
100% of required heat sinks
Quirks:  Easy to Maintain, Improved Communications, Poor Performance

Weapons:

Nose: Damage
20 Barracuda (100 Rnds)         40
20 MG (2000 Rnds)

Fore Left/Right:
8 NL/55 44
9 NAC/20 (900 Rnds) 180

Broadside:
20 Barracuda (100 Rnds)         40
20 White Shark (100 Rnds) 60
20 Killer Whale (100 Rnds) 80
20 MG (2000 Rnds)

Aft Left/Right:
8 NL/55 44
9 NAC/20 (900 Rnds) 180


Rear:
20 Barracuda (100 Rnds)         40
20 MG (2000 Rnds)

Ribe (Recharge Station)

“Amateurs study tactics.  Armchair generals study strategy.  Professionals study logistics”
   -Author Unknown

   The humble recharge station is likely well known to the modern reader, as is their near-ubqitous nature throughout Lyran space.  What may be less well known is why.

   The first recharge stations mass produced outside the Terran Hegemony were the Chongzhi stations developed by the St. Ives Mercantile League.  Billed as a ‘purely civilian station’, the Chongzhi was still admirably well armed, armored, and carried a number of small craft to aid in loading and unloading. 

   The Lyran Navy looked on the Chongzhi, and saw a solution to a burgeoning problem.  They were flanked on all sides by superior forces.  Building ships with enough stowage to cruise those long borders and still remain combat worthy was difficult, and needing to reshuffle limited vessels from one border to another demanded more speed than the K-F drive could deliver.  Also, trade was the lifeblood of the nation, and competition between various competing mercantile interstellar for the lucrative recharge business was serving no purpose but to drive further wedges between the three founding nations of our great commonwealth.

   The Ribe, named for a northern port on old Terra, adopts a slightly different approach than her parent Chongzhi.  More focused on commercial than military pursuits, she is more lightly armored, and trades the array of autocannon for bays for up to 60 fighters intended to deter and defeat raids on the station from a safe distance.  Such fighters are usually distributed based on local threat assessments, and on quieter worlds deep in friendly space only a squadron may be present.   These are supplemented by bays for an equal number of small craft, either cargo shuttles or in some cases heavy attack boats, intended to supplement the fighters. 

Like the small craft, the cargo storage is also dual purpose.  In protected space, it serves as support to mercantile efforts, and is available to merchants at well below cost, as are the recharging facilities themselves.  On hostile borders or over high military traffic worlds, the Ribe’s 60,000 tons of storage is reserved for military supplies, making each one a miniature resupply base to allow the vessels of the Lyran Navy to cruise at length without drawing down their own internal supplies, leaving them fully loaded and ‘agile’ in response to any developing situation.

As is typical of Lyran military projects, berthing for all crew is to a high standard, with the cost in space and weight associated being considered worth it to provide better long term efficiency and morale.  The extensive quarters set aside for combat pilots are often repurposed as hotel space, and the large grav deck as entertainment/recreation areas, on Ribe class stations far from hostile space.

Code: [Select]
Ribe (Recharge Station)
Tech: Inner Sphere
Introduced: 2360
Mass: 500,000 tons
Diameter:  410M (Sphere)
Fuel: 1,200 tons (300 points)
Tons/Burn-day: 3.95
Safe Thrust: .02
Heat Sinks: 154 (Unused)
Structural Integrity: 1
BV2: 2,199
Cost:  $175 Million

Armor
Fore: 20
Fore-Sides: 20
Aft-Sides: 20
Aft: 20

Cargo
Bay 1 (Nose): 60 Fighters, (4 Doors)
Bay 2 (Aft):  60 Small Craft, 61,213 Tons Cargo (6 Doors)

DropShip Capacity: 0
Grav Decks: 1 (250 meters diameter)
Escape Pods: 40
Life Boats: 40

Crew:  515
(All first or second class quarters)


Ammunition:  6000 MG Rounds

Notes:
4 Energy Storage Batteries

Weapons:
60 Machine Guns (10 per facing)


Notes on Deployment:
Ships will usually function in 3 squadrons of 4, 2 CA and 2 FF.  One FF may be detached from the squadron to address secondary objectives, but a minimum force of 2 Heavy Cruisers with one Frigate for support should remain concentrated at all times.  In general service, one squadron is associated with each of the border shipyards, patrolling from there. 

Recharge stations currently cover half of the Lyran flagged worlds, focused on high traffic/trade worlds, borders, and 'least time' bridges between areas of interest.  Forward recharge stations keep their fighter bays full, and if a war warning is issued, all will be brought up to full deployment.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 21 June 2018, 14:56:47
Okay, I seriously love that fluff. Very well written.

Also, how is the Ribe that cheap? It's a quarter the price of a Chongzi, and I didn't think AC/2s were that expensive(looks like about $33M for the full set on a Chongzi, even with the station cost multiplier).
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 21 June 2018, 15:17:51

Yes, indeed great fluff, it really sets the standard for my next turn.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 21 June 2018, 15:18:02
Deleted duplicate
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 21 June 2018, 15:30:38
Let me run Ribe and Chongzi through my spreadsheet again.  I think I found that stripping out things like guns and armor made all the difference, because the station cost mulitplier is painful, but I'll double check.  In the laternate, put Ribe through your spreadsheet?

I cant use your spreadsheet cause work.

PS:  Thanks on the fluff.  Its.. a bad imitation of several authors styles.

When I run Chongzhi through my spreadsheet, my cost is close to the same as yours.. w/in about 10%.

Its guns, and armor, that make up most of the difference.  As does the second grav deck.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 21 June 2018, 15:37:31
Amusingly, I also can't Google Sheets because work - I do all my designs at home. And yeah, it seems a bit Weber-ish, but unlike Weber I'm not sick of your style yet ;)

It seems like two things happened here. One, the actual difference in costs, but two, I changed how I wrote up turns halfway through. I saw $677M for the prototype Chongzi and forgot that I used to post the doubled cost, instead of breaking the R&D costs off to a separate line. So the unit cost is actually $338M, which is much closer to yours.

I must say, while the armour and defences make sense for a weird little group of communists, I didn't expect they were that expensive when I made the design. Even with it being cheaper than I thought, clearly I may need to pay more attention to the cost trade-offs.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 21 June 2018, 15:41:08

Should there be an unified style in which we track turns in excel?

This would make it far easier for you to track everything.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 21 June 2018, 15:55:09
Amusingly, I also can't Google Sheets because work - I do all my designs at home. And yeah, it seems a bit Weber-ish, but unlike Weber I'm not sick of your style yet ;)

It seems like two things happened here. One, the actual difference in costs, but two, I changed how I wrote up turns halfway through. I saw $677M for the prototype Chongzi and forgot that I used to post the doubled cost, instead of breaking the R&D costs off to a separate line. So the unit cost is actually $338M, which is much closer to yours.

I must say, while the armour and defences make sense for a weird little group of communists, I didn't expect they were that expensive when I made the design. Even with it being cheaper than I thought, clearly I may need to pay more attention to the cost trade-offs.

Well, it depends on how many you are building.  I have a a lot more worlds than the space commies, relative to my budget.  And I fully intend to drop a recharge station over the other 60 worlds next turn.  I just can't justify 60 or 120 very expensive, well defended stations.  The Chongzi may make perfect sense for the people who built them.

But I also have a lot more strategic depth than they do.  Most of my worlds are unlikely to ever even be raided - wandering 5 or 10 jumps from home port is a great way to lose commerce raiders.  So I build them to have ‘defenses if they need them’ - thus fighters that can deploy to stations in bad neighborhoods.  60 fighters wont stand off a real warship - but no station I can afford to mass produce will -anyway-, so I dont bother.  What 60 fighters will do is bloody murder a jumpship/carrier dropship raiding force, and present a lethal threat to any 'raider' style warship.

RE:  Weber - Its VERY hard to write 'space naval battle' without falling into a Weberesque voice.  Im hoping to aim for EARLY Weber rather than later.  (I say this while I write about a meeting - but I think an important meeting.  When the battle reports come in, I'll write space battles). 

Hopefully having an actual evolving universe with other players driving the action will help me avoid the cyclic escalation and 'suddenly, a new challenger appears!' of the Honorverse, as well as the semi-annual technical upgrades obviating everything that came before.

Actually, I am hoping to eventually develop my own voice, even if I am writing about similar things.  But some concepts (First Space Lord, I just love the title... 'Wall of Battle'.. again, fitting a 3D Line of Battle in Space) are going to stick.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 21 June 2018, 18:48:19
Marian Action News Network ( MANN )
Nova Roma, Alphard
Aerarium Marianes ( Marian Treasury )

" The Senate passed a late night bill last night, concerning the Marianes Navis. While the bill didn't mention much, it did define the actions of the Design Committee that oversees the construction of the Marian Fleet, currently considered anemic by some in the field.

In other news, the Marian Envoy that was sent to the Taurian Concordat to attempt a Technology Trade, who was rebutted and sent packing, is on her way back stopping by the  Lyran Commonwealth. Where she was wined and dined by the local " Social Generals ", who just wanted attention for themselves. Breaking a contract and gaining support with some liaisons from the Lyran Merchant Fleet, she wandered toward the Dragon. Before leaving she bartered some local technology with some " funsies " from home, to be shipped within the next decade, samples of tinned Alphard Mudskippers in Olive Oil* and a few hundred of Selkie pelts, a local seal that feels warmer than cashmere.

Entering the Draconis Combine to see if she could swing a hull or two, since the Coordinator was busy with his attempt of the Principality of Rasalhague assimilation, he sent his liaisons to meet and possible trade, as his realm was starved for metals, particularly the Terada Warship Yard. The Envoy convinced the Imperator that it was necessary to allow trade with such a powerful neighbor, Pi authorized the trade of three Billions-worth of precious Germanium to be transferred in exchanged for a lend-lease contract to the DCA.

Quoted earlier this month, the Imperator states that the Lothian League and Illyrian Palatinate needs to come ( air quotes ) under protections of the Hegemony. While the Naval Fleet is preforming shakedowns on their new vessels, the Imperator instigated the Aquilifer rank for his ground forces, though any naval personnel can carry it as well. "

                                                    ~ insert from Marian Fleet News

---------------------------------------------------
Current budget: $18 Billion 887 Million
Turn: 2

So I need to improve my fleet some...

Code: [Select]
Scapha I (Militarized Aquila Transport) has been retcon'd
Budget:
Donations : 4 Billion / Millard ( 3 to DCA, 1 to LC )
Building and Fitting costs : ( Including first design ) 2x Scapha ; 6 Billion and 958 Million
    - Includes 64 Fighters and 44 Small Craft needed to make each of the four ships operational.
School : 100 Million -Collegium Bellorum Imperium, Alphard Air Academy
Recruitment Drive : 100 Million


Ending Budget: $7 Billion and 729 Million
Imperator Pi

* Alphard Mudskipper : tastes just like oysters.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 21 June 2018, 23:36:02
Just gonna take a moment to congratulate our GM Alsadius for a great looking Master sheet, with tabs for each factions fleets and yard locations.

So far unfinished, but looks great :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 22 June 2018, 06:40:33
Just gonna take a moment to congratulate our GM Alsadius for a great looking Master sheet, with tabs for each factions fleets and yard locations.

So far unfinished, but looks great :)

Yup, I want to get that done - it'll be way easier to track everything when I have all the designs in one place and one format. Once it's updated, I'll probably give you all write access, and that'll hopefully make processing turns easier for everyone.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 22 June 2018, 11:43:16
Alsadius - can you like the spreadsheet in your first post on first page?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 22 June 2018, 12:14:47
Alsadius - can you like the spreadsheet in your first post on first page?

Whoops, thought I had. I will when I get home.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 22 June 2018, 12:43:03
Just saw its got design summaries and ship counts, at least a place for them.  Could be a handy ‘instant reference’ tool, in terms of ‘hunh whats that thing do again’ withiut having to dig back through various turns being posted to look for the details of this ship or that.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 22 June 2018, 15:24:00
Any room for another player?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 22 June 2018, 17:22:46
One thing missed in the Atago listing on the Master page, probably because I forgot to mention it in her writeup : A Large NCSS
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 22 June 2018, 17:35:26
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.

Any room for another player?

Yup! The Capellan Confederation isn't quite formed yet, but it will merge into a single unified power this turn, so if you want them then we can adjust that timeline to make it a bit easier. The Rim Worlds Republic and Taurian Concordat are also large enough nations to be interesting to play. Take a look at the spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rzh-GEbKmiqNfPPj-zQj-9ZqiWKz11MmtqM73815wOo/edit?usp=sharing) if you want to see what their setups look like right now.

(The Principality of Rasalhague and the United Hindu Collective are also available, but I don't recommend either - the Rasalahguers are busy being annihilated, and the UHC never actually engages in any combat before they merge into the FedSuns. The Terran Hegemony is disallowed, because it's too powerful to put in a player's hands.)

One thing missed in the Atago listing on the Master page, probably because I forgot to mention it in her writeup : A Large NCSS

Ah, thanks. Added.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish 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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe 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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe 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?  :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 22 June 2018, 18:06:35
Will the entries for the various minor factions include ships they're using, but don't build?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe 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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish 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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley 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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish 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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius 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 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421609#msg1421609), and there's also a Duchy of Liao ship with heavy armament and very scant crew accommodations (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421660#msg1421660), albeit one that's 4/6 instead of 2/3. Likewise, there's a dedicated recharge station being built en masse in St. Ives (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1420827#msg1420827). 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 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=60800.0) 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.)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker 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?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe 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)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe 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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius 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
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker 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
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery 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."
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius 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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe 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.”
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester%27s_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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester%27s_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.
 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester%27s_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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Atarlost 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. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe 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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius 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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe 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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Vition2 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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius 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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar 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
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Atarlost 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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar 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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 24 June 2018, 04:54:08
Personally I vote against allowing Monitors. Can build some scary looking beasts without too much effort, and even if they couldn't leave the system they were built in, that system is now basically untouchable to anyone but the Hegemony.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 24 June 2018, 15:30:36
Here is my turn for 2361-70. I hope you guys like reading.

Kiviar, I love the writing/fluff, and watching it impact the nation.  I also love thst you bought fighters to make sure you had enough to put on your recharge stations!

Fun reading.  Is what makes the exercise worthwhile.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 24 June 2018, 17:11:58
Jester: Any word on your budget and designs this turn? I know I've been slow myself, but I think you're the last human player up, and the remaining NPC nations are fairly easy. (If you need a hand, just ask)

---

Terra Prime, Apollo
January 1, 2360

As part of the Rim Worlds Republic's "Twelfth Decade Initiative", First Consul Arabella Rowe is pleased to announce the plans for the Renaissance Initiative. In keeping with the Republic's known desire to increase commerce and peaceful colonization in its vicinity, a new series of stations and JumpShips will be installed over the next decade, promising single-day transportation between Apollo and Finmark, making stops at several Republic worlds en route. While so-called "command circuits" have previously been used by other realms on an ad-hoc basis, no other nation, fleet, or shipping line has yet created a regularly scheduled service of this nature.

According to First Consul Rowe, "This is an exciting development for the Republic. Our citizens and merchants can now get reliable, economical, and nearly instantaneous transit for themselves and their goods between a dozen of our planets, at guaranteed low prices. It's just one more way that our government is bringing you the Rim Worlds Advantage."

Minister of Trade Michael Durant added hopes for future expansion of the system: "Right now, this will be a weekly service across half the realm, which is already an amazing achievement. But if this is as popular as we expect it might be, we'll be looking to expand it to Timbuktu, or even beyond. We've also ensured that the system has sufficient capacity to increase to twice-weekly service with no need for additional station construction, so we're poised for some really amazing growth here. I'm very much looking forward to seeing what the future will bring."

For more information, please contact the Ministry of Trade's Galactic Commerce Office.

-30-

---

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Renaissance
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $201,595,000.00
Magazine Cost: $0.00
BV2: 14

Mass: 500,000
K-F Drive System: None
Power Plant: Station-Keeping Drive
Safe Thrust: 0
Maximum Thrust: 0
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
None

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

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 6,000
Thrust
Safe: 0
Maximum: 0
Controls: 500
K-F Hyperdrive: None (0 Integrity) 0
Jump Sail: (0 Integrity) 0
Structural Integrity: 1 5,000
Total Heat Sinks: 154 Single
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 5000 points 2,040
Fire Control Computers: 0
Armor: 0 pts Standard 0
Fore: 115
Fore-Left/Right: 115/115
Aft-Left/Right: 115/115
Aft: 115

Dropship Capacity: 0
Grav Decks:
Small: 3 150
Medium: 0
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 35 245
Life Boats: 35 245

Crew And Passengers:
25 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 250
120 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 840
0 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 0
180 Bay Personnel 0
27 1st Class Passengers 270
180 2nd Class Passengers 1,260 (Bay personnel)

(no weapons/ammo)

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
76,000 Cargo, Standard 76,000 6
36 Bay Small Craft 7,200 9
4 Energy Storage Battery 400,000

Renaissance station R&D: $202m
14x Renaissance station: $2.828B
26x JumpShip: $13B
360x Fighter: $1.8B
Maintenance(@100%): $1.86B
Research: $310m
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 24 June 2018, 19:09:39
Crap: Forgot fluff to this..

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1423161#msg1423161 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1423161#msg1423161)

The Scapha was the Marian Hegemony's first homebuilt warship ever, while taking clues from the Draconis Combine Admiraty  Trojan-class ship. On Alphard, the Marian Arms Incorporated, henceforth MAI, was contacted to see if they could handle any type of ship construction. Receiving the word that they could, the Imperator immediately threw open the Aerarium Marianes, or Marian Treasury, and continued to pour Talents, local currency, into the shipyard until a vessel was completed. Named Scapha, or Ear in ancient roman, the ship was to be the " ear " of the Hegemony.

Meant to be seen at every planet in the micro-realm of space, the Scapha and her sister, the Defensor Fortis, both went on a 5 year shakedown-show off. Both being used for a show of force in hopes of showing that they, the Hegemony can ruffle feathers too. Built using 2 broadsides of twin Navis Tormenta X-class Autocannons, they were considered experimental at the time of first installments. As the class was on the drawing boards at MAI, it was conceived as an Aero-Carrier to handle the newly developed Falco( Falcon ), a medium weight Aerospace Fighter and the Buteo( Buzzard / Hawk ), another medium weight Aerospace Fighter, but in this case a bomber, as both are built using the same frame.

When it was originally proposed, the Scapha class Aero-Carrier was deemed too valuable to lose and had their aero-bays exchanged for the more powerful punch of the Tormenta-class. Keeping only twenty of the 200 purposed fighter limit, she's outfitted with the best the Hegemony can produce. The Parva Tormentis, or small cannons as know as Autocannon-5 class, was from the original design specs, as was the Point Defense Jejunium Iaculis, the " Fast Archer " Machine Guns. Assigning most to the side arcs in hopes of catching any unwanted targets in multiple fields of fire. While slow in speed she should be able to provide support, only time will tell.

TT
( All Latin names are from a quick Google search. )
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 24 June 2018, 21:37:19
Sorry, this was one of those never-ending weekends for me.  Coupled with starting a bit late in the week already, its taken me some time to get here. But I have my turn.


Turn 2: 2360-2370

Crunchy, non-fluff bits:
Budget: $89B
Maintenance total:  $6.711B

Upgrades:
Aldebaran upgrade (2>3): $30B

Design:
пивной пиво (Bringer of Beer) R&D: $7.507B

Construction:
10x Chongzhi: $3.38B
1x Qinru Zhe: $7.946B
2x Quzhujian: $11.996B
1x пивной пиво: $7,507B
1200x Fighters: $6B
360 x Small Craft: $3.6B
10x Light Dropships: 3B
Research: $0.353B

One new design this turn, the Cruise Ship/Fleet Collier пивной пиво (Bringer of Beer). 

Code: [Select]

Class/Model/Name: пивной пиво (Bringer of Beer)
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $7,507,618,000.00
Magazine Cost: $176,000.00
BV2: 4,508

Mass: 247,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 2
Maximum Thrust: 3
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
80 AC 2


Class/Model/Name: пивной пиво (Bringer of Beer)
Mass: 247,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 29,640.00
Thrust
Safe: 2
Maximum: 3
Controls: 618.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (7 Integrity) 111,768.00
Jump Sail: (4 Integrity) 43.00
Structural Integrity: 65 16,055.00
Total Heat Sinks: 288 Single
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 6250 points 1,275.00
Fire Control Computers: 0.00
Armor: 120 pts Standard 200.00
Fore: 20
Fore-Left/Right: 20/20
Aft-Left/Right: 20/20
Aft: 20

Dropship Capacity: 2 2,000.00
Grav Decks:
Small: 0.00
Medium: 0.00
Large: 10 5,000.00
Escape Pods: 500 3,500.00
Life Boats: 125 875.00

Crew And Passengers:
21 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 210.00
74 Crew in 1st Class Quarters 740.00
26 Gunners and Others in 1st Class Quarters 260.00
50 Bay Personnel 0.00
1600 1st Class Passengers 16,000.00
2nd Class Passengers 0.00
Steerage Passengers 0.00


Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
AC 2 Nose 10 20 (2-C) Long 60.00
AC 2 FR 10 20 (2-C) 60.00
AC 2 RBS 10 20 (2-C) 60.00
AC 2 AR 10 20 (2-C) 60.00
AC 2 FL 10 20 (2-C) 60.00
AC 2 LBS 10 20 (2-C) 60.00
AC 2 AL 10 20 (2-C) 60.00
AC 2 Aft 10 20 (2-C) 60.00


Ammo Rounds Mass
AC 2 Ammo 8000 177.78


Equipment Mass
NCSS Large 500.00

Perks:
Fire Control software has "Personality."



Fluffy stuff:

Surprise Merger to Bring Prosperity and Growth to the Capellan Zone 
12/03/2359- New Petersberg, Aldebaran, Tikonov Grand Union
  Feng Shui Ships announced they have completed brokering a deal with the Duchy of Liao, St. Ives Mercantile League, and the Capellan Commonality to begin production on a new line of Luxury Cruise ships to ferry the rich and famous as they tour the known universe.  While cautioning everyone present at the grand announcement that nothing had been set in stone, the president of Feng Shui, The Venerable Hyung Li, mentioned that on the best and finest materials would be used.  Platinum sinks, Gold Furniture, the main stairwell to be ballroom would be carved from a sing tree from the singing forest, and kept alive for the live of the ship.
  This reporter remains skeptical in light of her previous award winning series of investigative articles that resulted in nearly half of the ministry of taxes and licenses being indicted for racketeering, bribery, and war-profiteering.  However, the Venerable Mr. Hyung's charism and enthusiasm are hard to resist.


---

"Li, you can't be serious!  The cost overruns are killing us, they're bankrupting us!  Why did you expand the yards, and at such expense, when what we had was already twice as big as we needed to build these boondoggles!"

"Mr. Jonathan, please calm yourself.  I've explained this before, I am an investor.  I invest.  We will need those bigger yards.  I see big things coming, I see mergers and new friendships where enemies once stood.  I see distant enemies coming closer, and I see war.  War the likes we've not seen in our lifetime, in anyone's lifetime.  And we will be ready to profit from it."

"Bu-" 

"Stop.  Breath."

Vasily Jonathan drew a deep breath.  He held it for a count of 10, the slowly released it.  Twice more before he had himself under control.

"Yes, Li, I know that.  But the Duchy of Liao's finance minster has been asking questions.  Very pointed questions.  We promised luxury accomondations for 10,000, and we'll be lucking if we can fit a tenth that.  And the weapons!  Who's bright idea was it to use those Semi-automatic Cannon things?  They've been nothing but problems after problems, the holographic sights require constant maintenace, and the firecontrol software is MOTHERING people!  My lead engineer told me it wouldn't open the door to the fire control room unless he promised to wear a coat, as the local temperature was 'a bit chilly.'"

"Hm, I'll speak with the Finance Minister myself.  He probably wants another 'gift.'  The price of doing business these days, I'm afraid.  And I see nothing wrong with a computer that cares for its crew."

"Sir!  Its in space.  -40C at that.  Not even a parka would help with that.  But the computer was dead serious and wouldn't even listen to my engineer's arguments.  He nearly quit over that.  Said he'd rather spend a year with his Mother-in-law again, than talk to that computer.  He swore if he had to go back to firecon, he was taking an axe with him, and would reprogram her personality with it."

"Hm, high strung individual is he?"

"Not particularly.  That reminds me of another issue.  My engineer says the 'asteroid detection and avoidance' sensors we received for installation?  They're military grade.  There's no way we can afford that, not with how much Singing wood costs!"

"Ah, yes, well only the best for these ships, only the best.  We've said these ships would be the safest ships in the universe.  We'd call them unsinkable if these were blue water ships.  We would surely go out of business if one of our ships hit some debris that we hadn't see."  Li took a deep breath, grimaced, and looked directly into Vasily's eyes.  "Look, Jonathan, I know its a lot to ask, but please make it work.  More than you know depends on this.  The coming together of so many people, it's a terrifying thing, a wonderous thing, and its rife for opportunity.  And opportunity means profit.  I will have that profit."

"Yes, Venerable Hyung Li, yes sir."

---


Somewhere, deep underground, secret and secure.  Mid summer, 2365

"Lon-Duk, your team will debark when the Bringer of Whiskey reaches Terra Firma.  Remember, we don't want to risk war with the Heghogs, so its passive surviellance only.  No active engagements, no hacking, and absolutely no sabotage.  I remember what you did on that mission on Kentares IV, and I don't want another building blown up.  And no, not even if the entire High Command really WAS in the building.  We can't risk provoking the Hegemony.  On the other hand.  Sasha, your team has carte blanche.  Go nuts.  Just.  Don't.  Get.  Caught.  Your primary drop point is Irian.  The so called Free Worlders have shipyards there.  Consider them a prime target.  There are several weapons manufactures, and at least 2 research think-tanks there.  Hack, Assassinate, Sabotage, whatever it takes.  We have credible intelligence that war is coming.  Anything we can do to slow it down, helps us.  We're badly behind, guns, tanks, ships, especially warships, our fellow Capellans need time.  And I aim to give it to them."

"Sarge?"

"Yeah Shin?"

"Its a cruise ship Sarge...  I know we're supposed to blend in, but...  are the usual low-profile rules in effect?  No sex, no drugs, no spacefunk?"

"Shin, your mother dropped you on your head, didn't she?  No, of course they're not in effect.  You could hardly "blend in" with the rich and wealthy if you didn't act like they do, the whoring high drunk inbred elitists!  But I'll have your head as my personal toilet if any of you misbegotten children crew up these missions cause you got talky-talky cause some bit of fluff did the spanky-my-wanky with you.  Got it!"

"SARGENT YES SARGENT!"

---

[excerpt from the 3012 Encyclopedia Brown's History of the Liao Dynasty, pgs 866-867]
In 2361, the first of a long line of trans-world interstellar cruise ships was launched.  Named "Bringer of Beer" the Victorian Royal Carnival Cruise line ran her, and 4 of her sister ships, for nearly a century of service to the rich and famous.  DeadHead Bob, Jamus Johnanson-Lee, even Buckaroo Banzai toured on one of the Bringer ships.  Less known about her class was that Duke Franco Liao directed the building of the ships, entrusting Hyung Li, a childhood friend and close confidant to see it through.  Envisioned as both an economic aid in boosting the Duchy and Capellan economy, it served several duties for the fledgling navy from providing an extensive covert operations and intelligence platform to service as a Fleet Collier and Recreation ship.  These last two services were truly critical to the Duke's needs.  The ships of the Capellan navy, especially the "Home Defense" fleet, were infamous for how bad serving on them was.  No kitchens on some vessels meant a month of MREs.  No grav decks, mandatory 4 and even 5 man hot-bunking, limited or no recreation areas.  This had caused a severe morale problem for the Navy, getting so bad that it lead to two mutinies, and causing recruitment to fall to all time lows.  The Duke hoped to conteract the morale problem by providing a differeance in extremes.  While service on ship was hot, miserable, and nasty, it was 1 or 2 week stints, and earned the men the minimum of equal time on a Bringer of Beer class ship.  With nothing but first class accomodations, single occupancy rooms, silver plated heads, even spas and "houses of relaxation," it was literally heaven and hell for the Navy.  Unfortunately for the Duke, the outbreak of war put a damper on non-essential construction, leaving a shortage of vessels to server the "1 week on, 1 week off" promised the sailers.  Worse, since the ships were built with plenty of cargo space to accomodate wealthy, they were pressed more and more into the Fleet Collier mode, and the occasional losses incurred caused more shortages.  Still, the sailers understood that war meant shortages, that for the greater good, they may have to suffer some, but knowing that eventually they'd get some time on a Bringer's decks made all the difference for the Capellans.

---

To: Duke Franco Liao, Chancellor of the Capellan Confederation
From: The Honorable Admiral, Marko Ramius

Franco,

I have grave news my friend.  I just got the latest intelligence reports from BNI about the Free Worlder's naval construction and its not good.  If they decide to invade, we don't have the hulls to stop them.  We need more ships of the line.  We need more hulls, and we need bigger hulls!  Despite how well the Qinru Zhe did, raiding is not going to save us.  I've attached the dispatches and analysis, but the summary is, if you don't get me more throw-weight, those raiders Horace is gangbusters over won't have any ports to come back to!

Your friend,
Marko.

---
To: Duke Franco Liao, Chancellor of the Capellan Confederation
From: The Venerable Admiral, Horace Shin-Hu

Chancellor Liao,
  In my humblest way, I do ask that you consider the words of our ancestors, Sun-Tzu, that when one is on dangerous groud, one must maneuver.  It is with the deepest apologies that I must say that The Honorable Admiral's turtle strategies will only serve to tempt our enemies more.  His slow ships will not let us manuever.  To hit our enemy where they do not expect it!  To raid their supplies, so that they may not build their ships.  To sieze their shipping, making the very will of their people to bend to us, to cry out against war.  We must strike them, force the initiative, keep them on their heels, and not let them take a breadth.  Let them spread thier ships far and wide, in penny-packets, demanded by their people who scream "protect us!"  That, in this humble servants eyes, is our own option.

Your humble eternal servent,
The Venerable Admiral, Horace Shin-Hu

---

[excerpt from the 3012 Encyclopedia Brown's History of the Liao Dynasty, pg 820]
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.  As the ancient proverb warns, It was interesting times.  The merger of so many people, polities, and societies was chaos.  That war followed so close on its heels only amplified things.  And like all times of great chaos, great things happened, some good, some bad.  Great men rose, great men fell.  Fortunes were made and lost, and lost and made.  With so much political chaos, the fledgling Capellan Navy had little cohesion, run and ruled by fiefdoms of bureaucracy, rife with corruption and greed.  And yet, there were individuals, Admirals and Captains, Sailors and Marines, who rose above the flotsam, and siezed the day.


(I'm not promising fluff like this again...  but I wanted to 'explain' some things while entertaining, and set the stage for my assuming the helm)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 24 June 2018, 21:45:56
Meant to put a fleet total in my crunchy bits:

At the end of turn 2, I show:
Fighters: 1840
Small Craft: 1167
Light DS: 88
Jumpship: 3
Chongzhi: 22
Qinru Zhe: 3
Quzhujian: 4
Bringer of Beer: 1  (6 built, 5 sold, no "profit" due to corruption, thus fluff only effects.)
Shipyards
3x Level 1
2x Level 2
1x Level 3


---

Fleet doctrine is... "mixed" due to the chaos.  Both "raid them" with the Qinru Zhe, and "Stand fast" with the Quzhujian are the competing doctrines of the day.  Feel free to use and abuse that and the "chaos."
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Atarlost on 24 June 2018, 22:24:07
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.

Only if you have no concept of what a monitor is.  An immobile unit can never replace a mobile unit. 

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.

This is all absurd.  A monitor is not a dropship.  It needs none of this junk.  Lacking it is in fact the defining characteristic of a monitor.  Any function the KF core performs apart from FTL can be achieved more cheaply by substituting another metal.  Germanium's mechanical and thermal properties are actually rather poor.  As such it is impossible to justify any penalty to monitors built like warships without germanium. 

Your "counterproposal" is also a lot of work and monitor rules that require a lot of work have already been rejected by the GM. 

Personally I vote against allowing Monitors. Can build some scary looking beasts without too much effort, and even if they couldn't leave the system they were built in, that system is now basically untouchable to anyone but the Hegemony.

Alsadius has already shown the math for why this is false.  A small minority of systems might be defended to such a degree if the cost multiplier for monitors was low enough, but to do so would consume the naval budget required for mobile units to defend the rest of the nation and securing only those few shipyard systems while losing the rest of the nation and tax base would still represent defeat. 

The only reason the Terran Hegemony can afford to widely deploy CASPAR units is that they're hijacking the naval budget of the far larger and wealthier Star League.  The Taurian Concordat might be able to support a monitor defense at the Hyades Cluster chokepoint based on resources within the cluster.  Anyone else subjects themselves to defeat in detail by adopting a purely static defensive posture and even the Taurians would have to write off most of their worlds.  And winning the Reunification War would probably still take a miracle even with the munchiest monitor rules ever proposed.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 24 June 2018, 22:46:15
Can we split the monitor discussion, please?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 25 June 2018, 00:53:31
Only if you have no concept of what a monitor is.  An immobile unit can never replace a mobile unit. 

This is all absurd.  A monitor is not a dropship.  It needs none of this junk.  Lacking it is in fact the defining characteristic of a monitor.  Any function the KF core performs apart from FTL can be achieved more cheaply by substituting another metal.  Germanium's mechanical and thermal properties are actually rather poor.  As such it is impossible to justify any penalty to monitors built like warships without germanium. 

Your "counterproposal" is also a lot of work and monitor rules that require a lot of work have already been rejected by the GM. 

I clearly didn't make the information clear enough if you have misunderstood so greatly. I am not purposing an immobile vehicle. It has a transit drive like any warship. What it lacks is ftl.

Second there is far more to a kf drive than just the germanium/titanium core. There is also the hyperspace initiator and a field distribution network that runs throughout the spaceframe from the core to the surface of the ship ensuring that all of the ship transits during a jump. Dropship docking collars are tied directly into this network by special linkages making them a component of the drive as well. This entire system must be excluded during monitor construction. This necessitates structural reinforcement to the entire spaceframe, even with your pseudo-core in place.

Thirdly since monitors lack ftl there is a need of outside ftl transport if it is to be deployed anywhere other than in the system that it was constructed in. This means fitting a kf boom to the monitor.  Much to my surprise I was told that kf booms are not a separate peice of equipment but an integral part of the ships structural frame work. This means that if you intend to move your monitor anywhere outside the yard system then the spaceframe must be constructed in the same manner as a Dropships spaceframe in as much as you are including the kf boom components in it.

Fourth a pseudo core is dead weight that will account for a significant amount of your total available tonnage yet unlike the kf drive will serve no functional purpose. This negates any advantages of the monitor concept. With tonnage at a premium due to the smaller size of the hull any massive tonnage sinks that don't directly benefit the design won't get included.

Now at this point this is all fluff all be it well researched fluff still just fluff.  Given that you didn't actually quote the rules I posted I'm uncertain whether you simply didn't see them or if there's something in the simple alteration to basic warship construction rules you didn't understand and there for can't other any clarification. Any other questions?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 25 June 2018, 01:22:42
Believe the Bringer of Beer is a little off. Warships need to be in 10,000 ton increments.

Other than that, great work
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 25 June 2018, 10:27:52
Believe the Bringer of Beer is a little off. Warships need to be in 10,000 ton increments.

Other than that, great work

I didnt even notice that!

I cant imagine it having any impact on the performance of the 'sphere's largest cruise liner.  Particularly like the 'we need GREAT Meteor Detection' excuse for a LNCSS.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 25 June 2018, 11:45:46
I'm new to shipbuilding with the new rules.  Let's just say I still have an original first run 2750, and there's a ton of "notes" on "warship varients" penciled into it.  So I'm picking up a lot of the new and additional rules on the fly, and wasn't aware that warships had to be in 10kt increments.  Are the official ships just "special" or did they get retconned/rebuilt in a later supplement?  I'm asking cause a few of the canon ships don't follow that rule.  The Vincent, for instance, is 412kt, and the Bug-eye is 6.1kt.

I was just trying to be off on numbers to avoid "min/max" syndrome, which I may or may not have come down with on occasion.  (I once refit all the 3025 mechs equipped with lrm 20s, with lrm5s because they're more mass efficient...  I had to stop that, it annoyed everyone with all the dice rolls from a lance of LRM Carriers...  And I'm sure everyone at some point has tried the MG mech... All crits filled with nothing but MGs, a ton or two of ammo, big engine, tons of armor...  In my defense I was... 13?)

Rebuilt:
Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: пивной пиво (Bringer of Beer)
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $7,523,462,000.00
Magazine Cost: $176,000.00
BV2: 3,708

Mass: 250,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 2
Maximum Thrust: 3
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
80 AC 2


Class/Model/Name: пивной пиво (Bringer of Beer)
Mass: 250,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 30,000.00
Thrust
Safe: 2
Maximum: 3
Controls: 625.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (7 Integrity) 113,125.00
Jump Sail: (4 Integrity) 43.00
Structural Integrity: 65 16,250.00
Total Heat Sinks: 289 Single
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 3125 points 1,275.00
Fire Control Computers: 0.00
Armor: 80 pts Standard 200.00
Fore: 20
Fore-Left/Right: 20/20
Aft-Left/Right: 20/20
Aft: 20

Dropship Capacity: 2 2,000.00
Grav Decks:
Small: 0.00
Medium: 0.00
Large: 10 5,000.00
Escape Pods: 500 3,500.00
Life Boats: 125 875.00

Crew And Passengers:
21 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 210.00
74 Crew in 1st Class Quarters 740.00
26 Gunners and Others in 1st Class Quarters 260.00
50 Bay Personnel 0.00
1650 1st Class Passengers 16,500.00
2nd Class Passengers 0.00
Steerage Passengers 0.00


# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
10 AC 2 Nose 10 20 (2-C) Long 60.00
10 AC 2 FR 10 20 (2-C) 60.00
10 AC 2 RBS 10 20 (2-C) 60.00
10 AC 2 AR 10 20 (2-C) 60.00
10 AC 2 FL 10 20 (2-C) 60.00
10 AC 2 LBS 10 20 (2-C) 60.00
10 AC 2 AL 10 20 (2-C) 60.00
10 AC 2 Aft 10 20 (2-C) 60.00

Ammo Rounds Mass
AC 2 Ammo 8000 177.78

Equipment Mass
NCSS Large 500.00



This changed the price by +$16M, doubled for first ship syndrome, and I'll take the 32M hit as a deficit to keep you from having to rework any tech rolling you might have done already.  Sorry about that.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Vition2 on 25 June 2018, 13:30:42
I'm new to shipbuilding with the new rules.  Let's just say I still have an original first run 2750, and there's a ton of "notes" on "warship varients" penciled into it.  So I'm picking up a lot of the new and additional rules on the fly, and wasn't aware that warships had to be in 10kt increments.  Are the official ships just "special" or did they get retconned/rebuilt in a later supplement?  I'm asking cause a few of the canon ships don't follow that rule.  The Vincent, for instance, is 412kt, and the Bug-eye is 6.1kt.

Most of them were retconned up to the nearest 10kt.  One of the construction rules sets that warships were created using shifted the increments to 10kts, but the original rules allowed increments as low as 1kt.  The bug-eye may still be 6.1kt, it and I think one other warship are special cases as they are also below 100kt.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: DOC_Agren on 25 June 2018, 17:09:30
Not a player but following this and have to say the fluff for the пивной пиво (Bringer of Beer) made me  ;D even if it was a Capellan Design, Well Done.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 25 June 2018, 18:05:12
Alsadius : PM sent, kinda urgent really.

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 25 June 2018, 23:52:42
@DOC_Agren-  Thank you!  That makes the effort worth it.  Glad I could amuse and entertain.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 26 June 2018, 08:57:37
A communique from a group describing itself as "The Provisional Government of the Principality of Rasalhague" has been made public.

Quote
Five years after the magnificent success of the Trondheim operation in 2355 that killed over three times its own weight of forces, the Snake fleet still fears us. They thought that we'd be easy pickings for them - that we'd roll over and die when they showed up. Well, they've learned the error of their ways! They know that we have claws, and that they can't just walk all over us. The heroes of New Bergen have armed our forces, and the heroes of Trondheim have showed us that even their invading fleets can be slaughtered too.

Who do the Snakes deploy their fleets against? They say we're defeated, but they have as many ships devoted to fighting little Rasalhague as they do to whole empires! They call us weak, but they know the truth - each of us fights with the strength of ten! Our forces on our planets are bleeding their garrisons, and our forces in the air and in space are bleeding their fleets. And they will keep bleeding until they leave. We wanted peace, but they've given us thirty years of war instead. And whether it takes thirty more, or three hundred more, or three thousand more, they will never get peace until they give us back what is rightly ours!

- Seija Mannerheim, Elected Princess (Interim) of Rasalhague

---

200x fighter, of course.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 26 June 2018, 09:20:26
and the Bug-eye is 6.1kt.

The Bug-eye uses a slightly different set of rules than other warships, because it has a sub-compact K-F drive rather than a warship's normal compact K-F drive. Ships with Sub-Compact K-F drives are built in the 5000 to 25000 ton range, and if I remember correctly, are built to the nearest 100 tons.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 27 June 2018, 04:07:14
The United Hindu Collective has 17 planets and 6x Pratham in service right now(two of which are at Panpour), so they'll build 12 more to ensure there's at least one per world. They'll also invest in small craft and fighters to fill the stations and to act as system-defence forces, and a set of JumpShips to ferry around the DropShips they bought last turn.

Maintenance(@150%): $2.735B
12x Pratham: $6.06B
1200x fighter: $6B
100x small craft: $1B
8x JumpShip: $4B
Research: $205m

---

The Taurian Concordat is somewhat outside the usual Inner Sphere information net, so they're not entirely aware of how out-gunned their Independance class is. As such, they'll build another, plus a bunch of defensive forces.

Maintenance(@100%): $527m
1x Independence: $4.567B
468x fighter: $2.34B
8x small craft: $80m
1x DropShip: $300m
Research: $186m

(Saved for R&D next turn = $2B)

---

Apparently, the post below was exceeding character length limits with the latest battle added in. As such, I'll move some of that post up to here.

Turn 2: 2360-2369

Previous turn: 2350-2359 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421728#msg1421728)

Player Turns:
Lyran Commonwealth: Budget $80B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1423015#msg1423015)
Free Worlds League: Budget $100B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1422623#msg1422623)
Draconis Combine: Budget $100B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1422146#msg1422146)
Marian Hegemony: Budget $10B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1423161#msg1423161) (Extra Fluff (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1423884#msg1423884))
Federated Suns: Budget $91B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1423623#msg1423623)
Capellan Confederation: Budget $89B. (Fluff (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1423936#msg1423936), Budget (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1423937#msg1423937), Design (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1424089#msg1424089), Doctrine (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1423507#msg1423507))

NPC Turns:
Terran Hegemony: Budget $750B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1423555#msg1423555)
United Hindu Collective: Budget $20B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1424612#msg1424612)
Rim Worlds Republic: Budget $20B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1423862#msg1423862)
Taurian Concordat: Budget $10B.  (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1424612#msg1424612)
Principality of Rasalhague: Budget $1B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1424376#msg1424376)

Astropolitical Summary
- Seluk Tucas of the Capellan Commonality succeeded beyond his wildest dreams with his efforts to unify the nearby nations. The Capellan region came together in mid-2360 to form the "Capellan Confederation", a loose collective of nations dedicated to mutual defence and peaceful co-existence. While it was not yet a true nation, having a single political structure at the head of all Capellan realms was to prove a major unifying factor over time. This alliance was also cemented by a marriage between Tucas' daughter Caroline with Franco Liao, Duke of Liao.

- In late 2360, a survey mission led by Commander Tracy Ashton Pendelton of the Taurian Navy discovers a prison on the Federated Suns world of Tentativa with over 15,000 prisoners of war from the recent invasion of the Tikonov Grand Union. Disgusted at the sight of the prisoners being used as little better than slave labourers, she and her crew managed to incite an uprising among the prisoners, and after heroic efforts to jury-rig sufficient life support to get the prisoners off-world, the surviving prisoners are freed and sent back to their homeworlds.

- In 2363, Seluk Tucas recalls his brother Dmitri from his position as Ambassador to the Federated Suns, but Dmitri's ship vanishes mysteriously en route, and Dmitri is never found. The Capellan forces mobilize against the threat, planning a major invasion of the world of Lee. However, the Capellan forces were betrayed, and eight full regiments of Davion troops were ready on-planet when the Capellans arrived, which led to the Capellan forces being nearly annihilated. The fiasco leads to the fall of Tucas from power, as well as the arrest and eventual trial of Alexi Nimzovich, Premiere of the Sarna Supremacy, who had been a major opponent of Tucas. While Nimzovich was acquitted, he never again held office. (Note: To keep the ambush secret, no naval forces were used, which means that the defenders could not stop the DropShips from taking off again. As such, this battle has no effect on either navy)

- After the Battle of Lee, the Federated Suns began to feel that a major "peacekeeping" operation was needed in the Capellan regions. The Davion forces advanced on several border worlds, but encountered unexpected degrees of resistance from the locals, who inexplicably saw their forces as aggressors.

- The Marian Hegemony had built up a fleet for conquest, and to gain additional realms to control, so by 2366 it had set its sights on the nearby Lothian League. While the Marians had tremendous difficulty gathering sufficient merchant JumpShips to allow a meaningful invasion force to be delivered to Lothario, they eventually managed to scrape up enough force to make the attempt. Their ground forces were substantially outnumbered by the defenders, but with total space superiority allowing them to call down generous orbital fire support, no Lothian ground force could stand long against the Marian invaders. The Lothians, rather than fighting a doomed guerrilla war that would tear apart their planets, decided to resist the invaders through bureaucracy - malicious compliance, sit-down strikes, short-term stress leave, paperwork tangles, and simply ignoring the dictates of the Marians became the norm across the Lothian systems almost overnight. Due to the small ground forces at the Marian's disposal, direct enforcement of decrees was virtually impossible, and it rapidly became clear that the terrifying orbital bombardments which had devastated the defending legions would never be used against Lothian cities that did not openly rebel for fear of destroying their prize. The Marians carted off some loot, and had the ability to collect a moderate amount of taxes, but the planets proved shockingly stubborn against the invaders in a way that nobody had expected to see.

OOC: I know you wanted to hit the Illyrian Palatinate too, but you're a one-world nation and those are more like ten worlds in total. Since they have no navy, I can't give you any worthwhile naval battles, but you're going to have a few problems hit you even so. Besides, this way you'll have some extra combat to keep you busy in future turns - it can't all be pirate-squashing. So IMO, you're going to take some time to digest these gains.

Also OOC: I wanted to call this "Mar(s)ian Attacks!", per the comments below, but I couldn't find a way to fit it in. :(


- The Free Worlds League, seeing the newly minted "Capellan Confederation" as a sham that would never withstand a serious attack from outside given their embarrassment at Lee, and seeing that they're occupied with the Federated Suns attack, decide to assault several border worlds in 2366. Under pressure from the attack, the Capellan Commonality adopts a new, much more centralized constitution in 2367, giving its leader, Duke Francis Liao, significantly more military authority.

- A Federated Suns survey fleet jumps into Taurus in late 2369. While they had maps implying the world was likely colonized, they were shocked to see how thoroughly industrialized the system was, with asteroid mining operations exceeding those in some Terran systems. Believing that no major realm had any worlds in that sector, the immediate assumption of a very well-organized pirate force is immediately made, though after listening to broadcasts in system while waiting for their drive to charge, it becomes clear that this is a permanent base, and suspicions of Capellan colonial expansion become the leading theory among the crew. Before a Taurian ship can reach them to investigate, the survey ship jumps out of system and immediately heads back to report their discovery to New Avalon.

- In 2369, the Draconis Combine pronounces the Rasalhague resistance to be at an end, and withdraws the bulk of their forces from the region. Scattered hold-outs would continue to make trouble for years to come, but never again would major combat forces be arrayed against the Combine by the Rasalhague rebels. Rasalhague Consortium Eliminated
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 27 June 2018, 05:25:53
Combat Results
The Great Rasalhague Ambush
The last major naval offensive of the Rasalhague rebellion took place in 2362. The Rasalhague commanders once again assembled a strike force in secret, this time on their old capital of Rasalhague. In addition to a large number of old fighters(suspected to be misappropriated surplus from the Terran fighter fleet update program), the Rasalhague leaders managed to convince or coerce large numbers of civilians to use private aircraft as decoys. The Rasalhague plan relied on staying within the atmosphere, to keep the Draconis fleet too far away to usefully support their landing DropShips, and attempted to once again kill large numbers of DropShips full of landing troops and supplies. Unfortunately for the Rasalhague forces, the commander was somewhat desperate for operating bases for this impromptu air force, and had some of his units take off from a base in an adjacent province. This base was in a different time zone, and the commander was too headstrong to listen to the objections of his subordinates. As such, the first 13 fighters took off an hour before any of the other forces. While they realized their error before launching their attack run, the anomalous movement tipped off the Draconis fleet.

While the Draconis forces did not realize the size of the arrayed Rasalhague forces, they had learned from their mistake in 2355, and remained on alert until the real attack took place. Once the true attack took off, the commander of the Draconis fleet took the Atago and the Luthien as close to the atmosphere as was safe, and launched a barrage of naval laser fire against the Rasalahaguers in support of his DropShips, as well as launching a over a hundred of his own fighters to support his landing units. A gigantic missile barrage of almost four hundred Barracudas was launched against the DropShips. The Draconis fighters and the point defences of the DropShips managed to shoot down over half the attack, and the poor storage conditions of the Rasalhague missiles meant that a third of the rest malfunctioned. However, the remaining 117 missiles did tremendous damage to the DropShips, destroying over a dozen outright and crippling five more.

Once the fighters had fired their missiles, they were once again nimble enough for serious combat, and the resulting combat rapidly devolved into was a wild furball. Over a hundred light civilian craft were slaughtered while totally unable to defend themselves, but even with this diversion of fire, the experience and training of the Draconis pilots began to tell. Despite being outnumbered two to one, they almost managed to hold their own even without their supporting fire, and with the power of the WarShips added in, they eventually forced the Rasalhaguers to flee. While the original Rasalhague plan had called for the fighters to re-arm and attack other units, their inability to defeat the Draconis fleet outright meant that they were unable to break contact, and most of the Rasalhague units were followed back to their bases. The resulting orbital bombardments killed over ten thousand civilians, as well as an unlucky squad of Draconis military police who had been attempting to investigate potential rebel activity, but they broke the back of the resistance fleet. Only three pilots took to the air for a second strike. Seeing the forces arrayed against them, and realizing that the Draconis fleet was offering them no quarter after their attack on defenceless ground troops that the Draconis fleet had been protecting, they flew their craft into the planetary militia headquarters as a final protest against the hated invaders.

Losses:
Draconis Combine = 14x DropShip, 31x fighter.
Rasalhague Consortium = 200x fighter.

The Peacekeeping War
The peacekeeping mission to various major Capellan worlds encountered very stiff resistance from the Capellan ground forces, who seemed surprisingly averse to peace. Fully two-thirds of the Federated Suns fleet was moved in to assist with the operation, rendering substantial amounts of direct orbital assistance to the planet of Highspire before the Capellans could mobilize their fleet. Duke Francis Liao was eager to prove that his newly-allied realm was no paper tiger, and dedicated the entire Capellan fleet to operations against the Federated Suns. Two Quinru Zhe raiders were dispatched to wreck FedSuns infrastructure and trade, while the remaining fleet of four Quzhujian destroyers with one Qinru Zhe as escort were used as a compact fighting force to beat the "invaders" back.

The main clash between these two powerful fleets took place over the world of Tikonov. An escaping JumpShip brought word that the AFFS was burning towards the planet, and the Capellans jumped to a pirate point to intercept. However, disaster struck for the Capellans when the navigator aboard one of their Quzhujians mis-calculated the jump, and the resulting error stranded the ship deep in the outer system, too far away to take part in the battle. The Federated Suns admiral, eager not to replicate the mistakes of the late Admiral Arthur, had many of his fighters and small craft on scout duty, and caught wind of the Capellan fleet far outside weapons range, giving his forces a chance to prepare.

Knowing that his fighters were likely to be outnumbered, and suspecting that the Capellans would use their fighters to engage in a massive anti-shipping strike, he loaded his fighters for anti-fighter operations and set them lying in wait well ahead of his ships to intercept the Capellan attackers. The tactic was a stunning success - despite being outnumbered three to one, the Capellan fighters were badly weighed down by their heavy Killer Whales and White Sharks, and were unable to maneuver when the Barracudas rained down upon them. Some pilots fired their missiles from well beyond effective range, and a few even attempted to use the anti-shipping missiles against the FedSuns fighters(with little success), but many tried to press home the original attack, and died before they could. The FedSuns fighter pilots bled for their success, but the numerical advantage of the Capellan forces was whittled down substantially, and the remaining forces were not sufficient for the next strike to pose a serious threat to naval vessels without the fleet supporting them. Eighty missiles were still launched within combat range, but with only a quarter of the planned barrage being fired, the defences of the AFFS fleet were sufficient to stop them without excessive damage - the FSS Galahad suffered moderate engine damage, but the armor of the ships remained intact, if pockmarked.

Both sides paused to collect their battered fighter wings and to assess their damage. The Capellan commander knew his fleet to be outnumbered, especially with the loss of one of his destroyers, and prepared to fall back and lick his wounds, but when the AFFS fleet slowed down to keep pace with the damaged Galahad, he saw his chance to perhaps salvage the battle. Knowing that his ships all had longer ranges than his opponents, and believing that he may now be able to hold the range open(or at least to break contact with part of the enemy fleet if he needed to), he chanced a continuation of the fight. The Capellan plan was simple, as these things go - hold the fighters close to the fleet, prevent enemy fighters from attacking them while they were vulnerable, and try to replicate the success of the Qinru Zhe a decade prior with the addition of a major missile strike.

Seeing that he held the advantage of numbers and that the teeth had been pulled from the Capellan fighter wings, the Davion re-armed his fighters for an attack on the enemy fleet and closed the range slowly. Unsurprisingly, the Capellans tried to hold the battle at extreme range and whittle him down with their lasers, but unlike the last time these fleets met, the laser fire was barely more effective than his own shots, despite the superior range of their guns. Both sides attempted missile attacks, but neither side wanted to waste their limited ammunition on such distant shots. After the pattern had been established - barrage and feint, launch and fall back, but never actually press home an attack - the Davions made their move. Letting the wounded Galahad fall behind somewhat, the fleet leapt towards its opponents at full emergency power. The Capellans fell back, of course, but in so doing they left left their poorly-armed aft sections pointed at the enemy, and the enemy took advantage. Finally throwing the long-hoarded fighter missiles into the fight, a wave of heavy missiles swept towards the rearmost Quzhujian, CCS Elias Liao, and its aft section was badly battered. Losing half its acceleration almost instantly, the Capellans were left with a cruel dilemma of abandoning a quarter of their fleet or turning back to defend it. Historians will long debate the choice he faced, but when he faced it he turned his fleet around with no hesitation.

Heavy ship-killers flew from destroyers and fighters alike, as barrages larger than the original fighter strike flew out as fast as tubes could be loaded. Fighters unloaded their missiles, like the Davions had a minute before, and then launched themselves into the melee. In the three great destroyers, a dozen and a half of the largest guns ever used in human warfare fired their first shots in anger. However, attempting to defend their lamed ally had deprived them of their great advantage of range, and the sheer mountains of amour on the Albion and Galahad designs began to tell. They too had autocannons, but when those hammer blows began to land their guns kept firing while the Capellans were cut down. When the fleets had closed ranges so tightly that even point defence guns were strafing enemy fleet units, the mighty Galahad-class FSS Percival fired full broadsides into enemy units and tore half a dozen gaping holes into the Qinru Zhe in a particularly successful broadside.

For as long as Capellan missile supplies held out, their fleet scored important successes. Capellan fighter strikes endured horrible losses to cripple the Galahad's point-defence systems with their cannons as the fleet pounded the Albion-class FSS Rostock into scrap, and then a fresh wave of armor-piercing White Sharks savaged the now-defenceless Percival while the fighters turned on the Rostock to finish the job. However, despite the staggering damage being dished out, the AFFS ships were too tough to destroy quickly, and speed was of the essence. The Qinru Zhe had been crippled and was completely unable to fight, and the enemy was focusing its fire on the Elias Liao, which was buckling under the pressure.

Almost simultaneously, the Elias Liao's forward autocannon magazine exploded and the Albion's primary fusion reactor lost magnetic containment. Both ships were destroyed instantly, and the only survivor from either ship's complement was a rookie fighter pilot from the Elias Liao. The twin explosions blinded most sensors in the fleet, but the remnants of the Qinru Zhe's sensor system noticed something. Galahad was returning. Lamed by an engine hit, but still as well-armed as the day she was launched, the Galahad showed up on Capellan scanners as the dust cleared, and finally the Capellans took to their heels. The Qinru Zhe was unable to leave, and its crew abandoned and scuttled their ship to deny the Davions their prize, but the two remaining Quzhujians scooped up the remaining fighters and headed away from the planet, leaving the defenseless citizens of Tikonov in the hands of the invading peacekeepers.

Losses:
Capellan Confederation = 1x Quzhujian, 1x Qinru Zhe, 117x fighter
Federated Suns = 1x Albion, 44x fighter. Significant damage to 1x Galahad - $2B repair cost

Guerre de Course
While the Capellans reserved one of their Qinru Zhe raiders as a "battlecruiser" for their main fleet, the other two were detailed to fulfill the design's original role of commerce raiding against the Federated Suns. The CCS Mu was tasked with raids in the area of Muskegon, and the CCS Fangzhou was sent towards Carmacks further south. Both were given orders to preserve their commands if at all possible, and to focus on hitting the softest targets they could find - the goal was to cause pain in New Avalon, but the primary fleet combat was to take place elsewhere, and the realm was still too imperiled with too small a fleet to allow excessive chances to be taken.

The Fangzhou's raids were generally successful, if undramatic. Due to the deployment of the main Federated Suns fleet to the warzone around Tikonov, they encountered shockingly little resistance. Instead of remaining at the jump point to snap up JumpShips, the Fangzhou's captain headed in-system to destroy as much civil infrastructure as possible. A raid in-system in Carmacks destroyed three civilian space stations around the planet after giving the crews time to evacuate, though the captain elected not to bombard the planet itself for fear of causing excessive civilian casualties. An asteroid-mining operation in Ogilvie was destroyed, and an attack on Sekulmun could find no targets worthy of firing on. The most dramatic moment came when jumping into the old pirate haven of Kluane - the ship landed within sensor range of a JumpShip that was waiting with sails furled, apparently waiting for a laggard DropShip. The JumpShip jumped away almost immediately, long before the Fangzhou could get into combat range, but the ship began burning back towards the planet looking for the DropShip as a prize. The same engine trouble that led to the ship being late in the first place meant it couldn't avoid the Fangzhou, and it was boarded, the crew imprisoned for the duration of the trip back to the planet, and the ship destroyed. By this point, low on fuel from the long burns and the need to recharge the jump drive by running the reactor at maximum capacity, the ship returned home with just over a billion in damage inflicted to the civilian economy of the Federated Suns.

The Mu's raiding mission was shorter and much sharper. Within minutes of leaving Capellan space and arriving at the Amiga system, the Mu found a JumpShip charging its drive, and after a shot across its bows the boarding party put aboard managed to take the ship with no resistance, capturing it as a prize for the Commonwealth and sending it back independantly. The second jump, into Muskegon, was far more dramatic. It rapidly became obvious why Capellan intelligence had reported unusual movements among system-defence fighters(and why the Fangzhou had found none of them) when the Mu found a newly-built station at the nadir jump point, and fighters began to scramble out of the station in huge numbers. The Davions had been ready - news had reached them of the raiders, and the commander was holding most of his forces ready with anti-shipping missiles loaded for quick launch. Within less than ten minutes, over a hundred fighters formed up and were streaking towards the Mu. The Mu's captain had seen this strike forming on his sensors, but was unable to get close enough to interfere, so he instead switched his lasers to anti-air targeting mode and readied his dual-purpose light autocannons to shoot down the inevitable hurricane of fire.

The Davion fighter pilots were among the best that the AFFS had to offer - two of the squadrons had come from the first class at the newly-founded Albion Naval Academy's Fighter College, and while they found themselves in a difficult fight, they threw themselves into it with enthusiasm and skill. Facing no fighters on the opposing side, they could fly complex patterns to confuse the Mu's fire control computers, and flew them with skill and precision. Launching their missiles in a single coordinated wave, they then burst forward to attack the ship while its point-defence was occupied, and tried to destroy as many of the point-defence cannons as they could, in hopes of being able to pick the ship apart at leisure. The Mu's defences were overwhelmed by the wave of missiles, and dozens of heavy armor-piercing missiles landed and did terrible damage, leaving the ship adrift. Many of the autocannon mounts on the Mu were destroyed by the fighters, and the fighters celebrated their seeming crippling of the enemy ship. However, they hadn't won yet - while the Mu was drifting and lacked many of its light weapons, the fighter's cannons were not heavy enough to destroy the capital weapon mounts, and the Mu's lasers cut down fighter after fighter mercilessly. The fighters were planning to fall back and re-arm with missiles, but as it happened they had crippled the Mu's engines in the middle of a turn, and its momentum was taking it directly towards their home station. The fighters broke off, their magazines empty, but before the station could re-arm them for another strike, the Mu's capital guns came within range. The cannons spoke, and the station was defenceless against them. Most of the fighters launched with empty magazines, simply to avoid the destruction of their base, and the remainder surrendered to ensure that they would not be left adrift in short-legged defensive fighters.

It took the Mu over a week to fix their engines well enough to ensure that they could at least maneuver somewhat, and the ship staggered back home for repairs instead of continuing its voyage. But the damage had been done.

Gains and Losses:
Capellan Confederation = Moderate damage to 1x Qinru Zhe - $500m repair cost. Gained 1x JumpShip
Federated Suns = 1x Federation, 108x Fighter, $1.9B civilian damage not relevant to naval budget

Andurian and Irian
In 2367, the Free Worlds League saw an opportunity in the Capellan region. The newly formed "Confederation" had done poorly defending against the Federated Suns, and the League believed that several border worlds were ripe for the taking.

The order of battle available to Admiral Thomas Masters was a powerful one. Seven Heracles-class battlecruisers supported by two Phalanx corvettes was known to be far superior to anything that the Confederation had left after their disaster in Tikonov - intel estimated that they had not more than three of their heavy cruisers, probably two raiders, and that the balance of their fleet was converted merchants and cruise ships. The primary problem Masters faced was speed. His ships could not force an engagement directly, since his corvettes could not stand against the enemy fleet and his battlecruisers could not catch them. If he used single ships as detachments, he risked defeat in detail, and the Capellans had a known policy of trading coverage of their border for the ability to mass the largest possible fleet at the key point.

The League had three key points that must be defended in this war - their invasion force, their JumpShip flotilla supporting the invasion force, and the natural choice for a Capellan counterattack, the shipyards of Irian. Masters had enough force to support two with a good chance of victory at each against the entire Capellan fleet. So he did what any good commander would do in this situation - he buffed. With the JumpShips he left one Phalanx and three DropShips that had been modified to have the outward appearance of Heracles-class ships, complete with jump sails that had been liberated from an extremely irate merchant flotilla. With the invading force, three Heracles and his second Phalanx. And in Irian, the Heracles that had recently been laid down was shoved into the small yard to continue work on core systems, one Heracles was given the appearance of being incomplete in the primary yard itself, and three more Heracles were arrayed around the planet in such a way that an attacker would never see more than one of them from any jump point.

As predicted, the Capellans chose to abandon their forces under the gun in the Andurien region. The ground troops were reinforced when war seemed imminent, but no further reinforcements would come. The fleet concentrated for an attack, and given the overwhelming firepower they could see alongside the invasion fleet, the order came down to avoid a direct confrontation and raid the Mariks to death instead. Instead of a light raid like they had against the Federated Suns, the plan was a true deep strike operation against Irian, for only a truly important target like Irian could put enough pressure on the Mariks to come to a peace treaty.

In the end, it was a lowly sensor lieutenant on the Fangzhou that saved the Capellan fleet. On a quiet night shift as the fleet burned towards the planet, her scanners caught a whiff of communication between the base and another unit. After hours of analysis of the signal, she managed to put together a theory of what the Mariks had done based on occasional snippets of communication and the shocking similarity to an exercise that had been run in her training courses. The theory went up the ladder, and while the fleet admiral wasn't convinced, he agreed to keep a watch out for potential hidden units. As a result, the fleet laid in a contingency plan - instead of a traditional engagement where they would stop and pulverize the enemy shipyard, they chose a passing engagement that would give them enough speed to break through any opposition that did try to form up, while strafing the yard as they passed. At full emergency power, they would need only 20 minutes of warning to build up enough speed that the Mariks could never catch them. They got 23 minutes.

The Marik battlecruisers came out from behind the shadow of the planet, and the Capellans reacted almost instantly. Turning their ships around, the fleet began a burn at three gravities past the planet, and readied their guns. Instead of a slugfest, it would be a single quick burst of firepower from both sides. The battlecruisers gave chase, even after realizing that they would never be able to keep up, in hopes of being able to capture any crippled ships. Any fighters that could keep up with the crushing acceleration of the fleet units were launched to thicken up the fleet's firepower, and the two sides raced towards their meeting point. Six hundred missiles were fired in an instant between the two fleets, and almost four dozen gigantic cannons traded shells. A few more were fired from the opposite broadside as the Capellan fleet sailed through at a relative speed of over thirty kilometres a second, and lasers spiked the battered hulls of the battlecruisers as well. The Marik fleet's gunnery proved to be far less skilled than the battle-hardened Liaos, but the sheer weight of metal that they brought to bear was still enough to ensure that every single ship in the Capellan fleet suffered at least one armour breach. The Fangzhou, whose sharp eyes had saved the fleet, was aflame, and detonated less than two minutes later, taking 80% of her crew to eternity with her. But the Mariks had suffered too - the Heracles had gaping wounds and had lost most of her broadside armaments, and her sister ship Bellerophon's engines were shattered ruins. Three of the fleet's DropShips had been totally destroyed, and one unlucky fighter had been caught "like a bug on a windshield" by the doomed Fangzhou.

While the Capellan fleet struggled to control their damage, the shipyards that had been their original target were coming up rapidly. Each ship turned its least-damaged side towards the yards and fired what it could at them - the damage was far less significant than it could have been, but it was still massive. The germanium purification plant was shattered by missiles, the autocannon construction tooling was destroyed by the same model of autocannon that it had been producing, and the support infrastructure for the main yard would take months to repair. But the yard survived, and the ships under construction did as well.

The rest of the invasion went virtually unopposed in space, though the ground troops on both sides fought a bitter war on several planets. But with no navy to cover their forces, the Capellans lost world after world. When the peace treaty was signed, the Marik eagle was raised over seven worlds, and the Capellans swore to reclaim the important world of Andurien at the first opportunity.

Losses:
Capellan Confederation = 1x Qinru Zhe. Significant damage to fleet totalling $3B.
Free Worlds League = 3x DropShip, 1x fighter. Moderate damage to fleet totalling $2B, moderate damage to shipyard totalling $3B.

Research
Research:
DC: $3,792m
FS: $1,209m
CC: $353m

TH: $7,727m
UHC: $205m
TC: $186m
RWR: $310m

TOTAL = $13,782m

The winner is the Capellan Confederation, gaining vehicular drop chutes. Not related to naval construction, but you'll get a nice surprise round on any ground combats you happen to fight in the next round. And, given how many fights you seem to be getting into, that seems rather inevitable.

Budgets
I promised you guys economic growth, so growth you shall have. I did a bit of math on this - in order for the combined income of the great houses to match the TH by 2780, they need to grow about 1% per turn faster than the Hegemony does. If they grow at 2%, they'll be substantially stronger as a combined force, even if they're all individually weaker. For the RWR to catch up to a typical great house(which is perhaps a bit ambitious, but it was in that ballpark by the time of the Amaris coup), it'd need to grow about 4% faster than they do, or 5-6% per turn faster than the Terran Hegemony. Obviously, these growth rates will be jerked around by combat results as well - the Age of War will do bad things to long-run growth, while the relative peace Star League will do good things(though these trends may be masked by short-term budget prioritization - after all, in wartime the navy gets a bigger percentage of the pot than they do in peacetime, even if that pot is smaller).

Some of this will come from colonization and natural population growth(since the Battletech universe seems not to have ever stopped growing its population, unlike the real world's projections), some from background economy-boosting technologies, and some from economic development projects like recharge stations. I don't want to go into too much detail, because I know you'll all game the hell out of any rule set I explain to you, but suffice it to say that I am paying attention to that stuff.

CC: $82B, due to significant territorial losses. Note that there was also $2.869B unspent on the first turn when the CC was still NPC. Round that up to +$3B of surplus, because I forgot to draw it to your attention sooner.
DC: $110B, due to economic development and conquest.
FS: $105B due to minor conquest and economic growth.
FWL: $108B, due to conquest.
LC: $85B, due to economic development.
MH: $12B, due to conquest and loot.

TH: $760B, due to population and technological growth.
UHC: $21B, due to economic development.
RWR: $23B, due to colonial expansion and aggressive economic development.
TC: $12B, due to emergency wartime spending after discovery.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 27 June 2018, 07:27:20
Marian Attacks -

My brain went immidiately to ‘Martian Attacks’ and from there to ‘Mars Attacks’
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 27 June 2018, 07:37:46
Marian Attacks -

My brain went immidiately to ‘Martian Attacks’ and from there to ‘Mars Attacks’

Whoops, that was supposed to be edited out until I had time to expand on it.

Ah well - I still got two out of three last-minute edits done, and that ain't bad!
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 27 June 2018, 07:41:22
It was worth a laugh, and thus worthwhile.  And no worries!  Very glad to see it going up... I know at least myself and a few others have been wearing out the board hitting ‘check updates for your posts’.  :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 27 June 2018, 10:37:46
I been meaning to ask this. Since the Hegemony develops 99% of the major new stuff in cannon is everyone else going to have to wait till they use said stuff before they can build there own? Case in point NPPCs should be showing up soon. But if Terra doesn't actually attack anyone and use said NPPCs how does anybody know to research and build them?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 27 June 2018, 10:41:17
I been meaning to ask this. Since the Hegemony develops 99% of the major new stuff in cannon is everyone else going to have to wait till they use said stuff before they can build there own? Case in point NPPCs should be showing up soon. But if Terra doesn't actually attack anyone and use said NPPCs how does anybody know to research and build them?

I'm handwaving that - every tech is available to the whole universe one turn after it's developed. Being the first to research gives you a one-turn monopoly on it, but corporate espionage, parallel development, etc. will spread it around within a decade or so.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 27 June 2018, 10:46:39
I been meaning to ask this. Since the Hegemony develops 99% of the major new stuff in cannon is everyone else going to have to wait till they use said stuff before they can build there own? Case in point NPPCs should be showing up soon. But if Terra doesn't actually attack anyone and use said NPPCs how does anybody know to research and build them?

Given  relative budget sizes, math suggests that the majority of new developments will be Hegemony, anyway.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 27 June 2018, 10:56:21
Given  relative budget sizes, math suggests that the majority of new developments will be Hegemony, anyway.

Note the edit above - the CC won this round. I made a bit of a point to reduce NPC research spending a bit, so you guys feel like it's less of a waste(and because tbh, it's probably not as valuable as my spending first turn implied). The TH still spent about half the total research budget, but that means they play catch-up half the time too.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 27 June 2018, 11:11:04
Note the edit above - the CC won this round. I made a bit of a point to reduce NPC research spending a bit, so you guys feel like it's less of a waste(and because tbh, it's probably not as valuable as my spending first turn implied). The TH still spent about half the total research budget, but that means they play catch-up half the time too.

I saw that.

Some people will still choose to pursue research.  The sense and understanding of the Lyran Navy is that they would rather buy another cruiser every few decades than have a 1 in 10 chance for a fleeting advantage in a tech whose nature cannot be known in advance.  Small powers (and we are all small powers)  will generally 'go big or go home' on pursuing 'wonderweapons', and the Lyran Navy chose 'home'.  Reasonable minds can differ.

Besides, historically, we get our biggest tech upgrade by stealing it from the Hegemony, anyway. :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 27 June 2018, 12:39:52

Combat Results
- Marian attacks on Periphery states

I attack Mars!?! Whoot! Take that rocks...

> Braces for counter attacks... <

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 27 June 2018, 12:54:46
I attack Mars!?! Whoot! Take that rocks...

> Braces for counter attacks... <

TT

I wouldn't worry too much about counterattack.  The Giant Tripod Walkers wont be around until turn 75 or 80.  :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Charistoph on 27 June 2018, 14:33:39
I wouldn't worry too much about counterattack.  The Giant Tripod Walkers wont be around until turn 75 or 80.  :)

It's called a preemptive strike, and is probably more effective than attacking the darkness.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 28 June 2018, 14:18:11
~reads the first of the combat reports~

Hmm.  Interesting.  Very, very interesting.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 28 June 2018, 15:00:44
One problem dealt with, now for the more serious opponents
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 28 June 2018, 21:31:14
While I wait, impatiently of course, for my realm's after action reports, I decided to pop out my 5 Million " Generic " Aero fighters. Now I know these cost way less than $5 mill, I can justify the cost in training procedures.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name:  Falco 
Mass:              65 tons

Equipment:                                                              Mass
Power Plant:  195 Fusion                                                 8,00
Thrust:  Safe Thrust: 5
      Maximum Thrust: 8
Structural Integrity: 6                                                   ,00
Total Heat Sinks:    10 Single                                            ,00
Fuel:                                                                    4,00
Cockpit & Attitude Thrusters:                                            3,00
Armor Type:  Standard  (224 total armor pts)                            14,00
                           Standard Scale Armor Pts
   Location:                            L / R
   Nose:                                 75
   Left/Right Wings:                    53/53
   Aft:                                  43

Weapons and Equipment      Loc        SRV    MRV    LRV    ERV  Heat    Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Machine Gun              Nose         2     --     --     --    0      1,00
  Ammo (MG) 200            ---                                           1,00
3 Autocannon/5             Nose         5      5     --     --    3     24,00
  Ammo (AC/5) 60           ---                                           3,00
2 Machine Gun              RW           2     --     --     --    0      1,00
2 Machine Gun              LW           2     --     --     --    0      1,00
  Ammo (MG) 400            ---                                           2,00
2 Machine Gun              Aft          2     --     --     --    0      1,00
  Ammo (MG) 200            ---                                           1,00
1 Refueling drogue (Aft).                                                1,00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS:                                                     Heat: 3     65,00
Tons Left:                                                                ,00

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost:        2.843.384 C-Bills
Battle Value:      859


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class/Model/Name:  Bueto 
Mass:              65 tons

Equipment:                                                              Mass
Power Plant:  195 Fusion                                                 8,00
Thrust:  Safe Thrust: 5
      Maximum Thrust: 8
Structural Integrity: 6                                                   ,00
Total Heat Sinks:    10 Single                                            ,00
Fuel:                                                                    8,00
Cockpit & Attitude Thrusters:                                            3,00
Armor Type:  Standard  (224 total armor pts)                            14,00
                           Standard Scale Armor Pts
   Location:                            L / R
   Nose:                                 75
   Left/Right Wings:                    53/53
   Aft:                                  43

Weapons and Equipment      Loc        SRV    MRV    LRV    ERV  Heat    Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Machine Gun              Nose         2     --     --     --    0      1,00
  Ammo (MG) 200            ---                                           1,00
2 Autocannon/5             Nose         5      5     --     --    2     16,00
  Ammo (AC/5) 40           ---                                           2,00
2 Machine Gun              RW           2     --     --     --    0      1,00
2 Machine Gun              LW           2     --     --     --    0      1,00
  Ammo (MG) 400            ---                                           2,00
2 Machine Gun              Aft          2     --     --     --    0      1,00
  Ammo (MG) 200            ---                                           1,00
1 Refueling drogue (Aft).                                                1,00
1 Bomb Bay                                                               5,00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS:                                                     Heat: 2     65,00
Tons Left:                                                                ,00

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost:        2.672.856 C-Bills
Battle Value:      780

Designed for the original Aero-Carrier of the Marian Hegemony, the Falco and Bueto were co-designed by the Hadrian Mechanized Industries, a semi-conglomerate on the plane Pompey. When first proposed, the Falconidae Project as it was called, was chosen to be a multipurpose frame. Able to deal threats as a main stage fighter or in support bomber roles, the Falconidae was re-designated as two separate identities.

The Falco was built with such a heavy barrage in it's nose, three of the now standard Parva Tormentis or Autocannon 5, given her the ability to plow into any enemy it encounters. Her brother aerofighter, the Bueto was given over for more supporting roles, such as SAR and Bomber runs, they were also seen preforming in-flight refueling and general cargo humping missions. Losing one of the Parva Tormentis and a ton of ammo, the Bueto has the capacity to carry bombs in the five ton Bomb bay located in the fuselage.

Both frames are covered in same amount of armor called Lorica Hamata, or plain standard armor for the non-Hegemony citizens. Since both share the same movement profile, and look identical in every way, one won't realize until to late when on target. As each have a single Refueling Drogue and eight Jejunium Iaculis Machine Guns located in the Nose, Wings and Aft sections, with way more than enough ammunition to supply them indefinitely, the Falconidae Project was complete.

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 28 June 2018, 21:37:42
Truetanker: I couldn't find a plausible way to give you a combat this round, but you may want to check the astropolitical summary for 2366 ;)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 28 June 2018, 21:59:22
Truetanker: I couldn't find a plausible way to give you a combat this round, but you may want to check the astropolitical summary for 2366 ;)

* Shakes pugilistic fist at them... *

Next turn.. I'll drop a Billion into Recruitment Drive! I want those systems...

Joking of course... or am I?  ::)

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 28 June 2018, 22:02:06
Economic Growth will be nice.  Im just waiting around for a Very Important Coup. :)

RE:  “Game the hell out of any ruleset I explain to you”

I have no idea what your talking about.  I havent plotted the ‘payback time’ on yard upgrades, in terms of higher combat power per cbill for ships, or yard-constricted combat power and its implications on ship design, carriage, and collars. -shifty eyes-

Like the fluff so far, cant wait to see all the big Capellan fights!
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 28 June 2018, 23:26:02
I have noticed the yards listed on the Master Sheet are inaccurate. Luthien has 2 Level 2's and a Level 1 to go with its Level 3.

Also I never got a clear answer last turn, but are we paying for WarShip repairs? And if so, what cost? Same as maintenance, as I budgeted last turn, or some other cost?

Also, at what point is a new ship design a variant or a totally new ship? Just needs to be same tonnage? Same engine? Same Collars?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 29 June 2018, 01:10:33
I hate to say this but the Marian Hegemony doesn't exist yet. I just realized it and double checked and sure enough it was founded in 2920. Oh dear
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 29 June 2018, 02:10:56
We are aware. He wanted to be the Space Romans, so we let him
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 29 June 2018, 04:19:26
* Shakes pugilistic fist at them... *

Next turn.. I'll drop a Billion into Recruitment Drive! I want those systems...

Joking of course... or am I?  ::)

TT

Just remember that the basic principle of this game as that you're in charge of the navy, not the nation. TBH, I'm being really generous letting you make foreign policy at all, because that wasn't how this was supposed to work.

Also, remember that the other players can skimp on buying JumpShips because they're all major nations that can just snap up merchants at need. You're an obscure single-system polity in the middle of nowhere, whose only real advantage is a lot of free money from germanium mining. (And as a side note, the fact that it's germanium aiding a Roman-themed empire is an irony not lost on me). And you still don't own a single docking collar anywhere. You're lucky two get two merchant ships into the same place at the same time, which is a big part of why your land forces are so badly outnumbered - you can hire mercenaries, but you simply cannot carry them to your targets.

And really, you were the one who said the Lothians and Illyrians - look up the canon on how you fared when you tried to take them in the 31st century. I'm just adapting the attacks you asked for :P.

I have no idea what your talking about.  I havent plotted the ‘payback time’ on yard upgrades, in terms of higher combat power per cbill for ships, or yard-constricted combat power and its implications on ship design, carriage, and collars. -shifty eyes-

Of course not! Just like there's no way Kiviar has given thought to how he can name ships after Hanse Davion 700 years before his reign.

I have noticed the yards listed on the Master Sheet are inaccurate. Luthien has 2 Level 2's and a Level 1 to go with its Level 3.

Also I never got a clear answer last turn, but are we paying for WarShip repairs? And if so, what cost? Same as maintenance, as I budgeted last turn, or some other cost?

Also, at what point is a new ship design a variant or a totally new ship? Just needs to be same tonnage? Same engine? Same Collars?

Fixed the sheet. It's only up to date for the beginning of turn 2 (I'll update it to the beginning of turn 3 once I finish the turn), but I've fixed the yards at Luthien. That said, it seems like the extra level 1 should be at New Samarkand, not Luthien, once this turn is posted.

Re repair costs, that was going to be obvious by the end of the turn, but I'll describe it - I'll add a repair cost to any relevant battle reports, so if that battle from last turn had happened this turn it'd say something like:
Losses:
Draconis Combine = 4x DropShip, 13x fighter. Kutai damaged - repair bill $1B
Rasalhague Consortium = 200x fighter.

You can either pay the repair bill or write off the ship (which is an easy choice when the ship is still new, but writing off may be interesting when your units are getting long in the tooth). For turn 2, you all made reasonable enough assumptions, so I was just going along with them to avoid needing to make you re-do your turns.

Re variants, I didn't have any hard-and-fast rules in mind, but it should be close. The Davion II changed its mass, the Leviathan II changed its speed, and there's a bunch of L-F refits, but no variant changed more than one of those. To keep it simple, let's say +-20 ktons, +- 10 SI, and +-1 safe thrust is a variant. It's a bit more latitude than canon used, but not enough that you guys just get half-price R&D on everything. Feel free to change docking collars, though - those changed pretty often between variants, so it can't be that hard. (And yes, I know how ridiculous that is when docking collars are the biggest single determinant of ship cost, but I want to keep this simple. Maybe creating a docking collar interface for a KF drive is just a well-known recipe that happens to be expensive (https://www.e-reading.club/chapter.php/71251/13/Dahl_-_Charlie_and_the_Great_Glass_Elevator.html)?)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 29 June 2018, 04:43:28
fair enough, that works

EDIT: As to the location of the new yard, Luthien is further from potential front lines
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 29 June 2018, 08:06:47
Nah, actually, that makes a kind of sense.  Collars are pricey, but tiny.  IF we assume its all super-expensive super-delicate 99% of parts fail testing stuff, but external to the actual core rather than requiring modifications thereto, it could be ‘expensive but easy.

Pulling the steam turbines out of a ship to replace with a while new gearing, drive train, and screws might be ‘hard but cheap’ compared to say replacing an entire computer suite and combat software - espc if you have to custom bake the computers and sortware for each ship.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 29 June 2018, 11:41:26
Makes sense to me, really.  Plenty of real-world examples too.  Upgrading the ram on your PC is easy, fast, and easily one of the most expensive things you can do.  If the docking collars are "cut hole in ship, weld on pre-fab, attach some cables and umbilical ports to some plumbing" then no big deal for a varient.  But if the cost to manufacture the pre-fab module is high, well, there ya go.  Anything from ultra complicated, semi-lostech, or just pricy materials can all do it.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 29 June 2018, 11:55:38
I reckon since collar costs are flat per collar, but greatly increased by the LF battery, they are super-expensive plug and play.

They shape an extend the K-F field around the thing carried.  So since we are dealing with hyperspace magitech, I can see huge costs and huge maintenance costs. And the cost of a collar triples when you put it on a ship with an LF battery... perhaps those collars are ‘double jump rated’, and have to be built to super-narrow tolerances to survive channeling the energy and extending the K-F field twice in very quick succession, without a cool down period or some presumed ‘standard post jump’ service and maintenance.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 29 June 2018, 13:10:47
Of course not! Just like there's no way Kiviar has given thought to how he can name ships after Hanse Davion 700 years before his reign.

No, but you know for a fact that I have also totally not at any point thought about those exact same warship/yard cost efficiencies. And, tbh, since this is the pre-civil war Federated Suns, I am actively trying not to name literally everything the 'Davion X'

Also, I wish you had told me I had a secret slave planet. I would have gotten them working on some pyramids while I still had them on the payroll.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 29 June 2018, 13:35:37
No, but you know for a fact that I have also totally not at any point thought about those exact same warship/yard cost efficiencies. And, tbh, since this is the pre-civil war Federated Suns, I am actively trying not to name literally everything the 'Davion X'

Also, I wish you had told me I had a secret slave planet. I would have gotten them working on some pyramids while I still had them on the payroll.

If it makes you feel any better, you're paying them just as much now as you were before  ;)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 29 June 2018, 20:15:15
The Peacekeeping War

Damnit Alsadius, why did you have to go and raise the bar like that.

Welp, guess my turn is going to take a while to write now...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 29 June 2018, 20:17:48
Hmm.  That will definitely impact the value I ascribe to cargo fraction.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 29 June 2018, 21:28:48
Question for the crowd. My battle write-ups are way longer this turn than last turn. As you might imagine, this means writing them takes a lot longer as well. Is this worthwhile to you? Would you rather have turns resolve faster with short battle reports, slower with long battle reports, or some sort of middle ground where only the really important battles get lengthy write-ups?

Hmm.  That will definitely impact the value I ascribe to cargo fraction.

Heh. Question is, in which direction? One one hand, the FedSuns fleet has the smallest cargo fraction by far, and they won. On the other, shallow ammo bins can clearly come back to bite you sometimes(I had a somewhat longer description of what happened when the Capellans started running out of ammo, but it got cut in the editing process).
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 29 June 2018, 21:33:52
Well, assuming we get our turns in promptly during the week, I'm okay with the reports taking a few days to resolve :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 29 June 2018, 21:43:01
Question for the crowd. My battle write-ups are way longer this turn than last turn. As you might imagine, this means writing them takes a lot longer as well. Is this worthwhile to you? Would you rather have turns resolve faster with short battle reports, slower with long battle reports, or some sort of middle ground where only the really important battles get lengthy write-ups?

Heh. Question is, in which direction? One one hand, the FedSuns fleet has the smallest cargo fraction by far, and they won. On the other, shallow ammo bins can clearly come back to bite you sometimes(I had a somewhat longer description of what happened when the Capellans started running out of ammo, but it got cut in the editing process).

Well, shallow ammo is bad, so dont use missiles.  (At 10’rounds per ton, they start to suck).  But shallow cargo doesnt affect your ability to conquer.  So no missiles, no cargo.  Now, its possible that you could fire enough missiles to overcome that issue.  Ive considered a CG.  Rules say it works, but thats effectively simulation, not real.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 29 June 2018, 21:54:33
Let's put some numbers on it. Counting ammo(including 1x Killer Whale per fighter), but not heat sinks, the Quzhujian uses 20,400 tons on AR-10s, 27,216 tons on NAC/40s, 17,600 tons on NL/55s, and 9,600 tons on fighters. You can judge for yourself which of those weapon systems had the best effect per ton invested in the battle we saw.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 29 June 2018, 21:58:05
Fair cop.  May just be too hard to tell, as to ammo fed weapons.  But we know you can at least drive over

Beyond that, I really like the long writeups/details.  They have some great story to them.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 29 June 2018, 22:02:01
-delete duplicate-
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 29 June 2018, 22:07:25
FYI, the reason I say "You can judge for yourself" is that I'm not even sure, and I wrote the thing. Looking at those numbers, my first thought is that maybe I should have mentioned the NLs a bit more.

At the end of the day, I want all sensible strategies to be viable. The design of a unit should be about coordinating with your other units and fulfilling a role in your fleet, not about max-minning a set of game stats. It's possible to get really dumb if you want(e.g., 1 SI on a WarShip), but any good-faith approach to ship design that pays attention to the basics will produce a ship that's probably good at something. It may not be the role you need filled - e.g., a Quzhujian is a good design for a small nation like the Capellans, but it'd be a terrible SLDF ship - but it'll have some kind of role somewhere. Don't worry too much about certain weapon systems being overpowered or underpowered, because I don't intend for that to be a major issue overall. I even have a plan in mind to make NGauss not suck  :o
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 29 June 2018, 22:38:10
Please make NGauss not suck.  Their huge guns with a long range, so Im morally obligated to love them as a Lyran.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Vition2 on 29 June 2018, 22:45:03
First, as a watcher, I like the fluff.  :)

As for the combat and the horrible losses the CapCon suffered... it seems that the issue was much more down to luck and tactics.  The discounting of one of their warships in the outer system really didn't help matters and made a potentially even battle uneven at the outset.  Then not covering the attack wings with fighters, the Capellans left themselves open to massive amounts of aerospace losses, something not able to be recovered from in the middle of combat.  And lastly, pushing an attack you are already at a disadvantage at - attacking at parity is a poor choice, to do so when you are already an underdog is straight folly.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 29 June 2018, 22:57:10
Well, that goes to both dice rolls, and the basic problems of a naval underdog.  Lanchester is a cruel master, and history is chock full of ‘2nd string but close’ navies getting turned into dust.

What will be more interesting is to see the results of the commerce raiding.  If it has significant economic impact, enough to balance the combat losses, we know that you need to build balanced fleets and defenses and cover yourself.  If the raiders arent productive, and -very- productive at that, then that tells us the right answer is monobuilding the largest, best armed hammers possible. 

Neither is ‘wrong’.  Commerce raiding is very good at some points in naval history (age of sail) and very, very bad in others (surface raiders, ww1/2).  My gut feel is that its going to depend here on investment in defenses.  Running down a commerce raider thats cautious is, mostly, impossible - jump in well clear of the limit, outside detection.  Charge your core.  Then run in, hit the jump point hard if you can beat whats there, jump out if you cant.  Now - are we hitting the planet/orbital factories?  Thats rolling dice - you can get trapped inside the limit against a superior force.  You can barrel down on those orbital factories to find 500 fighters taking off with 1000 Barracudas under their wings with your name on them.  Or you can burn the orbital infrastructure and all the droppers between the jump point and the planet.

But rememeber - your operational mobility is 1G, same as everyone else.  Id do a high speed run in with my course plotted for a pirate point.  Look around on way in.  If go, go.  If no go, keep that 1G plus whatever your crew can stand right up to the pirate point and leave - defenders at best get a high speed pass.  Still riskier than just hitting the polar jump point, but TANSTAAFL.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Vition2 on 29 June 2018, 23:18:36
Basically what I was getting at is what would an in-game admiral take from the fight, assuming he got a full report.  This may have been a poor way to look at it considering it is a game.  But an admiral would look at the fight and say, "they did that wrong... and that wrong... and that right." Because regardless of the losses, it was a close thing, the FS lost ~9 gigabills worth of stuff while the CC lost ~14 and the difference was mostly tactical decisions.

That dice rolls play a part in how things turn out, I understand completely, but I'm looking at this from and in-universe perspective, where the gods of the dice aren't any where near apparent.

The question I ask is: how would a navy react to mitigate the issues that plagued the CC during this fight? Not, How can I design a warship to change the math on the fight?  But I understand I'm not one actually participating, and that decision isn't mine to make - this post is primarily to say where my last post was coming from, nothing more.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 29 June 2018, 23:23:41
Well, we cant fix bad luck.  Training is the obvious choice, but training costs money -> which by definition the second class navy doesnt have.  Training is the only way for a navy to ‘prevent’ tactical ******, and history shows that nothing immunizes it.

Here, I dont think the CapCom admiral made a bad gamble.  He -lost- the gamble, but thats not the same thing.  The inferior navy -has- to gamble.  Playing safe just means dying slower.  Range advantages had worked for him before, so it was worth trying.  Which takes me back to my original point - the inferior navy has to take bad risks, so most of the time it just ends up even more inferior.  But sometimes it can make a few good gambles and acheive parity. Sometimes.

Thats one thing thats haaard to get away from.  Small initial advantages in naval conflicts snowball.  Its going to make it challenging to make a game like stay interesting.

Given the positional advantages enjoyed by the FedsSuns, here (yard size, unity of command structure), the CapCom actually still punched well above its weight.

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 29 June 2018, 23:26:38
I have noticed I seem to be the only one paying above the minimum for maintenance to cover extra training. Haven't seen it really payoff yet because I haven't had a serious opponent, but it may be worth investing a few extra million into rather than spending it on research that the Terrans will win 90% of the time anyway.

Could be something else for those dirty Earthers to throw their buckets of money at too, they are supposed to be the best and all.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 29 June 2018, 23:37:00
Smegish - goes to budget.  If I had inferior empires on both borders, id haippily budget 150% or more every turn - because more training means less risk, and the superior force should be risk adverse.  An inferior power cant afford to budget for extra training (Lanchester is a cruel master!) until war is immanent. 

Traditionally, the weaker power often dumps a bunch into training and then starts the war on its own schedule.  The stronger navy has little interest in starting the war (its stronger for economic reasons - its ‘ahead’ and likely to get moreso) unless it sees itself losing that dominance.  The weaker navy wants to train hard and try to suckerpunch big brother while big brother is busy doing all the ‘other things’ you have a navy for thst arent blowing up navies... if we were within swinging distance of the Hegemony and wanted to take their toys away, thats what we should be doing.

When training times come for me, I may segregate it, if GM allows.  Intensive training for my jumpship crews is a waste of money.  Ditto colliers.  Double-ditto jump station crews - what are they gonna do, shoot AC5s better?  But line of battle ships might be worth some ****** insurance, and max-training at least the fighter crews on shipboard, and any powerful, independent operations style units, would be a good idea.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 29 June 2018, 23:41:36
RL admirals know there's an element of luck involved in any battle too. Look at the bizarre turns of luck at Jutland, or basically every single aspect of Midway. Or Nelson's comment before Trafalgar - "Something must be left to chance; nothing is sure in a sea fight above all."

The Cappies didn't do well with the dice in that battle, no question. The fleets were roughly equally matched in most senses, and it was quite plausible for them to have won. But a few things went wrong, and so they lost. Some of those will be obvious to any observer(a misjump taking 20-25% of your combat power off the board), while some (gunnery that's generally less effective than in the previous battle) are subtler and could be missed. As for ways to fix it, a navigator blowing a combat jump seems like an obvious case for additional training budgets(which is included in maintenance for gameplay purposes, as a reminder), or you can go the other way and economize on maintenance so that you afford to get an extra ship on the board and be no worse off it you do lose one to chance. Fixed defences might help, if you can ensure that the battle happens in the right place, and of course there's a dozen approaches to building your ships differently that might help in one way or another. For example, if your tactics tend to be full-on Brave Sir Robin, why not build a ship with most of its guns facing aft?

Also, a side note occasioned by the maintenance discussion above. The maintenance budget has been a flat percentage thus far, if only because we have fairly little to maintain, but feel free to mix it up. If you want 200% maintenance on your fighter forces, or to go to 80% on those old non-refitted ships you'll have kicking around in a century's time, just say so. It'll move money around within your force structure instead of giving you freebies - TANSTAAFL, as the man above said - but it may be of interest to some.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 29 June 2018, 23:45:30
Alsadius, get out of my brain.   ;D
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 30 June 2018, 09:20:38
   -sribbles

* Looks up... hides notes.   What?

   -sribbles

TT  :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 30 June 2018, 11:12:26
Question for the crowd. My battle write-ups are way longer this turn than last turn. As you might imagine, this means writing them takes a lot longer as well. Is this worthwhile to you? Would you rather have turns resolve faster with short battle reports, slower with long battle reports, or some sort of middle ground where only the really important battles get lengthy write-ups?

Ive been thinking about this.  I think theres no real right answer.

My 'gut feel' is that if we could get turns to turn over in about a week?  Much longer than that, and its hard to maintain focus/flow, for me.  I start forgetting what people have built, and what I'm building, and how I want it to work.  As for how much writing that means for Alsadius - Id maybe look at keeping a comfortably steady turnover, and writing as much or as little as your real life allows?  I know you had said something about work beating you up more lately.

For this turn, youve got A LOT of combat going on.  By my recollection of future history, this is one of the more exciting turns between now and the fall of the star league.

All of that said, when do you anticipate being able to publish the end of turn, so I can plan accordingly (and stop digging down to look for post edits! :) )
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 30 June 2018, 13:30:17
Suggestion:

Make each battle a separate posting, with a final count and link last. Or run a separate thread in the RPG.

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 30 June 2018, 13:48:55
Yeah, I want weekly if it can be managed. This one has been closer to two weeks, and that's too long.

FYI, deciding not to announce the edits was clearly a mistake, so count this as notification that I've just posted the commerce warfare. I suspect there'll be less to write about in the other battles. I may actually push the discovery of the Taurians back a turn just to spread things out a bit. I want to finish it this weekend, just to let you guys go back to playing your side of things.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 01 July 2018, 07:57:59
I have noticed I seem to be the only one paying above the minimum for maintenance to cover extra training. Haven't seen it really payoff yet because I haven't had a serious opponent, but it may be worth investing a few extra million into rather than spending it on research that the Terrans will win 90% of the time anyway.

Could be something else for those dirty Earthers to throw their buckets of money at too, they are supposed to be the best and all.

Your navy’s tactics and handling of the Rasalhauge fighter swarm was much better the second time around.  This may be due to familiarity (they came, in the same old way), but may also be reflective of your increased spend there.  They had enough fighters and capital missiles to easily kill a capship - and didnt. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 01 July 2018, 10:19:35
Your navy’s tactics and handling of the Rasalhauge fighter swarm was much better the second time around.  This may be due to familiarity (they came, in the same old way), but may also be reflective of your increased spend there.  They had enough fighters and capital missiles to easily kill a capship - and didnt.

That wasn't quite what I was thinking at the time. The Rasalhaguers were afraid of tangling with fleet units after what happened on turn 1, so they tried to hit a comparatively defenceless target instead. That decision wasn't maintenance-based. Where maintenance comes in is that I use it to increase your die rolls. Their attack was messed up by the commander's roll being really low, however, so they wound up doing less well than they could have(albeit, the situation was salvaged by the other two being pretty decent). If the Rasalhaguers had been at 200% maintenance for a century(to pick an extreme example), then they'd have had commanders trained at an effective military academy and a good training budget, so that blunders like that would be less likely to happen. In such a situation, a low roll is still worse than a high roll, but rolling a 1 means you're the worst that a highly educated, well-trained fleet has to offer. That's very different from being the worst in the fleet of a nation that crews its battleships with condemned prisoners because nobody else will work for the wages they offer.

Die rolls are invisible to you guys, but they make a big difference - the two Capellan/FedSuns fleet fights thus far have both been between near-equal forces, but in both cases one side rolled substantially worse than the other and lost as a result.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 01 July 2018, 10:25:01
Maintenance has momentum.  Good to know - it makes sense, and I was wondering about it, but it wasnt high enough on the priority list to ask.  :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 01 July 2018, 13:19:47
I clearly need to be investing more in my fighter maintenance if the "best" of the FPF/AFFS's aerospace corps thought taking an entire aero-regiment in to battle against a lone warship with nothing but their pea-shooters was a good idea.

Although at this point in btech history the Federated Suns are incompetent jerks, so, things are working out about as they should be. Oh well, at least I'll get Simon Davion soon and have a few turns of not being the literal worst.

Of course after that I go to war with the Hegemony....
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 01 July 2018, 17:33:09
Liam's Ghost made a very nice idea...

That is if Alsadius would allow inclusion.

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=62000.msg0#new (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=62000.msg0#new)

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 01 July 2018, 17:53:07
Liam's Ghost made a very nice idea...

That is if Alsadius would allow inclusion.

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=62000.msg0#new (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=62000.msg0#new)

TT

Armed merchant ships are legal in these rules. Same R&D cost as warships, but they get built twice as fast. Feel free to design something like that if you want - no need for the DropShuttle bay, even, because we have collars. That'll save 10,000 tons - I'm sure you can think of something interesting to do with 10,000 tons of payload on an armed merchantman. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 02 July 2018, 12:44:57
Lyran Commonwealth, Turn 3 (Fluff)

(crunch to follow when we have final numbers for turn 2 - but this scene has been stuck in my head a few days, and needed out)

The young man had charisma, she had to give him that.  Tall, well built, with a broad white smile that distracted from the predator’s eyes above it.  A few decades ago, he’d have turned her head.  Of course, a few decades ago, he was busy being born.  Still, such musings served no purpose, and her lawful civilian superior was speaking.

“I’m not saying your -wrong-, Jackie.  Your Navy, I'm not.  I’m saying make me understand why.  Understand in a way I can explain it to the other eight.”

Jackie, aka Jaqueline Angler, FFA, NSP, ECT, and no doubt a half dozen more similar useless fripperies, was a study in contrast to the young man.  Small by any standard, she was dwarfed by his height.  A slender build and brown complexion had compressed and wizened over the years into something like a burl of dark, dark wood.  Heavy.  Hard.  Something useful for making a walking-stick, someone had said once.  Or a cudgel.

“You’re an Army man, Archon Marsden.  In the Army, you can defend a point with.. what… a third the attacking force, in extremis?  Half or two thirds, certainly.  You have terrain.  You can prepare defenses.  Your attacker has a logisitics train to worry about.  Things of that nature.”

Robert nodded, once, but said no more.

“Space isn’t like that.  Theres no terrain.  No cover.  Fixed defenses are possible, but unless you can afford to put meaningful defenses everywhere, nothing requires the enemy to come to you.  And you can’t prepare a position in a week or a month.  And you have no idea the other side is coming until you get the flash of an incoming jump.”

After a moment, the Archon spoke… “So like an engagement on the open desert?”

“Yes!  Exactly.  If the desert was perfectly flat.  And you couldn’t dig in.  You’ve heard of Lanchester, maybe, in command school?  He applies well enough to ground combat, but not perfectly.  Terrain, cover.  Limits of force density.  Space isn’t like that.  Tell me.  Your defending a.. hill, or a city, with 8 tanks.  12 attack.  You probably can repulse them, yes?”

“Doctrine is 2-1 is the minimum for offensive operation.  3-1 is better.”

“Right.  In space?  12 units attack 8.  The 8 flee, and do so before the first shot is fired, or they are crushed.  Its math, and only slightly less inevitable than gravity.  Assume that it takes the fire of 4 units to destroy 1, over, say, ten minutes.  And lets assume the units are equal.  These are huge assumptions, but they illustrate the problem.  After ten minutes… the larger force has lost 2 ships, the smaller force 3.  So 12-8 is now 10-5.  In the next interval, the larger force loses another vessel, and a second suffers, formally, 25% damage.  The 5 unit force loses two, and half of a third.  So 8.75 vs. 2.5... and warships keep most of their firepower till they die.  The weaker force if it gets lucky finishes off the damaged warship, and the stronger side reduces the weaker to a single cripple... and 4 ships have been lost to kill 8."

“And then it is all over. So what do you do, if you can’t match the larger force?”

“There’s no end of tricks that are tried.  The French, under Napoleon, focused on long range accuracy and speed – taking what they could for free and running before there could be a decisive engagement.  They got some damage in, but nothing decisive.  And when the decisive fights happened?  Nile?  Trafalgar?  They were crushed.  Because they had trained and built for sniping and running.  Inferior position had forced strategy and tactics that, while it kept them in the game for a time, made their loss inevitable.  Hell, they couldn't have capitalized on a winning engagement if they had the opportunity for one.  They probably couldn't have seen it as such.”

“The Germans focused on trying to catch isolated ‘bits’ of the British Fleet in WW1.  Unfortunately for them, Jellicoe was not an idiot.  You’ll note that the German fleet communication was arguably better.   They didn’t have an idiot in charge of their Battlecruiser Squadrons – Beatty was an idiot.  Just trust me on that.  German ships sacrificed freeboard and sustainability – they didn’t have huge cargo bays or bunkerage, they were pure ‘come out and fight in the north sea ships’, while the British had commitments all over the world.  German gunnery was better.  German shells were phenomenally better – they actually worked, unlike the British shells – which mostly didn’t explode when they were supposed to.  German armor was better – more internal subdivision, less need for long term habitability, and their yards could lay broader ships, which had a lot of advantages.  German powder was better – it was cased, not loose, and didn’t explode nearly so casually as the British powder.  And the Germans knew their powder handling better – they didn’t leave doors open, turning ships into floating bombs one penetration away from a firework show…

“I’ll stop you there.  I take it you could go on a while.”

“I could.  But do you know what happened?  They got beaten so badly that after Jutland the German Navy never stuck its neck out again.  Sure, the box score in lost ships looked better for Germany, but while most of those well built ships survived to make it back to port, their battlecruiser squadron was still beaten to ruins, and the British were still building faster than them.  By a few months after Jutland, the Germans were -further- behind than they before – despite enough unforced errors on the part of the British to make a woman weep.”

“That’s enough, Jackie, I think that covers…”

“One more, Robert.  Japan.  USA.  Terran ‘Second World War.’  The Japanese were at day one trained to a razors edge.  They had a plan.  They executed.  Hell, Robert, they had ‘secret superweapons’ in the worst holovid sense of the word – I’d kill for something as surprising and effective compared to the rest of the world as a Long Lance Torpedo.   They broke the back of the U.S. Line of Battle – missing only the carriers – at Pearl Harbor.  It’s been said that if they got the carriers, at Hawaii Japan would have won.  Said by idiots.  Other idiots have said that the U.S. won the war when they broke Japanese codes at Midway, and sunk several carriers for one.”

“And I assume your about to tell me that it was predestined?”

“Assuming America cared to fight, yes.  They could have lost their entire pacific fleet at Pearl, and lost everything they added after Pearl at Midway.  The war might have lasted another six months.  Year tops.  Because the Americans were building more ships, faster ships, better ships, better trained, with more fuel, and more infrastructure, and more resources, and…”

Robert sighed, eloquently.

“Allright.  So naval warfare is only slightly less deterministic than gravity, and its determined by weight of fire.  By numbers of units.  By budget.  That’s all well and good, but the other Archons aren’t going to go for it.  So find another way.”

The walnut woman’s shoulders slumped, head in hands.

“I used to be clever, Robert, and I’m still stubborn.  My boys and girls are still clever.  And stubborn.  We’ve got tricks, I’ll show you some.  But there really aren’t ‘other ways’.  Anything we can do, they can do, better, and will, unless they are idiots.  And any plan that has as its starting victory condition 'the other side is incapable of pouring piss from a boot with instructions on the heel' is... not a good plan." 

"I’m not entirely sure what the Combine is up to, but the League is mass-producing big Battlecruisers - their up to 12 to our six cruisers, and I'll give you odds their laying another 8 over the next decade..  and any answer I adopt, either of them can correct in the next build cycle – and then do whatever I’m doing, harder.  Oh, I’m not saying it’s over before it starts. The Combine is going to curl up like a snake and spend a decade or three digesting Rasalhauge.  The League just stuck its nose into the Capellan district, so will have to watch its back.  Weve got some time before the storm.  But we have to USE that time, and we have to start now.  Otherwise?  Your good little navy boys and girls will answer the call and go die for Archon and Commonwealth.  They they'll even make the snakes and the birds bleed some.  Maybe bad enough that they decide the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
 
But unless you can get the other eight to get their heads out of their collective honorable rear ends and start acting like a star nation rather than 9 personally profitable fiefdoms, all those good brave boys and girls are going to do is that – they are going to die, and their deaths won’t matter for shit if the other team is willing to press the matter.  Because we won’t be any more able to stop them if they come to fight and mean it than those poor, brave, dead French boys.  Or the German ones.  Or the Japanese ones.  Very brave, very clever, very stubborn.  Did it right.  Lost.  Died.”

Robert smiled ruefully “I assume you are a bit more circumspect with the other Archons?”

“You’re a soldier, Robert.  They aren’t.  Make them listen.  Or its all ‘Maldon’ and ‘How many of them can we make die’ and our people getting their heads chopped off in the name of Combine manifest destiny – just like those poor, brave, dead Rashalhauge bastards.”

“I’ll see what I can do, Jackie.  But you have to give me time.”

“Ask me for anything but time, Robert.  Ask me for anything but time.”
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 02 July 2018, 13:03:16
((For the record, the player isnt quite as bleak as the character.  But its an in character scene - and Im also playing into some historic in-universe events to come))
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 02 July 2018, 21:50:46
Good write-up, but the bit about him being "busy being born" jarred me - I'd looked into Marsden's backstory, and recalled him being the one who co-founded the LC in the first place.

So I looked up the Sarna article (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Robert_Marsden), and...we're both right. Robert was Archon of the Protectorate of Donegal in 2340, and was there when the LC was agreed to. But his listed birth date is 2351. Battletech's history is a bit of a tangle sometimes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_You_Zombies)...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 02 July 2018, 21:56:01
I read the same article!  Hes described as a ‘young health nut’ at his assassination in a few decades, so I went -young- for him... having him have come to power as early as possible in his lifespan (not, admittedly, before he was born.  Few people are that talented).  I just liked the contrast of the big, magnetic, slightly sociopathic Robert and the elderly, frail, but still ‘hard to the core’ Jackie.

I need to reseach medtech in that universe, see how long I can realistically keep her around.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 02 July 2018, 22:00:10
Followed the link.  -love- that story.  But of his shorts, I think I prefer ‘The Man who Traveled in Elephants’, cause Im a dusty old romantic.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 03 July 2018, 03:02:34
Still a few last minute adjustments may be needed to my budget, but here is a memorandum:

Quote
DCA Fleet Readiness Memorandum
3rd February 2369

1. The fighter complement on board each DCA vessel is sufficient to defend the vessel from opposing fighters, so long as the doctrine is kept to. Fighters and small craft can do great damage to unescorted WarShips, but have so far proved no great threat to a properly supported vessel.
2. The Kutai-class Corvette is too thinly armoured to serve much purpose in the line of battle, and should be depolyed only as a convoy escort, picket ship or courier of essential material.
3. The Fubuki-class Destroyer, while more than capable, is also expensive compared to the equivalent ships of our neighbours. The Commonwealth Tyr-class Cruiser is a mere $160 Million more expensive, and yet has a massive firepower advantage over it. For now the new cheaper Minekaze-class should be used without KF collars, until DropShip technology has advanced to the point of making such collars viable on our main workhorse design.
4. The Atago-class Cruiser is also expensive compared to the Tyr-class, thanks to its collars, but the superior speed and fighter complement is seen as an advantage to the Lyran brute force design. Ship seen as equal to cruiser-sized vessels built by Davion or Steiner, and superior to anything the Hegemony Navy has other than the rumoured Monsoon-class.
5. Fleet still untested against a real opponent.
6. Future plan for fleet deployment is squadrons consisting of 1 Atago-class, 1 Fubuki-class and 2 of the new Minekaze-class.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 03 July 2018, 09:19:26
Okay, I'm finally done. The Taurian battle is pushed off until turn 3, but the FWL/CC fight has been posted, and budgets are up.

Sorry for the delay, but I hope you like it. https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1424614#msg1424614
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 04 July 2018, 03:54:06
So here we go: Budget for 2370-79

Code: [Select]
Year: 2370 Value in Millions
Money Available 110,000
Remaining from Last Turn 1000
Available Shipyards

Luthien 3/2/2/1
New Samarkand 3/1
Midway 1

Repairs

Maintanence 94215 120% 11305.8
Prototype Cost Onsen Station 451
Minekaze 6,102

Construction Unit Price
Shipyards
Stations Onsen 20 451 9,020
Warships Atago 4 9,339 37,356
Fubuki 0 7,241 0
Minekaze 4 6,102 24408
Kutai 0 6,092 0
Trojan 2 4,031 8,062
Jumpships 0 500 0
Dropships 12 300 3,600
Fighters 5 Wings of 36 180 5 900
Small Craft 288 10 2880
Research 3,915 1 3915
Loan Marian Hegemony 5000
Total Spent 112999.8

Income Trojan Lease 2 1000 2000
Marian Loan 0 1000 0
Remaining 0


Future Income Trojan Loan 2000/Turn 2 Turns left
Yard Loan 1000/Turn 5 Turns left

Onsen-class Recharge Station

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Onsen
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $451,295,000.00
Magazine Cost: $744,000.00
BV2: 9,272

Mass: 500,000
K-F Drive System: None
Power Plant: Station-Keeping Drive
Safe Thrust: 0
Maximum Thrust: 1
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
48 AC 5
48 Machine Gun (IS)

Intended as a civilian recharge station to be deployed across the Combine with only the most basic of defenses capable of fighting off fighters or perhaps a small dropship, but any serious raiders will take the station apart quite quickly. Can hold up to 10 dropships as needed plus quarters for a sizeable population, however it lacks repair facilities of its own for emergencies.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Onsen
Mass: 500,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 6,000
Thrust
Safe: 0.2
Maximum: 1
Controls: 500
K-F Hyperdrive: None (0 Integrity) 0
Jump Sail: (0 Integrity) 0
Structural Integrity: 1 5,000
Total Heat Sinks: 154 Single
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 25000 points 10,200
Fire Control Computers: 0
Armor: 480 pts Standard 1,200
Fore: 80
Fore-Left/Right: 80/80
Aft-Left/Right: 80/80
Aft: 80

Dropship Capacity: 10 10,000
Grav Decks:
Small: 0
Medium: 4 400
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 0
Life Boats: 100 700

Energy Storage Battery (3) 300000
Fighter Bay (36) 3 Doors 5400
Small Craft Bay (12) 2 Doors 2400
Cargo Bay 4 Doors 151801


Crew And Passengers:
28 Officers in 2nd Class Quarters 196
117 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 819
16 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 112
132 Bay Personnel 924
50 1st Class Passengers 500
100 2nd Class Passengers 700
500 Steerage Passengers 2,500


Code: [Select]
# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
8 AC 5 Nose 8 40 (4-C) Medium 64
8 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
8 AC 5 FR 8 40 (4-C) Medium 64
8 Machine Gun (IS) FR 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
8 AC 5 FL 8 40 (4-C) Medium 64
8 Machine Gun (IS) FL 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
8 AC 5 AR 8 40 (4-C) Medium 64
8 Machine Gun (IS) AR 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
8 AC 5 AL 8 40 (4-C) Medium 64
8 Machine Gun (IS) AL 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
8 AC 5 Aft 8 40 (4-C) Medium 64
8 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4

AC 5 Ammo 2880 Rounds
Machine Gun Ammo 19200 Rounds

The twenty currently built stations are deployed in a chain centered on Midway, branching out to Benjamin, Luthien and New Samarkand.

And the Minekaze

Minekaze-class Destroyer

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Minekaze
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $6,101,984,000.00
Magazine Cost: $40,816,000.00
BV2: 66,478

Mass: 500,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 3
Maximum Thrust: 5
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
28 Naval AC 20
32 Capital Launcher Killer Whale
32 AC 5
48 Machine Gun (IS)
12 Naval Laser 35

With the current limited dropship technology at present, the pair of drop collars on the Fubuki-class has been seen as an unneccesary expense in a workhorse WarShip, and so the DCA pressed their now ageing designer Kouzou Fuyutsuki to find a cheaper alternative. Not only did he manage it, his new Minekaze design is also better armoured whilst maintaining comparable firepower whilst costing over a billion k-bills less.

The Minekaze is 500,000 tons, with a very similar battery of Naval AC's to the Fubuki and trading some of that ships Naval Lasers and conventional autocannons for a large battery of Capital Missiles dispersed across the entire hull. The internal structure and armour are also improved compared to the earlier design, with eleven hundred tons of armour sheathing the Minekaze. The small NCSS previously installed on the Kutai was also mounted.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Minekaze
Mass: 500,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 90,000
Thrust
Safe: 3
Maximum: 5
Controls: 1,250
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (12 Integrity) 226,250
Jump Sail: (4 Integrity) 55
Structural Integrity: 110 55,000
Total Heat Sinks: 2976 Single 2,507
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 10000 points 4,080
Fire Control Computers: 0
Armor: 506 pts Standard 1,100
Fore: 82
Fore-Left/Right: 86/86
Aft-Left/Right: 86/86
Aft: 80

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


Bay Fighter (36) 5,400 6 Doors
Bay Small Craft (12) 2,400 2 Doors
Cargo, Standard 8,086 2 Doors
1 NCSS Small 100

Crew And Passengers:
41 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 410
104 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 728
92 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 644
132 Bay Personnel 924
0 1st Class Passengers 0
0 2nd Class Passengers 0
50 Steerage Passengers 250


Code: [Select]
# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
4 Naval AC 20 Nose 240 800 (80-C) Long-C 10,000
4 Killer Whale Nose 80 160 (16-C) Extreme-C 600
4 AC 5 Nose 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
8 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
4 Naval AC 20 FR 240 800 (80-C) Long-C 10,000
4 Killer Whale FR 80 160 (16-C) Extreme-C 600
4 AC 5 FR 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
8 Machine Gun (IS) FR 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
4 Naval AC 20 FL 240 800 (80-C) Long-C 10,000
4 Killer Whale FL 80 160 (16-C) Extreme-C 600
4 AC 5 FL 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
8 Machine Gun (IS) FL 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
4 Naval AC 20 LBS 240 800 (80-C) Long-C 10,000
6 Naval Laser 35 LBS 312 210 (21-C) Long-C 4,200
6 Killer Whale LBS 120 240 (24-C) Extreme-C 900
4 AC 5 LBS 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
4 Naval AC 20 RBS 240 800 (80-C) Long-C 10,000
6 Naval Laser 35 RBS 312 210 (21-C) Long-C 4,200
6 Killer Whale RBS 120 240 (24-C) Extreme-C 900
4 AC 5 RBS 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
4 Naval AC 20 AR 240 800 (80-C) Long-C 10,000
4 Killer Whale AR 80 160 (16-C) Extreme-C 600
4 AC 5 AR 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
8 Machine Gun (IS) AR 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
4 Naval AC 20 AL 240 800 (80-C) Long-C 10,000
4 Killer Whale AL 80 160 (16-C) Extreme-C 600
4 AC 5 AL 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
8 Machine Gun (IS) AL 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
4 AC 5 Aft 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
8 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4


Code: [Select]
Ammo Rounds Mass
Naval AC 20 Ammo 1400 560.00
Capital Launcher Killer Whale Ammo 320 16,000.00
AC 5 Ammo 3200 160.00
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 19200 96.00

As usual, Capital weapons are mounted in twin turrets, standard scale in quad turrets.

Code: [Select]
Deployment

Steiner Front Atago Class - Atago, Chokai
Minekaze Class    - Hayate
Fubuki Class - Fubuki

Davion Front Atago Class - Takao, Maya
Minekaze Class         - Minekaze
Fubuki Class - Ibuki

Cameron Front Atago Class - Kashima, Furutaka
Minekaze Class         - Shikinami
Fubuki Class - Yudachi

Reserve Atago Class - Aoba
Minekaze Class         - Yukikaze
Kutai Class - Kutai, Galedon, Pesht, Luthien, Benjamin, Arkab
Trojan Class - Sinister, Insidious

All Atago-class vessels escorted by either a Minekaze or Fubuki at all times. [i]Aoba[/i] and [i]Yukikaze[/i] based in Benjamin system,
to respond to trouble from any border.

Kutai-class ships currently deployed in pairs, either patrolling the border or bringing so far
unaffiliated border colonies into the caring protection of the Coordinator.

Trojan-Class ships scouting out future strike targets in bordering nations, and jump routes through uninhabited systems or deep space to those targets.

Code: [Select]
Start Turn In Service Value BV
Warships Atago 3 28017 83558
Fubuki 3 21723 57421
Minekaze 0 66478
Kutai 6 36552 15629
Trojan 0 0 15229
Stations Onsen
Jumpships 30 15000
Dropships Small 20 6000

Fighters 2556 12780 71 Wings
Small Craft 216 2160
Total 94215
Maintanence 120% 11305.8
Fighter Complement Whole Fleet 540 15 Wings
DS Complement Whole Fleet 24

End Turn In Service
Warships Atago 7 77028
Fubuki 3 21723
Minekaze 4 23624
Kutai 6 36552
Trojan 2 8062
Stations Onsen 20 6760
Jumpships 30 15000
Dropships Small 32 9600

Fighters 2736 13680
Small Craft 504 5040
Total 215269
Maintenance 12% 25832.28
Fleet Complement Fighters 996
DropShips 32
Small Craft 264
Station Complement Fighters 720
Small Craft 240

EDIT: Forgot the Start and End of Turn figures.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 04 July 2018, 06:54:40
Also, I have a few requests for you guys if you have a chance. Not mandatory, and some of you have already done this, but they'd be helpful when it comes time for me to write up battles.

1) A list of character names (don't need to be assigned to any particular role, I can give them out as needed)
2) A list of ship names (again, no need to assign them to particular ships unless you want to)
3) A general discussion of your doctrine - deep strikes vs decisive battles vs fleet-in-being, commerce raiding vs fleet concentration, and so on. (Feel free to use as much or as little detail as you like)

Thanks.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 04 July 2018, 07:07:00
Well, I've done the ship names, WW2 IJN for the most part except for the Kutai, which are named after DC planets  :D

Characters... well gone with an Evangelion theme so far... but I think anything vaguely japanese works for this fleet tbh.

Doctrine-wise, probably more interested in decisive battles, with the occaisonal deep raid on enemy infrastructure (like I PM'd earlier) .Any commerce raiding that may go on is conducted by the Trojans, the rest of the fleet is there for space superiority, securing jump points and planets so the invasion JumpShips can come in.

Fighter-doctrine is mostly defensive, each ships fighter groups #1 mission is protecting the mothership. If the enemy fleet has insufficient fighter coverage, then anti-shipping strikes shall occur.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 04 July 2018, 10:52:52
Also, I have a few requests for you guys if you have a chance. Not mandatory, and some of you have already done this, but they'd be helpful when it comes time for me to write up battles.

1) A list of character names (don't need to be assigned to any particular role, I can give them out as needed)
2) A list of ship names (again, no need to assign them to particular ships unless you want to)
3) A general discussion of your doctrine - deep strikes vs decisive battles vs fleet-in-being, commerce raiding vs fleet concentration, and so on. (Feel free to use as much or as little detail as you like)

Thanks.

Ive put the following in code tags for length.

Code: [Select]
Ship Names:
Capital ships tend to be named for worlds in the Commonwealth:
Pherkad
Donegal
Gibbs
Tetersen
Duran
Smolnik
Gallery
Turinge
Tamar
Arcturus
Tharkad
Fatima
Orestes
Yed Prior
Alexandria
Freedom
Kimball II
Skye
Hesperus
Gladius
Alcor
Algorab
New Kyoto

Smaller Vessels Classes tend to be named for famous naval commanders and captains of Terran History:
Nimitz
Burke
Jellicoe
Hipper
Scheer
Jones
Farragut
Drake
Perry
Decatur
Halsey
Fletcher
Yamamoto
But not Beatty.  Never, ever Beatty.

Captain Names:
The Navy has taken on some of the 'character' of its primary shipyard and naval academy, both located at Alarion.
Alarion was founded by German, English, and Romanian settlers, primarily, and so a disproportionate number of naval
personnel, especially command, will tend to come from that stock/those names.  That said, the navy -actively- and -
heavily- recruits across the entire Commonwealth, and offers scholarships and other incentives to ensure that the Navy,
unlike the Army and much of Commonwealth Society, is not captured by class advantage/the nobility, while practicing the
same tolerance of all forms of diversity as the Commonwealth does as a whole (The Commonwealth is famous for being
egalitarian about religion, race, gender, sexuality, etc.  It is also famous for being very, very classist.  The navy has no time
for any distinction between its personnel, other than distinctions in proven ability.  That stamp was put on it from the first
by First Lord Angler, and will persist.

Names Include:
Caleb Adams
Nathan Dawson
Patrick Walsh
Edward Harper
Ollie Allen
Lexi Hunter
Eleanor Davies
Amy Macdonald
Freya West
Victoria Clark
Valentina Cox
Reiner Aschenbrener
Jochen Waldner
Carsten Hartlieb
Joseph Schlim
Axel Rosenfeld
Margarete Kornfeld
Tabea Holighaus
Mareike Destinn
Andrea Schedl
Karina Himmler
Tabea Schulberg
Virgil Kinczllers
Catarino Caragiale
Radu Negrescu
Soare Radu
Dimitrie Goian
Cornelia Neacsu
Victoria Giurgiu
Cosmina Osmochescu
Angela Stanasila
Dana Dumitrescu
Ne'igalomeatiga Lemaota
Siaosi Tuiaa
Reupena Le'au
Atamu Fanene
Ala'i Toelau
Lele Savea
Ioana Latu
Sefina Faamate
Ata Fa'amoe
Upumoni Faamoana
Lungelo
Ayanda
Dumisane
Litha
Nkosiphendule
Aphiwe
Slindile
Hlengiwe
Lungelo
Lungile
Bakabaka

Doctrine:
1.)  Concentration of Force.  The fleet should operate in unified fashion at all times and any dispersons of force are to be treated as dangerous aberrations indulged in only with greatest reluctance and at greatest need.

2.)  Decisive Battle:  If the enemy is coming, meet it and defeat it.  If the enemy will not come, use the concentrated force to threaten what must be defended.  Where possible, position forces such that the enemy must either uncover one to mass at the other, or accept division of force.  The objective will alway be destruction of the enemy fleet, to allow for general operations once it is defeated.

3.) Scouting Priority:  Lighter units (Heimdallers, Long-Endurance Small Craft) will be used as scouting pickets, with the intent to locate and target the enemy main force before they can counterdetect.  Light vessels will attack and defeat enemy screening units where practicable.

4.)  Attack Effectively First:  Power, whether in ships, missiles, or fighters, will NOT be dissipated to pursue lesser objectives.  If our picket cannot defeat the enemy picket, we will not break up our fleet to chase down light units.  Once we have identified the enemy main force, we will engage it and destroy it.  We will not rush to do so - as haste is dangerous - but will move with all measured speed muster force to deliver a blow that either is decisive, or provides the opportunity for subsequent decisive action.  A blow that cannot be decisive is a waste of our strength, and we will not be baited into wasting force to do so.

Worked Example:  Two forces are closing.  We have a mix of missile ships and gun ships, while the enemy is all big gun designs.  If the missile ships fire at extreme range, they may be emptied without doing meaningful damage.  If they hold fire until close range, they risk destruction before all missiles may be employed.  In such situation, missiles should be employed to inflict enough damage on the enemy gun-line to allow our gun-line to defeat it in detail.

Worked Example 2:  If the LCN has sufficient fighter assets, and intelligence, to deliver a decisive fighter strike from outside of engagement range, it will do so, and accept fighter losses to cripple an enemy force for second strikes.  If it lacks sufficient power to do so at long range, fighters will be kept close, and used defensively (opening the chance for future offensive strikes), or used in combination with capital ship fire - either to add weight to a decisive blow, or to take advantage of damage created by capital laser and cannon fire.  It is worth noting that ships may fairly easily 'hide' damaged sections from enemy warships, by rolling ship or manuver, but that the same defense is nearly impossible against a group of attacking fighters, who may freely manuver.

5.)  Broadside Engagement:  Vessels tend to maximize broadside firepower.  Further, the sides of the vessel are more resilient to incoming damage.  Finally, vessels taking fire on the bow risk loss of sensors and command and control capability - rendering it unable to contribute fire, while fire from the aft risks engine damage that will cripple the ships manuver and in extreme bad luck risks lost of the vessel entirely to a strike igniting the fuel reserves.  As such, the Lyran Navy will prefer to fight on the broadside, and if necessary reserve thrust for emergency heading manuvers to protect the aft and bow quarters.  They will where possible engage the enemy aft, followed by bow, followed by broadsides - but will NOT split the force to do so.  Fighter craft specifically will engage the aft, both to limit defensive fire, concentrate damage on the most vulnerable quarter in the hope of destruction, or failing in destruction, to cripple the enemys ability to manuver so the enemy force must either separate to invite defeat in detail or become tied to the operation speed of its slowest element.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 July 2018, 10:51:30
Sorry for the delay - real life has been jumping up and down on me.  Hope to have turn out today, tomorrow latest, so we can get back on track faster.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 05 July 2018, 11:02:34
Yeah, I wanted a bit of a pause after the marathon last turn, but I'll try to get back to it before too long.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 July 2018, 11:30:22
~Duplicate~
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 July 2018, 11:58:00
Well, youve got the Tairians to worry about, RWR, and the Hegemony.  Taurians prepare desparately to face Davion fist.  RWR grows like a bacteria culture, unopposed.  You could save time on the Terran Hegemony.  “Buys all the things” is one answer.  :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 July 2018, 14:22:43
Lyran Commonwealth, Turn III:  2370-2380

Budget:
Code: [Select]
Lyran Commonwealth, Turn Beginning 2370
Physical Assets:
Starting Shipyards: Alarion: 3/3  New Kyoto: 3/1  Tamar 1  Gibbs 1
Starting Warships:  Heimdaller FFx6 30.438
Tyr CAx 6 44.3
Starting Stations: Ribe Recharge Station x60 10.5
Starting Jumpships:  30 15
Starting Dropships:  0
Starting Small Craft: 240 2.4
Starting Fighters: 4800 24
Maintenance Value 126.638

Funds:
Starting Cash: 11.437
Income:         85
96.437


Expenses: 96.437
Maintenance: 12.664
Prototype Walkure CV (Variant Tyr) 3.475
Production Walkure CVx6         41.682
Prototype Heimdaller II 2.532
Refit 6xHeimdaller ->Heimdaller II -
Production Ribe Recharge Station x 60 10.5
Production Small Craft: 360 3.6
Production Fighters:  4200 21
Total:
Remainder .984



Lyran Commonwealth, Turn Ending 2380
Physical Assets:
Ending Shipyards: Alarion: 3/3  New Kyoto: 3/1  Tamar 1  Gibbs 1
Ending Warships:  Heimdaller II FFx6 30.444
Tyr CA x 6 44.3
Walkure CV x6 41.352
Ending Stations:                        Ribe Recharge Station x120 21
Ending Jumpships:  30 15
Ending Dropships:  0
Ending Small Craft: 600 6
Ending Fighters: 9000 45
Maintenance Value 203.096 (20.31)
Cash: 918M

Heimdaller-II FF
Code: [Select]
Heimdaller -II (Escort Carrier)

At the time the first Heimdaller class frigates were laid down, no one knew what shape the navy would take.
 As such, she was built for flexibility, able to fit into numerous roles, and with room for expansion.

In the face of massive enemy building programs, the decision was made to supplement the heavy gun and
missile armed ships of the original build plan with large numbers of heavy carriers.  Carrier formations, more
than gun-lines, can profit from advance warning of enemy vessels.  The Heimdaller’s already present Large
Naval Comm Scanner suite and relatively greater mobility lead her naturally to be pressed into this role.

A design study showed that the Heimdaller’s troop transport capacity and some of her missile armament could
be repurposed to add additional fighter carriage, as well as expansion of her drives to allow her to maintain
3G’s thrust.  Though the uprated drives required more maintenance than those originally installed, the
additional agility was considered worthwhile in a vessel whose role was to be the eyes and ears of the fleet.
The carriage of a reinforced wing of Shu class heavy fighters does not make the Heimdaller-V into a full-up
offensive strike unit, but it does give her more than enough fighter cover to sweep aside enemy scouting units, 
to blunt an incoming fighter strike, to support a heavy strike by the Fleet Carriers, or to give even a large
enemy warship hesitation before engaging.  If forced to fleet, the ability to generate 3 G’s of sustained thrust
allows Heimdaller to decline engagement against all but the fastest of enemy vessels – and no vessel faster
than her can expect to remain so after facing a division of fighters.

Heimdaller II (Escort Carrier)
Tech: Inner Sphere
Introduced: 2350
Mass: 240,000 tons
Length: 857 meters
Width:  133 meters
Height:  90 meters
Sail Diameter: 773 meters
Fuel: 2,000 tons (5,000)
Tons/Burn-day: 39.52
Safe Thrust: 4
Maximum Thrust: 6
Sail Integrity: 4
KF Drive Integrity: 7
Heat Sinks: 960 (100%)
Structural Integrity: 50
Cost:  $5.063B

Armor
Fore: 24
Fore-Sides: 30
Aft-Sides: 30
Aft: 30

Cargo
Bay 1 (RBS): 40 Fighters, 10 Small Craft (5 Doors)
Bay 2 (LBS): 40 Fighters, 10 Small Craft (5 Doors)
Bay 3 (Aft):  25,517 Tons Cargo (1 Door)


DropShip Capacity: 0
Grav Decks: 1 (80 meters diameter)
Escape Pods: 30
Life Boats: 30

Crew:  529 (Includes Vehicle Crews and 1 Tech per 2 Spacecraft)

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

Ammunition: 200 Barracuda Missiles
16000 AC/5 Rounds
16000 MG Rounds

Notes:
Large NCSS
Mounts 240 tons of Standard armor. 
100% of required heat sinks

Weapons:

Nose:
5 Barracuda (25 Rnds)
20 AC/5 (2000 Rnds)
20 MG (2000 Rnds)

Fore Left/Right:
5 Barracuda (25 Rnds)
20 AC/5 (2000 Rnds)
20 MG (2000 Rnds)

Broadside:
5 Barracuda (25 Rnds)
20 AC/5 (2000 Rnds)
20 MG (2000 Rnds)

Aft Left/Right:
5 Barracuda (25 Rnds)
20 AC/5 (2000 Rnds)
20 MG (2000 Rnds)

Rear:
5 Barracuda (25 Rnds)
20 AC/5 (2000 Rnds)
20 MG (2000 Rnds)

Walkure CV
Code: [Select]
Walkure (Carrier)

“The power of an air force is tremendous when there is nothing to oppose it.”
-Winston Churchill (Terran, 1874-1965)

The Walkure (Valkyrie) class fleet carrier was the last component of the Lyran ‘Naval Plan’.  Though carriers
had been held in abeyance while the Tyr class heavy cruisers were laid down, their promise was always latent,
but looming.

The continued success of the Free Rashalhauge pilots, with their handful of units and inexperience was enough
to finally convince the fleet command that the advent of heavy aerospace aviation had dawned.

Heavy line of battle ships, like the Tyr, would serve to protect the carriers, and to escort them.  But the primary
striking arm of the Lyran Navy was going to be found in the fighter bays of her carriers, which allowed the
navy to reach and strike opponents beyond their ability to retaliate – and often beyond their ability to even
detect their attacker.

The Walkure vessels began life as Tyr heavy cruisers – much like many of the first carriers of World War II.  By
removing the majority of the armament as well as some structural bracing unnecessary in a ship not intended
to trade blows in a wall of battle, the builders filled the vast weapons bays with four divisions of fighters, along
with a reinforced wing of long range patrol small craft to aid in air search.

Heavy fits of point defense weaponry, as well as 80 Barracuda tubes, serve to protect the Walkure from normal
scale fighter strikes, though they cannot defend her against her own deckloads.   Much like the ancient wet-
navy carriers, and like their namesakes, the Walkure choose the slain – but do not ride to battle alone.


Walkure (CV)
Tech: Inner Sphere
Introduced: 2372
Mass: 750,000 tons
Length: 1207 meters
Width:  342 meters
Height:  220 meters
Sail Diameter: 983 meters
Fuel: 5,000 tons (10,000)
Tons/Burn-day: 39.52
Safe Thrust: 2
Maximum Thrust: 3
Sail Integrity: 5
KF Drive Integrity: 16
Heat Sinks: 1,120 (100%)
Structural Integrity: 80
Cost:  $6.947

Armor
Fore: 78
Fore-Sides: 83
Aft-Sides: 88
Aft:108

Cargo
Bay 1 (RBS):  360 Fighters, 12 Small Craft (7 Doors)
Bay 2 (LBS):  360 Fighters, 12 Small Craft (7 Doors)
Bay 3 (Aft):  107,433 Tons Cargo (2 Doors)


DropShip Capacity: 0
Grav Decks: 2 (180 meters diameter)
Escape Pods: 100
Life Boats: 100

Crew:  1,798

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

Ammunition: 400 Barracuda Missiles
  16000 AC/5 Rounds
32000 MG Rounds

Notes:
Small NCSS
Mounts 1,200 tons of Standard armor. 
100% of required heat sinks
Quirks:  Easy to Maintain, Improved Communications, Poor Performance

Weapons:

Nose: Damage
10 Barracuda (50 Rnds) 20
40 MG (4000 Rnds)
40 AC/5 (2000 Rnds)

Fore Left/Right:
10 Barracuda (50 Rnds) 20
40 MG (4000 Rnds)
40 AC/5 (2000 Rnds)

Broadside:
10 Barracuda (50 Rnds) 20
40 MG (4000 Rnds)
40 AC/5 (2000 Rnds)

Aft Left/Right:
10 Barracuda (50 Rnds) 20
40 MG (4000 Rnds)
40 AC/5 (2000 Rnds)


Rear:
10 Barracuda (50 Rnds) 20
40 MG (4000 Rnds)
40 AC/5 (2000 Rnds)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 05 July 2018, 14:50:37
Be aware that the Heimdaller-II in particular is extremely short on cargo for a carrier. The tonnage you allocate to fighters is ~35 tons per fighter, so perhaps 30 for missiles. That means a Heimdaller can launch exactly one strike with exactly one Barracuda per fighter - no reloads, no heavy missiles, no double-missile loads. The Walkure is a bit better with 66 tons per fighter, but still somewhat tight. By comparison, most other fighter-using ships have at least three times as much cargo per fighter - no other ship is broken out by what fraction is being used for what cargo, but as a reference point a simple cargo-per-fighter view gives 271 tons per fighter on a Quzhujian, 280 on an Atago, and 1162 on a Heracles. Even with half of that devoted to things other than fighter ammo, they all have at least twice as much ability to haul missiles as your Walkure.

It's a legal design, and I'll be happy to play the game out with it if you want, but be aware that your ability to launch anti-ship strikes might be much smaller than you're intending.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 July 2018, 14:57:22
Be aware that the Heimdaller-II in particular is extremely short on cargo for a carrier. The tonnage you allocate to fighters is ~35 tons per fighter, so perhaps 30 for missiles. That means a Heimdaller can launch exactly one strike with exactly one Barracuda per fighter - no reloads, no heavy missiles, no double-missile loads. The Walkure is a bit better with 66 tons per fighter, but still somewhat tight. By comparison, most other fighter-using ships have at least three times as much cargo per fighter - no other ship is broken out by what fraction is being used for what cargo, but as a reference point a simple cargo-per-fighter view gives 271 tons per fighter on a Quzhujian, 280 on an Atago, and 1162 on a Heracles. Even with half of that devoted to things other than fighter ammo, they all have at least twice as much ability to haul missiles as your Walkure.

It's a legal design, and I'll be happy to play the game out with it if you want, but be aware that your ability to launch anti-ship strikes might be much smaller than you're intending.

Assumptions Below:
1.)  Generic Fighter masses 50 tons
2.)  Generic Fighter Bay Handles fighters of up to 100 tons mass
3.)  Ergo, Fighter Bay Can handle 1 Generic Fighter and one 'load'.

-Edit-
I redesigned for more reloads and less fighters.  I may have limited time in the next few days, and dont want to slow up the works - so I just redesigned in response to your concerns rather than waiting for a back and forth.

IF my assumption above is wrong, and fighters cannot carry their missiles on-board while sitting in their fighter bay, then current (post redesign)mass fractions give Walkure two full loads, and Heimdaller 4 loads, assuming that each load is a max mass 2xBarracuda strike, and that every fighter is loaded, every fighter fires, and every fighter gets to make it back to base and get reloaded.  That seems sufficient.

IF my assumption above is correct, those strike numbers increase by 1 each, to 3/5, and my Commanders, Air Group get more willing to fire missiles at long, long ranges (assuming the tactical picture allows for a rearm and reattack)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 05 July 2018, 15:14:48
Free Worlds League, Turn 3 (2370)

The luxurious meeting chamber was silent as Captain-General Allan Marik entered the room. It was filled by the Admiralty, who were still nervous from the Irian Disaster. 

"Make it good gentlemen, the Army and their supporters have demanded that we spend more on them and less on the navy. They have had public successes, while the Navy allowed the Irian Disaster to occur. I have instructed the Admiralty find ways to prevent this from happening again and I do hope that you now have what I need."

[We understand Captain-General, currently the navy had been primarily tasked with discouraging our neighbors from invading and we like to keep up our production plans. We admit that we can't stand against the Terran Hegemony, but thankfully they don't seem to care. The admiralty has draw up plans in case they ever do invade, but the FWL isn't ready to implement either CASE OLYMPUS or CASE SPARTA, leaving them purely theoretical. And considering how fast the Hegemony is advancing, we might never be able to implement either plan effectively.
However we did find ways to improve our defenses against other nations. We have noticed that the Lyrans have created a network of recharge stations to allow for faster travel between critical areas. We like to propose we do the same, but on a more limited basis. By placing these new Eros class recharge stations at and between our core systems, we will be able to quickly move supplies and forces between them, strengthening both our defense and economy of this core sector. Currently the plan is to assemble these space stations in our yard systems, and between Loyalty-Atrues. Each station will have six recharge batteries, numerous missile launchers,  and enough marines to prevent a hostile take over.
Another measure originated from the findings of the investigation committee, which pointed out that the Irian Disaster could have been a lot less worse, if we had more fighters stationed at these vital facilities. So we advice doubling Aerospace Fighter production and stationed more squadrons at vital facilities.
The last measure that we wish to implement is to invest more in training until, the Navy has fully adjusted to fielding WarShips.

"These plans sound agreeable, do you have any other plans?"

Well Sir, the conflict with these Cappellans has shown us that we need faster DropShips, both to take the initiative and to protect themselves from enemy WarShips. The weaponry on the current Atalanta-class DropShip design is only slightly better then then that of a Saturn patrol DropShip, but the armor and thrust levels should give it a definite advantage. Also the design should function as a testbed for the recently acquired ferro-aluminium armor.

"Sounds like a good design, what can it transport?"

[It is designed to be semi-modular and as such the bays can be easily refitted to carry various forces. The carrier option can deploy 12 fighters, while the vehicles options can either transport a company of heavy tanks or a battalion of light vehicles. It has a decent cargo-hold for its size, and with six doors, it can rapidly disembark before lifting off again, perfect for quick operations.]

"Thanks, that is perfect ammunition to keep the army happy, please arrange for a large production run of these DropShips. However, I am still canceling the plans for a maximum production run, the Navy will have to do with seven WarShips.”

And with that the Captain-General left the room, allowing the admiralty to utter a collective sigh of relief.


The Budget
Code: [Select]
Turn 3, 2370

Available Shipyards
Atreus (3-3)
Irian (3-1)
Loyalty (3-1*)

Current Assets  Qty  Total
Fighters  935  4.675
Small Craft  174  1.740
Dropships  36  10.800
Jumpships  5  2.500
Phalanx (4631)  4  18.524
Heracles (8874)  12  106.488

 
(All Costs in Millions)
Banked  7.269
Budget  108.000

Maintenance %  = 11
Maintenance Costs = 15.920
Prototype Costs = 795
Shipyard Upgrades* = 1 -> 10.000
Research = 0
Repairs = 5.000


Construction
Fighters  x1315  6.575
Small Craft  x72  720
Dropships  x12  3.600
Jumpships  x7  3.500
Phalanx (4631) x1 4.631
Heracles (8874) x6 53.244
Eros Station (595) x8 4.760
Total Spent  110.192
Remaining   5.077





Eros-class Recharge Station:
Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name:  Eros Station
Mass:              750.000 tons

Equipment:                                                            Mass 
Power Plant, Drive & Control:                                        9.000,00
Thrust:  Safe Thrust: 0
      Maximum Thrust: 0
Energy Collecting Sail: (Integrity = 4)                                 68,00
Energy Storage Batteries:  (Quantity of 6)                         600.000,00
Structural Integrity: 1                                              7.500,00
Total Heat Sinks:    600 Single                                        421,00
Fuel & Fuel Pumps:                                                   3.060,00
Bridge, Controls, Radar, Computer & Attitude Thrusters:                750,00
Fire Control Computers:                                                   ,00
Armor Type:  Standard  (690 total armor pts)                         1.724,00
                           Capital Scale Armor Pts
   Location:                            L / R
   Fore:                                115
   Fore-Left/Right:                  115/115
   Aft-Left/Right:                   115/115
   Aft:                                 115

Cargo:
   Bay 1:  Small Craft (6) with 6 doors                              1.200,00
   Bay 2:  Cargo (1) with 2 doors                                   80.224,00

Grav Decks #1 - 4:  (150-meter diameter)                               400,00
Escape Pods:  100 (7 tons each)                                        700,00

Crew and Passengers:
     46 Officers (46 minimum)                                          460,00
    149 Crew (149 minimum)                                           1.043,00
     70 Gunners (70 minimum)                                           490,00
    300 Marines                                                      1.500,00
     30 Bay Personnel                                                     ,00
Weapons and Equipment      Loc        SRV    MRV    LRV    ERV  Heat    Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Barracuda(200 msls)     Nose        20     20     20     20  100  6.900,00
10 Machine Gun(1000 rounds)Nose     2(20)     --     --     --    0     10,00
10 Barracuda(200 msls)     FL/R        20     20     20     20  200 13.800,00
10 Machine Gun(1000 rounds)FL/R     2(20)     --     --     --    0     20,00
10 Barracuda(200 msls)     AL/R        20     20     20     20  200 13.800,00
10 Machine Gun(1000 rounds)AL/R     2(20)     --     --     --    0     20,00
10 Barracuda(200 msls)     Aft         20     20     20     20  100  6.900,00
10 Machine Gun(1000 rounds)Aft      2(20)     --     --     --    0     10,00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS:                                              Heat: 600     750.000,00
Tons Left:                                                                ,00

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost:        595.005.000 C-Bills



Atalanta-class DropShip
Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name:  Atalanta DropShip (CV)
Mass:              5.000 tons

Equipment:                                                            Mass 
Power Plant, Drive & Control:                                        1.950,00
Thrust:  Safe Thrust: 6
      Maximum Thrust: 9
Structural Integrity: 12                                               120,00
Total Heat Sinks:    115 Single                                           ,00
Fuel & Fuel Pumps:                                                     306,00
Bridge, Controls, Radar, Computer & Attitude Thrusters:                 38,00
Fire Control Computers:                                                   ,00
Armor Type:  Ferro-aluminum  (818 total armor pts)                      43,00
                           Standard Scale Armor Pts
   Location:                            L / R
   Fore:                                205
   Left/Right Sides:                 204/204
   Aft:                                 205

Cargo:
   Bay 1:  Fighters (12) with 6 doors                                1.800,00
           Cargo (1) with 2 doors                                      500,00

Life Boats:  6 (7 tons each)                                            42,00

Crew and Passengers:
      2 Officers (2 minimum)                                            20,00
      3 Crew (3 minimum)                                                21,00
      6 Gunners (6 minimum)                                             42,00
     24 Bay Personnel                                                     ,00
Weapons and Equipment      Loc        SRV    MRV    LRV    ERV  Heat    Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Autocannon/5(120 rounds) Nose     2(15)  2(15)     --     --    3     30,00
4 Machine Gun(200 rounds)  Nose      1(8)     --     --     --    0      3,00
1 Autocannon/5(40 rounds)  FL/R      1(5)   1(5)     --     --    2     20,00
4 Machine Gun(200 rounds)  FL/R      1(8)     --     --     --    0      6,00
1 Autocannon/5(40 rounds)  AL/R      1(5)   1(5)     --     --    2     20,00
4 Machine Gun(200 rounds)  AL/R      1(8)     --     --     --    0      6,00
3 Autocannon/5(120 rounds) Aft      2(15)  2(15)     --     --    3     30,00
4 Machine Gun(200 rounds)  Aft       1(8)     --     --     --    0      3,00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS:                                               Heat: 10       5.000,00
Tons Left:                                                                ,00

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost:        200.093.600 C-Bills


Naming Conventions:
Phalanx: Ancient weapons
Heracles: Men from Greek mythology
Atalanta-class: Women from Greek mythology
Eros-class: Local FWL cities


Doctrine:
Units are designed and crews trained with the ability to function independently or as a part of a squadron. This allows for strategic flexibility.
The Battlecruisers preferably deployed in groups of three or six, so as to produce a crushing force. Their own fighters are mostly used as a counter to enemy ASFs and Small Craft for extended Point Defense.
Lighter ships are generally fast and will avoid direct conflict if possible, act as raiders when deployed on their own or as scouts when part of a squadron with larger ships. However commerce raiding/deep strikes is only done during armed warfare with the aim of forcing the enemy back to their own territory.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 05 July 2018, 17:15:53
Well the Lyran fleet will be easy to find, just follow the scent of gouda.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 July 2018, 17:26:19
Well the Lyran fleet will be easy to find, just follow the scent of gouda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Lexington_(CV-2)
" Originally designed as a battlecruiser, she was converted into one of the Navy's first aircraft carriers during construction..."
Amusingly, like Lexington, she retains capital armament (in this case, missile tubes, rather than 8" guns, but its the thought that counts), and is based on a battlecruiser hull.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 July 2018, 18:47:49
Maingunnery - very much like Atalanta.  And at 200M CBills instead of 300M, I may be tempted to buy some - though id be curious to know what the generic Small Dropship gets for that extra 100M.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 05 July 2018, 18:59:42
though id be curious to know what the generic Small Dropship gets for that extra 100M.
An actual decent set of weapons.  ;D
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 05 July 2018, 19:03:20
The one fight where reloads have mattered so far was Tikonov - the Feddies in particular made good use of the ability to launch two strikes with the ability to choose their ammo each time. (The Cappies also launched two strikes, but less effectively)

The "unused unit mass gives extra cargo" thing is a common house rule, but I'm not sure how I feel about it. The mass being available makes sense, but it won't be laid out like proper cargo usually is. How well could excess space in a fighter bay hold gigantic torpedoes? You could probably move some spare parts and food crates around, which would have some value, but it doesn't seem the equal of true cargo.

Well the Lyran fleet will be easy to find, just follow the scent of gouda.

Please, this is cheddar at worst. Fighters and missiles is a plausible doctrine - great for an alpha strike, though with less staying power than the alternatives. And if you're going to build carriers, might as well go all-in to saturate defences, right? It's far from the only doctrine, but it strikes me as one a real navy might use.

Maingunnery - very much like Atalanta.  And at 200M CBills instead of 300M, I may be tempted to buy some - though id be curious to know what the generic Small Dropship gets for that extra 100M.

The need to not worry about details - ships and stations alone are a lot of designs to juggle(especially as time passes and we get more of them), so adding designs of merchant JS, all the DS/fighter/small craft you use would just be a nightmare for you to track, and worse for me. You guys can write up fighter and DropShip designs, but I see them as flavour, not crunch.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 July 2018, 19:04:51
Fair, but -man- shes fast at 6/9!  Thats faster than most heavy and some medium fighters - and given that shes got the SI, the fuel, and the more efficient expansion drives of a large craft, shes got way more legs than a fighter.

If I can ever find the budget space for collars, Ive been contemplating Point-Defense Droppers - but may end up leaving that job for my poor, overworked small craft.  Cause man, what cant small craft do?  I even contemplated doing my CV as a small craft carrier - fighters in wartime, cargo haulers and colony pods and what-you-will in peace...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 July 2018, 19:08:16
The one fight where reloads have mattered so far was Tikonov - the Feddies in particular made good use of the ability to launch two strikes with the ability to choose their ammo each time. (The Cappies also launched two strikes, but less effectively)

The "unused unit mass gives extra cargo" thing is a common house rule, but I'm not sure how I feel about it. The mass being available makes sense, but it won't be laid out like proper cargo usually is. How well could excess space in a fighter bay hold gigantic torpedoes? You could probably move some spare parts and food crates around, which would have some value, but it doesn't seem the equal of true cargo.

Your world, were just livin in it.  :)  But I can see where your coming from.  As I said, already redesigned, and Im mentally making a virtue of necessity - the relatively more spacious heimdallers spot more fighter patrols and small strikes to clear out enemy screen, as befits their own screening role, and the big boys wind up for one or two big punches -  mental paralell is Midway.

Random thought - ‘Small Craft’ as 200 ton, (much) longer range heavy strike fighters?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 05 July 2018, 19:26:17
Fair, but -man- shes fast at 6/9!  Thats faster than most heavy and some medium fighters - and given that shes got the SI, the fuel, and the more efficient expansion drives of a large craft, shes got way more legs than a fighter.

If I can ever find the budget space for collars, Ive been contemplating Point-Defense Droppers - but may end up leaving that job for my poor, overworked small craft.  Cause man, what cant small craft do?  I even contemplated doing my CV as a small craft carrier - fighters in wartime, cargo haulers and colony pods and what-you-will in peace...
What about a beehive? A dropShip designed to carry a lot of small craft, very expendable.


Random thought - ‘Small Craft’ as 200 ton, (much) longer range heavy strike fighters?
The SC with introductory technology are about effective as medium fighters, but you need DHS and advanced weapons to get heavy fighter performance. This is because small craft spend relatively more weight on crew, engine and heatsinks. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 July 2018, 19:38:00
What about a beehive? A dropShip designed to carry a lot of small craft, very expendable.

The SC with introductory technology are about effective as medium fighters, but you need DHS and advanced weapons to get heavy fighter performance. This is because small craft spend relatively more weight on crew, engine and heatsinks.

I’ll bow to your greater knowledge in this area - Ive spent exactly zero time with small craft design. 

My thought was more range than extra combat power - correct me if I am wrong, but doesnt a small craft get better fuel efficency and endurance than a fighter, though not to the degree exhibited by droppers/warships? Also, here, where a fighters main combat power is in missile carriage, Id anticipate a 200 ton ‘Bomber’ Small Craft might be able to carry as many or more missiles than a 50 ton generic fighter - perhaps moreso beyond that with a large cargo bay and the ‘bomb bay’ quirk!
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 July 2018, 19:45:07
Please, this is cheddar at worst. Fighters and missiles is a plausible doctrine - great for an alpha strike, though with less staying power than the alternatives. And if you're going to build carriers, might as well go all-in to saturate defences, right? It's far from the only doctrine, but it strikes me as one a real navy might use.

One thing thats been a major internal debate for me was ‘gunships AND carriers’ or ‘Battlecarriers’. 

 Im -not- refitting Tyr into a pure carrier.  Like the USN, carriers get -escorts-, because some days something bad might go wrong, and a pure flattop fleet with no defenders is one mistake from going down in flames. 

Battlestar style BCVs might be ‘better’ - I actually think in my gut that they -are- better. 
But having two different types of units gives me flexibility, and makes the opponents decision making harder - because the jump footprint of 3 CVs looks the same as the footprint of 3BCs, but they mean different things and demand very different responses on the part of the defender.

That and I really want an interesting-on-paper navy, and this is the coolest thing to me that fit the needs of the Lyran Navy as I saw them.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Vition2 on 05 July 2018, 22:44:44
Really the biggest issue with a pure carrier is the launch and recovery speed.  It'll take your Walkure, with 720 ASF, roughly 25 minutes to launch them.  Then recovery will take more than 2 hours.  And a full recovery and launch sequence will take about 2.5 hours - that's a lot of time, especially for a slow warship.

I'll admit that this is one area I tend to ignore when it comes to fluff, as to me it doesn't entirely make sense, as properly made launch bays should be able to launch full wings or stars of fighters through a single door - granted, recovery would still be a major PITA.  But rules as written, that's what you are looking at (you can shorten the launch speed, but recovery is not malleable according to the rules).  That said, this is Alsadius' universe, so he might be willing to give leeway to this issue.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 06 July 2018, 07:24:03
Random thought - ‘Small Craft’ as 200 ton, (much) longer range heavy strike fighters?

My house rule for fighter missiles is that each 5 tons of missile takes up one bomb hardpoint, so effectively fighters can carry their own weight in capital missiles(though with extreme mobility penalties, of course). Do small craft get hardpoints? I haven't looked at their construction rules in ages.

One thing thats been a major internal debate for me was ‘gunships AND carriers’ or ‘Battlecarriers’. 

 Im -not- refitting Tyr into a pure carrier.  Like the USN, carriers get -escorts-, because some days something bad might go wrong, and a pure flattop fleet with no defenders is one mistake from going down in flames. 

Battlestar style BCVs might be ‘better’ - I actually think in my gut that they -are- better. 
But having two different types of units gives me flexibility, and makes the opponents decision making harder - because the jump footprint of 3 CVs looks the same as the footprint of 3BCs, but they mean different things and demand very different responses on the part of the defender.

That and I really want an interesting-on-paper navy, and this is the coolest thing to me that fit the needs of the Lyran Navy as I saw them.

I can hardly fault you for following the Rule of Cool. TBH, I think we're all doing that a little bit, and part of the reason for the narrative combat is that I explicitly want to discourage munchkin tactics. If I mess with the game rules a bit and don't tell you precisely how things work, you can't easily min-max, and there'll be a more realistic(and interesting) set of designs that result. I think we all know that with canonical rules, the only real choices are "four corners" designs(i.e., Nose/Aft/LBS/RBS festooned with 12xAMS to kill Killer Whales by the hundred, plus a couple hundred anti-fighter guns, while FL/FR/AL/AR carry the capital-scale weapons), and that gets boring fast. 

Really the biggest issue with a pure carrier is the launch and recovery speed.  It'll take your Walkure, with 720 ASF, roughly 25 minutes to launch them.  Then recovery will take more than 2 hours.  And a full recovery and launch sequence will take about 2.5 hours - that's a lot of time, especially for a slow warship.

I'll admit that this is one area I tend to ignore when it comes to fluff, as to me it doesn't entirely make sense, as properly made launch bays should be able to launch full wings or stars of fighters through a single door - granted, recovery would still be a major PITA.  But rules as written, that's what you are looking at (you can shorten the launch speed, but recovery is not malleable according to the rules).  That said, this is Alsadius' universe, so he might be willing to give leeway to this issue.

Marcus PM'd me about this before posting his designs, and running the numbers I felt no need to change the canon rules on doors regarding launch rates. I didn't realize recovery was so much slower than launch, however. (I feel like this game is going to lead to me memorizing most of StratOps...)

20-30 minutes to launch a strike seems very reasonable to me. Two hours to recover one is...lengthy. Not impossibly so, but it'll put a serious limit on what the fighters can do in battle. Midway-style attacks when the planes are refueling and re-arming start getting to be a serious nightmare for the planners in any navy with carriers that big. I think this may be part of why canon designs seem to mostly prefer battlestars over pure CV/BB designs - there's no economies of scale on fighter bays, and door limits mean that mass fighter operations are painful. (Also, fleet fights are rare in canon for gameplay reasons, which means that each unit wants to be individually capable of a wide range of roles, and an on-board fighter wing helps with that).

No rules change re: recovery times for now, but I'll think about it.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 06 July 2018, 07:35:08
My house rule for fighter missiles is that each 5 tons of missile takes up one bomb hardpoint, so effectively fighters can carry their own weight in capital missiles(though with extreme mobility penalties, of course). Do small craft get hardpoints? I haven't looked at their construction rules in ages.
TM p217
Unit Restrictions: Only Fixed-Wing Support Vehicles may install external stores hardpoints. (Conventional and aerospace fighters receive them free.)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 06 July 2018, 08:27:40
TM p217
Unit Restrictions: Only Fixed-Wing Support Vehicles may install external stores hardpoints. (Conventional and aerospace fighters receive them free.)

Thus, as Small Craft are neither Fixed Wing Support Vehicles or Conventional/Aerospace Fighters, they may not mount hardpoints, RAW.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 06 July 2018, 09:56:05
My house rule for fighter missiles is that each 5 tons of missile takes up one bomb hardpoint, so effectively fighters can carry their own weight in capital missiles(though with extreme mobility penalties, of course). Do small craft get hardpoints? I haven't looked at their construction rules in ages.

I can hardly fault you for following the Rule of Cool. TBH, I think we're all doing that a little bit, and part of the reason for the narrative combat is that I explicitly want to discourage munchkin tactics. If I mess with the game rules a bit and don't tell you precisely how things work, you can't easily min-max, and there'll be a more realistic(and interesting) set of designs that result. I think we all know that with canonical rules, the only real choices are "four corners" designs(i.e., Nose/Aft/LBS/RBS festooned with 12xAMS to kill Killer Whales by the hundred, plus a couple hundred anti-fighter guns, while FL/FR/AL/AR carry the capital-scale weapons), and that gets boring fast. 

Marcus PM'd me about this before posting his designs, and running the numbers I felt no need to change the canon rules on doors regarding launch rates. I didn't realize recovery was so much slower than launch, however. (I feel like this game is going to lead to me memorizing most of StratOps...)

20-30 minutes to launch a strike seems very reasonable to me. Two hours to recover one is...lengthy. Not impossibly so, but it'll put a serious limit on what the fighters can do in battle. Midway-style attacks when the planes are refueling and re-arming start getting to be a serious nightmare for the planners in any navy with carriers that big. I think this may be part of why canon designs seem to mostly prefer battlestars over pure CV/BB designs - there's no economies of scale on fighter bays, and door limits mean that mass fighter operations are painful. (Also, fleet fights are rare in canon for gameplay reasons, which means that each unit wants to be individually capable of a wide range of roles, and an on-board fighter wing helps with that).

No rules change re: recovery times for now, but I'll think about it.

One thing Im considering - if long reload times are a problem - is either doctrine centered around long range detection, strike, reload, restrike (strikes were multiple hours apart in WW2, and the above is basically the WW2 doctrine) OR a Doctrine based around high speed engagements, which by their nature imply a single exchange of fire coupled with long reengagement times.  This -would- expose the CVs to enemy direct fires - so CVs would still need reasonable SI and Armor (glad I was conservative, there!), but in a high speed engagement, the shattering effect of a single pulse of missile fire from a full deckload of fighters will show better, by comparison, than the greater weight of fire over time of guns.

In the field, probably would prefer profile 1 (long range detection and strike, reload, restrike) but if counterdetected without time to reload, would go to profile 2 (high speed engagement followed by reload cycles and manuver - fighters would act almost like Harrington verse missile pods in such a profile)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 06 July 2018, 10:33:53
Yup, those doctrines seem to fit nicely with the ships you have. It'll leave you less flexible than a gunship, of course, but you knew that already.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 06 July 2018, 10:48:58
Yup, those doctrines seem to fit nicely with the ships you have. It'll leave you less flexible than a gunship, of course, but you knew that already.
"Or else these drinks would cost half as much."  :)

One think I'm trying to do is think hard about doctrine.  One place the modern USN 'gets it wrong', at least according to some people I've read, is that when presented with a tactical problem they always reach for an engineering solution.  Thats well and good if you have the time and money to out-enginner every problem.  But you usually dont, and usually, there is SOME tactical doctrine you can employ that gets you in with a chance.

If there is no tactical doctrine that allows you a chance to win with your navy, explain to congress that you need either the budget to meet their requirements, or the requirements to meet their budget.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 06 July 2018, 22:13:00
The United Hindu Collective is completing its network of Prathams, installing one at each zenith and nadir point in Collective space to ensure detection of any visiting ships along with defence for merchants. The usual array of small craft round out the Collective's purchases this round.

Maintenance (@150%): $5.294B
16x Pratham: $8.08B
120x small craft: $1.2B
1200x fighter: $6B
Research: $426m
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 07 July 2018, 00:06:24
[Edit: Corrected new ship TRO Workup sections, adjusted budget, removed espionage, bought 300 more ASF]
Sorry if I'm holding things up.  RL throwing a 4th party eats time, and when you're one of the last to get your turn info, it doesn't give you lots of time to do things.

Crunchy bits for Turn 3 for Caps:
Turn 2 Losses (net):
1x Quzhujian
2x Quinru Zhe
117x Fighters
500 million in repairs

Turn 2 gains (net):
1x jumpship
3B in surplus funds found in private accounts of arrested and convicted war profiteers who colluded with the second assistant under-secretary of the Bureau of Orbital Habitat Revitalization, Restaurant Health Inspections, Naval Veteran's Pet Health Care, Mental Assistance, and Crematorium Licensing.

Budget: 84.5B (82B +3B -.5B)
Maitenance: $10,681 (owed: 8,959B @10%)  Fighters @300%,

Design:
Total:  $8,387B
     Varient of BoB (Bringer of Beer): приведение выстрелов (privedeniye vystrelov/Bringer of Shots): $2,328M (50% of new varient ship cost $4,655M)  [This we may need to talk about...  I ripped out the passenger cabins, the plus grav decks, and some cargo for 1 point of cruise and many fighter bays and reduced the sensors from large to small...  That's fair to the varient rules you laid out, and seems non-cheddar to me, but I'm not exactly non-biased.  Also did I cost this right?]
     妻子愤怒的地狱 Qīzi fènnù dì dìyù (Hell of a Wife's Wrath):  $6,070
(Ships also known as BoS[hots] and Wrath)

New Construction:
x900 Fighters
x100 Small Craft
x5     Chongzhi (recharge stations)
x5     BoShots
x5     Wrath

Research: $71M

----
Totals for Turn 3:
---
ASF:  2623  (1714 on shipboard duty, 909 on planetary defense/shipyard defense/training duty)
SC:   1267  (1004 on shipboard/base duty, 263 on planetary defense/shipyard defense/training duty/customs)
DS:     88    (4 on shipboard duty, 84 on planetary defense/shipyard defense/training duty/detached duty/assault)
JS:        4
---
Chongzhi (Recharge stations):    27
Qinru Zhe (Raider):                     1
Quzhujian (Defensive Destroyer): 3
BoB          (Fleet Collier/Spyship): 1
BoS[hots] (Defensive CVL):          5
Wrath       (Defensive Frigate):     5

Fighters @3x maintenance

New Designs:

Varient to пивной пиво (Bringer of Beer)
Varient Cost: $4,635
Named: приведение выстрелов (privedeniye vystrelov/Bringer of Shots)
[BoS, BoShots, Shots are fine for reference]


Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: приведение выстрелов (privedeniye vystrelov/Bringer of Shots) --- Fleet Light Carrier (CVL)
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $4,635,224,000.00
Magazine Cost: $176,000.00
BV2: 5,668

Mass: 250,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 3
Maximum Thrust: 5
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
80 AC 2

Class/Model/Name: приведение выстрелов (privedeniye vystrelov/Bringer of Shots) --- Fleet Light Carrier (CVL)
Mass: 250,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 45,000
Thrust
Safe: 3
Maximum: 5
Controls: 625
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (7 Integrity) 113,125
Jump Sail: (4 Integrity) 43
Structural Integrity: 65 16,250
Total Heat Sinks: 345 Single
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 3125 points 1,275
Fire Control Computers: 0
Armor: 162 pts Standard 300
Fore: 31
Fore-Left/Right: 25/25
Aft-Left/Right: 25/25
Aft: 31

Dropship Capacity: 0
Grav Decks:
Small: 0
Medium: 0
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 0
Life Boats: 0

Crew And Passengers:
20 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 200
75 Crew in 1st Class Quarters 750
20 Gunners and Others in 1st Class Quarters 200
550 Bay Personnel 0
1st Class Passengers 0
2nd Class Passengers 0
Steerage Passengers 0

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
10 AC 2 Nose 10 20 (2-C) Long 60
10 AC 2 FR 10 20 (2-C) Long 60
10 AC 2 RBS 10 20 (2-C) Long 60
10 AC 2 AR 10 20 (2-C) Long 60
10 AC 2 FL 10 20 (2-C) Long 60
10 AC 2 LBS 10 20 (2-C) Long 60
10 AC 2 AL 10 20 (2-C) Long 60
10 AC 2 Aft 10 20 (2-C) Long 60

Ammo Rounds Mass
AC 2 Ammo 8000 177.78

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
10 Bay Small Craft 2,000 2
250 Bay Fighter 37,500 8
31,500 Cargo, Standard 31,500 2
NCSS Small 100


妻子愤怒的地狱 Qīzi fènnù dì dìyù (Hell of a Wife's Wrath)
Cost: $6,070
[Wrath for reference]
Code: [Select]

Class/Model/Name: 妻子愤怒的地狱 Qīzi fènnù dì dìyù (Hell of a Wife's Wrath)
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $6,070,534,000.00
Magazine Cost: $68,777,600.00
BV2: 73,782

Mass: 500,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 3
Maximum Thrust: 5
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
12 Naval Laser 55
24 Capital Launcher Barracuda
24 Capital Launcher White Shark
90 AC 2
16 Naval AC 25

Class/Model/Name: 妻子愤怒的地狱 Qīzi fènnù dì dìyù (Hell of a Wife's Wrath)
Mass: 500,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 90,000
Thrust
Safe: 3
Maximum: 5
Controls: 1,250
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (12 Integrity) 226,250
Jump Sail: (4 Integrity) 55
Structural Integrity: 135 67,500
Total Heat Sinks: 3549 Single 3,080
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 2500 points 1,020
Fire Control Computers: 2,272
Armor: 604 pts Standard 1,300
Fore: 124
Fore-Left/Right: 100/100
Aft-Left/Right: 100/100
Aft: 80

Dropship Capacity: 0
Grav Decks:
Small: 0
Medium: 0
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 0
Life Boats: 0

Crew And Passengers:
42 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 420
103 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 721
97 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 679
188 Bay Personnel 0
1st Class Passengers 0
2nd Class Passengers 0
Steerage Passengers 0

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
10 Naval Laser 55 Nose 850 550 (55-C) Extreme-C 11,000
4 Capital Launcher Barracuda Nose 40 80 (8-C) Extreme-C 360
4 Capital Launcher White Shark Nose 60 120 (12-C) Extreme-C 480
20 AC 2 Nose 20 40 (4-C) Long 120
3 Naval AC 25 FR 255 750 (75-C) Long-C 9,000
3 Capital Launcher Barracuda FR 30 60 (6-C) Extreme-C 270
3 Capital Launcher White Shark FR 45 90 (9-C) Extreme-C 360
10 AC 2 FR 10 20 (2-C) Long 60
2 Naval AC 25 RBS 170 500 (50-C) Long-C 6,000
3 Capital Launcher Barracuda RBS 30 60 (6-C) Extreme-C 270
3 Capital Launcher White Shark RBS 45 90 (9-C) Extreme-C 360
10 AC 2 RBS 10 20 (2-C) Long 60
3 Naval AC 25 AR 255 750 (75-C) Long-C 9,000
3 Capital Launcher Barracuda AR 30 60 (6-C) Extreme-C 270
3 Capital Launcher White Shark AR 45 90 (9-C) Extreme-C 360
10 AC 2 AR 10 20 (2-C) Long 60
3 Naval AC 25 FL 255 750 (75-C) Long-C 9,000
3 Capital Launcher Barracuda FL 30 60 (6-C) Extreme-C 270
3 Capital Launcher White Shark FL 45 90 (9-C) Extreme-C 360
10 AC 2 FL 10 20 (2-C) Long 60
2 Naval AC 25 LBS 170 500 (50-C) Long-C 6,000
3 Capital Launcher Barracuda LBS 30 60 (6-C) Extreme-C 270
3 Capital Launcher White Shark LBS 45 90 (9-C) Extreme-C 360
10 AC 2 LBS 10 20 (2-C) Long 60
3 Naval AC 25 AL 255 750 (75-C) Long-C 9,000
3 Capital Launcher Barracuda AL 30 60 (6-C) Extreme-C 270
3 Capital Launcher White Shark AL 45 90 (9-C) Extreme-C 360
10 AC 2 AL 10 20 (2-C) Long 60
2 Naval Laser 55 Aft 170 110 (11-C) Extreme-C 2,200
2 Capital Launcher Barracuda Aft 20 40 (4-C) Extreme-C 180
2 Capital Launcher White Shark Aft 30 60 (6-C) Extreme-C 240
10 AC 2 Aft 10 20 (2-C) Long 60

Ammo Rounds Mass
Naval AC 25 Ammo 1440 864.00
Capital Launcher Barracuda Ammo 170 5,100.00
Capital Launcher White Shark Ammo 170 6,800.00
AC 2 Ammo 10800 240.00

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
12 Bay Small Craft 2,400 2
64 Bay Fighter 9,600 8
13,500 Cargo, Standard 13,500 2
NCSS Small 100


Major and Minor doctrine changes to be posted.  (want to post the crunchy bits now for review)
Fluff to be posted.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 07 July 2018, 01:35:55
You seem to be missing the Cargo, Small Craft and Fighter Bays for those ships
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 07 July 2018, 01:42:53
Cap Con Naming Conventions:
As a diverse polity of many languages and cultures, the Capellan's have elected to embrace both our Russian and Chinese heritages.  As such, Capellan warship's design will be named for the cultural heritage reflected in their design and purpose.  As we at the Naval Office of Ship Design and Vending Machine replenishment are known both for our sense of brotherhood and our sense of humor, we invite our senior leadership to submit for review, names for our new designs and sister ships.  Suggestions found lacking in humor and brotherhood will be duly reported to the Ministry of Truth and Hampering All Things.

[OOC:  I like puns, I love humor.  Feel free to name ships in either fashion.  Failing that I will report you for reeducation in our wonderful camps of love and brotherhood.]
[OOC:  All BoShots will be named for famous Vodkas, all squadrons for famous cocktails and liquors.  Whiskey Wing Leader calling Gin Wing Leader, we'll cover your approach, over.  Or, again, I'll report you for reducation, and I should warn you, I think they substituted gasoline for the vodka...  No one could tell the difference apparently.]
[OOC:  All Wrath ships should be named for those things [we] husbands forget to do.  "Didn't do the dishes", "Forgot our Anniversary", "Slept with her Sister" (only for a ship doomed to die a very tragic, very bad death...)]
[OOC:  *shrug* I'm here to design ships and have fun.  Name things as you will, I'll swing.]

Character Names:
Boris.
Lee.

:)

Already used in correspondance or otherwise, but feel free to use them as well:

The Honorable Second Assistant Under-secretary's Under-Study for Third Secretary of Naval Building and Kleenex supply Admiral of the Yellow Lord Secondous Hung Wai Lo the 3rd.
Honerable Captian Rcie Gorshkov
Venerable Admiral of the Blood, Valentine Caponyev
Venerable Admiral of the Knife, Jack Burton
Captain Jackson Sparr Row
Honorable Admiral Ravil Maslov
Honorable Captain Boris Carlisle
Venerable Admiral Demetri Dish
Gao-shiao-zhang Sum Gui Di
Jiang-jun Yuan Yin
Yi-si-ben-bing Wu Yu Go Nouw
Shia-ben-bing Yu Tsing Lo
Shia-ben-bing Tao Chao
Venerable Admiral Le Chia Pet


Doctrine:

Doctrine Shift:  Fighters are supreme.

General Engagement Doctrine:
Primus:  Fighters will close to, and engage enemy fighters first and fore most.  ASF will screen for ASF first, and always.
  -  As such, primary fleet armament for fighters will be Barracuda Missiles.  Double when possible.
  -  Fleets will procure and arm themselves with Barracuda missiles for all but one single strike of "heavy" ordnance.  Fleets that can't muster at least 2 full loads of 2 Barracuda per fight of ASF will arm themselves entirely of said missile.
  -  Small craft will be armed and prepared for anti-fighter roles primarily.  Small Craft will fly CAP for fleet and SWACs for both ASF and SWACs.
  -  Do not engage inside a supporting forces "basket" of anti-air.  Fire at range, or maneuver for range or effect.

Secondus:  Once ASF domination has occurred, remaining ASF will join with screening forces to engage enemy warships and stations.
  -  Fighters will launch remaining Barracuda in coordinated wave strikes.
  -  Screening forces will coordinate with Fighters as possible.

Tertius:  Disengage.
  -  In the event that the opponent is to strong, or otherwise holds an obvious advantage, maneuver where possible, retreat where not.  Let our honorable ancestor inform us of this... "On Dangerous ground, Maneuver."
  -  Only when defending a Primary Defensive target (see communo packet J-25161666-subsection(19)-bullet(b)), hereby designated "deadly ground" will a warship or fleet hold their ground.  Again, let our honorable ancestor inform us of this... "On deadly ground, fight."

Defensive/at home engagement doctrine:
  -  Forces marked for defense will stay on defense.  Units such as "Quzhujian," "приведение выстрелов (privedeniye vystrelov/Bringer of Shots)," and "妻子愤怒的地狱 Qīzi fènnù dì dìyù (Hell of a Wife's Wrath)" are "defense" units for use in, and among, the Capellan polity.  They will utilize the recharge stations being established to rapidly respond to aggression.  They will do so in coordianted groups, utilizing fighter engagements to clear supporting ASF first, and only then turning to fleet engagement with warship and fighter.
  -  In all other ways, defensive forces will coordinate and engage with ASF, utilizing ASF as the primary screening element.
  -  While "total war" is in effect for _opposition_ territory, it is countra-dictaned within Capellan or former Capellan territory.

Raiding Doctrine [This is changing!!!!!]:
  -  Raiding will largely be conducted in deep raids against soft targets.  Systems with little and few esablished defenses will be hit first and primary.
  -  Raiding will be done at range.  All engagements should seek to push the range envelope, either engaging in long range weapons play or strategic use of ASF when available.
  -  It is better to not strike, than to strike and lose more.  Caution is the by-word.  That said, if engaging, engage for maximal damage.
  -  Finally, and _most_ important.  While we should seek to reduce the loss of civilian and non-combatant life where-ever possible, any nation that has attacked us will be engaged in "total war."  Civilian infrastructure will be engaged.  Any system raided, that is not properly guarded or warded, will be laid waste in its entirety of space constructs.  To be clear, planetary bombardment is still strictly in the hands of the army, and will be done only by direct request by an appropriate level army officer with the right codes.  However.  Normal precautions and failsafes have been _reduced_ and we should expect much more call for fire from our ground troops, especially in raid situations involving them.


Nuclear munitions:
  -  It is with sadden, but resolute heart that we announce this change in policy-
  -  For fleet engagements in local space, nuclear weapons may be engaged.
    --  Nuclear weapons may _only_ be engaged against _war_ targets.  No civilian targets are allowed.
    --  No planetary targets are authorized as of yet.
  -  For fleet engagements in enemy space, nuclear weapons may be engaged but only with limited targets.
    --  No civilian targets, period.  Collateral damage is not acceptable.
    --  Naval targets only.  Shipyards are naval targets, however but must be given time to evacuate civilians.  If the honorable window for proper evactuation can not be met for any reason, conventional weapons _only_ may be used.  However, conventional weapons are allowed against civiliains.
  -  Nuclear "small-vehicle scuttling" charges:  It is not our wish, or desire, for any of our brave warriors to find the end of their service to the great society, but should they find themselves facing that end, we would have them have only the best of tools to end their service with.  As such, for limited purposes, in dire situations, we authorize the arming of ASF and Capital ships with "Kamikazi" style nuclear charges.  These suicide charges will automatically guarantee citizenship for one's spouse or next of kin.

---
Fluff will have to wait, sorry, it's 3am already...  :(



Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 07 July 2018, 01:49:31
You seem to be missing the Cargo, Small Craft and Fighter Bays for those ships

Well foo me.  You're right.

The Spreadsheet is refusing to include those...  :(

For quick ref (it's 3 am here, I'll try to fix this tomorrow officially):

Wrath has 12.8kt cargo, 64 Fighter bays, 12 Small Craft.
BoS has 31kt of cargo, 250 Fighter bays, 10 Small Craft.

I'll fix the official screeds when I get a chance tomorrow.


[edit] Downloaded the latest sheet, and wrangled it into giving all the details.  Edited turn 3 post with the changes.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 07 July 2018, 06:27:03
You're not holding anything up at this point. We still have one or two players outstanding, and of course I only just started on NPCs and still have combat to write.

Your variant costing and design seems correct. And FYI, I decided a while back that covert ops wasn't something I wanted to include in the game(aside from ships like the Bug-Eye). Consider it to be something that's happening in the background - it's there, but it's coming out of somebody else's budget. So you have another billion to throw around.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 07 July 2018, 15:16:09
The Taurian Concordat has once again become aware of the outside world as of late, and the outside world is a surprisingly terrible place. The Concordat's defences are not nearly sufficient to deter attack from the Federated Suns or the Capellan Confederation, so a brief retrenchment is in order. The fleet can be used for raiding unarmed targets well enough, but planetary defences are clearly not on an adequate scale, and cannot be built on an adequate scale across the entire realm in the short term. As such, the plan is to create a secure base at Taurus, where the Concordat can be sure that its capital, primary shipyard, and largest industrial hub are safe against any plausible attack.

The core of this plan is the Marathon-class defence station. Intended as a planetary defence station, the Marathon mounts no fighter bays, no sensor systems, and only minimal cargo and fuel loads. What it does mount is a blistering array of weaponry, intended to force any attacker to sit up and take notice. A massive battery of long-range lasers allow the station to attack enemies within the engagement range of any known weapon system, and ten large autocannons allow the station to duke it out with heavy gunships if need be. Supporting these weapons are eighty multi-role missile launchers, which are both the station's main anti-fighter weapon and a serious threat to enemy ships in their own right.

Horrified by the tales of hundreds of missiles firing at once, the Taurians also covered every available surface of the Marathon with point-defence guns, in quantities never before seen on a single installation. The advanced fire control needed to allow a station like this to fire all its weapons simultaneously takes up almost a tenth of the Marathon's mass, and as something well outside the usual Taurian manufactures, the system is still balky and prone to failure - battles raged as to whether the ludicrous mass requirements were worthwhile, or whether more weapons should be installed instead. However, as capital weapons were in short supply even with a rapid expansion in the nation's armaments industries, the heavy fire control system was utilized instead. The unusual fore-and-aft split of the large weapons was chosen both to maximize efficient use of the station's surface area(and thereby minimize the need for advanced fire control), as well as being designed for maximal effect in case of a fly-by attack like the one at Irian.

The result is a station that is both far cheaper and far more dangerous than the Independence-class corvettes in the fleet, and which should ensure the Taurians a secure base of operations even in the face of a determined attack by a serious enemy. To aid this, the size of the fighter fleet was doubled, and new training programs were instituted to give the Taurians every possible edge.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Marathon
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $621,075,025.00
Magazine Cost: $28,920,000.00
BV2: 45,424

Mass: 145,000
K-F Drive System: None
Power Plant: Station-Keeping Drive
Safe Thrust: 0
Maximum Thrust: 0
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
10 Naval AC 20
80 Capital Launcher AR-10
20 Naval Laser 55
180 Machine Gun (IS)

Class/Model/Name: Marathon
Mass: 145,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 1,740
Thrust
Safe: 0
Maximum: 0
Controls: 145
K-F Hyperdrive: None (0 Integrity) 0
Jump Sail: (0 Integrity) 0
Structural Integrity: 1 1,450
Total Heat Sinks: 3900 Single 3,797
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 2000 points 408
Fire Control Computers: 13,418
Armor: 435 pts Standard 543
Fore: 100
Fore-Left/Right: 60/60
Aft-Left/Right: 60/60
Aft: 95

Dropship Capacity: 0 0
Grav Decks:
Small: 1 50
Medium: 0
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 50 350
Life Boats: 0

Crew And Passengers:
37 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 370
37 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 259
140 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 980
40 Bay Personnel in 2nd Class Quarters 280

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
10 Naval AC 20 Nose 600 2000 (200-C) Long-C 25,000
20 Capital Launcher AR-10 FL 400 800 (80-C) Extreme-C 5,000
20 Capital Launcher AR-10 FR 400 800 (80-C) Extreme-C 5,000
20 Capital Launcher AR-10 AL 400 800 (80-C) Extreme-C 5,000
20 Capital Launcher AR-10 AR 400 800 (80-C) Extreme-C 5,000
20 Naval Laser 55 Aft 1700 1100 (110-C) Extreme-C 22,000
30 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 60 (6-C) Short-PDS 15
30 Machine Gun (IS) FL 60 (6-C) Short-PDS 15
30 Machine Gun (IS) FR 60 (6-C) Short-PDS 15
30 Machine Gun (IS) AL 60 (6-C) Short-PDS 15
30 Machine Gun (IS) AR 60 (6-C) Short-PDS 15
30 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 60 (6-C) Short-PDS 15

Ammo Rounds Mass
Naval AC 20 Ammo 500 200.00
Capital Launcher Barracuda Ammo 400 12,000.00
Capital Launcher Killer Whale Ammo 400 20,000.00
Capital Launcher White Shark Ammo 400 16,000.00
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 24000 120.00

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
4,200 Cargo, Standard 4,200 2
8 Bay Small Craft 1,600 2


BUDGET: $12B
Carried Over: $2B
Maintenance (@120%): $1.506B
Marathon R&D: $621m
10x Marathon: $6.21B (all deployed to Taurus orbit, near the shipyards)
540x fighter: $2.7B
80x small craft: $800m
Research: $163m

EDIT: I just noticed I had $2B carried over from turn 2. Let's up that to $363m of research, and add 6x DropShip - they can be used as system-defence units as well, but they can also move to more useful roles once the nation gets off its back foot.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 07 July 2018, 15:49:02
And the Star League looked upon Taurus, and said ‘wahoo!  That looks great!  Lets do that, only with crazy Star League level resources!’

And the Caspar Network was born...


Seriously, Ive had a defsat I keep waffling on building - very different approach - but that looks like an even better solution.  Well done.  Remind me not to attack Taurus.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 07 July 2018, 16:16:17
Turn 3 fluff:

"Jack!  Jack Burton!  What brings your hidebound face around these parts?"

"I just saw the new ship designs Ed, and I'm worried.  So many fighters..."

"We've been over this.  Just look at those poor Rasalhague buggers.  Our analysts have poured over those two engagements.  With just 200 fighters in each one, they managed to inflict significantly greater damage than what they cost.  In the first engagement, they did nearly 2 billion in damages, while losing only 3 quarters of a billion.  That's nearly 3 to 1.  And the second engagement was even better!  More than 4 Billion in damages for the loss of 1.  Four to one Jack.  We need that kind of damage curve desperately.  We lost half of our standing fleet.  And did less in damages than we lost.  We have to take a break from our raiding, and put in some solid defensive forces."

"I know Ed.  We do this dance every time, and something just doesn't feel right about it.  Bah, maybe its that new design's name...  The Hell of...  what was it again?"

"The Hell of a Wife's Wrath.  Chinese have a lot of hells, what can I say?  I understand the name came about after a holiday party, where one of the designers was caught in a... delicate situation, by his wife."

"So he named it that then?"

"No...  one of the other designers named it that, after witnessing the incident.  He also suggested the Hell of being Cut to Pieces, the Hell of Boiling Oil, and the Hell of being skinned alive.  But most of us felt Wrath summed it up best.  Besides, I know you, I know the Bringer of Shots was your work.  Here, a toast for you."

Ed throws a bottle at a surprised Jack.  "Woah, nice catch."

With a million watt smirk, Jack retorts, "Its all in the reflexes.  Now lets drink."
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 07 July 2018, 20:46:36
As long as it doesn't smell too much like Camembert - I figured the TC could get away with it, because they spent so much of their early budgets to get so little, but that's a very gamey design in some ways.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 07 July 2018, 21:39:13
As long as it doesn't smell too much like Camembert - I figured the TC could get away with it, because they spent so much of their early budgets to get so little, but that's a very gamey design in some ways.

Not.. actually that gamey.  You have to slooowly rotate (military stations turn 1 facing a round, right?) to switch from Naval Laser to NAC engagement.  Any agile foe can make you loathe that.  And since shes immobile, she runs the risk of a mobile foe drawing out her missile fire at long range, emptying her bays for little return.

And the future advent of bearings only launches is gonna be just brutal for armed stations.  ‘I fire from range 200 at short’.  The station cant really return the favor - its much harder to catch a mobile unit in the basket!

Also-also?  Shell defend Taurus proper pretty good.  Wont protect the rest of Concordiat, and noone is gonna stick their hand into Taurus Close Orbut to get chewed up by those things.

As I see it, her real value is that (once they have an appreciable wall of battle) the Taurians can afford to -use- it - and may as well - because they wont be tied down covering homeworld.  Also, the fact that the Taurians now are (relatively) safe even from major powers... the FedSuns MIGHT be able to break those stations with another few decades production, but they cant afford the losses, and dont win enough.  So the Tairians just bought ‘dont lose the capital’ insurance.  No small thing.

But cheese?  Nah.  Shes just a powerful static defense over the homeworld.  Thats like... one of the oldest tropes in sci-fi.

((Footnote - Im finding most ‘gamey’ things get a lot less gamey once their off the table and in a realistic (for our fictional values of realism) world.  Its all tradeoffs and needs and role-fitting.  One example?  Advanced Fighters.  For years I swore that XL engines should be default, cause compared to the cost of droppers and jumpers, whats a 10 mil difference on a Battlemech?  Now that I look at someday replacing... All... Those... Fighters...  at 15 Mil each... Im more thinking ‘yannow, Standard engines are reliable, stable, easy to maintain, and 10 extra tons warload on a heavy fighter isnt all that much’.  Another example?  Im running lighter cargo than some, and no droppers, which gives me more combat power per C-Bill.  But to help cover that, Ive built resupply depots over every world, and any long-distance strikes or patrols in enemh space will require freighters or jumpships with cargo droppers.  I -think- Ive got the right answer - but I may be wrong, and its still not free.  All trade offs.  Consider Leviathan III - in our game, we’d look at a ship like that and go ‘hit the supply chain, hit the droppers, and never fight the thing - go after the worlds it isnt over’.  And for the cost of Levi III, you can build a -lot- of warships to be in a -lot- of places doing a -lot- more damage than that thing is doing wherever it is...))

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 08 July 2018, 00:47:49
True but by the time you can build Leviathan 3s you should already have lots of other ships for those other worlds. Super battleships are your death fleet. They shouldn't negatively impact your available defense forces. If they do you shouldn't build them yet.

My concern on the Marathon is her inability to survive a real siege.  They can be isolated and rendered combat ineffective because they lack cargo. I look at those things and see the German 6th army at Stalingrad. Combat resupply is going to be their Achilles heel.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 08 July 2018, 04:47:10
Eh.  Their deployed around the shipyards, which are themselves deployd in close orbit (i presume) to Taurus.  Id think at the very least the shipyards have sufficient cargo to stand a long siege, and you couldnt interdict the stations, from the yards, without exposing yourself to the fire of those stations.

Beyond that, station cargo is very nearly free.  If simulation shows it to be a problem, just slap zeros on the cargo capacity until the problem goes away.  Or just haul a cloud of shipping containers fill of ice and rations into space and leave them in close orbit by your stations.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 08 July 2018, 08:47:13
The cargo capacity for a Marathon is the planet Taurus. Ditto the food supply, the fighter bays, and the ammo load. Heck, even the fuel supply - low orbit requires no fuel to maintain, unlike the station-keeping need at a jump point. At a jump point that station would be a joke, but in low orbit(in a game world where surface-to-orbit travel is cheap and easy) it's a lot scarier than it looks.

The one problem is that capital weapon ranges are still quite short compared to the size of a planet - the longest-ranged weapons can only shoot about a thousand klicks, covering an area of about 3 million km^2 on the surface of a sphere, whereas the surface area of low earth orbit is about 550 million km^2. Even if orbits could be aligned perfectly, you'd need to build close to 200 stations just to cover the whole planet. As such, even with those stations in orbit, they're only really protecting the orbital shipyard complex - the surface is still vulnerable to bombardment. I don't have a good solution to this in canon, except for bombardment being a very rare thing for political reasons.

After all, any drive capable of interplanetary movement in a reasonable period is also capable of producing some supremely terrifying kinetic energy weapons, so any sci-fi setting needs a reason why nobody uses them(or to roll with it, and have planets get smashed on a regular basis). A 5000 ton DropShip accelerating at 1g from Sol's zenith point to Earth without slowing down carries about 1.5x10^20 joules of kinetic energy, or about 36 gigatons. That's about six times the total IRL nuclear arsenal of all nations combined, or about 1/600 of the dinosaur-killer asteroid. An asteroid impact calculator says that it'd blow down wooden buildings at 60+ km distance. And these things are in the hands of tens of thousands of random merchants all over the inner sphere. Who needs nukes?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 08 July 2018, 09:19:16
The cargo capacity for a Marathon is the planet Taurus. Ditto the food supply, the fighter bays, and the ammo load. Heck, even the fuel supply - low orbit requires no fuel to maintain, unlike the station-keeping need at a jump point. At a jump point that station would be a joke, but in low orbit(in a game world where surface-to-orbit travel is cheap and easy) it's a lot scarier than it looks.

The one problem is that capital weapon ranges are still quite short compared to the size of a planet - the longest-ranged weapons can only shoot about a thousand klicks, covering an area of about 3 million km^2 on the surface of a sphere, whereas the surface area of low earth orbit is about 550 million km^2. Even if orbits could be aligned perfectly, you'd need to build close to 200 stations just to cover the whole planet. As such, even with those stations in orbit, they're only really protecting the orbital shipyard complex - the surface is still vulnerable to bombardment. I don't have a good solution to this in canon, except for bombardment being a very rare thing for political reasons.

After all, any drive capable of interplanetary movement in a reasonable period is also capable of producing some supremely terrifying kinetic energy weapons, so any sci-fi setting needs a reason why nobody uses them(or to roll with it, and have planets get smashed on a regular basis). A 5000 ton DropShip accelerating at 1g from Sol's zenith point to Earth without slowing down carries about 1.5x10^20 joules of kinetic energy, or about 36 gigatons. That's about six times the total IRL nuclear arsenal of all nations combined, or about 1/600 of the dinosaur-killer asteroid. An asteroid impact calculator says that it'd blow down wooden buildings at 60+ km distance. And these things are in the hands of tens of thousands of random merchants all over the inner sphere. Who needs nukes?

Please.  Think of the catgirls.  :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 08 July 2018, 09:36:04
For the record - if I could change three or four things about the setting for this game, it would be to return to the original Aerotech ranges.  Felt much more belivable for a hypertech culture (which this -is-) and less smash-mouth space-opera.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 08 July 2018, 09:53:01
My phone is duplicating my posts, somehow.  Duplicate deletedz
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 08 July 2018, 12:53:35
The cargo capacity for a Marathon is the planet Taurus. Ditto the food supply, the fighter bays, and the ammo load. Heck, even the fuel supply - low orbit requires no fuel to maintain, unlike the station-keeping need at a jump point. At a jump point that station would be a joke, but in low orbit(in a game world where surface-to-orbit travel is cheap and easy) it's a lot scarier than it looks.

The one problem is that capital weapon ranges are still quite short compared to the size of a planet - the longest-ranged weapons can only shoot about a thousand klicks, covering an area of about 3 million km^2 on the surface of a sphere, whereas the surface area of low earth orbit is about 550 million km^2. Even if orbits could be aligned perfectly, you'd need to build close to 200 stations just to cover the whole planet. As such, even with those stations in orbit, they're only really protecting the orbital shipyard complex - the surface is still vulnerable to bombardment. I don't have a good solution to this in canon, except for bombardment being a very rare thing for political reasons.

After all, any drive capable of interplanetary movement in a reasonable period is also capable of producing some supremely terrifying kinetic energy weapons, so any sci-fi setting needs a reason why nobody uses them(or to roll with it, and have planets get smashed on a regular basis). A 5000 ton DropShip accelerating at 1g from Sol's zenith point to Earth without slowing down carries about 1.5x10^20 joules of kinetic energy, or about 36 gigatons. That's about six times the total IRL nuclear arsenal of all nations combined, or about 1/600 of the dinosaur-killer asteroid. An asteroid impact calculator says that it'd blow down wooden buildings at 60+ km distance. And these things are in the hands of tens of thousands of random merchants all over the inner sphere. Who needs nukes?

 There really isn't a good one with the ranges of weapons in verse. I think this is why battlestations aren't really common beyond jump point defense.  You either need a thousand stations to cover a planet or your pissing into the wind trying to cover what you can afford too.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 08 July 2018, 13:00:14
Well, in this case hes covering the yards... and whatever section of the planets surface those stations sweep over, depending on orbital path.

Again, the solution is to to back to Aerotech 1 Weapon Ranges.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 09 July 2018, 01:54:08
Even with Aerotech 1 ranges your still going to need at least 100 battlestations to secure an average m class planet
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 09 July 2018, 01:59:39
Turn 2371-2380

Hey everyone, sorry my turn took a while to get out. This one is going to be another big fat fluff-dump. Also, I totally forgot that the AFFS didn't actually exist before the Davion civil war, and the Princes wont exist for another 50 or so years, so while I won't bother going back and editing my old posts, I'll just start referring to them as correctly as I can manage from here on out.

I hope you guys enjoy my turn.

Ghosts of Highspire

While the government and media spun the battle of Tikonov as a resounding victory for the Federated Suns Navy, the truth was it was a very close affair. Had the Capellans not suffered such a devastating loss before the battle started, it may well have ended up as a repeat of the battle of Highspire. Despite the propaganda, the navy knew this. It had been clear for over a decade that the Capellan fleet outclassed the Suns' in terms of weapon-range, sensors, and fire-control, but, due to the political situation at the time, no effort had been made to rectify this. It was assumed that should the Capellans amass their entire fleet, even the much-vaunted Galahad-class cruisers might not be sufficient to secure victory.

It was then, in the prelude to war with the burgeoning new Confederation, that the Admiralty, fearful of defeat, and, more importantly that the careers of many senior officers would be in jeopardy, chose a relatively young and unknown commander for the peacekeeping fleet. The idea being that if the fleet once again met with disaster, blame could be discreetly pointed away from the Davion family and the New Avalon clique. For this they, chose Captain Michael Hasek, a mostly unknown frigate commander whom the Hasek family had been pressuring the FPF to receive a promotion.

Captain Hasek was however, keenly aware of the real nature of his position. In correspondence to his wife upon receiving his new posting, the newly minted admiral lamented that he was "...being set up by those <expletive deleted> on New Avalon to be the fall guy for their decades of <expletive deleted> and abject incompetence."

However, Admiral Hasek was not about to roll over and accept his fate as the new Admiral Arthur. Upon taking command of the FSS Galahad, he instituted a rigorous new gunnery training program throughout the fleet. In the face of direct orders from command to not engage in live-fire training exorcises, for what they claimed as 'budgetary concerns', Admiral Hasek took advantage of his exceedingly wealthy family on New Syrtis and funded the ordinance expenditures directly from his own pocket. Although no concrete numbers exist, it is estimated that the first month of his command alone cost roughly half a billion pounds.

The program had only lasted a scant four months from Admiral Hasek's assignment, the marshaling of the fleet, and journey to the Tikonov AO, but the results had been staggering. Before he took command, the sailors of the FPF struggled to display basic competency. The fleet which jumped from Sonnia to Tikonov, was quite possibly the most capable space-force in the Inner Sphere.

The battle had been close, but, through Admiral Hasek's careful command, and a good dose of luck the FPF fleet managed to secure an unexpected victory, and ultimately dispel the malaise which had percolated through the Federated Suns Navy ever since that fateful encounter in the Highspire system.

The golden decade

With the victory in Tikonov, a new energy surged through the Navy. Projects which had been unthinkable mere months before the battle were being greenlit, and planners who lamented their inability to effect desperately needed change one night found themselves sitting on top of multi-billion pound budgets the next morning. The Navy had want for nothing, and the newly appointed President Etien Davion was to thank for it.

In the first month of his presidency two new ship programs and a massive new space-fortification plan were announced. The Crucis-class Battleship, the Robinson-class Cruiser and Northumberland and Barghest stations were designed to fill the massive gaps in the FPF's capability. This also came with the promise for substantial new investments in naval infrastructure, training, and funding. However, as the President's mental health began to decline half-way through his first year in office, and he withdrew from most decision making, much of what he had originally promised was discreetly paired back by the High Council over the next few years.

For whatever reason however, funding for new projects, specifically ones which directly benefited the security, and more importantly the profits of both the Universal Shipyards and Boeing Interstellar, were pushed through with no resistance by the Admiralty or High council. But, despite this, the next few years were a high-point for the FPF navy. Morale was high, new ships with proper sensors were coming out of Federated Suns shipyards every year, and strong new defences were being built all across the realm.

Addendum

For his service in the battle of Tikonov, admiral Michael Hasek was awarded a Presidential Citation for Valor.

It is also sad to note that Avalon City Police detective Andrew McMurray, was found dead early in 2371. While the official report concluded that he had committed suicide due to ever increasing online harassment for his handling of the Arthur case, few believe this.

New Units

Northumberland Battlestation

Unfortunately the war with the newly-formed Confederation had not been entirely without loss. The Capellan raids in Muskegon and Carmacks, and more importantly their assault on the Free Worlds League shipyard at Irian had displayed another glaring flaw in Federated Suns strategy. The Federation recharge station proved less effective as hoped at repulsing a dedicated raider, and the Capellans showed exactly how vulnerable an undefended shipyard was to even an wounded enemy.

To hopefully rectify this problem, a plan to produce a series of much heavier armed defensive stations was proposed.

The first station, the Northumberland, was designed to be a veritable space-fortress. Its armament primarily consisted of a staggering array of 120 killer-whale and 60 barracuda class capital missile launchers, which was backed up by a respectable allotment of NL55 lasers. A series of light autocannons and point-defence machine guns as well as a reinforced aerospace regiment rounded out its offensive capabilities.

While the station was not intended to stand toe-to-toe with most contemporary warships, it was designed to make approaching its defensive charge a risky proposition.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Northumberland-station
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $994,940,000.00
Magazine Cost: $29,405,000.00
BV2: 62,341

Mass: 240,000
K-F Drive System: None
Power Plant: Station-Keeping Drive
Safe Thrust: 0
Maximum Thrust: 0
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
56 Naval Laser 55
120 Capital Launcher Killer Whale
60 Capital Launcher Barracuda
40 Machine Gun (IS)
40 AC 5

Class/Model/Name: Northumberland-station
Mass: 240,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 2,880
Thrust
Safe: 0
Maximum: 0
Controls: 240
K-F Hyperdrive: None (0 Integrity) 0
Jump Sail: (0 Integrity) 0
Structural Integrity: 1 2,400
Total Heat Sinks: 8120 Single 8,000
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 9000 points 1,836
Fire Control Computers: 9,981
Armor: 516 pts Standard 860
Fore: 96
Fore-Left/Right: 90/90
Aft-Left/Right: 80/80
Aft: 80

Dropship Capacity: 0 0
Grav Decks:
Small: 2 100
Medium: 0
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 82 574
Life Boats: 0

Crew And Passengers:
59 Officers in 2nd Class Quarters 413
34 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 238
257 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 1,799
204 Bay Personnel 0
1st Class Passengers 0
2nd Class Passengers 0
Steerage Passengers 0

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
20 Naval Laser 55 Nose 1700 1100 (110-C) Extreme-C 22,000
20 Capital Launcher Killer Whale Nose 400 800 (80-C) Extreme-C 3,000
15 Capital Launcher Barracuda Nose 150 300 (30-C) Extreme-C 1,350
8 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
10 Naval Laser 55 FR 850 550 (55-C) Extreme-C 11,000
25 Capital Launcher Killer Whale FR 500 1000 (100-C) Extreme-C 3,750
10 Capital Launcher Barracuda FR 100 200 (20-C) Extreme-C 900
8 AC 5 FR 8 40 (4-C) Medium 64
8 Machine Gun (IS) FR 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
10 Naval Laser 55 FL 850 550 (55-C) Extreme-C 11,000
25 Capital Launcher Killer Whale FL 500 1000 (100-C) Extreme-C 3,750
10 Capital Launcher Barracuda FL 100 200 (20-C) Extreme-C 900
8 AC 5 FL 8 40 (4-C) Medium 64
8 Machine Gun (IS) FL 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
8 Naval Laser 55 AR 680 440 (44-C) Extreme-C 8,800
20 Capital Launcher Killer Whale AR 400 800 (80-C) Extreme-C 3,000
10 Capital Launcher Barracuda AR 100 200 (20-C) Extreme-C 900
8 AC 5 AR 8 40 (4-C) Medium 64
8 Machine Gun (IS) AR 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
8 Naval Laser 55 AL 680 440 (44-C) Extreme-C 8,800
20 Capital Launcher Killer Whale AL 400 800 (80-C) Extreme-C 3,000
10 Capital Launcher Barracuda AL 100 200 (20-C) Extreme-C 900
8 AC 5 AL 8 40 (4-C) Medium 64
8 Machine Gun (IS) AL 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
10 Capital Launcher Killer Whale Aft 200 400 (40-C) Extreme-C 1,500
5 Capital Launcher Barracuda Aft 50 100 (10-C) Extreme-C 450
8 AC 5 Aft 8 40 (4-C) Medium 64
8 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4

Ammo Rounds Mass
Capital Launcher Killer Whale Ammo 1200 60,000.00
Capital Launcher Barracuda Ammo 600 18,000.00
AC 5 Ammo 2600 130.00
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 4000 20.00

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
NCSS Small 100 2
72 Bay Fighter 10,800 8
12 Bay Small Craft 2,400 2
33,800 Cargo, Standard 33,800


Barghest Defence Station

While diminutive, and more importantly inexpensive, the 20kt station was still armed with an impressive array of weapons for its size. Intended to be deployed in swarms, slaved to the much more accurate fire control systems on the Northumberland, The Barghest would create a much larger defensive zone than the Northumberland was capable alone.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Barghest-station
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $72,705,000.00
Magazine Cost: $1,424,000.00
BV2: 7,084

Mass: 20,000
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 Laser 55
10 Capital Launcher White Shark

Class/Model/Name: Barghest-station
Mass: 20,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 240
Thrust
Safe:
Maximum: 0
Controls: 20
K-F Hyperdrive: None (0 Integrity) 0
Jump Sail: (0 Integrity) 0
Structural Integrity: 1 200
Total Heat Sinks: 660 Single 594
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 10000 points 1,020
Fire Control Computers: 0
Armor: 101 pts Standard 126
Fore: 25
Fore-Left/Right: 20/20
Aft-Left/Right: 13/13
Aft: 10

Dropship Capacity: 0
Grav Decks:
Small: 0
Medium: 0
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 11 77
Life Boats: 0

Crew And Passengers:
13 Officers in 2nd Class Quarters 91
36 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 252
24 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 168
0 Bay Personnel 0
1st Class Passengers 0
2nd Class Passengers 0
Steerage Passengers 0

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
8 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
6 Naval Laser 55 Nose 510 330 (33-C) Extreme-C 6,600
8 Machine Gun (IS) FR 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
5 Capital Launcher White Shark FR 75 150 (15-C) Extreme-C 600
8 Machine Gun (IS) FL 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
5 Capital Launcher White Shark FL 75 150 (15-C) Extreme-C 600
8 Machine Gun (IS) AR 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
8 Machine Gun (IS) AL 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
8 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4

Ammo Rounds Mass
Capital Launcher White Shark Ammo 100 4,000.00
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 4800 24.00

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
5,363 Cargo, Standard 5,363 2


Robinson-class Light Cruiser

The first of the post-Tikonov designs the Robinson-class Cruiser was the solution to two of the FPF Navy's most troubling issues. First and foremost, the Robinson was equipped with a state of the art naval comm-scanner suite, allowing it to see accurately up to three times further than either the Albion or Galahad-class. Secondly, its primarily missile-based armament greatly extended the range at which the fleet could engage. Ideally working alongside the FPF Navy's other fast warships, the Robinson could batter or even cripple a hostile ship before the squadron closed in for the kill with their much heavier, but shorter-ranged autocannons.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Robinson-class Light Cruiser
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $7,966,182,000.00
Magazine Cost: $19,786,000.00
BV2: 73,816

Mass: 500,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 4
Maximum Thrust: 6
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
9 Naval AC 20
38 Capital Launcher White Shark
47 Machine Gun (IS)
39 Capital Launcher Barracuda
27 AC 5

Class/Model/Name: Robinson-class Light Cruiser
Mass: 500,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 120,000
Thrust
Safe: 4
Maximum: 6
Controls: 1,250
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (12 Integrity) 226,250
Jump Sail: (4 Integrity) 55
Structural Integrity: 120 60,000
Total Heat Sinks: 1334 Single 800
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 10000 points 4,080
Fire Control Computers: 0
Armor: 552 pts Standard 1,200
Fore: 120
Fore-Left/Right: 100/100
Aft-Left/Right: 80/80
Aft: 72

Dropship Capacity: 2 2,000
Grav Decks:
Small: 0
Medium: 1 100
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 46 322
Life Boats: 0

Crew And Passengers:
44 Officers in 2nd Class Quarters 308
101 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 707
111 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 777
39 Bay Personnel 0
5 1st Class Passengers 50
20 2nd Class Passengers 140
Steerage Passengers 0

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
9 Naval AC 20 Nose 540 1800 (180-C) Long-C 22,500
8 Capital Launcher White Shark Nose 120 240 (24-C) Extreme-C 960
3 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 6 (0.6-C) Short-PDS 2
4 Capital Launcher White Shark FL 60 120 (12-C) Extreme-C 480
6 Capital Launcher Barracuda FL 60 120 (12-C) Extreme-C 540
4 AC 5 FL 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
6 Machine Gun (IS) FL 12 (1.2-C) Short-PDS 3
4 Capital Launcher White Shark FR 60 120 (12-C) Extreme-C 480
6 Capital Launcher Barracuda FR 60 120 (12-C) Extreme-C 540
4 AC 5 FR 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
6 Machine Gun (IS) FR 12 (1.2-C) Short-PDS 3
4 Capital Launcher White Shark RBS 60 120 (12-C) Extreme-C 480
6 Capital Launcher Barracuda RBS 60 120 (12-C) Extreme-C 540
4 AC 5 RBS 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
6 Machine Gun (IS) RBS 12 (1.2-C) Short-PDS 3
4 Capital Launcher White Shark LBS 60 120 (12-C) Extreme-C 480
6 Capital Launcher Barracuda LBS 60 120 (12-C) Extreme-C 540
4 AC 5 LBS 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
6 Machine Gun (IS) LBS 12 (1.2-C) Short-PDS 3
4 Capital Launcher White Shark AR 60 120 (12-C) Extreme-C 480
6 Capital Launcher Barracuda AR 60 120 (12-C) Extreme-C 540
4 AC 5 AR 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
6 Machine Gun (IS) AR 12 (1.2-C) Short-PDS 3
4 Capital Launcher White Shark AL 60 120 (12-C) Extreme-C 480
6 Capital Launcher Barracuda AL 60 120 (12-C) Extreme-C 540
4 AC 5 AL 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
6 Machine Gun (IS) AL 12 (1.2-C) Short-PDS 3
6 Capital Launcher White Shark Aft 90 180 (18-C) Extreme-C 720
3 Capital Launcher Barracuda Aft 30 60 (6-C) Extreme-C 270
3 AC 5 Aft 3 15 (1.5-C) Medium 24
8 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4

Ammo Rounds Mass
Capital Launcher White Shark Ammo 380 15,200.00
Capital Launcher Barracuda Ammo 720 21,600.00
Naval AC 20 Ammo 340 136.00
AC 5 Ammo 2160 108.00
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 12000 60.00

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
NCSS Large 500 2
12 Bay Fighter 1,800 8
3 Bay Small Craft 600 2
11,000 Cargo, Standard 11,000

Crucis-class Battleship

This is the strength of our alliance made manifest. This is our guarantee to our children and our grandchildren, that when they look up at the night sky, they will know those stars hold no fear.

- President Etien Davion 2371

In the face of an increasingly dangerous Inner Sphere, and neighbors building more, and larger warships, as well as lessons learned in the battle of Tikonov, it was decided that the Navy's Galahad-class cruisers were no longer sufficient to form the backbone of FPF fleets. To fill this new role, the Bureau of Ships proposed the Crucis, a 1000kt battleship with over 20% more protection and firepower than the Galahad.

Much like previous Federated Suns designs the Crucis' armament also comes primarily from a sizable array of naval auttocannons. 31 class 20 and 16 class 35 cannons provide the Crucis with a weight of fire which few, if any, other warships can weather. While 3000 tonnes of armour provide it with unparalleled protection. To supplement its close-rage firepower 10 Killer Whale tubes allow the ship a moderate standoff capacity, while 24 Barracuda launchers and a reinforced aerospace squadron allow the Crucis to defend against a considerable amount of smaller craft and dropships.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Crucis-class Battleship
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $11,663,262,000.00
Magazine Cost: $105,667,000.00
BV2: 136,842

Mass: 1,000,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 3
Maximum Thrust: 5
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
31 Naval AC 20
10 Capital Launcher Killer Whale
43 Machine Gun (IS)
24 Capital Launcher Barracuda
29 AC 5
16 Naval AC 35

Class/Model/Name: Crucis-class Battleship
Mass: 1,000,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 180,000
Thrust
Safe: 3
Maximum: 5
Controls: 2,500
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (21 Integrity) 452,500
Jump Sail: (5 Integrity) 80
Structural Integrity: 150 150,000
Total Heat Sinks: 3645 Single 3,000
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 10000 points 4,080
Fire Control Computers: 0
Armor: 1290 pts Standard 3,000
Fore: 250
Fore-Left/Right: 230/230
Aft-Left/Right: 200/200
Aft: 180

Dropship Capacity: 3 3,000
Grav Decks:
Small: 0
Medium: 2 200
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 60 420
Life Boats: 0

Crew And Passengers:
59 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 590
186 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 1,302
105 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 735
132 Bay Personnel 0
10 1st Class Passengers 100
25 2nd Class Passengers 175
Steerage Passengers 0

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
12 Naval AC 20 Nose 720 2400 (240-C) Long-C 30,000
4 Capital Launcher Killer Whale Nose 80 160 (16-C) Extreme-C 600
4 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 8 (0.8-C) Short-PDS 2
4 Naval AC 20 FR 240 800 (80-C) Long-C 10,000
4 Capital Launcher Barracuda FR 40 80 (8-C) Extreme-C 360
6 AC 5 FR 6 30 (3-C) Medium 48
6 Machine Gun (IS) FR 12 (1.2-C) Short-PDS 3
4 Naval AC 20 FL 240 800 (80-C) Long-C 10,000
4 Capital Launcher Barracuda FL 40 80 (8-C) Extreme-C 360
6 AC 5 FL 6 30 (3-C) Medium 48
6 Machine Gun (IS) FL 12 (1.2-C) Short-PDS 3
8 Naval AC 35 RBS 960 2800 (280-C) Medium-C 32,000
4 Capital Launcher Barracuda RBS 40 80 (8-C) Extreme-C 360
5 Machine Gun (IS) RBS 10 (1-C) Short-PDS 3
8 Naval AC 35 LBS 960 2800 (280-C) Medium-C 32,000
4 Capital Launcher Barracuda LBS 40 80 (8-C) Extreme-C 360
5 Machine Gun (IS) LBS 10 (1-C) Short-PDS 3
4 Naval AC 20 AR 240 800 (80-C) Long-C 10,000
4 Capital Launcher Barracuda AR 40 80 (8-C) Extreme-C 360
6 AC 5 AR 6 30 (3-C) Medium 48
6 Machine Gun (IS) AR 12 (1.2-C) Short-PDS 3
4 Naval AC 20 AL 240 800 (80-C) Long-C 10,000
4 Capital Launcher Barracuda AL 40 80 (8-C) Extreme-C 360
6 AC 5 AL 6 30 (3-C) Medium 48
6 Machine Gun (IS) AL 12 (1.2-C) Short-PDS 3
3 Naval AC 20 Aft 180 600 (60-C) Long-C 7,500
6 Capital Launcher Killer Whale Aft 120 240 (24-C) Extreme-C 900
5 AC 5 Aft 5 25 (2.5-C) Medium 40
5 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 10 (1-C) Short-PDS 3

Ammo Rounds Mass
Capital Launcher Barracuda Ammo 480 14,400.00
Capital Launcher Killer Whale Ammo 240 12,000.00
Naval AC 35 Ammo 800 800.00
Naval AC 20 Ammo 520 208.00
AC 5 Ammo 2320 116.00
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 5000 25.00

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
1 NCSS Large 500 2
36 Bay Fighter 5,400 8
12 Bay Small Craft 2,400 2
17,000 Cargo, Standard 17,000


Turn

Administration
Budget - 105
Upkeep - 10.1

R&D
Northumberland Station - 0.994
Barghest Station - 0.072
Robinson-class - 7.996
Crucis-class - 11.661

Construction

Ships
2x Crucis - 23.323
2x Robinson - 15.932
2x Albion - 14.177

Stations
4x Northumberland-station - 3.979
20x Barghest-station - 1.454
10x Federated-Recharge Station - 2.873

Misc
10x Lt Dropship - 3
50x Sm Craft - 0.5
1300x Fighter - 6.5

Research & Other
Research - 464 - 0.464
Fleet repairs - 2
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 09 July 2018, 20:16:54
If I'm not mistaken, we have turns submitted from every player except Truetanker at this point. I can write most of the combats now, though of course I'll finish the NPCs first. It'll be a couple days at minimum before I can finish the turn, but TT, if you can manage to have your turn in by Wednesday or so, it'd be appreciated.

---

The Terran Hegemony is, like most over-sized space monsters, not known for its quick reflexes. Terran news agencies covered the battles in outlying regions, of course, and Terran naval observers gleaned what information they could from them. But the Hegemony's naval budget is determined in the halls of power on Terra, and Terrans are not, as a rule, seriously worried about the military technology being used by the semi-barbarian outlying kingdoms. However, the recent up-tick in galactic violence has led to a few notable changes in Terran doctrine.

Director-General Margaret Cameron had expressed public concern at the realm's military preparedness since her ascension in 2367, passing a major expansion of the Terran military reserve within less than three months of her father's resignation. However, the rapid adoption of the new Terran fighter armour by outlying nations led to concern that Terran research was serving primarily to arm the enemies of the realm. In 2372, she created the "Official List of Sensitive and Secret Technologies", which rapidly became known as the "Mother Doctrine". Reaction from industrial concerns was generally unhappy, as they lost major potential markets for export hardware, but after one major firm who tried to bypass the so-called "Cameron Blacklist" was disbanded and its directors imprisoned for treason, the rest rapidly fell into line. (OOC note: This does not affect the in-game rate of technological spread.)

The rule of Margaret Cameron also led to a major codification of Hegemony naval doctrine. Whereas previously its fleet had been sufficient to overawe any potential competitors with no major difficulties, the total combat power of the outlying realms was increasing at a surprisingly fast rate, and a consolidation of doctrines was in order. As a result, the following deployment patterns will be used by the Hegemony:

1) Light ships massing less than 250,000 tons cannot stand in the wall of battle against serious opponents, so instead they should be equipped to act as the eyes of the fleet. The 36 Vigilant-class frigates will be used as picket ships, anti-piracy units, or fast couriers, while the 36 Bonaventure-class scout ships and their advanced sensor systems will be used in combination with heavier fleet units as dedicated scouts.

2) Slow ships, which cannot maintain a sustained acceleration in excess of 1g, will be used as the "hammer" of the fleet. These are not intended for open-space battles of maneuver, they are instead designed to advance on enemy strongholds and reduce them to rubble, or alternately to act as strong bulwarks that can be used for system defence or a portable "safe harbour" for faster units. The 12 Monsoons, 34 Quixotes, 14 Darts, and the 6 new Aegises will be consolidated into three fleets, operating out of Terra, Terra Firma, and Thorin, each of which is intended to be able to destroy the entire combined navy of any other nation.

3) Faster ships which can maintain sustained acceleration of above 1g are designed to destroy enemy units in deep space. The 7 Dreadnoughts, 22 Black Lions, and 16 Essexes will primarily operate with each other as "hunter" fleets to track down targets on the move, particularly when engaged in combat with enemy navies whose sustained acceleration does not exceed their own 1.5g. The 28 Cruisers and 20 Lolas can accelerate at a full 2g for long periods, but they lack the weaponry and facilities for sustained expeditions on their own, so they will generally be used as a fast wing in the context of a larger and better-equipped fleet.

4) Terran WarShips lack for the advanced anti-fighter defenses of other navies, preferring instead to keep fighters at long distances through use of layered defenses from supporting fighters and DropShips. Supporting craft will contain the bulk of the fleet's light weaponry, both anti-fighter and anti-missile, though occasional designs like the Black Lion will carry significant anti-fighter defenses. Use of carrier-fit DropShips is common, with somewhat over half the DropShips in the fleet being fit as carrier models. Heavy weapons are never used by Terran DropShips, as the guns of the fleet are intended to fill that role instead, and cargo DropShips are used in relatively small quantities, primarily to ferry cargo from the fleet's cavernous holds to surface forces or other ships as needed.

BUDGET: $760B
Maintenance (@100%): $142.165B

Shipyard upgrades(Keid 33, Thorin 21, Terra Firma 21): $60B

Aegis R&D: $10.688B

4x Black Lion: $28.172B
12x Bonaventure: $60.432B
6x Cruiser: $45.138B
4x Lola: $26.528B
4x Vigilant: $16.188B
12x Quixote: $141.192B
4x Essex: $23.932B
6x Monsoon: $87.336B
6x Aegis: $64.128B

130x DropShip: $39B
160x small craft: $1.6B
1080x fighter: $5.4B

Research: $8.101B
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 09 July 2018, 21:10:19
Well, youve done the Terrans.  Hard parts over.  :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 09 July 2018, 21:37:23
Well now... I got accused of not having enough jump capable ships to mount an invasion. Let's see if I can modify this so it doesn't happen again, shall we?

Ending Turn 2 Budget: $7 Billion and 729 Million
Gains :  $12B, due to conquest and loot, Lothian League

Starting Turn 3 Budget: 19 Billion and 729 Million

Now to our story arc:

Marian Action News Network ( MANN )
Nova Roma, Alphard
Palace of Imperator Pi

A camera passes over the assembled crowd in the Palace's Court, mostly focusing on the Imperator, but currently following a court messenger walking purposely toward the raised sovereignty seat. Imperator Pi, reaching out, begins to read the notepad, narrowing his expressions and with a great shout, he throws it down in anger. Silence was instance as the Centurion Guards snapped to attention weapons at ready. In anger, the Lord of the Hegemony storms out of the chambers while pandemonium ensues.

What follows was a very swift execution of commands from the Imperator, first he mandated the stripping of the Legiones Marianes General of his rank and name, regulating him to the permanent rank of Miles, then threw him into the Cohors Morituri, a new penal cohort. When asked, he'll just say " Oderint dum metuant. or Let them hate so long as they fear. " He then mandated a new variant of what others were calling " Warquillas " or navalized Aquilla.

The Impetum Onerariam was born, meaning Assault Transport in ancient Latin, the main language of the Hegemony. She was built on the same frame as the Scapha and her sisters. The first one was called Vi Unitatis Thru or Strength thru unity. Massing the same weight as her sister ships, she was built with two drop collars and carried more Legiones Marianes than before. She lost her naval bite, but gained more cargospace and heavier supplies than before. Time will tell if she was built correctly or not.

Code: [Select]
Scapha II (Militarized Aquila Transport) has been retcon'd
Given that she also carries a Grav Deck, for the comfort of the local Prefect and their staff. Able to load and transport a full Legio or Legion, the Scapha II took on board enough stores to either commence an invasion and support it, or as a disaster relief ship. Given that the Lothian League was just invaded and the fact a Legiones Marianes General was responsible for the devastation of Lothario, the Imperator has sent the Vi Unitatis Thru on a mercy mission along with a single Jumpship to act as a waystation and goodwill ship.

A Scapha I was recently built to help patrol the Lothian League against any incursions from the mighty Free World League. Named Pride of Lothario, to attempt at appeasing the recently invaded. With a full Century of Lorthian Auxilia, a conscripted unit of Miles and Miles Probatus, lead by a Lothario-born Centurion . The unit is attached to the Ship in a goodwill faith, in hopes that their performance will encourage others to join the Hegemony.


Ending Budget Turn 3:
Prototype: Scapha II   : 4.593 B
Kit : 50 Aerofighters   : 300 M
Kit : 40 Small Craft     : 400 M
Kit : 3 Dropship, Light : 900 M
Buy : Jumpship           : 500 M
Build : Scapha I, ( Pride of Lothario) : 2.066 B

Total cost : 6 Billion and 493 Million
Donations : 2 Billion for Lease of Trojans ( DCA )
Donations : 500 Million for Periphery Aid Package, helping the homeless in the Lothian League.
Recruitment Drive : 100 Million

End Budget turn 3: 12 Billion and 870 Million

TT

Forgot to subtract 500 M for maintenance fees.
Forgot again, thanks Smegish.
* RECIEVED Donations: 5 Billion for Periphery Aid Package, helping unemployment rates in the Marian Hegemony.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 10 July 2018, 21:46:39
Thanks for the update. What's the $5B "Periphery aid package"?

---

The Rim Worlds Republic had hoped to avoid the wars of the inner worlds and focus on their own economic development, but the galaxy was getting too dangerous for that. In particular, the growing fighter arms race was finding its greatest expression in the Lyran Commonwealth Navy. The Lyrans were disorganized, but they were also wealthy and expanding, and their navy seemed to be as competent as any navy that had never seen battle could plausibly be. So, with reluctance, Apollo decided to shelve their plans for an expanded Renaissance system, and focus on the construction of a true navy instead.

As the RWR only borders one major nation, their design is designed more than any other role to fight the fleet of that nation. The Lyran fleet is somewhat slow and extremely fighter-heavy, so a ship that can stay at long range and deal with giant swarms of fighters was the natural choice for a defensive unit. Large numbers of point defence weapons were installed, and the capital-scale weapons were chosen for their ability to attack small targets like fighters as well as capital ships. Instead of contesting an enemy's fighters with its own, the ship simply assumes that its fighters will be lost, and decides not to equip any. A token force of two shuttles is retained for crew and cargo movements, and cargo storage is stripped to low levels as well. The resulting Vittoria-class destroyer is somewhat under-gunned for its size, and not well-suited to the possibility of fighting any nation but the Lyrans. However, it is believed that it can be slotted into an escort role once the fleet expands, and for the time being it provides the best chance of fighting a Lyran detachment with some hope of success.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Vittoria
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $6,287,100,004.00
Magazine Cost: $4,900,000.00
BV2: 57,218

Mass: 480,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 4
Maximum Thrust: 6
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
40 Capital Launcher Barracuda
40 Naval Laser 55
160 Machine Gun (IS)
80 AC 5

Class/Model/Name: Vittoria
Mass: 480,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 115,200
Thrust
Safe: 4
Maximum: 6
Controls: 1,200
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (11 Integrity) 217,200
Jump Sail: (4 Integrity) 54
Structural Integrity: 120 57,600
Total Heat Sinks: 2180 Single 1,655
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 7500 points 3,060
Fire Control Computers: 9,664
Armor: 533 pts Standard 1,152
Fore: 100
Fore-Left/Right: 80/80
Aft-Left/Right: 80/80
Aft: 113

Dropship Capacity: 0 0
Grav Decks:
Small: 2 100
Medium: 0
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 24 168
Life Boats: 24 168

Crew And Passengers:
46 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 460
95 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 665
132 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 924
10 Bay Personnel in 2nd Class Quarters 70

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
10 Capital Launcher Barracuda FR 100 200 (20-C) Extreme-C 900
10 Capital Launcher Barracuda FL 100 200 (20-C) Extreme-C 900
10 Capital Launcher Barracuda AR 100 200 (20-C) Extreme-C 900
10 Capital Launcher Barracuda AL 100 200 (20-C) Extreme-C 900
10 Naval Laser 55 Nose 850 550 (55-C) Extreme-C 11,000
10 Naval Laser 55 RBS 850 550 (55-C) Extreme-C 11,000
10 Naval Laser 55 LBS 850 550 (55-C) Extreme-C 11,000
10 Naval Laser 55 Aft 850 550 (55-C) Extreme-C 11,000
20 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
20 Machine Gun (IS) RBS 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
20 Machine Gun (IS) LBS 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
20 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
20 Machine Gun (IS) FR 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
20 Machine Gun (IS) FL 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
20 Machine Gun (IS) AR 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
20 Machine Gun (IS) AL 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
10 AC 5 Nose 10 50 (5-C) Medium 80
10 AC 5 RBS 10 50 (5-C) Medium 80
10 AC 5 LBS 10 50 (5-C) Medium 80
10 AC 5 Aft 10 50 (5-C) Medium 80
10 AC 5 FR 10 50 (5-C) Medium 80
10 AC 5 FL 10 50 (5-C) Medium 80
10 AC 5 AR 10 50 (5-C) Medium 80
10 AC 5 AL 10 50 (5-C) Medium 80

Ammo Rounds Mass
Capital Launcher Barracuda Ammo 400 12,000.00
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 16000 80.00
AC 5 Ammo 7200 360.00

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
9,000 Cargo, Standard 9,000 2
2 Bay Small Craft 400 2
NCSS Large 500

BUDGET: $23B
Maintenance(@100%): $3.623B
Vittoria R&D: $6.287B
2x Vittoria: $12.574B
4x small craft: $40m
Research: $476m

---


That should be all nations. I'll get to work on combat next.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 11 July 2018, 01:08:03
The resulting Vittoria-class destroyer is somewhat under-gunned for its size,

Is it though? The only ship in its weight-class it doesn't stand a pretty decent chance against is the Minekaze. It outguns the Qinru Zhe and Albion, which are the only two ships that could realistically bring it to a fight it didn't want. The Robinson is almost a mirror-match, and the Fubuki isn't armoured enough to be assured a win at extreme range, and not fast enough to force a close range fight.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 11 July 2018, 02:00:06
It lacks big hole punching guns, but we don't have enough armour to need big hole punching guns so that doesn't really matter. Kinda depends on how those lasers are set up bay-wise.

The $5 Billion 'Aid Package' was intended to help him build a 2nd yard in Alphard so he could build his own ships without having to make use of mine. What he actually does with it I care not, but he owes me another $5 Bil over the next 5 turns
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 11 July 2018, 05:43:43
Is it though? The only ship in its weight-class it doesn't stand a pretty decent chance against is the Minekaze. It outguns the Qinru Zhe and Albion, which are the only two ships that could realistically bring it to a fight it didn't want. The Robinson is almost a mirror-match, and the Fubuki isn't armoured enough to be assured a win at extreme range, and not fast enough to force a close range fight.

Let's compare size-2 ships, sorted by speed:

3/5:
Fubuki (DC): 629 throw weight, 317 armour, 2/12/36 small craft
Minekaze (DC): 730 throw weight, 506 armour, 0/12/36 small craft
Wife's Wrath (CC): 586 throw weight, 604 armour, 0/12/64 small craft

4/6:
Cruiser (TH): 546 throw weight, 348 armor, 2/6/0 small craft
Quzhujian (CC): 424 throw weight, 552 armor, 0/6/48 small craft
Vittoria (RWR): 300 throw weight, 533 armor, 0/2/0 small craft
Robinson (FS): 372 throw weight, 552 armor, 2/3/12 small craft

5/8:
Albion (FS): 200 throw weight, 570 armor, 2/0/6 small craft
Qinru Zhe (CC): 208 throw weight, 356 armour, 2/2/0 small craft

It has a range advantage over most prospective opponents, and it's fast enough to avoid overhaul by any ship that out-guns it. But damage potential is extremely low for its size and speed, and it has by far the worst fleet of parasite craft. I'm not saying it's a bad design, but it is one with a low DPS by most plausible standards.

It lacks big hole punching guns, but we don't have enough armour to need big hole punching guns so that doesn't really matter. Kinda depends on how those lasers are set up bay-wise.

The $5 Billion 'Aid Package' was intended to help him build a 2nd yard in Alphard so he could build his own ships without having to make use of mine. What he actually does with it I care not, but he owes me another $5 Bil over the next 5 turns

Hole-punching is less relevant when there's only 3 facings you can possibly hit at any given time. Using AC/20s against tanks is similarly less useful. As for bays, I was thinking they're doubles - a double NL/55 is a solid anti-fighter mount (especially in the pre-bracketing era), and they're more concerned with fighters than capital ships. After all, when is the RWR ever going to need to take on the navy of the Terran Hegemony?

As for the loan, fair enough - I thought that was last turn, but I guess I got mixed up.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 11 July 2018, 06:13:01
I believe by ‘hole punching’ he refers here to the thresholding rules/bay sizes vs armor thickness/etc.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 11 July 2018, 06:39:51
I was referring to thresholding rules, or just straight out punching clean through a ships armour.

I also hadn't really looked at exactly how much damage my two DD's pump out compared to ships of similar size... seems I went in a Clan ASF direction... shedloads of guns but a bit light on armour
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 11 July 2018, 06:46:28
Well, the second of your two DDs is pretty well armored.  I find it amusing that she and Wrath are within a hair of each other.

The other thing to remember is that in this style, range doesnt show.  Rememeber that NACs are going go have about twice the throw weight per ton of the other naval weapons - so NAC heavy designs are going to look madly overgunned.

That RWR vessel may have a relatively light broadside - but not only does it reach farther, its going to put out far more damage than the same mass of NACs until the NACs get into medium range, due to acciracy advantages.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 11 July 2018, 07:11:38
The scary thing is, at this tech level a double NL/55 is actually capable of thresholding a lot of ships. 110 armor on a facing is a heck of a lot, especially in that weight class. That will change once new armor techs come out, of course.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 11 July 2018, 08:43:55
The scary thing is, at this tech level a double NL/55 is actually capable of thresholding a lot of ships. 110 armor on a facing is a heck of a lot, especially in that weight class. That will change once new armor techs come out, of course.

Upgrades in armor tech, and the resultant increases in armor, are going to have a lot of knock-on effects. 

I think, and this goes against my initial mental analysis, it would be good for longer range ships.  The NAC 30/40 force take less damage closing the range, but is also less likely to ‘seal the deal’ in the first close range pass - and if it doesnt, it has to spend more time out at long range turning back around and closing the range again.

Harder for missiles/fighter delivered missiles to get hard kills - but longer lifespans in combat means the massive critical chances inherit in a large missile volley become more important.  Probably a wash?

Still thinking back and forth on if, and if, how, that influences my armament mix choice.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 11 July 2018, 09:45:42
What's the $5B "Periphery aid package"?

Call it a late year donation to help my realm out in a closed-ended unsecured seeded loan.*

In other words, I'm collecting financial aid for another Class I yard, if I have the credits to make my current one a Class II, I'll do that instead. But that all depends if I get those Lothians in line or not. I hope to get my realm expanded before the inevitable happens.

* Eyeing towards the every expanding purple blob. Don't eat ME you purple bird you! Shakes pugilistic fist at it. *

TT



* Closed-ended loans are one-time loans that cannot be borrowed again once they’ve been repaid, while an opened-ended one would allow unlimited usage, as long as it's paid on time.

Unsecured loans don’t require an asset for collateral and rely solely on your credit history and your income to qualify you for the loan. *


Errata: I need to state that all the Scapha I's  carries on board a 112 Trooper capacity. Meaning that a Decem of Contubernii, or 10 Squads of 10 Troopers are there for support on the ground. Another Contubernium, or Squad of 10 is a Medical unit. And while the last 2 " Troopers " can be anything, I leave them as Ground Surgeons, or Medici Terram. Unlike a ships doctor, these are actual surgeons on the ground.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 11 July 2018, 10:25:11
Let's compare size-2 ships, sorted by speed:

3/5:
Fubuki (DC): 629 throw weight, 317 armour, 2/12/36 small craft
Minekaze (DC): 730 throw weight, 506 armour, 0/12/36 small craft
Wife's Wrath (CC): 586 throw weight, 604 armour, 0/12/64 small craft

4/6:
Cruiser (TH): 546 throw weight, 348 armor, 2/6/0 small craft
Quzhujian (CC): 424 throw weight, 552 armor, 0/6/48 small craft
Vittoria (RWR): 300 throw weight, 533 armor, 0/2/0 small craft
Robinson (FS): 372 throw weight, 552 armor, 2/3/12 small craft

5/8:
Albion (FS): 200 throw weight, 570 armor, 2/0/6 small craft
Qinru Zhe (CC): 208 throw weight, 356 armour, 2/2/0 small craft

That got me thinking, just to see on a chart:

Class I Ships Sorted by Speed:

2/3
Independence (Taurian) 73 Throw Weight, 218 Armor
Beer:  0 Throw Weight, 122 Armor, Transport
Scapha:  40 Throw Weight, 132 Armor, Armed Transport
Scapha II:  0 Throw Weight, 110 Armor, Transport

3/5
Trojan (DC/MH)  96 Throw Weight, 48 Armor, 0/12/12 Q-Ship
Heimdaller (LC) 300 Throw Weight*, 208 Armor, 0/18/20 (*limited ammo)

4/6
Kutai(DC) 124 Throw Weight, 120 Armor, 2/12/36
Heimdaller-II (LC) 80 Throw Weight, 174 Armor 0/20/80

6/9
Phalanx(FWL)  48 Throw Weight, 70 Armor, 0/6/18

Class 2 Ships Sorted by Speed

3/5:
Fubuki (DC): 629 throw weight, 317 armour, 2/12/36 small craft
Minekaze (DC): 730 throw weight, 506 armour, 0/12/36 small craft
Wife's Wrath (CC): 586 throw weight, 604 armour, 0/12/64 small craft

4/6:
Cruiser (TH): 546 throw weight, 348 armor, 2/6/0 small craft
Quzhujian (CC): 424 throw weight, 552 armor, 0/6/48 small craft
Vittoria (RWR): 300 throw weight, 533 armor, 0/2/0 small craft
Robinson (FS): 372 throw weight, 552 armor, 2/3/12 small craft

5/8:
Albion (FS): 200 throw weight, 570 armor, 2/0/6 small craft
Qinru Zhe (CC): 208 throw weight, 356 armour, 2/2/0 small craft

Class 3 Ships Sorted by Speed

2/3
Tyr (LC) 1336 Throw Weight, 590 Armor, 0/6/20
Walkure (LC) 160 Throw Weight, 528 Armor, 0/24/720

3/5
Heracles (FWL) 680 Throw Weight, 594 Armor, 2/12/72
Atago (DC)  858 Throw Weight, 840 Armor, 2/12/72

Class 4 Ships Sorted by Speed

3/5
Crucis (FS) 1268 Damage, 1290 Armor

4/6
Galahad (FS) 988 Damage, 1092 Armor 3/3/12

Thoughts:
1:  Speed is expensive.  Look at Crucis v. Galahad
2:  Cargo is expensive.   Heracles has vast range, but it doesnt show here.  Other designs look really good, because of mass recovered for armor and guns by leaving out cargo.
3:  The combination of the two gets VERY expensive.  If you give Galahad a Heracles mass-fraction in cargo, shes going to lose (guesstimate) about half her guns and armor - leaving her at about a Heracles combat power, and having grown 250Kt to add one point of thrust.
4:  Range and Ammo are expensive.  Heimdaller only punches so hard because she runs out of missiles quickly.  Atago has more mass in weapons than Galahad (I believe) - but they are longer range weapons, which 'look bad' in this comparison - for all the same reasons that an HBK-P looks like it has more firepower than a 3025 AWS-Q.
5.)  Size Matters.  Crucis nearly matches Tyr's firepower, and doubles her defense, while being 1 thrust faster.  Some of this is the long/short range thing, above, and some is cargo differences, but a lot is that extra 125KT tons left over after the KF Drive is paid for.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 11 July 2018, 11:48:19
Cargo is expensive for sure. For comparison, the TH Monsoon, which is class 6(!), moves 2/3, has a throw weight of 471, 997 armour, and 6/8/18 small craft. That's weaker overall than an Atago, which is half its size, faster, and carries useful point defence. Basically all of that extra mass and reduced speed/firepower is invested in raising its cargo from the Atago's 20,000 tons to almost 300,000 tons.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 11 July 2018, 11:53:17
1:  Speed is expensive

If we were playing TT matches, the Atago could beat every hegemony ship in to dust (which tbh is not much to brag about), and stands a good chance of coming out the winner against every one of our ships except one, which is 250kt heavier than it.

But, since we are doing more narrative-driven battles, speed can actually factor in more realistically. Speed should, in theory, give you control of the engagement. It does come at a cost, the Galahad, is heavier and more expensive than the Atago, but roughly similar in combat power at the same range. It can however, decide to peace out if things aren't looking good for it, and in a theoretical engagement between a Galahad and two Robinsons against 2 Atagos and a fubuki, things probably aren't going to be looking too great for the Dracs unless the dice-gods show them some love.

So far fights like that haven't really happened though. The two main speed-fleets have really only fought each other, and unless things start going very apocryphal, it will remain that way for a while.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 11 July 2018, 11:59:08
Cargo is expensive for sure. For comparison, the TH Monsoon, which is class 6(!), moves 2/3, has a throw weight of 471, 997 armour, and 6/8/18 small craft. That's about on par with an Atago, which is half its size and faster besides. But it has almost 300,000 tons of cargo.

Well, its all fractions, and it starts after a while to feel like the Rocket Equation.

Hypothetical 1 MT Ship:
50% in KF Core
6% per point of thrust.
1% per 10 SI, SI somewhat limited by thrust, Armor limited by SI.
Remainder in 'mission systems' - Guns, Cargo, Figthers, whatever.

So if your carrying no cargo, and a 3/5 drive, youve got 32% of your base mass for some combo of armor and weapons.  Thats about as good as it gets.  If you want some range, you can cut your mission mass to say 27% or 25%, but you see how fast that hurts.

Jack that up to 5/8 and add 10% Cargo?  10% of your base mass remains.  So your 5/8 and with a phenomenal range, but you have a third of the firepower and armor of the slow, short legged ship.

You can cheat cargo some.  Drop Collars don't help much now (small droppers) but large droppers at 50+KT Cargo each will help offset the rocket equation here.. but with costs, and drawbacks. 

Dropping to 2/3 lets Tyr carry pretty decent cargo and a heavy, long-ranged broadside, but well, stuck with 2/3, and also lower speeds limit SI - so shes relatively over-gunned and under-armored compared to a balanced design.

No easy choices, no obvious winners.  I still think that upping speed by 1 point compared to your likely opponents is a winner, in the general condition, cause you can optimize for a range and hope to get it...  but by 2 is a loser, because once you've spent 12% more base mass on thrust, its hard to win at any range against a foe with a balanced weapons fit.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 11 July 2018, 12:06:50
If we were playing TT matches, the Atago could beat every hegemony ship in to dust (which tbh is not much to brag about), and stands a good chance of coming out the winner against every one of our ships except one, which is 250kt heavier than it.

But, since we are doing more narrative-driven battles, speed can actually factor in more realistically. Speed should, in theory, give you control of the engagement. It does come at a cost, the Galahad, is heavier and more expensive than the Atago, but roughly similar in combat power at the same range. It can however, decide to peace out if things aren't looking good for it, and in a theoretical engagement between a Galahad and two Robinsons against 2 Atagos and a fubuki, things probably aren't going to be looking too great for the Dracs unless the dice-gods show them some love.

So far fights like that haven't really happened though. The two main speed-fleets have really only fought each other, and unless things start going very apocryphal, it will remain that way for a while.

All comes down to objective and risk sensitivity.  Are we driving around space, looking to mug inferior opponents that cannot run away or use our speed to avoid superior opponents?  Then speed is good.

Are we here to take a planet/shipyard/etc. or defend same?  Then guns and armor are good.

Also goes to how widely you like to spread your fleet out.  Speed is of real value to independent operators/small groups.  Anything designed to operate alone is 4/6 easy and Id consider 5/8.  Nothing wrong with 5/8, Dropcollars for dropships to feed you, and a pile of NPPCs.  Go visit every enemy world and blow up everything in orbit.

Its value drops rapidly in fleet action - because sooner or later you get a mixed fleet with some slow boats, or a ship gets lamed by enemy fire or just engine problems (Its insane how little time real world warships spent able to sail at full speed, historically), and then the fast fleet isn't - or it leaves its weaker members behind and risks defeat in detail.

So, doctrine, and how you want to use your fleet.  The US went for matching slow speeds.  The British preferred faster, and then built BCs that were yet faster still.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 11 July 2018, 12:14:53
I still think that upping speed by 1 point compared to your likely opponents is a winner, in the general condition, cause you can optimize for a range and hope to get it...  but by 2 is a loser, because once you've spent 12% more base mass on thrust, its hard to win at any range against a foe with a balanced weapons fit.

That was basically my thought designing the Vittoria - you're going for slow ships, so they tried to out-speed you somewhat and accept a reduced weapons load to dictate range. (Sorry to stick it to you with a tailored LC-bashing design, but it was the only sensible thing for the RWR to do). That said, while I agree that 5/8 loses to 3/5, I do think 4/6 might possibly beat 2/3 - the proportion of warload lost for the added speed is lower. 3/5 would beat 1/2 for sure, IMO, and of course 6/9 is bordering on a joke design unless it's a dedicated scout or light carrier.

Actually, this is almost getting back to why I decided against monitors a couple weeks back. The designs were fairly balanced in most ways when you compare them to an equal cost in stations, but the huge warload and the fact that speed is so closely tied to armour meant that you wind up designing ships at 6/9 or 7/11 just to get the armour you want and use up your tonnage. A 6/9 monitor felt balanced, and possibly a bit on the slow side. That's not something you can realistically fight against with KF-drive ships, and any attempt to get monitors down to the same sorts of speeds used by true naval vessels would require me making construction rules from scratch, which was just too much. I was still thinking about adding them until I sat down and designed one - their awful impact on speed-vs-power curves was obvious immediately, and that was the last straw in rejecting them.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 11 July 2018, 12:41:54
Im not at all offended or feeling bashed.  Im their ONLY opponent, the RWR would -never- fight the TH/SL  :), so of course they build to counter.

I did a sheet of combat power curves (guns x armor/si) at various speeds and cargo fractions - Ill try to rememeber to share them when I get home.  3/5 No cargo was best (cause SI), but if you wanted some cargo, 2/3 won out, IIRC.

As I wanted some cargo to allow me to threaten more enemy worlds, and this complicate enemy deployment decisions (and hopefully thereby reduce the number of enemy ships coming to visit me!) I chose 2/3 and the Tyr was born.

Were I the RWR, id have gone 3/5 and all lasers and try to atay at the far edge of extreme - outlast the missile barrage at low THNs and then use a pue NL armament to outshoot the mixed armament Tyr (slow vessels -must- chose mixed armament in most cases).  But thats a difference in taste, and Id have to go under the hood on bith ships to get a real feel for how they stack up as units or in squadrons/fleets.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 11 July 2018, 13:05:17
I threw together a simple graph of loads at various cargo fractions, SI, and safe thrust. Assumed 50% of mass to KF drive and other basics, 1% per 10 SI, and 6% per point of thrust.

(https://i.imgur.com/aEswYuW.png)

N/A is ships that are illegal either because their SI is too high for thrust or because the remaining mass fraction is less than 0%.

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 11 July 2018, 13:43:06
Its value drops rapidly in fleet action - because sooner or later you get a mixed fleet with some slow boats, or a ship gets lamed by enemy fire or just engine problems

I agree. It's one of the reasons I went with the Crucis over other designs I had. Speed or not you're eventually going to end up in NAC range against 3/5s, so you either have to do your best to cripple them at extreme, or more likely out-fight them at medium.

Once we start getting heavier dropships, we might start seeing things like E-Boats taking the place of faster warships all together.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 11 July 2018, 14:04:28
I agree. It's one of the reasons I went with the Crucis over other designs I had. Speed or not you're eventually going to end up in NAC range against 3/5s, so you either have to do your best to cripple them at extreme, or more likely out-fight them at medium.

Once we start getting heavier dropships, we might start seeing things like E-Boats taking the place of faster warships all together.

Crucis looks eerily like something I would design.  Id have made slightly different weapons choices, but '3/5 NoCargo' is the sweet spot on the curves for a reason.  Just means you need cargo droppers or the like to give her any strategic reach.

I think the big revolutions will be, in no particular order:
1.)  Rising Hull Sizes.  Bigger is just plain better, once you have enough ships to be most places you want to be at once - and we will.
2.)  Armor Upgrades changing the weapons balance.  I think this will be good, paradoxically, for LONG range weapons.
3.)  Large Droppers change a lot of equations.  So do LF Batteries
4.)  AMS is gonna hurt missiles.
5.)  Bearings Only Launches may be the sound of a record scratching as the LCN turns into the RMN.  Speed suddenly WILL be armor.

On the other hand...
1.)  NPPCs wont change anything, their just more fire control efficient Naval Lasers.  Were noowhere near threatening fire control limits on Naval Lasers, and I think weve all discovered just how terrible NLs (and thus NPPCs, etc.) are in terms of mass to damage.  Unless they can be decisive outside NAC ranges (still an open question!), its NACs with NLs/NPPCs as flavor/insurance.  Now, its possible that mass combat will change that - as fleet sizes grow, so does the range of decisive engagement.
2.)  I dont think advanced fighters will change (very much).  At 15 Million per, unless that XL Engine gives a LOT more in game than it does in Table Top, they are gonna be hard to justify.  MAYBE on the lighter carriers.
3.)  Better Battlemech Weapons wont change much.  Fighters do their anti-ship buisness with missiles, and rarely have a reason to close into the range of a ships standard scale weaponry.  Skindancing/Critseeking doctrine for fighters may affect this.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 11 July 2018, 14:26:06
I think the big revolutions will be, in no particular order:
1.)  Rising Hull Sizes.  Bigger is just plain better, once you have enough ships to be most places you want to be at once - and we will.
2.)  Armor Upgrades changing the weapons balance.  I think this will be good, paradoxically, for LONG range weapons.
3.)  Large Droppers change a lot of equations.  So do LF Batteries
4.)  AMS is gonna hurt missiles.
5.)  Bearings Only Launches may be the sound of a record scratching as the LCN turns into the RMN.  Speed suddenly WILL be armor.

1) Yeah, playing the small NPC nations half of my thoughts are about "Okay, when can I put some money in the bank for yard upgrades next turn?". The RWR isn't too badly off here, because size-2 gives you ships that are at least passable, but bigger is definitely better.

2) Those will be big, but I'm not sure why you think it'll help long-range weapons. It'll primarily make engagements take longer, which means more time to close in.

3) Yup. LF in particular could get quite interesting to write about.

4) Yes, but perhaps less than you might expect. My current intention is for an AMS to be perhaps 2-3x as good as a machine gun for point defence - I've needed to make MGs pretty good so ships can survive in these battles, so I can't crank up the power level too far without obsoleting missiles.

5) Remember that there'll be an accuracy penalty there. Also, by that time you'll be facing real fleets with escorts, so weapon dispersion between too many targets and AMS shooting down missiles before they hit will be an issue. It'll be good, but not infinitely so.

On the other hand...
1.)  NPPCs wont change anything, their just more fire control efficient Naval Lasers.  Were noowhere near threatening fire control limits on Naval Lasers, and I think weve all discovered just how terrible NLs (and thus NPPCs, etc.) are in terms of mass to damage.  Unless they can be decisive outside NAC ranges (still an open question!), its NACs with NLs/NPPCs as flavor/insurance.  Now, its possible that mass combat will change that - as fleet sizes grow, so does the range of decisive engagement.
2.)  I dont think advanced fighters will change (very much).  At 15 Million per, unless that XL Engine gives a LOT more in game than it does in Table Top, they are gonna be hard to justify.  MAYBE on the lighter carriers.
3.)  Better Battlemech Weapons wont change much.  Fighters do their anti-ship buisness with missiles, and rarely have a reason to close into the range of a ships standard scale weaponry.  Skindancing/Critseeking doctrine for fighters may affect this.

1) I think NPPCs are actually somewhat lame in our current setting, which I would not have expected. NLs are good at long-range anti-fighter targeting, which NPPCs don't share, and our ships aren't big enough for the fire-control efficiency to really shine. That said, the abundance of MGs and anti-fighter weapons means fire control is at more of a premium for our designs than for canon ships, so they're not totally useless.

2) As a rule of thumb, they'll be carrying the same missiles as their standard brethren, but be 50-100% better in a dogfight. I expect them to see some use on fleet units, because of the cost of carrying a bay around between systems, but system defence will be done with standard engines all the way through. It's not worth paying 200% more for 20-50% more overall combat capability when space is free.

3) We've seen some close-range fighter attacks thus far, and will likely see more. It's not going to take out a ship, but fighters can blind a WarShip and cripple its light weaponry(including MG/AMS), and that can play a useful role. They're also not bad at killing cripples when needed. Point defence has value on any ship in a fight, and will continue to do so. Also, heavy weapons(Gauss/AC-20) do as much damage as light capital weapons like Barracudas, so they may start to be effective against light armour, if anyone has any lightly armoured ships left by the time those weapons exist.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 11 July 2018, 14:52:01
2) Those will be big, but I'm not sure why you think it'll help long-range weapons. It'll primarily make engagements take longer, which means more time to close in.

5) Remember that there'll be an accuracy penalty there. Also, by that time you'll be facing real fleets with escorts, so weapon dispersion between too many targets and AMS shooting down missiles before they hit will be an issue. It'll be good, but not infinitely so.

2.)  It sounded odd to me, too, at first, but bear with me.  These aren't wet navy ships, with a speed.  They are space war ships, with a vector.  Close range is not a place that you park, its a place two maneuvering units pass through - there must be some relative velocity causing them to close, else they would not close.  And a long range fleet that realizes it can no longer run is going to accelerate TOWARDS its opponent, to minimize the duration of the close range portion of the battle.  Of course, if you have superior thrust, you MIGHT manage to SLOWLY close the range on your opponent, rather than just overrunning them at higher relative velocities - but the more time you spend faffing about generating a perfect zero-zero intercept on a manuvering opponent who is shooting you with longer range, more accurate guns.. well, the more time you spend under longer range, more accurate guns.

Given tougher armor, it is harder for the close-range fleet to 'close the deal' at point blank in one salvo.  And if it cannot, range will reopen, at least for a while, and the long range fleet will have roughly twice as long to fire at its advantaged ranges as it did in the opening stages.

Also, frankly, NACs, espc the big ones, are just way-silly-good compared to everything else.  If we don't tend to 'rule against them', then we, I think, will start seeing NAC-30 through NAC-20 monobuilds.

Finally, we have to stop and bow at the value of broadsides.  3 arcs fire together off the broadside, at most 2 fore and aft.  And the fore and aft critical charts are just plain hateful compared to the broadside ones.  Anyone aggressively closing with their nose to the foe risks his CIC and Sensors, and anyone seriously brave-sir-robining while in range of the foe risks his engines, or his fuel tank.


5) Rules As Written, a Bearings-Only Missile that is tuned for 'short' and has a target in its 'short' basket is just as accurate as a missile fired from an actual ship at short range.  Thats.. insanely good.  Yes, AMS will help, and multiple targets will help, but at that point 'Manticore Missile Massacre' starts looking like a legitimate choice for ship armament.  Not necessarily the ONLY choice, but A Choice, and More Choices is Good. 

What I find MOST INTERESTING about the choice is it -really- raises the value of tactical thrust.  A 4/6 ship has a much larger CEP for missile targeting than a 2/3 ship... and at 5/8, bearings only starts loosing a lot of its benefit.  Of course, a 5/8 gives up so much for that 5/8 that the missile fleet may not need bearings only launches.. but a 5/8 missile fleet against a, say, 3/5 missile fleet might ITSELF be able to generate 3 or 5 'shipkiller' salvos, and then meander off at thrust 8 to find its colliers, reload, and do it again...

Quote
1) I actually think NPPCs are actually surprisingly lame in our current setting, which I would not have expected. NLs are good at long-range anti-fighter targeting, which NPPCs don't share. That said, the abundance of MGs and anti-fighter weapons means fire control is at more of a premium for our designs than for canon ships, so they're not totally useless.

NPPCs are just NL with less FireCon burden and no anti-fighter role.  Now, they will allow us to go heavy long range broadside on super-big ships, but they really just let us do at 2MT something that we can currently do at 750kt - but do not choose to do.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 11 July 2018, 15:14:36
But by the same token, accelerating towards your opponent doesn't mean you blow through them - they can match your acceleration vector with theirs, and as long as they can accelerate as well as you(or better), they can control range just as well as they could if it was a simple chase. The slower ship has a fair bit of control over facings that get exposed in battle, particularly whether they want to face an opponent's nose or their aft, but they cannot disengage so easily as that.

That said, a faster closing speed means it's harder to dwell at close range for long. Ignoring facings for a second and assuming you can simply match what they do, the relevant ranges are up to 54(HNPPC extreme) down to 6(NAC/40 short). If you have total control over the engagement geometry and a top acceleration advantage of 1, the best you can do to park within NAC/40 short of the opponent is come in with 10 higher speed than them from 55, and slow down at a maximal rate. You enter their range on turn 2, they enter your short range on turn 8, and you never blow past them. But that's still 6 turns where their weapon is in a superior range band to yours, and that's if all goes perfectly. It's 4 turns if your acceleration advantage is 2, or 3 turns if it's an advantage of 3.

You do have a point about the crits being risked, though I should probably re-familiarize myself with those tables (I've done similar things, because they're mostly natural, but it's good to double-check canon).

I expect I'll change the rules re: bearings-only launches somehow, but I'll think about it more when we get to them.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 11 July 2018, 15:30:57
But by the same token, accelerating towards your opponent doesn't mean you blow through them - they can match your acceleration vector with theirs, and as long as they can accelerate as well as you(or better), they can control range just as well as they could if it was a simple chase. The slower ship has a fair bit of control over facings that get exposed in battle, particularly whether they want to face an opponent's nose or their aft, but they cannot disengage so easily as that.

That said, a faster closing speed means it's harder to dwell at close range for long. Ignoring facings for a second and assuming you can simply match what they do, the relevant ranges are up to 54(HNPPC extreme) down to 6(NAC/40 short). If you have total control over the engagement geometry and a top acceleration advantage of 1, the best you can do to park within NAC/40 short of the opponent is come in with 10 higher speed than them from 55, and slow down at a maximal rate. You enter their range on turn 2, they enter your short range on turn 8, and you never blow past them. But that's still 6 turns where their weapon is in a superior range band to yours, and that's if all goes perfectly. It's 4 turns if your acceleration advantage is 2, or 3 turns if it's an advantage of 3.

You do have a point about the crits being risked, though I should probably re-familiarize myself with those tables (I've done similar things, because they're mostly natural, but it's good to double-check canon).

I expect I'll change the rules re: bearings-only launches somehow, but I'll think about it more when we get to them.

Yes, but turning costs thrust, too.  :)  I'm hardly saying its perfect, I'm just saying that the situation is more mobile/long range friendly than Jutland - which was itself more mobile/long range friendly than the Nile.. and NAC/40s really want the Nile.

A lot really turns on the raw numbers, and how many turns of fire to be decisive at what ranges by what fleets against what fleets - but that itself may turn on more math than you feel like doing - though I may for my own amusement wang up 'expected damage at range X' for various weapons based on various assumptions.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 11 July 2018, 17:25:39
You do have a point about the crits being risked, though I should probably re-familiarize myself with those tables (I've done similar things, because they're mostly natural, but it's good to double-check canon).

I found perusal of the critical chart, the 'automatic chance for a critical on a single missile hit' chart, and the expected hits-to-life calculations very informative, and they influenced my choice of missile armament.  In short, if you can get a nose or tail shot and pour missiles in (barracudas or white sharks... barracudas for numbers, or white sharks for increased per missile chance), you have a solid chance of getting a pretty brutal critical hit - Sensors is a +1 to all THNs (bad) for just one crit.  CIC is +2 on the first crit (this is nearly 'go home' territory).  Engines is a point of thrust per critical.  Fuel is hard to get, but its a 1-in-36 on an aft critical of 'boom'.  On broadsides, they just hit weapons/weapons bays, which is way better than nothing, but not nearly as crushing.

For the record, if we are counting bays, missiles are not by doctrine grouped, unless rules limit the total number of bays per facing - they are fired separately, because of rules that say a 'bay' of 30 Barracudas causes the same number of rolls for crits as a 'bay' of one barracuda.  Which is silly.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 11 July 2018, 18:07:16
For the record, if we are counting bays, missiles are not by doctrine grouped, unless rules limit the total number of bays per facing - they are fired separately, because of rules that say a 'bay' of 30 Barracudas causes the same number of rolls for crits as a 'bay' of one barracuda.  Which is silly.

Yeah, that's exactly the sort of gamey crap that I wanted to avoid with narrative resolution. More missiles means more crit chances, however they're organized.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 11 July 2018, 19:22:59
-nods-  Exactly.  That said, as the main missilieer - once you look at the numbers on a missile masscre, you may want to edge those crit odds down some.  I dont want there to be ever a ‘perfect’ answer, and barracuda storms could be close.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 13 July 2018, 12:41:22
Yeah, that's exactly the sort of gamey crap that I wanted to avoid with narrative resolution.

That's fair. Although it still doesn't alter the square-cool law. More missiles will always increase the coolness of any fight by the square of the multiplier C2=C1(M2/M1)2.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 13 July 2018, 13:08:10
It is not without reason that MacRoss Industries is the primary supplier of heavy naval missiles in the Commonwealth...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 14 July 2018, 07:19:21
Well, after offering to help out with the Master Page, I believe I have it up to date as per everyone's budgets for this turn. Does not include any casualties we're about to suffer of course.

Let me know if I stuffed anything up, didn't touch the Terrans or RWR, figured Mr GM had those well in hand.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 14 July 2018, 09:10:55
Thank you for your time on this, Smegish.

Alsadius, if you can think of anything else you want to off-load or could use help with, holler.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 14 July 2018, 10:39:28
Well, after offering to help out with the Master Page, I believe I have it up to date as per everyone's budgets for this turn. Does not include any casualties we're about to suffer of course.

Let me know if I stuffed anything up, didn't touch the Terrans or RWR, figured Mr GM had those well in hand.

The help is really appreciated. Thank you. And yes, I've been keeping the NPC sheets updated - that's the sheet I use for budgeting, which is why they all have calculations.

Any of you who want to be able to edit it, PM me your email. (Except Kiviar and Smegish, you're already added)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 14 July 2018, 12:31:40
Let me know if I stuffed anything up, didn't touch the Terrans or RWR, figured Mr GM had those well in hand.

Scapha I carries 25 of each Vee, 112 Infantry

Scapha II caries 50 of each Vee, 1000 Infantry

Otherwise, fine looking there...

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 16 July 2018, 08:26:09
I'm most of the way through writing up the turn, so you can expect it soon-ish. There's also a few things I wanted to mention as side notes, so I'll post those now.

- It's becoming clear to me that one turn per week is a pace that I cannot realistically maintain for the long term. I'll try to keep it as close as I can, but turns will probably take longer than a week most of the time.

- Maingunnery, I only just noticed that you used the costs from your custom DropShip design in place of the standard cost. That's not kosher - I don't want players being forced to design their own DS to stay competitive, which is why I keep saying that small craft designs are fluff only. The $7.2B you spent can buy you 24 DropShips, not 36. If you want to modify your turn accordingly, feel free, but otherwise I'll assume you just bought 24 standard designs.

- The sequence of events has followed canon fairly closely thus far, but I'm noticing some butterflies start to creep in - for example, there are two fights this turn that didn't happen in canon, one caused by the existence of the MH and the other caused by the CC winning the tech roll. I expect that more such changes will come up over time. Right now, my feeling is that I want to keep many of the big events similar, and to keep the general spirit of the BT universe, but the details are likely to change more as we go along. How do you guys feel about that? I can embrace the butterflies or try to squish them if there's a consensus in either direction.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 16 July 2018, 08:46:40
I'm most of the way through writing up the turn, so you can expect it soon-ish. There's also a few things I wanted to mention as side notes, so I'll post those now.

- It's becoming clear to me that one turn per week is a pace that I cannot realistically maintain for the long term. I'll try to keep it as close as I can, but turns will probably take longer than a week most of the time.

- Maingunnery, I only just noticed that you used the costs from your custom DropShip design in place of the standard cost. That's not kosher - I don't want players being forced to design their own DS to stay competitive, which is why I keep saying that small craft designs are fluff only. The $7.2B you spent can buy you 24 DropShips, not 36. If you want to modify your turn accordingly, feel free, but otherwise I'll assume you just bought 24 standard designs.

- The sequence of events has followed canon fairly closely thus far, but I'm noticing some butterflies start to creep in - for example, there are two fights this turn that didn't happen in canon, one caused by the existence of the MH and the other caused by the CC winning the tech roll. I expect that more such changes will come up over time. Right now, my feeling is that I want to keep many of the big events similar, and to keep the general spirit of the BT universe, but the details are likely to change more as we go along. How do you guys feel about that? I can embrace the butterflies or try to squish them if there's a consensus in either direction.

1.)  Once Per Week:  Take as long as you need to.  Keep eyes open for ways in which the players can take over things you find time consuming and which do not need you to do them.  Its early days of a marathon, not a sprint.  Budget energy accordingly.  Heads up when we can be looking for a turn to post may help keep us from wearing out the 'refresh' button on the website.

2.)  Butterflies:  I am firmly in favor, for several reasons:
   a.)  Player Engagement:  If the Hand of God is keeping us all on track, then while we are having fun making spaceships, our
   impact on the future of our star nation is effectively 0 - so I am less engaged/enthused.

   b.)  Realism:  Similar to a, above - If I know what dates my wars happen, what dates the SL falls, etc - then it becomes
   difficult to budget and design without that foreknowledge affecting us.  As an example, one could spend a few turns building up
   yards, a few more building the best hulls from those larger yards, and the last few turns before the war going crazy on training,
   all to maximize punch when the war happens.  Obviously we should and will try to close our eyes and separate OOC and IC
   knowledge, but all the easier to do so when that OOC knowledge is fuzzy and increasingly inaccurate.

   c.)  FUN:  What if the Hindu Collective never merges, but becomes a 6th, significant, Inner Sphere Power? What if the Star
   League doesnt fall?  What if it does, and we can prevent the death of the warship, or for that matter the death of the Inner
   Sphere Tech Base?  What if Kerensky's Children return only to be greeted by glistening lines of battle made of hundreds of 2MT
   Dreadnoughts, trained and hardened by centuries of conflict that never rises to the level of 'nuking everyone back to the stone
   age?'  (The last may top my personal wishlist.  The Wolf's Dragoons arrive, look around, and then go home and say 'Hey, guys? 
   Lets move FURTHER from the 'Sphere.  Its scary, there...'

Now, the downside - once we diverge from cannon, everything we produce becomes less useful/of interest to the question 'what navies would the Houses have realistically built in canon'.  But it also suggests 'if the houses follow a realistic naval policy, we dont get Canon.'
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 16 July 2018, 11:36:24

Corrected the DS spending to 12 standards.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 16 July 2018, 15:02:50
Better to go at a pace you can maintain then burn out after 2-3 months. Take the time you need.

As to the butterflies, maybe keep the BIG wars as per canon, but allow us to have smaller fights like what went on during the 3rd Succession War when we feel like it. The trick there of course would be preventing those kind of raids from escalating, but we can burn that bridge when we come to it.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 16 July 2018, 17:47:37
Turns as/when they happen is fine.  We're all presumably adults here with family and work obligations, things come up.

I prefer Butterflies.  Lots of butterflies.  Though, to be fair, part of me is hoping for that to keep the CC from being a chew toy for Marik and Davion.  But honestly, the more influence we have on how things go, the more fun and engaging this is.  If I just wanted to build a "coherent and real" navy for an IS house, I could do that on my own.  But if we're going to get properly organic growth navies, we need things to happen so we can grow, and things to change because of our actions, otherwise... there's no point.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 16 July 2018, 19:29:11
What if the Hindu Collective never merges

Then they will live out their meager lives without learning that the existence of gold makes every other colour's existence totally pointless. (https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/warhammer40k/images/2/25/Emperor_Upon_Throne.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110726003909)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 16 July 2018, 19:30:19
herp
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 16 July 2018, 19:39:48
Then they will live out their meager lives without learning that the existence of gold makes every other colour's existence totally pointless. (https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/warhammer40k/images/2/25/Emperor_Upon_Throne.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110726003909)

Well, thats ONE way to keep Hanse around...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 16 July 2018, 21:00:19
Well, thats ONE way to keep Hanse around...

Tbh, he needed to go, but I would have been happier with his death if it hadn't led to some of the worst stories in Battletech.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 16 July 2018, 21:44:51
Tbh, he needed to go, but I would have been happier with his death if it hadn't led to some of the worst stories in Battletech.

I wouldnt know.  Im intentionally ignoring all of BT history starting at the F-C Civil War.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 17 July 2018, 13:36:15
Butterflies it is!

Turn 3: 2370-2379

Previous turn: 2360-2369 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1424612#msg1424612)

Player Turns:
Lyran Commonwealth: Budget $85B. (Fluff (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1426158#msg1426158), Budget (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1426996#msg1426996))
Free Worlds League: Budget $108B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1427008#msg1427008)
Draconis Combine: Budget $110B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1426664#msg1426664)
Federated Suns: Budget $105B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1427708#msg1427708)
Capellan Confederation: Budget $82B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1427408#msg1427408)
Marian Hegemony: Budget $12B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1427916#msg1427916)

NPC Turns:
Terran Hegemony: Budget $760B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1427906#msg1427906)
United Hindu Collective: Budget $21B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1427386#msg1427386)
Rim Worlds Republic: Budget $23B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1428144#msg1428144)
Taurian Concordat: Budget $12B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1427495#msg1427495)

Events
(I'm going to try writing this up in a timeline format this turn, instead of dividing battles and political events, because there's a few that straddle the line.)
2370:
Still torn on whether the planet of Taurus is a pirate base, a Capellan colony, or something else entirely, the Davions send a naval task force to investigate. Two Albions and a Galahad are dispatched with orders to ensure that nothing in the sector poses a threat to the Federated Suns. When the fleet arrives, it causes a major stir on Taurus - while the previous visit led to a change in Taurian priorities, their fortifications are still grossly incomplete, and their navy has nothing that can go toe-to-toe with a monster like the Galahad.

At first, the visit goes somewhat peacefully - Admiral Hasek is competent and courteous, and it soon becomes clear that the local settlement is its own polity, not a Capellan effort to outflank the Suns or a hive of piracy. However, things begin to go south when the Davion fleet realizes that the ship which led the Tentativa raid a decade earlier was in system, and upon investigation they realize that they had finally found the origin of the mysterious "liberators" who had absconded with a full division of captured Capellan soldiers. After some deliberation, Admiral Hasek issues an ultimatum to the Taurians - as the freed soldiers killed several guards in their escape and were then used by the Capellans in combat which killed hundreds of Federated Suns peacekeepers, it was demanded that the Taurians pay reparations to the families of the deceased, that they issue a formal apology for their unlawful interference in the internal affairs of another realm, and that the captain responsible stand trial in New Avalon for the crimes of inciting to riot, numerous weapons smuggling charges, and eight counts of manslaughter.

The Taurians, like many outgunned nations in human history, stalled for time and attempted to compromise. The compensation and apology were grudgingly accepted as being reasonable, but offering up the heroic Ashton Pendelton for trial on charges that could land her in jail for the rest of her life, especially when the captors were as barbarous as the Federated Suns had been on Tentativa, was simply too much for the government to accept. A petition demanding that Pendelton be protected was signed by fully three percent of the population of Taurus within the first day, and two astonishingly brave citizens approached the Taurian government with offers to falsely assume her identity and stand trial in her place.

The Taurian counter-offer was as conciliatory as it could be without destroying the nation - they gave the apology freely before hearing whether their counter-proposal was accepted, offered the requested compensation, and suggested Pendelton face trial under Federated Suns law on Taurus with Admiral Hasek's legal attache as one of the three presiding judges. Even this was enough to cause a gigantic protest outside Protector Richard Calderon's mansion, but he held firm in his conviction that any less would guarantee a devastating conflict. However, fearing the worst, Calderon also raised the entire Taurian military to high alert and ordered all assets in system be prepared for a strike against the Davion fleet if necessary. Sadly, it proved necessary. Hasek felt that any trial where 2/3 of the judges were Taurian would be a sham, and last-minute efforts to compromise went nowhere.

When the ultimatum expired, the Federated Suns fleet did not attack civilian population centres as they had threatened to do. Instead, they targeted their efforts at the military installations of the Concordat. The main Taurian shipyard complex was in orbit with only minimal defences available, as the Marathon-class defensive stations were still under construction. However, the month that had elapsed between the fleet entering Taurus space and the expiry of the ultimatum had allowed for some last-minute weapon installation, and the fighters of the Concordat were ready and waiting, along with the two horribly out-gunned Independence-class destroyers. The Admiral Blauser, commanding the TCS Independence, attempted to close the range and launch some pot-shots from outside effective range of the Davion ships, and his reputation as a brutal taskmaster meant that nobody on his staff was willing to challenge this decision. The initial salvoes went fairly well, killing five fighters and destroying one of the Galahad's forward gun turrets, but the Independence had neither the mobility nor the armour for a fight like this - as soon as it started closing, the Davions accelerated towards it, and within less than a minute it was a bleeding, crippled wreck. Fortunately for the Taurians, Blauser's flag bridge had been pulverized in the attack, and the senior surviving officer had enough common sense to order the evacuation. Unfortunately, the next-ranking Taurian officer was Vice-Admiral Bream, the commander of the shipyard complex, who had been placed in that position specifically because his logistical skills far exceeded his combat skills. Nervous and indecisive, he recalled the remaining destroyer and ordered the fighters to stay close to the base for the right moment.

The right moment came ten minutes later, as the Davion fleet slowly advanced towards effective range of the station so they could begin begin laying down fire. The attack was actually launched five minutes after that, once the shells began raining down on the shipyard complex. The incomplete battle stations managed to muster almost two hundred missile tubes and two dozen lasers between them, and three hundred fighters also carried their own missiles. The two Albions acted as escorts to the Galahad, shooting down most of the missiles aimed towards it, but in their efforts to protect the flagship they had left their own defences open, and both suffered badly for their decision. The FSS New Scotland lost her primary fire control computer and had her fighter bays scoured by incoming fire, but she got off lucky compared to her sister ship. The FSS Snowden had her entire forward section opened up like a tin can, and lost over half her crew in an eyeblink. While the hull would drift through space, and the aft gunners engaged a few nearby Taurian fighters with some success, the ship played no major role in the fighting thereafter.

With the escort frigates unable to play an effective role in the fighting, defence of the Galahad fell to the fleet's DropShips. The fighters, now devoid of their missiles, fell on the DropShips and attempted to destroy them with cannon fire. The heavy naval armour did not yield easily to the light shells, especially on the two that had been equipped with the advanced armour compounds that had recently come into service, but it did yield. While the DropShips and the remaining guns of the fleet engaged the fighters aggressively, they were insufficient to stop the swarm by themselves, and the Davion fleet had carried relatively few of the mass-intensive fighters to Taurus with them, and the fleet still needed to deal with the incoming missile fire from the stations. The Taurians bled for their victories, but they swarmed down DropShip after DropShip, and when four had fallen the remaining three fell back to the defensive envelope of the Galahad to regroup. Fortunately for the Davions, the Galahad had finally gained the range on the defensive stations, and all of the ones that had produced effective fire were silenced by the time the DropShips fell back. Seeing the fixed defences shattered, the Taurian fighters broke off their attack and returned to the planet-side bases to re-arm for a strike that would hopefully stop the monstrous cruiser, and the remaining Independence fell back as well.

Seeing their only ship construction facility defenceless before the enemy, and seeing his own life flash before his eyes, Vice-Admiral Bream requested a surrender. Admiral Hasek's response was simply to re-send the ultimatum that Calderon had refused prior. However, Bream's flag lieutenant had noticed something in the chaos of the fighting - Pendelton was still a serving officer, and she had been serving as a liason with the ship construction group in orbit. The core facilities of Taurian naval R&D had been hit by the Davion barrage, and it was likely that the "notorious criminal" was dead in the fighting. A cease-fire was officially rejected by Hasek, but the fire from his ship slowed momentarily, and an urgent order went through the Taurian damage control parties to find Pendelton. Her suit's emergency beacon was located within a minute, and a fighter flying by was ordered to investigate - sure enough, her corpse was floating away from the station. The footage was broadcast to the Galahad, and Admiral Hasek issued the recall order to his ships, who had no further need to fight.

Before leaving, the Taurians agreed to a substantial increase to the reparations owed for dead Davion soldiers - over three hundred men and women had died in the fighting, and that alone was judged to require nearly a billion dollars of compensation. But their facilities had been spared, as had much of their fleet. The high-handed demands of Admiral Hasek led to lasting resentment among the Taurians, and the footage of Pendelton's corpse was rapidly leaked to an enraged Taurian populace. She received a heroine's burial, and the shipyard that had been saved by her death was named in her honor. But the realm had survived an engagement with its vastly more powerful neighbour, and it prepared for the next fight it would face.

Losses:
Federated Suns: 1x Albion, 4x DropShip, 23x fighter, moderate damage to fleet totalling $2B. Gains: $1B from reparations.
Taurian Concordat: 1x Independence, 3x Marathon, 105x fighter, substantial damage to shipyard totalling $3B.

2371:
Reynard Davion's old case of Black Marsh Fever comes back with a vengeance, laying him low and eventually killing him. His son Etien takes over, and the transition marks the first time that one Davion replaces another as President of the Federated Suns without any serious questions being raised in the process. Etien is initially well-liked by most, and managed a few substantial successes in his first few months in office, including ceasefires with both the Capellans and the Taurians, though brain damage from old injuries causes increasing issues with mood swings over time.

2372:
Development of a new technique to attack planets convinced the Capellan high command that it was time to make good the brutal losses that their realm had suffered in recent decades. The most high-profile of those losses was Andurien, and the Federated Suns seem to have buried the hatchet for the time being, so the Capellan admiralty developed a plan of attack to retake the Andurien sector. Since the new designs being added by the fleet re-construction program were still incomplete, the naval forces available for this operation were extremely scanty, consisting of only three destroyers, one raider, and one transport. As such, the fleet's doctrine was to avoid a direct battle unless they had crushing superiority, and instead to use their acceleration advantage to disengage if necessary.

A gaggle of civilian JumpShips were rounded up and pressed into service for a massive wave of simultaneous attacks against the Andurien sector. Four worlds were chosen as targets for the first wave, with the expectation that the enemy fleet would react and open Andurien itself(which their intelligence had suggested was the forward base for ships in the sector) for attack. The attacks on those four worlds went shockingly well - facing defenders who were more used to acting as police than soldiers, and who were expecting a traditional battle plan of DropShips landing in semi-isolated areas and troops fighting their way forward, the combat drops that Capellan troops engaged in caught them wildly off-guard. On Shiro III in particular, the tanks landed in the middle of a large park in the planet's capital city, and the Marik troops were overrun before they'd even formed up to leave their barracks.

Sure enough, the Marik fleet stirred from its base to attack the invaders as soon as they'd heard of the attacks. A force of three Heracles battlecruisers and one Phalanx escort jumped to Lurgatan's zenith point, and found only one Marik merchant JumpShip desperately trying to recharge their sails while the invaders flew in from the nadir. Realizing that they couldn't overhaul the invaders, they elected to recharge quickly and try to catch the invaders at Conquista, but disaster struck when the Phalanx-class FWLS Sarissa failed to arrive after the fleet made its jump. The effort to quickly charge the jump drive had caused damage to the K-F system, and when the jump was attempted, the entire system shorted out and caused catastrophic damage to the ship's K-F drive coil. The Sarissa was not substantially harmed in the process, but it was no longer capable of interstellar travel.

The three remaining Heracles landed in Conquista as the Capellan forces were jumping out, and concerned about another drive failure the Mariks waited out a more cautious drive recharge before their next move. The captain of the Sarissa, conversely, reacted fairly quickly to the disaster that overtook his ship, taking it deeper into the system to attempt to repel the invaders. He arrived after the planet was largely taken, but while the local FWL troops were still engaged in active resistance against the invaders. With no Capellan capital ships in system, he thought he would be able to dominate the surface as past WarShips had been able to do - with only capital missiles, he would not be able to target all points of Capellan resistance, but it was hoped that a show of force would increase the morale of the defenders, and that attacks on a few key points would allow them a real chance, or at least to hold out until relief arrived.

The Capellans saw the Sarissa coming, and made their own preparations. The captain in charge, Jiang-jun Yuan Yin, saw the perfect chance to test out the new Capellan fighter doctrine, and took it. The fighters which had accompanied the fleet, along with a few DropShips that were equipped for military operations, formed to attack the Sarissa about half an hour from the planet. The Sarissa's fighters were held close as a defence, but 18 defensive fighters were a poor match for the 153 Capellan that came from the planet to launch their attack. Knowing that the Phalanx design was poorly equipped for anti-fighter work at any but the shortest ranges, the Capellans came closer than they otherwise would, and launched their missiles in a gigantic wave to clear away the Marik fighters. The Marik defensive reaction was excellent - the fighters fell back to the point defence umbrella of the Phalanx, and the point-defence gunners took out nearly three-quarters of the inbound missiles. Only nine fighters died, much to the astonishment of both sides, and the Marik missiles that took out eight Liao fighters and one DropShip that had been targeted by a barrage of Killer Whales from the Sarissa. However, as the missiles were flying, a terrible chain reaction took place on the Sarissa. One freak shot had landed near the fuel tanks, and the leaking fuel combined with the ship's atmosphere formed an explosive combination. Two minutes after the missile hit, mere moments after the force was celebrating the destruction of the DropShip, a spark ignited the atmosphere inside the Sarissa, and the ship blew itself up. The remaining fighters also surrendered themselves, and when word reached the planet of what the gigantic explosion they had seen overhead actually was, the remaining Marik forces laid down their arms.

Unaware of this disaster, the three Heracles moved on to a pirate point in Shiro, where they once again missed the attacking fleet, but this time they moved towards the planet to bombard the Capellan troops. Some damage was caused, but not enough to dislodge the Capellans. Meanwhile, the Capellans had moved on to Andurien itself, where a harder fight awaited their troops. With some of their forces held back to hold the conquered planets, they lacked the forces for a true knockout punch, and the defenders were aware of the possibility of a lightning invasion. The fighting was lengthy, but with substantial fire support from the fleet, along with a re-embarkation of troops from a pacified area and an unexpected combat drop into the middle of a Marik stronghold two weeks into the fighting, the Capellans won through. The Free Worlds League fleet arrived back at Andurien two days after the surrender frustrated with their inability to find the enemy, and eagerly anticipated a battle when they saw the Liao fleet over the planet. But when they realized that the Phalanx had been lost, their base had been captured, and the enemy fleet had been able to establish bases for a substantial fighter force, they elected to return home and await reinforcements.

In the end, the campaign ended with the Liao forces re-taking five of the seven worlds they had lost a few years prior, though two worlds were lost to a Marik counterattack further north. But Andurien had been re-taken, and the sounds of joyous celebration were heard across the Commonwealth.

Losses:
Free Worlds League: 1x Phalanx, 6x small craft, 18x fighter
Capellan Confederation: 1x DropShip, 71x fighter (the remainder were off-screen losses in the conquest of the planets)

2373:
The Lyran Commonwealth has on paper been the second-richest human nation, behind only the Terrans, since its founding. However, mismanagement, corruption, and chaos among the nine Archons of the Commonwealth has led to a chronic inability to turn this paper wealth into the sinews of a powerful nation. In fact, the chaos was threatening to tear the newly-founded nation apart as sepratist movements affected the main constituent nations of Tamar, Donegal, and Skye.

Robert Marsden Jr., the youngest of the Archons, finally got fed up with this state of affairs in the early 2370s. Over time, Marsden managed to accumulate proof of significant corruption on the part of all eight of the other Archons, and on a series of "fact-finding trips" around the realm he made contacts with military leaders and system governors who were interested in change. He struck after a meeting of the Archons - using trusted naval vessels as couriers, he released the information on the crimes of the other Archons to the whole realm while the Archons were in transit to their homeworlds. In one rather astonishing case, Margaret Tamar, Archon of Tamar, returned home on a Heimdaller that "just happened to be" in transit to the fleet base at Tamar, and was led to believe that there was a failure of the ship's communication systems. In fact, that ship was the one broadcasting information on the crimes of the Archons to every system that she passed through, while she was effectively being held incommunicado until her arrival.

Relying on the wave of disgust that these revelations would engender, Marsden declared himself "Archon Basileus" and announced a significant restructuring of the Lyran government to give himself all of the relevant levers of power in the realm, while allowing individual worlds to be mostly self-governing aside from their military obligations. The decision was not quite as well-received as he hoped, and murmurings of discontent were heard on some worlds who worried that the original Lyran vision was being abandoned for a feudal dictatorship, but on the whole the initial consolidation of power went well, and no serious forces rose up in immediate opposition.

2374:
After realizing that control of the orbitals did not always translate into full control of the planet, the Marian Hegemony engaged in a construction program to bring a new form of comprehensive Latin education to the Lothians. While only resulting in a single ship, that ship was capable of hauling substantial amounts of war material to the surface, and the full coffers of the Hegemony ensured that she would be well stocked in the process. However, the ship's first use was civil, not military - instead of carrying tanks to the surface, the Impetum Onerariam carried ambulances, relief supplies, and construction equipment to help rebuild the damage of the invasion. At the same time, the Lothians were courted by several moves intended to signal that they would be equals in the new Hegemony, instead of mere serfs.

Reaction to these efforts were mixed. Some, especially those in the educated urban-dwelling classes, greatly appreciated the gestures made by the Marians, and media coverage of the Hegemony grew markedly better in short order. However, among the hard-bitten miners and trappers that made up the bulk of Lothario's population, the moves were viewed with suspicion - they had grown comfortable ignoring the dictates of their off-world "ruler", and were worried that this might signal an end to their hard-won independence. Overall, the icy planet seemed to be thawing somewhat, but it was still far from accustomed to foreign rule.

2375:
In the Lyran Commonwealth, unhappiness at Robert Marsden's actions had been brewing for a year and a half. While it was generally agreed that the old Archons had been incompetent, malicious, and corrupt, many believed that Marsden himself was only differentiated from them by being competent in his malice. The promise of economic growth spurred by competent governance had yet to materialize, and many planets who still believed in the ideal of the Commonwealth were deeply upset with his rule. Skye had declared independence in late 2374, and the floodgates were opened by seeing a real crack in the foundations of his rule - almost two dozen planets declared independence, professed fealty to a deposed Archon, or otherwise rejected the Articles of Acceptance.

Marsden reacted decisively. 14 of the rebellious worlds were incapable of sustaining themselves for long without imported food or other necessities, and the Lyran navy was dispatched to blockade them until they gave up their struggle. Since few planets kept their own defensive forces capable of space travel, none could break the blockades, and most caved in within six months. The remaining eight were basically self-sufficient, and thus immune to the worst effects of a blockade. Marsden was not one to shy away from direct action when it proved necessary, however, and he dispatched the Army to restore order. One by one the rebellious worlds were crushed by forces loyal to Marsden, and as it became clear that he would brook no open resistance, the supply of newly rebellious planets dried up rapidly. Last to fall was Skye itself, seed of the rebellion and the old capital(and self-proclaimed new capital) of the Federation of Skye. Twelve regiments were brought in to decisively smash the rebels, and the rebel leader, Robert McQuinston, was gruesomely executed for treason.

The cost imposed by the rebellion had been high - over a million civilians died due to the privations of the blockade and open warfare in Lyran cities, and trade was disrupted badly for almost two years. But a grudging respect for the heavy-handed Marsden also developed - the nation had suffered from indecision for so long that many people called out for a decisive leader, even if he was brutal. While citizens of worlds like Skye cursed Marsden as "The Crusher", many citizens used the epithet with a strange form of respect. Despite condemnations from both inside and outside the Commonwealth, Marsden's rule grew more secure than ever.

2376:
After the reign of terror of the Kurita military overlords on the former Rasalhague worlds, new embers of rebellion flare up in early 2376. On the world of Rasalhague, a home-grown group of terrorists assault the governor's palace. Their attack goes off spectacularly well, and district governor Vladimir Kurita, a nephew of the Coordinator, is slaughtered along with his entire family. Vising Vladimir at the time was the Coordinator's sister Omi, who also died in the attack. The rebels are caught by security forces and slaughtered to a man, but when news reaches Tenno Kurita that his sister has died, he is horribly distraught. After his sister's body arrives at the capital, he begins questioning his own ability to govern - if he can't protect his own sister, after all, how could he protect the Combine? Tenno's son and heir Nihongi quietly encourages these thoughts, and shortly after the state funeral is concluded, Tenno commits seppuku. Nihongi finally accedes to the throne he has desired for his whole life, and uses the immense power that is his as Coordinator of the Draconis Combine to ensure that he is not bothered excessively while he breeds horses.

2377:
Etien Davion's mood swings and aggressive impulses had grown steadily harder to control for those around him as the years moved on. His courtiers had lost the ability to influence him substantially, his immediate family were sent into virtual exile to prevent them from organizing against him, and even his wife, the one person who had proven herself able to check his worst traits, was unceremoniously divorced in 2376. As Etien grew worse, rebellion brewed. Chesterton erupted in violence as a pro-Capellan mob attacked the governor's mansion, the governor of Alsek secretly entered negotiations to join the United Hindu Collective, and even Covington, one of the founding planets of the Federated Suns, attempted to hold an independence referendum. The latter proved too much for Etien - he ordered an invasion of Covington, and sentenced every member of the planetary assembly to death for their treason. As such, the first shots fired in anger by the mighty FSS Crucis were aimed at against one of the oldest worlds in Crucis. As the planetary assembly met late into the evening to discuss strategies for negotiating with the leader of the task force, the entire capitol building was shattered by the impact of a single, solitary autocannon shell. And when the citizens of Covington looked up into the night sky, they knew that the stars held fear.

2378:
With Etien Davion's mood swings, hedonistic impulses, and hair-trigger brutality getting out of control, two assassination attempts are launched in 2378. The first fails well before it can attack, but the second gets much closer. Jeremiah Monroe, an old friend of Davion's from his military days, had come to the conclusion that Davion was unfit to govern, and that the man he had been in his youth would rather be dead than to be the man that he had become. Unable to get a gun into his old friend's presence due to paranoiac security, Monroe carried a knife taken from a Capellan they had fought together on the world of Lee, ostensibly as a gift for his old friend. Before he could present the knife, Monroe challenged Davion on his actions in recent years, trying to see if he could snap Etien out of his madness before making the final plunge. When an argument ensued, Monroe pulled the knife and attempted to kill Etien.

Etien's guards responded too quickly, and he escaped with no injury. However, Etien Davion was not quite so well as he seemed at first. He stared at his old friend's bleeding corpse, he stared at the knife, and he said not a word to anyone until several minutes had passed. Finally, he opened his mouth - "If Jeremiah Monroe hates me that much, then no-one will hate me any more", picked up the knife, and slashed his own throat before his shocked guards could react. While there were occasional ugly rumours about how serious the paramedics were with their attempts to save Etien's life, the general consensus is that no medical team could have saved him from that much blood loss under the circumstances. In his place, his sickly brother Paul took the Presidency.

2379:
Worried about resource depletion on their long-mined core worlds, Director-General Margaret Cameron was looking for options to use advanced Terran Hegemony terraforming technology to open up new supplies of resources. While few good candidate worlds existed within the Hegemony's borders, many existed in neighbouring realms. The Hegemony has traditionally taken a hands-off approach to the outer realms, but the desire for secure resource supplies has led to a large number of Terran officials advocating a more active foreign policy to ensure that the chaos of the outer realms does not adversely affect the Terran economy. After significant internal debate between traditionalists and activists, Director-General Cameron decided to advance a proposal for "Jointly Owned Worlds" to the neighbouring realms. Under the proposal, the Terrans would offer the technology, the outer realms would offer the real estate, and the two would equally split both costs and resource wealth from the development of the worlds. The outer realms would retain sovereignty over the planets, but that sovereignty would be subject to a set of rules based on the Terran Bill of Rights, regardless of the constitutional laws of the nation holding sovereignty. Most notably, an extremely strong set of contractual and land-ownership rights would be mandated by these rules, and would in practice allow Terran firms to control the Terran half of the planetary resources, and any settlements that spring up nearby, effectively in perpetuity.

Action Item: You, as naval chiefs of your respective realms, will be consulted by your national leaders on the merits of this proposal. You will not have the final say, but your views will be considered. Basically, I'll roll a die, but it'll be biased towards whichever option you prefer. If the proposal passes, economic development of these worlds will likely improve the financial state of your realm in the long run, and it may lead to some technology falling into your hands in the process(though none of the one-per-turn research techs, only background fluff techs). However, it will also improve the state of the Hegemony, it will effectively them advance bases for scouting or deployment if they ever choose to get aggressive towards you, and it will establish a precedent of dividing your realm's sovereignty in that you might later regret. Canonically, the LC and FS said yes immediately, and the DC/CC/FWL also agreed several decades down the line - in total, it developed 20 worlds within the first few decades and over 100 within a century. However, I wanted to give you some say in the matter. Note that this offer is only open to the realms immediately bordering the Hegemony - the Marians, Taurians, Rim Worlders, and United Hindus are not able to take advantage of this proposal at the current time. (Sorry Truetanker)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 17 July 2018, 13:36:27
Research
DC: $3,915m
FS: $464m
CC: $71m

TH: $8,101m
UHC: $426m
TC: $363m
RWR: $476m

TOTAL = $13,816m

The winner is the Terran Hegemony, gaining Naval PPCs. Vehicular drop chutes are now available to all nations.

Budgets
Note that I'm not going to specifically cite "economic growth" as a reason for budgetary changes henceforth - assume it's constantly happening in the background. As a result, some nations(e.g., the DC this turn) may see budget increases while the stated explanation is negative.
CC: $89B, due to reconquest.
DC: $111B, due to poor administration.
FS: $98B. Note that I set the FS budget erroneously high last turn. Their turn 1-2 budget was $90B, so turn 3 should have been $95B. I won't punish Kiviar for my error, but that's why it's dropping this turn and being treated as an increase.
FWL: $104B, due to lost territory.
LC: $93B, due to greatly improved organization, offset by some damage in rebellions.
MH: $12B, as increased tax revenue from Lothario makes up for the loss of loot.

TH: $765B
UHC: $23B
RWR: $24B
TC: $12B, as emergency spending continues.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 17 July 2018, 15:06:39
Lyran Commonwealth, Turn IV:  2380-2389

Code: [Select]
Lyran Commonwealth, Turn Beginning 2380
Physical Assets:
Starting Shipyards: Alarion: 3/3  New Kyoto: 3/1  Tamar 1  Gibbs 1
Starting Warships:  Heimdaller II FFx6 30.378
Tyr CA x 6 44.3
Walkure CV x6 41.682
Staring Stations: Ribe Recharge Station x120 21
Staring Jumpships:  30 15
Starting Dropships:  0
Starting Small Craft: 600 6
Starting Fighters: 9000 45
Maintenance Value 203.36 (20.34)

Cash: 984M
Income:         93B
93.984


Expenses: 93.984
Maintenance: 23.9
(120% for Warships, 150% for Warship Carried Fighters)
Production Tyr CA x3 22.15
Production Walkure CV x3 20.841
Production Heimdaller II x 3 15.189
Production Fighters: 2000 10
Total: 92.08
Remainder 1.904


Lyran Commonwealth, Turn Ending 2389
Physical Assets:
Ending Shipyards: Alarion: 3/3  New Kyoto: 3/1  Tamar 1  Gibbs 1
Ending Warships:  Heimdaller II FF x 9 45.567
Tyr CA x 9 66.45
Walkure CV x 9 62.523
Ending Stations: Ribe Recharge Station x120 21
Ending Jumpships:  30 15
Ending Dropships:  0
Ending Small Craft: 600 6
Ending Fighters: 11K 55
Maintenance Value 271.54 (27.15)
Cash: 1.904

Policy:  We welcome the Terran Hegemony's Terraforming Technology, their corporations, their trade, and their money.  Once we know what worlds are being developed, we will put recharge stations over them, too.  To the degree possible, encourage immigration from across the Commonwealth to those worlds, and make them as 'Commonwealth' (instead of 'Donegal' or 'Tamar' or etc.) in their flavor and feel.  To the degree possible, we should learn, adapt, and adopt Terran Terraforming Technology for use on our own worlds ASAP - historic examples of minor economic powers stealing a march on major ones this way abound, and if we are then turning around and using the technology in our backfield, far away from Terra, it shouldn't generate too much notice.

Butterfly Note:  I see the Marsden Coup and the following revolt, came and were settled early.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 17 July 2018, 15:56:40
And when the citizens of Covington looked up into the night sky, they knew that the stars held fear.

Nice.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 17 July 2018, 17:10:02
FWL, Turn 4:  2380


[Admiralty]
The review is clear, the Phalanx Corvettes were being misused. Evidence has shown that the Phalanx-class was structurally misused by both their captains and several superior officers.
These incompetents have been removed from service, but additional measures will be taken. The Phalanx will be taken out of production and the remaining ships will be pooled together into one independent retaliatory group. They will receive tested captains who have shown that they can operate them as intended.

A part of the budget will be used for establishing more hidden planetary defense ASF wings.


Code: [Select]
Turn 2380

Available Shipyards
Atreus (3-3*)
Irian (3-1)
Loyalty (3-2)

Starting Assets Qty Total
Fighters 2232 11.160
Small Craft 240 2.400
Dropships 48 14.400
Jumpships 12 6.000
Phalanx (4631) 4 18.524
Heracles (8874) 18 159.732
Eros Station 8 4.760

(All Costs in Millions)
Banked 5.077
Budget 104.000

Maintenance % 10
Maintenance Costs 21.698
Prototype Costs 0
Shipyard Upgrades* 1 40.000
Research 0
Repairs 0

Construction
Fighters 1288 6.440
Small Craft 48 480
Dropships 8 2.400
Jumpships 0 0
Heracles (8874) 4 35.496
Eros Station (595) 0 0

Total Spent 106.514
Remaining 2.564
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 17 July 2018, 18:42:29
Dumb Random Question:  Whats it cost to -move- a shipyard?  As in dissassemble and reassmble elsewhere?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 17 July 2018, 19:02:56
Also - really loved the writing, espc the writing of the Taurian/FS conflict.  I think the choice to have it happen early, before the accumulatio of Taurian Forts make it impossible, was a good one - and I really enjoyed the ‘look she already died please go home’ bit.

Also - as Davionista from the days of Battletech 2nd Edition, it is still nice to see them on occasion act like a bullying feudal state rather than ‘the bestest good guys, that ever was’.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 17 July 2018, 19:25:55
Butterfly Note:  I see the Marsden Coup and the following revolt, came and were settled early.

Yeah, there have been a few butterflies thus far. The conquest of Rasalhague was delayed a couple years by Smegish deciding to make sure his convoys ran less often but had better protection(though conversely, that did make sure that the Rasalhaguers didn't even attempt to attack his ships), and of course the unification of the CC was moved up and the combat at Taurus moved back due to logistical concerns IRL. The Lyran coup was moved up because of Angler giving Marsden her tacit support - the head of the navy is a powerful ally in a coup, and it'll make his position much more secure, which lets him move sooner.

It didn't affect much in gameplay terms - I'd probably have given you the same budget either way, despite the extra couple years to settle things. I don't want players to feel forced to dive into the poorly-documented history of the setting so that they can write metagame-aware fluff to maximize their budget. But it seemed like a meaningful change from canon, and one worth reflecting in the outcomes at least a little.

Nice.

Yeah, I hoped you'd like that one. It seemed like great riff of the optimism in your fluff, and a good reflection of Etien's downward spiral.

The review is clear, the Phalanx Corvettes were being misused. Evidence has shown that the Phalanx-class was structurally misused by both their captains and several superior officers.
These incompetents have been removed from service, but additional measures will be taken. The Phalanx will be taken out of production and the remaining ships will be pooled together into one independent retaliatory group. They will receive tested captains who have shown that they can operate them as intended.

OOC, do you feel that I've been misusing them? It seemed reasonable enough to have the captain try to actually use his ship once it was stranded, instead of merely await potential repair while stuck in hostile space, but I have noticed that I've tended to beat up the escorts quite a bit thus far. In the case of Lurgatan, I was originally expecting to strand a Galahad instead, but I decided to be fair and roll for it, and the Phalanx was the victim of the drive failure instead. Lady Luck took you to the cleaners on that operation overall - the Capellan plan actually had so many gaping holes(mountains of unprotected JumpShips, launching an invasion with naval inferiority, etc.) that the commanding officer of the operation was named Admiral Oh Ver Luk in my notes, but they had a perfect luck roll to your near-minimal one, and it saved their asses.

Dumb Random Question:  Whats it cost to -move- a shipyard?  As in dissassemble and reassmble elsewhere?

I hadn't considered the possibility. Not cheap, certainly. Don't take this as an official ruling, but my first thought is that it would cost as much to move a yard to a new system as it'd cost to build a new one from scratch in a system with a discount(so $5B to move a level 1, $5+10=15B to move a level 2, etc.). Too much of the infrastructure is hard to move - the building happens in stations, which aren't easily KF-mobile, and the supporting factories planetside and work force can't just be dragged a couple hundred light years on a whim either.

Look on the bright side - your best yard complex is way back from the front lines, even if New Kyoto is a bit exposed.

Also - really loved the writing, espc the writing of the Taurian/FS conflict.  I think the choice to have it happen early, before the accumulatio of Taurian Forts make it impossible, was a good one - and I really enjoyed the ‘look she already died please go home’ bit.

Also - as Davionista from the days of Battletech 2nd Edition, it is still nice to see them on occasion act like a bullying feudal state rather than ‘the bestest good guys, that ever was’, on occasion.

That wasn't where the timing came from, at least in this case. I look for decent fights when it's practical(also, because even idiot commanders can usually try to avoid fights they're sure to lose), but on this the Feddies moved in pretty quickly once they put two and two together in canon, and the forts simply wouldn't have time to be built. The half-built forts did good things for the Taurians even so, because a lot of the pressure on the Feddies came from them - the fighters couldn't have done it solo. If you look at it, there's actually a lot of things that have happened based on build speeds in the turns. For example, that's why the Marians didn't get their event until 2374, because an AMS design takes two and a half years to build plus time to work up, get loaded, and travel.

The "Stop, she's already dead! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcZzlPGnKdU)" moment was actually a response to the natural problem of these fights, which is trying to figure out good reasons for fights to stop. I don't want every battle to be fought to annihilation(a few, but not all), but there has to be a reason for the side with the upper hand to not finish the job. That's honestly the aspect of my writing that I'm most worried about exhausting over time, but I do like it when I get some inspiration on that topic. I'd written the battle most of the way through without figuring out how to end it, and then that came to me as a neat wrapping-up of the established plot. I seem to have a pretty good instinct for leaving myself enough dangling plot hooks to write what needs writing, at least thus far.

Re Victor Meredith Susan Steiner-Davion, I tend to set the ethics of the state based on the ruler. The Davions get some good ones later on, but this is kind of a dark era for them. Paul's current reign isn't bad, but Reynard was kind of amoral, and Etien and his spawn are simply awful.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 17 July 2018, 19:52:11
The Lyran coup was moved up because of Angler giving Marsden her tacit support - the head of the navy is a powerful ally in a coup, and it'll make his position much more secure, which lets him move sooner.

It didn't affect much in gameplay terms - I'd probably have given you the same budget either way, despite the extra couple years to settle things. I don't want players to feel forced to dive into the poorly-documented history of the setting so that they can write metagame-aware fluff to maximize their budget. But it seemed like a meaningful change from canon, and one worth reflecting in the outcomes at least a little.

No, thats fine!  I was doing it for the fluff, and seeing changes/impacts/etc. is exactly the point of the whole thing.  Thank you so much, it made me smile. :)  I wasn't looking for the 'Marsden Budget' this turn.

Quote
I hadn't considered the possibility. Not cheap, certainly. Don't take this as an official ruling, but my first thought is that it would cost as much to move a yard to a new system as it'd cost to build a new one from scratch in a system with a discount(so $5B to move a level 1, $5+10=15B to move a level 2, etc.). Too much of the infrastructure is hard to move - the building happens in stations, which aren't easily KF-mobile, and the supporting factories planetside and work force can't just be dragged a couple hundred light years on a whim either.

Look on the bright side - your best yard complex is way back from the front lines, even if New Kyoto is a bit exposed.

No worries - it can cost whatever you say it does, or be practically unmovable if you prefer.  Ive just seen a couple of yards get raided, and I figured IC Id have to be considering the costs of relocating the primary New Kyoto yard vs. the cost of defending it.  At 30B, it would cost as much to move it as it would to just build another one at my main complex... albeit quicker.


Quote
The "Stop, she's already dead! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcZzlPGnKdU)" moment was actually a response to the natural problem of these fights, which is trying to figure out good reasons for fights to stop. I don't want every battle to be fought to annihilation(a few, but not all), but there has to be a reason for the side with the upper hand to not finish the job. That's honestly the aspect of my writing that I'm most worried about exhausting over time, but I do like it when I get some inspiration on that topic. I'd written the battle most of the way through without figuring out how to end it, and then that came to me as a neat wrapping-up of the established plot. I seem to have a pretty good instinct for leaving myself enough dangling plot hooks to write what needs writing, at least thus far.

Well, assuming both sides have taken at least SOME damage - and as each of us has at least 2 neighbors - Id think in most cases once someone is in retreat, the tendency would be for the victor to allow that retreat.  Chasing people stinks - even though we don't have rules for mines, or relative velocities (outside of high speed engagements, which rules are wonky and painfully oversimplified) but even so...   People you are chasing can throw things out the back that you run into.  Your building a velocity relative to them that they can use to make you hate life by firing missiles or other things 'downhill'.  And finally, we have other neighbors.  If youve won the day, is it REALLY worth risking your ships taking further advantage against a retreating, beaten foe (who by definition will Probably Not Be Back Soon), when your other neighbor is over there counting every ship you lose in THIS fight as a free win for them?  I like the writing on it a lot, but I'd not feel bad as a reader seeing 'We won and let them go rather than risk throwing good ships away on an already achieved objective'
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 17 July 2018, 21:13:25
Tue victorious admiral could also let the other side withdraw due to a lack of ammo/supplies on his side, god knows more than one of us has ships that are quite light on cargo space
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 17 July 2018, 21:27:58
Tue victorious admiral could also let the other side withdraw due to a lack of ammo/supplies on his side, god knows more than one of us has ships that are quite light on cargo space

Yup, that's a pretty obvious choice - for example, if the Heimdaller I had won any fights before the refit, that would almost certainly have been the ending. But I'm doing ~3 fights per turn, and this may easily go for ~50 turns. I can't just use one or two explanations, I'll want quite a few.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 17 July 2018, 21:55:55
Heimdaller was intentionally built with enough enough missiles to win one fight -very thoroughly-... and then go home.  While she never saw combat before the FFV refit, Im still more proud of her than anything Ive designed since.  I may revisit the concept of a ‘peacetime/low intensity/multirole ship with enough throwweight to stand in for a warship in a pinch’ again on a larger hull.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 18 July 2018, 11:51:38
OOC, do you feel that I've been misusing them? It seemed reasonable enough to have the captain try to actually use his ship once it was stranded, instead of merely await potential repair while stuck in hostile space, but I have noticed that I've tended to beat up the escorts quite a bit thus far. In the case of Lurgatan, I was originally expecting to strand a Galahad instead, but I decided to be fair and roll for it, and the Phalanx was the victim of the drive failure instead. Lady Luck took you to the cleaners on that operation overall - the Capellan plan actually had so many gaping holes(mountains of unprotected JumpShips, launching an invasion with naval inferiority, etc.) that the commanding officer of the operation was named Admiral Oh Ver Luk in my notes, but they had a perfect luck roll to your near-minimal one, and it saved their asses.

The captain decisions are realistic enough, but....

Since the beginning, the FWL characters have been using it as an escort or fake ship, but it is actually a very high-speed raider/harasser. Such a structural trend would be eventually noticed by the naval top brass, which would force them to act. In this case keeping the class separate from the other ships, so there is less temptation and pressure for misuse. This is quite a serious action, if the class fails to perform even then, it will likely earned the quirk "Bad Reputation".


ps. Action Item: Positive for Jointly Owned Worlds
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 18 July 2018, 11:55:11

The captain decisions are realistic enough, but....

Since the beginning, the FWL characters have been using it as an escort or fake ship, but it is actually a very high-speed raider/harasser. Such a structural trend would be eventually noticed by the naval top brass, which would force them to act. In this case keeping the class separate from the other ships, so there is less temptation and pressure for misuse. This is quite a serious action, if the class fails to perform even then, it will likely earned the quirk "Bad Reputation".


ps. Action Item: Positive for Jointly Owned Worlds

Im reminded of a historical tendency to see big guns and try to put battle-cruisers into the line of battle, a position for which they were not designed - if perhaps not so ill suited as some historians suggest...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 18 July 2018, 18:44:23
One of you has sent me a couple PMs discussing potential military operations in the event of hostilities against one of their neighbours. I haven't had a chance to follow through on these plans as of yet, because the realms haven't fought each other since I got the message, but I've filed them away for the future. If any of you wish to do the same, please let me know. Also, per a request I've gotten, I'll try in future to give you a heads-up if your realm is expecting to start a war in the next turn, so that you can plan operations accordingly.

---

The Rim Worlds Republic has gotten past the worst fears of its recent armaments crisis, and wishes to resume work on the Renaissance command-circuit project across their entire realm, without abandoning the necessary defensive measures that might make their fleet able to stand up to invasion. As such, the Vittoria-class destroyer production at Finmark will continue, but the Renaissance station network will be expanded from the Apollo-Finmark route to an Apollo-Timbuktu route instead. This requires an additional 10 stations and an additional 20 JumpShips to service the entire route. However, as this much of an investment is beyond what the RWR's stretched naval budget will allow, they have decided to make up the gap by removing the 12 JumpShips from colonial expansion duties(which were expected to be less economical in the face of heavy Terran colonial efforts) and move them to regular transportation instead.

BUDGET: $24B
Maintenance (@100%): $4.884B
2x Vittoria: $12.574B
4x small craft: $40m
10x Renaissance: $2.02B
8x JumpShip: $4B
Research: $482m
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 19 July 2018, 08:27:39
In Battletech space operations Fighters are strongly limited by their fuel inefficiency.

Can small craft serve as mid-space refueling for aerospace fighters, similar to the way that modern military aircraft take on fuel from dedicated tankers?

In the alternate, one supposes bomb hard-points can carry fuel tanks, or that hypothetical 'generic' fighters could be designed to carry fuel loads sufficient for longer range operations.

If a fighter can in theory lug 2x30 Ton Barracuda Missiles, one supposes it could carry 1x30 Ton Barracuda and a 30 Ton Drop Tank, 1 x 50 Ton Killer Whale and a 10 Ton Drop Tank, or the like.

Failing all of the above (and I know that we discovered that it seems Small Craft don't have hard points), could small craft carry missiles in cargo space for the standoff strike role? 

My recollection is that Small Craft have way better fuel endurance than Aerospace Fighters. ((Checked this.  Looks like 1.84 Tons for a 1G Burn Day for a 200 Ton Battle Taxi.  So yeah.  Small Craft have operational mobility on par with warships and dropships, or near it))
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 19 July 2018, 19:26:54
TechManual explicitly states that fighter bomb hardpoints can take fuel drop tanks. It doesn't offer explicit rules for them, but that's not really a problem for us. Likewise, small craft can equip both fluid suction systems and cargo, so a "tanker" design should be possible.

Amusingly, while digging through for the rules, I also found that an anti-capital fighter weapon (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Anti-Ship_Missile) is actually canonical, though it's FCCW-era tech.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 19 July 2018, 19:33:58
If Small Craft can serve the role of tankers, then lets do that at least for now for me, rather than worry about Small-Craft-Bombers - though I did design an amusing little 7/11 60 ton cargo no guns light armor ‘DeHaviland Mosquito’ style 200 ton small craft bomber.

If the Walkure’s small craft loadout is insufficient to the task,  could supplement with additional small craft from other ships.  If it needs a redesign to make the doctrine work, let me know, and Ill do a refit or change the next production run to carry more small craft.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 19 July 2018, 19:47:20
If the Walkure’s small craft loadout is insufficient to the task,  could supplement with additional small craft from other ships.  If it needs a redesign to make the doctrine work, let me know, and Ill do a refit or change the next production run to carry more small craft.

It's not binary - as with most things, it's diminishing returns. The Walkure has 24 SC for 720 fighters, a 30:1 ratio. If we say a SC can plausibly get 100 tons of cargo(haven't made one in a while, but it sounds about right), and they're all fit for tanker duties, that adds about 3 tons per fighter. For a typical fighter, that's a substantial increase in burn time, but not enough to give it nearly WarShip-level range(and your life support is comparatively pretty primitive as well, so you wouldn't want to). Realistically, you could probably double the burn time for a max-effort strike on a Walkure with heavy tanker support, and 24 SC is enough to arrange some sort of Black Buck (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Buck)-style monstrosity if there's a target you really want to scare the crap out of with a few fighters.

A tanker-heavy doctrine will probably want a higher ratio in future designs, but this is a brand-new approach. For that, the current ratio seems decent - if nothing else, I expect that you'll want to experiment for a bit before investing too heavily in space for non-combat craft.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 19 July 2018, 19:52:52
Yeah.  Probably best to use it a few times, and try to solve problems with doctrine as well as with enginnering.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 19 July 2018, 21:14:53
For extremely long range ASF, you can create a smallcraft with thrust 1 that holds an ASF bay, 10 tons of fuel, and a few tons of cargo for supplies.  You get the efficient fuel expansion of a smallcraft and the maneuverability of an ASF when it's time for combat. 

The same effect can be achieved more easily (although at a greater cost in transport tonnage) via a Naval Tug while supporting a 3/5 thrust.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Vition2 on 19 July 2018, 21:49:02
Amusingly, while digging through for the rules, I also found that an anti-capital fighter weapon (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Anti-Ship_Missile) is actually canonical, though it's FCCW-era tech.
I almost mentioned it about a month ago, but figured you had already seen it and decided to go with the barracuda-equivalent regardless.  There are a few things that cropped up in the FCCW-era that I consider to be should have been much earlier, sub-capital weapons and specialty munitions being the big standouts for me.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 20 July 2018, 00:19:11
Most air forces use airliners for tankers so I would imagine something like a leopard would be perfect size. That way you can top off before and after the strike.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 20 July 2018, 00:21:09
Draconis Combine Turn 2380

In response to the construction of the Crucis-class Battleships, the DCA has started an upgrade of the yards over New Samarkand, in order to put the Nagato project in effect in the near future. To help fund the yard upgrades, all six of the under-performing Kutai-class Frigates have been sold to the Taurian Concordant, to aid their defense against Davion aggression.

Code: [Select]
Year: 2380 Value in Millions
Money Available 111,000
Remaining from Last Turn
Available Shipyards

Luthien 3/2/2/1
New Samarkand 3/1
Midway 1

Repairs

Maintanence 170106 12% 20412.72


Refits

Construction Unit Price
Shipyards New Sam 3>4 40,000 40,000
Stations Onsen 0 451 0
Warships Atago 2 9,339 18,678
       Fubuki 0 7,241 0
     Minekaze 5 6,102 30510
       Trojan 1 4,031 4,031
Jumpships 0 500 0
Dropships 0 300 0
Fighters 360 5 1,800
Small Craft 200 10 2000
Research 1,568 1 1568
Loan
Total Spent 118999.72

Income Trojan Lease 2 1000 2000
Marian Loan 1 1000 1000
Kutai Sale 5000
Remaining 0


Future Income Trojan Loan 2000/Turn 1 Turns left
Yard Loan 1000/Turn 4 Turns left
Kutai Sale 5000/Turn 4 Turns left

Start Turn In Service Value BV
Warships Atago 7 65373 83558
       Fubuki 3 21723 57421
   Minekaze 4 24408 66478
         Kutai 0 0 15629
       Trojan 2 8062 15229
Stations Onsen 20 9020
Jumpships 30 15000
Dropships Small 32 9600

Fighters 2736 13680
Small Craft 324 3240
Total 170106

Maintanence 12% 20412.72

Fighter Complement Whole Fleet 996
DS Complement Whole Fleet 24

End Turn In Service
Warships Atago 9 84051
       Fubuki 3 21723
    Minekaze 9 54918
          Kutai 0 0
        Trojan 2 8062
Stations Onsen 20 9020
Jumpships 30 15000
Dropships Small 32 9600

Fighters 3096 15480
Small Craft 524 5240
Total 223094

Maintenance 12% 26771.28

Fleet Complement Fighters 2016
DropShips 24
Small Craft 288

Station Complement Fighters 720
Small Craft 240

Code: [Select]
Deployments

Steiner Front Atago-class - Atago, Chokai, Aoba
Minekaze-class – Minekaze, Yukikaze, Yayoi
Trojan-class - Sinister (By some quirk of fate the entire crew is left handed)

Davion Front Atago-class - Takao, Furutaka, Myoko
Minekaze-class – Hayate, Hakaze, Mikazuki
Trojan-class - Insidious

Terran Front Atago-class - Kashima, Maya, Nachi
Minekaze-class – Shikinami, Satsuki, Okikaze
Trojan-class - Iga

Reserve Fubuki-class - Fubuki, Ibuki, Yudachi

Each Atago is paired with a Minekaze, with any incursion beyond a single vessel bringing the rest of the 6-ship squadron on its front into action
Fubukis are deployed at Luthien, New Samarkand and Benjamin, can also be called in to respond to attacks if needed.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 20 July 2018, 05:25:42
Taurian Concordat:
BUDGET: $12B
Repairs: $3B
Kutai payments $5B
Maintenance(@50% for SC/DS, @75% for everything else): $3.942B
Research: $58m

I hate having to cut maintenance that badly, but the purchase was the only way to get a decent fleet, and if repair costs can be avoided for a turn or two they may even be able to build their forts and/or light units back up.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 20 July 2018, 08:27:36
Most air forces use airliners for tankers so I would imagine something like a leopard would be perfect size. That way you can top off before and after the strike.

That makes sense for a land (here, planet) based force.  Naval forces IRL lack that capability, and dropships would have to land, refuel, and re-launch the fighters - placing themselves in no different a position than simply moving carriers close to the enemy force, and having to juggle a fighter strike through an even more limited number of doors.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 20 July 2018, 08:30:09
Taurian Concordat:
BUDGET: $12B
Repairs: $3B
Kutai payments $5B
Maintenance(@50% for SC/DS, @75% for everything else): $3.942B
Research: $58m

I hate having to cut maintenance that badly, but the purchase was the only way to get a decent fleet, and if repair costs can be avoided for a turn or two they may even be able to build their forts and/or light units back up.

Painful, yes, but it gives them a naval force that they could not have had otherwise, a handy thing given a vastly more powerful, and ever so near, neighbor.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 20 July 2018, 09:55:49
That makes sense for a land (here, planet) based force.  Naval forces IRL lack that capability, and dropships would have to land, refuel, and re-launch the fighters - placing themselves in no different a position than simply moving carriers close to the enemy force, and having to juggle a fighter strike through an even more limited number of doors.

Why would fighters need to land in DropShips if they don't need to land in small craft to refuel? Refueling probes should be usable by DS if SC can use them.

Painful, yes, but it gives them a naval force that they could not have had otherwise, a handy thing given a vastly more powerful, and ever so near, neighbor.

For sure. Better to have a navy and not be able to make good use of it than to not have a navy at all.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 20 July 2018, 10:04:03
Why would fighters need to land in DropShips if they don't need to land in small craft to refuel? Refueling probes should be usable by DS if SC can use them.

For sure. Better to have a navy and not be able to make good use of it than to not have a navy at all.

Eh, just figured they would, cause droppers have doors and act like warships in most ways?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 20 July 2018, 10:18:57
Eh, just figured they would, cause droppers have doors and act like warships in most ways?

I mean, they certainly can do it that way, but they could also install refueling probes like a small craft. There's some element of "Don't poke too many holes in your ship's armour if you want to use it for combat later on", but I'd imagine that a tanker DS isn't going to be the one carrying all the Killer Whale tubes, so that should probably be okay.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 20 July 2018, 10:21:38
Fair cop.  Well, Ive got small craft, so thats what Ill use for now.  Might look at collars on future designs, depending on any number of things.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 20 July 2018, 21:54:03
CC Turn 4:

Budget: $89,000M
Surplus: $4,828M
Total Turn 4 budget: $93,828M
---
Total Maintenance: $18,496M
Fighters @200%
All others @100%
Research: $100M
---Building:
1450x Fighters
4x Wrath
6x BoShots
2x Qinru Zhe

Losses:
71x Fighters
1x Light DS

End of Turn 4 totals:
Chongzhi: 27
Qinru Zhe: 5
Quzhujian: 4
BoBeer: 1
Wrath: 9
BoShots: 11
-
Fighters: 4119 (Fleet: 3518, 601 Local/Ground based/Training)
Small Craft: 1267 (Fleet: 1126, 141 Local/Ground based/Training)*  (Doctrine will be reducing the # military SC at recharge stations, and allowing Commercial services to utilizes the bays)
Light DS: 87
Jump Ships: 3

--
Fluff-
Fleet Flash com-111512535982:
With great ceremony and celebration, today the Chancellor Franco Martel Liao announced a new military honor, The Chancellor's Colors.  Reaching back into the great and glorious history of our ancestors, and bringing forth a tradition that stretches 1000s of years, Chancellor Liao has announced that, just as the Han dynasty restricted the employ of gold on a uniform to themselves and thier trusted advisors, so too will only those awarded "The Chancellor's Colors" be allowed to employ the color and metal Gold in their uniform.

In light of the recent victories and brilliant strategy of the Venerable Admiral Oh Ver Luk, Chancellor Liao has awarded the Venerable Admiral Luk the first to bear the Chancellor's Colors.  Chancellor Liao personally presented gold threaded piping, crest, and hat-rim in a heartfelt ceremony of congratulations.

Chancellor Liao also awarded the Colors to the Capellan Hussars for going beyond all expectations in ripping multiple worlds from the poisonous grasp of the so called Free Worlds League.  Liao declared that from this day forward, the Hussars would form the honor guard of the capital, and his personal bodyguards.  The Chancellor gifted each surviving member with a gold silk cravat, and had gold crests emblazed on the Hussar's vehicles.

Would you like to know more?
---

Fleet Intelligence announced today that they have found no evidence supporting the widespread rumor that the fleets newest carrier Bringer of Vodka Shots is haunted.  As with each of her sister ships, full sweeps and examinations were done, a complete flush of her computer systems, and a re-initialization was done, prior to accepting her for Builder's trials, but NBoI claims they are still flooded with complaints and comments about some ghostly voice in the system.

We here at the Naval Bureau of Publishing have sent our on investigation crew, and one of our crew say they themselves heard a voice in the head telling them to wash behind their ears, and to make sure they floss their teeth.  Sadly the voice wasn't recorded, and no further attempts to record or find the voice have been successful.  As this was prior to the re-initialization, we at the Naval Bureau of Publishing believe the NBoI's assertion that early software bugs are the cause and upgrading things is the fix.

However, If you, or someone you know, has more information, please send a fleet message to:
Sing Hanson, NBoP@NBoP

Would you like to know more?
---
 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 20 July 2018, 22:01:18
So, I did a thing cause I needed to do a thing.

I made a Turn sheet so I could both track my various turns, but to also (cause I'm lazy) populate previous information to each new turn, without my having to do it by hand.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xXZ_929xGs6VZKh6vTAhKTlovQn97g7qqFn7_ULEj2I/edit?usp=sharing

Feel free to make a copy and put your stuff in. 
To use it, (after filling in your own stuff)
select the Template Sheet tab, right click "duplicate", change the name to "Turn X" where x is the new turn, and there is a space between Turn and the number.
Open the new turn, change the Current Turn field (B2) to the new turn, and the spreadsheet should populate based on the past turn.  (This chains, so each turn will be effected by the turn prior.)
A White Cell is user-editable.  A shaded cell is a calculated Cell, and shouldn't be changed by hand.

If anyone has a suggestion on something to add, or do something differently, let me know.

I've found this really useful this turn, in trying to find the right balance for building the right balance of ships.  The "Fleet Needs" was also helpful to let me know how many more fighters I needed to buy this round to fill out my carriers.

Anyway, hopefully this helps someone else.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 22 July 2018, 20:11:38
Who are we still waiting on? Is it just Maid Marian?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 22 July 2018, 20:18:19
Marian Hegemony
Federated Suns
Hindu Collective (maybe merge them early to lower GM workload?)
Terran Hegemony
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 23 July 2018, 08:56:31
The UHC is almost zero workload, because they don't do much. The Hegemony is mostly waiting to decide if they want to make use of their new PPCs(which will require non-canon designs, but for a point-defence station that might be a good idea since canon has a serious lack there), but otherwise I have their turn mostly figured out. I've also got most of the research of what happened in canon done. My goal right now is to finish it by the end of the week, but we'll see how that goes.

FYI, blame Kiviar for any delays - he kidnapped me this weekend :P
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 23 July 2018, 09:36:09
The UHC is almost zero workload, because they don't do much. The Hegemony is mostly waiting to decide if they want to make use of their new PPCs(which will require non-canon designs, but for a point-defence station that might be a good idea since canon has a serious lack there), but otherwise I have their turn mostly figured out. I've also got most of the research of what happened in canon done. My goal right now is to finish it by the end of the week, but we'll see how that goes.

FYI, blame Kiviar for any delays - he kidnapped me this weekend :P

Concert?  SCA Event?  Gaming Convention?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 23 July 2018, 10:52:36
Concert?  SCA Event?  Gaming Convention?

Nah, just a few of us hanging out at his place.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 23 July 2018, 14:04:06
Nah, just a few of us hanging out at his place.

Also watching one man drink 10% less than a lethal dose of Coke.

I'm still finding cans in weird places.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 23 July 2018, 14:05:54
Well, the Hegemony got NAVAL PPCs... I dont think ‘Standard Scale’ PPCs come along for a while, yet...  so arent they still looking at AC5s and Machine Guns, like the rest of us...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 23 July 2018, 14:36:15
Well, the Hegemony got NAVAL PPCs... I dont think ‘Standard Scale’ PPCs come along for a while, yet...  so arent they still looking at AC5s and Machine Guns, like the rest of us...

I just realized I said "point defence station" above, which is not at all what I meant. Standard defensive stations. NPPCs for that purpose are somewhat silly - NL-55s are better in basically every way on a station, and the cost difference is kind of extreme with the x5 multiplier - but it seems like a very Terran thing to do.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 23 July 2018, 15:07:00
I just realized I said "point defence station" above, which is not at all what I meant. Standard defensive stations. NPPCs for that purpose are somewhat silly - NL-55s are better in basically every way on a station, and the cost difference is kind of extreme with the x5 multiplier - but it seems like a very Terran thing to do.

AHHHHH!  Okay.

Yess  masses of HNPPCs (much more expensive per blam than NLs or MNPPCs) seem very terran.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 23 July 2018, 16:17:13
Ok.. I'm very sorry for this very late write.

Been sick, lost internet and a full week work. Then there is GenCon coming next Wed. So on top of this, I haven't the internet monies... doomed to the Public Library and it's screwy hours! I'll try to post as often as I can... may take some time doing so in between.

End Budget turn 3: 12 Billion and 870 Million

Now I'll write my responses to the questions and posts I see...

2374: Yeah.... I can work this in.

Note that this offer is only open to the realms immediately bordering the Hegemony - the Marians, ...are not able to take advantage of this proposal at the current time. (Sorry Truetanker) Boo! Hiss!

MH: $12B, as increased tax revenue from Lothario makes up for the loss of loot. Cha..ching!

Would you like to know more?
---
  Hey now, that's my line... but I can share!

Who are we still waiting on? Is it just Maid Marian?
Ha. Ha.  :P Very funny... you. Just wait for turn 5! I got something in mind for you, personally.

OK done with response time. Now for Action!

Budget for Turn 4
Previous ending:  12 Billion and 870 Million
Taxes:                  12 Billion                         
Total:                   24 Billion and 870 Million

Debt:                      3 Billion ( 2 for Trojan loan and 1 for Yard credit )
Yard build,             5 Billion ( Class-1, ( Alphard #2 )
Build Yard#1:         4.532 Billion ( 2 Scapha I with full kit )
Build Yard#2:         4.162 Billion ( 1 Scapha I, 1 Scapha II with full kit )
Recruitment Drive:   .250 Million ( RD )
Retirement Funding:.250 Million ( RF )
Donations :              .500 Million for Periphery Aid Package, helping the homeless in the Lothian League.
Training Exercise:    .500 Million ( TE )

Ending Balance : 4 Billion and 41 Million

Story arc:


Marian Action News Network ( MANN )
Vatnajökull, Lothario
Marian Hegemony Embassy

MANN Reporter in a parka reporting ~ " It's been a few years since the Legios of Marian Hegemony came and conquered the Lothian League. Conquered may be a strong word as you can see... " pointing to some red writing on the wall of a building. " Non Victoria! Victory, No!, Such strong words for a little bit of fame. But what is victory? And at what cost, the Imperator declined to comment. In other news the new arrival of the Alphard was seen as more of a political move than not, only time will tell. Departing Lothario, Vi left with two of the Scahpa I's she came with along with a Trojan. Pride of Lothario still berths over the capital. This is Marian Action News Network on Lothario reporting. " Camera fades to the MANN news logo, then black.

I might as well add names to these fleets.

First Fleet:
Alphard is a Scapha II, leadship Alphard Task Force
Spica is a Scapha I, Spike
Ignis is a Scapha I, Fire
Bellator is a Scapha I, Warrior *
Trojan is a Trojan, loanship from DCA and Scout for ATF

Second Fleet:
Vi Unitatis Thru is a Scapha II, leadship of Vi Task Force
Letum is a Scapha I, Death
Rana is a Scapha I, Frog
Pompeii is a Trojan, loanship from DCA and Scout for VTF

Lothario Fleet:
Pride of Lothario is a Scapha I
Frozen Myst is a civilian jumpship

TT

MODIFY: OOpsie.. apparently an over jealous clerk tried to Embezzle the Treasury out of some money, fixed now and added something else. *

Training Exercise means just that, Combat training; ship to ship, ship to shore, recon in force, landings, Orbit artillery, defender and attacker modes, Relief Aid and Hide and Seeker.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 23 July 2018, 21:01:24
The Terran Hegemony feels moderately confident about their naval posture, but wishes to ensure that their fleet will not need to be tied down in fixed defensive positions. As such, they have developed the Ancile defensive station. Intended as a defensive cover for shipyards, orbital industry, and other such fixed installations, the Ancile includes several design innovations. The most obvious of these is the primary offensive battery, six gigantic new energy weapons that are based on cutting-edge Terran weapons research. Less obvious, but more appreciated by Terran fighter crews, is that the Ancile was designed as a "pit stop" for planetary defence fighters, allowing them to re-fuel and re-arm, or even conduct some repairs if they are too badly damaged to safely re-enter the planetary atmosphere. While the fighter bays are typically kept empty, they have the ability to turn over nearly a full regiment of fighters at once, and generous fuel and weapon storage allow them to keep large forces in the fight for extended periods.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Ancile
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $506,865,025.00
Magazine Cost: $10,590,000.00
BV2: 21,391

Mass: 120,000
K-F Drive System: None
Power Plant: Station-Keeping Drive
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
6 Naval PPC Heavy
24 Capital Launcher AR-10
36 AC 5
48 Machine Gun (IS)

Class/Model/Name: Ancile
Mass: 120,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 1,440
Controls: 120
Structural Integrity: 1 1,200
Total Heat Sinks: 1866 Single 1,768
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 7500 points 1,530
Fire Control Computers: 0
Armor: 360 pts Standard 450
Fore: 60
Fore-Left/Right: 60/60
Aft-Left/Right: 60/60
Aft: 60

Grav Decks:
Medium: 2 200
Escape Pods: 29 203

Crew And Passengers:
20 Officers in 2nd Class Quarters 140
49 Crew in Steerage Quarters 245
44 Gunners and Others in Steerage Quarters 220
88 Bay Personnel in Steerage Quarters 440
48 Bay Personnel (fighter pilots, assumed to not be permanently stationed) 0

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
6 Naval PPC Heavy Nose 1350 900 (90-C) Extreme-C 18,000
6 Capital Launcher AR-10 FR 120 240 (24-C) Extreme-C 1,500
6 Capital Launcher AR-10 FL 120 240 (24-C) Extreme-C 1,500
6 Capital Launcher AR-10 AR 120 240 (24-C) Extreme-C 1,500
6 Capital Launcher AR-10 AL 120 240 (24-C) Extreme-C 1,500
6 AC 5 Nose 6 30 (3-C) Medium 48
6 AC 5 Aft 6 30 (3-C) Medium 48
6 AC 5 FR 6 30 (3-C) Medium 48
6 AC 5 FL 6 30 (3-C) Medium 48
6 AC 5 AR 6 30 (3-C) Medium 48
6 AC 5 AL 6 30 (3-C) Medium 48
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

Ammo Rounds Mass
Capital Launcher Barracuda Ammo 240 7,200.00
Capital Launcher Killer Whale Ammo 240 12,000.00
Capital Launcher White Shark Ammo 240 9,600.00
AC 5 Ammo 2160 108.00
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 4800 24.00

Bays
Cargo Bay (Aft, 2 doors): 40,000 tons standard cargo, 10,000 tons liquid cargo(=9,100 tons fuel stored)
Hangar Bay (Aft, 8 doors): 48 fighter, 8 small craft

The Hegemony has earmarked 10 Anciles each for the minor yards of Thorin, Terra Firma, New Earth, Yorii, and Graham IV. Twenty are being built at the larger Keid yards, and fully fifty are planned for the defence of Terra itself. As well, substantial numbers of fighters are being purchased to bolster the defenses of these planets. This has placed a substantial pinch on fleet unit construction, and far fewer new hulls will be purchased in the 2380s than in decades prior, along with a moderate cut to the research budget. However, the defences are expected to free up those units that do get built for more offensive operations if needed, and this trade-off is acceptable to Terran planners.

BUDGET: $765B
Maintenance(@100%): $196.069B

Shipyard upgrades: $110B (Keid 5>6, Terra 11>22, Thorin 2>3, Terra Firma 2>3)

4x Black Lion: $28.172B
4x Bonaventure: $20.144B
4x Cruiser: $30.092B
4x Lola: $26.528B
6x Quixote: $70.596B
4x Essex: $23.932B
4x Monsoon: $58.224B
4x Aegis: $42.752B

Ancile R&D: $507m
120x Ancile: $60.84B

120x DropShip: $36B
900x small craft: $9B
9600x fighter: $48B

Research: $4.144B
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 23 July 2018, 23:23:48
Could release a Block II Monsoon with the canon NPPCs reinstalled
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 24 July 2018, 05:08:16
Could release a Block II Monsoon with the canon NPPCs reinstalled

I could, but that'll probably wait until there's another upgrade to do alongside it(armor, etc.). We're getting to the point where the TH went defensive-minded - Brian Cameron of Castle Brian fame takes over in 2382, and in canon he invents the Castle Brian in 2391. However, I couldn't find any station designs they used for centuries yet, so this seems like a reasonable thing to do instead.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 24 July 2018, 20:35:23
Moderately confident?  One shudders to consider what the Hegemony would need to feel ‘comfortable’.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 24 July 2018, 22:49:31
Moderately confident?  One shudders to consider what the Hegemony would need to feel ‘comfortable’.

Full conquest of the inner sphere probably.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 25 July 2018, 17:10:35

Full conquest of the inner sphere probably.

I'll defend my borders with Piracy if I have to!

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 25 July 2018, 19:20:12
I'll admit that writing the TH turns is a bit of a challenge. I don't have a good sense of their motivations, so I basically treat them like the modern USN - they want enough ships to beat everyone else all at once and still be able to support a couple mid-sized invasions by the Army afterwards. That's reasonable, right?

---

I'll defend my borders with Piracy if I have to!

In a discussion of the THN coming after you, there's one question that needs to be asked - "What borders?"  >:D

---

The UHC has decided to invest some funds in increasing shipyard capacity, as well as buying a few light units for increased mobility and system defence.

BUDGET: $23B
Maintenance (@150%): $7.586B
Shipyard upgrade (Panpour 1>2): $10B
2x JumpShip: $1B
6x DropShip: $1.8B
300x fighter: $1.5B
Research: $1.114B

Also, this isn't a military ship, and the UHC navy doesn't run any of these, but I thought you might be amused by the civilian designs that the juicy level 3 yard at Panpour is churning out.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Maal
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $7,475,050,004.00
Magazine Cost: $0.00
BV2: 200

Mass: 750,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 2
Maximum Thrust: 3
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
None

Class/Model/Name: Maal
Mass: 750,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 90,000
Thrust
Safe: 2
Maximum: 3
Controls: 1,875
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (16 Integrity) 339,375
Jump Sail: (5 Integrity) 68
Structural Integrity: 5 3,750
Total Heat Sinks: 469 Single
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 13500 points 5,508
Fire Control Computers: 0
Armor: 6 pts Standard 0
Fore: 1
Fore-Left/Right: 1/1
Aft-Left/Right: 1/1
Aft: 1

Dropship Capacity: 1 1,000
Grav Decks:
Small: 3 150
Medium: 0
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 60 420
Life Boats: 60 420

Crew And Passengers:
33 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 330
162 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 1,134
0 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 0
60 Bay Personnel in 2nd Class Quarters 4200
50 1st Class Passengers 500
200 2nd Class Passengers 1,400
250 Steerage Passengers 1,250

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
300,000 Cargo, Standard 300,000 10
12 Bay Small Craft 2,400 6
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 25 July 2018, 23:51:05
I'll admit that writing the TH turns is a bit of a challenge. I don't have a good sense of their motivations, so I basically treat them like the modern USN - they want enough ships to beat everyone else all at once and still be able to support a couple mid-sized invasions by the Army afterwards. That's reasonable, right?

---

In a discussion of the THN coming after you, there's one question that needs to be asked - "What borders?"  >:D

---

The UHC has decided to invest some funds in increasing shipyard capacity, as well as buying a few light units for increased mobility and system defence.

BUDGET: $23B
Maintenance (@150%): $7.586B
Shipyard upgrade (Panpour 1>2): $10B
2x JumpShip: $1B
6x DropShip: $1.8B
300x fighter: $1.5B
Research: $1.114B

Also, this isn't a military ship, and the UHC navy doesn't run any of these, but I thought you might be amused by the civilian designs that the juicy level 3 yard at Panpour is churning out.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Maal
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $7,475,050,004.00
Magazine Cost: $0.00
BV2: 200

Mass: 750,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 2
Maximum Thrust: 3
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
None

Class/Model/Name: Maal
Mass: 750,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 90,000
Thrust
Safe: 2
Maximum: 3
Controls: 1,875
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (16 Integrity) 339,375
Jump Sail: (5 Integrity) 68
Structural Integrity: 5 3,750
Total Heat Sinks: 469 Single
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 13500 points 5,508
Fire Control Computers: 0
Armor: 6 pts Standard 0
Fore: 1
Fore-Left/Right: 1/1
Aft-Left/Right: 1/1
Aft: 1

Dropship Capacity: 1 1,000
Grav Decks:
Small: 3 150
Medium: 0
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 60 420
Life Boats: 60 420

Crew And Passengers:
33 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 330
162 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 1,134
0 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 0
60 Bay Personnel in 2nd Class Quarters 4200
50 1st Class Passengers 500
200 2nd Class Passengers 1,400
250 Steerage Passengers 1,250

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
300,000 Cargo, Standard 300,000 10
12 Bay Small Craft 2,400 6

My impression from the limited source books is that the TH is that because they where hemed in they needed resources and were looking to keep everyone too scared to seriously mess with them.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 26 July 2018, 01:19:02
Think they've done a fairly good job of that
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 26 July 2018, 15:03:47
Think they've done a fairly good job of that

Heh, indeed.

---

FYI, it's looking like I'll probably get the next turn posted this weekend. I'll either post it or give an updated ETA this Saturday afternoon.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 26 July 2018, 15:15:13
Thanks.  Ill be looking forward to it.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: DOC_Agren on 26 July 2018, 17:51:03
Quote
UHC navy doesn't run any of these, but I thought you might be amused by the civilian designs that the juicy level 3 yard at Panpour is churning out.

okay know I'm just a lurker, but isn't that a lvl 2 yard?

and the Maal has no Anti-meteor weapons just incase it happens to be at the wrong place wrong time?
Moderately confident?  One shudders to consider what the Hegemony would need to feel ‘comfortable’.
When it can do as in Canon, I kills it with my Battleships  :thumbsup:

I'll defend my borders with Piracy if I have to!

TT
Well if there is anyone who going to make the Hegemony have to planetcracking to solve the border issue, I will vote for TT >:D
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 26 July 2018, 20:42:28
okay know I'm just a lurker, but isn't that a lvl 2 yard?

Nope, level 3 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1420164#msg1420164).

and the Maal has no Anti-meteor weapons just incase it happens to be at the wrong place wrong time?

Most civilian BT ships don't. Sensors and engines are usually better for that, and any piece of debris too big to hit is probably too big to blow up with an AC/5.

When it can do as in Canon, I kills it with my Battleships  :thumbsup:

Ah, so that's the THN doctrine. NPPCs are anti-fighter weapons as long as you have enough of them. Right?  ::)

Well if there is anyone who going to make the Hegemony have to planetcracking to solve the border issue, I will vote for TT >:D

You do have a point...


EDIT: Truetanker, I see no maintenance costs in that budget you posted. I treat your recruitment/training/etc. spending as being maintenance for gameplay purposes(since crew costs are what a big chunk of the maintenance budget is for), so you're not just letting your ships rot, but you may want to keep an eye on what sort of maintenance ratio that'd imply.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 27 July 2018, 14:57:46
As I'm just a Periphry realm, if it ain't broke, why fix it? But will keep in mind the maintenance thing in the future! Thought I did run something along those lines....  To late to add .500 M as maintenance? I got like 4 something billion budget wise this turn.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Doc!

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 27 July 2018, 15:18:34
As I'm just a Periphry realm, if it ain't broke, why fix it? But will keep in mind the maintenance thing in the future! Thought I did run something along those lines....  To late to add .500 M as maintenance? I got like 4 something billion budget wise this turn.

You can edit your turn until the turn is resolved, but I'll ask that you try to keep it minor once every player's turn is in. Right now Kiviar still hasn't posted his, so I'm still only outlining the turn instead of writing it up in full. A maintenance change right now isn't a problem.

That said, I will ask that you use percentages(not dollars) for your maintenance when possible. There's a big difference between decent maintenance on your fleet versus decent maintenance on the Terran fleet.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 27 July 2018, 18:12:12
*Pokes Kiviar with the Cattleprod of Awakening™*

Get on with it Feddie!  ;D
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 27 July 2018, 23:06:37
*Pokes Kiviar with the Cattleprod of Awakening™*

Get on with it Feddie!  ;D

Alsadius is just using me as a scapegoat, he has had my turn since about 2 hours after the last turn's resolution.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 28 July 2018, 01:12:13
Federated Suns Turn 4 2381-2390

The 2380s were a lean time for the Federated Suns Navy. The Nation's economy had been nearly crippled by the disastrous reign of Eiten Davion and few on New Avalon wanted to risk what little influence they had with the new president defending an organization which had, apart from two notable actions, spent the last ten years sitting on their hands. Because of this, all proposed procurement was unceremoniously canceled, and only the most critical programs were allowed to continue.

Despite the cutbacks, the new president did show considerable support to the Navy. In 2382 he appointed Admiral Michael Hasek to the Navy Board. While this was an obvious political move to appease the anti-spinward worlds in the wake of the Covington incident, the admiral actually proved to be a very effective administrator. With the President's support he enacted a series of reforms which gutted the Navy of much of the parasitic bloat which had grown during Eiten's reign.

This wad not austerity for austerity's sake however. With tensions between the Capellan Confederation, and, much more worryingly, the Terran Hegemony quickly rising, both the President and Admiralty knew that for the Federation to maintain its edge against its neighbors, significant investments to the Federation's infrastructure were imperative.

Turn

Administration
Budget - 98
Upkeep - 16.4

R&D
None

Construction

Shipyards
Layover 2 - 10

Ships
1x Crucis - 11.7
1x Galahad - 10.8
5x Robinson - 39.9

Stations
2x Northumberland-station - 2
10x Barghest-station - 0.7

Misc
5x Lt Dropship - 1.5
25x Sm Craft - 0.25
760x Fighter - 3.8

Research & Other
Research - 40 - 0.04
Fleet repairs - 2
Prize + 1
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: DOC_Agren on 28 July 2018, 09:07:21
okay know I'm just a lurker, but isn't that a lvl 2 yard?
Nope, level 3 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1420164#msg1420164).
My Bad :(

Quote
and the Maal has no Anti-meteor weapons just incase it happens to be at the wrong place wrong time?
Quote
Most civilian BT ships don't. Sensors and engines are usually better for that, and any piece of debris too big to hit is probably too big to blow up with an AC/5.
Well, I will give you that but even the Invader has LL or PPC for that role, and given they are making a nice passenger liner thought it might like protection of Anti-meteor weapons just incase

Quote
When it can do as in Canon, I kills it with my Battleships  :thumbsup:
Quote
Ah, so that's the THN doctrine. NPPCs are anti-fighter weapons as long as you have enough of them. Right?  ::)
:thumbsup: >:D :brew:

Quote
Well if there is anyone who going to make the Hegemony have to planetcracking to solve the border issue, I will vote for TT >:D
Quote
You do have a point...
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Doc!

TT
See I knew you all see my point :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 28 July 2018, 16:31:14
Update: I'm not even close to finished. This turn is low on combat, so it'll be faster, and if all goes well it may be up tomorrow. I'll give an update (or the full turn) tomorrow evening.

Also, I still need answers re: jointly-owned worlds from the FS, DC, and CC. If I don't hear from you, I'll assume the Navy is indifferent and the NPCs will make their decision without you swaying it meaningfully.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 28 July 2018, 16:43:13
What about me? I kinda own but still contested world.

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 28 July 2018, 16:45:22
The DCA is in favour of such a agreement, the Terrans will pay to develop those worlds we can take from them later, and also we gain access to the technology involved.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 29 July 2018, 11:15:21
As this has been a decade of turmoil, chaos, and change, the prospect of additional change has been met with very mixed reactions amongst the CC Navy.  In the end, the decision to advocate for getting in bed with the Terrans came down to the fact that the funding was desperately needed and the fear that should our enemies widen the already huge gulf in funding still more, there would be no way we could survive.  Either we use the funding to span the gap and gain more parity, or we keep them from gaining that advantage.

(CC Naval Department is in favor of split worlds.)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 29 July 2018, 21:27:49
Update: This weekend was stupid busy, and I'm still not close to done. My goal is to get it posted by Thursday, because I'm leaving for vacation on Friday(returning the weekend following, so it shouldn't roadblock things too badly...). Sorry about the delays.

On the good news side, I'm getting research done for future turns, and I've made a few changes that should help me expedite things a bit. Hopefully that'll speed things up. I'll be keeping it fairly close to canon until the Age of War kicks off, but after that I expect butterflies to start flapping in more noticeable ways. I'll also try to keep the write-up of the less important fights shorter, so that they're quicker to write. I just need to have enough time to do that writing.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 29 July 2018, 21:44:37
Thank you for the update!
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 31 July 2018, 13:09:17
I'll be attending the local Gencon Convention, so best guess is Monday or Tuesday to check in, I'll try soonest at best. Might be able to post a comment or two, but one never knows!  xp

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 03 August 2018, 09:59:22
I've got the turn mostly written, and should have it up this afternoon. Some of the fluff event write-ups will be on the short side, because of time pressure, but it'll get out the door on time.

Only one real fight, but it's a doozy.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 03 August 2018, 10:13:20
I've got the turn mostly written, and should have it up this afternoon. Some of the fluff event write-ups will be on the short side, because of time pressure, but it'll get out the door on time.

Only one real fight, but it's a doozy.

Excellent.  Im willing to trade some length for some speed, especially with the fluff events.  And I'm awful curious about the 'doozy' fight - my 'research the Battletech Universe Crystal Ball' isnt giving up its secrets to me very well. :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 03 August 2018, 10:26:56
Let's just say that my original impression of "Splendid Isolation" was somewhat over-stated. Digging through the histories, I came across a non-specific mention of a dispute, and so I rolled some dice to see if it was just diplomatic wrangling or whether it went military. And it seems that everyone was feeling unfortunately hot-headed that day.  :ticked:

I think the fallout from this will constitute the first of the really major butterflies, though that won't happen until next turn.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 03 August 2018, 12:09:51
Turn 4: 2380-2389

Previous turn: 2370-2379 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1429848#msg1429848)

Player Turns:
Lyran Commonwealth: Budget $93B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1429876#msg1429876)
Free Worlds League: Budget $104B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1429915#msg1429915)
Draconis Combine: Budget $111B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1430455#msg1430455)
Federated Suns: Budget $98B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1432241#msg1432241)
Capellan Confederation: Budget $89B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1430732#msg1430732)
Marian Hegemony: Budget $12B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1431341#msg1431341)

NPC Turns:
Terran Hegemony: Budget $765B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1431399#msg1431399)
United Hindu Collective: Budget $23B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1431756#msg1431756)
Rim Worlds Republic: Budget $24B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1430164#msg1430164)
Taurian Concordat: Budget $12B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1430486#msg1430486)

2380:
The Terran Hegemony's proposal for jointly-owned worlds has been debated at some length by the councils of the great lords of the outer realms, and their overall reception has generally been positive.

In the Draconis Combine, Nihongi Kurita's response to the proposal was as abrupt as his response to any other form of business that his courtiers raise to his attention - "Sure, that sounds fine. Find them a few good planets, and make sure to reserve some nice fields for the Coordinator's stables."

In the Federated Suns, Paul Davion immediately vetoed the idea. "The Terrans already have far more economic muscle than we do, and now they want us to give them even more, and to pay for the privilege? Not a chance! Oh my, you'd better send for my doctor - I feel faint."

In the Capellan Confederation, Franco Liao was initially uncertain of the idea. However, after consultation with his ministers, especially the head of the navy, the decision was eventually made to proceed with the proposal. "I hope this doesn't create a situation that my heirs will regret, but we live between Scylla and Charybdis. We cannot afford to wait for them to devour us - we must take our chances and build for the future."

In the Free Worlds League, the Parliament met to discuss the issue at great length. The Minister of Foreign Affairs took no official stance on the issue, and MPs debated several proposed amendments for a potential counter-offer to the Hegemony. However, when it became clear that the Hegemony was not interested in negotiations, a rather tentative compromise plan of giving them a small number of of worlds near the border was debated. The vote looked to be very slightly in favour, though a speech in support of the plan from the Minister of Defense was enough to guarantee its success.

In the Lyran Commonwealth, Robert Marsden's original response was quite tentative. While he was not generally a man who waffled on important decisions, he spent many days mulling over the decision. Eventually, he resorted to calling an aged Jaqueline Angler out of retirement for a discussion. Echoing their earlier discussion of "making the Archons see reason", Angler again discussed her materialistic theory of naval warfare, and made a strong case for acceptance of the treaty. In the end, a chance comment that led to a discussion of making them true "Commonwealth worlds" was what tipped the scales - unhappy with the factional warfare of the past few years, Marsden agreed to establishing several jointly-owned worlds, but only those within a single jump of at least two of the old pre-Lyran realms, to encourage a more diverse pool of settlers.

2381
Continued aid from the Marian Hegemony to conquered Lothian worlds was resulting in the Lothian populace continuing to slowly warm up to the Marian government. While the rural miners remained irascible, the youth had never known any other government, and the bulk of society was starting to accept O'Reilly rule. The decision in 2381 to give the formerly Lotharian planets full representation in the Marian Senate was a strong signal of goodwill that the Lothian populace responded well to. Malicious compliance effectively stopped, and a new Army regiment was successfully raised entirely from Lothian volunteers.

2382
Margaret Cameron had been diagnosed with cancer in 2380, and by 2382 it had become very serious. While she was expected to survive for a while longer, her energy levels and ability to cope with the stresses of office had fallen too low for her to continue as Director-General in good conscience. As such, she resigned and nominated her eldest son Raymond as her successor, to which the Terran High Council readily agreed.

2383:
Raymond Cameron's foreign policy proved much more aggressive than his mother's. A minor trade dispute that had been brewing with the Federated Suns, combined with them being the only nation to refuse participation in the Terran terraforming projects, turned to saber-rattling in 2383. After a Federated Suns customs inspector refused to allow a Terran DropShip to land at Kentares, the Terrans dispatched the Eighth Fleet under Admiral Avasarala to escort a Kentares-bound convoy and guarantee that it could land without interference.

Eighth Fleet consisted of 2 Dreadnoughts, 8 Black Lions, 4 Essexes, and 4 Bonaventures, and was intended to be somewhat less threatening than the massive Second Fleet out of Terra Firma. However, the 52 WarShips of Second Fleet were sent on a "scheduled logistics exercise" to Tigress, to allow them to provide support if needed without being too obviously imposing. Word of the Terran fleet preceded them somewhat, and when Paul Davion heard of the Terran move, he was outraged by Raymond Cameron's belligerence. While he knew as well as any the dangers of tangling with a nation as gigantic as the Terran Hegemony, he was not willing to allow them to simply send a fleet into his space unopposed. Word went out to the fleet commanders across the Suns - a fight might be brewing in Kentares, and they needed to bring all possible strength to the front immediately. While true command circuit routes had not been set up across the whole nation, the reserve fleet at Delevan set out immediately, and the covering forces on the Terran border had already begun concentration in anticipation of a conflict. Fortunately, the fleet facing the Capellan front was based far enough north to reach the battle in time, though most of the units on the Draconis front would take nearly three months to arrive from Fairfax. Additional reinforcements of fighters and DropShips were brought by civilian transport as well, substantially increasing the Davion fighter force.

The confrontation started out small, as these things go. The Terrans arrived in-system and began burning towards Kentares IV, deployed in a shell surrounding the civilian craft. When challenged by the commander of the local recharge station, Admiral Avasarala informed him that the Terran ships would be permitted to land and trade freely, as was the right of all nations, though she agreed to take the Davion protest "under advisement". Additional challenges were regularly issued daily, and were just as regularly dismissed or ignored. When the fleet was a day from the planet, civilian leadership stopped issuing the challenges, and an aged Admiral Hasek started issuing them instead. While this caused some consternation among the Terrans, as they had seen no sign of military presence in system, they ignored it just as routinely. However, to cover their bases, they sent one Bonaventure ahead, accelerating instead of decelerating, to gather intelligence on what might be lurking in planetary orbit.

When the Bonaventure neared the planet, ten hours later, it became obvious that the Federated Suns had been busy. A majority of the fleet was in orbit - one Crucis, two Galahads, two Robinsons, and six Albions were assembled to face the eighteen Terran units. On paper, this arrangement appeared to favour the Terrans. Their fleet out-massed the Davions by over half, and had substantially more damage potential. However, the Suns ships were far more heavily armoured, all save the Crucis were more mobile than their Terran foes, and because of a quirk of the Terran fleet composition, their support craft strength was grossly inferior to their enemies. The Terran fleet did not have even a single DropShip(aside from the civilian craft they were escorting), and only possessed four squadrons of fighters, one of which was engaged in a high-speed flyby of the planet. The Federated Suns were known to have emphasized smaller craft, conversely, and were estimated to carry twenty squadrons of fighters in their ships alone, plus over two dozen DropShips. While the Bonaventure could not tell what sort of DropShips were in use, or what defences might be based on the planet, it was clear that this was a substantial force.

However, the Terrans were committed to seeing their mission through. Admiral Avasarala was not one to fall apart under pressure, and she intended to carry out her mission regardless of opposition. Her fleet was probably superior to the opposition overall, and intelligence analysis had estimated that the Suns were more likely to bluster than to actually risk war with the Hegemony. However, their intelligence was in error - Hasek was as much of a fighter as she, and Paul Davion's orders had been clear. He was only to let them land if he was certain that fighting them successfully was impossible. And so, when six hundred fighters entered space laden with missiles, and forty DropShips spread out in advance of the fleet as a screen, the move was no bluff. A final challenge was issued, ignored as the previous twelve had been, and the fight began.

Analyst's reports had told the Terran fleet what a modern missile salvo looked like, but the reaction on seventeen bridges when over a thousand missiles were launched at the Terran fleet was still shock. Terran ECM proved effective and drew some of the missiles away, and the massed dual-purpose point defence cannons of the Black Lions killed scores more. But while Hasek's previous fights had been against nations with massive point defence installations, the Terran point defence was intended to be a final layer after the screening DropShips and fighters had cleared most of the missiles away, and their fleet had no such screen. Over eight hundred missiles successfully completed their attack run, and the result was instant carnage. The missiles had been targeted at four of the Black Lions, and the lack of defence meant that this was far too tight a targeting spread - the ships were so thoroughly blown apart that over three hundred of the missiles wound up attacking no more than expanding clouds of debris. To add insult to injury, a turret from the THS Gargoyle was blown clear and flew straight into the Bonaventure-class THS Cochran, causing tremendous damage to the light ship and blinding its primary sensor array.

However, despite their shocking losses, the Terrans fought on, and they fought well. They were as agile as their opponents when operating as a fleet, and their weapons had a generally longer range, so they attempted to hold the range open slightly to take advantage of their superiority at range. Naval lasers attacked Davion fighters, and the missile tubes of the remaining Black Lions started attempting to pick apart the DropShip screen by sending barrages far too large for any DropShip's point defence to withstand against any of the small ships which dared to close the range. Meanwhile, over a hundred gigantic cannons opened up against the Galahad-class FSN Percival. The Galahad class was one of the most heavily armoured ships in the known universe - second only to the Crucis beside her - but no armour made by humans could withstand that battering for long. Within two minutes, over a dozen compartments were open to space and three of her heavy turrets had been taken out of the fight. As the gaping wound in her side grew, the Percival's enemies focused their fire at it, and despite the best efforts of her crew to evade the incoming fire, one shell struck true. The ship's primary missile magazine detonated, and while the Percival had fired herself mostly dry, there was still more than enough explosive power there to shatter the ship and kill most of her crew.

But the Percival did not die alone. As she was being reduced, the FSN had been busy. The handful of Cameron fighters had been swatted from the sky contemptuously by the massed fire from Barracuda tubes, and Admiral Hasek was focused destroying the heavy Terran ships, with their massed anti-fighter defences, as quickly as possible. And much as not even the Percival could survive a whole fleet's firepower focused upon her, the Black Lions and Dreadnoughts, with less than half the armour, were doomed as soon as they fell beneath an enemy's guns. The Simurgh had died and the Medusa was a limping wreck by the time the Percival exploded, and fire was shifting to the Dreadnought. Meanwhile, the fighters were focusing their fire on the lightly armoured Bonaventures, where their small cannons could still have a chance to breach a WarShip's armour, and the damaged Cochran was also dispatched rapidly by the swarm of light units.

As the Dreadnought fell under the Davion guns, the cohesion of the Terran fleet began to falter. Admiral Avasarala was flying her flag on Dreadnought, and the ship's communication systems suffered especially badly under the fire. Instead of the brutally effective focused fire of the early engagement, the battle turned into an ugly dogfight on the Terran side, as each ship began engaging their own targets. This was something of a mixed blessing - the division of incoming fire meant more FSN ships needed to move evasively, which made their fire somewhat less effective. The Essex-class Wasp also landed a devastating hit on the Robinson through a fighter bay that had carelessly been left open, which ruined her flight deck and caused terrible secondary explosions of fighter fuel and cannon ammunition. However, the damage was not accumulating quickly enough to take any substantial number of guns out of the action, and the Davion fleet remained as focused as ever. And as the coordination of the Terran fleet faltered, so too did her tenuous web of anti-fighter and anti-missile defences.

The hull of the Dreadnought was as old as any ship in space, but those years had not weakened it. The ship was rightfully a legend - the first true WarShip, the flagship of Admiral McKenna's fleet which had created the Hegemony, and still a powerful and effective battleship. Her hull proved as strong as her name, withstanding cannon shells and missile barrages as well as any ship that had ever taken fire. But this legend could die just like any other ship. And slowly, but surely, she began to falter. Her turrets were smashed, her jump sail ruined, her fuel bays vented to space, and her sick bay took an especially cruel hit from an armor-piercing missile that killed dozens of wounded crew members. After endless minutes of pounding, she could fight no more. Her fusion engine was losing containment, and her crew rushed to the lifeboats. Most made it, but Admiral Avasarala refused to go until her whole crew was evacuated, and the ship did not have nearly that much time. In a brilliant flash, the reactor finally let go. And in that moment, two legends died.

Without their fearless admiral, and without many of their strongest ships, the Terran fleet did not feel able to continue the fight. Rear Admiral Forbes, in command of the Essex division, was the first to surrender, but within mere moments the rest of the fleet had followed. Negotiations over the fallout from the battle continued for months - the Terrans shocked by their horrible defeat but determined to maintain their trading rights, and the Suns elated by their victory but terrified of what would happen if the whole Terran fleet were to descend upon them.

In the end a compromise was reached, and one which might have satisfied both sides even before the twisted wreckage of Kentares taught them the risks of gunboat diplomacy. The Suns returned the ships and crews intact(save the crippled Medusa, whose damage was so severe that it was impractical to repair) and opened their nation to more commerce from foreign nations, while the Hegemony acknowledged the sovereignty of Federated Suns systems and disclaimed any right to reparations from the battle. Both sides issued statements regretting the excesses of their respective admirals(though neither was happy to be pinning the blame on their best-respected fleet commanders), and both promised to go forward in a spirit of peace and brotherhood. And, within three or four years, most of the respective fleets had even moved back from the shared border to their pre-Kentares dispositions.

Losses:
Terran Hegemony: 6x Black Lion, 1x Dreadnought, 1x Bonaventure, 18x fighter, moderate damage to fleet totalling $4B.
Federated Suns: 1x Galahad, 6x DropShip, 131x fighter, serious damage to fleet totalling $12B.

2384
A decade after the Skye declaration of independence, the wounds in the Lyran Commonwealth were slowly starting to heal. The healing was uneven - Marsden's native Donegal region and the urban middle classes were fairly fond of his regime, as it had resulted in an explosion of trade within the realm and brought them substantial prosperity. Conversely, the old Tamar regions were still bitter about several key planets being starved into submission, along with what was seen as mistreatment of Margaret Tamar. Despite their sullen resentment towards Marsden's rule, however, they were at least enjoying their profits from the newly improved trade situation.

2385
Raymond Cameron, Director-General of the Terran Hegemony, received the happy news that his new wife, Katherine McQuiston, was pregnant in late 2385. Unfortunately, Raymond Cameron was sterile. A nasty fight ensued in the Director-General's residence, which got even nastier when he realized that the father was none other than his own brother Brian. Despite the best efforts of his advisors to calm him down, he eventually arrested his own brother, and was talking of demanding a trial on charges of treason. Meeting with the High Council, he was apoplectic and refused any potential compromises or clemency, and worked himself into an outrageous fury. He eventually stalked off to a side room during this debate, but never returned - he was found dead, apparently of a heart attack brought on by his tremendous rage and frustration, and the government of the Hegemony paused to reflect on this extraordinary chain of coincidences.

Raymond left no obvious successor. The principle of dynastic descent was taken as the norm by this point, and his only close relative was in jail expecting treason charges. The President of the Terran Congress managed to name her son, Mitchell Dukirl, as Director-General Pro Tempore, but it was not to last. While Brian Cameron's lack of respect for marriage was no virtue, he was a known quantity, generally respected, and commanded the Cameron name(and, of course, he had already proven his ability to sire an heir). Within two months, Brian was installed as the new Director-General. Disinclined to continue his brother's aggressive policies, he worked instead to strengthen Terran defences and maintain his nation's economic power.

2386
The Draconis Combine had mostly digested the Rasalhaguers by the mid-2380s, and they began looking outward once again. The situation in Tamar seemed especially appealing to the Draconis generals. They expected that the Lyran Army would resist, but they also expected to have some support among the populace if they came to remove Marsden's crushing control of their worlds. In order to test the waters, a probing attack was planned targeting the world of Utrecht, which had been one of the worlds Marsden had starved into submission, and which was experiencing substantial anti-Lyran terrorist activity. Officially acting to assist "the rightful government of the planet", three Draconis regiments landed on the world, and scored major initial successes against the garrison. One battalion surrendered without even firing a shot when they found themselves surrounded by a reinforced regiment.

Unfortunately, the operation turned sour as soon as the orders to coordinate with the locals took hold - no less than four different groups were known to be operating on the planet, and most of them hated each other. One had even made a point of raiding the other three for weapons, as they were less capable of self-defence than the official Lyran armories. An initial Cabinet was set up, with heavy Draconis pressure on all involved to behave properly and work together, but within two days there had been three angry resignations and two assassination attempts on Cabinet ministers. And naturally, all four of the groups were all trying to position themselves as the victims of the others' betrayal. A week later, it was revealed that one of the assassination attempts had been a fake organized by the "victim", who was promptly arrested, and the Lyran relief force arrived. Spontaneous public demonstrations erupted against the fiasco that the new government had devolved into, and when a mob broke into the legislative building during a Cabinet meeting, the President's security forces were convinced it was yet another ploy and wound up shooting the Vice-President for being the supposed ringleader. A bloody fight ensued, and four ministers and thirteen guards died in the fighting. By the time the panicked ministers met the angry mob, it was clear that the "provisional government" could never function properly, and the Draconis forces organized an ignominious retreat, taking a few of the leaders off-world to protect them from "Lyran reprisals" but otherwise abandoning their broken tools to their fates.

2387
Richard Calderon was, by this point, far and away the longest-lived serving ruler of any realm. In his fifty-two years of power, he had taken the Taurian Concordat from a forgotten kingdom that was literally off the maps and turned it into a realm which managed to stand up, however briefly, to one of the great houses. But he was an old man, and not in the best of health, and the stress of his office had taken its toll on him. Late one evening, he suffered a massive stroke while reviewing yet more naval reports, and slipped into a coma from which he would not wake. He died four days later, and was succeeded by his son Daniel. Daniel was to drop the emergency powers his father had held since the first clash with the Davions, though his dedication to his realm was as strong as Richard's and he worked hard to protect it against any outside aggression.

2388
The the grand Memorial to the Fallen of Andurien was unveiled in downtown Jojoken, capital of the planet of Andurien, in June of 2388. The Capellan Confederation had used its decade and a half of peace to re-build the military, but knitting the nation together and turning it from a desperate wartime alliance into a true nation was proving a harder challenge. The victory at Andurien had been the truest expression of the "Capellan Spirit" that Chancellor Liao was trying to build, and with some government support, monuments to the battle were common even in smaller towns throughout the Confederation. The realm was not truly united, and the wounds of its old internal battles still showed sometimes. The Capellan Commonality resented that their original influence in the realm was waning, the Duchy of Liao was proud of their old Duke's new role but regretted that he seemed to be overly influenced by the other realms, and the merchants of St. Ives wished that the borders were not so heavily barricaded and that they could be freer to trade abroad. However, the populace as a whole was beginning to think of themselves as members of a true nation, who shared a true objective.

As the morale and common spirit of the Capellan populace grew, the wounds were healing. Chancellor Liao only hoped that they would heal rapidly enough for the nation to face its next struggle.

2389
The inner sphere had seen a boom in terraforming projects with the latest Terran push for new worlds to be made useful, and on April 8, 2389, the first of these new "jointly owned" worlds, the planet of Dabih in the Draconis Combine, was deemed sufficiently terraformed to stop major work and allow substantial colonial efforts to take over the world. Many of the initial colonists were members of the terraforming workforce, especially Azamis from North Africa, who had become enamoured of the planet's new climate. Most of the rest of the terraformers moved on to a follow-up project which attempted to turn the planet's principal moon Shakhi into an agricultural settlement.

Research
DC: $1,568m
FS: $40m
CC: $100m

TH: $4,144m
UHC: $1,114m
RWR: $482m
TC: $58m

TOTAL: $7,506m

The winner is the Rim Worlds Republic, gaining SRMs. All nations can now use NPPCs.

Budgets
CC: $92B
DC: $114B
FS: $100B
FWL: $107B
LC: $99B
MH: $13B

TH: $775B
UHC: $24B
RWR: $26B
TC: $12B, though no longer as a result of emergency spending.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 03 August 2018, 13:02:16
Daayum.  You do deliver.  The death of Dreadnought was so sad.  And ~6~ Black Lions?  Good lord.

Also.. thanks for using Jackie.  I was planning on writing her retirement in the next turn or two, but this is as good a place as any, and better than me having her die at her desk - which I was considering.

Also, totaled up the running budgets of all houses (total income turns 1-5)  Budgets modified to reflect cost of getting to 'standard' starting yards (3x1, 3x3)

DC:     535
FWL:   521
FS:     454
LC:     437
CC:    322


Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 03 August 2018, 13:20:50

That is some good writing, worth the wait.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 03 August 2018, 17:12:51
Saving Bad Weapons:

I know you were planning on giving the NGauss a little something to make them worthwhile.

Does the same apply to Mass Drivers, when they come around in 30 thrns or so?  :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Vition2 on 03 August 2018, 17:45:15
Dunno if it will work for you, but I've played around with the idea that NGauss are more accurate as ortillery than other weapons - they are for all intents and purposes "rods from god," comparatively aerodynamic and solid compared to other weapons.

My logic behind it is as follows for the other weapons:
For NPPCs and NLasers it comes to the change in medium - similar to how light refracts through water, and how every atmosphere is different, this causes a level of error in ortillery calculations.
For NACs it has more to do with the ammunition itself being less aerodynamic (obviously my own head-canon), causing it to be a more brute-force type of ortillery than NGauss.
Capital missiles are just fine for ortillery the issue comes down to amount of ammunition, NGauss are simply more efficient than capital missiles.

Just ideas, but do what you think works best for your game.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 03 August 2018, 18:33:41
Fleet numbers (except for the TH as I don't know if the GM has already updated them for this turns casualties) have been updated on the Master Sheet.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 03 August 2018, 19:16:45
Thank you!
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 04 August 2018, 00:21:22
I try to use existing characters when I can do so reasonably - it makes it easier on my end, and it ties the plot together a bit. The nature of the game means they'll roll over quickly, but you've made Archer pretty compelling, so I wanted one more appearance from her.

Yes, the Cappies get the short end of the stick for sure. That'll shift somewhat over time, especially as the impact of initial yard distribution becomes less important, but they're the smallest and weakest overall even so. In canon they still do fine from that base, but it's definitely more of a challenge.

Re NGauss, my plan there was improved accuracy at long range. Keep the same brackets, but halve the penalties, in gameplay terms. I hadn't thought about mass drivers, but in some sense they're not really naval weapons - they go on ships, but they're WMDs. A NAC can blow up a building with one shot, but a mass driver will blow up a neighborhood.

I haven't changed the THN numbers to reflect their losses, so feel free to update that. Thanks again for your help.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 04 August 2018, 04:25:09
Re NGauss, my plan there was improved accuracy at long range. Keep the same brackets, but halve the penalties, in gameplay terms. I hadn't thought about mass drivers, but in some sense they're not really naval weapons - they go on ships, but they're WMDs. A NAC can blow up a building with one shot, but a mass driver will blow up a neighborhood.
What about improved performance against bunkers during Orbital artillery?
Because I think that would likely have very focused damaged, thus good penetration.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 04 August 2018, 10:59:29
Id expect Mass Drivers to be quite the thing against Castles Brian.

Of course, the near 300 year delay, coupled with the whole ‘War Crime’ bit, are bith drawbacks.

My problem with Jaqueline Angler was I started her old.  Weve seen people not just fuctional as commanders, but piloting battlemechs, well into what we consider ‘geriatric’ ages IRL.  My next featured character will probably start out fresh outta flight school, and I’ll follow him for as long as fate allows.

Maybe a distaff branch of one of the major families in the Commonwealth?  An angry scion of a rebellious world?  Need to think on it.

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 04 August 2018, 15:35:45
I'd make Gauss weapons as effective as autocannons of the same damage. Autocannons aren't machine guns in this setting, they're big artillery shells like battleships IRL.

Also, it amuses me how the tactics of the setting resemble the middle Honor Harrington books, where missile pods dominate. I happen to be reading them now, so it's really jumping out at me. The Terrans did fairly well after the initial barrage(fewer kills, but similar total damage), but when the fleet starts out equally powerful and loses ~30% of its force in the first salvo, "fairly well" thereafter really isn't good enough.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 04 August 2018, 16:15:48
I'd make Gauss weapons as effective as autocannons of the same damage. Autocannons aren't machine guns in this setting, they're big artillery shells like battleships IRL.

Also, it amuses me how the tactics of the setting resemble the middle Honor Harrington books, where missile pods dominate. I happen to be reading them now, so it's really jumping out at me. The Terrans did fairly well after the initial barrage(fewer kills, but similar total damage), but when the fleet starts out equally powerful and loses ~30% of its force in the first salvo, "fairly well" thereafter really isn't good enough.

Here, fighter-launched missiles serve the role of missile pods in HH, and to similar impact, though they lack the range advantage over other shipboard weaponry.   Small numbers of missile launchers with deep reloads will act like early HH missile combat.  I anticipate that a pure missile ship design could have much the same effect here as fighter swarms, with certain pros and cons.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 06 August 2018, 03:36:53
So here we go:

Draconis Combine Turn 2390-2399


DCA Memorandum
2nd March 2390

1. Efforts continue to expand the yards above New Samarkand to the size needed for the Nagato Project. Design slightly altered to allow for new Particle Projector Cannon technology.
2. Sale of Kutais leave a gap in fleet capability, which shall be filled with the Tate-class, whose design has taken advantage of lessons learned by observation of fleet engagements across the Inner Sphere.
3. Atago still deemed equal to any ship of equal size or smaller, but inadvisable to engage a Crucis, Galahad or Monsoon single-handed.
4. Older Hegemony fleet vessels have demonstrated a grave weakness to fighters and missiles, an opening we can take advantage of just as the Federated Suns did. Unsure how newer Hegemony vessels would fare.

Sho-Sho Shinji Kurita

Tate-class Frigate

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Tate
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $4,733,908,000.00
Magazine Cost: $6,900,000.00
BV2: 26,605

Mass: 250,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 3
Maximum Thrust: 5
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
18 Capital Launcher Killer Whale
40 Naval Laser 35
120 AC 5
120 Machine Gun (IS)

Designed as the Kutai's replacement, the Tate (pronouced Tah-teh) or 'Shield' is designed to serve as the perfect escort for the larger Minekaze's or Atago's. Compared to the Kutai it is larger and a little slower, which was deemed acceptable as the 1.5Gs sustained thrust was quite sufficient to allow the vessel to keep pace with the fleet. It's capital-scale weapons consist of eighteen Killer Whale missile tubes, and forty Naval Lasers, though the lasers are the class-35s the DCA chose as their standard 40 years ago, and lack the range of the larger classes. These guns are primarily intended to deal with fighters, small craft and dropships, though it is also capable of finishing off a crippled enemy warship while it's sister vessels turn the guns onto more dangerous targets.

The Tate's standard scale guns are its real strength, with one hundred and twenty each of the DCA standard 5-class Autocannons and Machine guns liberally spread across the ship giving it excellent coverage from all angles. Any strike craft wandering into it's range is sure to regret that mistake for both seconds of its remaining life.

The long-term plan is to deploy one Tate with each Atago/Minekaze pair across Combine territory.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Tate
Mass: 250,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 45,000
Thrust
Safe: 3
Maximum: 5
Controls: 625
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (7 Integrity) 113,125
Jump Sail: (4 Integrity) 43
Structural Integrity: 80 20,000
Total Heat Sinks: 2560 Single 2,215
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 10000 points 4,080
Fire Control Computers: 706
Armor: 208 pts Standard 400
Fore: 34
Fore-Left/Right: 36/36
Aft-Left/Right: 36/36
Aft: 30

Dropship Capacity: 0 0
Grav Decks:
Small: 2 100
Medium: 0
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 20 140
Life Boats: 20 140

Crew And Passengers:
34 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 340
61 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 427
104 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 728
132 Bay Personnel 924
0 1st Class Passengers 0
0 2nd Class Passengers 0
50 Steerage Marines 250

Bay #1: Fighters (36) - 6 Doors (Nose)
Bay #2: Small Craft (12) - 2 Doors (Aft)
Bay #3: Cargo (10,937 Tons) - 2 Doors
Small NCSS


Code: [Select]
# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
2 Killer Whale Nose 40 80 (8-C) Extreme-C 300
2 Naval Laser 35 Nose 104 70 (7-C) Long-C 1,400
20 AC 5 Nose 20 100 (10-C) Medium 160
20 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
4 Naval Laser 35 FR 208 140 (14-C) Long-C 2,800
20 AC 5 FR 20 100 (10-C) Medium 160
20 Machine Gun (IS) FR 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
4 Naval Laser 35 FL 208 140 (14-C) Long-C 2,800
20 AC 5 FL 20 100 (10-C) Medium 160
20 Machine Gun (IS) FL 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
8 Killer Whale LBS 160 320 (32-C) Extreme-C 1,200
10 Naval Laser 35 LBS 520 350 (35-C) Long-C 7,000
8 Killer Whale RBS 160 320 (32-C) Extreme-C 1,200
10 Naval Laser 35 RBS 520 350 (35-C) Long-C 7,000
4 Naval Laser 35 AR 208 140 (14-C) Long-C 2,800
20 AC 5 AR 20 100 (10-C) Medium 160
20 Machine Gun (IS) AR 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
4 Naval Laser 35 AL 208 140 (14-C) Long-C 2,800
20 AC 5 AL 20 100 (10-C) Medium 160
20 Machine Gun (IS) AL 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
2 Naval Laser 35 Aft 104 70 (7-C) Long-C 1,400
20 AC 5 Aft 20 100 (10-C) Medium 160
20 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10

Ammo Rounds Mass
Killer Whale Ammo 180 9,000.00
AC 5 Ammo 12000 600.00
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 120000 600.00

And the Budget:

Code: [Select]
Available Shipyards

Luthien 3/2/2/1
New Samarkand 4/1
Midway 1

Repairs

Maintanence 227125 12% 27255
Prototype Tate 1 4,734 4,732

Refits

Construction Unit Price
Shipyards New Sam 4>5 50,000 50,000
Stations Onsen 0 451 0
Warships Atago 0 9,339 0
Fubuki 0 7,241 0
Minekaze 0 6,102 0
Tate 6 4,734 28,404
Trojan 0 4,031 0
Jumpships 8 500 4000
Dropships 0 300 0
Fighters 724 5 3,620
Small Craft 246 10 2460
Research 1,529 1 1529
Loan
Total Spent 122000

Income Trojan Lease 2 1000 2000
Marian Loan 1 1000 1000
Kutai Sale 5000
Remaining 0


Future Income
Yard Loan 1000/Turn 3 Turns left
Kutai Sale 5000/Turn 3 Turns left

Code: [Select]
End Turn In Service
Warships Atago 9 84051
Fubuki 3 21723
Minekaze 9 54918
Tate 6 28404
Trojan 2 8062
Stations Onsen 20 9020
Jumpships 38 19000
Dropships Small 32 9600

Fighters 3820 19100
Small Craft 770 7700
Total 261578

Maintenance 12% 31389.36

Fleet Complement Fighters 1332
DropShips 24
Small Craft 360

Station Complement Fighters 720
Small Craft 240

Deployment

Steiner Front      Atago-class       – Atago, Chokai, Aoba
         Minekaze-class   - Minekaze, Yukikaze, Yayoi
         Tate-class      - Luthien, New Samarkand, Pesht
         Trojan-class      - Sinister

Davion Front      Atago-class      - Takao, Furutaka, Myoko
         Minekaze-class   - Hayate, Hakaze, Mikazuki
         Tate-class      - Benjamin, Galedon, Dieron
         Trojan-class      - Insidious

Cameron Front    Atago-class      - Kashima, Maya, Nachi
         Minekaze-class   - Shikinami, Satsuki, Okikaze
         Trojan-class      - Iga

Fleet Reserve      Fubuki-class      - Fubuki, Ibuki, Yudachi   

Fleet Reserve based at New Samarkand, guarding the newly constructed yards.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 07 August 2018, 00:43:32
A size 5 yard? Nice.

And the funny thing about the Terran fleet is that their newer ships are actually a lot worse against fighters - Dreadnought and Black Lion are their only designs with serious light weaponry. That may change this turn, however.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 07 August 2018, 01:08:42
They do pack DS and fighters though, unlike many of the older ships
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 07 August 2018, 08:44:07
Arrgh.   Want to do some more fluff, but cant find a voice that I like.  Also not sure if CNO/First Lord, again, or someone else. 

May invent a meaningless (on our scale) anti-pirate action, or send a fresh pilot to flight school, or something.  If I cant find anything, Ill do a turn without fluff
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 07 August 2018, 11:02:37
 Oddly, they're building the Quixote in bulk because of corruption in their canonical government, but I think that's the best ship they have for this role. Six collars allows the missile defence to be carried to battle, a dozen fighters is at least not embarrassing, and they have both enough Barracuda launchers to defend themselves and enough WS/KW to swamp a target's missile defences, especially if they work in numbers. It's still a weak design, but it's better for this kind of fighting than even the Black Lion (which I was previously thinking of as their best ship until I realized the horrible weakness in support craft).

As for finding a voice, a navy head is natural, but having a low ranking sailor commenting on the new CNO's policy could be fun too.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 07 August 2018, 11:42:11
Oddly, they're building the Quixote in bulk because of corruption in their canonical government, but I think that's the best ship they have for this role. Six collars allows the missile defence to be carried to battle, a dozen fighters is at least not embarrassing, and they have both enough Barracuda launchers to defend themselves and enough WS/KW to swamp a target's missile defences, especially if they work in numbers. It's still a weak design, but it's better for this kind of fighting than even the Black Lion (which I was previously thinking of as their best ship until I realized the horrible weakness in support craft).

As for finding a voice, a navy head is natural, but having a low ranking sailor commenting on the new CNO's policy could be fun too.

I'd want a LOT of Quixote's before I wanted to trade missiles and shoot down fighters in the face of the Fed Suns Fighter Doctrine - much less one like the DC, CC, or LC.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 07 August 2018, 16:16:42
I'd want a LOT of Quixote's before I wanted to trade missiles and shoot down fighters in the face of the Fed Suns Fighter Doctrine - much less one like the DC, CC, or LC.

Fortunately, the special national power for the Hegemony is "Build A Lot Of", so they could probably manage it.

And who says they'll only ever fight the Feddies?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 07 August 2018, 16:27:29
They could build unarmed ships and win by setting them on fire and ramming.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 07 August 2018, 19:02:58

Edited out of existence.

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 07 August 2018, 19:22:47
I believe there is a maximum of 1 ton of armor/12 tons of structure on a space station.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 07 August 2018, 19:30:01
I believe there is a maximum of 1 ton of armor/12 tons of structure on a space station.
Drat, I might have to fully retire HMA.
I will have to redesign the station design.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 07 August 2018, 19:52:17
Oops, I was wrong---it's 1 ton of armor / 3 tons of structure so a 2.25M ton station could pack that much armor.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 08 August 2018, 00:36:48
CC Turn 5:
tl;dr: Yard upgrades


Budget: $92,000M
Surplus: $0,000M
Total Turn 4 budget: $92,000M
Spent: $91,710M Surplus: $290M
---
Total Maintenance: $26,610M
Fighters @150%* (change from last turn)
Small Craft @120%* (change from last turn)
Light Dropships @120%* (change from last turn)
Jumpships @120%* (change from last turn)

All others @100%  (No change)

Research: $100M
---Building:
Yard upgrades:
New yard: 1
Lv1 to Lv2: 2
Lv3 to Lv4: 1


Losses:
None.  Surprisingly so.  YAY!

End of Turn 4 totals:
Chongzhi: 27
Qinru Zhe: 5
Quzhujian: 4
BoBeer: 1
Wrath: 9
BoShots: 11
-
Fighters: 4119 (Fleet: 3518, 601 Local/Ground based/Training)
Small Craft: 1267 (Fleet: 1126, 141 Local/Ground based/Training)*  (Doctrine will be reducing the # military SC at recharge stations, and allowing Commercial services to utilizes the bays)
Light DS: 87
Jump Ships: 3
-
Yards-
Capella: 1x 1, 1x 2, 1x4
Sarna:   2x 2
Aldebaran: 1x 1, 1x 2
Total:
Level 1: 2
Level 2: 4
Level 3: 0
Level 4: 1

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 08 August 2018, 00:48:41
 Yeah, the Taurian design from turn 3 is about as heavily armoured as a small station can be. Armour gets less efficient at 150 ktons, and again at 250 ktons, so you're hard pressed to get any more on without going huge.

It's for reasons like this that I've specified that the Google Docs spreadsheet is the official tool to be used. I know others have been used, but in case of conflict it wins - we can all use it easily(I've never sprung for Heavy Metal, and I suspect I'm not alone in that) and get the same numbers, and aside from that early issue with station costs the numbers seem good. And I've got the ability to fix any bugs we do spot.

Also, Jester, is there a particular reason you're going to 120% on JumpShips? That's a bit unexpected. And you didn't actually say what ships you were building.

(Also, off topic, I'm going full naval geek this week. Just saw HMS Belfast yesterday, and I'm going to see Victory and Warrior today. :D )
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 08 August 2018, 08:53:27
Yeah, the Taurian design from turn 3 is about as heavily armoured as a small station can be. Armour gets less efficient at 150 ktons, and again at 250 ktons, so you're hard pressed to get any more on without going huge.

It's for reasons like this that I've specified that the Google Docs spreadsheet is the official tool to be used. I know others have been used, but in case of conflict it wins - we can all use it easily(I've never sprung for Heavy Metal, and I suspect I'm not alone in that) and get the same numbers, and aside from that early issue with station costs the numbers seem good. And I've got the ability to fix any bugs we do spot.

Also, Jester, is there a particular reason you're going to 120% on JumpShips? That's a bit unexpected. And you didn't actually say what ships you were building.

(Also, off topic, I'm going full naval geek this week. Just saw HMS Belfast yesterday, and I'm going to see Victory and Warrior today. :D )

Interestingly, though armor gets less efficient, there seem to be other economies of scale in large stations.  Im in internal debate on the 'right' size for Defense Stations - big bruisers that are hard to kill?  Target saturation just tough enough to bounce fighter attacks, but wasteful to engage with Capital Weaponry?  The mind wonders...

Also, RE:  Victory.  I've been waiting for a chance to have a commander signal "The Commonwealth Expects Every Man to Do his Duty" and "Engage the Enemy More Closely".  *shakes fist*

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 08 August 2018, 11:02:38
Also, Jester, is there a particular reason you're going to 120% on JumpShips? That's a bit unexpected. And you didn't actually say what ships you were building.

(Also, off topic, I'm going full naval geek this week. Just saw HMS Belfast yesterday, and I'm going to see Victory and Warrior today. :D )

No new ship or craft construction this turn, its all investment in yards.

With the ongoing discussions within the Navy about the Terran investment worlds, the absolutely stark reality that the Capellan Navy lacked sufficient Naval infrastructure and budget to come within a spitting mile of even the next poorest nation, much less our warmongering neighbors.  Analysis estimates that for every Capellan dollar spent, the other star nations have spent 1.5 to 2 in either hard currency or in infrastructure investments.   

The Capellan navy has achieved its primary goal of a fleet large enough to defend its borders (Estimated 80% tonnage parity).  The Admirals believe this has helped the last 10 years be relatively peaceful if cold-war.  Given this belief, and coupled with the above considerations, it was decided that the Capellan Navy must invest heavily in infrastructure.  Several 5 year plans were drafted, and considered.  The one found most suitable was to increase training and refit/repair budgets to ensure our existing fleets will continue to function at peak efficiency, while spending the lion's share of the budget on shipyard expansion. 
 
CC Naval doctrine is moving to a 120% norm across the board for all non-warship maintenance to use for additional training and repair/refit.  (Thus jumpships included)  Warships will remain at 100% at this point, because budget and they've been largely on a defensive posture at home.  As the primary weapon of our current fleet and system-defenses, Fighter training and maintenance remains higher than the fleet norm, but has been reduced from the previous hot-conflict spending amounts.
--
Enjoy the boat tours!  I'm envious.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 08 August 2018, 13:08:31

Scrapping the space station idea for now, I have been reworking it in google docs, but I need some tech to make it work and I despise google docs.
So as a stop gap more planetary ASFs and Small Craft (Refueling, Point Defense, etc).


FWL turn 5: 2390

[Admiralty]
High Command has ordered an increased spending into infrastructure development. This combined with other recent developments have caused a rethink of how to secure our borders. We are strategically stationing independent ASF Wings on our border worlds to make any invasion very costly to the enemy. These independent commands will be outfitted with their own Small Craft and concealed airfields.


Code: [Select]
Turn 2390

Available Shipyards
Atreus (3-4*)
Irian (3-1)
Loyalty (3-2*)

Starting Assets Qty Total
Fighters 3520 17.600
Small Craft 288 2.880
Dropships 56 16.800
Jumpships 12 6.000
Phalanx (4631) 4 18.524
Heracles (8874) 22 195.228
Eros Station 8 4.760

(All Costs in Millions)
Banked 2.564
Budget 107.000

Maintenance % 10
Maintenance Costs 26.179
Prototype Costs 0
Shipyard Upgrades* 2 65.000
Research 0
Repairs 0

Construction
Fighters 2400 12.000
Small Craft 400 4.000

Total Spent 107.179
Remaining 2.384

 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 08 August 2018, 16:13:48
You show $65B of shipyard upgrades - which ones are those? It looks like Atreus 3-4 (40B) and Loyalty 1-2 (10B) which leaves another 15B unaccounted for.

Also, I got to see an extra bonus ship - HMS Queen Elizabeth was in dock too. Didn't get to go anywhere near as close, obviously, but it's interesting having the oldest ship in the world and the newest capital ship in the world both be within your field of view at the same time.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 08 August 2018, 16:57:43
You show $65B of shipyard upgrades - which ones are those? It looks like Atreus 3-4 (40B) and Loyalty 1-2 (10B) which leaves another 15B unaccounted for.
Atreus (4->5) 50B
Loyalty (2->3) 15B
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 08 August 2018, 19:26:21
Lyran Commonwealth, Turn V:  2390-2399

Code: [Select]
Lyran Commonwealth, Turn Beginning 2390
Assets:
Starting Shipyards: Alarion: 3/3  New Kyoto: 3/1  Tamar 1  Gibbs 1
Starting Warships:  Heimdaller II FF x 9 45.567
Tyr CA x 9 66.45
Walkure CV x 9 62.523
Starting Stations: Ribe Recharge Station x120 21
Starting Jumpships:  30 15
Starting Dropships:  0
Starting Small Craft: 600 6
Starting Fighters: 11K 55
Maintenance Value 271.54 (27.15)
Cash: 1.904


Expenses:
Income Plus Cash: 100.904
Maintenance: 32.486
(100% General, 120% Warships, 150% Naval Fighters)
Alarion 3->4 40
Alarion 3->4 20
Total: 92.486
Remainder 8.418


Lyran Commonwealth, Turn Ending 2399
Physical Assets:
Ending Shipyards: Alarion: 4/4  New Kyoto: 3/1  Tamar 1  Gibbs 1
Ending Warships:  Heimdaller II FF x 9 45.567
Tyr CA x 9 66.45
Walkure CV x 9 62.523
Ending Stations:         Ribe Recharge Station x120 21
Ending Jumpships:  30 15
Ending Dropships:  0
Ending Small Craft: 600 6
Ending Fighters: 11K 55
Maintenance Value 271.54 (27.15)
Cash: 8.418

Boring turn is boring.  Possible fluff or tactics/doctrine updates, but don't feel a need to hold things on them.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 08 August 2018, 21:05:56
I see we've started a yard race. Welp, guess I didn't need ships this turn.

Now I just need to decide how hard I want to Scipio Africanus the greatest space commander in history when I write the fluff.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 09 August 2018, 09:07:31
I see we've started a yard race. Welp, guess I didn't need ships this turn.

Now I just need to decide how hard I want to Scipio Africanus the greatest space commander in history when I write the fluff.

‘Weve Started’, Mr. “Ive been bulding class 4s for a long time now?”  :D
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 09 August 2018, 10:59:34
Yeah, but everyone knows that anything the Federated Suns does is specifically for the betterment of mankind.

Just think of how much liberty, dignity, and freedom, a 1.25mt Crucis-II could bring all the huddled masses!
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 09 August 2018, 11:06:13
Yeah, but everyone knows that anything the Federated Suns does is specifically for the betterment of mankind.

Just think of how much liberty, dignity, and freedom, a 1.25mt Crucis-II could bring all the huddled masses!

You should totally start naming warship classes that way.

"Democracy" class Orbital Bombardment Monitor
"Freedom" Class Invasion Assault Transport
"Integrity" Class Fast Commerce Raider
"Dignity" Class Prisoner Transport/Reeducation Center
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: DOC_Agren on 09 August 2018, 18:55:35
You should totally start naming warship classes that way.

"Democracy" class Orbital Bombardment Monitor
"Freedom" Class Invasion Assault Transport
"Integrity" Class Fast Commerce Raider
"Dignity" Class Prisoner Transport/Reeducation Center
Let me correct you -
"Llberty" class Orbital Bombardment Monitor
and
"Democracy" class Armed Support Ship
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 09 August 2018, 23:51:39
Let me correct you -
"Llberty" class Orbital Bombardment Monitor
and
"Democracy" class Armed Support Ship

The Capellan Navy has coded these ships as:

"Liberty" class Ortillary Ship, Extended Range
And
"Democracy" class Armed Merchant Navy Ship

That DAMN ship is reloading the LOSER in orbit.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 10 August 2018, 12:40:23
Interestingly, though armor gets less efficient, there seem to be other economies of scale in large stations.  Im in internal debate on the 'right' size for Defense Stations - big bruisers that are hard to kill?  Target saturation just tough enough to bounce fighter attacks, but wasteful to engage with Capital Weaponry? The mind wonders...

Also, RE:  Victory.  I've been waiting for a chance to have a commander signal "The Commonwealth Expects Every Man to Do his Duty" and "Engage the Enemy More Closely".  *shakes fist*

I just noticed this, but you made a mistake in how you expressed yourself there. If you're going to be a naval history geek, the correct phrasing is obviously "The world wonders".  8)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: DOC_Agren on 10 August 2018, 22:13:36
The Capellan Navy has coded these ships as:

"Liberty" class Ortillary Ship, Extended Range
And
"Democracy" class Armed Merchant Navy Ship

That DAMN ship is reloading the LOSER in orbit.
;D ;D ;D  now I will go back lurker mode
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 12 August 2018, 08:45:45
I'm back from my trip, so let's start working through the backlog. Here's the first one - this is the major butterfly I referenced above.

---

For almost a century, it had been accepted wisdom in the Terran Hegemony that their navy was incomparably superior to any possible opponent, but that confident self-assurance ended with the Battle of Kentartes.

Most of the THN's brass defended the performance of their fleet using assorted technical arguments - the primary issue according to the fleet was that the units had been chosen poorly and that the major issue was a severe shortage of support craft. Intelligence sources also suggested that the Davion fleet had taken serious damage to several ships in the fight, which would make the damage ratio vastly less lopsided than it appeared, and the THN argued that this vindicated Terran doctrine somewhat.

At the meeting where CNO Young was explaining this to Brian Cameron, an exchange took place that rapidly became legendary among those few who were privy to it.

"So, Admiral Young, let me see if I understand this. The primary problem at Kentares was that we didn't bring enough support units to the fight to implement our standard anti-missile doctrine, and therefore we were left unable to defend ourselves properly. Correct?"

"That's pretty much it my lord, yes."

"Why?"

"I'm sorry?"

"Why did we send a fleet into a potential combat situation which was unable to properly defend itself against an enemy attack?"

"Our best support craft carriers are substantially slower than the Federated Suns ships - they'd be unable to bring the enemy to a fight on their own. They're designed to bring the heaviest possible force to bear against fixed targets, not to fight battles of maneuver."

"The mission of this fleet was to escort a convoy to Kentares IV. Was Kentares going to run away on you?"

"We didn't want to escalate the situation too strongly by sending Second Fleet. It was expected that it'd be capable of dealing with anything the Davions could put up against it, and the Black Lions and Dreadnoughts have the best on-board anti-missile defences in the whole fleet."

"So instead of escalating the situation, you got two thousand men and women under your command killed and cost the Hegemony sixty billion dollars by sending a fleet too big to ignore and too small to actually win. Is that about the size of it?"

"Our ships simply weren't designed for this sort of fighting, my lord! The way those outworld scum use their fighter forces is something we never expected to face. When McKenna built this fleet he built it around guns, and we're still the best gun fleet by far."

"James McKenna built it that way because that was what the tech of the day allowed for. Because McKenna wasn't an idiot, and he wanted to win battles. Guns were how a fleet won battles a century ago. How does a fleet win battles today, Admiral Young?"

"Guns still win battles! Look at Tikonov or Irian - both of them were won by weight of metal, not these fighter swarms."

"And what about Rasalhague, or Lurgatan?"

"Those are different! They-"

"Oh, shut up. You thought that guns were the only thing that mattered, and you seem to have sold my mother and my brother on that doctrine. I am not sold, Admiral. You didn't have any issues finding the budget to get those expensive toy "PPCs" of yours onto a station as soon as you could get them out of the lab, but your naval doctrine seems to be decades out of date. And I am sick and ****** tired of your excuses. I'm not saying that you need to scrap the whole fleet and start fresh, but the THN had better start building ships that can deal with "these fighter swarms" a whole hell of a lot better than you did this time. Do we understand each other?"

"I...yes, my lord. We do."

"Good. Now get the hell out of my sight. I'll let you know within a week or so if you still have a job."

---

After substantial study work, including in-depth calculations on the merits of refitting more anti-missile defenses on existing designs, a new design was eventually finalized by the THN. Dubbed the Vincent, it was intended to act as an escort for larger fleets, by offering substantial fighter support, two DropShip collars, and more anti-missile defence than three Dreadnoughts. The main guns are weak, and the cargo bay is extremely small for a Terran ship, but these were deemed acceptable trade-offs for a ship designed to only ever operate in company with a larger fleet. A better sensor system than the THN standard was also equipped - not as advanced as the system on the Bonaventure, but enough to offer improved vision to the fleet without need for poorly-defended dedicated scout ships.

Vincents will be attached to all fleets, regardless of the fleet's maneuverability, in the same fashion as Bonaventures. Significant production resources are being diverted to the Vincent class this turn, in order to build up the fleet's escort strength rapidly. All other ship designs are being produced more slowly as a result, and the Essex and Vigilant classes will be entirely removed from active production due to their poor armour and difficulties finding a coherent role for them to play in the fleet.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Vincent
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $6,378,914,004.00
Magazine Cost: $221,760.00
BV2: 19,822

Mass: 250,000
K-F Drive System: None
Power Plant: Station-Keeping Drive
Safe Thrust: 4
Maximum Thrust: 6
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
224 AC 2
16 Naval Laser 55

Class/Model/Name: Vincent
Mass: 250,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 60,000
Thrust
Safe: 4
Maximum: 6
Controls: 625
K-F Hyperdrive: None (0 Integrity) 0
Jump Sail: (4 Integrity) 43
Structural Integrity: 65 16,250
Total Heat Sinks: 1550 Single 1,159
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 5000 points 2,040
Fire Control Computers: 192
Armor: 172 pts Standard 325
Fore: 30
Fore-Left/Right: 30/30
Aft-Left/Right: 30/30
Aft: 22

Dropship Capacity: 2 2,000
Grav Decks:
Small: 0
Medium: 2 200
Large: 2 1,000
Escape Pods: 28 196
Life Boats: 28 196

Crew And Passengers:
26 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 260
69 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 483
60 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 420
174 Bay Personnel in 2nd Class Quarters 1,218

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
40 AC 2 Nose 40 80 (8-C) Long 240
40 AC 2 RBS 40 80 (8-C) Long 240
40 AC 2 Aft 40 80 (8-C) Long 240
40 AC 2 LBS 40 80 (8-C) Long 240
16 AC 2 FR 16 32 (3.2-C) Long 96
16 AC 2 FL 16 32 (3.2-C) Long 96
16 AC 2 AR 16 32 (3.2-C) Long 96
16 AC 2 AL 16 32 (3.2-C) Long 96
4 Naval Laser 55 FR 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
4 Naval Laser 55 FL 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
4 Naval Laser 55 AR 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
4 Naval Laser 55 AL 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400

Ammo Rounds Mass
AC 2 Ammo 10080 224.00

Equipment and Bays
NCSS Small

Bay 1: 20,000 tons cargo (1 door, Nose)
Bay 2: 3 small craft and 36 fighter (5 doors, LBS)
Bay 3: 3 small craft and 36 fighter (5 doors, RBS)

---

BUDGET: $775B
Maintenance(@100%): $235.949B
Repairs: $4B
Shipyard Upgrades(Terra 6>7): $70B
Vincent R&D: $6.379B

30x Vincent: $191.37B
2x Monsoon: $29.112B
2x Aegis: $21.376B
6x Quixote: $70.596B
2x Lola: $13.264B
2x Cruiser: $15.046B
4x Bonaventure: $20.144B
4x Black Lion: $28.172B

120x DropShip: $36B
600x small craft: $6B
4818x Fighter: $24.09B

Research: $3.502B
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 12 August 2018, 16:46:15
The United Hindu Collective feels that its current fixed defences are sufficient for the time being. Instead, it has decided to continue its facilities expansion in Panpour to allow the construction of more Maal-class heavy freighters.

BUDGET: $24B
Maintenance (@150%): $8.231B
Shipyard (Panpour 2>3): $15B
Research: $769m

---

EDIT: Removed due to a human player taking over the Taurian Concordat.
The Taurian Concordat has gotten past the worst of their financial pinch of the previous decade now that their fleet has been repaired. However, due to the great disparity in performance between it and the Kutai-class fleet, as well as the remaining tightness of funds, the remaining Independance-class corvette has been removed from active duty and reserved for use as a training ship.

BUDGET: $12B
Maintenance(@100%, except Independence @50%): $5.138B
Kutai purchase: $5B
8x small craft: $80m
225x fighter: $1.125B
Research: $36m
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 12 August 2018, 16:59:33
Turn 4: 2380-2389

2381
Continued aid from the Marian Hegemony to conquered Lothian worlds was resulting in the Lothian populace continuing to slowly warm up to the Marian government. While the rural miners remained irascible, the youth had never known any other government, and the bulk of society was starting to accept O'Reilly rule. The decision in 2381 to give the formerly Lotharian planets full representation in the Marian Senate was a strong signal of goodwill that the Lothian populace responded well to. Malicious compliance effectively stopped, and a new Army regiment was successfully raised entirely from Lothian volunteers.

Ending Balance Turn 4: 4 Billion and 41 Million
TAXES and Loot: 13 Billion
Budget Turn 5: 17 Billion, 41 Million

DCA Loan ( Trojan / Yard ):    3 Billion
Periphery Aid Package:           .500 Million, helping the Lothian League, continue support for more gains
Maintenance:                        3.900 Billion ~ 120% ( or close to that )
Conversion, Trojan ( x2 ):    1.750 Billon
Buying, Ala ( 10 asf each )    .100 Million ( 20 fighters )
End Turn 5 Budget: 7 Billion, 791 million

I'd like to state something, the warship spreadsheet is wrong, I have 7 Scapha I's not 6, otherwise I'm fine. I'm also converting my two Trojans this turn to Block Ib for 1,625,422 for both, but will simplify to 1.750 B total costs ( call it overpayment due to contractural overchargement ). Which should be a Lyran thing... :thumbsup:

Now Story Arc:

Marian Action News Network ( MANN )
Vatnajökull, Lothario
Marian Hegemony Embassy
1158pm local time

MANN Reporter:" I'm reporting from the Hegemony Embassy, as you can see, there's a very large celebration party continuing from late early yesterday morning as the crowds of young generations are rejoicing the Marian Embrace, as they are calling it. Early this week the Senatus Marian, or Marian Senate, decreed and voted on the inclusion of the Lothian League onto the senatorial floor. As the results can be felt late this evening, many Lothians youth have joined the ' Service equals Citizenship ' program of the HMAF. With such a massive influx of new and raw cooptatione ( recruitment ), the MHAF has designated a Lothian Legio of four Cohorts of Infantry and Armour, including a few Ala, or wings of ten aerospace fighter.

Recently the MHAF expanded their Collegium program to include a Lothian Chapter. While only on Alphard, an Officers Scholarship program kicked off with over one hundred Lothians attending it. Current curriculum includes Leadership Management and Conduct becoming of an Officer of the MHAF. So far scores are in their mid-high levels. "

End broadcast: Would you like more?

TT
* Modified to add this :

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Trojan
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $4,844,088,000.00
Magazine Cost: $4,200,000.00
BV2: 16,433

Mass: 100,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 3
Maximum Thrust: 5
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
1 Naval AC 40
96 AC 5
96 Machine Gun (IS)
12 Naval Laser 45

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 18,000.00
Thrust
Safe: 3
Maximum: 5
Controls: 250.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (4 Integrity) 45,250.00
Jump Sail: (3 Integrity) 35.00
Structural Integrity: 30 3,000.00
Total Heat Sinks: 1047 Single 813.00
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 40000 points 4,080.00
Fire Control Computers: 692.40
Armor: 48 pts Standard 60.00
Fore: 12
Fore-Left/Right: 11/11
Aft-Left/Right: 11/11
Aft: 10

Dropship Capacity: 1 1,000.00
Grav Decks: Small: 1 50.00
Escape Pods: 0.00
Life Boats: 22 154.00

Crew And Passengers:
20 Officers in 2nd Class Quarters 140.00
45 Crew in Steerage Quarters 225.00
51 Gunners and Others in Steerage Quarters 255.00
399 Bay Personnel 2,793.00
1st Class Passengers 0.00
       2nd Class Passengers 0.00
0 Steerage Passengers 0.00

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
1 Naval AC 40 Nose 135 400 (40-C) Medium-C 4,500.00
12 AC 5 Nose 12 60 (6-C) 96.00
12 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 24 (2.4-C) 6.00
3 Naval Laser 45 FR 210 135 (13.5-C) 2,700.00
12 AC 5 FR 12 60 (6-C) 96.00
12 Machine Gun (IS) FR 24 (2.4-C) 6.00
3 Naval Laser 45 FL 210 135 (13.5-C) 2,700.00
12 AC 5 FL 12 60 (6-C) 96.00
12 Machine Gun (IS) FL 24 (2.4-C) 6.00
12 AC 5 LBS 12 60 (6-C) 96.00
12 Machine Gun (IS) LBS 24 (2.4-C) 6.00
12 AC 5 RBS 12 60 (6-C) 96.00
12 Machine Gun (IS) RBS 24 (2.4-C) 6.00
3 Naval Laser 45 AR 210 135 (13.5-C) 2,700.00
12 AC 5 AR 12 60 (6-C) 96.00
12 Machine Gun (IS) AR 24 (2.4-C) 6.00
3 Naval Laser 45 AL 210 135 (13.5-C) 2,700.00
12 AC 5 AL 12 60 (6-C) 96.00
12 Machine Gun (IS) AL 24 (2.4-C) 6.00
12 AC 5 Aft 12 60 (6-C) 96.00
12 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 24 (2.4-C) 6.00

Bay #1 - Fighters (10) - 1 Door ~ Ala = 10 ASF
Bay #2 - Small Craft (5) - 1 Door
Bay #3 - Infantry (Motorized - 8 Platoons) - 2 Doors ~ 200 troopers
            - Light Vehicle (10)
            - Heavy Vehicle (10)
Bay #4 - Cargo (2426 Tons) - 2 Doors
Ammo Rounds Mass
Naval AC 40 Ammo 20 24.00
AC 5 Ammo 4800 240.00
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 48000 240.00

Small NCSS    100.00

Fixed the mistakes.

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 13 August 2018, 02:32:06
That 8 platoons is assuming 25-man units, not 100. So total should be 200 men.

Also if future budgets could be just the hard numbers, OOC to make it easier to understand, that would be appreciated.

RE: the Vincent - I was unaware AC/2s worked as Point Defense... I imagine they aren't terribly effective to make up for the longer engagement range compared to AMS/MGs
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 13 August 2018, 03:36:07
Truetanker: I'm with Smegish on this. Fluff is appreciated, but try to keep the actual budget straightforward and a bit more out-of-character. It can sometimes be hard to follow what you're doing. Also, just a reminder that your "recruitment drive"/"retirement funding"/""school upgrade" expenses are being treated as maintenance for your ships for gameplay purposes. You might prefer to incorporate them into your maintenance expenses, and use the fluff to describe how you're spending them, because it makes your budgets harder to read.

The "Periphery aid package" is what's getting you those events integrating the Lothians into your empire, so that is not mere maintenance. Keep that one split out if you keep spending on it. FWIW, other players who have conquered territory may wish to do the same. That said, remember that it's not very useful unless you expect to keep the territory long-term, and that's harder to guarantee when it's a major power who wants those planets back instead of a defunct bandit kingdom.

Smegish: AC/2 is a hybrid. Rule of thumb, it's half as effective as a MG at point defence, but it can also shoot down fighters. 2x AC/2 is a bit less efficient than MG+AC/5(weighs more, and does a bit less damage to fighters), but it's logistically simpler and makes it a bit harder for enemies to try to take out all of a particular sort of defensive gun. You can really go either way on this, and most nations prefer AC/5+MG, but the THN has mostly used AC/2 thus far, so I kept that habit up. That said, this will probably change when better anti-fighter weapons than the AC/5 come into play, because 2x AC/2 is noticeably worse than MG+LRM-20, or MG+AC/10, or MG+LL.

FWIW, when the AMS tech gets unlocked, AMS will be ~2x as effective as MGs at point defence, but since they're the same mass that's still a big win.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 13 August 2018, 06:54:40
You folks should do a story updates only thread. I'd love to have been part but work commitments just meant i'd not be able to keep up or give it the attention it deserves.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 13 August 2018, 07:14:44
You folks should do a story updates only thread. I'd love to have been part but work commitments just meant i'd not be able to keep up or give it the attention it deserves.

I edit the OP with links to the turns, and each turn includes links to player posts. That's intended to let people keep up with the story while ignoring the side discussions. Is that the sort of thing you want, or would something else work better? I'm open to suggestions here.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 13 August 2018, 18:39:43
And once again we wait for the FedRat
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 13 August 2018, 20:16:56
And once again we wait for the FedRat

Don't blame him too much. It'll be a while before I'd be ready either way (this weekend, probably), and I can do 80% of a turn without any single player's turn being done. I don't write them up linearly, and all the non-FS events can happen on schedule before he posts his stuff.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 13 August 2018, 20:48:51
I will blame the FedRat for anything I like! 😠😆

*Jabs Kiviar with the Cattleprod of Awakening*
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 15 August 2018, 18:36:32
The Rim Worlds Republic has done well with their research into miniaturization of capital missiles, and the newly developed rockets are being rolled out to the vehicles of the Army as fast as they can be produced. Not to be out-done, the Navy has decided to invest in a major modernization program for their fighter fleet. While their new short-ranged missiles are seen as unsuitable for WarShip use, they pack more punch into a smaller package than the old cannons, and fighters are maneuverable enough to make the reduced range into a fairly minor issue.

BUDGET: $26B
Maintenance (@100%): $6.748B
2x Vittoria: $12.574B
4x small craft: $40m
1080x fighter: $5.4B
Research: $1.238B
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 16 August 2018, 16:07:24
A bit of a side topic. but is anyone else seeing some circular dominance in their build plans?  Ive got 3 different designs in mind when I go back to heavy construction.. and its very much A>B>C>A.  I suppose what I build will depend on the threat environment at the time...

Although the issue of 'threat environment' is a pretty fluid one.  Lets say I have 3 1MT designs, and have prototyped 1 of each.  Lets further assume that (because I am clever), they all cost about the same.  Given yard space, it would be a matter of little money and yard-time to turn the A above into the B or C.  I guess its just something were going to have to kinda 'play nice' on?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 16 August 2018, 16:30:24
A bit of a side topic. but is anyone else seeing some circular dominance in their build plans?  Ive got 3 different designs in mind when I go back to heavy construction.. and its very much A>B>C>A.  I suppose what I build will depend on the threat environment at the time...

Although the issue of 'threat environment' is a pretty fluid one.  Lets say I have 3 1MT designs, and have prototyped 1 of each.  Lets further assume that (because I am clever), they all cost about the same.  Given yard space, it would be a matter of little money and yard-time to turn the A above into the B or C.  I guess its just something were going to have to kinda 'play nice' on?

If you want to blow an extra $15-20B on the additional prototyping costs, then that flexibility seems like a fair trade tbh. Effectively you're just paying extra for an "OmniBattleship", and aside from not being able to mount heavy weapons in the arms unless you mount the hand actuators sideways, it doesn't seem like an unreasonable level of gain for the cost. It's not like it can be all three of them at once, or like it can even switch right before a battle to take advantage of last-minute intel - it only gives you long-term strategic flexibility, and most of you seem to prefer to get your strategic flexibility by building jack-of-all-trades battlestars that can deal with most realistic situations well enough. (Well, except your Lyrans, who seem to prefer all-in strategies. Which might be fun - I need to give you some battles soon so we can see how that works  >:D )
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 16 August 2018, 17:25:13
Frankly, Id probably have been better served by 18 hybrids rather than 9 CAs and 9 CVs.  So Im lampshading furiously and pretending there is advantage in universe that my commanders -think- they get by dividing those roles.  Unity of purpose and focus?  Easier to conduct flight ops when NOT under fire?  Whatever it is, its not in the rules, but my guys can get stuff wrong on occasion.

The first batrep or two of the Lyran Cloud Generators (and Tyr has a lot of tubes, too, they are just overshadowed by its huge cannon arrays) is going to be interesting.  The Lyrans went with some very out there, makes sense on paper assumptions - because I wanted to not build ‘The Star League Navy, 3/5, only with less cargo and more armor and point defense’.  To me, were in the crazy years between the first ironclad and dreadnought, and we havent figured out the ‘right’ answers yet.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 16 August 2018, 19:37:03
and aside from not being able to mount heavy weapons in the arms unless you mount the hand actuators sideways

So... how much mass for conversion equipment, and do I get a mass discount for weaponry that can only be used in one mode?

Do we have rules for punch damage?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 16 August 2018, 21:06:36
Yeah, there's definitely exploration of the design space to be done. And it's good to see I'm not the only one making characters who think too highly of their own wisdom - I'm not sure if it was obvious, but Brian Cameron was being a real jerk to Young in my post last page. Young deserved some criticism, of course, but a good portion of it was over the top. But Cameron is the Director-General, so he gets to be a bit of a jerk with impunity.

Also, I love the phrase "Lyran Cloud Generators".
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 16 August 2018, 21:16:02
So... how much mass for conversion equipment, and do I get a mass discount for weaponry that can only be used in one mode?

Do we have rules for punch damage?

Can we get Particle Wave Motion Cannons too?

 :drool:

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 16 August 2018, 21:24:59
You can thank our friend in the Draconis Combine for that, and several other similar versions.  The designs in service are actually less extreme than some Ive written up and thrown away...

Yeah.  Im kinda intentionally -not- going for even what I the player percieve as ‘perfect designs per the math and rules’.

 Lyran Command is some mix of certain that ‘Angler had it right and built the perfect navy’ and ‘we have built enough ships for parity for now, and rather than build more ships that may be rendered obsolescent before they fire a shot, lets invest in yards that can built whatever we discover the right answer’.  Amusingly, if Angler was still alive, shed probably be building at full speed on the 3 Escort/ 3CA/ 3CV squadron  1 new saquadron per turn paradigm... she believed that 2 okay ships in space are better than 1 great ship still working working up and an infinite number of perfect ships on drawing boards.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 16 August 2018, 22:04:55
Can we get Particle Wave Motion Cannons too?

 :drool:

TT

You should have seen the Hegemony heavy battleship design I gave Alsadius.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 16 August 2018, 22:41:28
The Walkure-class Eclipse Generator is less extreme...  :o

Have we considered the Space Bombing rules (In SO I believe) as an alternative to having 50T fighters carrying 30T capital missiles? Each bomb may only do 0.5/1 capital damage each or something (depending on what you want to rule) but when the fighter is packing 10-20 tons of bombs, thats going to hurt. Catch for the fighter is he's gotta get REAL close to let em go.

Another alternative could be some kind of primitive Arrow IV ASMs (which is missing from the tech tree btw, should be roughly Reunification War-era) weighing the same, maybe doing the same damage but short ranged/inaccurate/susceptible to ECM.

Just a thought.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 17 August 2018, 08:07:12
I've given some thought to possibly departing from canon in terms of available techs, as you say. For example, what if techs would add ECM missiles, or maybe orbital minefields(perhaps $1m per mine, and each one is a one-shot capital missile launcher)? I've limited it to canonical tech in my notes, but that can always change. What's the feeling of the player base here? It'll stay mostly canonical throughout, of course, but a few changes here and there might be fun.

As for the bomber rules, I kind of like capital missiles as the "bombs" of choice for the role, but I'm open to suggestions. It needs to be compatible with how the game has gone thus far, but if nothing else I always like hearing well-designed fan rules.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 17 August 2018, 08:21:00
I've given some thought to possibly departing from canon in terms of available techs, as you say. For example, what if techs would add ECM missiles, or maybe orbital minefields(perhaps $1m per mine, and each one is a one-shot capital missile launcher)? I've limited it to canonical tech in my notes, but that can always change. What's the feeling of the player base here? It'll stay mostly canonical throughout, of course, but a few changes here and there might be fun.

As for the bomber rules, I kind of like capital missiles as the "bombs" of choice for the role, but I'm open to suggestions. It needs to be compatible with how the game has gone thus far, but if nothing else I always like hearing well-designed fan rules.

Well, the RAW provide for 'lighter' anti-ship missiles and using bombs against ships.  Given that 30 ton missiles barely dent capital ship armor (2 damage for a Barracuda), Id tend to view Anti-Ship Arrow 4 and Bombs as standard scale weaponry, unable to penetrate capital grade armor, though perhaps useful against surface emplacements (sensors, standard scale weapons, etc), and against exposed SI.  The current paradigm has ASFs as basically being Backfires throwing telephone-pole sized missiles in massive strikes - this would be WW2, closer attacks.

I think even if I had 'low tech' AA Arrow IV and Bombs, Id still use the capital missiles/maybe close to use guns style.

Captor mines seem reasonable - and the ability of ships to lay them would open the door to both mine layers and Honorverse style Podnaughts.  >:D 

I wouldnt worry too much about ECM Missiles or other high grade 'penaids' unless they are needed to get missiles through poitn defense belts that dont yet exist, but likely will in time.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 17 August 2018, 08:42:59
I figured most of that 30 ton weight is fuel and a big honkin engine to get the cap missiles to reach as far as it does. Also seems a bit odd that we can strap a 30 ton missile to a fighter that's only allowed 10-15 tons of bombs, but as we're abstracting fighter strikes anyway I guess it matters little.

According to Tac Ops, ASM Arrows do 3 Cap damage each, weighing 6 tons. Gotta close to standard Long range though, so return fire will be happening. Anti-Ship E-Warfare Arrow IVs also exist, though they are FC-CW/Early Jihad era apparently.

Space bombing rules can be found on pg 116 of Strat Ops. Have to close to point blank range for that, which is WAY too dangerous against some of the 'Ships we're packing.

And just to be clear I am good with whatever direction we go in, just shooting ideas out there at this point.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 17 August 2018, 09:06:59
I figured most of that 30 ton weight is fuel and a big honkin engine to get the cap missiles to reach as far as it does. Also seems a bit odd that we can strap a 30 ton missile to a fighter that's only allowed 10-15 tons of bombs, but as we're abstracting fighter strikes anyway I guess it matters little.

According to Tac Ops, ASM Arrows do 3 Cap damage each, weighing 6 tons. Gotta close to standard Long range though, so return fire will be happening. Anti-Ship E-Warfare Arrow IVs also exist, though they are FC-CW/Early Jihad era apparently.

Space bombing rules can be found on pg 116 of Strat Ops. Have to close to point blank range for that, which is WAY too dangerous against some of the 'Ships we're packing.

And just to be clear I am good with whatever direction we go in, just shooting ideas out there at this point.


Hmm.  6 Tons.  Lets assume you can carry at least 5 of them.  (Which you can totally do, if nothing else, as a bomber with the bomb bay quirk and cargo).

5x3=15 Capital Damage Per Fighter

~700 Fighters per CVA.

700x15=10,500 Capital Damage in one launch

As the guy who built carriers, I think we have to treat these things as 'not penetrating capital armor' for the same reason we treat all normal scale weaponry that way.  Because otherwise normal scale weaponry 'eats' capital weaponry, and fighters/CVs 'eat' battleships.

Close analysis of the Capital Ship Weapons Rules seem to indicate that 1.) They assumed no custom built warships would exist and the rules exist to make existing designs semi-playable.  2.)  The authors thought that carrier dominance in WW2 was a paradigm that BTech should naturally follow, with the non-carrier battleship warships as big expensive dinosaurs built by stupid people, or 3.)  They were trolling us.  Which is uncertain.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 17 August 2018, 10:16:56
WW2 is my go-to mental model here(because it's the time when both carriers and battleships were viable), so I was thinking more of torpedo bombers than Backfires. However, either one works. The advantage of space combat is that the same model can do that and also be a useful interceptor afterwards, because you don't have anything like the same aerodynamic or stall-speed concerns, so you can just load up an interceptor with its own weight in missiles in a way you never could with a Spitfire.

I'll look at the space bombing rules in more depth later, but I remember thinking they were unsatisfactory on the whole.

My theory is that they never considered custom designs. This is why so many of my changes are about nerfing the abusive strategies you can try with customization("four corners" designs, standard weapon spam, cutting cargo down to three boxes of ship's biscuit, etc.) - you need that in order for canon designs to be even moderately sane.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 17 August 2018, 10:32:03
And yet, amusingly, they design canon 4-corners 3-boxes-of-biscuits designs, as well.

I don't think we will ever be able to completely escape 4-corners.  Its the 'Zone of Immunity' 'Armored Box' of the rules, and exists purely because of the insanity that is the fire control rules.

Im not sure if 4-corners is abuse or a work-around for a bad rule, something more like 'dont leave your AC/5 ammo the only thing on the side torso'.

Ive always just mentally slapped a zero on the difference between standard and capital scale weaponry.  At 100-1, the biggest and meanest aerofighters ever do about 1 capital damage per turn, and can survive about the same.  Still dont want 700 of them on you all at once, but its way better than the 'book standard' condition.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 17 August 2018, 11:33:20
I don't want to totally escape it - you'll notice that my non-canon Vincent went some ways down that path. But it should be limited at least somewhat, instead of being abused to hell and gone.

"Add a zero" isn't a bad approach, but it means canon designs packing 12 fighters are kind of a joke, and you need to really go all-in on carrier designs. I didn't want to force that, though it's possible I went a bit too far the other way. Ships will be getting better anti-fighter defences in the not-too-distant future, so maybe that'll help some.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 17 August 2018, 11:58:48
Well, and I may have missed reading the batreps - but I dont really have a feel for how effective fighter-standard weapons are against capships.  I think any impact they have may get occluded by the capital missile launches (for which purpose a fighter is just a 1-2 shot cap missile launcher that can operate independently) and capital guns. So I cant really say if fighters attacking ships with their AC/5s is a problem or not.  Sure, anti-fighter weaponry is improving, but fighter weaponry improves at the same time.  AMS is coming, but so are improvements in off-angle launches, and the gamechanger that is bearings only.

Re: 12 fighter designs.  I think 12 fighters kinda -has- to be a joke, other than as light fighter defense/scouting and backup for ship based AAA.  Because if 12 fighters are a force, and significant, then 120 fighters is huge and 600+ is too powerful.  Finally, mounting an AAA suite that can swat 12 fighters can be done as casually as mounting thise 12 fighters.  It all comes down to how much impact on the enemy force you can get for how much tonnage/cbill.

For your game, my ‘mental model’ for standard scale weapons vs capships is ‘pretty much useless against capital armor, can do meaninful damage or kill once internals are exposed, and barring that can damage fragile surface features such as sensors, standard scale weaponry, bays, etc., with a smaller chance of some effect on less fragile surface features like capital weapons, manuvering thrusters, and drives.  Basically standard scale weapons cant hurt armor, can hurt internal structure, and have an individually tiny but collectively non-trivial chance of through armor criticals.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 17 August 2018, 12:17:45
The main use cases for fighters are, as best I can tell: 

* Missile spam, obviously.

* Killing other fighters. This was best displayed by the FedSuns at Tikonov on turn 2, where a clever commander stopped the Capellan missile wave from hitting nearly as hard as it should have by badly disrupting the attack.

* Strafing weak surface equipment off enemy warships. This has been happening throughout, but tends to not be very flashy compared to the MacRoss missile massacre - I've talked about the efforts, but not about the loss of capability it causes, so maybe I should switch focus a bit.

* Killing cripples has generally not gone all that well for fighters overall as of yet, though they did kill a Bonaventure at Kentares last turn. They'll do better as bigger guns get introduced - an AC/20 hits as hard as a Barracuda, so it'll have substantially better TAC chances than an AC/5 - but I suspect armour levels will more or less increase to keep pace.

* Ground support doesn't get discussed much by the nature of the game, but it's a useful role and I try to mention it in one form or another when ground combat comes up(e.g., the extra Capellan fighter losses on turn 3).

And yes, even in this game I think 12-fighter designs are mostly there to give you scouts and a bit of versatility. A few of those ships working together can pack a bit of a punch, and even though fighters have short legs compared to small craft or large vessels, they do give you a better set of eyes than the mothership alone. Your mental model is correct as well, FWIW.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 17 August 2018, 12:43:14
RE:  AC20s and Barracudas...

Id think that Barracudas, as capital weaponry, would still hit far harder than an AC20... since in your game the AC20 doesnt actually -do- 2 capital damage to capital armor.  Should I be reading you to say ‘bigger fighter guns are better at the TAC function’?  Or that ‘big fighter guns let fighters do straight up capital scale damage’?

Im also considering, as technology improves, superheavy heavy standard scale batteries mounted as much for their suppression and explotiation power against other capital ships as for anti-fighter roles. 

Finally, Mc Ross Industries, the Commonwealth’s leading manufacturer of fine missile products, thanks you for your patronage.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 17 August 2018, 14:22:13
Barracudas get a built-in TAC roll, which normal weapons don't. So even if it's a bad penetrator by missile standards, it's still way better than an AC/20. An AC/20 will be noticeably better than an AC/5, especially against lightly armoured ships, but it's still not a capital weapon. Against a really lightly armoured ship like a Vigilant, it'll be fairly effective, but against a battleship it'll still basically just bounce off the armour.

The best analogy for fighter weapons being used against WarShips might be the early ironclad era, when they'd figured out how to put 4" thick steel on a ship, but not how to build a gun that was much more damaging than a Nelsonian muzzle-loader. A fighter's weapons will score hits a high percentage of the time, but each hit is individually very unlikely to do much. A sufficient number is still a concern, because golden BBs do exist and there's usually something on the skin of your ship that doesn't like to be hit by shells very much, but as long as you have some way to keep them from hitting you with impunity it more often amounts to "sweepers, man your brooms" than a serious threat.

Two capital ships fighting each other with only standard-sized weapons would look a lot like Hampton Roads or Lissa, a long fight where the ships mostly flail at each other and try to deal attritional damage, because they lack the firepower to kill things with their guns. But if the AC/20(or Gauss, or other similarly high-damaging weapons) existed right now, heavy fighters would be a meaningful threat to the lightest tier of ships, even without missile loads or support. I don't remember the exact tech order, but I suspect that by the time they are available, the overall armour level of fleets will have grown substantially and they once again won't pose a major threat to most modern ships without support.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 17 August 2018, 17:12:04
No canon warship -unless you count a Potemkin with full carrier dropper load- comes CLOSE to the fighter complement you put in that thing.

The rule makers probably never considered that someone would build a ship that could hold so many fighters.

And hurry up with your turn Kiviar! *Prepares Gilly's Cricket Bat of Six Hittin'*
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 18 August 2018, 03:50:29
Federated Suns Turn 5
2380-2399


Kentares IV

On the 16th of January 2383 in high orbit over the world of Kentares IV the galaxy changed forever. The titanic clash between the might of the Federated Suns and Hegemony Navy had not only given the Terrans their first real defeat since the fall of the Alliance, but it had also shown that the burgeoning new nations of the Inner Sphere would no longer be cowed by their old masters.

While officially, the government had issued statements decrying the overzealous actions of Admiral Hasek and his senior staff, few, if any took these seriously. The Admiral had become not only a hero, but came to represent the new national pride growing within the Federated Suns. What had started 66 years ago as a defensive pact between the desperate worlds of the Crucis Reach had, through the fires of Tikonov and Kentares, grown in to a true nation.

Peace with Honor

Even before the dust had settled at Kentares IV, President Paul Davion had enacted his plan to diffuse the increasingly apocalyptic situation between the 'Suns and Hegemony. What few jumpships as could be spared had been organized into a rudimentary command circuit to deliver the President's sister, Marie Davion to Terra as quickly as possible. While many on New Avalon openly questioned the President's choice at such a crucial time, Paul Davion had the utmost faith in his sister. This was immediately proven to be well paced, as within days of arriving on Terra, Marie had through a mix of charm, intelligence and supreme competence, diffused the situation entirely. Both the Federated Suns and Hegemony had stepped back from the precipice, and as the negotiations drew to a close two years later, and the ink dried on a bevy of new trade, navigation and emigration treaties, both nations had, despite all the bloodshed, violence, and death, emerged victorious.

The world marches on

"Look, I've seen our projections on a possible Combine battleship too. Yes, it could probably blast something like the Crusis to scrap, but by the time they get anything out of that new yard of theirs we will have almost as many battleships as they have cruisers."
"So you are saying they aren't a threat?"
"No, I'm saying we aren't worrying about paper spaceships and imaginary naval-races with neutral powers whose whole navy has less combat experience than the ****ing Albion, when we have real and credible threats to deal with."


- Adm. Michael Hasek to reporters on Wake Up Avalon City! 2389

Kentares IV had not only been a wake-up call to the Hegemony, but also the to the Federated Suns other rivals. Not only was the FPF equipped with larger, faster, and better armed warships than any other Inner Sphere power, they also possessed the most experienced force in the Inner Sphere, which had, despite an inauspicious start, emerged victorious in nearly every engagement it fought.

This was clearly not a situation which the other nations of the Inner Sphere could allow to continue, and, in the 2390s Federated Suns intelligence operatives began reporting on massive new shipyard construction programs across space. They projected that within the next decade, not only would the 'Suns perennial foe the Capellan confederation be able to construct warships on par with the much vaunted Crucis-class battleship, but the ever-growing Draconis Combine would be able to construct ships which rivaled even the Hegemony's behemoths.

The situation was becoming increasingly concerning. The FPF Navy may have had superior ships to its rivals, but, in terms of overall fleet weight, it was a less optimistic story. Many of their ships were also beginning to show their age. The Galahad-class had never received its proposed upgrades after the battle of Highspire, and the venerable Albion-class had proven to not be of sufficient size or power to serve as a ship-of-the-wall. In the halls of power on New Avalon, panic was beginning to set in. The Navy was still in the midst of repairing the damage dealt to it at Kentares IV, and their budget was stretched to the breaking point. Many petitioned the President to order the Navy to scrap all current production and invest nearly the entire procurement budget for the next decade in to a audacious plan to upgrade the Universal Shipyards facilities at Delevan to a similar size and capacity to those that the Combine was rumoured to be constructing in orbit of New Samarkand.

While the President understood that nations like the Draconis Combine and Free Worlds League must, to some extent, view the Federated Suns as a threat to their security, that threat paled in comparison to the juggernaut of the Terran Hegemony. He, and most of the moderates on the Navy Board felt that while upgrades to some shipyards were advisable to keep pace with their neighbor`s growth, the proposed upgrades to Delevan came at too high a cost. In a compromise it was decided that the smaller yards at Delevan would be upgraded to match the current largest over the next 20 years, and more focused production on heavier warships would be undertaken to mitigate any possible capability gap.

New Units

Kentares IV-class Carrier

A Fleet Carrier had been in the works since the inception of the FPF Navy in the early 2300s. However the "gunboat clique" which ruled the Navy's procurement bureaucracy felt that fighters were only suited for reconnaissance, and that any ship which sacrificed significant space to the support and maintenance of them over conventional weaponry was folly. This attitude began to change gradually in the 2370s when fighters proved instrumental at the battle of Tikonov, and unequivocally in 2383 when massed fighter formations devastated the Hegemony fleet at Kentares IV.

Ultimately the Navy went with a Universal Shipyard's design which had been kicking around naval circles since the inception of the Federated Suns. It was a simple design which lacked many modern features such as dropship collars or advanced targeting and tracking systems, but, what it lacked in advanced technology it it made up for in speed, protection and fighter capacity. With 4 squadrons of fighters, and 60kt of supplies to sustain them, the Kentares IV offered a drastic improvement to both fighter coverage and endurance. For defence the ship primarily relied on its incredible speed to keep it out of range of hostile warships. At 4g of acceleration, few dropships, and even fewer warships would be able to keep up. However, it did also mount an impressive weight of armour for a carrier as well as a sizable array of class 55 naval lasers to make what few opponents who could catch up to the Kentares IV think twice about it.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Kentares IV-class Carrier
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $7,112,484,000.00
Magazine Cost: $464,000.00
BV2: 42,273

Mass: 750,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 5
Maximum Thrust: 8
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
32 Naval Laser 55
32 AC 5
64 Machine Gun (IS)

Class/Model/Name: Kentares IV-class Carrier
Mass: 750,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 225,000
Thrust
Safe: 5
Maximum: 8
Controls: 1,875
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (16 Integrity) 339,375
Jump Sail: (5 Integrity) 68
Structural Integrity: 50 37,500
Total Heat Sinks: 2715 Single 2,000
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 13500 points 5,508
Fire Control Computers: 0
Armor: 330 pts Standard 750
Fore: 70
Fore-Left/Right: 40/40
Aft-Left/Right: 40/40
Aft: 70

Dropship Capacity: 0
Grav Decks:
Small: 0
Medium: 2 200
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 150 1,050
Life Boats: 0

Crew And Passengers:
41 Officers in 2nd Class Quarters 287
154 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 1,078
48 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 336
525 Bay Personnel 0
10 1st Class Passengers 100
600 2nd Class Passengers 4,200
Steerage Passengers 0

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
8 Naval Laser 55 Nose 680 440 (44-C) Extreme-C 8,800
4 AC 5 Nose 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
8 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
2 Naval Laser 55 FR 170 110 (11-C) Extreme-C 2,200
4 AC 5 FR 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
8 Machine Gun (IS) FR 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
2 Naval Laser 55 FL 170 110 (11-C) Extreme-C 2,200
4 AC 5 FL 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
8 Machine Gun (IS) FL 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
4 Naval Laser 55 RBS 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
4 AC 5 RBS 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
8 Machine Gun (IS) RBS 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
4 Naval Laser 55 LBS 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
4 AC 5 LBS 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
8 Machine Gun (IS) LBS 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
2 Naval Laser 55 AR 170 110 (11-C) Extreme-C 2,200
4 AC 5 AR 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
8 Machine Gun (IS) AR 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
2 Naval Laser 55 AL 170 110 (11-C) Extreme-C 2,200
4 AC 5 AL 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
8 Machine Gun (IS) AL 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
8 Naval Laser 55 Aft 680 440 (44-C) Extreme-C 8,800
4 AC 5 Aft 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
8 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4

Ammo Rounds Mass
AC 5 Ammo 1920 96.00
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 6400 32.00

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
200 Bay Fighter 30,000 2
25 Bay Small Craft 5,000 8
60,000 Cargo, Standard 60,000 2






Turn

Administration
Budget - 100
Upkeep - 22

R&D
Kentares IV-class Carrier - 7.1

Construction

Ships
2x Crucis - 23.3
2x Kentares IV - 14.2
Stations
1x Northumberland - 1
5x Barghest - 0.072

Misc
10x Lt Dropship
380x Fighter

Research & Other
Research - 69 - 0.029
Fleet Repairs - 12
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 18 August 2018, 17:03:02
In an attempt to clean up the Master Sheet a touch, I have separated the station designs from the Warships. They're still on the same tab, just with a bit of space to make it easier to go through each factions warship lists.

Can undo if it bugs people.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 18 August 2018, 18:59:53
I've given some thought to possibly departing from canon in terms of available techs, as you say. For example, what if techs would add ECM missiles, or maybe orbital minefields(perhaps $1m per mine, and each one is a one-shot capital missile launcher)? I've limited it to canonical tech in my notes, but that can always change. What's the feeling of the player base here? It'll stay mostly canonical throughout, of course, but a few changes here and there might be fun.

As for the bomber rules, I kind of like capital missiles as the "bombs" of choice for the role, but I'm open to suggestions. It needs to be compatible with how the game has gone thus far, but if nothing else I always like hearing well-designed fan rules.

After spending a lot of quality time with the design space, I think what would give us the most increase in decision making flexibility would be:

1.)  Some way to further reduce the mass of the KF Drive, at some high cost.  My rough gut feel is an improved Compact Core at 40% of the ships mass and roughly double cost of the KF Drive, and a Super-Compact Core at 30% and quadruple core cost.  This would make a large difference in effective mass fractions, and given that core costs make a smaller and smaller impact as hull size increses, would increase the upward pressure on yard sizes (which will likely stall at around class 5-6 in the current condition)

2.)  Some way to reduce the mass of the Main Drive.  This is the other huge barrier to design flexibility.  Something along the paradigm of the Lite/XL/XXL Engines, at 2/3, 1/2, and 1/3 mass for... ballparking... x5, x10, and x20 cost on the Drive, despite the mass reduction.
Obviously very valuable to high thrust designs, and would allow for 5/8 and even 6/9 vessels with at least some role in combat.

3.)  Decouple SI from Safe Thrust.  Because it is nonsensical that you have to add engines to further reinforce your hull.  Would put a bit more flexibility in the 2/3 and 3/5 ships.

4.)  Treat overthrust as 1.5 safe thrust, without rounding.  We arent using hexes, and it avoids the default 3/5 sweet spot being even -better- for getting a free .5 overthrust.

5.)  Maybe slow improvements in jump range over time?  Would also help promote block obsolesence, rather than ‘build in 2350, upgrade armor once or twice, use forever’


This would allow for some behavior outside the 'corners' of the currently possible, and would follow the relentless IRL advancement in ship speed from the era of ironclads to fast battleships.  If we dont allow ships to replace their KF Drive or 'Main Drive Type' over time, it could lead to real obsolesce, which we do not see here.

As to why its being seen here, and not in main timeline?  I think weve got a much more competitive naval enviornment than in the OTL.  This would take us off in some very non-cannon directions, however, and leave us with ships that dont play well with the base rules.

Just 'off the top of my head'.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 18 August 2018, 19:12:44
Would allow us to come up with some out of the box ideas, if we're willing to spend the cash.

Not sure about the jump range though, the engines by themselves should do a fine job of making old designs obsolescent.

Next question of course is when does this stuff come around? XL engines are out in 2579, XL drives are made about the same time? Before like NPPCs compared to standard PPCs? Or would they be a mid-late League-era kind of thing?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 18 August 2018, 19:35:12
Duplicate deleted.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 18 August 2018, 23:39:14
After spending a lot of quality time with the design space, I think what would give us the most increase in decision making flexibility would be:

1.)  Some way to further reduce the mass of the KF Drive, at some high cost.  My rough gut feel is an improved Compact Core at 40% of the ships mass and roughly double cost of the KF Drive, and a Super-Compact Core at 30% and quadruple core cost.  This would make a large difference in effective mass fractions, and given that core costs make a smaller and smaller impact as hull size increses, would increase the upward pressure on yard sizes (which will likely stall at around class 5-6 in the current condition)

I'm loath to add any really big changes to the design space like a new KF drive type. It pushes us away from this being BattleTech, and it's the sort of thing I don't trust myself to balance properly. I'll think about it, but right now I lean against it.

That said, I do think you're right about yard sizes capping out in practice. The Terrans can count to 10 (and probably will, because I like the Newgrange), but nobody else ever will. Maybe I should just cap the cost at $50B per level - it won't affect the game thus far, but it'll make it less punishing down the line.

2.)  Some way to reduce the mass of the Main Drive.  This is the other huge barrier to design flexibility.  Something along the paradigm of the Lite/XL/XXL Engines, at 2/3, 1/2, and 1/3 mass for... ballparking... x5, x10, and x20 cost on the Drive, despite the mass reduction.
Obviously very valuable to high thrust designs, and would allow for 5/8 and even 6/9 vessels with at least some role in combat.

It's not just the engine mass that's an issue - max accel in a fast ship is already crushing, and getting up to 5-6g is going to pose tremendous engineering challenges. If anything, I might want to make big engines even more mass-intensive.

3.)  Decouple SI from Safe Thrust.  Because it is nonsensical that you have to add engines to further reinforce your hull.  Would put a bit more flexibility in the 2/3 and 3/5 ships.

This makes sense to me. I never much liked that rule, tbh. Naturally, the guy with a 2/3 fleet is most in favour of it, but there's logic there. If I do that, I might also mess with rules like maximum door count. No promises, though.

4.)  Treat overthrust as 1.5 safe thrust, without rounding.  We arent using hexes, and it avoids the default 3/5 sweet spot being even -better- for getting a free .5 overthrust.

I've more or less been doing this already. The rounding hasn't been getting factored in. Actually, if I wanted to mess around in this space with the opportunities afforded to us by a narrative-based game, why are we limiting thrust to round numbers at all? A cruising accel of 1.2g(i.e., 2.4 thrust) should be perfectly possible. That'd loosen up design space somewhat and make ships less samey, and I don't think it'd mess with the construction tool much. Obviously, that couldn't work with any third-party construction tools, because MML and HMA would not build ships like that. Given that you're one who's been reluctant to use the Google Docs spreadsheet due to technical issues, would that be a problem?

5.)  Maybe slow improvements in jump range over time?  Would also help promote block obsolesence, rather than ‘build in 2350, upgrade armor once or twice, use forever’

This is a bit like #1 to me. Also, jump ranges over 30 LY make most of the mapping tools I've used to plan operations stop being useful, which would be annoying.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 19 August 2018, 00:51:09
I would argue that the real issue with design flexibility is directly the fault of the C-Bill costs of warships skewing heavily towards larger ships. Right now a 500kt ship with less than half the BV of a 1mt ship is still around 70% of the cost,  and this only gets more egregious the larger the size disparity gets. If we just ignored the vanilla C-bill cost of ships and instead did something like BV*100,000 plus some amount for sensors/collars we would get a more granular price curve on warships which would see smaller ships lowered in price to a level where people might actually consider building escorts again, while keeping the cost of medium ships about the same and increasing the cost of 1mt+ ships all without changing any of the core rules.

So i went through my ships and did some rough calculations

Corvette (200kt 27k bv) would drop from about 6b to under 2.7
Albion, (400kt 51k bv) would drop from 7b to 5.1
Robinson (500kt 73k bv) drops very slightly from 7.9 to 7.3
Kentares IV (750kt 42k bv) drops from 7 to 4 (carriers might prove to be a problem)
Galahad (900kt 115k bv) goes up from 10.7 to 11.5
Crucis (1mt 138k bv) goes up from 11.6 to 13.6
4/6 Battlecruiser (1mt 93kbv) goes down from 11.2b to 93.6b (this one is due to the armament)
Battleship+ (1.25mt 187k bv) goes up significantly from 13.5 to 18.7
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 19 August 2018, 01:45:02

I would like to stick to canon technology, however I won't mind seeing an early introduction of sub-cap weapons and screen launchers.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 19 August 2018, 03:29:51
Id use the google doc calculator to get fractional thrusts, or learn enough excel to modify the spreadsheet I am using.

I think there have to be some efficiencies in larger designs.  Otherwise the free SI and crit resistence will result in swarms at 100kt.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 19 August 2018, 07:50:23
That said, I do think you're right about yard sizes capping out in practice. The Terrans can count to 10 (and probably will, because I like the Newgrange), but nobody else ever will. Maybe I should just cap the cost at $50B per level - it won't affect the game thus far, but it'll make it less punishing down the line.

Maybe?  At a cap of 50B per level, I might go past Lvl 6.  Then again, I have no idea what my budget is going to be in another 10-20 turns - the more money you have, the more sense yard upgrades make.

Quote
It's not just the engine mass that's an issue - max accel in a fast ship is already crushing, and getting up to 5-6g is going to pose tremendous engineering challenges. If anything, I might want to make big engines even more mass-intensive.

I really don't think the engineering challenges are all that grand, in a game where materials technology is as insanely good as it is in Battletech.  Fighters can literally bounce off the ground and keep flying.  Also, Safe thrust 5 and 6 ships are tough enough to make good as it is, I'd hate to foreclose that design space entirely.

Quote
This makes sense to me. I never much liked that rule, tbh. Naturally, the guy with a 2/3 fleet is most in favour of it, but there's logic there. If I do that, I might also mess with rules like maximum door count. No promises, though.

Yeah, I only really noticed it because I was building slow ships to maximize firepower, and it struck me how strange it was.  Especially in a setting where in general slow things have more armor.

Quote
I've more or less been doing this already. The rounding hasn't been getting factored in. Actually, if I wanted to mess around in this space with the opportunities afforded to us by a narrative-based game, why are we limiting thrust to round numbers at all? A cruising accel of 1.2g(i.e., 2.4 thrust) should be perfectly possible. That'd loosen up design space somewhat and make ships less samey, and I don't think it'd mess with the construction tool much. Obviously, that couldn't work with any third-party construction tools, because MML and HMA would not build ships like that. Given that you're one who's been reluctant to use the Google Docs spreadsheet due to technical issues, would that be a problem?
It would seem easy enough to let the design tool, of whatever sort, accept fractional input for safe thrust.

Quote
This is a bit like #1 to me. Also, jump ranges over 30 LY make most of the mapping tools I've used to plan operations stop being useful, which would be annoying.

I was just thinking that we have shorter ranged drives (primitive drives), and we know at some point theres research in 'super' drives.  But if it makes your administrative overhead go up more than it helps the game, then its a gonner.  The juice always has to be worth the squeeze.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 19 August 2018, 13:56:29
In an attempt to clean up the Master Sheet a touch, [snip] if it bugs people.

All my Trojans are currently MK2's, no new builds. I might build another MK2 in the near future. I won't be using the Trojan MK1 anymore, so you can remove that from my listing.

Also is there a way to show everybody their Faction specific fighter speed and such like the warship spread? Just so we can look at the specs at a glance. I can see Heavy weapons as the built in, and Light as more if it's a Bomber role. Since all can carry Bombs and Cap-Missiles, only a few are dedicated Bombers.

Thanks,
TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 19 August 2018, 17:41:10
I'd like to play and real life has simplified enough that I can do so. 

My understanding is that the Taurian Concordat and the Rim Worlds Republic are the viable choices.  If Taurian Concordat, I'd like to alter the terms to end payments,  returning all but 2 of the Kutai.  The Rim Worlds Republic is doomed by default, but it might be fun to try and nip the clans in the bud.  I'm flexible either way, but maybe RWR sounds more interesting?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 19 August 2018, 17:54:37
Welcome sir! You don't have to be crazy to play here,  we'll take care of that
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 19 August 2018, 18:33:24
The Rim Worlds Republic is doomed by default

They're both "doomed", its just a question of when. The Star League crushes the Taurians in the 2580s, while the RWR survives until the 2780s and goes out with the biggest bang in the setting.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 19 August 2018, 18:46:00
I'd like to play and real life has simplified enough that I can do so. 

My understanding is that the Taurian Concordat and the Rim Worlds Republic are the viable choices.  If Taurian Concordat, I'd like to alter the terms to end payments,  returning all but 2 of the Kutai.  The Rim Worlds Republic is doomed by default, but it might be fun to try and nip the clans in the bud.  I'm flexible either way, but maybe RWR sounds more interesting?

We are already seeing butterflies.  I dont think its safe to assume that the TC or the RWR are doomed.  Both of their dates with destiny are a long way off, after all.

My gut feeling is that the RWR is better situated for long term growth, but the TC is likely to be more exciting.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 19 August 2018, 19:07:40
Note to all: I may have spent most of my free time this weekend playing Battletech(the HBS computer game) instead of writing about it, so the turn will be delayed somewhat.

---

Kiviar: That is a far more drastic change than I'm comfortable with. If we were doing blank-sheet-of-paper design I'd change around cost calculations quite a lot, but once we're already into the game, it's way too much.

Maingunnery: Yeah, Invasion-era tech happening during the Star League makes sense. I already stole some small amounts of it(e.g., it was all LBX autocannons, not just the LB-10X), but I may include a bit more. Good call.

Marcus: Materials science is good, but humans are as squishy as ever. As I understand it, going much above 4g means acceleration couches and G-suits, which severely limits operations - a standard chair won't cut it any more. As for primitive drives that expand up to 30LY over time, it might have been a good idea if it happened at the start, but not now.

Truetanker: Faction-specific fighters are fluff only, in practice. You can tell me about your doctrine(e.g., do you prefer massed anti-fleet strikes, or to focus on enemy fighters and let your heavies kill the enemy ships?), but the craft used to implement that doctrine are abstracted away. It'd be too much to keep track of otherwise.

Lagrange: Great, good to have you! Did you want to start your tenure this turn, or wait until I've resolved the turn? I'm cool either way. For now, the Taurians are in a bit of a siege mentality - the FS has other concerns, but the TC doesn't necessarily realize that right now. That's why they went a bit crazy buying Kutais. If you want to unload them, you can talk to Smegish about taking them back if he wants, or if that's not agreeable I'll let you unload them to assorted minor periphery nations(who will assume the same repayment schedule you're on right now, so Smegish won't suffer loss of cashflow). If you'd prefer the RWR, they're trying to be a cutting-edge inspirational example(the "Renaissance" moniker for their recharge stations was the most obvious example there - I've actually gone to an Italian/Mediterranean naming scheme for them as a result of that, and because it fit the ruler names), both because it seems to fit the canon and because they need to grow a heck of a lot bigger to be able to pull off Amaris' little stunt in the 2760s.

Kiviar: The Reunification War forced all Periphery realms into the Star League, but it didn't end them. The TC is still a going concern in the 3100s in canon. You'll all suffer setbacks aplenty over time, but I won't end player-controlled realms before the game ends(unless the player agrees to it).

---

Also, a side note regarding population, inspired by a PM. IRL population was about 1B in 1800, 1.7B in 1900(+70%), and 6.1B in 2000(+259%). A bunch of that 20th century jump was longevity growth, which won't recur, so the pace of population growth should be expected to slow down. IRL projections, which are based on us never leaving Earth, show about 10.9B in 2100(+79%). So if we assume a long-run population growth rate of about 70% per century, we'll be in the right ballpark. That results in a total Inner Sphere population of about 51B in 2400, of which over half is Terran - each of your realms might have a total of about 4 billion people right now, spread across a couple hundred worlds, so even a fairly important planet might only have the same population as IRL Canada at this point.

If we project this forward to 2800, around the time the 1SW got nasty, that's a total human population getting close to half a trillion. The TH is still the single biggest, but it'll have much less than half, perhaps 150B total. Each of the great houses will be closer to 50B at that point, or ten times larger than they are right now. That's the era when Luthien is a heavily industrialized world of 7 billion, not today.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 19 August 2018, 19:36:23
Just for Placement and not to forget anything:

Marian Hegemony:
Alphard, Lothario, Lordinax, and Leximon.

And Lagrange:

Welcome here.

IC: We, the Marian Hegemony, wouldn't mind buy those ugly things off your hands. We'll even pay handsomely for them if you s choose. A fellow Peripherian Realm indeed.  :thumbsup:

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 19 August 2018, 19:40:04
Thanks all.

TC seems more aligned with the strategy that I have in mind (... which is different from everyone else's so far...), so let's go with that.  I'll try to get a turn together tonight under the assumption that something works out with the Kutais.

A minor detail: I'm not entirely clear on the house rules for capitol missiles carried by ASF.  What is the limit on the ASF's speed profile?  And the tonnage of an ASF required to carry a capitol missile?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 19 August 2018, 19:49:02
If you no longer want the Kutais I will take them back. They are up for sale, if any other Peripherats are interested, price to be negotiated
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 19 August 2018, 20:01:24
Nothing.

Speed is UNCHANGED and you carry 1 Capital Missile fighter. Think Fire and Forget. Most likely a Barracuda for Anti-Ship / Fighter and your Bombers would carry either dedicated bomb bay and / or White Shark for the Exocet ability.

Otherwise there generic, though you could create your own, but 5 Million each

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 19 August 2018, 20:04:20
Fighters are very abstracted here, they are slower while packing ASMs, but we're going with generic fighters to minimise the headaches for Mr GM
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 19 August 2018, 20:08:53
Thanks all.

TC seems more aligned with the strategy that I have in mind (... which is different from everyone else's so far...), so let's go with that.  I'll try to get a turn together tonight under the assumption that something works out with the Kutais.

A minor detail: I'm not entirely clear on the house rules for capitol missiles carried by ASF.  What is the limit on the ASF's speed profile?  And the tonnage of an ASF required to carry a capitol missile?

Sounds good. I prefer the RWR as my own realm - I won't say no to a new player, but I was hoping you'd pick the TC, so good choice ;)

Canonical ASF rules give them one bomb hardpoint per 5 tons, and that stays unchanged. The house rule we're using here is that those hardpoints can also be used to carry missiles, at one hardpoint per 5 tons of missile(so a Barracuda takes 6, a White Shark 8, and a Killer Whale 10). That basically means each fighter can carry its own weight in missiles. There's canon rules for loss of maneuverability when carrying bombs(-1 safe thrust per 5 bombs carried, round up), but that hits heavy units too hard and light ones not hard enough, so I've abstracted it a bit. A fully loaded fighter is pushing twice the mass around that it normally would be, so it's got half the acceleration, as well as being substantially more sluggish in maneuver(both because of inertia and because of structural risks with that heavy load attached).

Also note that, as Smegish says, we're using generic fighters. I tend to assume that the average mass of a fighter is 50-60 tons, so a typical launch averages out to roughly one ship-killer or two anti-fighter missiles per fighter. I figure the assault ASFs will balance out against the light ones, and it'll work out to that as an average. It's a bit fuzzy - I'll raise or lower the number somewhat between fights - but that's roughly what you can expect.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 19 August 2018, 20:09:21
Kiviar: The Reunification War forced all Periphery realms into the Star League, but it didn't end them. The TC is still a going concern in the 3100s in canon. You'll all suffer setbacks aplenty over time, but I won't end player-controlled realms before the game ends(unless the player agrees to it).

The TC survived the reunification wars but was never able to recover from them until the jihad era. So, insofar as the game is concerned they cease to be a viable power after the 2580s.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 19 August 2018, 21:03:03
TC seems more aligned with the strategy that I have in mind (... which is different from everyone else's so far...)

Im really looking forward to it!

TC is a tough takeover, as it has had a player, gone NPC, got kicked around by the Fed Suns, and is now back in business.  Im quite curious to see what your doing with it.

I've got a standing offer to FS, CC, TC, and MH for use of my spare yard space at say about cost +10-20%.  If your not happy with Kutai, and want something I've got prototyped, I'll build.  If you want something that wont fit in your yard space, and can carry the prototype costs, I might lower the parkup in exchange for design access for my own future use.

Welcome aboard!
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 19 August 2018, 22:13:26
 Awww I can't buy half a dozen Walkures off you? Promise I won't field them against you 😆
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 19 August 2018, 23:08:31
I could give you a good price on some slightly used Albions. There is at least a 1/3 chance that one won't explode every battle.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 19 August 2018, 23:44:07
The reality of the crushing debt payments for the Kutai fleet created a cold war within naval command.  The FS hawks instigated the purchase and adamantly defended it as necessary in the face of FS aggression.  Those opposing the deal pointed out the unsuitability of a Kutai for a main wall of battle, often leaping to the extreme claim that they were useless in view of the reports coming out of Kentares.  The Kutai faction was in control of fleet command at the outset leaving the younger generation barraging their seniors with simulations, proposals, and counterproposals.

As often happens in these cases, the matter was settled by retirement of the old guard and the promotion of admiral Lena Wilhight.  In a compromise with the old guard, 2 of the Kutai's were kept for escort, scout, and antipiracy role against minor periphery powers where they remain a formidable force.  Lena then conducted a deep review of many year's worth of proposals and simulations settling on some unusual conclusions. 

The most essential conclusion is that the Taurian Concordat needed an entirely new and radically more force efficient naval doctrine to effectively compete with major powers operating at an order of magnitude more scale.  One proposal fit this---labeled the "Rube Goldberg Warship" by the FS Hawks it was ridiculed widely 5 years before, yet it fit the criteria. 

The Rube Goldberg Warship isn't a warship.  Instead, it's a space station, a dropship, and a jumpship designed to mimic a warship.  The space station is a scaledown of the Marathon defense stations which defended Taurus from the FS aggressors.
Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Taurus I
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $326,105,000.00
Magazine Cost: $46,000.00
BV2: 13,319

Mass: 100,000
K-F Drive System: None
Power Plant: Station-Keeping Drive
Safe Thrust: 0
Maximum Thrust: 1
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
15 Naval Laser 45
305 Machine Gun (IS)

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 1,200
Thrust
Safe: 0.2 .75 with Tick
Maximum: 1 1 with Tick
Controls: 100
Structural Integrity: 1 1,000
Total Heat Sinks: 1050 Single 957
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 40000 points 4,080
Fire Control Computers: 5
Armor: 315 pts Standard 393
Fore: 65
Fore-Left/Right: 60/60
Aft-Left/Right: 45/45
Aft: 40

Dropship Capacity: 0
Grav Decks:
Medium: 1 100
Life Boats: 386 2,702

Crew And Passengers:
22 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 220
43 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 301
66 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 470
504 Bay Personnel 0
2184 Steerage Passengers 10,920

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
24 Bay Small Craft 4,800 1 (Nose)   //12 are defensive with 54 MGs each pointed forward.  12 are for boarding operations supporting 5 platoons of marines each
Cargo, Standard 30,262 1 (Aft)
48 Bay Fighter 7,200 2 (FL)
48 Bay Fighter 7,200 2 (FR)
48 Bay Fighter 7,200 2 (AL)
48 Bay Fighter 7,200 2 (AR)

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass Ammo Rounds Mass
15 Naval Laser 45 Nose 1050 675 (67.5-C) Extreme-C 13,500
5 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 10 (1-C) Short-PDS 3              Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 200 1.00
60 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 120 (12-C) Short-PDS 30 Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 1800 9.00
60 Machine Gun (IS) FR 120 (12-C) Short-PDS 30 Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 1800 9.00
60 Machine Gun (IS) FL 120 (12-C) Short-PDS 30 Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 1800 9.00
60 Machine Gun (IS) AR 120 (12-C) Short-PDS 30 Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 1800 9.00
60 Machine Gun (IS) AL 120 (12-C) Short-PDS 30 Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 1800 9.00

The Taurus I design (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x9TYwHB_iFPcYLARLHx8hZ3kMkIruIkMi1RvvV5KShI/edit?usp=sharing) includes 15 NL45s massed in a single arc to do deeply penetrating damage.  A single hit by the focused fire of the NL bay can wipe out minor warships and seriously threaten even the largest warships.  The NL bay is nevertheless a secondary weapon compared to 192 aerospace bays for over-the-horizon combat.   The tactical doctrine here is simultaneous massed strikes of an enormous number of missiles as observed in many modern combats.  The aerospace bays are loaded with ASF carrying twin Barracudas with the cargo bay carrying a reload of both Barracudas and White Sharks.  The large fuel reserve can be used to reload the ASF as well. 

Rethinking the importance of missile defense after many battles were decided by missile waves, a defense-in-depth strategy was developed.  The last line of this defense is 60 machine guns per arc mounted on the Taurus I itself.  The first line of defense is provided by an array of 12 Crestbreaker point defense smallcraft designed to coordinate with each other and the Taurus I to provide an order of magnitude more point defense (up to 708 machine guns), breaking missile waves apart. 
Code: [Select]
200 ton Smallcraft: Crestbreaker
Tech Rating: D/D-E-D-D 
Weight: 200 tons
BV: 3,111
Cost: 17,778,060 C-bills 
Movement: 1/2
Heat Sinks: 4
Fuel Points: 240 (3.0 tons)
Tons Per Burn Day: 1.84 
Structural Integrity: 19
Armor: 1164

Armor
Nose: 350
Left Side: 291
Right Side: 291
Aft: 232

Crew
Officers 3
Gunners 9

Weapons
54x Machine Gun Nose
4 tons of Machine gun ammo

The last element of the Taurus I include 60 companies of marines based off 12 more Smallcraft designed for naval boarding operations. 
Code: [Select]
200 ton Smallcraft: David
Base Tech Level: Standard (IS)
Tech Rating: D/D-E-D-D 
Weight: 200 tons
BV: 2,340
Cost: 17,433,060 C-bills 
Movement: 7/11
Heat Sinks: 12
Fuel Points: 240 (3.0 tons)
Tons Per Burn Day: 1.84 
Structural Integrity: 15
Armor: 924

Armor
Nose 278
Left Side 231
Right Side 231
Aft 184

Carrying Capacity
Infantry Bay (3 doors) - 5.0 Foot platoons
Cargo Space (1 door) - 4 tons 

Crew
Officers 1
Enlisted/Non-rated 2
Bay Personnel 140
 
The David smallcraft doctrine uses aggressive tactics.  Often, they will intermingle with an ASF wave and use the confusion of a mass missile strike to board surviving enemy ships.  Sometimes they will use a 5.5g burn to slip around enemy ASF formations for an unsupported attack.  The doctrine here is on the border of foolhardy, but not completely so---they will flee if there is no plausible path to victory. 

The Taurus I space station is designed for long occupancy with a large 250m gravdeck and quarters for all bay personnel giving an endurance of about a half year.

The primary disadvantage of a space station in combat is a lack of maneuverability.  After careful study, it was determined that a space station can be built to withstand approximately a half-G of thrust, about 5 times what a station-keeping drive generates.  A dropship with a Naval Tug can provide this ability, and thus 'The Tick' was born. 
Code: [Select]
Tick
Tech Rating: D/E-E-E-E 
Weight: 5000 tons
BV: 3,553
Cost: 218,898,400 C-bills 
Movement: 11/17
Heat Sinks: 20
Fuel Points: 6000/6000 (200.0 tons)
Tons Per Burn Day: 1.84 
Structural Integrity: 20
Armor: 1232

Nose: 308
Sides: 308
Aft: 308

Weapons
12x MG (Aft, Aft/Fore Right/Left) with 1 ton of Ammo.

Equipment:
Naval Tug: 600 tons
Cargo Space (1 door) - 141 tons 

Crew
Officers 3
Enlisted/Non-rated 2
Gunners 11
The Tick can generate a bone-crushing 8.5Gs of force which it projects through it's massive naval tug to move a Taurus I at about 0.5G making it maneuverable at combat time scales and capable of planetary movement in reasonable-if-sedate timescales. (Side note: it's thrust 0.75/1 according to the rules.)  The Taurus I is also designed to carry the Tick as cargo.  The process of loading and unloading the Tick is slow. (Side note: using the cargo rules)  The tick also complements the point defense of whatever it's attached to with 12 MG's in each arc.

The other obvious drawback of a space station is a lack of interstellar maneuverability which is addressed via the Mother jumpyard (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GMSgBeBX4jTGKcOmFVTVGUJ-IYPKsO81iseD63ROzDk/edit?usp=sharing).
Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Mother
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $933,477,500.00
Magazine Cost: $0.00
BV2: 840

Mass: 100,000
K-F Drive System: Standard
Power Plant: Station-Keeping Drive
Safe Thrust:
Maximum Thrust: 0
Armor Type: Standard
Armament: None
Equipment: Mass
Drive: 1,200
Thrust
Safe:
Maximum: 0
Controls: 250
K-F Hyperdrive: Standard (3 Integrity) 95,000
Jump Sail: (4 Integrity) 44
Structural Integrity: 1 667
Total Heat Sinks: 93 Single
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 1000 points 102
Fire Control Computers: 0
Armor: 44 pts Standard 55
Fore: 9
Fore-Left/Right: 9/9
Aft-Left/Right: 9/9
Aft: 10

Dropship Capacity: 0 0
Grav Decks:
Small: 1 50
Life Boats: 2 14

Crew And Passengers:
2 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 20
9 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 63

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
100,000 Naval Repair Unpreassurized 2,500 2
34 Cargo, Standard 34 1
The Mother is hideously vulnerable in any combat situation so the standard policy is to never expose it to combat.  Aside from yardspace, it provides a direct mechanism to transport space stations from one stellar system to another.  The primary implication of this is that space stations can be built in one system and transported to another rather than built on site.  In any combat zone, the Mother jumps deep into the Oort cloud, well beyond detection ranges, unload it's Taurus I space station, and then charges off the fusion drive (with fuel supplements from the Taurus I).   The large fuel reserve of the Taurus I allows for about 20 deep black jumps (side note: assuming 10 Mother Burn-days/jump).  The Taurus I also carries significant spare parts to keep both it and Mother in running order over a long time period.

While Mother's stay out of range of observation, the primary role of the Taurus I is as carriers both of ASF and boarding marines.  Secondarily the NL45's form a potent backup weapon, but hopefully all combat can take place beyond direct engagement range.  The Taurus I is ortillery capable in support of ground troops.

There are deep tradeoffs associated with the Rube Goldberg Warship, but it can provide a powerful battle force for a small fraction of the price of a true warship fleet.

Alsadius: we'll need two rulings here. 
1) How long does it take to enter or disembark from a Naval Yard? This is unspecified in the rules as far as I know. 
2) How do you want to rule that explicitly created yardspace works? According to the rules, a level 1 unpressurized yard costs 6.25B when built into a space station.  This obviously doesn't include necessary ancillary factories which have an unspecified cost approximated at 3.75B if we want everything to add up to 10B.  Nevertheless, 6.25B is significantly more expensive than the 5B of creating a second yard in the same system.   Is the idea that space stations cost half price if the yard creating them is onsite?  Anyways, what additional costs need to be paid to use the Mother as a functional 100K-ton yard rather than merely a fancy repair bay?

Edit: added design links
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 20 August 2018, 05:51:11
You weren't kidding about a different doctrine. I was a bit surprised by the choice of fighter bays in an orbital station - the planet is usually better as a fighter base for an orbital fortress - until I realized that it wouldn't be staying in orbit.

FYI, the reason I chose the NL-55 on every armed station I've built so far is that it has as long a range as any capital weapon. The NL-35 has less range, so it's more vulnerable to ships attacking it from long range. It's your choice, of course, and the NL-35 is a lot cheaper. But I wanted to make sure you'd considered it.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 20 August 2018, 07:37:40
You weren't kidding about a different doctrine. I was a bit surprised by the choice of fighter bays in an orbital station - the planet is usually better as a fighter base for an orbital fortress - until I realized that it wouldn't be staying in orbit.
Right  :)
FYI, the reason I chose the NL-55 on every armed station I've built so far is that it has as long a range as any capital weapon. The NL-35 has less range, so it's more vulnerable to ships attacking it from long range. It's your choice, of course, and the NL-35 is a lot cheaper. But I wanted to make sure you'd considered it.
Good point---I had intended extreme range and forgot.  I tweaked the Taurus I to use 15 NL45s rather than 12 NL55s since the TC is so price conscious. 

W.r.t. the question I asked at the end, my internal estimate:
1) It takes something like a half-day to disembark from a naval yard and perhaps 2 days to enter a naval yard---significantly slower than any other form of dock/undock.
2) Perhaps half the abstract price of a yard is the naval yard equipment itself while the other half is the associated quarters/factories/etc which feed the yard.  The factor of 2 discount for secondary yards in the same system is due to space station construction in an existing yard rather than building on site.  Operating under those assumptions, 2B is required to build the associated quarters/factories/etc... for a 100K ton yard, or half that if construction is in an existing yard.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 20 August 2018, 09:45:36
I tend to assume that the average mass of a fighter is 50-60 tons, so a typical launch averages out to roughly one ship-killer or two anti-fighter missiles per fighter.

On Ship-Killers vs. Anti-Fighter Missiles, and weapon damage more generally.

In TT Battletech, armor is ablative and nothing more - there is little like the real world idea of armor sufficient to be immune to a given weapon (try firing 14" Naval Rifles at Yamato's turret facings... good luck!), nor of weapons sufficiently powerful to blow through armor in a single shot and inflict major damage. (The same 14" Naval Rifle will do terrible things to a DD). 

In TT Battletech, a Barracuda deals 2 damage, a Killer Whale 4.  Therefore, 2 Barracuda deals the exact same damage and has the exact same effect on target as 1 Killer whale (save that all missiles get an innate TAC chance.. the Barracuda on a worse roll, but with two rolls, my recollection is that 2 Barracudas on average dealt slightly more crits than a single Killer Whale and about the same as a White Shark - but I'm away from my notes today)

Some things said/implied here suggest that for this game it doesn't EXACTLY work that way, like your discussion of 'anti fighter' and 'anti ship' missiles.   This suggests that, for example, getting hit with 4 NAC 10 shells has a different effect on the target than getting hit with one NAC 40 shot.  (Setting aside for a moment the threshold/critical rules - we will all soon be beyond the ability of a single weapon, or even a 'max damage of 60 bay', to hit the 10% of armor threshold).

Is this the case?  Does a NAC/40 hit have more destructive effect than 4 NAC/10s?  If so, it would lend some punch (heh) to the big NACs.. but at the same time, NACs are already the default best gun in space?  Is a single Killer Whale hit more damaging than 2 Barracuda?

The world player base wonders.  ;)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 20 August 2018, 10:01:40
Alsadius: we'll need two rulings here. 
1) How long does it take to enter or disembark from a Naval Yard? This is unspecified in the rules as far as I know. 

Right, I never answered those.

1) I suppose it depends why you're in dock. In the battle of Irian, the FWL hid a functional ship inside a dock, where it exited and engaged in the fight. That should be pretty quick, because you're only inside the dock physically - it'll take a while to leave, because you don't want your exhaust plume frying the dock, but that's on the order of minutes. After that, you're in space and can move normally.

If you're in dock for actual repairs, conversely, it's a much more onerous process - you'll probably be shut down and have numerous permanent connections to the dockyard. I'd estimate it at around the same time as a RL dockyard - I don't know what that is, and a quick Google doesn't tell me, but as a total amateur I'll guess a day. And of course, if you're leaving in a circumstance where that timeline matters, it's probably a half-finished ship leaving in a surprised situation, so it'll usually be in less than perfect condition.

What circumstances were you imagining here?

2) How do you want to rule that explicitly created yardspace works? According to the rules, a level 1 unpressurized yard costs 6.25B when built into a space station.  This obviously doesn't include necessary ancillary factories which have an unspecified cost approximated at 3.75B if we want everything to add up to 10B.  Nevertheless, 6.25B is significantly more expensive than the 5B of creating a second yard in the same system.   Is the idea that space stations cost half price if the yard creating them is onsite?  Anyways, what additional costs need to be paid to use the Mother as a functional 100K-ton yard rather than merely a fancy repair bay?

I didn't look at the detailed cost calculations for yard space before I set up those prices. I figured there would be economies of scale(otherwise, players would just build all their new yards in new systems to reduce vulnerability to attack), and wanted to keep the numbers simple. The $10B for a new yard covers the costs of the yard space itself as well as all the supporting factories - a NAC/40 and a compact KF drive don't come out of the same facilities as an AC/2 and a fusion plant. The $5B for an additional yard covers the yard space itself and related support structures, plus the marginal increases to facility size needed to keep the space operational. Also, remember that bigger yards cost far more than the implied cost of the space alone - it'd be $62.5B for a level 10 pressurized yard in a station under canon rules, but the second level 10 yard in a system costs $275B to build up from scratch. Overall, yard space almost always works out to be much more expensive than the simple docking berth, and I'm willing to accept the oddity at level 1 to keep everything simple.

If you want to make yard space in a custom-designed station, it's repair space only. Things like the Newgrange should be able to exist, but they can't make new ships from scratch.

On Ship-Killers vs. Anti-Fighter Missiles, and weapon damage more generally.

In TT Battletech, armor is ablative and nothing more - there is little like the real world idea of armor sufficient to be immune to a given weapon (try firing 14" Naval Rifles at Yamato's turret facings... good luck!), nor of weapons sufficiently powerful to blow through armor in a single shot and inflict major damage. (The same 14" Naval Rifle will do terrible things to a DD). 

In TT Battletech, a Barracuda deals 2 damage, a Killer Whale 4.  Therefore, 2 Barracuda deals the exact same damage and has the exact same effect on target as 1 Killer whale (save that all missiles get an innate TAC chance.. the Barracuda on a worse roll, but with two rolls, my recollection is that 2 Barracudas on average dealt slightly more crits than a single Killer Whale and about the same as a White Shark - but I'm away from my notes today)

Some things said/implied here suggest that for this game it doesn't EXACTLY work that way, like your discussion of 'anti fighter' and 'anti ship' missiles.   This suggests that, for example, getting hit with 4 NAC 10 shells has a different effect on the target than getting hit with one NAC 40 shot.  (Setting aside for a moment the threshold/critical rules - we will all soon be beyond the ability of a single weapon, or even a 'max damage of 60 bay', to hit the 10% of armor threshold).

Is this the case?  Does a NAC/40 hit have more destructive effect than 4 NAC/10s?  If so, it would lend some punch (heh) to the big NACs.. but at the same time, NACs are already the default best gun in space?  Is a single Killer Whale hit more damaging than 2 Barracuda?

The world player base wonders.  ;)

BT has a little bit of immunity in the rules - ferro-lamellor mech armour is immune to 1-damage shots, for example(and this is explicitly intended to be the case, not a bug). And there's some sense of AP weapons as well, like AP autocannon ammo, or any big gun against low-BAR primitive or commercial armour. But yes, 99% of the time it's pure ablation. And so we get the oddity where infantry armed with 19th century revolvers can kill an Atlas within an hour or so. *shrug*

I haven't messed with the direct-fire weapons that I can recall. Those do the damage that they do, and I haven't felt any need to alter them. A change that big I would tell you about. Missiles, OTOH, I've needed to play with a bit so that Barracudas aren't the be-all-end-all. Thus far I've probably made Barracudas more effective against fighters than I should, judging by missiles fired/fighters killed ratios, but they don't get used much to shoot ships, because they're a bit weak there. Remember that Barracudas do about half the damage of the smallest direct-fire capital weapon(the NL-35), and less than some Mech-sized weapons of later eras, so they're down in the range where resistance is still a real concern. A NAC/10 is big enough to threshold most active ships under canon rules, and lasers will naturally operate in ablative fashion, so that's not a real concern for either one.

Against a really light WarShip, the Barracuda is perfectly effective, but against a Crucis it'll mostly bounce off. It'll do better than fighter cannons, but for hitting a hard target, a KW or WS will do noticeably more effective damage than 2x Barracuda. (Also, 2x Barracuda is 60 tons, whereas a KW is 50, so that hurts you too).
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 20 August 2018, 10:08:21
Okay, so its an effect specific to the Barracuda to prevent the barracuda's accuracy advantages from rendering the other missile classes moot.  Probably best to tone down mentally its crit chance, as well, for the same reasons.

As the guy who first said 'Barracuda are teh awesome' and put them on everything, I am totally okay with this.  :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 20 August 2018, 12:50:59
So disembarking from a naval repair bay is on the order of minutes---that's a fair bit faster than I realized, but still slower than undocking.  What about entering a naval repair bay?
What circumstances were you imagining here?
Suppose the FS invades one of the TC systems and we need to transport a Taurus I from one system to another in order to apply sufficient force.  To do that, we need to: 1) have or transport the Taurus I to a jump point, 2) Load the Tick into the Taurus I, 3) Load the Taurus I into a Mother 4) Jump 5) unload the Taurus I 6) unload the Tick 7) transport in system.  I have a handle on the timing for all the steps except 3.
I didn't look at the detailed cost calculations for yard space before I set up those prices. I figured there would be economies of scale(otherwise, players would just build all their new yards in new systems to reduce vulnerability to attack), and wanted to keep the numbers simple. The $10B for a new yard covers the costs of the yard space itself as well as all the supporting factories - a NAC/40 and a compact KF drive don't come out of the same facilities as an AC/2 and a fusion plant. The $5B for an additional yard covers the yard space itself and related support structures, plus the marginal increases to facility size needed to keep the space operational. Also, remember that bigger yards cost far more than the implied cost of the space alone - it'd be $62.5B for a level 10 pressurized yard in a station under canon rules, but the second level 10 yard in a system
costs $275B to build up from scratch. Overall, yard space almost always works out to be much more expensive than the simple docking berth, and I'm willing to accept the oddity at level 1 to keep everything simple.
I'm not quite following what the 'oddity at level 1' is.   Are you thinking of linear vs quadratic cost structure?  The cost of a level 10 pressurized yard is $25B raw or $125B with the x5 space station multiplier.  That's well in excess of the cost of the $100B upgrade from level 9 to 10, but less than the cumulative cost of $550B for instantiation and costs of 10B+20B+...100B.  Overall, I guess I was assuming that big yards are basically always unpressurized since the cost is so incredibly prohibitive for pressurized yards.
If you want to make yard space in a custom-designed station, it's repair space only. Things like the Newgrange should be able to exist, but they can't make new ships from scratch.
It entirely makes sense that it's repair only by default. 

Perhaps it helps to expand on where the question is coming from a bit. 
1) Is there an economic advantage to be had from build-and-deploy over build-in-place?  The latter is the standard for space stations and, if I understand correctly, the in game reason why space stations have an x5 cost multiplier rather than the x1.25 of a jumpship or the x2 of a warship.  If we build the space station in a yard (taking up yard space in doing so), is it cheaper?
2) Related, TC has severe yard space limitations and yet finds itself considering building additional explicit yard space in the Mother design for other reasons.  Can the ancillary industries (engines, NLs, armor, structure, etc...) be built up to support the use of a Mother as a fully capable yard?  And if so, what is the cost for the ancillary industries of an ancillary level .4 yard?

Saying 'no' to both is entirely fine and certainly simpler.  Saying 'yes' to the first might give TC an industry with significant economic value while 'yes' to 2 would make it somewhat easier to realize that industry.   in essence, I want to settle the dual-use implications for future planning purposes. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 20 August 2018, 14:00:51
Okay, I think I see what you're getting at (I misunderstood how the Mother works). Simply entering or exiting a bay is fast. But to make things safe in a jump you need to secure them, and securing a 100,000 ton station is substantially more work than merely driving it into a repair bay. Your 12 hour time is probably more accurate there - it's not a full entry into the yard's hands, but it'll be on the same order of magnitude. Un-securing it will also be a major process, but probably somewhat faster overall.

The oddity at level 1 is that you can build a complete 250,000 ton shipyard for $5B when the yard space alone is $6.25B. If you look at cumulative costs, that's not an issue at any higher level, but it is at level 1.

1) My impression was that the x5 cost multiplier was because ships have most of their cost embedded in the KF drive, and if you could build stations without needing to pay for a KF drive, they'd be too cheap. So, FASAnomics being what it is, you jack up the cost multiplier on stations so they're not too cheap. I haven't felt any great need to change this as of yet - stations are still pretty cheap, and most of the expensive ones have been built in shipyard worlds so far, so it'd seem unfair to give a substantial discount. The spreadsheet also isn't set up to handle it. So that's a no.

2) I thought of limiting stations by yard space like ships are limited, but I couldn't think of any sensible way to do so that wasn't a logistical nightmare for a game like this. As a result, I just decided to handwave it and allow stations to be built freely. You'll rarely ever want to put much of a weight of stations in a system that lacks for heavy industry, so I figure that the light recharge stations can be made of pre-fab parts flown in from your factory worlds, and the heavy military stations will mostly only exist in systems that can build them from scratch. So in the interests of simplicity, we'll say that the support works for your Taurus shipyards can produce the necessary components for any plausible level of station construction.

Regarding the yard space, however, it seems both complex and unnecessary - the amount of value you'd be likely to get from it is probably lower than the benefit of just buying yard space from a bigger nation. The DC and CC both have a vested interest in you being well-equipped to kill Feddies, so they'll probably give you a good rate on shipyard space. If you want this then I could probably make it work, but I'm a bit skeptical of its importance for the moment.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 20 August 2018, 14:41:48
As an observer, and one without yardships or seeing one come along any time soon...

I'm torn.  I love the idea of having yardships be mobile secret construction yards, likely at some multiplier in cost (because they aren't dedicated hard yards with the efficiency thereof).  Maybe x2 or x3.

At the same time, I'm worried about someone throwing out a cheap yardship with a 2.5MT yard and then starting to build Leviathan's Older Brother, as even at a very high cost multiplier for construction, it will be cheap many times over compared to yards.

But if they cannot build ships from the ground up, and turns are 10 years with maybe one engagement between any two powers in that time, what other advantages does a yardship bring?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 20 August 2018, 14:57:28
But if they cannot build ships from the ground up, and turns are 10 years with maybe one engagement between any two powers in that time, what other advantages does a yardship bring?

Fixing one of your ships with a busted K-F drive is one obvious scenario. The FWL almost found themselves in want of a yardship, before their Phalanx died supporting ground troops. The other advantage is improved maintenance on any deep-strike missions. You haven't started playing this game yet, but circa 1SW(or sooner, if you guys jump ahead of canon with your doctrines) there'll be fleets sneaking back to capital worlds to kill shipyards, and a yardship moving along with a fleet like that could be very helpful for ensuring everyone arrives safe and sound.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 20 August 2018, 15:11:09
Fixing one of your ships with a busted K-F drive is one obvious scenario. The FWL almost found themselves in want of a yardship, before their Phalanx died supporting ground troops. The other advantage is improved maintenance on any deep-strike missions. You haven't started playing this game yet, but circa 1SW(or sooner, if you guys jump ahead of canon with your doctrines) there'll be fleets sneaking back to capital worlds to kill shipyards, and a yardship moving along with a fleet like that could be very helpful for ensuring everyone arrives safe and sound.

Fair.  I'm still focused on being comfortable winning the battle before I budget for the things necessary to go play conquistador (troop transports, colliers, and repair ships), so I may not be thinking in those terms.  This may be penny-wise-pound-foolish on my part, because a series of 2-3 warship freighters, along with the same number of massive carriage invasion transports and a big ole repair ship would greatly complicated defensive doctrine on the other side of the border - especially as, with sufficient bunkerage, nothing prevents such a force from wandering right up to your capital 'through the black', and the only warning you would have before they came over the hyperwall with claws bared is the fact that none of your spies have seen the enemy fleet in a few months.

Amusing note - in intel terms, watching where the logistical tail was would matter more in some ways than watching the pointy teeth.. if the teeth dont have tail near them, they are defensive.  (Exception of course being things like Heracles - which could go haring off anywhere in space unescorted without warning)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 20 August 2018, 15:30:23
(Exception of course being things like Heracles - which could go haring off anywhere in space unescorted without warning)

Yup. I think you've just explained most of the SLDF's fleet design doctrine.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 20 August 2018, 15:39:39
Yup. I think you've just explained most of the SLDF's fleet design doctrine.

Makes me wonder about building a ship with integral massive cargo bays, some fighter support, some infantry and combat vehicle carriage with small craft to deliver them to the surface, and enough guns to not be a comedy.  Wouldn't be great in any role, but could be used for anything, and it would be very difficult to anticipate the fleet posture.  I still think dedicated combat ships backed up by transports and colliers is better, but theres something to be said for having the entire fleet be fully multirole.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 20 August 2018, 15:43:24

I have been thinking about building ships with factory units, for better local repair and small craft production.

But how to implement it?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 20 August 2018, 16:23:20
I have been thinking about building ships with factory units, for better local repair and small craft production.

But how to implement it?

I think we start off with robotic small craft, capable of in-situ resource utlilization - say like the CASPAR system, only they are miners, able to pull raw materials out of asteroids/the oort cloud.

These would be supported by a large ship, with a much more powerful CASPAR style system, requiring limited to no human input but very carefully designed with a strong, friendly 'AI' expert system, with automated onboard factories capable of building various ship components, including fighters, small craft, naval weapons, KF drives, and, most importantly, capable of building automated factories.

The same ship would carry large, ideally pressurized bays to assemble the products of its onboard factories.  Make sure at least one bay is capable of 'handling' vessels as large as the ship itself.

We would need a designation for such craft.  Perhaps Generic Service Vessel, or 'GSV'.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 20 August 2018, 18:16:57
Okay, I think I see what you're getting at (I misunderstood how the Mother works). Simply entering or exiting a bay is fast. But to make things safe in a jump you need to secure them, and securing a 100,000 ton station is substantially more work than merely driving it into a repair bay. Your 12 hour time is probably more accurate there - it's not a full entry into the yard's hands, but it'll be on the same order of magnitude. Un-securing it will also be a major process, but probably somewhat faster overall.
Ok.  I'll assume roughly 12 hours to secure and 6 hours to unsecure, which can potentially be reduced to minutes to disembark if the unsecuring work is done.
The oddity at level 1 is that you can build a complete 250,000 ton shipyard for $5B when the yard space alone is $6.25B. If you look at cumulative costs, that's not an issue at any higher level, but it is at level 1.
I see, thanks.

How should we handle custom designs that are at significant variation in costs from abstracted elements? 
I'd suggest: we treat the Tick and the associated Crestbreaker & David Smallcraft as integral to the Taurus I in a single line item while treating the Mother jumpship as a single line item separate from the generic jumpships.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 20 August 2018, 18:42:09
The Mother should be constructed under the merchant ship rules - standard-core ships are twice as fast to build as compact-core ships(i.e., 4/yard/turn), so your yard space should be more than enough.

The small craft can still be abstracted. Small craft do specialize by role, and boarding vs cargo vs defensive is just fine. The Terrans use a lot of their smaller craft for defence, so it's even got a precedent. Just mention what your usual approach is in your doctrine, and even if the details get hand-waved, I'll keep to the spirit of it.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 20 August 2018, 18:48:31
The Mother should be constructed under the merchant ship rules - standard-core ships are twice as fast to build as compact-core ships(i.e., 4/yard/turn), so your yard space should be more than enough.
That helps.
The small craft can still be abstracted. Small craft do specialize by role, and boarding vs cargo vs defensive is just fine. The Terrans use a lot of their smaller craft for defence, so it's even got a precedent. Just mention what your usual approach is in your doctrine, and even if the details get hand-waved, I'll keep to the spirit of it.
Ok.  Should we keep the Tick abstract as well?  Or associate it directly with the Taurus I?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 20 August 2018, 18:51:53
Probably include the Tick in the price of the Station, thing can't do it's job without it after all
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 20 August 2018, 22:29:24
FYI, I made a few more small tweaks to the https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1438684#msg1438684 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1438684#msg1438684) designs/doctrine.

Probably include the Tick in the price of the Station, thing can't do it's job without it after all
Makes sense to me.

Turn 5: Taurian Concordat Budget 2390-2399

Budget-wise, the plan is to keep 2 Kutai active while mothballing 3 Kutai and selling 1 to the Marian Hegemony for $5B which will be passed through to the Combine (with plans to continue this arrangement in future turns).  The plan is to also mothball the Independence. 

Maintenance Costs
Code: [Select]
Cost/unit #active Maintenance
Kutai 6092 2 1218.4 (3 mothballed)
Marathon 621 7 434.7
Independence 4567 0 0 (1 mothballed)
Fighters 5 975 487.5
Smallcraft 10 92 92
Light DS 300 8 240
Total Maintenance 2472.6

Prototyping costs            
Code: [Select]
Prototype Tick 226.318
Prototype Taurus I 326.105
Prototype Mother 933.477
Prototype costs 1485.9

Construction costs
Code: [Select]
Taurus I+Tick 4 2209.692
Mother 4 3733.908
Fighters 350 1750
Smallcraft 4 40
Research 120
Savings 183

The Kutais are deployed as a pair on the periphery side of TC with missions including escort, pirate hunting, system scouting, and good will visits. 

The Taurus I's are each named after star systems within the TC while Mother's are named after settled planets within the TC.  Even with 4 of them fully loaded, Lena believes they could not compete on the Kentares scale, but they might actually matter to the battle.  Given this, the plan is to keep them concentrated so they can be used to maximal effect where needed.  When incidents occur across the TC, the Kutais can pursue fleet light forces while the Taurus I's can be dispatched in appropriate numbers so as to achieve the requisite force to win against most opponents. 

The remaining 557 ASF are scattered across all the TC planets with each planet hosting at least a squadron from a planet-side base, with significantly more for significant planets.  (I'm sketchy on the details of the TC in this time period.  This http://www.sarna.net/wiki/File:Taurian_Concordat_partial_2366.png (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/File:Taurian_Concordat_partial_2366.png) is what I found and in 2750 http://battletech.rpg.hu/dynmech/planets/ismap_standalone.php?era_id=0&id=1943 (http://battletech.rpg.hu/dynmech/planets/ismap_standalone.php?era_id=0&id=1943) it appears there are ~85 systems.)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 20 August 2018, 23:17:21
That map is weirdly inaccurate for its time period for example it shows the Pleiades Cluster belonging to the concordat in 2750, but that was annexed by the suns in 2596 which held it until the jihad. But the UHC is merged with the Federated suns which happens around the same time.

As for what is going on in the Concordat during this time period? Not much more than jumping at shadows and blaming the Davions for everything. After doing that for a while you turn the paranoia down from 12 to 9 and start peacefully trading.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Easy on 20 August 2018, 23:37:40
cleanup
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 21 August 2018, 02:21:58
OOC: It seems we have 2 miscommunications here...

1) The deal for the 6 Kutais was $25Bil over 5 turns, payments of which started last turn. When I replied to your PM I had assumed you were taking over next turn, by which point the TC would have paid me $10B, essentially paying for 2 of the 6. With your changes to the budget this turn, you've paid for one and the Marians have paid for one, but you've kept 3 between you.

2) Also in my reply, I'm sure I told you that if you didn't want the ships anymore, I wanted them back. While I am not against selling the Kutais to Maid Marian, the price would change because the Marian Hegemony is nowhere near as strategically useful to me as the Concordant, and thus does not get any kind of discount off the ~$6Bil price tag.

OOC, I'm happy to let this slide as a miscommunication, IC however is another story:

Quote
Written:      October 14th, 2399
Received:   February 11th, 2400

Protector Calderon,

My agents have noticed that you have sold one of the Kutai-class ships that was leased to your humble navy to a third party, before you have finished paying for them yourself. This breach of the agreement between our two nations shall not stand and I see only two ways for your modest nation to avoid retribution.

1: Return of the three remaining unpaid for Kutai-class ships in your possession, and a payment of no less then Five Billion Bulls for the Kutai you sold to the Marian Hegemony without permission or approval.

2: A payment in full of no less than Twenty Billion Bulls for those aforementioned four Kutai-class vessels, payment to begin before 1 January 2401, and completed no later than 1 January, 2409.

I await your response.

On behalf of my Coordinator,
Pu Bah,
High Lord Admiral, Defender of the Realm, Chief Editor of the Luthien Gazette.

I'm referring to the TC currency, but I'm assuming a 1:1 exchange rate to avoid headaches all round.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 21 August 2018, 09:16:48
Presuming Protector Calderon passes the missive on to the Admiralty, Lena will compose the following reply in consultation with cultural experts (if any can be found...) and Protector Calderon.

Luthien <-> Taurus is 29 jumps taking about 212 days by conventional routes and the closest part of the combine is about 18 jumps away.  Hence, sending this letter must have used a command circuit extending into FS territories.   We are impressed.  If the delivery of the letter is by a specific courier, we will respond via that courier to expedite resolution of the misunderstanding.

Quote
Written: February 14th, 2400
Received: ??

Pu Bah, High Lord Admiral, Defender of the Realm, Chief Editor of the Luthien Gazette,
(cc Coordinator Kurita)

We are indebted to the Combine for offering us a significant deterrent in our hour of need with our debt going beyond the mere terms of payment.  I have advised Protector Calderon to consider the Combine's generosity a debt of state.   To repay this, I'm sure your able spies have also reported the construction of a new class of space stations capable of contributing as a carrier to a Kentares scale battle.  Unlike most space stations, the new Taurus I class is capable of functioning as an expeditionary force, and hence provides us the ability to directly repay the Combine.  Call on us when you should need to defend against or retake a world from an aggressor.

We have chosen to honor our original agreement and intend to continue doing so.  Upon careful reading of this agreement, we found no clause stipulating the Kutais are not to be used as we have chosen.  Perhaps the drafters of this agreement were insufficiently exact at capturing our mutual expectations?  In any case, we are happy to renegotiate the terms of our agreement for the Kutai, starting from the terms of our agreement.  For instance, if you should want 3 Kutai returned to the Combine in exchange for a cancellation of payments, we will do so.

More personally, I would be happy to offer you or your chosen designate a tour of the new construction in our yards.  I'm sure you'll find the uses of our free budget quite satisfactory in a strategic sense. 

Admiral Lena Wilhight
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 21 August 2018, 10:09:51
Also, thanks for both of these.

That map is weirdly inaccurate for its time period for example it shows the Pleiades Cluster belonging to the concordat in 2750, but that was annexed by the suns in 2596 which held it until the jihad. But the UHC is merged with the Federated suns which happens around the same time.

As for what is going on in the Concordat during this time period? Not much more than jumping at shadows and blaming the Davions for everything. After doing that for a while you turn the paranoia down from 12 to 9 and start peacefully trading.

Looks like I'm the dude standing there with the MekHQ map case, again. Here you go:
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 21 August 2018, 14:32:28
Luthien <-> Taurus is 29 jumps taking about 212 days by conventional routes and the closest part of the combine is about 18 jumps away.

I assume there is a commercial pony express serving the major worlds, so I don't think it is too far out of the realm of possibility for a packet from Luthien to make it to New Syrtis, and then on to the Hades Cluster in 4-5 months.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 21 August 2018, 14:54:31
Yannow, I'm falling more and more in love with Small Craft.  For the few things that an aerospace fighter does better, you can even put ASFs in SC bays (at a tonnage penalty).  But seriously.  Boarding.  Point Defense.  Combat Unit Dropping (and the 36 SC that carry down 36 Battlemechs will have WAY more armor and be WAY more crit resistant than a single Overlord!).  Heavy Space Superiority.  Tanker.  Bomber (w/ Cargo and Bomb Bay Quirk).  Cargo Craft.  AWACS/Long Range Patrol.  I may start replacing Fighter bays with Small Craft Bays, just for flexibility (and to recover some of the flexibility I lose by going for a 'no dropships' doctrine).

Side Topic:  By the 3rd SW, a 'big, really big, we bloody well mean it' invasion was IIRC on the order of 5 Regiments.  I see other invasions in the 1SW that seem to be on the order of 3 Regiments, judging by Sarna.

I guess, if my CNO was to ask the General of the Armies exactly how much spacelift, in terms of vehicles and troops and cargo, he wanted... what would he say?  Obvioulsy the answer is 'an infinite amount', but we assume hed be at least quasi-realistic.  And if he could not have what he wanted, what would he NEED?  He'd have to understand that everything that was dedicated to carrying troops would not be dedicated to defending those troops in transit.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 21 August 2018, 15:09:50
The message is coming from New Samarkand, which is a little closer, but I admit I picked two dates out of the air without any calculation of how long it would actually take.

Your Proposal is... acceptable, and I shall send one of my staff members, Nanky Pu, to tour your quaint facilities and oversee the return of the remaining ships.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 21 August 2018, 15:26:02
Side Topic:  By the 3rd SW, a 'big, really big, we bloody well mean it' invasion was IIRC on the order of 5 Regiments.  I see other invasions in the 1SW that seem to be on the order of 3 Regiments, judging by Sarna.

Battletech's scale is a hot mess. Through a mix of writers generally being bad at scale, space feudalism and the desire to keep wars small enough to have characters actually be able to influence things on the galactic stage we are left with such a nonsensical setting. In a more realistically thought out universe the entirety of the AFFS might have been enough to garrison New Avalon, and the entire might of the AFFC might have been sufficient to attack a single urban planet.

But, that's Battletech for you, giant stompy robots with a big mess underneath the cover. You might as well try to convince GW that ennui gets boring after a while.

As for on topic: I for one am going to start putting in a lot more effort to design small-craft and ASFs in turns going forward, I think that its a really solid area for creativity which doesn't come at the expense of costing budget. And tbh, as much as I like the fanfiction, this is technically supposed to be a design challenge.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 21 August 2018, 15:40:06
Battletech's scale is a hot mess. Through a mix of writers generally being bad at scale, space feudalism and the desire to keep wars small enough to have characters actually be able to influence things on the galactic stage we are left with such a nonsensical setting. In a more realistically thought out universe the entirety of the AFFS might have been enough to garrison New Avalon, and the entire might of the AFFC might have been sufficient to attack a single urban planet.

But, that's Battletech for you, giant stompy robots with a big mess underneath the cover. You might as well try to convince GW that ennui gets boring after a while.

As for on topic: I for one am going to start putting in a lot more effort to design small-craft and ASFs in turns going forward, I think that its a really solid area for creativity which doesn't come at the expense of costing budget. And tbh, as much as I like the fanfiction, this is technically supposed to be a design challenge.

Absolutely!  Even if they are generic in in-game effect (a choice I whole-heartedly endorse), I'm enjoying working out the design paradigms and taking this as my opportunity to fix all the 'YOUR DOING IT WRONG' that I feel in my stomach when I look at some stuff in Battletech.  Like my heavy fighter on my first turn... I firmly believe that a 6/9 85 Ton Heavy Fighter is the 'F-15, F-14, F-22' of the BTech Verse.  Its as fast as you can get while being that large, and it can -use- all 9 overthrust.. making it more usefully agile than anything but the very light fighters - because of course a 6/9 Medium ASF cant use its overthrust without a control roll - and you really, really, really dont want to make control rolls. Similarly with armor - ASFs can have very thick armor, threshold proofing is a thing, and I intentionally wrote the fluff of the fly-off for the Shuu class Heavy Fighter as a 'Take That!' to the madness that is stuff like the Chippewa.

Im going to seriously consider designing suggested battlemechs for the LCAF - Im a fan of quads, and later a HUGE fan of LAMS (waits for raucous laughter to stop - yes, I know LAMS are basically silly, but once you accept they exist, the combined capabilities are so incredible as to IMHO swallow the drawbacks.  Sure, your battlemechs are better than mine.  But I can pick up my entire force and fly it to the other side of the planet in a few hours - nromal battlemechs canonically suffer meaningful losses walking across a small river.  LAMS transform and then land on your logistics base, command post, capital city, wherever it is.  Beat that with a stick.)

Related to above, and to the 'this scale makes no sense' issue (seriously.  My current fleet has about as many fighters as House Davion had MECHS in 3025... so if those were Mech bays instead of fighter bays, my current fleet could basically lift the entire Battlemech weight of the AFFS, all at once.. which is... strange).. I may go for spacelift that feels realistic to ME, no matter what the universe says.  The ability to pull up in orbit over a planet and drop 20 Regiments in Drop Coccons or send them down on Small Craft Dropshuttles... well, if the budget allows, yeah.  "The seat of purpose is on the land"
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 21 August 2018, 16:08:50
Modern Battletech tends to take itself too seriously, it is meant to be full of schlocky 1980s anime tropes, and there are few things more iconic than flying space-robots.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 21 August 2018, 16:16:38
Heh.  Now I want to design a quadvee with a robotic control system, wheels in its vehicle form, a single large gun in its right hand, and the robotic control system would be hard wired with a high level of ethical idealism.

"You got the touch... you got the poawwaaaAAAHHHHH"
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 21 August 2018, 17:51:09
Your Proposal is... acceptable, and I shall send one of my staff members, Nanky Pu, to tour your quaint facilities and oversee the return of the remaining ships.
I look forward to Nanky's visit.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 21 August 2018, 18:04:21
Guess with this arms race we can try to avoid the worst parts of FASAnomics and build a semi-realistic military
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 21 August 2018, 18:36:40
I'm trying for a scale somewhere between canon Battletech and realism.

The modern US has a population of ~330 million, and a fleet with a total of about ~3.4 million tons of ships. Call it one ton per 100 people. The navy:GDP ratio should probably be similar for your realms(similar "peace with occasional small fights" levels of military funding, with a similar army/navy ratio), so you'd expect a fleet of about 40 million tons each at USN rates given the 4B population stats I gave you earlier. The biggest fleet right now is the FWL, with just under 18M tons. Conversely, the canonical FWL fleet in this era was far smaller - I don't have hard stats for 2390 at hand, but according to Sarna the whole FLWN massed just over 31M tons in 2765.

So to answer your question about combat drop potential, I'd aim for something in the same relative range. Planets will be sparsely defended by IRL standards, but even a middle-of-nowhere planet of a few million will probably be able to muster a regiment of professional troops and a brigade of reservists, as long as it's civilized enough to keep a coherent planetary government. That'll be more infantry than vehicles, and a high-quality regiment with all the trappings could probably beat it in practice, but it's still a lot more than "one lance gets lost in a thunderstorm, and Terra falls to the Word of Blake" levels we see in canon. If you want to invade an important planet(e.g., a capital or major industrial hub), expect something on the scale of Normandy - that was five divisions of simultaneous lift, plus heavy fleet support, just for the beachhead. And then all that lift capacity turned into a massive logistical train to keep it going for the next several months. If you intend to take heavily defended worlds, build very heavy by BT standards - the Potemkin isn't a joke in this setting, it's a serious tool of war. The SLDF-Amaris war (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Operation_LIBERATION) is actually plausible here, but not much else in canon rings true.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 21 August 2018, 18:57:16
Like my heavy fighter on my first turn... I firmly believe that a 6/9 85 Ton Heavy Fighter is the 'F-15, F-14, F-22' of the BTech Verse.  Its as fast as you can get while being that large, and it can -use- all 9 overthrust.. making it more usefully agile than anything but the very light fighters - because of course a 6/9 Medium ASF cant use its overthrust without a control roll - and you really, really, really dont want to make control rolls.
I believe a 6/9 85 ton ASF has a structural integrity of 8 :( The good news I guess is that a 90 tonner has only one ton less of free space.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: DOC_Agren on 21 August 2018, 20:22:41
So to answer your question about combat drop potential, I'd aim for something in the same relative range. Planets will be sparsely defended by IRL standards, but even a middle-of-nowhere planet of a few million will probably be able to muster a regiment of professional troops and a brigade of reservists, as long as it's civilized enough to keep a coherent planetary government. That'll be more infantry than vehicles, and a high-quality regiment with all the trappings could probably beat it in practice, but it's still a lot more than "one lance gets lost in a thunderstorm, and Terra falls to the Word of Blake" levels we see in canon. If you want to invade an important planet(e.g., a capital or major industrial hub), expect something on the scale of Normandy - that was five divisions of simultaneous lift, plus heavy fleet support, just for the beachhead. And then all that lift capacity turned into a massive logistical train to keep it going for the next several months. If you intend to take heavily defended worlds, build very heavy by BT standards - the Potemkin isn't a joke in this setting, it's a serious tool of war. The SLDF-Amaris war (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Operation_LIBERATION) is actually plausible here, but not much else in canon rings true.
As someone who following this from the outside the game, here is my 0.02 C-Bills. 

Yep every planet, well besides those damm  8) Peaceniks, is going to planetary defense force.  I look at like to use the real world North Korea 26 millions people give or take, yet in theory has 1 million military and another 6 mil in reserves/paramailitary forces. Now I have to defend a whole planet with this force.  Yep lots of infantry and "light combat" units (think APCs, trucks maybe heavy APC upgunned) maybe so VTOLs (who will be lucky if they rate as Reg forces, mostly Green).   I might have 2 or 3 Good (read) modern forces, at least 1 acts as the Palace Guard Force (might be if I'm lucky rated as Vet).  If it was up to me, every force set up would be combined arms, but given if you give the military force to much you run the risk of a coup.  So I have divided commands structures (IE Army, Air Corps, Naval, Aerospace) which also weakens my forces responding. 
        This more them what your invading army is, but the catch is you can defeat my force because I can't deploy my force as 1 group, you defeat them in detail.

okay back to your normal design
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 21 August 2018, 20:24:38
Well right now we're talking bollocks while we wait for the turn report from Mr. GM.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 21 August 2018, 20:51:32
I believe a 6/9 85 ton ASF has a structural integrity of 8 :( The good news I guess is that a 90 tonner has only one ton less of free space.

Right you are!  Turns out I built an 8 SI 6/9 85 tonner.  I may go edit that post into a 90 tonner, as it has no game effect, or just live with the lost point of safe overthrust.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 21 August 2018, 21:19:39
Well right now we're talking bollocks while we wait for the turn report from Mr. GM.

I for one certainly didn't distract Alsadius for hours designing sensible armourd divisions.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 21 August 2018, 21:35:25
Curse you Fedrat! I call on our lord, the great Herb the Smiter to unleash his fury upon you!
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 22 August 2018, 04:07:47
Also, I was helping the new guy get a sense for how missile defence worked. I'll actually copy that PM here, because it's a compilation of info from earlier in the thread:

You're right that [the rate of learning about the effectiveness of missile defence is] unrealistically slow, but the truth of the matter is that I don't have hard and fast rules myself. Here's what I do have:

My rule of thumb is that 2 AC/2 is as good at point defence as one MG. When AMS exist, they'll be twice as good as a MG. Other weapons are mostly irrelevant.

We also have battle reports with relatively solid numbers:
1) Turn 2, 2 Galahad and 4 Albion(252 MG) resisted an attack of 80 missiles with only minor damage.
2) Turn 2, one Qinru Zhe(120x AC/2) was crippled, but not destroyed, by a missile strike from 108 fighters.
3) Turn 3, 200 missile tubes plus 300 fighters attacked 1 Galahad and 2 Albion(126 MG), causing heavy damage to the two Albions.
4) Turn 3, 153 fighters attacked one Phalanx(88 MG), and "excellent" defensive work shot down 3/4 of the missiles. (Though the Phalanx did still die to a lucky hit)
5) Turn 4, "over 1000" missiles attacked a Terran fleet(640 AC/2). Roughly 200 were shot down, roughly 500 killed four battlecruisers, and "over 300" were wasted on overkill.

It's important to remember that performance will vary based on rolls. A skilled crew will shoot down more missiles than an unskilled crew, and a poor commander will leave their ships unable to properly support each other. No single one of those results should be taken as typical. Also, the defensive weapon counts include all facings on a ship - in practice, only about 1/3 of those guns will be able to bear on any given attack. Conversely, they don't include defensive fire from supporting craft.

Still, from that we can reach some tentative conclusions. In a really good situation, each mounted MG can knock more than one missile, even with very few targets. In a really bad situation, it takes about 3 mounted AC/2s to knock down a single missile, even with abundant targets. An average of ~125 missiles hitting their target will kill a Black Lion with 480 armour. And the numbers in battles #3 and 5 are really hard to reconcile - I think I went easy on the FedSuns overall, because they either lost less than they should have in #3 or killed more missiles than is really plausible - maybe their support craft were fitted for anti-missile work? I know the Taurians also rolled really poorly in that fight.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 22 August 2018, 06:22:51
You missed the 200 Flying Vikings vs the Kutai on turn 1.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 22 August 2018, 07:00:53
You missed the 200 Flying Vikings vs the Kutai on turn 1.

I thought of including that, but the problem is that most of their missiles weren't aimed at the Kutai. The bulk of the fire attacked the transports, not the escort, which makes it harder to judge - there are a few attacks on transports that I excluded(their follow-up on turn 2 and the Tikonov Grand Union fight turn 1 both come to mind). Maybe I should come up with standard stat blocks for escorts so that I can keep this stuff in mind more easily and compare it more consistently.

Still, let's include them:
a) Turn 1, 200 fighters attacked Kutai(32 MG) and unspecified number of DropShips, Kutai badly damaged and 4 DS killed.
b) Turn 1, 21 fighters plus 13 SC attacked unspecified JumpShip force with light escort, killed 2 JS and 1 DS with missiles.
c) Turn 2, 200 fighters attacked dozens of DropShips supported by 108 fighters (WS were involved, but too distant to add to missile defences). Attackers launched roughly 250 Barracudas(not counting those that had broken down). The defenders shot down "over half", but the remaining 100+ missiles, and follow-up fighter attacks, killed 14 DS.

Also, regarding the discussion of armies above, I noticed a few ground fights that I've attached numbers to.
1) Turn 2, an invasion of the Tikonov Grand Union(on turn 1) was sufficient to allow the FS to take at least 15,000 prisoners of war(total, across several planets).
2) Turn 2, eight regiments was enough to "nearly annihilate" an invasion force sent against Lee, which implies that a serious invasion was launched with substantially less than that.
3) Turn 3, twelve regiments was sufficient to "decisively smash" the rebel government on Skye, a major world.
4) Turn 4, a single small planet(Lothario) raised a new regiment of troops.
5) Turn 4, three regiments quickly defeated the garrison of Utrecht, which seems to have been roughly one regiment(given that a battalion's surrender was substantial, but not the entire fight).
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 22 August 2018, 07:21:06
So...

A Machine gun kills between .5 and 1.5 missiles, and are not facing dependent.

Therefore a Walkurie variant mounting, say, 160 MG on each facing, 1280 MG total (<2000 tons total, with firecon and ammo, cost trivial) could expect to, on its worst day, kill all or almost all of an incoming missile strike from its own fighters, assuming all of those fighters were carrying killer whales.  (720 missiles from 720 fighters.  Missile weight 36KT per strike.  Fighter cost 3.6 Billion)

Walkurie or others of her ilk of course have the freedom to do so, because their offensive armament does not rely on fire control linkages.  For gunships, cornerposting (which is discouraged) or the construction of separate escorts (which could easily carry sufficient PDS to do the above job several times over, but have limited impact outside such defense and so may be wasted) are both choices.

Another choice for gunships would be allocating machine guns to small craft so they may ‘switch hit’ for escort duty..  ~12-20 MG is easily done on a small craft while still filling other job titles.  This solution is much more mass/cost intensive (10 million cost small craft carrying 12 machine guns) but for our worst case scenario, 1 small craft could squash a launch by 6 fighters.  120 small craft is a lot, but less than it seems... bays would weigh a bit more than 120 fighter bays, but it would on its worst day hard stop a full Walkurie deckload, while peforming multiple other roles as needed.

Now, of course, there will always be leakers, and as the number of MG mounts increases, the effectiveness of each additional mount would likely drop.  But it is safe to assume  that if on average a single machine gun (.5 tons) kills a single Killer Whale Missile (50 tons, plus launch system) then missiles will matter until someone goes to minor (though not zero) effort to defend against them.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 22 August 2018, 07:47:24
TBH, this was the one reason I was reluctant to post the compilation of numbers, because I worried that the analysis would result in finding holes in the rules that allow for dominant strategies. I do have the ability to just ignore consistency and keep fights dramatic, but I'd really prefer not to do more than a small amount of that(it just seems hollow).

To be clear, MG *are* facing-dependent. I've ignored facing to simplify the ratios, but if you assume 2/8 facings on the average THN ship at Kentares were defending, then it's really 160 AC/2 that did for a bit more than one missile each.

What I think I'm getting from this is that missiles are almost totally a saturation weapon, in a way that BT doesn't tend to use. Twice as many missiles does much more than twice the damage, so they benefit even more than most from fire concentration. This serves to make larger fleets even more dominant than they would be by Lanchester alone, which is a scary thought.

As a first approximation to a fix, I'd say that defensive weapons get less effective as you try to cram more of them into a given space. This is over and above fire control weight. More is still better, but your fire control radars, gunner's firing arcs, and so on will get jammed up if you try to stick a couple thousand MG on a facing. (Which is weirdly plausible under the rules - 2000 MG with nothing else weighs 1k tons, plus 10k for the fire control, plus ammo - all in, about as much as a big NPPC bay.)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 22 August 2018, 08:09:00
Id want a minimum or zero level of handwaving to make things interesting. Let the world run on its physics, not narrativium. 

Well, weve still not seen the Lyran Eclipse Generators do their thing.  And even after weve seen them do their thing, we still will probably have to wait a while to see them do their thing against a fleet that invested at the ‘diminishing returns’ level of point defense.  I anticipate that we may see unexpected behavior as both number of attacking missiles and number of defending weapons mounts climbs.  Perhaps missile walls will interfere with themselves causing fratricide.  Perhaps massed PDS will become less and less effective, as multiple mounts have trouble appropriately allocating defensive fire.

Perhaps fighter doctrine will move away from missile strikes and turn into a close range supression/assault on surface features doctrine, used in support of gunline ships.

If they work out poorly in the above circumstances, Ive got a 750kt troop transport design on paper waiting to be prototyped for refits.

Question:  What range were those fighters in the above examples launching at?  A max range launch implies more missiles are launched (before attrition to incoming fighters) but more tracking time for the defenders and less accuracy.  If one is concerned about getting missile hits through massive PDS, could doctrine have missiles fired from point blank range, accepting greater fighter losses to increase the number of hits?  The rules pay no respect to those differences in launch range, but realistically, a launch from a few kilometers out by a fighter moving at kilometers per second would be nearly impossible to detect and engage in time.

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 22 August 2018, 08:16:43
Good point. Thus far, almost all missiles have been launched at fairly high ranges, to keep fighter losses down.

And yes, I want the world to run on its physics. Part of the reason for posts like this is that I'm trying to figure out what the physics are. Which is a weird thing for the author to say, but I think I was using more narrativium thus far than I actually realized until I started comparing fights.

Fratricide of all sorts will definitely rise as salvoes and defences get thicker.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 22 August 2018, 08:50:54
Its very easy to, as a storyteller, unconciously make reasonable in the-the-moment calls, out to the edges of any grey area, to make for interesting, narratively compelling outcomes.

Real naval history has a broad sweep of narratively interesting, everything-hangs-in/the-balance outcomes.  But I think in part those are also a product of historians needing to have something to say - “Physics happened inevitably and the forgone concsion was arrived at” makes a boring story, but even with that effect, naval history also has no paucity of engagements that amounted to one-sided summary executions.

Specifically for fighters and launch distance - Lyran launch doctrine will be based on the idea that a second strike cannot be assume (though nice if we have enough time to do that).  Launch ranges will be based on anticipated AAA and PDS effectiveness, and Lyran fighter forces will engage at as close a range necessary for a decisive strike.  ‘Decisive’ here is fuzzy, and will be left to the decision of the CAG, in light of the correlation of forces.

Worked Examples:
3x CV v 1xCA - launch at edge of enemy AAA range.  1 CA cannot remain an effective fighting force in the face of 2100 capital missiles, and there is no point in losing pilots.

3x CV v 3 x CA - the CAs must be crippled or killed or they may run down and kill the CVs during reloading cycle.  Manuver to engage from aft if possible, and at the closest range possible to maximize accuracy and minimize PDS effectiveness.  If RTB and reload wont happen before any surviving CAs overrun our CVs, fighters will remain engaged closely to the surviving CAs, on whatever aspect was damaged by the missile launch.

3CV+3CA v 3CA: Max range fire, allocated for hard kills on 1-2 CA, depending on PDS and armor of targets.  Remaining CAs should be overmatched by Lyran CAs.

3CV v 6CA:  Minimum range fire, go for engines.  Accept casualties to cripple CAs and allow a chance for reload of remaining fighters or for CVs to escape.  “Sometimes you have to roll a hard 6”

3CV+ 3CA v 3CA, 6DDE:  Close range mass strike on one CA, to change force correlation in our favor, OR retain fighters with fleet for exploiting damage done by our CAs.

Just a general outline - cant get too exhaustive, but gives a general idea of what I want to train my people to.  Basically, dont throw away lives if youve got an easy win - but in anything like a peer engagement, we will risk fighter losses, even heavy fighter losses, in service of winning the overall engagement.  If the CVs are lost, the fighters are lost anyway, and the official motto of the air arm of the navy is definitely “Qui audet adipiscitur”
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 22 August 2018, 10:31:45
Over Alarion, 2394

Quote
“Gold Wing, all elements. Break right, break right, now now now.”

The headset crackled into life.  Obedient to his wing leader’s command, Saif Qutuz, call sign 'History' for his avowed interest in the topic, hammered the frame of his heavy aerospace fighter over and pushed the throttles past the safe thrust limiter.  The rumble of remass ejecting out the back of the fighter was a low growl, felt like heartbeat, but the bones of the stolid, elderly heavy fighter - his bones, through the intimate connection of the neurohelmet – accepted the strain with nothing more than a warning that they were nearing the edge of what they could accept.

In his case it was enough.  Sensors flared as the maneuver took most of squadron out of the kill zone of the Combine Cruiser’s heavy naval lasers.  Behind him, the neurohelmet and cockpit displays helpfully added colored lines showing the path of the otherwise invisible laser strikes – invisible at least until one of them connected with Gold 9, Saif’s roommate and best friend since flight school, Elizabeth Angler.

The heavy frame and armor of Elizabeth’s fighter vanished in an instant under the fire of a weapon more than 8 times its own weight.  Even so, the squadron cut back across the baseline, boring in closer, without further losses.  Burdened by the massive weight of the missiles hanging under their frame, a single spear in the minds eye of the neurohelmet linkage, Saif felt his skin grow a strange, prickling cold as the world tunneled in to focus on the enemy’s engines, the darting lines of fire reaching out to destroy them.

“Steady it down.  Release point in 10 on my mark…”

The fire was heavier now.  Augmented reality tracers rising from a wave of autocannon on the cruiser’s flanks rose up to meet them, like driving through a snowstorm in the night.  Bright green lines lashed out as the ships heavy lasers fired one last time, trying to escape the doom overtaking it from behind.

“5… 4… 3…”

Suddenly, a flare of pain across his flank.  Pain, but not like cannon rounds.  Missiles?  The Combine had RWR missiles, now?   Some heat, but not burning – armor holding.  Shakiness and a sense of unease, clumsiness… that would be his left maneuvering thruster going.  The sensor tell-tales provided the details that the neurohelmet could not – enemy interceptors slashing through his squadron, peppering them with unexpected weapons.  But the count was nearly good, and nothing they carried was going to stop his beloved Shuu and her 20 tons of armor.  Not in time, anway.

“2… 1… Release.”

Release.  Such a simple word.  As one, the surviving members of gold squadron pulled their trigger, threw their spear, pulled up and away from a 20th century naval torpedo.  Each had their own iconography, their own inputs.. whatever ‘worked’, as it was, for them.  But the effect was the same.  A shuddering and a sense of freedom, of weightlessness, engines screaming as Gold Wing desperately maneuvered to avoid following their missiles into the bright drive flare of the Atago.  Space suddenly clear, serene, as the cruiser’s guns focused away from the fighters and onto the tsunami of missiles coming in from behind.

A glance over his mental shoulder as he burned away.  Sparkles, fireworks, across the aft of the target, as his missiles and others slammed home, too close to intercept.  A glance around… the ‘wing’ nothing more than a pair of squadrons, now.  A perceived rumble from behind, as first the Atago’s drives died, and then a series of secondary explosions ripped through the warships aft section – leaving her adrift, though still firing.

At least the carriers would be able to get away, now.  Not like they would have enough fighters left to do this again.

“Alright, everyone, lets get back in formation and get home.”

The simulation pod opened.  Climbing out of it, Saif looked around to see the rest of his class rising, shaking off the shock of being returned to mere humanity, after a brief period of feeling the roaring fighters as if they were part of themselves.
Elizabeth looked over at him, half-grinning, half sheepish.

“History!  You managed to get it home in one piece?”

“Yes, because unlike SOME people, I wont-say-Trawler, I don’t get so focused that I miss a break and wander into a naval laser killbox.”

“Whatever.  Bullshit exercise.  What are they trying to do, convince us were all doomed?  Ive read the Technical Readouts.  Atago doesn’t have nearly that much Ack-ack.  And the Combine doesn’t have missile fighters.  Hell, we haven’t managed to steal the RWRs missiles yet.  Maybe they should spend more money on that, and less on making us feel like idiots.”

The two of them walked together to the briefing room.  Or the ‘laundry list of ways you screwed up, died, and got everyone else killed’ room.  At least the wing commander wasn’t a screamer.  Commander Blair was a strangely intense man with a thousand yard stair and shockingly blue hair, but he wasn’t a screamer.

“Sure.  Maybe.  Maybe today.  But I don’t see wings on your chest yet.  Or mine.  You wanna bet that by the time were wearing them, someone whose favourite colors are red.. or purple… wont have looked at Kentares and decided ‘it could happen here’?”

“So? We can always build more.  Theres some number they cant shoot down, so we build that many, and we just go back to doing timed releases at max range and get the hell home to reload.”

“Silly Trawler.  Fighter weigh how much?  Missile weigh how much?  Point Defense mount weigh how much?  Trawler math how little?  There is always a response.  The Commander is trying to get us ahead of that response, before it even happens.  You cant always fix things with engineering – maybe try doctrine?”

Elizabeth shook her head, laughing.  “Yup.  History.  They named you right.  Anyway, scuttlebutt has it that weve got something new in the pipelines.  Take off a bit of warhead, put a full ton of FA on the nose, fuse em for penetration rather than standoff… stop that with a machine gun.”

“Yannow, Trawler, I’m happy to pretend I don’t know who your great grandma was, but you have to turn around and pretend you aren’t actually your great grandma.  Let the people at the top worry about what to give us or winning wars with math and numbers and stuff.  Lets just learn to do the job with what weve got.  Which means not flying into killboxes, no?  Reminds me.  You owe me a drink.”
“Yeah, yeah, yeah.  Mead, right?  Cause honey?”

Saif let out a long suffering sigh.  “First, no.  Second, I regret you ever seeing that terrible antique 2-D movie.  Third, no.  Fourth? not observant – at least not as much as dad would like.  Finally no.  Just no, Elizabeth.  Whatever they had to do to the bees to make them able to stand in for Alarion’s extinct pollinators, I assure you, you don’t want anything to do with what comes out of their behinds.  Now can we step up?  Wing Commander Blair has enough reasons to chew you out, lets not give him any more.  Not that I mind too much.  If hes chewing on you, hes not chewing on me.”

*smack to back of head*

“Why do I put up with you, History?”

“Because.  I am pretty.  And also I am a better pilot than you.”
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 22 August 2018, 10:41:09
Heh. Took my advice re: a below-decks episode, I see.

Also, I've started seriously writing this turn. The joy of doing random rolls for events is that sometimes you even surprise yourself. And there's one that totally came out of left field on me this turn - it started as "I guess I should probably give this nation some kind of internal event, haven't had many of those", and...well, let's just say the butterflies are hard at work, because the dice had some extremely interesting things to say here. I'm kind of stunned, tbh, but I'll roll with it.

(Yes, this is a teaser. Yes, I'm writing teasers instead of  writing my already-late post. No, I won't apologize. >:D )
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 22 August 2018, 10:54:08
Its been rumbling around in the back of my head for a while, but couldnt find a good ‘in’ for it till we started talking missiles, PDS, and ‘tactics as solution to problems rather than just engineering a solution to every problem.’  I intend to follow these two for a while, and see where they end up.  Ive also realized I don’t have any germans in my navy yet - some of thats accident, some intentional getting away from ‘Each succesor state wears a perfectly defined modern world national hat and they were all colonized by people from that nation’ - so i figure its interesting if the LC Navy ends up traditionally being dominated by the far wandering, not-classically-germanic people of the LC.  The Army, otoh, is probably gonna be blue eyed blonds.  Variety is the spice!

Yes, I know ‘improved armored missiles with penetration fuses’ arent a thing in the rules, and Im not asking for them.  But my sense of realism demands a constant background rumble of improvement and refinement, even if its not explicitly called pit in the rules.

I may do some editing, not for substance, but just to clean up my writing.  Stackpole I am not.

Finally, as for Wing Commander Blue Hair - I regret nothing!
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 22 August 2018, 10:56:32
What I think I'm getting from this is that missiles are almost totally a saturation weapon, in a way that BT doesn't tend to use. Twice as many missiles does much more than twice the damage, so they benefit even more than most from fire concentration. This serves to make larger fleets even more dominant than they would be by Lanchester alone, which is a scary thought.

Ill take ‘why the hell are there 720 fighters on a Walkurie’ for 400, Alex.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 22 August 2018, 12:07:14
The Taurus I is designed to have 653-720 MGs active against incoming missile swarms.  The low end is in the nose arc which has 5(Taurus I)  + 12x54(dedicated Crestbreaker smallcraft) = 653 MGs.  Other arcs have 60(Taurus I)+12(Tick)+12x54(Crestbreaker) = 720 MGs.  The obvious thing to do is to test a Taurus I vs. a Walkurie, but I don't see a good way to make that happen :)

Dedicated smallcraft have two significant drawbacks----they are expensive (which certainly matters to the TC) and they are vulnerable to direct attack by ASF.  The advantage is that they are low mass (which also matters to the TC), they can be pointed, and they may allow for a somewhat greater depth of defenses.

The ASF fighter doctrine against Warships for the TC is simple: close to point blank range and fire the missiles en masse.  This likely will incur some fighter losses, but the odds of a hit are  higher the less time there is for point defense to be active and there is a secondary goal of saturating defenses for the boarding parties.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 22 August 2018, 12:30:59
The Taurus I is designed to have 653-720 MGs active against incoming missile swarms.  The low end is in the nose arc which has 5(Taurus I)  + 12x54(dedicated Crestbreaker smallcraft) = 653 MGs.  Other arcs have 60(Taurus I)+12(Tick)+12x54(Crestbreaker) = 720 MGs.  The obvious thing to do is to test a Taurus I vs. a Walkurie, but I don't see a good way to make that happen :)

Dedicated smallcraft have two significant drawbacks----they are expensive (which certainly matters to the TC) and they are vulnerable to direct attack by ASF.  The advantage is that they are low mass (which also matters to the TC), they can be pointed, and they may allow for a somewhat greater depth of defenses.

The ASF fighter doctrine against Warships for the TC is simple: close to point blank range and fire the missiles en masse.  This likely will incur some fighter losses, but the odds of a hit are  higher the less time there is for point defense to be active and there is a secondary goal of saturating defenses for the boarding parties.

Yeah, I think the ASF operators are going to go with a 'wait till you see the whites of your eyes' doctrine, given those numbers.

RE Small Craft as Point Defense - in this instance, the small craft would essentially be serving as independent turrets that dont strain the motherships fire control, can manuver with it, and can always bear on the incoming strike.  Given 'always bear' and that the current results assume only 1/4 of the ships point defense is in arc, this suggests that a single Machine Gun on a single Small Craft shoots down, in current conditions, between 2 and 6 Capital Missiles.

Its trivially easy to put 12 MGs on a largish small craft, while leaving it able to still do its other jobs.  By math above, thats 24-72! missiles killed by that small craft.  Expensive?  By that math, 30 small craft can squash the launch of one Walkurie.  On a bad day. 

And the same small craft easily mount more proper firepower than an ASF, and more armor.  Sure, its less mobile.. but its only trying to be as mobile as the ship it is guarding, and is present in numbers sufficient that dogfighting isnt really an issue - your fighter is going to be in front of SOMEONES Small Craft Turret, and every small craft turret will have SOMEONE in its gunsights.

This is, obviously, an absurd result.  Perhaps something else is going on here.


Proposition:
We may have erred in treating '720 missiles launch, 120 hit' as being a case of '600 are shot down'.  It could easily be the case that '720 missiles launch, 160 make a successful to-hit roll, 40 are shot down, 120 hit'.  This allows some value to even a small amount of PDS, makes missiles somewhat less of a 'overwhelming numbers overwhelm overwhelmingly' issue, and at the same time prevents big PDS belts from making missiles a nonexistent weapon system.  If we model PDS as 'look-shoot', further, a certain % of missiles will ALWAYS get through - because the defenders would be allocating MG fire all at once, then starting to roll to hit, and unable to reengage any missile that survived its first x attackers.
If we treat it as 'look-shoot-look-shoot-look-shoot' ad infinitium (as is suggested by a X MGs always kill between 1/2 X and 1.5X missiles), then its strictly linear, with the defender having infinite reaction time and perspicacity.

Or perhaps the GM is already considering to-hit rolls, and failed to-hit rolls may reflect some version of damaged/deflected/shot down, again overcome by closing to point blank range.

Ballpark proposition:
1MG, in arc, fires 1 Time at 1 Missile.  It has a percentage, 50% in our example (and I feel this is likely too high by at least half - 25% for a MG, and 50% for a future AMS seems better) of causing a kill.

Let X be the number of incoming missiles that have successfully rolled to hit (we will assume that point defense controllers are good enough to not engage probable misses).  Let Y be the number of point defense mounts.

If X>Y, then obviously Y mounts engage Y missiles, killing half of them, and leaving the target struck by (X-.5Y) missiles.

If Y>X, then each missile may have more than one mount engaging it.  For Y=2X, then you have 2 mounts firing on each missile.  Each has a 50% chance of a kill.  Two mounts would collectively have a 75% chance of a kill.  Therefore, 1 in 4 missiles survive the run through the point defense.  At something extreme, like '8 MG in arc for each missile), that number drops precipitously, to 1/256, or less than half of a percent.  Yeah.. looks like 50% for a MG is way too high.

One advantage for this paradigm... once youve got PDS mounts in arc equal to the incoming probable hits, each further one is worth less.  If you have to pre-spot all your fire, then some PDS mounts are going to be wasted shooting at dead missiles - and you hit diminishing returns/negative feedback.  This way you dont overkill small salvos as hard, and have less impetus to go crazy on mounts entirely.

Finally, given that maaaasssive weight is paid for fire control on ship mounted massive-PDS belts, and NOT paid by fighters or small craft, suggest that fighters and small craft be at massively reduced effectiveness when pretending to be PDS belts.  Not ineffective, but the warship is getting something for those thousands of tons of fire control.

Further note:  current examples are allowing all PDS on all defenders to fire.  It seems likely that ship A will recieve little to no protection against missiles targeting it from PDS mounts on ship B.  Even carried small craft will be off-bore to an incoming missile, which would seem to greatly increase the difficulty of an intercept (this condition obtains less if the goalkeepers can place themselves at rest relative to an unmanuvering target and along the incoming attack bearing - but shutting off ones manuver drives to maximize point defense would at the same time seem to have bad implications in terms of number of missiles that would be on target to hit you.)

Final Note:  We are really only having this conversation because of the potential of massive salvo model missile fire, made possible by either fighter carriage or by large numbers of launchers with limited ammo.  Outside of such conditions, missiles are a poor weapon system best defeated by the same armor that also works against NACs.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Easy on 22 August 2018, 13:04:42
cleanup
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 22 August 2018, 13:06:36
Wow!

Source? Where is this published?

Its just fluff I wrote for this turn in this game - its not 'from' anything, or a part of anything larger.

If Im reading the tone right, thank you very kindly.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 22 August 2018, 13:08:32
and...well, let's just say the butterflies are hard at work, because the dice had some extremely interesting things to say here. I'm kind of stunned, tbh, but I'll roll with it.

Time-traveling Hanse Davion. Calling it!

All he left was a cryptic note on the president's desk saying "In 677 years someone slap my son.... It doesn't matter which, they all deserve it."
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Easy on 22 August 2018, 13:15:07
cleanup
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 22 August 2018, 13:38:30
And the same small craft easily mount more proper firepower than an ASF, and more armor.  Sure, its less mobile.. but its only trying to be as mobile as the ship it is
We should be a little bit careful here.  If you want a 3/5 smallcraft, it really can't mount much more weapons/armor than a 3/5 heavy ASF in a forward-facing arc and in the conventional rules the smallcraft always loses initiative vs. the ASF (In the advanced rules, it's merely an initiative bonus) which, even with good positioning of multiple elements, implies halving firepower in a dogfight and taking shots aft.   ASFs seem to have a strong roll in a dogfight.
Proposition:
We may have erred in treating '720 missiles launch, 120 hit' as being a case of '600 are shot down'.  It could easily be the case that '720 missiles launch, 160 make a successful to-hit roll, 40 are shot down, 120 hit'.  This allows some value to even a small amount of PDS, makes missiles somewhat less of a 'overwhelming numbers
An average pilot should hit 1/6th of the time with a KW from extreme range (to-hit 10=4(base)+6(extreme)).  It's the same to-hit at long range if the target uses evasive maneuvers.   This would suggest only 120 hit.
If we treat it as 'look-shoot-look-shoot-look-shoot' ad infinitium (as is suggested by a X MGs always kill between 1/2 X and 1.5X missiles), then its strictly linear, with the defender having infinite reaction time and perspicacity.
I was assuming that independent fire control means independent damage, which I think is what you are suggesting.  Hence, if 720 missiles are fired at extreme range and 120 of them are on-target, then if fire-system i eliminates an f_i fraction, the number of surviving missiles will be something like 720 / 6 * (product_i (1-f_i)).  For example, if f_i=0.25 (i.e. 1/4 the missiles are eliminated) and there are 12 systems active then the number of missiles hitting is something like 720/6*0.75^12  = 3.8 missiles get through in expectation.

W.r.t. fire control tonnage, it seems the amount of fire control tonnage only scales w.r.t. the number of weapons, and so it's only consistent with coordinating the fire of a unit or the overhead of cramming additional weapons onto the hull without damaging hull integrity.  For example, a warship mounting only 20 MGs in an arc should not suffer a penalty due to the lack of fire control tonnage.

W.r.t. on-bore vs. off-bore it seems like you are imagining missiles coming in on a straight path.  This seems unrealistic--some amount of evasive maneuvers when closing makes sense, so I would not expect a close array of small craft to be at a significant disadvantage in targeting missiles as they are only marginally more 'off-bore' than the hull itself against an evasive missile.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 22 August 2018, 14:00:49
W.r.t. on-bore vs. off-bore it seems like you are imagining missiles coming in on a straight path.  This seems unrealistic--some amount of evasive maneuvers when closing makes sense, so I would not expect a close array of small craft to be at a significant disadvantage in targeting missiles as they are only marginally more 'off-bore' than the hull itself against an evasive missile.

My intent here is some degree of simplification.  If we prefer, instead, to allow small craft to fire their 12-to-50 machine guns at full effect for any defender in range, we simply change the pk of each machine gun shot such that missiles are still a viable choice, one not negated by a relatively small investment in defense.

Despite the above, I'd prefer there to be some reason to mount point defense on actual ship hulls.  Otherwise, the punishment of the fire control limitations, coupled with the fact that the majority will be out of arc as against any given attack, indicates that all PDS duties are offloaded to small craft escort turrets to leave fire control channels free for capital weapons.  I have in fact already done that with my future designs.

Were mostly on the same page as to defensive systems, but you are assuming that defensive fire system 'i' engages the entire incoming salvo.  I'm more suggesting we model it as 'each system engages a discreet on-target missile, and all the defensive systems may be allocated however the defender wishes, most likely evenly.'  Thus in your 12 system example, the 12 systems would be 'Machine guns equal to 12 x the number of incoming, on-target missiles'.  As your example illustrates, 1440 Machine Guns in arc, a significant, but hardly ridiculous number, reduces the extreme range strike of 120 missiles on target to impotence.

If fired instead at point blank range, from right on top of the target (sufficiently close to avoid ECM - 'my viewscreen is full of target') and from the trailing aspect (easy enough to do, as fighters move after warships), about 600 missiles will be tracking.  360 of those missiles will be engaged by 2 machine guns, and the remaining 240 by 3, assuming perfect allocation.  Roughly 300 will survive to hit.  300 missiles is 1200 damage, which means in warship terms about 600 to each side (from a side aspect) or about 800 to the nose/tail and 200 to each matching side (for a nose or tail strike).  This is a hard kill on anything we have in service, and would convince even a Levi 3 that it would rather be somewhere else.

Thus in such a paradigm, massive PDS belts can help (A LOT!), but missile defense against massive strikes probably wants some stand off component as well.  Said paradigm involves a .25 pk for Machine Guns.  Once AMS comes into play (fall, 2019, at a guess), if it is in fact twice as effective as PDS (with a 50% PK), I think the era of missile heavy combat would be largely over.  That said, given its IRL in-service date of fall 2019, I'm not worrying much about AMS this week.  :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 22 August 2018, 14:45:37

We are talking a lot about machine guns, but what about the effectiveness of small lasers?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 22 August 2018, 14:48:01
We are talking a lot about machine guns, but what about the effectiveness of small lasers?

They've never been discussed, but given the similar range and damage, I cannot imagine there to be a large difference.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 22 August 2018, 14:57:08
Reading your various excessively nerdy commentary on missile math(which is awesome, keep it coming), I'm starting to think that the real error was killing the Black Lions so easily. 500 missiles that get past point defence should probably not be able to kill four heavy ships instantly. We can say that the Terrans didn't prioritize the fire control very well, or that the Feddies shot extremely well, but it's an outlier. In future I'll try to make missiles that hit a bit less effective than that. They'd probably still have scored a similar number of kills, but it wouldn't have been gross overkill - all 800 would probably have been needed. And given that Hasek didn't do great on his command roll, I intended "gross overkill" to be his error as the most plausible one, so maybe if I were to write that again they'd only kill 2-3 Black Lions with the first salvo. IDK.

Small craft and fighters can do useful point defence, but they'll be less capable than a WarShip per gun mounted. Otherwise, on-ship defences just stop being useful for much of anything - it's too easy to mount thousands of MG on your support craft.

Lagrange: Your math is oversimplified, because it ignores the difference between shoot-look-shoot and shoot-shoot-look approaches. As a quick example, say you have four missiles, four point defence guns, and each one can fire twice before the missile hits with a 50% chance of killing each time. With shoot-shoot-look, each turret engages its own target twice, so each missile has a 50%*50% = 25% chance of survival. 25%*4 missiles = one hit on average. With shoot-look-shoot, you can move the two guns that killed their first target on to one of the survivors. So the first shot has a 50% chance of killing, but he second shot has two 50% chances of killing, because there's two guns per target. That's a 50%^3 = 12.5% chance of surviving, so 12.5%*4 = half a missile hitting. Simple re-targeting doubled your kill probability. (And even then I'm still oversimplifying, because I only took the median case. If you do the math, the average is actually 0.64 hits, because if you miss all of them or kill all of them the first time, SLS does nothing for you.)

Time-traveling Hanse Davion. Calling it!

All he left was a cryptic note on the president's desk saying "In 677 years someone slap my son.... It doesn't matter which, they all deserve it."

Or his daughters. Don't forget slapping his daughters.

Though maybe I'm being unkind. I'm fairly sure that his children have a combined IQ slightly higher than his.

We are talking a lot about machine guns, but what about the effectiveness of small lasers?

Good question. I hadn't thought about them, because of course they haven't been invented yet. I'm fine with making them the equal of MGs, because I'm not sure they'll have much of a role otherwise. A SL+SHS weighs the same as a MG+200 ammo, and damage against fighters is comparable, so they're not overpowered or anything. Does anyone have any objections?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 22 August 2018, 15:25:49
I think one thing we are sort of neglecting here is that, even a battlespace as large as space has a finite volume, and you can't just keep throwing ordinance into it. Eventually you will over-saturate the area with missiles and they will start interfering with each other. So there should be diminishing returns to not only hit probability but evasion chance as the size of a volley increases.

Or his daughters. Don't forget slapping his daughters.

Though maybe I'm being unkind. I'm fairly sure that his children have a combined IQ slightly higher than his.

No his daughters can have some nice flowers.

But really, Victor is the perfect example of how not to fix a marry sue.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 22 August 2018, 15:27:42
500 missiles that get past point defence should probably not be able to kill four heavy ships instantly.

Depends on missile and ship.  I don't have Black Lion I in front of me, so I'll cheat and use Tyr, cause it is.

Tyr has 105 armor on her fore and aft sides, and 87 armor fore and aft, covering 90 SI.  We will cheat and say she has 100 armor on each face, for simplicity.

SI is 2 for 1.. IE it takes 2 Capital Damage to remove 1 SI.  180 internal capital damage will destroy her SI and hard kill the ship.

If Tyr takes damage from the fore or aft aspect, 60% of incoming fire falls on the nose (or tail), and 20% each on each flank.  By the time the nose armor collapses (100 damage) her flanks have each absorbed ~30.  By the time a further 180 damage comes in through her nose to collapse the SI, the flanks will each have taken a further 60.  So Tyr will die after a total of 280 damage to her nose and 90 damage to each flank, for a total of 460 damage.  115 Killer Whales, on target, unintercepted, will kill her, from the nose or tail aspect.

On the flanks, the armor on both sides will collapse before the ship is destroyed.  200 damage removes the armor from each side, and then 180 more damage internal.  380 damage, and 95 Killer Whales.

Interestingly, Tyr is tougher to hard kill on the nose than she is on the flanks.  Though I'd probably still in a general condition prefer to show flanks... front and back aspect have worse crit charts, and are of more tactical value (being necessary to close or disengage), while if one broadside is wrecked, simple enough to roll and present the other.  Also, the nose/tail aspects show SI quicker in a balanced armor scenario, further leading to more criticals.

In any event (as I said, no Black Lion to draw from) it takes about 100 Capital Missile hits to kill a Max-Standard-Armor 90 SI 750KT ship.  A hypothetical 150 SI version would take ~166 Capital Missiles.  So unless Black Lion I is tougher than I expect from Terran Hegemony Hulls, you likely -over- estimated the number of hits it would take to kill. 

*********************************************************************************************************
Since I'm amused by the the 'tougher on the nose' bit, lets look at a larger ship.  I think the effect of spreading out shots onto more facings will be more valuable while SI is high compared to total armor thickness - better armored ships will die from focused damage to a single facing more quickly.  This also may inform armor placement, if we know where attacks are going to come from and what fraction are going to land where

As a test case, if we assume a ship twice Tyr's size (so double armor weight), and with IFA armor (so 50% more armor than Tyr's standard plating) she has 90 SI, and 300 armor on each flank.

So the front armor collapses after 300 damage, 100 on each flank.  180 more on the nose and 60 on each flank finish off the IS, leaving SuperTyr! dead from 700 damage, or 175 missiles.  Interestingly, doubling size, and improving armor by 50%, did not double lifespan.. in fact, it only increased it by about 50%.  Such is the power of SI.

On the side aspect, it will take 600 damage to strip both flanks of armor, and another 180 to finish her off - 780 damage, or 195 missiles.  More than doubling the flank aspect survivability.

So a Class 6 Capship, max IFA, 90 SI, is 175 KW on the nose, or 195 on the flanks.  For a maximum balanced resilience, 3/5, 150 SI version, the numbers are going to increase to around 290 missiles on the nose, or 324 on the flank.  For a supertough, 180 SI ship (which we likely will not see unless you decouple thrust from SI) it climbes again to 350 on the nose, or just shy of 400 KW coming in on the port or starboard.

Warship resilience is about to climb dramatically over the next few turns.

My gut feeling is that missiles/fighters are having a day in the sun, but between increased PDS fits, better technology coming down the pipeline, and increasing armor quality and ship size, the sun on that day may already be past noon.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 22 August 2018, 15:53:47
I think one thing we are sort of neglecting here is that, even a battlespace as large as space has a finite volume, and you can't just keep throwing ordinance into it. Eventually you will over-saturate the area with missiles and they will start interfering with each other. So there should be diminishing returns to not only hit probability but evasion chance as the size of a volley increases.

I agree that at some point mutual interference and fratricide become an issue.

At the same time, if there are so many 50 ton hostiles inbound that they start running into each other on their way to hit a kilometer long ship in space, the fact that some of them will run into one another gives cold comfort.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 22 August 2018, 16:36:40
Personally I agree that ASF/SC based PD should be less effective than Warship based, both for game balance and because 'Ships sensors and targeting systems are so much better.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 22 August 2018, 16:42:47
My intent here is some degree of simplification.  If we prefer, instead, to allow small craft to fire their 12-to-50 machine guns at full effect for any defender in range, we simply change the pk of each machine gun shot such that missiles are still a viable choice, one not negated by a relatively small investment in defense.
The divergence from standard Battletech combat is in the chance of a kill.  The in-game rules handle this by requiring 20 MGs to kill a Barracuda and 40 MGs to take out a Killer Whale.  Furthermore it makes sense that Capital missiles should carry some armor given their unit weight.  If we wanted to make this probabilistic, then the chance of a kill would be 1/20th or 1/40th per MG.  In standard Battletech, you can't mount capital missiles on an ASF for mass attacks, so it's not unreasonable to make point defense more effective in compensation, but maybe not a factor of 10+ more effective.
Despite the above, I'd prefer there to be some reason to mount point defense on actual ship hulls.  Otherwise, the punishment of the fire control limitations, coupled with the fact that the majority will be out of arc as against any given attack, indicates that all PDS duties are offloaded to small craft escort turrets to leave fire control channels free for capital weapons.  I have in fact already done that with my future designs.
There is a strong reason to mount MGs on the hull in my current understanding---they are essentially invulnerable to ASF weapons fire.  Anyone mounting point defense in smallcraft is vulnerable to sequential tactics where the smallcraft are destroyed followed by capital missile bombardment.  This is a more intricate form of naval combat, but that seems reasonable to me.
Were mostly on the same page as to defensive systems, but you are assuming that defensive fire system 'i' engages the entire incoming salvo.  I'm more suggesting we model it as 'each system engages a discreet on-target missile, and all the defensive systems may be allocated however the defender wishes, most likely evenly.' 
Right.  'As the defender wishes' seems a little bit implausible in a real-life setting to me.  Suppose a missile can be fired from 50 space hexes(=900 km at 18km/hex) away and hit within 60 seconds.   Basic math implies the missile is putting out at least 50 gravities with a closing velocity of about 1.67 space hexes / second, implying about a 1 second engagement window.   The engagement window increases to about 12s if the missile is fired from 2 hexes away at 50g and then decreases to zero as the missile is fired within the point defense window.  If the missiles are vaguely intelligent, their terminal attack will happen with 50g evasive maneuvers, and how well do we think people (yes, gunners, not computers according to the rules in use) can apportion this?   The best cast scenario is perhaps that on a single ship the fire control can manage to coordinate to spread attacks evenly. 
If fired instead at point blank range, from right on top of the target (sufficiently close to avoid ECM - 'my viewscreen is full of target') and from the trailing aspect (easy enough to do, as fighters move after warships),
There is an important tactical point here: When an ASF makes a close flyby of a slower target (i.e. not ASF or anything losing initiative), it can essentially choose the angle of attack randomly.  Against this ability, all a defender can do is spread out point defense into all arcs.  This essentially cuts down the effectiveness of smallcraft by a factor of 3 since an individual arc covers 120 degrees.  Applied to the Taurus I, this means "only" ~275 MGs would be in-arc for targeting purposes.
Small craft and fighters can do useful point defence, but they'll be less capable than a WarShip per gun mounted. Otherwise, on-ship defences just stop being useful for much of anything - it's too easy to mount thousands of MG on your support craft.
There are two reasons to mount MGs on the Warship: the cost is lower and they cannot be attacked with ASF weapons. 
Lagrange: Your math is oversimplified, because it ignores the difference between shoot-look-shoot and shoot-shoot-look approaches. As a quick example, say you have four
I'm ignoring this deliberately because (apparently) people are still in the loop and engagement times are very short per analysis above.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 22 August 2018, 17:21:37
Amusingly, we have become so focused on fighter launched missile waves that we have ignored the Missile ship.  Though it will have perhaps half the salvo weight, it is capable of around 5 full salvos in as many turns, whereas the Carrier will take 'out of combat' amounts of time to turn around 720 fighters.  The big advantage of carriers is reach, and having fighters in the air.  If your only concern is missiles on target, and your willing to cut salvo weight in half, you can fire 2.5 times as many missiles over 5 turns than the carrier.

And you also save 3.5 Billion in Aerospace Fighters.  Of course, then you dont have the ASFs (which can do things other than launch missiles) and you probably cut that throw weight to buy the armor that will let you live to fire those 5 salvos...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 22 August 2018, 21:07:32
The value of reach seems quite high here.

A few other things.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 22 August 2018, 22:02:02
Amusing random scale note.

NL/55 - 700 tons.  We assume this is the entire assembly, including training mechanisms.

Schwer Gustav - 1400 tons.

So 2xNL/55 would be the size of that german monster.  Of course, given how very mich faster the NLs swing to target, which cannot all be tech advance, relatively more of that would be mount and less gun.

The 3x16” Naval Rifle mount on a WW2 US BB was around 2100 tons (though this is with armor).  Still, it gives us a mental picture of about how big a 3xNL/55 mount would be.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 23 August 2018, 12:20:23
Still, it gives us a mental picture of about how big a 3xNL/55 mount would be.

Yeah but think about the poor schlub who has to spend all day cleaning the space-dust off of them (https://i.imgur.com/rGr7tBj.png)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 23 August 2018, 12:23:40
I love that picture!
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 23 August 2018, 13:09:52
Question:  Space lift for army forces comes from the navy, or from impressed civilian shipping, correct?  May I assume that a paucity of space lift will make it difficult for the army to go conquering (efficiently), and if they are relying on naval space lift, my generals cannot go off conquistador without the navy signing on (unless they are impressing civilian shipping to do so, which again, the navy is rather better at).

Given something that historically happens nowish, could be important.  Obvs I dont know in character ahead of time whats going to happen when the Archon makes an off the cuff comment, but I'm curious as to how it will play out in setting, and if I in my persona as CNO get to say to the army some version of either 'Sure, lets take Promised Land!' or 'Umm, have you CHECKED with the Archon?'

Second Question:  Given any more thought on fractional thrust and decoupled SI?  I'm a fan, personally, cause it makes logical sense.  It would decouple our universe more from the 'standard' BTU, but that Ruibcon may have been crossed when 720 fighters fired 720 Killer Whales and someone put 50MG on a Small Craft to stop them.

Third Question:  Do questions distract from turn processing?  If so, will hold questions until downtime between 'turn published' and 'players have mostly posted their next turn'.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 23 August 2018, 13:40:43
It depends on the state more than anything imo. For example the Federated Suns' March Lords had eminent domain in their territory, and could, for the most part, do whatever they pleased without permission from New Avalon. This changed in the Davion Civil War, but, until then, they had a number of fun things happen because of it. For example the Terran March went to war with the Hegemony and refused all aid until it was too late. This caused the Suns to lose a bunch of worlds (Kentares IV again what a surprise!) for a few centuries.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 23 August 2018, 13:42:45
Kentares gives yall more problems....
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 23 August 2018, 15:14:01
Question:  Space lift for army forces comes from the navy, or from impressed civilian shipping, correct?  May I assume that a paucity of space lift will make it difficult for the army to go conquering (efficiently), and if they are relying on naval space lift, my generals cannot go off conquistador without the navy signing on (unless they are impressing civilian shipping to do so, which again, the navy is rather better at).

Given something that historically happens nowish, could be important.  Obvs I dont know in character ahead of time whats going to happen when the Archon makes an off the cuff comment, but I'm curious as to how it will play out in setting, and if I in my persona as CNO get to say to the army some version of either 'Sure, lets take Promised Land!' or 'Umm, have you CHECKED with the Archon?'

Second Question:  Given any more thought on fractional thrust and decoupled SI?  I'm a fan, personally, cause it makes logical sense.  It would decouple our universe more from the 'standard' BTU, but that Ruibcon may have been crossed when 720 fighters fired 720 Killer Whales and someone put 50MG on a Small Craft to stop them.

Third Question:  Do questions distract from turn processing?  If so, will hold questions until downtime between 'turn published' and 'players have mostly posted their next turn'.

1) In principle yes. In practice, this is still the pre-HPG era, so communication with central command is very slow. The highest-ranking officer in a sector can easily present the central government with a fait accompli, both through their own actions and by pulling in lower-ranking officers from other branches. So a full general in charge of the ABC sector can order the rear admiral in charge of the naval defences to give him shipping for an attack that was ordered by the capital, and most of the time the rear admiral will go along with it.

2) No need for an answer yet, since all turns are submitted, but I'm leaning towards allowing both(at least, to the nearest 0.1 or something). If someone feels ambitious, please sanity-check the spreadsheet to make sure this works properly. Also, re SI, I saw your comment before that SI can take twice as much damage as armor. Is that right? I don't recall it working that way, I always thought it was 1:1.

3) Sometimes. It takes time to answer, but the interesting discussions are a good part of what keeps me motivated. Gigantic floods of discussion are probably bad for processing speed, but I don't want it to be a wasteland in here either. Moderation is probably best.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 23 August 2018, 15:22:17
1) In principle yes. In practice, this is still the pre-HPG era, so communication with central command is very slow. The highest-ranking officer in a sector can easily present the central government with a fait accompli, both through their own actions and by pulling in lower-ranking officers from other branches. So a full general in charge of the ABC sector can order the rear admiral in charge of the naval defences to give him shipping for an attack that was ordered by the capital, and most of the time the rear admiral will go along with it.

2) No need for an answer yet, since all turns are submitted, but I'm leaning towards allowing both(at least, to the nearest 0.1 or something). If someone feels ambitious, please sanity-check the spreadsheet to make sure this works properly. Also, re SI, I saw your comment before that SI can take twice as much damage as armor. Is that right? I don't recall it working that way, I always thought it was 1:1.

3) Sometimes. It takes time to answer, but the interesting discussions are a good part of what keeps me motivated. Gigantic floods of discussion are probably bad for processing speed, but I don't want it to be a wasteland in here either. Moderation is probably best.

1.)  Remind me to check when HPGs and Mobile HPGs become a thing.
2.)  It works fine in the spreadsheet I'm using with some minor cell edits (the thing as a whole is a work of complexity I could never duplicate, but I can figure out where a data value is coming from and change the bounds or allowed input).

2.) (b)  If I may quote the rule book in breif - if the below is a violation, I'll remove or edit it.

Quote
Structural Integrity (SI) Damage
When all the armor in a location is destroyed, subtract half the excess damage (round down) from the unit’s SI value. For example, a large laser (Attack Value 8 ) strikes the wing of a fighter.

Only 3 armor boxes remain on the wing, and so 2 points (half the remaining 5 damage points, rounded down) are subtracted from
the fighter’s SI.

Capital-scale weapons inflict ten times as much damage(rounded down) against a unit’s Structural Integrity.
-Total Warfare 238

Now, there may be something somewhere that states that this does NOT apply to capital weapons v. capital SI, and I missed it.  But barring that, Capital Vessels are Aerospace Units, so half the excess damage is applied to SI, as I read it.

3.)  Hmm.  Hard to do.  Points get raised, everyone gets interested, discussion happens, then it gets quiet again.  Maybe we should all write more fluff, or throw aerospace and small craft designs around.  I recall a 'colony founding' small craft in a thread somewhere, may try to find that, because I'm thinking about tasking some ships as colony boats under a 'naval survey' moniker.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 23 August 2018, 21:41:52
Huh. It's even been clarified by errata.

Quote
Structural Integrity (SI) Damage (p. 238)
First paragraph, first sentence
When all the armor in a location is destroyed, subtract half the excess damage (round down) from the unit’s SI value.
Change to:
All damage to a unit’s SI value is halved (round down).

Good to know. I will definitely need to keep that in mind, because I thought it was 1:1. (It's a dumb rule from a game design perspective to have two different ratios for numbers that look the same, and I haven't used it thus far, but maybe I should start?)

Re HPGs, in canon the first HPG was constructed in 2629, and the first mobile HPG in 2655.

Re discussion, occasional bursts of conversation are fine. I just need to absent myself from them if it's too much(and I did briefly above - there were a few times I saw a bunch of comments and pushed back replying because I didn't have time). And FWIW, the writing is proceeding, but I seem to have really loaded up on the combat this turn. I'm probably 25-30% done.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 23 August 2018, 21:44:51
Just a reminder folks:

WE'RE past the HALFway point on this thread...

We might need to consider an out of topic thread or another part 2 thread soon.

Page 26 now...

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 23 August 2018, 21:58:47
When we cap out this thread, I think it might be cool to have a ‘official posts only’ thread (turns, batreps, designs, and in-setting fluff writings) and a ‘discussions’ thread (If small craft can land boarding parties, can my fighter LAM land on an enemy ship and wreck things?  Can in land in a cargo bay?).
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 23 August 2018, 22:07:01
I really want to see a Fedrat do a Ramming speed on something... there's gotta be one every SW!

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 24 August 2018, 12:35:20
Are we playing with the lawn-dart rule (control roll on any in-atmosphere hit as per TW page 249)?  Or with the alternate form in the advanced rules (on avionics, control, or threshold hit per SO page 97)?  This isn't meaningful for deep-space combat, but it makes a dramatic difference for atmospheric operations, design, and doctrine.

More relevant in some ways, I also noticed the 'Targeting Capital Missiles' rules (SO, page 117) which imply any weapon can be made into a point defense weapon at short range at a +5 to hit penalty (= 28% chance of a hit with no other modifiers).  This seems modestly interesting in the sense the large aerospace elements could potentially load up on anti-ASF weapons in independently-targeted bays and repurpose them with some effectiveness towards anti-missile activities.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 24 August 2018, 13:15:25
Are we playing with the lawn-dart rule (control roll on any in-atmosphere hit as per TW page 249)?  Or with the alternate form in the advanced rules (on avionics, control, or threshold hit per SO page 97)?  This isn't meaningful for deep-space combat, but it makes a dramatic difference for atmospheric operations, design, and doctrine.
Quote

I'm not sure it matters for gameplay at our level, inasmuch as all fighter design is abstracted (though I design my own for fluff reasons).  I will say that experience such far has been that, as we are not burdened by the WEIGHT of rules, only observing their effects in the narrative universe, we tend to play by 'all the optional rules'  I've designed and assumed as if the lawn dart rule was not in effect.  Certainly real world observation of aircraft under fire does not indicate that a spray of machine gun rounds across a wing often sends a B-17 into the ground over Berlin.

Quote
More relevant in some ways, I also noticed the 'Targeting Capital Missiles' rules (SO, page 117) which imply any weapon can be made into a point defense weapon at short range at a +5 to hit penalty (= 28% chance of a hit with no other modifiers).  This seems modestly interesting in the sense the large aerospace elements could potentially load up on anti-ASF weapons in independently-targeted bays and repurpose them with some effectiveness towards anti-missile activities.

Hunh.  I missed that entirely.  Good question.  Probably doesn't matter on current designs (we see a lot of machine guns anyway on ASFs, due to the lack of other weapon choices), but could be a good use case those anti-fighter armaments that often dont get to fire in anti fighter mode (as the fighters salvo their missiles from outside AAA range).
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 24 August 2018, 13:37:51
Thanks, makes sense.   

Particularly when pulse lasers become available, they might make a decent dual-purpose weapon.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 25 August 2018, 05:14:21
Just a reminder folks:

WE'RE past the HALFway point on this thread...

Didn't realize it was capped, but it seems you're right. Good to know. I'll make preparations when we get closer to page 50.

When we cap out this thread, I think it might be cool to have a ‘official posts only’ thread (turns, batreps, designs, and in-setting fluff writings) and a ‘discussions’ thread (If small craft can land boarding parties, can my fighter LAM land on an enemy ship and wreck things?  Can in land in a cargo bay?).

I've sort of been leaning against that, at least so far. Intermingled with links to skip past the discussion seems more natural. Also, a lot easier to keep everyone on the same page - none of us are forum mods, so we can't clean up posts made in the wrong place. But if this is a common wish, I can think about how it might be doable.

I really want to see a Fedrat do a Ramming speed on something... there's gotta be one every SW!

Be a while until we hit 1SW, but ramming is definitely a concept I'm familiar with, and might use when it feels right. I technically have once already - the Rasalhaguers on turn 2 did a ramming attack, though it didn't have any in-game effect.

Are we playing with the lawn-dart rule (control roll on any in-atmosphere hit as per TW page 249)?  Or with the alternate form in the advanced rules (on avionics, control, or threshold hit per SO page 97)?  This isn't meaningful for deep-space combat, but it makes a dramatic difference for atmospheric operations, design, and doctrine.

More relevant in some ways, I also noticed the 'Targeting Capital Missiles' rules (SO, page 117) which imply any weapon can be made into a point defense weapon at short range at a +5 to hit penalty (= 28% chance of a hit with no other modifiers).  This seems modestly interesting in the sense the large aerospace elements could potentially load up on anti-ASF weapons in independently-targeted bays and repurpose them with some effectiveness towards anti-missile activities.

The canon BT lawn-dart rule is really oppressive, from what I've seen in discussions. I've only ever fought fighters in space, never in atmo, so I haven't used it myself. Definitely it's possible to lose control and auger in, but it's probably a lot less common than in tabletop BT.

Non-PD weapons being used in a PD role is possible, it just hasn't been relevant thus far. Lighter and more accurate ones will do better, naturally - an AC/20 makes a crappy PD mount, but a SPL isn't bad at all. I like the fact that the AC/2 is a dual-purpose weapon, and versions of it that'd be less obsolete sound appealing.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 25 August 2018, 06:55:59
Just a question: but where are we all around the world? Imagine most of the group is US-based, but here I am downunder having nothing going on in the thread for most of my day, and then waking up to see two pages of stuff go by...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 25 August 2018, 07:56:14
Just a question: but where are we all around the world? Imagine most of the group is US-based, but here I am downunder having nothing going on in the thread for most of my day, and then waking up to see two pages of stuff go by...
I'm based on the US east coast.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 25 August 2018, 08:18:18
US Central
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 25 August 2018, 08:22:11
Central European Summer Time (CEST)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 25 August 2018, 09:12:19
Just a question: but where are we all around the world? Imagine most of the group is US-based, but here I am downunder having nothing going on in the thread for most of my day, and then waking up to see two pages of stuff go by...

Central Canada.

---

Also, an update: Writing is proceeding, probably 40% done. I can guarantee at least part 1 of the turn(the first 5 years, complete with shocking twist) will be posted by the end of the weekend. I'll try to get the whole thing done, but I may leave part of it unfinished and edit it in later like I did with turn 2.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 26 August 2018, 06:32:34
2) No need for an answer yet, since all turns are submitted, but I'm leaning towards allowing both(at least, to the nearest 0.1 or something). If someone feels ambitious, please sanity-check the spreadsheet to make sure this works properly.
Related, is it reasonable to put a maneuvering drive with .7 safe/1 max thrust into a space station?  It would obviously simplify the RGW and I don't know an in-game reason to disallow larger drives in space stations or jumpships other than convention, with the Scout violating convention.   (I'm assuming you don't want to change the SI limits for space stations, but if you did, that would obviously have a large impact as well.)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 26 August 2018, 06:43:55
Well, one concern I have is if we allow .07 Safe Thrust, why do we not allow say 5 safe thrust and build em as monitors?

It was before you joined, but monitors were discussed and decided against.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 26 August 2018, 09:02:51
I won't be getting part 2 done today, so here's Part 1 to tide you over. I'll post a new comment when part 2 is up.

---

Turn 5: 2390-2399

Previous turn: 2380-2389 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1434030#msg1434030)

Player Turns:
Lyran Commonwealth: Budget $99B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1435956#msg1435956)
Free Worlds League: Budget $107B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1435826#msg1435826)
Draconis Combine: Budget $114B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1434886#msg1434886)
Federated Suns: Budget $100B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1438378#msg1438378)
Capellan Confederation: Budget $92B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1435661#msg1435661)
Marian Hegemony: Budget $13B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1436979#msg1436979)
Taurian Concordat: Budget $12B. (Designs (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1438684#msg1438684), Budget (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1438912#msg1438912))

NPC Turns:
Terran Hegemony: Budget $775B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1436897#msg1436897)
United Hindu Collective: Budget $24B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1436976#msg1436976)
Rim Worlds Republic: Budget $26B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1437695#msg1437695)

2390:
In the fall of 2390, the government of the Rim Worlds Republic received some disturbing news from a merchant ship that had been bound for the newly-colonized world of Melville. Instead of the usual radio messages asking for news that a ship visiting a rarely-trafficked world normally got, there was just an ominous silence from the 30,000 settlers. Scans from orbit made it clear why - the main settlements had been burned, and no signs of human life remained. A force sent down to investigate in one of the DropShip's shuttles did turn up a few survivors hiding in the woods. After a brief firefight with the bewildered merchants(where, thankfully, no serious wounds were taken on either side before sanity broke out), their stories made it clear what had happened - piracy. While pirates had long been known to prey on occasional unguarded merchant ships, this was the first time they'd organized enough to attack a whole colony world. While the exact results weren't totally clear form the stories of a few woodsmen, it became clear that even the mountains of bodies in town weren't the entirety of the planet's population, and at least half a dozen DropShips had been involved.

Naturally, Apollo could not leave this atrocity to lie. Despite their usual worries about the dangers of Lyran aggression, three Vittoria-class destroyers were dispatched to investigate along with half a dozen JumpShips, beating the bushes for anything that might indicate a pirate base. Sadly, by the time they arrived the trail had gone frustratingly cold. While the crews were eager to find the perpetrators and rescue any surviving civilians, there was damnably little evidence to go on. It wasn't until a cleanup crew on Melville came across the house of an amateur astronomer and thought to check the records on the computer hooked up to the telescope that the fleet got its break - one of the DropShips was visible on the footage, and the distinctive design allowed the fleet to narrow down what ship it could possibly be.

A ship design firm on Gibbs had designed a passenger-heavy DropShip known as the Blue Riband, which sacrificed almost all fittings for maximal speed and passenger capacity. The crushing nature of Blue Riband voyages made it unappealing to passengers, and only five had been built before production ceased. Investigation of records indicated that three were operating an express route in Lyran space and one had been used in a high-speed crash test by an astonishingly well-funded physics institute, while the fifth was registered to a little-known merchant concern in the Rim Worlds Republic, which offered no scheduled passenger services. With this break, further police work rapidly narrowed their potential base down to a few worlds which had been considered as colonial targets but not actually settled yet, most likely the harsh desert world of Gabenstad. The planet had been visited by the investigating fleet and written off because no human signals were evident, but unknown to the captain involved, the settlement plan for Gabenstad involved mostly underground dwellings, which would naturally mask the signals he was expecting.

After a consolidation of the fleet, the end result was inevitable. The pirates didn't even try to fight a million and a half tons of enraged Navy vessels with their passenger DropShips, instead entering the rather novel plea of "guilty en masse" to piracy charges after shooting their commanding officer and trying to pin responsibility on him. The plea bargain, with each pirate sentenced to thirty years in prison, was officially agreed to by the commander and chief legal officer of the RWR forces. But upon recovering the few thousand remaining Melvillese civilians, and realizing how the pirates had spent the last four months grossly abusing their prisoners, the government of the RWR decided to process the prisoners from military custody into civilian jails in rather unusual fashion. A few dozen pirates at a time were released into the prison system at irregular intervals, and word of their crimes had spread. Unfortunately, the prisoners of the RWR were a brutal sort, by and large, and a shockingly high percentage of those pirates died in prison fights within the first few days of their entry into the system, especially those who had been accused of the most serious personal crimes. Strangely, almost none of those killings were ever solved by Rim Worlds police.

2391:
In response to the Draconis Combine's efforts to "liberate" Utrecht a few years prior, the Lyrans decided to rile up some discontent in Draconis territories as well. And unlike the splintered rebels of Utrecht, it was believed that Rasalhaguer patriots would be much more able to be welded into a unified whole, due to their recent experience sharing a government. They targeted the worlds of New Oslo, New Bergen, and Svelvik, each of which was a single jump from the others and two jumps from Lyran space.

Unfortunately, the Lyran effort to liberate worlds by rebellion proved as ineffective as the Draconis effort had. On New Oslo, the resistance cell that was being used for the operation was thoroughly penetrated by Draconis agents, and all the key players were arrested a few days before the Lyran ships arrived. On New Bergen, the Lyrans did not do the proper homework on the son of the last Rasalhague planetary governor, and so the man they intended as resistance leader turned out to be notoriously corrupt, and a rumoured abuser of women. The planet refused to support him, and support for the Combine actually jumped in post-rebellion opinion polls. On Svelvik, things initially seemed to be going well, but the first journey made by the local resistance leader to the city of Dawnson Bluff ended in tragedy when the inexperienced pilot of his aircraft lost control in a thunderstorm and crashed.

While the Lyrans had arms and naval support in place for the rebels, the complete collapse of the proposed Rasalhague governments meant that there was very little that could be done without simply invading, and no troops had been arranged for such an invasion. As such, the Lyrans slunk back home, in much the same way their Draconis adversaries had five years earlier.

2392:
A trade dispute between the Free Worlds League and the Capellan Commonwealth was heating up in early 2392, and military forces on both sides had begun saber rattling. To deal with the crisis, Allan Marik was appointed to yet another one-year term as Captain-General of the Free Worlds League. On a trip to the frontier to confer with his trade delegation, his DropShip's engines failed during re-entry, and crashed to earth with the loss of all hands.

Suspicion immediately fell on the Capellans for this event, and FWL forces mobilized to issue an ultimatum to Capellan forces in the region. While this was originally resisted by Capellan commanders, once word made it back to Sian, Franco Liao instructed all involved to cooperate with the investigation and prove that the Capellans had nothing to hide. A lengthy investigation turned up no evidence that it had been anything other than a true accident, though dark suspicions remained in the eyes of many Free Worlders. Allan's son Peter was nominated to serve out the balance of Allan's term as Captain-General.

2393:
Brian Cameron's frustration with the Navy had grown in years since his infamous blowup with Admiral Young. While the Vincent project was looking promising, and the first dozen Vincents were under construction, the fleet still seemed to resist his efforts to re-organize it for a more modern style of warfare. As his pressure grew, so did their resentment - career admirals were having their opinions ignored and even mocked by a leader with no military experience, and while most admirals would grudgingly admit that some of Cameron's ideas were reasonable, many of them were tales of ludicrous excess - abandoning almost all existing ship designs, pulling most of the existing fleet in for refit or even mothballing, and building carriers larger than the infamous Walkure were ideas he pushed mightily for, and they were treated as jokes by most of the THN. Likewise, the Terran Army was incensed by his efforts to reduce the Navy's ability to supply their regiments.

A more personable leader than Brian Cameron may have been able to handle these pressures, but he was not the man for the job. Cold, driving, and abrasive, Brian Cameron made many enemies in the upper ranks of the Terran military, and on January 3, 2393, these pressures exploded. During a combat drop exercise in the middle of regularly scheduled maneuvers by First Fleet, several shuttles claimed to be encountering navigational difficulties during their drop. Instead of landing in the snowy Scottish highlands as planned, they fell into the middle of Glasgow, near Cameron Castle. Brian Cameron's guards rushed to react to this sudden maneuver, but they were caught flat-footed by the scale of the attacking forces as a local army regiment joined the battle quickly. The defences of Castle Cameron were substantial, and the defending forces held out for some hours, but over time it became clear that First Fleet was united in support of the coup, and that no substantial army unit was both willing and able to get to the scene of the battle to defend Cameron's regime.

While the public was left with little except confusion and fear, military communications were alive with messages, orders, counter-orders, and denunciations. The leader of the coup was clearly the commander of First Fleet, Admiral Langdon Echohawk, and the vast majority of First Fleet's units were supporting him. The most prominent loyalist was Vice-Admiral André Mtume, in command of Terra's orbital fortifications. The orbital mechanics of the combat had left the two sides at some distance from each other - First Fleet was concentrated over Glasgow, burning their engines to remain stationary above Cameron's head to prevent any interference from loyalists, while due to careful timing Mtume and his fortresses would be far outside weapons range for nearly a day before their orbits coincided.

Echohawk's forces used their time to reduce Castle Cameron's defences, but it was slow work. Unwilling to simply destroy the castle for fear of the public-relations disaster that would ensue if they engaged in orbital bombardment of downtown Glasgow, they were forced to advance slowly with ground and fighter forces. It took more than twelve hours, and nearly a thousand dead between the two sides, before the castle was finally reduced. The final defenders were a squad of bodyguards and Cameron himself, who personally killed no less than three of the rebels before being torn apart by a needler pistol. The exhausted rebels on the ground secured Brian's young son Richard to act as a figurehead, while the fleet prepared to subdue any remaining loyalists.

Mtume, conversely, had been busy trying to gather support with his time. One far-sighted colonel even managed to find Brian's sister Judith Cameron and convince her to head to orbit to provide a loyalist rallying point. And while the fleet's leadership were generally unhappy with Cameron's leadership, the disputes between Cameron and the admirals had not become well-known among the ranking soldiers. First Fleet followed Echohawk, but the land-based fighter forces were far more bewildered by his actions. Mtume, with his strong concentration of force that seemed like it might be able to stand up to the rebels, plus the presence of the obvious heir to Brian's throne, became a rallying point for every loyalist who could fly to orbit. Terra had few military DropShips and small craft assigned to ground bases, but there were over three thousand fighters based on the planetary surface, and unlike the Army units, none lacked for transportation. Nearly all those fighters were in Mtume's bays even before Castle Cameron had been reduced, and over a dozen regiments had surreptitiously sent inquiries to see how they might be able to help the Cameron cause. Mtume also ensured that he had the confidence of his men, and that the stations were concentrated in closer proximity to each other than their normal peacetime deployments.

With the death of Brian Cameron and resistance obviously hardening behind Judith Cameron and Vice-Admiral Mtume, the rebels decided to wait no longer. Fleet bases at Keid, New Earth, and Yorii were all within a single jump of Terra, and Second Fleet and Third Fleet were each two jumps away, making it essential that the rebels had total control of the homeworld before any forces arrived to challenge them. Expecting that word of the rebellion would already have reached them from fleeing merchant ships, they had only a few days before the fleets could clear their respective jump limits and proceed to the Sol system. So, after some time to recover their fighters, the fleet approached Mtume's fortresses and readied for battle.

A few years earlier, the first run of the battle would have been a slashing attack at high speeds, designed to clear the range advantage of the fortresses as quickly as possible, inflict heavy damage with their big guns, and re-assess before returning. However, the sheer abundance of fighters at Mtume's command meant that Echohawk was more worried about fighter salvoes than heavy PPCs, and he didn't want them to have time to re-arm their fighters. Knowing that he had the advantage in both guns and armour, Echohawk advanced slowly and methodically. Wagering that Mtume would equip his fighters primarily for anti-shipping work, he equipped his own with anti-fighter missiles to try to reduce their numerical advantage, and relied on his guns to deal with the stations. Two feint attacks to attempt to bait the loyalist fighters before the fleet entered their range resulted in only scattered exchanges of long-range fire, killing a few fighters on each side. However, First Fleet was rapidly nearing effective range of the gigantic PPC batteries, and so the fighters could feint no more.

Advancing under the covering fire of the few long-range lasers the fleet mounted, the rebel fighters attacked. Over eight hundred Barracudas flew from the fighters, and six hundred more were launched by the missile cruisers of the fleet at extreme range. The loyalist fighters, lumbering under their heavy missile loads, fell behind the stations for missile defence, and the ECM and point defence worked well, killing or drawing off the majority of the launch. Almost three hundred fighters still died to that salvo, but over three thousand remained. The rebels advanced in hopes of triggering a dogfight that might force the loyalists to launch before their optimal range, but Echohawk's hopes here were dashed. The advanced missile launchers in the stations had not been loaded with anti-shipping missiles to thicken up the loyalist salvoes even further. Instead, they were firing Barracudas, and his fighters shook under the hurricane of fire. Twelve hundred anti-fighter missiles were launched in a single salvo, and another twelve hundred spat from the launchers a minute and a half later. Before they could get a third salvo off, Echohawk had lost almost half his force, over five hundred fighters, and the remainder were ordered back to the company of their ships.

The inevitable hurricane of fire took place three minutes later. The heavy PPC batteries of the stations led the attack, and while accuracy at extreme ranges was poor, the sheer weight of fire still took its toll. The first PPC barrage had been targeted at just two of the Cruisers in the lead of the formation, and both were ruined by the fire - Emden blew up instantly, while Niobe lost over half her guns and almost half her crew. The second and third PPC barrages were equally devastating, and as the fleet came closer, the missiles finally launched. Almost five thousand missiles were fired in a single gigantic salvo, and the station launchers went to rapid fire, launching salvoes heavier than the infamous "Kentares salute" every minute. Even with a proper screen of DropShips and small craft, the carnage was appalling - twelve WarShips were destroyed outright or crippled from the first salvo alone.

Loyalist fighters raced forward and attacked the screening units with tenacity, rapidly crushing the fighter and shuttle strength of the rebels, and then setting to work against their DropShips and corvettes. While the light cannons a fighter could mount were individually unable to cause significant damage to a DropShip's hull, there were thousands of them, and they operated like a school of piranha cleaning the flesh from a man's bones - any time a gap was opened, a whole fighter wing would swarm for it, pour in their fire, and another five thousand tons of rebel shipping would disappear. They paid for their victories in blood, as the Barracuda launchers and lasers of the rebel fleet took a heavy toll, but the rebel screen was unable to help the fleet withstand the tremendous missile barrages they were facing. Even as Ancile stations started to die, the carnage caused by their missiles actually increased for a moment from the loss of point defence.

Despite all this carnage, the loyalist fleet was losing its key advantages. Their fighter force was dying - dying hard, but dying - and the range that had protected them from the heavy cannons was closed. The ferryman's toll had been paid, and the rebels began to truly wreak havoc. The lighter autocannons had been firing even before the loyalist missiles started landing, but as the heavier guns began to speak, Ancile after Ancile vanished from the displays as they were turned to debris or vapour. The Ancile was a tough design for its size, but it could not stand for long against heavy cannons, and at the peak of the battle no less than seven stations died within a single minute. The missile fire began to subside, the giant PPCs fell silent, and the fighters ran short on ammunition even for their cannons and needed to break off.

The brutal, close-quarters fighting continued for longer than anyone thought possible. Few on either side had any large-scale view of the fighting, because of the incredible chaos and clutter on their sensors, and everyone saw their own side killing tremendous number of enemies - how could success be anything but inevitable when you and yours were causing so much carnage? Even as Mtume had been killed by a missile hitting the command deck of his station, the loyalists carried on. What ended it in the end was the station that housed Judith Cameron finally being destroyed as she was in the middle of broadcasting orders to the loyalist forces. When her message cut-off mid-word, the realization sunk in that the loyalists had few forces and no claimant to the throne, and surrenders came down rapidly.

As it turned out, Echohawk and his conspirators had less to worry about from the other fleets than anticipated. Third Fleet decided not to leave their base and instead to await word of what had happened, and the leadership of Second Fleet had been almost as disgusted with Cameron as Echohawk himself. Admiral Winton of Second Fleet was rapidly nominated as Chief of Naval Operations for the rebel government, securing the newly crowned Director-General Langdon Echohawk a sufficiently large(and undamaged) fleet to challenge any likely opponents. The lesser fleets had mixed feelings about the transition, but none had the firepower to challenge it.

The coup was eventually known to historians as the Echohawk Putsch, but to the Terran Hegemony Navy it would always be known as Black Sunday. More men and women had died on that day than in any battle the Hegemony had fought in over 200 years, and none could be attributed to any foreign enemy. While official mourning for the losses went out from Echohawk's new government, Navy personnel were strongly discouraged from discussing it too strongly among themselves for many years to come. But in whispers and in memories, most of the men and women on both sides lamented the events of that day for the rest of their lives.

Losses:
Terran Hegemony: 2x Monsoon, 6x Quixote, 3x Aegis, 1x Dart, 7x Cruiser, 3x Lola, 1x Bonaventure, 3x Vigilant, 43x Ancile, 3150 fighter, 473 small craft, 61 DropShip. Repairs totaling $34B.

2394:
Much to everyone's surprise, Paul Davion's most recent illness turned out to actually exist, unlike so many of the psychosomatic maladies that had plagued him. While he was a fairly young man - only 54 - the stress of his position, and the effects of years of unusual medical treatments, had taken a toll. In the end it was a simple flu virus that killed Paul Davion.

Not revealed until years later was the exact method of Paul's death. His health was obviously failing, and he was already asleep for the last time in the evening of January 20th. But he was not yet dead, and his doctor, Bertrand Dawson, wanted to spare him further suffering. He also felt it important that the news of Paul's death and the succession be announced throughout the empire as soon as possible, and several JumpShips were scheduled to leave on commercial command circuits within a few hours. As a result, Dawson secretly injected Paul Davion with extremely high doses of morphine to hasten his passing.

Paul's son Simon was only a teenager, so Paul's sister Marie, an experienced diplomat, took over the reins of the Federated Suns instead. Little public opposition was made to this, but there were dark rumours of the reaction of Etien's widow and children, all of whom were said to resent the fact that Etien's line was being overlooked in the succession yet again.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 26 August 2018, 09:03:00
2395:
The world of Promised Land had only been colonized 50 years prior, but it was rapidly becoming famous throughout the Inner Sphere for its excellent vineyards. After one of their champagnes won Wine of the Year from a prestigious Terran wine magazine, Robert Marsden was heard to express a desire to try some of their wines.

Unfortunately for Marsden, one of the people who heard this was Marshal Reiner Aschenbrener, a noted hawk and opponent of Marsden's focus on peaceful economic development. Using his position as head of the General Staff, Aschenbrener drafted orders to the Lt. Gen. Freya West, commander of the local military district, and an ally in several internal Lyran factional struggles. He ordered her to implement the Archon's orders to invade and seize the planet immediately. West sprung into action quickly - suspecting Marsden's orders may have been "overstated", but eager to finally use her forces in battle, she gathered up ten LCAF regiments, commandeered a substantial number of civilian JumpShips and DropShips, and carried them to Promised Land to expand the Commonwealth.

Due to the hasty and poorly-planned preparations, the Mariks caught wind of the imminent attack. While they had no naval forces in the sector to resist the attack, they managed to rush reinforcing regiments to Promised Land ahead of the Lyran flotilla, and they prepared their defences. However, they were unprepared for the scale of the attack - Promised Land was a minor world, and despite being on the Lyran border it had a garrison of only two regiments under ordinary circumstances. The equivalent of five more were rushed in, but the defenders were still outnumbered in both aerospace and ground forces.

The battle was hard-fought and lasted for two weeks after planetfall, as the Free Worlds units fought bravely and competently. However, the Lyran troops also fought well, with West in particular belying her "social general" reputation and launching several skilled combined-operations attacks on defensive hardpoints. In the end, the Marik numbers were not sufficient, and when a regiment-sized reinforcing flotilla was forced to avoid planetfall by the Lyran aerospace forces, the remaining defenders laid down their arms.

True enough, Marsden's orders had been grossly "misunderstood", and while he publicly praised Aschenbrener and West for their successes, he was privately furious. However, his initial fury was dwarfed by the response when he found out the damage from the battle. Not only had nearly two regiments of Lyran troops been killed or crippled in the fighting, but one of the defensive hardpoints that West had reduced so ably was the Chaffins Vintners facility that had produced the infamous champagne. After three DropShips landed in their vineyard, the ensuing fight had resulted in a vat of brandy being set ablaze by Lyran shells, which destroyed the production facilities and over two years of wine that was in the process of production. When news broke of the attack, Promised Land wine had sold out of stores almost instantly, and was now virtually impossible to find.

In the end, Marsden did get his bottle, bought by Aschenbrener at auction for an extortionate price. Aschenbrener gave the bottle as a retirement gift, to celebrate his allegiance to the Archon as he left military service due to unspecified health concerns. West, who was only following orders, was given a promotion and left to the larger and better-equipped Alexandria Military District. However, her new staff was comprised almost entirely of noted Marsden loyalists, and her appeals to a commander's traditional prerogative to choose her staff fell on deaf ears as the LCAF's Bureau of Personnel had "no other qualified soldiers available for your staff at this time".

2396:
Two of the great leaders of the Inner Sphere left their offices in 2396. Franco Liao, confident that he had established the Confederacy on a strong footing, elected to resign his position as Coordinator in early 2396. As he did not have any children, he was replaced by his more aggressive brother Kurnath. Franco decided to retire to his old homeworld of Liao, but Franco was an old man. After 40 years in power, his health was failing. He only had a few months to enjoy his retirement before the reaper came to visit, and Franco died before the year was out.

Note: It seems that in canon, Franco was only 48 years old in 2396. But given that he and Kurnath both die soon, and neither dies violently, I'm going to amend them to be substantially older. It's not plausible that a 12 year old would be able to take control of the Commonwealth, after all, or even at age ~19 when he did in canon.

Nihongi Kurita had been making enemies ever since he took the throne, with his flighty and carefree approach to governance. By the early 2390s, several groups had formed to try to remove him from the Coordinator's office, whether peacefully or otherwise. Most prominent of these was a group led by Nihongi's son Robert, the heir apparent. However, none of their plans came to fruition - instead, Nihongi's love of horses was what eventually did him in. Riding down a wooded pathway on an icy day, a large branch broke under the weight of the ice near Robert. Upon hearing the loud cracking noise, his horse was spooked and galloped down the road carelessly. The icy footing got the better of the horse, and it lost its footing in a horrible crash, throwing Nihongi head-first into a tree. While he survived for some hours, he never regained consciousness. Robert assumed the role of Coordinator, and immediately set to work at rooting out he slackness and corruption that had taken hold under his father's incompetent tenure.

2397:
The new group of admirals leading the Taurian navy had several very sophisticated theories about the missile-based combat that had become common in Inner Sphere battles, and the relationship between point defence, missile launchers, and fighters. However, what they lacked was a good set of data with which to calibrate their theories. At considerable expense, they managed to launch a few live-fire tests of missile launches to see how they fared against typical point defence installations in a more realistic set of circumstances. While the pinch on the navy's repair budget was substantial, the information gleaned would hopefully help the Navy build more efficient ships going forward.

However, the bickering between different schools of thought began before the first missile was even fired. Commodore Shannon Bream(daughter of the late Vice-Admiral Eugene Bream, who had commanded the fleet in the final stages of the Battle of Taurus 27 years prior) was placed in charge of the testing. However, her choices for the design of the exercise caused several questions among other TCN brass. It was obviously impossible to have human crews aboard the target ships to serve as fire control officers in a live-fire exercise, so Bream had planned to use radio links to a control ship nearby to keep the crews out of the line of fire, but others thought that radio links being damaged in combat would ruin the results. Likewise, she wanted the launches to take place at a range close enough to result in effective concentration of fire, but others believed that long-range fire would remain the norm in most battles and wanted the launch to take place from over twice as far away, at extreme range for typical missiles, and with a more staggered release of launches that was believed to "more accurately represent the low training levels of Federated Suns fighter pilots".

In the end, the new admirals got their way. Bream was removed from command of the exercise, and under Rear Admiral Olivares new assumptions were used instead. Radio links were abandoned, and the number of point-defence guns was doubled instead to compensate for the reduced capacity of automated defences, based on the results of a series of computer simulations. Launches would be staggered over a period of 30 seconds at extreme range, and the automated systems were given full tracking information on the inbound fighters as well as the intended launch order so that they could be guaranteed to be properly functional when the fighters launched.

While the old-guard admirals complained of a whitewash, the new-guard admirals explained why they felt the assumptions to be reasonable, and argued that they were consistent with real-world battle reports from the nations who had used their point-defence installations properly with well-trained crews.

Test #1 was intended as a test of ample point defence against a small attack. Four Marathon-equivalent installations at an ideal angle to the attacking force mounted the equivalent of 240 machine guns, against a launch of 100 missiles. Of the 31 to achieve a successful targeting lock, 29 were shot down by the defending guns. Even with the flimsy construction of the test installations, no serious damage was incurred by the missiles that did hit, as the armor-piercing fuses did not trigger on the light sheet metal of the stations.

Test #2 was intended to be a more "realistic" scenario. 2 Marathon equivalents were used, and due to poorer starting alignment, only a total of 60 machine gun equivalents could be brought to bear. However, these defences were augmented by 12 Crestbreaker small craft(with human crews, as the ship-killer missiles were not expected to pose a threat to the small ships), mounting 648 additional machine guns. A launch of 500 missiles was aimed at this force. Of the 151 missiles to achieve lock, 139 were shot down - the exact kill ratio between stations and small craft was not entirely clear, as many of their guns fired at the same targets, but the official report indicated that the small craft had accounted for "roughly 70% of the total".

Test #3 was intended to be a worst-case scenario, with few defences pitted against very heavy launches. For this, the launching fighters moved to Commodore Bream's originally planned 400 kilometer proximity, to ensure a higher hit percentage (though this did lead to a dissenting report from a commodore known to be quite fond of the newest Taurian ECM systems). Only two Marathon equivalents were used, though again angles were assumed to be in favour of the stations, allowing them the equivalent of 120 machine guns. Against this, a 500 missile launch was again arranged. 384 missiles successfully achieved lock, and the defences shot down 196 of those missiles. The official report took pains to point out that the defensive guns were silenced more quickly by battle damage than they would have been on a true warship or station, and that in a true combat situation defensive fire after the first successful hits should be expected to account for "approximately 100 more missiles" in such a situation.

Test #4 was unplanned, due to the targets from test #1 escaping their expected destruction. Taurian missile stocks were running too low for another full-sized test, so less-resilient training missiles were used instead. Due to the lighter mass of training missiles, 700 missiles could be launched against the four targets(with their 240 machine gun equivalents). However, their inferior seeker heads required the ECM systems on the target to be turned off for the test, and a short-range launch was made at a range of only 100 kilometres. 597 missiles achieved lock, and the guns destroyed 423 of the light training missiles.

While the official report came down strongly in favour of the merits of point defence, reaction among the fleet was more mixed. The report was seen by many as being wildly optimistic, though an enthusiastic minority held out the claim that it actually under-stated the effect of proper defences, since the fighters had not been forced to evade defensive fire and could make their launches more easily. No major changes were made in Taurian doctrine before the turn of the century as a result of these tests, though it was expected that their results would feed into the next generation of ship designs.

2398:
The horrors of repeated invasions that the Capellan Confederation had faced in the 2350s and 2360s were in the past, and the rather ramshackle fleet that had held off the Confederation's enemies had been made strong in the intervening decades of peace. However, to Kurnath Liao, strength existed to be used - it was not enough to defend his worlds, he believed that the Capellans needed to grow. Surrounded by larger realms, the only way to ensure the Confederation could survive in the long term was to guarantee that it had the economic muscle to face those realms head-to-head. With the Free Worlds League distracted by the loss of Promised Land and their desire to recapture it, he expected that they would be the easiest target available to the Confederation.

Basing his plans off the assumption that the FWL had moved the bulk of its fleet north to the Lyran border, the attack was aimed at the south to allow time to advance with comparatively little opposition. The four Qinru Zhe-class raiders were detached for commerce raiding duties in the north, to try to sow chaos and divert forces away from the main thrust. The initial plan was to attack three worlds at a time, but due to a lack of available merchant shipping for the tremendous logistical needs of the campaign, only two could be attacked at a time. The first wave would target Kanata and Deschenes, while the second would attack Hudeiba and Antipolo. Each was covered by a fleet of WarShips, any of which was expected to be sufficient to fight any FWLN fleet that was likely to be in the area.

Kurnath Liao's judgement was correct about the Marik fleet dispositions - one full fleet of six Heracles supported by a single Phalanx was based at Oriente, four jumps from the Capellan attack, but the nearest additional support was at Irian, fully 11 jumps away. The strategic reserve, normally based eight jumps away at Atreus, was deployed to the Lyran sector and would be unable to assist. However, his efforts to distract with commerce raids were rather poorly executed - the intention (to distract, rather than to invade) was clear from the choice of ships, and the raiders were much closer to the fleet base at Irian than the invaders. Rather than advance the forces at Irian to a distant invasion zone, the decision was made to use that fleet to ambush raiders and show the Capellans the potential costs of commerce warfare. Analyzing the reports of various raids, Admiral Kozlow wagered that the planet of Marik would be the next target, and laid a trap at the zenith jump point. The Heracles was a far slower model of ship than the Qinru Zhe, but the Capellan captain had made a habit of jumping in at the standard jump point to reduce wear on his drive coil. The six Heracles spread out around the volume of space that the Capellan would likely use, and waited.

It took a week and a half, and no less than 113 reported mutiny jokes among the crew, but when the raider materialized in the middle of their formation, their patience was rewarded. The CCS Baowei's advanced sensors quickly realized what had happened, and it made for the largest gap in the formation, inwards towards the star, hoping to break from its pursuers and escape to the other side of the hyper limit. However, the fleet's positions had been well chosen, and a substantial engagement with at least one Heracles  - in this case, the Bellerophon - was unavoidable. Despite the Qinru Zhe's advantages in speed and range, she was massively outgunned, and she had no fighters. But all she had to do was survive without excessive engine damage, and her efforts to do so nearly paid off. The cannons on the Bellerophon were powerful, but relatively few hit, and the armour was holding. However, the fighter wings capable of rushing to the scene of the battle in time came in from behind the Baowei, and their missiles struck true. Eight armour-piercing missiles struck the rear of the Qinru Zhe, and she lost half her engine power instantly. No longer capable of escape, and grotesquely outnumbered, her crew abandoned ship and scuttled the Baowei to avoid the ship being turned into a prize.

Unaware of the loss of their raider, the invasion began quite successfully. A few regiments had been rushed forward to assist with the defences of the threatened worlds, but it was rapidly realized that they would be unable to withstand a serious invasion without their own naval support, so they were redirected to Guangzho. One regiment was unaware of this redeployment until too late, though they managed to land on Kanata before the invaders through aggressive use of a pirate point and fought bravely in the planet's defence. Assisted by liberal use of orbital bombardment against any substantial concentrations of Marik forces, Kanata and Deschenes both fell within a week of fighting. The Capellan forces were gathered up (save for substantial occupation forces), and moved on to the second-wave targets.

Once it became clear where the Capellan forces were going, the Free Worlders moved to respond. Word had been passed to the forces at Guangzho that the fleet was coming, and that they were expected at Antipolo within a few days, so the FWLA moved to unify their eight regiments and 408 fighters with the inbound FWLN fleet. They jumped into the system four hours after the fleet was scheduled to arrive, hoping to ensure a clear area to jump into. However, one JumpShip jumped extremely close to a Heracles, and was destroyed by a panicked tactical officer before the fleet realized that they had received unexpected reinforcements. After retrieving the few survivors, the unified Marik fleet under Admiral Tomáš Mašek began heading towards the planet to catch up with the Capellans, who were already halfway there. The planetary defenders elected to go underground to avoid detection until their reinforcements arrived, and so the Capellans landed virtually unopposed. For the three days before the fleets met up, the Capellans had the run of the planet, and no major combat took place.

As the two fleets closed in, they tried to get a sense of each other. The sensor systems on the Liao ships were better, and they were not engaged in a deceleration burn, so Admiral Demetri Dish had a fairly accurate read on his opposition - six Heracles, one Phalanx, and roughly 140 DropShips. Their own fleet of six Bringer of Shots, five Wife's Wrath, and one Quzhujian supported by 53 DropShips, was significantly superior in total armour and was expected to be somewhat stronger in support craft, but it was substantially less well-armed than the Marik fleet due to the relative lack of gunships. As well, the numerous Marik DropShips meant that either they were not actually superior in aerospace assets, or that their four regiments would be badly outnumbered if the troops made planetfall. A plan was hatched to use the superior training of the Capellan fighter pilots to ideal effect. The Capellan units knew where and when the Mariks were going to be, and arranged a fighter strike some four hours ahead of their arrival. This was expected to give the fighters sufficient time to return to their carriers and re-arm before the Marik fleet entered range of the planet. The fighters were entirely equipped with Barracudas to hopefully crush the support craft of the Marik fleet before entering gun range.

Fortunately or unfortunately, the high closing speed gave the FWLN very little time to scramble their fighters before the attack landed, and only roughly half of the Marik fighters made it into space before nearly 2500 missiles flew at them. Their targeting was focused on enemy fighters, despite their relatively few numbers - standard Capellan doctrine was to cripple the enemy's fighter strength, and that was what the elite pilots set out to do. In this, they succeeded quite well despite the best efforts of the defensive firepower - almost 400 FWL fighters were obliterated in a moment, though the return fire from the fleet did account for roughly 250 Capellan fighters even with their skilled evasive maneuvering. The fighters peeled off and began returning to base instead of closing to cannon range, and the Marik fleet elected to let them go instead of splitting the fleet near a concentrated enemy force.

The Liao carriers had to struggle mightily to turn around their fighters in time, and the cramped cargo spaces of the Bringer of Shots carriers meant that there were some difficulties getting the correct anti-shipping missiles loaded, but the carrier crews managed to get all the fighters back into space with a few minutes to spare. As the Marik fleet drew closer at fairly low speeds, the lightly armoured Capellan carriers began falling back behind their comrades and the gunships cleared for battle, and on the Marik side the Phalanx and any unarmed DropShips did the same. The Capellans were surprised to see four hundred additional fighters with the Marik fleet, having assumed that they'd already defeated the bulk of the FWLN fighter strength, but the Barracuda-heavy Capellan doctrine was well equipped to handle this surprise.

As had happened a few times already in this battle, the Capellans moved first. Opening fire at extreme range with their ship-based Barracuda launchers, the Liaos probed the Marik defences - few of their missiles actually landed under those circumstances, but the nature of the defensive fire became clearer to their tactical officers, which allowed for better control of the imminent missile swarm. Conversely, the FWLN launched their fighter-based missiles first, trying to force the Capellans to use up their attack at extreme range. Their gambit worked - the Capellans closed a short distance before launching, but not enough to matter. However, the 1800 ship-killers and 500 Barracudas definitely did matter, even at long range. Almost half the remaining Marik fighters died, but the real damage was done to the three Heracles-class battlecruisers that had been targeted for destruction. The FWLS Menelaus blew up instantly, the FWLS Minos lost most of her right broadside and suffered ugly structural damage, and the FWLS Proteus was pockmarked with damage and lost her command bridge and captain, though the executive officer kept the ship mostly functional. Set against the loss of less than 100 Capellan fighters to the Marik missiles, the balance of the battle had definitely shifted.

Once the hellacious bombardment passed, the FWLN tried to turn things back their way. Their ships were still individually superior, and the broadside cannons of the Heracles fleet worked to show it. Targeting the CCS Quzhujian, since it was the only ship which could escape their pursuit, their big guns began to dismantle the old destroyer. Her armour held for a time, and her structure for even longer, but over three dozen capital guns were aimed at her, and they took their toll quickly. Within minutes, it was a burning wreck no longer capable of serious combat, and the crew was abandoning ship. In that time, however, the Capellan fighters had begun to crush what was left of the Marik support units. Between the swarming fighters and a few secondary guns on the WarShips, the fighter and DropShip support for the Marik fleet nearly evaporated, and the missile tubes on the battlecruisers had been nearly shot dry. And while they had taken many fighters with them, it wasn't nearly enough. Likewise, while the Proteus had much of her armour intact after the missile barrage, it hadn't been enough - she was targeted by the guns on the Wife's Wrath destroyers, and if they were smaller and less numerous than the guns on a Heracles, they were still sufficient to deal out a substantial amount of damage. The Proteus was abandoned by her crew less than two minutes after the Quzhujian.

The capital ships re-targeted, with the FWLN firing at the CCS Hell of an Irate Feline, and the Capellans firing at the FWLS Hermes. The badly damaged Minos was spared the targeting of capital guns - instead, with the fighters freed up to attack capital ships freely, they began to attack the Minos instead. While the Minos had rolled ship to present a fresh broadside to the Capellan destroyers, the gaping wounds on her right side were open to attack by fighters, and the fighters took advantage. The initial wave stripped the few remaining light autocannons from the right flank, and heavy cannon fire thrashed her internals - no single shell was especially damaging by itself, but there were thousands, and they shredded the Minos's guts. Within a few minutes, the supremely accurate fire from the fighters found the main fusion engine of the Minos, and she was no more. In that time the Irate Feline had been battered for what seemed like an eternity, and the Hermes had been hit repeatedly by an especially accurate set of Capellan gunners - both were seriously wounded, but both were still in action.

Admiral Mašek could tell that it was time to depart. His gunners had been underwhelming, he'd lost his best anti-fighter weapons, and his capital ships were rapidly becoming more outnumbered. Without the Quzhujian, however, there was no Capellan ship faster than his own, so he simply had his fleet turn tail and run, screened by what was left of their support forces. It was an audacious decision, with serious risk of engine damage and resulting ship losses, but he had built up some velocity relative to the Capellans, and was at relatively long range. To aid the retreat, his fire shifted to the faster units of the Capellan fleet - the DropShips. Using capital weapons on those lightly armoured(by capital standards) transports was something like using a sledgehammer to crack an egg, but it was effective, and even at long range several were destroyed in short order.

When the fleet disengaged, the various support units frantically tried to escape battle as well. The Marik regiments ran back to their JumpShips, the Capellan fighters ran back to their carriers, and the Capellan DropShips went back to support their regiments. The hidden FWLA defenders attempted to fight the invaders from ambush, but they were quickly pacified, and they surrendered within days. However, the Capellan attack had petered out from the shock of combat - with empty magazines, it would be difficult to resist another attack, and the pacification of four worlds was a heavy task for the invading regiments. While the attack was over, the triumph was not - Admiral Demetri Dish was promoted to Venerable Admiral in honor of his triumph, Andurien now had a substantial defensive cordon, and the Liaos had another victory to buoy the spirits of their populace.

Losses:
Free Worlds League(raiding): 17 fighters. Minor damage to Heracles, $200m repair cost. Civilian losses of 3x JumpShip and 5x DropShip(do not affect naval budget).
Free Worlds League(invasion): 3x Heracles, 26x DropShip, 41x small craft, 831x fighter. Damage to fleet totaling $3B.
Capellan Confederation (raiding): 1x Qinru Zhe, 2x DropShip, 2x small craft
Capellan Confederation (invasion): 9x DropShip, 13x small craft, 834x fighter. Crippling damage to Quzhujian, $5B repair cost. Damage to remainder of fleet totaling $3B.
(Note that you can choose to scrap a unit instead of repairing it if you like. I'll dis-aggregate repair costs like this when scrapping is a plausible choice)

2399:
It wasn't just the Capellan populace who had their spirits buoyed by the (remarkably poorly named) "First Andurien War". Kurnath Liao's faith in the Capellan navy had been raised to impressive heights, so he decided to move against his other natural target - the Federated Suns. Like the Free Worlds League, the Suns had a more powerful navy than the Confederation, but like the Free Worlders, the Suns had its fleet deployed across a wide area of space. Unfortunately for the Capellans, the Davion fleet had analyzed their previous attack, and formulated plans for dealing with it. Rather than contesting the invasion with a local ship detachment, any serious concentration of force would be matched by an equally serious concentration of FedSuns ships. The loss of a few planets to an invading force was unavoidable, but if the fleet needed to remain concentrated to avoid defeat in detail, then those planets could not easily be held. And if the covering fleet could be smashed, the whole invasion would quickly collapse.

The initial targets fell in short order, and the Capellans under Venerable Admiral Dish worked to secure their gains. Meanwhile, Admiral Esteban Sandoval worked to assemble the Davion fleet - much like at Kentares, the units on the Draconis border were too far away to arrive in time, but a fleet of 18 ships was assembled, and it attacked the Capellans at Novaya Zemyla. The Capellans got enough warning from scout JumpShips to consolidate their covering fleet, and their 25 ships worked to defend the invading forces.

The Capellan fleet had almost as many fighters as the entire Davion navy, though even so a few fighter berths were empty from the losses they'd taken at Antipolo. But they had less armour, less firepower, and less speed, so they were reliant upon their fighters for their chance of victory. And while the fighters performed well, they didn't perform well enough - the initial attack was successfully launched at long range, and successfully massacred most of the Davion support units just as Capellan doctrine desired, with admirably few losses. But instead of waiting for the fighters to be recovered, Admiral Sandoval spotted a mistake in their geometry - if he accelerated towards the Capellans, he could force them to choose between abandoning their fighters or accepting a high-speed closing engagement that would give him all the advantages. Unwilling to abandon the nation's whole fighter strength, and reasoning that it gave him a better chance of escape after a defeat than any other form of combat, Venerable Admiral Dish accepted the passing engagement, though he ordered his light carriers to scatter on different vectors to prevent them from being pulverized by the crash of combat.

As with all passing engagements, the fight was short and sharp. Effective range was crossed within no more than thirty second for most weapons, and the fire was dreadfully effective. The bulk of the Davion fire landed on the faster Qinru Zhes and Quzhujians, in hopes of being able to chase down the survivors, and they spread their fire masterfully. Similarly, the Liaos focused on the Galahads, but unlike their enemies, their fire was poorly allocated, and far too many guns were aimed at the FSS Bors - she died, to be sure, but nearly a quarter of the fleet's firepower was used on her debris after she had already blown up. In the end, the ugly disparity in fleet size after the engagement led to the Capellan fleet withdrawing quickly. The ensuing FedSuns counterattack retook all but one of the originally attacked planets by the end of the year, though the three recaptured worlds were badly damaged by the repeated combat.

When Kurnath Liao heard the news of the battle, he was apoplectic. Briefly. An old man, his constitution was not up to the shock of such an unexpected reverse after two months of good reports from the front line, and he suffered a stress-induced heart attack within minutes of hearing the news. Despite being rushed to hospital, he was severely injured by the experience, and passed away within months. His much more pacific daughter Aleisha took over as Chancellor in his place.

Losses:
Federated Suns: 1x Galahad, 25x DropShip, 525x fighter. Damage to Galahad, $8B. Damage to rest of fleet totaling $1B.
Capellan Confederation: 3x Qinru Zhe, 1x Quzhujian, 1x Wife's Wrath, 6x DropShip, 29x small craft, 87x fighter. Damage to fleet totaling $6B.

Research
DC: $1,529m
FS: $69m
CC: $100m
TC: $120m

TH: $3,502m
UHC: $769m
RWR: $1,238m

TOTAL: $7,327m

The winner is the Terran Hegemony, gaining long-range missiles. SRMs are now available to all nations.

Budgets
CC: $96B from conquest
DC: $116B
FS: $101B
FWL: $105B, due to the loss of five planets
LC: $107B, due mostly to post-Marsden growth
MH: $14B
TC: $13B

TH: $770B, due to turmoil from the coup
UHC: $25B
RWR: $28B
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 26 August 2018, 10:09:52
... well, that was a thing.  Damn.

-tips hat-
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 26 August 2018, 10:29:17
Yeah, it was a surprise for sure.

Quote from: My warped imagination
Okay, so I have the big events of the turn plotted out, now let's find some filler.
 -RWR hasn't had an event yet, so let's give them a little pirate action.
- Need to get the LC and DC fighting soon, but I already have enough combat for the round, so let's see if the dice are fond of another uprising.
- (Thing that appears in part 2), that could be fun.
- And...sure, haven't had a Terran event in a while. No idea what to do, though. Let's roll some dice and see how it goes for the Terrans.

1d10 = 1

Well that's not good for them at all. Maybe a coup attempt? Sure, that could happen. Cameron probably pissed off an admiral or two. Let's see how well it goes for the coup.

1d10 = 9

Oh dear. Not a good day for the Camerons at all. Still, their support is pretty deep, they won't just roll over. How well can they defend themselves?

1d10 = 1

:o Well then. Looks like we get a new government. I wonder how ugly the fighting will be?

1d10 = 6

So not a civil war, but a nasty battle. Right. Guess I have even more combat in this turn than I expected.

I was actually stunned. I expected the Camerons to survive it, and even weighted the dice in their favour(anything 4+ on that third roll and there would have been no regime change). I considered bailing on it, but it felt unfair - wacky, destructive idiocy is so much of the Battletech backstory that I need to spread it around somewhat. And we did say butterflies would ensue, even if this is more and bigger butterflies than I banked on.

For what it's worth, the long-run progression of the setting is quite definitely off the railroad at this point. If the TH recovers and manages to put its governance back on stable footing, then the Star League may still happen, but there's no guarantee of that. Two military coups within a century breeds an environment where more are possible. It could wind up being that the history of the Terrans winds up looking more like the Romans in the third century crisis than it does like the Star League trajectory. I will definitely be looking for chances to kick them when they're down, and civil war or even dissolution could happen if the dice are unkind to them.

This was not my original intention, but it could be a lot of fun. After all, I'm basically writing a novel at this point, so what's wrong with having my own plot?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 26 August 2018, 10:54:02
If conditons become bad enough in the Hegemony, basic humanity says that the civilians of various worlds deserve protection, and the famously humanitarian government of the Lyran Commonwealth would be willing to shoulder that burden for as many worlds as we can get away with I mean as need it.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 26 August 2018, 11:12:52
the famously humanitarian government of the Lyran Commonwealth would be willing to shoulder that burden for as many worlds as we can get away with I mean as need it.

Not if I liberate the hell out of them first.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: DOC_Agren on 26 August 2018, 13:14:54
OOC
It is so nice to see that you are all so willing to help out the Hegemony, if their world need your aid :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 26 August 2018, 13:47:51
Combat Shuttles on Exercise Get 'Lost', Conduct Coup...

That sounds eerily familiar...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 26 August 2018, 14:04:18
Just a question: but where are we all around the world? Imagine most of the group is US-based, but here I am downunder having nothing going on in the thread for most of my day, and then waking up to see two pages of stuff go by...

Indianapolis, Indiana USA

I won't be getting part 2 done today, so here's Part 1 to tide you over. I'll post a new comment when part 2 is up.

* groans Part 2 *

Ah, golly shucks... I gotta wait?  :(

Darn Spheroids get all the fun!

TT
* grumbles....   :D*
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 26 August 2018, 15:14:41
Not like much happened for me either.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 26 August 2018, 15:18:22
You didnt have a years budget worth of warships blow up in a revolution, either.  :)aa
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 26 August 2018, 16:01:47
Well, one concern I have is if we allow .07 Safe Thrust, why do we not allow say 5 safe thrust and build em as monitors?

It was before you joined, but monitors were discussed and decided against.
The principle reason would be the SI of a space station.   When you only have SI 1, planning to risk that 1 with a control roll is of deeply questionable as a tactic.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 26 August 2018, 16:21:30
You didnt have a years budget worth of warships blow up in a revolution, either.  :)aa

True enough. And the Terrans were not the faction I expected to have the coup attempt.... expected either myself or Marik
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 26 August 2018, 16:25:48
The principle reason would be the SI of a space station.   When you only have SI 1, planning to risk that 1 with a control roll is of deeply questionable as a tactic.

I had totally overlooked that concern.  Anyone who wants to make a control roll with a 100,000 ton space station (or larger) deserves the almost inevitably terrible putcomes.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 26 August 2018, 17:02:20
The most impressive thing to me here is that 5000 missiles was not enough to win the day---in fact, they only inflicted ~1/2 the damage.  I guess we lack a full understanding of the defensive screen but apparently it was on the order of 500 smallcraft and 60 dropships.  How many MGs on target would that work out to?

Related to dropships, I realize I had been assuming that they are vulnerable to ASF weapons, but they instead appear to be partially (or more) immune.  This brings up the topic of weapon bays: is a dropship immune to damage from it's own weapon bays? In terms of total damage, maybe not, but in terms of per-weapon damage, maybe yes?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 26 August 2018, 17:08:25
True enough. And the Terrans were not the faction I expected to have the coup attempt.... expected either myself or Marik

I had vaguely expected something would go awry with the succession I had this turn. You know, because this is Battletech and everything revolves around the Federated Suns.

It did lead to a funny conversation with Alsadius though.

To paraphrase it:

Alsadius: Wait until you see the letter from Hanse
Kiviar: Oh no, All hail prince Hasek?
Alsadius:   Coordinator Hasek
Kiviar: I can dig it, I'll move the capitol to Kentares IV, and then show those Terrans the might of the Federated Combine!
Kiviar: ... That sounds like I'm selling them farm equipment.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 26 August 2018, 17:34:02
The most impressive thing to me here is that 5000 missiles was not enough to win the day---in fact, they only inflicted ~1/2 the damage.  I guess we lack a full understanding of the defensive screen but apparently it was on the order of 500 smallcraft and 60 dropships.  How many MGs on target would that work out to?

Related to dropships, I realize I had been assuming that they are vulnerable to ASF weapons, but they instead appear to be partially (or more) immune.  This brings up the topic of weapon bays: is a dropship immune to damage from it's own weapon bays? In terms of total damage, maybe not, but in terms of per-weapon damage, maybe yes?

Ironically as the guy who built Walkurie, Im headed away from carriers.  The same  balance choices necessary to make an interesting batrep, that allow the basically undefended stock ships and stock defense networks to exist in the face of all-up all-in fighter/missile launches ensures that even a half-hearted investment in defense will remove those missile strikes from a role as a decisive instrument.  To wit... a .5 ton machine gun kills between .5 and 1.5 50 ton missiles.  1:100.  At such odds, it costs (formally) 1% of your weapons tonnage to shoot down all the missiles launched by an opponent of similar throw-weight... and then only if he can put all his missiles in space simultaneously, without even launchers or fighters (and of course he cannot).  A slightly larger invetment, of say 2% of your total weapons fit, will destroy your entire weapon mass in missiles on their worst day/roll.

Now, of course, the necessity if fire control, or dispersal onto small craft or fighters, renders this imperfect.  And 1000xMG LBS/RBS/Nose/Aft implies some inefficiency.  But even so, the core 100:1 is to my mind insurmountable, and future warships will likely carry only defensive fighters as can be managed without an impact on the 2% of weapons fit ideally put aside for AAA/PDS suite.

Worked example.  A generic 15% Warload 150 SI 3/5 ship of 1MT will have 150,000 tons of armament.  3000 tons, or 2% of that, approx 800 tons each on 4 facings.  220 MG massing 1.5 tons each (after fire control) gives a total of 880 machine guns, shooting down 440-1220 ASMs.  A 1MT awalkurie knockoff will launch about  1000 fighters (while being slower and more fragile) and only a small portion will on average make it through to the target.  Barring reload and relaunch, the Walkure are overrun and destroyed while inflicting little damage on their cousins - while same cousins retain 147K of 150K for anti-shipping work.

The above is done in my head from an Iphone, so likely contains many errors, but I hope it explains my reasoning.  Its also possible that as PDS belts spread, under-the-hood improvements in missiles may drastically lower the P(k) of each Machine-gun shot at a missile (as we discussed above) or the GM may look at the point defense paradigm differently (as shown, look-shoot-shoot is massively less efficient than look-shoot-look-shoot).  But Im certainly seeing that the wall for Walkurie may have handwriting on it, and part of the reason for big yard investment is that, in the absence if combat experience, the Lyrans fear to risk bulding ships that are obsolescent, or may be casually rendered so by a trivial investment in defenses.  Yards will remain useful, and allow efficient production of the ‘next thing’ once that reveals itself.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 26 August 2018, 18:06:51
I'm thinking along similar lines.

I'm guessing the 500 smallcraft + 60 dropships had something like 5000 relevant MGs between them.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: DOC_Agren on 26 August 2018, 18:35:08
Combat Shuttles on Exercise Get 'Lost', Conduct Coup...

That sounds eerily familiar...
??? ???  okay what am I missing
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 26 August 2018, 19:33:13
??? ???  okay what am I missing

Its similar to a scene where theres a coup against the Peoples Republic of Haven, in one of the Honor Harrington Novels, I THINK.. I dont remember.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 26 August 2018, 19:37:27
The most impressive thing to me here is that 5000 missiles was not enough to win the day---in fact, they only inflicted ~1/2 the damage.  I guess we lack a full understanding of the defensive screen but apparently it was on the order of 500 smallcraft and 60 dropships.  How many MGs on target would that work out to?

There's a few things. One, the fleet was bigger than you might think. I gave First Fleet a third(generally rounding up) of all 2/3 and 4/6 Terran ships except the corvettes, plus a standard load of support craft, which worked out to:
Dart   5 (1 died)
Quixote   14 (6 died)
Monsoon   6 (2 died)
Aegis   4 (3 died)
Cruiser   10 (7 died)
Lola   8 (3 died)
Bonaventure   8 (1 died)
Vigilant   6 (3 died)
DropShip   186 (61 died, though technically a few of those may be loyalist)
Small craft   318 (roughly half died)
Fighter   480 plus carrier DS fighters (over half died)

I assumed that a good chunk of those DS would be carrier-fit, which is why the total fighter force was over a thousand - in principle, 186 DS could carry 2232 fighters, but they need cargo and combat drop DS as well, so I made it about 30% carriers. The THN has a strong focus on light elements as screening units, so I assumed they have more MGs on those screens than most. I haven't worked out the numbers, but if we say for sake of argument that the average fighter carries 2 MG, the average SC carries 6, and the average DS carries 24, that's around 8400 MG in the support fleet. They'll be less effective than 8400 WarShip MGs would be, but they'll still pack a punch.

The second thing is that both sides rolled pretty bad for crew skill. You saw that in a couple ways - the loyalists took a minute and a half between missile volleys(a turn is one minute, so this implies a very poor fire rate), and their hit rate was weak. The rebel crew being weak showed up more in the incredibly slow attack on Castle Cameron(12 hours to crush one battalion, in a coup d'etat? That's abysmal), and in their rather weak fighter work. But in any case, a lot of those missiles missed - it was a long-range shot, and that hurts accuracy even before your crews turn out to be weak.

Three, the damage isn't as low as you might think. 1000 missiles at Kentares killed four ships, with virtually no defensive screen. 5000 missiles at Terra killed 12 ships, through a fairly substantial defensive screen. Also, the ships targeted this time were mostly tougher - a Black Lion has 630 total HP, while a Monsoon has 1177. Most of the heavier ships that died were killed by missiles, because the PPCs did their best work against the screening cruisers in the opening part of the engagement.

Edit: Also, let's look at an Ancile's design mass. 7,200 tons of fighters, 20,400 tons of missile launchers and ammo, and 9,000 tons of PPCs (not counting heat sinks or fire control). Do you feel that I was under-valuing the fighters in that analysis?

Related to dropships, I realize I had been assuming that they are vulnerable to ASF weapons, but they instead appear to be partially (or more) immune.  This brings up the topic of weapon bays: is a dropship immune to damage from it's own weapon bays? In terms of total damage, maybe not, but in terms of per-weapon damage, maybe yes?

DropShips are vulnerable to ASF weapons. They didn't get much fire from capital weapons in the whole fight, and 61 DropShips died. That was entirely fighter cannons at work. A heavy DS can carry about as much armour as a light WS like the Bonaventure or the Kutai, but those can die to fighters too. And the DS has far less SI, so it dies faster when the armour does get breached than a WarShip would.

Ironically as the guy who built Walkurie, Im headed away from carriers.  The same  balance choices necessary to make an interesting batrep, that allow the basically undefended stock ships and stock defense networks to exist in the face of all-up all-in fighter/missile launches ensures that even a half-hearted investment in defense will remove those missile strikes from a role as a decisive instrument.  To wit... a .5 ton machine gun kills between .5 and 1.5 50 ton missiles.  1:100.  At such odds, it costs (formally) 1% of your weapons tonnage to shoot down all the missiles launched by an opponent of similar throw-weight... and then only if he can put all his missiles in space simultaneously, without even launchers or fighters (and of course he cannot).  A slightly larger invetment, of say 2% of your total weapons fit, will destroy your entire weapon mass in missiles on their worst day/roll.

Now, of course, the necessity if fire control, or dispersal onto small craft or fighters, renders this imperfect.  And 1000xMG LBS/RBS/Nose/Aft implies some inefficiency.  But even so, the core 100:1 is to my mind insurmountable, and future warships will likely carry only defensive fighters as can be managed without an impact on the 2% of weapons fit ideally put aside for AAA/PDS suite.

Worked example.  A generic 15% Warload 150 SI 3/5 ship of 1MT will have 150,000 tons of armament.  3000 tons, or 2% of that, approx 800 tons each on 4 facings.  220 MG massing 1.5 tons each (after fire control) gives a total of 880 machine guns, shooting down 440-1220 ASMs.  A 1MT awalkurie knockoff will launch about  1000 fighters (while being slower and more fragile) and only a small portion will on average make it through to the target.  Barring reload and relaunch, the Walkure are overrun and destroyed while inflicting little damage on their cousins - while same cousins retain 147K of 150K for anti-shipping work.

The above is done in my head from an Iphone, so likely contains many errors, but I hope it explains my reasoning.  Its also possible that as PDS belts spread, under-the-hood improvements in missiles may drastically lower the P(k) of each Machine-gun shot at a missile (as we discussed above) or the GM may look at the point defense paradigm differently (as shown, look-shoot-shoot is massively less efficient than look-shoot-look-shoot).  But Im certainly seeing that the wall for Walkurie may have handwriting on it, and part of the reason for big yard investment is that, in the absence if combat experience, the Lyrans fear to risk bulding ships that are obsolescent, or may be casually rendered so by a trivial investment in defenses.  Yards will remain useful, and allow efficient production of the ‘next thing’ once that reveals itself.

My goal is for all sane ship types to be viable, so I want to develop a universe where that's the case. I hope my thumb will not need to go on the scale, but I want to give each unit a role. Maybe I need to put each unit in its element more often - carriers might have poor damage-per-ton ratios in a knife fight, but they have longer range than any other unit. Perhaps I need to show that off more often. Haven't had a carrier-heavy force get a good commander roll in a while, though, so there's been a lack of good opportunities.

Combat Shuttles on Exercise Get 'Lost', Conduct Coup...

That sounds eerily familiar...
??? ???  okay what am I missing

I modeled it off a scene in one of the early Honor Harrington novels, which Marcus has also read. (Actually not a coup, though - the coups in Haven used different appraoches, that was the scene where they found the duelist hiding in a cabin on Gryphon).

Likewise, Kiviar caught the not-very-subtle reference in 2394 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_V#Declining_health_and_death) pretty quickly.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 26 August 2018, 21:46:22
They'll be less effective than 8400 WarShip MGs would be, but they'll still pack a punch.
Is the relative effectiveness of off-board MGs vs. on-board MGs well known?
Edit: Also, let's look at an Ancile's design mass. 7,200 tons of fighters, 20,400 tons of missile launchers and ammo, and 9,000 tons of PPCs (not counting heat sinks or fire control). Do you feel that I was under-valuing the fighters in that analysis?
I wasn't really commenting on valuations here---it was more of an observation. 

But since you ask...  if they fire at long range, you expect less than half to hit in standard BT, and then perhaps half the total antimissile load is relevant, putting you at 4200MGs.  There's an unknown divisor related to these being offboard MGs.... maybe a factor of 2?  That would put you at the equivalent of 2500 missiles on target vs. 2100MGs, so perhaps as many as a 0 to 1.5K missiles hit doing 0 to 6K capital damage + criticals. Overall, it seems like a reasonable outcome given the decisions made although the fighters could have made other decisions (e.g. firing missiles at a closer range) that might have increased the impact substantially.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 27 August 2018, 01:41:43
Alsadius: Wait until you see the letter from Hanse
Kiviar: Oh no, All hail prince Hasek?
Alsadius:   Coordinator Hasek
Kiviar: I can dig it, I'll move the capitol to Kentares IV, and then show those Terrans the might of the Federated Combine!
Kiviar: ... That sounds like I'm selling them farm equipment.

No Davion pet shall sit upon the throne of the Combine while a loyal servant of the Dragon draws breath!
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 27 August 2018, 13:37:38
Is the relative effectiveness of off-board MGs vs. on-board MGs well known?I wasn't really commenting on valuations here---it was more of an observation. 

But since you ask...  if they fire at long range, you expect less than half to hit in standard BT, and then perhaps half the total antimissile load is relevant, putting you at 4200MGs.  There's an unknown divisor related to these being offboard MGs.... maybe a factor of 2?  That would put you at the equivalent of 2500 missiles on target vs. 2100MGs, so perhaps as many as a 0 to 1.5K missiles hit doing 0 to 6K capital damage + criticals. Overall, it seems like a reasonable outcome given the decisions made although the fighters could have made other decisions (e.g. firing missiles at a closer range) that might have increased the impact substantially.

The ratio has not been specified. TBH, I haven't given it a lot of thought, but I think I will need to think about it in some depth pretty soon.

Also, since I don't think I said this above, I was trying to change the effect of MGs in that last battle. The ratio of shots to hits was similar enough, but there were fewer missiles shot down and more that missed. That will continue going forward. This should both reduce the impact of salvo density and also make a thousand tons of MGs a lot less OP when compared to a thousand tons of missile launchers. 

No Davion pet shall sit upon the throne of the Combine while a loyal servant of the Dragon draws breath!

I suspect the Suns will be happy to deal with that situation for you ;)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Andras on 27 August 2018, 18:39:59
Are MGs over effective? AIUI,by the numbers/rulebook, it should take 15 to down one Barracuda, 25 for a WS and 35 for a KW. That's rounding up, so it takes 5 more to down each additional missile in the volley. Also, as non-AMS, in addition to only doing half damage, they can only fire once per turn, so the following volleys from different sources on the same target should be not be effected by the same defense system.

1,000 MGs should only be able to down 50 Barracudas (or 25 KW) in a turn, and that's if they are all on the same facing.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 27 August 2018, 21:27:35
The ratio has not been specified. TBH, I haven't given it a lot of thought, but I think I will need to think about it in some depth pretty soon.
My understanding is that the critical rules changes are:
1) ASF weakened by nerfing-to-zero their weapons vs. heavily armored large craft.
2) ASF strengthened by allowing them to carry capital missiles.
3) MGs strengthened by a factor of 10 to 60 (in expectation) vs. capital missiles to cope with ASF-mounted missile swarms.

It may be that adding a 4th change distinguishing off-board MG from on-board MG addresses the imbalances created by the sequence above, but it sounds like (?) you are weakening (3) already, and that seems simpler and more plausible to me personally.  It's easy to imagine the balance of power shifting in-game over the centuries---there is certainly plenty of room for better missile algorithms with a 50g acceleration profile and maybe some amount of miniaturization allows room for better missile armor. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 27 August 2018, 21:47:36
4.)  The most important change was the one that disallows a single AMS from firing at -every- incoming capital missile.  Everything else kinda follows from that (because it made missiles useless) or from lowering standard scale damage vs capital armor (because otherwise fighters were way, way too good)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 28 August 2018, 04:57:17
Are MGs over effective? AIUI,by the numbers/rulebook, it should take 15 to down one Barracuda, 25 for a WS and 35 for a KW. That's rounding up, so it takes 5 more to down each additional missile in the volley. Also, as non-AMS, in addition to only doing half damage, they can only fire once per turn, so the following volleys from different sources on the same target should be not be effected by the same defense system.

1,000 MGs should only be able to down 50 Barracudas (or 25 KW) in a turn, and that's if they are all on the same facing.

Under canon rules, MG are a joke. They've been vastly more effective in this game than in canon. See here (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1439278#msg1439278) and the discussion on the following pages for the math of how it's worked until now in this game. Lagrange and Marcus also summarize the rule changes fairly accurately - I won't vouch for the ratio of "10 to 60" Lagrange used, because I haven't been thinking in terms of a ratio like that, but they're definitely a lot better.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 28 August 2018, 07:04:57
The increased effectiveness of the PD is mostly to counter the WAY beyond canon levels of missile tubes and fighters present on some of our ships, to prevent those vessels being OSK machines. Which would lead to everyone building identical ships, and the game gets boring.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 28 August 2018, 09:38:09
The increased effectiveness of the PD is mostly to counter the WAY beyond canon levels of missile tubes and fighters present on some of our ships, to prevent those vessels being OSK machines. Which would lead to everyone building identical ships, and the game gets boring.
And of these, I think it's the fighters that really matter.
Under canon rules, MG are a joke. 
I'd rate them as 'weak'.  You can stick about 2000MGs in an arc for capital ships before the quadratic growth of FC tonnage starts to really kick in.  That's enough to take out 50-or-so killer whales and can deal with Heimdaller style designs.  The ability to switch over to anti-ASF use adds value as well, and it's easy to give every ASF a 10MG array to contribute to defense.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 28 August 2018, 09:56:15
And of these, I think it's the fighters that really matter.

Fighters are the first problem you have to solve.  In the rules as written condition, fighters, and thus fighter carriers, are completely dominant over warships - and all anyone builds is carriers, if their paying any attention.

Id further say that in decades of playing about every space navy game under the sun, fighters are -always- a -huge- rules problem.  I think were doing one of the better jobs I've seen in dealing with the Fighter Problem, but we wont really know until we see, say, 6 Walkuries and 6 Tyrs  fight 6 CAs and 6CEs, where the CEs are just as heavily invested in anti-figure and point defenses as the Walkurie are invested in fighters and missiles.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 28 August 2018, 11:52:57
Fighters are the first problem you have to solve.  In the rules as written condition, fighters, and thus fighter carriers, are completely dominant over warships - and all anyone builds is carriers, if their paying any attention.
Right (with a few caveats  :) ). 

I think the points I'm making are:
(1) There remains quite a bit of room to improve the number of MGs with on-board MGs limited by quadratic FC weight in the thousands of MGs range.
(2) Despite this, ASF-based missiles scale linearly in allocated tonnage/cost so they remain an overwhelming winning strategy at a sufficiently large scale.
(3) If off-board MGs are effective, this becomes a linear/linear contest where the winner is related to the relative effectiveness of off-board MGs to off-board missiles.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 28 August 2018, 16:35:07
Quote from: marcussmythe link=topic=61764.msg1441128#msg1441128
Id further say that in decades of playing about every space navy game under the sun, fighters are -always- a -huge- rules problem.  I think were doing one of the better jobs I've seen in dealing with the Fighter Problem, but we wont really know until we see, say, 6 Walkuries and 6 Tyrs  fight 6 CAs and 6CEs, where the CEs are just as heavily invested in anti-figure and point defenses as the Walkurie are invested in fighters and missiles.

The Walkurie/Tyr/Heimdallr vs Atago/Minekaze/Tate fight will be a good test. Does your huge advantage in fighters cancel out my advantages in speed and armour?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 28 August 2018, 16:42:19
The Walkurie/Tyr/Heimdallr vs Atago/Minekaze/Tate fight will be a good test. Does your huge advantage in fighters cancel out my advantages in speed and armour?

It'll be interesting.  You've not invested (nearly) as much in PDS as I have in fighters (though far more than the default), and armor values are about to climb rapidly..  so this is kinda the 'as good as it gets' case for fighter/missile doctrine.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 28 August 2018, 17:01:52
Without having plotted such a fight out, I suspect it'll be even more dice-dependent than most. My gut feeling is that If the carriers can get the drop on the gunships and engage out of gun range, it'll probably be a slaughter - not that they'll necessarily kill the whole Drac fleet, but they won't lose any heavy units if the range never closes. Ditto if the fighters can kill most of the DC fleet in the first salvo, regardless of range. But if the gunships can survive that strike without too many losses and get in close, it'll be a slaughter the other way - the carriers can't turn over fighters nearly quickly enough to get a second full-sized strike off in less than a few hours, and the Lyran ships are too slow to flee. The Tyrs had better be able to take a beating, because they will be the target of every gun in the Drac fleet. (It'll be largely the same in a LC/FWL fight, I'd wager)

Also, I always thought the name was Walkure, probably named after someone. If it's Walkurie, I assume that's an alternate spelling of Valkyrie? I may have been misreading it this whole time. Makes sense, though - it fits your Germanic theme much better.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 28 August 2018, 17:09:40
Without having plotted such a fight out, I suspect it'll be even more dice-dependent than most. My gut feeling is that If the carriers can get the drop on the gunships and engage out of gun range, it'll probably be a slaughter - not that they'll necessarily kill the whole Drac fleet, but they won't lose any heavy units if the range never closes. Ditto if the fighters can kill most of the DC fleet in the first salvo, regardless of range. But if the gunships can survive that strike without too many losses and get in close, it'll be a slaughter the other way - the carriers can't turn over fighters nearly quickly enough to get a second full-sized strike off in less than a few hours, and the Lyran ships are too slow to flee. The Tyrs had better be able to take a beating, because they will be the target of every gun in the Drac fleet. (It'll be largely the same in a LC/FWL fight, I'd wager)

Also, I always thought the name was Walkure, probably named after someone. If it's Walkurie, I assume that's an alternate spelling of Valkyrie? I may have been misreading it this whole time. Makes sense, though - it fits your Germanic theme much better.

Tyr is sadly not that tough, instead being radically overgunned - idea is to leverage the minuses of 90 SI and lower thrust with a larger weapon bay.  Formally, a 9/27 mix (243) should fight about even with a 15/15 (225) mix, but Tyr is a little behind its Draconis cousin, because Tyr carries more cargo and more long range (and thus inefficient) weaponry.

At its best, the idea is that if close combat is inevitable, and reload impossible, fighters close to point blank, timing their own missile strike with the shipboard ones, trying to kill enough enemy firepower to let the Tyrs carry the day, and creating weaknesses for the Tyr's broadsides to exploit.  Then, since again reloading is impossible in a close fight, the fighters stay out, jumping on any holes created by the Tyr's guns, since you can roll ship to hide facings from the enemy battleline, but not from fighters.  Its a theory. *shrug*

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 28 August 2018, 17:13:48
My PD is a bit thin, but in my defense both ships were built before Walkurie came out to play. And I was expecting Thera level strike craft, not Star Trek Beyond... :o
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 29 August 2018, 21:44:56
Yes, sorry.  The intent was Walkurie, as in Valkyrie.  Though the LC hasnt yet abandoned its Greek Lyre for the Steiner fist, the Germanic elements are still strong.

And the idea of a disproportionately genetically African, Middle Eastern, and Polynesian Navy, using German Ranks and Ship Naming Conventions, amuses me.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 30 August 2018, 07:47:28
Yes, sorry.  The intent was Walkurie, as in Valkyrie.  Though the LC hasnt yet abandoned its Greek Lyre for the Steiner fist, the Germanic elements are still strong.

And the idea of a disproportionately genetically African, Middle Eastern, and Polynesian Navy, using German Ranks and Ship Naming Conventions, amuses me.

Oh, for sure - the Earth-nationalist elements of space empires were always a bit incongruous, because they're all so mixed. I'm running with it, because that's the setting, but I'm also trying to give as many random exceptions to the rule as I can without getting ham-fisted.

For example, that was why the admirals in the Terran coup had the names they did. I was chatting with Kiviar about names for characters of unspecified importance(I was looking for the new ruling house, but he didn't know that yet), trying to avoid any of the ones that already have a nation attached. He came up with Andre Mtume, and I liked the name, but I figured an African name attached to a coup leader might be a bit too on-the-nose. So I made him the loyalist instead, but then I needed a new coup leader. Avoiding a nationality that has a lot of RL coups attached, and also avoiding all the existing Battletech nationalities, I was basically left with natives from the Americas or Oceania. Some Wiki crawling later, Echohawk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Echo_Hawk) was the first name that sounded sufficiently cool to run with it.

People will keep their names and their cultures when they go abroad, barring a cataclysm like the one that created the Clans. Assimilation happens over time, but with the expensive travel of a BT universe, you'd expect it to be slower and more localized, and of course on Earth proper it'd be even more local. So there'll be a Draconis or FedSuns "national consciousness", but there'll also be a lot of variation, and some race/culture/name combinations that would be incongruous enough in 2018(never mind the 80s when this setting was created). For example, I almost made the coup leader's name Lee, to capitalize on the ambiguity of it being common in both Korean and English(or even Lee-Lee, though that started getting a bit silly), but the ambiguity would fall apart when I picked a first name. Maybe I should have just gone with something even more unexpected like Mohammed Lee, but I like what I came up with.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 30 August 2018, 07:56:56
Yeah, I have to remember to branch out into non-japanese names for characters... maybe use some of the silly ones from the 12th Man.

**Before anyone asks, the 12th Man is a collection of parody albums by a man called Billy Birmingham, taking the mickey out of the australian TV cricket commentary team, who were more or less the same bunch of men for his 20-25 year career, with quite distinctive voices**
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 30 August 2018, 16:49:40
Whats the over/under on the second half of the turn? 

Were coming up on a month for this one, IIRC, and thats probably not ideal.

What can we do to help get turnover back down?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 30 August 2018, 18:53:10
What can we do to help get turnover back down?
I'd like to help as well, if I can.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 30 August 2018, 19:01:02
Addendum to above:

I will post my turn as soon as physically possible after the end of hte prior turn.  Ive actually got my next 2 planned, and I'm just going to throw them out as written as soon as turn posts, unless something that happens in the turn DEMANDS I change what I'm doing.

Also.. maybe offload some writing?  Obviously when its hot NPC on NPC action, its all you, but sometimes posting just the raw results and letting the player (winner or loser, maybe we take turns?) write the story of why it happened that way, within posted general guidelines.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 31 August 2018, 03:19:33
Quote
Draconis Combine Admiralty

2400 Doctrine Update

Fighters: Both Ours and Theirs

From what evidence has been shown, both at Rasalhague and Kentares, that fighters can be a serious threat, but only when armed with external ordinance that cripple their mobility. After firing their one anti-ship missile they are more or less harmless unless the target WarShips armour has been breached, and reloading such ordinance takes far too long to happen in a single engagement.

Because of this, and the fact that with the Walkurie-class and Kentares IV-class Carriers that can be found on our borders we are unlikely to have superiority in numbers, the Draconis Combine Admiralty Fighter Corps (or DCAF) shall be primarily used defensively to protect the fleet from enemy fighter strikes.

The two allowed exceptions to this are:
1) Known Lyran or FedRat fleet strength lacks significant fighter complement or
2) Opponent is the Terran Hegemony, who has no such carrier in its navy.

Also because the threat of fighters is almost entirely limited to external ordinance, future planned upgrades to captial WarShips like Atago will emphasise anti-missile defences, and leave the role of anti-fighter duty to its escorting fighters and the Tate-class escort frigate.

Fleet Deployment

The bulk of the DCA fleet is currently deployed in squadrons of three vessels, comprised of one Atago-class Cruiser, one Minekaze-class Destroyer and one Tate-class escort frigate. Or at least it shall be once the last 3 Tates are built in the coming years. While this does limit the area that can be covered by the fleet at any one time, it does prevent unnecessary ship losses due to accident or enemy ambush.

The remaining Fubuki-class Destroyers and recently returned Kutai-class corvettes are both too thinly armoured to face our Davion or Steiner neighbours and survive long, and so are limited to deployments either on the Hegemony front, performing anti-pirate duty inside the combine or bringing unaffiliated colonies under the Coordinators protection.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 31 August 2018, 06:12:41
Whats the over/under on the second half of the turn? 

Were coming up on a month for this one, IIRC, and thats probably not ideal.

What can we do to help get turnover back down?

It's definitely not ideal. Two weeks a turn is probably a necessity, but four weeks is much too long. The big roadblocks here were my vacation and the fact that a couple of the battles this turn have really stumped me. The writing is quick enough once I have all the parameters straight(usually 1-2 hours for a big battle, and more like 15 minutes for the shorter fluff pieces), but getting all the moving parts straight is harder. Every time I've tried to set aside writing time in the last few days, I've just wound up staring at a white screen trying to turn the die rolls for one particular battle into a plausible outcome. It's actually getting harder when it's based on canon at this point - if the dice or the setup differ from canon, figuring out how to adapt it so that it's in-game reasonable while keeping the spirit of the canonical battle is sometimes a challenge. I cracked that particular one last night, and I think I can write it up at lunch today, but it's slowed me down for sure.

As for an ETA, it'll be up this weekend. It's a long weekend for us, so that might be Monday, but it'll be done by then if I have to pull an all-nighter to do it. I'm also going to try to plot out most of the next turn right away, even if I don't start writing it up until turns are posted, so that I have an extra week or two to think everything over. Hopefully the extra mulling will prevent similar delays to this most recent battle.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 31 August 2018, 09:18:30
I've just wound up staring at a white screen trying to turn the die rolls for one particular battle into a plausible outcome. It's actually getting harder when it's based on canon at this point - if the dice or the setup differ from canon, figuring out how to adapt it so that it's in-game reasonable while keeping the spirit of the canonical battle is sometimes a challenge. I cracked that particular one last night, and I think I can write it up at lunch today, but it's slowed me down for sure.

Well, advice is after the fact, as you have resolved it... but it seems to me a case of 'either canon controls or dice controls' - we cant have both.  If the battle is on canon rails, then thats fine - dont roll dice.  If its not, roll dice and allow chips to fall where they may.

I think, personally, when we had a coup in the Terran Hegemony, we probably put a bullet in 'canon', for good or ill, and having the ST frustrated by a struggle to enforce canon in defiance of his resolution mechanism is a waste of good ST energy.

One thought on dice rolls, however - you revealed your rolling D10s.  That's going to create crazy outcomes forever, because its flat.  Have you considered rolling 2d6, or 3, for your outcomes?  (Im a fan of 3, I like that curve).

My rationale is that on a nice 3d6 curve, theres going to be a strong draw back to a 'typical' outcome.  This is going to create a little less wild variablity, and increases the value of intel provided to the players - if its a D10, outcomes are going to be all over the place, and its very hard to tell if this is 'my plan sucks' or 'he rolled a 10 and I rolled a 1'.  If its 3D6, any fight you see is more likely to have had middling rolls, of the sort that are more likely to be repeated - and thus better decision making.

Just a thought.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 31 August 2018, 09:35:37
What I've done up until now is that canon controls what fights happen, and dice control the outcome. I may go to a purely random system in future as we drift farther from canon, however. I've liked the ability to draw on canon to come up with fights that I know won't be biased, and that players can relate to. But if it needs to change, it'll change.

Regarding dice, d10s are handy for generating at work(my workplace blocks a lot of die-roller sites, so I just use www.random.org which generates numbers in a range. 1-1,000,000 means it's 6d10 and I can just read them off from left to right). I also think wider probability curves are more appropriate for Battletech, given how wacky a lot of the fights tend to be. This is not a setting known for moderation in any form, after all.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 31 August 2018, 09:47:50
... well, you arent wrong. ^-^
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 31 August 2018, 10:40:42
I'm, so far, enjoying the wild unpredictability of 1d10, but smoothing the curve might be better in the long run.  random.org has a dice roller on it, that only does 1d6 but can do a number of them at once.  Alternatively, you could do a range of 1-6 and run it a few times.  A bit more work, obviously.  There's also mekhq which has a die roller built into the GM tools drop down.  And I've found the map to be very useful too.  And since mekhq runs on java locally, it might be doable at your work?

Just some suggestions if you want to go the curve route.  And it is the BT way.

Finally, if you want a dice generator you can run locally, I've written quite a few in my day, as its part of my basic "do I know this programming language well enough to function" test.  I'll be happy to mod one up to your tastes.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 03 September 2018, 15:57:39
Marcus mentioned that Smallcraft can carry bombs via the Internal Bomb Bay quirk (SO, page 195).   However, the limitation of 6 bombs/turn presumably creates a limitation of at most a Barracuda (since it takes up 6 hardpoints)?  That seems like a relatively severe restriction given that Barracudas don't work particularly well against very heavily armored opponents.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 03 September 2018, 16:07:14
Marcus mentioned that Smallcraft can carry bombs via the Internal Bomb Bay quirk (SO, page 195).   However, the limitation of 6 bombs/turn presumably creates a limitation of at most a Barracuda (since it takes up 6 hardpoints)?  That seems like a relatively severe restriction given that Barracudas don't work particularly well against very heavily armored opponents.

Given that capital missiles hang from beneath fighters only by handwavium - its not possible RAW - a 200 ton 'small craft' bomber with say 100 tons of capital missiles internal (without impacting agility because they are a part of its worked mass) with perhaps another 100-200 externally, seems very doable.

What you will quickly find (as I did with Walkurie) that the problem is not the fighters.  The problem is you are lobbing a significant fraction of your ships base mass in a single salvo.. Walkurie in theory needs ~35KT Cargo Space to carry the missiles to arm its fighters for a single strike.  Thats a bit over 2% of the total mass of the warship!
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 03 September 2018, 16:09:10
Barracudas do 2 Capital ( 200 Standard ) damage each. So any fighter or Small craft is instantly destroyed, while our smaller class, currently 5K, dropships will be severely hurt. Once we get to Medium and heavier class droppers, this may hurt but not destroy them. Our noncombat jumpers are equal to medium class in their endurance.

Space Bombers are just that a single 'Cudda launcher under slung, and/or Bomb Bay. Able to deploy without losing speed and such. Now Fighters would lose this as their more liken to thoroughbred horses, not work mules aka Bomb Mules. Slower and more heavily armored to carry out the task.

Mine carry a single Arrow launched missile internally, or 5 tons of bombs / mines.

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 03 September 2018, 17:50:25
Given that capital missiles hang from beneath fighters only by handwavium - its not possible RAW - a 200 ton 'small craft' bomber with say 100 tons of capital missiles internal (without impacting agility because they are a part of its worked mass) with perhaps another 100-200 externally, seems very doable.
Cramming 300-400 tons worth of loaded ship+missiles into a 200 ton bay seems counterintuitive to me.
Barracudas do 2 Capital ( 200 Standard ) damage each.

We've discussed conceiving of capital damage as x100 standard instead of x10 standard, but has that actually been adopted?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 03 September 2018, 17:55:21
Cramming 300-400 tons worth of loaded ship+missiles into a 200 ton bay seems counterintuitive to me.
We've discussed conceiving of capital damage as x100 standard instead of x10 standard, but has that actually been adopted?

Well, per prior conversations, the armaments are not carried in the bay with the fighter/bomber - IE a fighter bay carries the fighter, but anything thats going to hang off the bottom has to be cargo/magazine, not free in the craft bay. 

As such, Walkure's strikes are limited by her cargo, you dont get a 'free one' out of the bays, and a hypothetical 200 ton Small Craft Bomber would similarly have to be supplied out of 'Cargo' (One can argue that the bomb bay/cargo of such a craft could be holding a ready to fire, canisterized missile or two ready to go.. since its internal storage, rather than external)

The 100:1 conversion has been bruted about, but not formally adopted.  I think its probably safe to assume that Barracudas do -more- than 20 damage to fighters, and -less- than 2 damage to capital ships, and not think about it too much beyond that.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 03 September 2018, 19:01:19
Well, per prior conversations, the armaments are not carried in the bay with the fighter/bomber - IE a fighter bay carries the fighter, but anything thats going to hang off the bottom has to be cargo/magazine, not free in the craft bay. 
A fighter drags missiles out of cargo as it launches?  That seems unintuitive to me.  Maybe if we just think of it as mass accounting...
As such, Walkure's strikes are limited by her cargo, you dont get a 'free one' out of the bays, and a hypothetical 200 ton Small Craft Bomber would similarly have to be supplied out of 'Cargo' (One can argue that the bomb bay/cargo of such a craft could be holding a ready to fire, canisterized missile or two ready to go.. since its internal storage, rather than external)
If cargo is on an accounting basis that would make sense. 

If we can strap an extra 200 tons of missiles onto an existing smallcraft that would obviously be very handy since it would largely obsolete ASF as an anti-warship weapon---for twice the price and 33% more transport tonnage, you can deliver twice as many capital missiles with a higher acceleration & much greater strategic fuel speed.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 03 September 2018, 19:09:35
Well, the Small craft would be a better bomber - more range, more payload.  But its not going to show well if it gets bounced by a heavy ASF loaded for bear - more agile, and far more anti-fighter mojo than an ASF.

Now, to get a good intercept and pk, the ASF would have to be big, well armed, reasonably agile, and long ranged.  Such an ASF would itself be solid against other ASFs, but probably not optimized for the dogfighting role.

So, in short:
Small Craft:  Backfire, B-52, B-1.  Alternately, Torpedo Bombers.
Heavy Fighters/Fleet Defense Fighters:  Name your favourite big brawny twin engine fighter.  I like F-14, but I blame boyhood and Kenny Loggins.  Alternately, big radial US Carrier Planes circa WW2
Dogfighters/Cheap Superiority:  Mig 21, F-16.  Alternately, Mitsubishi’a Most Famous Aircraft.

Now of course, space in 2400 is not the North Atlantic GUIK in the early 80s, but its a reasonable starting point.

RE:  Counterintuitive - think ‘Magazine Space’, not ‘Cargo’.  For Very Good Reasons, naval aircraft dont hang around with the weapons hanging off of them, or right next to them on deck.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 03 September 2018, 19:23:30
So, in short:
Small Craft:  Backfire, B-52, B-1.  Alternately, Torpedo Bombers.
Heavy Fighters/Fleet Defense Fighters:  Name your favourite big brawny twin engine fighter.  I like F-14, but I blame boyhood and Kenny Loggins.  Alternately, big radial US Carrier Planes circa WW2
Dogfighters/Cheap Superiority:  Mig 21, F-16.  Alternately, Mitsubishi’a Most Famous Aircraft.

So: a Tigress SC, a Chippewa and a Zero?  ;)

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 03 September 2018, 19:32:15
So: a Tigress SC, a Chippewa and a Zero?  ;)

TT

Amusingly, the Shuu ASF I designed about a zillion pages ago was intended to fill the heavy fighter role - before someone pointed out that it should have been 90 rather than 85 tons.  :(

As for the Chippewa - let us not speak of that slow, fragile, eggshell with sledgehammer.  It is terrible.  I spent a campaign flying Lyran ASF.  I fell in love with the LCF-R20 based on a bajillion matches against other players...  and my loathing for the CHP knows no bounds.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 03 September 2018, 19:41:19
Well, the Small craft would be a better bomber - more range, more payload.  But its not going to show well if it gets bounced by a heavy ASF loaded for bear
I think the question is: Would you counter smallcraft bombers with a 6/9 90 ton ASF or a 6/9 200 ton smallcraft?  The smallcraft can carry twice as many Barracudas, mounts a 70% heavier weapons/armor load, and has significantly more range.   The advantages of the ASF are more maneuverability, 33% lower transport tonnage, and 50% of the price.   It's not clear to me that the ASF is the winner here.
For Very Good Reasons, naval aircraft dont hang around with the weapons hanging off of them, or right next to them on deck.
The labor associated with attaching many kilotons of missiles to a carrier's craft seems likely to take quite a bit of effort.  I could imagine _arming_ the missiles just prior to launch, but physically attaching them seems like it would need to occur well before launch to be ready for use in reasonable timeframes.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 03 September 2018, 19:44:08
Im mentally picturing automated feeds feeding the launch ready fighters, rather than feeding a missile launcher.

Ive always assumed the agility advantage had to be dispositive, else SC displace ASF in one of the ASFs core roles.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 03 September 2018, 20:08:00
In no particular order:

1) We discussed armed small craft back on the first couple pages of this thread - I was going to divide up armed SC vs shuttles, but decided against it when the consensus seemed to be that they were kind of crap at fighting. I haven't built my own SC in a very long time, so I don't know if that's true or not, but I ran with it. It might be simpler for them to be support craft and not combat craft, but IDK. Also, I had the thought in my head somehow that SC bays were 500 tons, not 200 - I guess it's like a light tank bay, which fits a 50-ton tank plus facilities into 50 tons of mass. That does make the SC more appealing if combat SC are a thing, for sure.

2) 150 tons for a fighter bay includes the mass of a typical fighter (intentionally left vague), the structural elements of the volume that a fighter fits into and launches from, facilities to allow for refueling and rearming the fighter inside the bay, and the various basic spare parts/tools/etc. necessary to keep a fighter running. The volume is large enough to hold a fighter with a full missile load, without worries of "dragging on the deck", but the weight of those missiles is not counted in the 150 tons.

3) This is probably the best plan:

Quote
I think its probably safe to assume that Barracudas do -more- than 20 damage to fighters, and -less- than 2 damage to capital ships, and not think about it too much beyond that.

4) I've thought over the discussions of uncapped SI and fractional thrust. Go for it, just keep the thrust fractions to multiples of 0.1 so we don't go crazy. I've updated the master sheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XW-l5w0nuEvtdhDpGjDDQICX2oPaJEEUwMI2xBSOlTA/edit#gid=0) accordingly. (Note that this means we're retconning 3/5 to be 3/4.5 and 5/8 to be 5/7.5)

5) I have the turn almost written - 2395-98 is basically finished, and I'm going to try writing 2399 in a shorter format like I did for turn 1. I want to see if I can go back to that style a little bit - with the Age of War coming, I can't keep writing 2000 words for every battle and still resolve things in a humane period of time. Just the second half of turn 5 is sitting at over 4400 words, and I'm not even done four years of writing. If necessary, I'll post a bare-bones result for 2399 just to get something up on my promised schedule, but I want to do at least a short battle report. Either way, my next post will have the link to the finished turn 5.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 03 September 2018, 20:20:17
That's the Master Warship Calculator, not Master Sheet.

You sure that's the one that should be shown?

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 03 September 2018, 20:23:25
Ive always assumed the agility advantage had to be dispositive, else SC displace ASF in one of the ASFs core roles.
In conventional battletech, the agility advantage is quite important in a battle against ASF, since smallcraft always move before ASF.  This advantage decays in three ways here:
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 03 September 2018, 20:30:07
Right, but I here contemplate Small Craft Bombers escorted by long range ASFs (more fuel, two man cockpits).

Barring such escorts, the Small Craft Bombers risk getting bounced outside their anti-ship launch range by defending ASFs.  The same risk also applies of course to any missile ladened attacker.

I think practice for the LCN is going to be (for now) ASFs with ‘cudas escorting ASFa witb ‘whales, proportions based on op4.  The ones carrying barracudas launch on defending fighters then close to dogfight with them, allowing the strike loaded fighters to close and do their job. 

If I get froggy and start building the Walkurie’s children as having huge SC bays (remembering that SC bays can also handle fighters!) the picture gets more complicated.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 03 September 2018, 20:34:45
That's the Master Warship Calculator, not Master Sheet.

You sure that's the one that should be shown?

Yes. The master sheet is for tracking fleets and yards, but the master calculator is for the construction of ships. (Note that the only change is to cell B8, so if you have your own version, just update that formula.)

Edit: Shit, I didn't mean to hit post until the turn was done. But I can't delete it now. My bad.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 03 September 2018, 20:59:21
1) We discussed armed small craft back on the first couple pages of this thread - I was going to divide up armed SC vs shuttles, but decided against it when the consensus seemed to be that they were kind of crap at fighting. I haven't built my own SC in a very long time, so I don't know if that's true or not, but I ran with it. It might be simpler for them to be support craft and not combat craft, but IDK. Also, I had the thought in my head somehow that SC bays were 500 tons, not 200 - I guess it's like a light tank bay, which fits a 50-ton tank plus facilities into 50 tons of mass. That does make the SC more appealing if combat SC are a thing, for sure.
SC in-game are fairly poor at attacking ASF due to always or mostly losing initiative (varying with ruleset) but fairly good at attacking other SC and particularly good at attacking heavier elements.  Notably, they have weapons bays which gives them a potential to threshold against significantly heavier units than ASF can manage.
2) 150 tons for a fighter bay includes the mass of a typical fighter (intentionally left vague), the structural elements of the volume that a fighter fits into and launches from, facilities to allow for refueling and rearming the fighter inside the bay, and the various basic spare parts/tools/etc. necessary to keep a fighter running. The volume is large enough to hold a fighter with a full missile load, without worries of "dragging on the deck", but the weight of those missiles is not counted in the 150 tons.
Can a smallcraft carry missiles like an ASF as well?
4) I've thought over the discussions of uncapped SI and fractional thrust. Go for it, just keep the thrust fractions to multiples of 0.1 so we don't go crazy. I've updated the master sheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XW-l5w0nuEvtdhDpGjDDQICX2oPaJEEUwMI2xBSOlTA/edit#gid=0) accordingly. (Note that this means we're retconning 3/5 to be 3/4.5 and 5/8 to be 5/7.5)
The spreadsheet allows you to choose a maneuvering drive without a core, but doing so implies that SI is calculated as per a warship (.1%/SI rather than 1%) with prices as per a space station (x5 instead of x2) and SI variable like a warship.  Is this intentional?  I've avoided this in the past in the spirit of core battletech rules, but the rules changes are making me rethink this.  More generally, is the intention to allow maneuvering drives on a space station?  Is the intention to allow SI larger than 1 on a space station?  And if the latter, should the tonnage cost of SI be .1%/SI or 1%/SI?  (If you tell me what is preferred, I can make a spreadsheet that does it.)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 03 September 2018, 21:13:22
I think we discussed and decided that the only things, larger than a Dropship, which had Manuver Drives, also had Jump Cores.

While this may not be realistic (and in fact is likely grossly otherwise), the designs that come back once your slapping a manuver drive and warship armor and SI onto things without the 50% Jump core Tax are simply outlandish.  Think ‘Tyr’ only 6/9, with more guns, and 300 SI (and armor to match). 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 03 September 2018, 21:21:41
I think we discussed and decided that the only things, larger than a Dropship, which had Manuver Drives, also had Jump Cores.

While this may not be realistic (and in fact is likely grossly otherwise), the designs that come back once your slapping a manuver drive and warship armor and SI onto things without the 50% Jump core Tax are simply outlandish.  Think ‘Tyr’ only 6/9, with more guns, and 300 SI (and armor to match).
If you want a clean interpolation to space station rules, then you would probably go with 1%/SI making 300 SI nonviable.

If you want to avoid the headaches of the armor implied, then simply allowing maneuvering drives but keeping SI to 1 seems reasonable since you would never make a maneuvering drive with thrust larger than 1.

And, of course, if we want to keep things rules-legal in the base game, then it seems fine to use the Tick.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 03 September 2018, 21:59:23
Turn 5 is finished (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1440489#msg1440489).

What are your feelings on the shorter battle reports?

I'm going to sleep now, and look at this discussion tomorrow.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 03 September 2018, 22:18:00
Do not mind the shorter batreps.  Suggest players may choose to write more detailed versions.

Would love to keep some of the detailed ones - Id hate to lose them!  But a compromise must be drawn between glorious batreps and keeping the game going.

Proposition - consider a 2 week standard turnaround.  Write ‘short overview’ report.  Then if time permits, have fun with the parts you find interesting to write more about?

Marsden lives!  Butterflies abound.  I wonder - will we end up with a Marsden married to a Steiner?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 03 September 2018, 23:12:59
Well that kind of ruined a 'Birth of the Black Dragon Society' fluff piece I was working on.

Other than that, let the games begin!

EDIT: Figured I would get the show on the round, quick game is a good game and all that.

Draconis Combine Turn 2400-2409

Akagi-Class Carrier

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Akagi
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $9,045,300,000.00
Magazine Cost: $10,600,000.00
BV2: 47,717

Mass: 750,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 3
Maximum Thrust: 5
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
32 Naval Laser 35
160 AC 5
120 Machine Gun (IS)
32 Capital Launcher Killer Whale

Designed in response to the Steiner Walkurie-class and Davion Kentares IV, the Akagi is intended to carry a large contingent of fighters -as well as anti-fighter weaponry- in order to control the space around the fleet, and prevent the larger air wings of those craft from being a lethal threat to it's sister ships.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Akagi
Mass: 750,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 135,000.00
Thrust
Safe: 3
Maximum: 4.5
Controls: 1,875.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (16 Integrity) 339,375.00
Jump Sail: (5 Integrity) 68.00
Structural Integrity: 130 97,500.00
Total Heat Sinks: 2464 Single 1,900.00
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 20000 points 8,160.00
Fire Control Computers: 1,477.15
Armor: 760 pts Standard 1,900.00
Fore: 120
Fore-Left/Right: 130/130
Aft-Left/Right: 130/130
Aft: 120

Dropship Capacity: 2 2,000.00
Grav Decks:
Small: 2 100.00
Medium: 0.00
Large: 0.00
Escape Pods: 50 350.00
Life Boats: 50 350.00

Crew And Passengers:
54 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 540.00
141 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 987.00
123 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 861.00
420 Bay Personnel 0.00
1st Class Passengers 0.00
2nd Class Passengers 0.00
100 Steerage Passengers 500.00

Bay #1 - Fighters (36) - 4 Doors (Nose)
Bay #2 - Fighters (72) - 4 Doors (LBS)
Bay #3 - Fighters (72) - 4 Doors (RBS)
Bay #4 - Small Craft (12) - 2 Doors (Aft)
Bay #5 - Cargo (80,877 Tons) - 2 Doors (Aft)

Large NCSS

Armed with 16 Twin-NL/35 turrets and 16 Twin Killer Whale launchers, along with its substantial array of AC/5s and machine guns, the Akagi is capable of defending itself against small craft even without its fighter group, however against all but the smallest WarShips, it must rely on its battlegroup of Atagos and Minekazes to convince the enemy to stay clear.

Code: [Select]
# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
8 Naval Laser 35 Nose 416 280 (28-C) 5,600.00
20 AC 5 Nose 20 100 (10-C) 160.00
20 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 40 (4-C) 10.00
8 Killer Whale FR 160 320 (32-C) 1,200.00
20 AC 5 FR 20 100 (10-C) 160.00
20 Machine Gun (IS) FR 40 (4-C) 10.00
8 Killer Whale FL 160 320 (32-C) 1,200.00
20 AC 5 FL 20 100 (10-C) 160.00
20 Machine Gun (IS) FL 40 (4-C) 10.00
8 Naval Laser 35 LBS 416 280 (28-C) 5,600.00
20 AC 5 LBS 20 100 (10-C) 160.00
8 Naval Laser 35 RBS 416 280 (28-C) 5,600.00
20 AC 5 RBS 20 100 (10-C) 160.00
8 Killer Whale AR 160 320 (32-C) 1,200.00
20 AC 5 AR 20 100 (10-C) 160.00
20 Machine Gun (IS) AR 40 (4-C) 10.00
8 Killer Whale AL 160 320 (32-C) 1,200.00
20 AC 5 AL 20 100 (10-C) 160.00
20 Machine Gun (IS) AL 40 (4-C) 10.00
8 Naval Laser 35 Aft 416 280 (28-C) 5,600.00
20 AC 5 Aft 20 100 (10-C) 160.00
20 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 40 (4-C) 10.00

Killer Whale Ammo 320
AC 5 Ammo 16000
MG Ammo 120000

And the Budget:

Code: [Select]
Year: 2400 Value in Millions
Money Available 114,000
Remaining from Last Turn
Available Shipyards

Luthien 3/2/2/1
New Samarkand 5/1
Midway 1

Repairs

Maintanence Warships 219465 12% 26335.8
The Rest 64420 10% 6442

Prototype Tenshi 1 388 388
Akagi 1 9,045 4,523
Refits

Construction Unit Price
Shipyards New Sam 1>2 10,000 10,000

Stations Onsen 0 451 0
Tenshi 10 388 3,880
Warships Nagato 0 13,640 0
Atago 0 9,339 0
Akagi 3 9,045 27,135
Fubuki 0 7,241 0
Minekaze 0 6,102 0
Tate 6 4,734 28,404
Kutai 0 6,092 0
Trojan 0 4,031 0
Jumpships 2 500 1000
Dropships 6 300 1,800
Fighters 540 5 2,700
Small Craft 36 10 360
Research 2,032 1 2032
Loan
Total Spent 114999.8

Income
Marian Loan 1 1000 1000

Remaining 0


Code: [Select]
Start Turn In Service Value BV
Warships Atago 9 84051 83558
Akagi 0 0 47717
Fubuki 3 21723 57421
Minekaze 9 54918 66478
Tate 6 28404 26605
Kutai 3 18276 15629
Trojan 3 12093 15229
Total 33 219465
Maintanence 12% 26335.8

Stations Onsen 20 9020
Tenshi 0 0
Jumpships 38 19000
Dropships Small 32 9600

Fighters 3820 19100
Small Craft 770 7700
Total 64420
Maintanence 10% 6442

Total Maintanence 32777.8

Fighter Complement Whole Fleet 1332
DS Complement Whole Fleet 24

End Turn In Service
Warships Atago 9 84051
Akagi 3 27135
Fubuki 3 21723
Minekaze 9 54918
Tate 12 56808
Kutai 3 18276
Trojan 3 12093
Total 42 275004
Maintanence 12% 33000.48

Stations Onsen 20 9020
Tenshi 10 3890
Jumpships 40 20000
Dropships Small 38 11400

Fighters 4360 21800
Small Craft 806 8060
Total 74170
Rest Maintanence 10% 7417
Total Maintanence 40417.48

Code: [Select]
Deployment

Steiner Front Kutai-class Kutai, Rasalhague, Trondheim
Trojan-class Sinister

Hegemony Front Akagi-class Akagi
Atago-class Takao, Furutaka, Myoko
Minekaze-class Hayate, Hakaze, Mikazuki
Tate-class New Samarkand, Galedon, Proserpina, Baldur
Trojan-class Insidious

Davion Front Akagi-class Kaga,
Atago-class Atago, Kashima, Chokai,
Minekaze-class Minekaze, Yukikaze, Okikaze
Tate-class Luthien, Benjamin, Xinyang, Tinaca
Trojan-class Iga

Reserve Akagi-class Soryu
Atago-class Maya, Aoba, Nachi
Minekaze-class Yayoi, Shikinami, Satsuki
Tate-class Pesht, Dieron, Ashio, Oshika

Internal Patrol Fubuki-class Fubuki, Ibuki, Yudachi

EDIT #2: I forgot the Tenshi defense satellite...

Tenshi-class Weapon Satellite

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Tenshi
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $387,505,000.00
Magazine Cost: $8,280,000.00
BV2: 21,148

Mass: 90,000
K-F Drive System: None
Power Plant: Station-Keeping Drive
Safe Thrust: 0
Maximum Thrust: 1
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
6 Naval PPC Heavy
48 Capital Launcher Barracuda
120 Machine Gun (IS)

Intended to guard the shipyards and major worlds of the Combine, the Tenshi mounts Heavy Naval PPCs for long range firepower, as well as nearly 50 Barracuda launchers for anti-fighter duty. While not the match of a Warship by itself, they are far cheaper allowing them to be deployed en masse.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Tenshi
Mass: 90,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 1,080
Thrust
Safe: 0.1
Maximum: 1
Controls: 90
K-F Hyperdrive: None (0 Integrity) 0
Jump Sail: (0 Integrity) 0
Structural Integrity: 1 900
Total Heat Sinks: 1828 Single 1,737
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 20000 points 2,040
Fire Control Computers: 3,235
Armor: 288 pts Standard 360
Fore: 48
Fore-Left/Right: 48/48
Aft-Left/Right: 48/48
Aft: 48

Dropship Capacity: 0 0
Grav Decks:
Small: 1 50
Medium: 0
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 10 70
Life Boats: 10 70

Crew And Passengers:
24 Officers in 2nd Class Quarters 168
39 Crew in Steerage Quarters 195
74 Gunners and Others in Steerage Quarters 370
0 Bay Personnel 0
0 1st Class Passengers 0
50 2nd Class Passengers 350
0 Steerage Passengers 0

Bay #1 - Cargo (26304 Tons) - 2 Doors
Bay #2 - Small Craft (6) - 2 Doors


Code: [Select]
# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
6 Naval PPC Heavy Nose 1350 900 (90-C) Extreme-C 18,000
8 Capital Launcher Barracuda Nose 80 160 (16-C) Extreme-C 720
20 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
8 Capital Launcher Barracuda FR 80 160 (16-C) Extreme-C 720
20 Machine Gun (IS) FR 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
8 Capital Launcher Barracuda FL 80 160 (16-C) Extreme-C 720
20 Machine Gun (IS) FL 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
8 Capital Launcher Barracuda AR 80 160 (16-C) Extreme-C 720
20 Machine Gun (IS) AR 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
8 Capital Launcher Barracuda AL 80 160 (16-C) Extreme-C 720
20 Machine Gun (IS) AL 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
8 Capital Launcher Barracuda Aft 80 160 (16-C) Extreme-C 720
20 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10

Barracuda Ammo 960
MG Ammo 120000
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 04 September 2018, 08:27:21
Updated the 'Running Income Totals' to include Turn 5 and Starting Yards:

1.)  FWL:   727B
2.)  DC:     697B
3.)  LC:     655B
4.)  FS:     635B
5.)  CC:     566B

Including the starting yards throws the totals a bit from where they were before... LC and FWL got full up 3x3 3x1 layouts.  DC and FS were a bit behind, and the CC rather behind that.

Will be interesting to see over time to what degree starting economics is destiny.

Turn to follow.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 04 September 2018, 08:42:07
Most battles thus far have been based on canonical fights, so I've been using those as inspiration. But since we're drifting away from canon now, there's more scope for you to make your mark on the setting. NPCs are still in charge of whether you fight, generally speaking, but the navy has significant say in how you fight. Feel free to make use of that freedom in operational planning. In particular, one of your number is PM-ing me battle plans for use if he gets into a war with one of his neighbours, and the rest of you should feel free to do the same. I'll break them out whenever it's practical to do so. This is not a requirement - your planning staff can put together ops plans just fine - but it's an option, and I want to ensure you're all aware of it.

SC in-game are fairly poor at attacking ASF due to always or mostly losing initiative (varying with ruleset) but fairly good at attacking other SC and particularly good at attacking heavier elements.  Notably, they have weapons bays which gives them a potential to threshold against significantly heavier units than ASF can manage.

Can a smallcraft carry missiles like an ASF as well?

So far, SC have not been able to carry missiles like ASF, which has relegated them to secondary roles(shuttles of various sorts, mostly).

The spreadsheet allows you to choose a maneuvering drive without a core, but doing so implies that SI is calculated as per a warship (.1%/SI rather than 1%) with prices as per a space station (x5 instead of x2) and SI variable like a warship.  Is this intentional?  I've avoided this in the past in the spirit of core battletech rules, but the rules changes are making me rethink this.  More generally, is the intention to allow maneuvering drives on a space station?  Is the intention to allow SI larger than 1 on a space station?  And if the latter, should the tonnage cost of SI be .1%/SI or 1%/SI?  (If you tell me what is preferred, I can make a spreadsheet that does it.)
If you want a clean interpolation to space station rules, then you would probably go with 1%/SI making 300 SI nonviable.

If you want to avoid the headaches of the armor implied, then simply allowing maneuvering drives but keeping SI to 1 seems reasonable since you would never make a maneuvering drive with thrust larger than 1.

And, of course, if we want to keep things rules-legal in the base game, then it seems fine to use the Tick.

The spreadsheet is not intended to handle monitors, so the treatment of them is haphazardly based on formulas used to calculate other things. I could probably whip up a good set of rules for monitors without too much trouble, but I don't think I could do so in a way that wasn't simply a ground-up re-write of a good part of the rules and setting. I don't want to do that, so please keep your ships within legal limits even if the spreadsheet doesn't actively enforce those limits.

I appreciate the offer to build the sheet, but it won't be necessary. I'm much more comfortable with spreadsheets than I am with fiction writing ;)

And yes, you can have your Tick :)

Well that kind of ruined a 'Birth of the Black Dragon Society' fluff piece I was working on.

Oh? Not sure what that is, tbh, unless you're referring to the 4SW-era one mentioned on Sarna.

Do not mind the shorter batreps.  Suggest players may choose to write more detailed versions.

Would love to keep some of the detailed ones - Id hate to lose them!  But a compromise must be drawn between glorious batreps and keeping the game going.

Proposition - consider a 2 week standard turnaround.  Write ‘short overview’ report.  Then if time permits, have fun with the parts you find interesting to write more about?

In principle I like it, but going back to edit in more detail might be difficult. I'll give it a try for this turn, though, and see how it feels.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 04 September 2018, 09:15:48
Lyran Commonwealth, Turn VI:  2400-2409


Code: [Select]
Lyran Commonwealth, Turn Beginning 2400
Physical Assets:
Starting  Shipyards: Alarion: 4/4  New Kyoto: 3/1  Tamar 1  Gibbs 1
Staring  Warships:  Heimdaller II FF x 9 45.567
Tyr CA x 9 66.45
Walkure CV x 9 62.523
Staring Stations: Ribe Recharge Station x120 21
Staring Jumpships:  30 15
Staring Dropships:  0
Staring Small Craft: 600 6
Staring Fighters: 11K 55
Maintenance Value 271.54 (27.15)
Cash: 8.419
Income:         107
115.419


Expenses:
Maintenance: 32.485
100% Baseline, 120% Warships, 150% Naval Fighters
Alarion 4-> 5 50
Alarion 4-> 5 25
Ribe Recharge Stations x 10                                                1.75
Total: 109.235
Remainder 6.184


Lyran Commonwealth, Turn Ending 2409
Physical Assets:
Ending Shipyards: Alarion: 5/5  New Kyoto: 3/1  Tamar 1  Gibbs 1
Ending Warships:  Heimdaller II FF x 9 45.567
Tyr CA x 9 66.45
Walkure CV x 9 62.523
Ending Stations:         Ribe Recharge Station x130 22.75
Ending Jumpships:  30 15
Ending Dropships:  0
Ending Small Craft: 600 6
Ending Fighters: 11K 55
Maintenance Value 273.29 (27.33)
Cash: 6.184

Code: [Select]
DEPLOYMENTS
Deployments are by Squadron, each Squadron consisting of 3xFF, 3xCA, 3xCV
Given the conflict on the FWL Border, and the likely FWL need to recapture territory, along with the relative quiet on the DC border (and the lack of a major carrier warship on the DC Border), operational areas are redefined as follows:

1st Battle Squadron, Homeport TAMAR, Operational Area:  DC Border
2nd Battle Squadron, Homeport NEW KYOTO, Operational Area:  FWL Border East, TH Border
3rd Battle Squadron, Homeport (Temporary) PROMISED LAND Operational Area:  FWL Border West

Given the lack of yard facilities at PROMISED LAND, and the damaged done to the world in capture, several Ribe class recharge stations are being redeployed to support rebuilding efforts, support the fleet presence, and over a few under/uninhabited worlds to provide a clean line of movement across the Marik salient into FWL Territory (Note that Bolan in this era is a FWL world).

This is not intended as a permanent threat posture against the FWL, but it is hoped that by having a full battle squadron forward deployed, coupled with a second squadron at New Kyoto within easy threat distance of Irian, the FWL will be encouraged to let bygones (and plasma-torched vineyards) be bygones.  Lighter deployments along the DC Border are primarily in service of monitoring the mirroring DC deployments.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 04 September 2018, 09:57:08
Sanity check on an idea bouncing around in my head:

Cheap Jumpship Pony Express.

Build some number of minimum cost jumpships (nocollar, im thinking around 280m), sitting in dedicated command circuits to move, not people or troops, but orders and information.  It looks like you could get a permanent circuit between home and a forward base for not all -that- many ships... and if their kept sitting at designated places, ready to recieve transmission and jump as soon as the next one jumps in, you could get orders/information from front to home and back very quickly.

Obviously as in all such things theres diminishing returns... a line to both borders and up and down each border and the number of jumpers required starts climbing alarmingly, and the full monty of 2 for each world in the LC starts getting questionably expensive.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 04 September 2018, 13:02:41
Cheap Jumpship Pony Express.

Build some number of minimum cost jumpships (nocollar, im thinking around 280m), sitting in dedicated command circuits to move, not people or troops, but orders and information.  It looks like you could get a permanent circuit between home and a forward base for not all -that- many ships... and if their kept sitting at designated places, ready to recieve transmission and jump as soon as the next one jumps in, you could get orders/information from front to home and back very quickly.

Obviously as in all such things theres diminishing returns... a line to both borders and up and down each border and the number of jumpers required starts climbing alarmingly, and the full monty of 2 for each world in the LC starts getting questionably expensive.
I'm planning to introduce something like this for TC this turn.   It is however necessary to either batch communications for a weekly jump cadence or have the network be in active and used on-demand.   Mixing the two modes seems to invite significant problems.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 04 September 2018, 13:06:50
I'm planning to introduce something like this for TC this turn.   It is however necessary to either batch communications for a weekly jump cadence or have the network be in active and used on-demand.   Mixing the two modes seems to invite significant problems.

Its going to be easier for small periphery realms.  For all that they are (relatively) cash poor compared to great houses, they are actually VERY cash rich per unit area in this game - either as a result of budgets much more slewed to naval matters, or a result of a higher mean level of development.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 04 September 2018, 13:29:38
Command circuits have value, but they need to be used sensibly - it's really hard to justify the expense unless it's experiencing major usage, or it has an important strategic purpose. The RWR command circuit is really pushing the limits of what makes sense, IMO - if the nation was less one-dimensional(astrographically speaking), they wouldn't have done it. And at the time they launched the service, they were both fairly rich and very peaceful, which gave them more room to do it than most other nations have.

Also, be aware that there are a lot of merchant ships around at any given time. Even with no special intervention on your part, information moves much faster than one week per jump. I haven't set exact times (and it'll vary based on organization, luck, and local merchant density), but you can expect a critical-priority message to move at a speed somewhere in the ballpark of 1-2 days per jump. A true command circuit will move a message(or a VIP) far faster - on the order of one hour per jump, assuming everyone is charged and ready - but I expect that there's a limit on how much faster information is worth to you when your fleet's strategic speed is still limited to a week per jump.

To put numbers on it, a typical DropShip of this era can carry roughly one company of ground troops, similarly to how it can carry a "company" of fighters(i.e., 12 units). That means you're looking at ~10 DS per regiment, minimum. For the 2398 fight, the FWL scared up nine regiments(one that defended the first planet, eight that got used in the counterattack), plus another 408 fighters = 34 carrier-fit DS. That's 124 DS at the low end, which requires 42 or more JS to carry them. That was a scratch-built force assembled from local resources in response to an attack, within the space of a few weeks. They dug very deep to do it, of course, but it was possible to do. Use that as a guideline for the density of merchant shipping in typical populated space.

The reason the Periphery realms are wealthy is that we're only looking at three of them. The Taurians and Rim Worlds are both called out repeatedly in canon as being extremely high-development realms, and both routinely turn in extremely strong performances in fleet combat any time one happens in canon. Likewise, the Marians have ludicrous mineral wealth(which also happens to be in a form needed for K-F drive construction, which means they'll naturally have a naval bent). All three are wealthy, but all three are also atypical. There's a lot of other Periphery nations in the background, and very few have two coins to rub together. (Also, it'd be no fun at all to play a realm that could only afford fighters, so I want to be sure they're all playable)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 04 September 2018, 13:39:24
Command circuits have value, but they need to be used sensibly - it's really hard to justify the expense unless it's experiencing major usage, or it has an important strategic purpose. The RWR command circuit is really pushing the limits of what makes sense, IMO - if the nation was less one-dimensional(astrographically speaking), they wouldn't have done it. And at the time they launched the service, they were both fairly rich and very peaceful, which gave them more room to do it than most other nations have.

Also, be aware that there are a lot of merchant ships around at any given time. Even with no special intervention on your part, information moves much faster than one week per jump. I haven't set exact times (and it'll vary based on organization, luck, and local merchant density), but you can expect a critical-priority message to move at a speed somewhere in the ballpark of 1-2 days per jump. A true command circuit will move a message(or a VIP) far faster - on the order of one hour per jump, assuming everyone is charged and ready - but I expect that there's a limit on how much faster information is worth to you when your fleet's strategic speed is still limited to a week per jump.

To put numbers on it, a typical DropShip of this era can carry roughly one company of ground troops, similarly to how it can carry a "company" of fighters(i.e., 12 units). That means you're looking at ~10 DS per regiment, minimum. For the 2398 fight, the FWL scared up nine regiments(one that defended the first planet, eight that got used in the counterattack), plus another 408 fighters = 34 carrier-fit DS. That's 124 DS at the low end, which requires 42 or more JS to carry them. That was a scratch-built force assembled from local resources in response to an attack, within the space of a few weeks. They dug very deep to do it, of course, but it was possible to do. Use that as a guideline for the density of merchant shipping in typical populated space.

The reason the Periphery realms are wealthy is that we're only looking at three of them. The Taurians and Rim Worlds are both called out repeatedly in canon as being extremely high-development realms, and both routinely turn in extremely strong performances in fleet combat any time one happens in canon. Likewise, the Marians have ludicrous mineral wealth(which also happens to be in a form needed for K-F drive construction, which means they'll naturally have a naval bent). All three are wealthy, but all three are also atypical. There's a lot of other Periphery nations in the background, and very few have two coins to rub together.

So in essence the rich inner sphere worlds and the poor ones are bundled up into larger political organizations, whereas in the periphery the richer worlds get the press, and the poorer ones dont get noticed, not being in a nation with the richer ones - much like the Fed Suns 'Outback', which would go pretty much unremarked were it not fedsuns.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 04 September 2018, 17:41:44
...several Ribe class recharge stations are being redeployed ...
How do you redeploy?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 04 September 2018, 17:57:00
Big ole cargo ships, most likely.  Heck, stations show up in unihabited systems.

We arent talking tactical or operational timescales, bt strategic.  If Alsadius is concerned, Ill just build some new ones there
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 04 September 2018, 18:45:31
Big ole cargo ships, most likely.  Heck, stations show up in unihabited systems.

We arent talking tactical or operational timescales, bt strategic.  If Alsadius is concerned, Ill just build some new ones there
My understanding is that 500kton transports don't exist outside of a megaton scale warship.  I don't expect that capacity can be hired from the civilian market, so it's probably worth creating.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 04 September 2018, 19:36:59
Stations are just parts that you put together to form larger ones. Doesn't matter what final weight is, all parts come in different sizes.

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 04 September 2018, 19:54:11
The more complex bits of a station are pre-fab (guns, reactor, station-keeping drive, etc.), but most of the structural bits will be built in place from materials shipped in, if the system lacks sufficient industry to produce it locally. Moving an engine that weighs 6000 tons is fairly doable with standard civilian transports. Moving the 500,000 ton station it fits into? Not so much.

You could, in principle, disassemble a station and move it like oversized Ikea furniture. In practice, it'd probably cost more than a new station unless we're talking about very expensive stations. The Ribe is $175m, which is dirt cheap for a station. Probably better to just build a new one in place, realistically - you're planning to keep the planet, I assume, so it's not like a couple stations will even be wasted. (You can keep them together for now and redeploy one from zenith to nadir in the space of a few months, if you like - station-keeping drives are weak by BT standards, but still ludicrously efficient by RL rocketry standards)

Also, I just noticed that I forgot to post support unit losses for the Capellans in 2399. The post has been edited accordingly.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 04 September 2018, 20:05:28
Ill juggle my turn. A few Ribe class rechage stations is budget dust.

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 04 September 2018, 23:36:36

Ending Balance Turn 5: 7 Billion, 791 million
TAXES and Loot: 14 Billion
Budget Turn 6: 21 Billion, 791 Million

DCA Loan ( Yard ):                   1 Billion
Periphery Aid Package:              .500 Million, helping the Lothian League, continue support for more gains
Maintenance:                             3.900 Billion ~ 120% ( or close to that )
Buying, Ala x 10 ( 10 asf each )   .500 Million ( 100 fighters )
Buying, Kutai from TC:              5 Billion
Buying, Ribe Station, Steiner:      .175 Million ( x1 total ) Alphard
Buying, Onsen Station, Kurita:     .551 Million ( x1 total ) Lothario
Buying, Tenshi Station, Kurita:   2.628 Billion ( x6 total ) 4 Alphard, 2 Lothario
Buying, Small Craft:                     .300 Million ( 30 Small craft )
Buying, Jumpship:                      2 Billion ( x4 total )
Buying, Dropship:                       3.600 Billion ( x12 total )

End Turn 6 Budget: 1 Billion, 637 Million

Story arc:

Marian Action News Network ( MANN )
Nova Roma, Alphard
Palace of Imperator Pi

MANN Reporter: " His excellency has stated he would like to incorporate more planetary systems into the Hegemony. As such, he authorized the Navis to seek out new planets to peacefully acquisition them, in an attempt to amount more into the coffers of his realm. Having barley acquired a DCA-made, ex-Taurian Concordat Kutai before the Kurtians implicated an embargo on the " illegal " sale of their ship to a " third party ". To attempt at appeasing the Coordinator, the MHAF recently bought, with considerable markup, an Onsen Station and several of the newer Tenshi-class Defense Satellites. Not to be outbided, a Steiner Social General passing thru offered his realms Ribe-class Recharge station in exchange for more tins of Alphard Mudskipper, a sought after delicacy on Skye, his home planet. Several tons are currently being delivered to insure continued relations, even when war is rumored to be soon.

Quote
First and Second Fleets are on patrol attempting to acquire more planets... if attacking a planet is the only way... both fleets hit same target(s). Prefer to just brush aside defenses and land bodies dirt side. The 4 Jumpers I bought are for resupply and colonization attempts at peace as well. First Jumpers, then WS in that order per system I attempt to control, Alsadius.

Pi
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 05 September 2018, 02:07:09
I have just realised that I had planned my budget last week, without the 2B increase to my budget, so I have that money spare, on top of the 400M in license fees from the Marians.

Will just save it for next turn.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 September 2018, 18:38:57
Modified turn to include purchase of 10 additional Ribe class stations.  2 over the new planet, other 8 cover growth in number of worlds - extras if any out of the current 130 total assigned as trading posts in low/uninhabited (but well located) systems.

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 06 September 2018, 07:58:40
I wanted to say 'thank you' to Alsadius---that was clearly quite an effort.  I've been working on my turn in the background (it's complex) and expect to finish this weekend.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 06 September 2018, 08:14:35
So in essence the rich inner sphere worlds and the poor ones are bundled up into larger political organizations, whereas in the periphery the richer worlds get the press, and the poorer ones dont get noticed, not being in a nation with the richer ones - much like the Fed Suns 'Outback', which would go pretty much unremarked were it not fedsuns.

Yeah, that's a good way to think of it.

I wanted to say 'thank you' to Alsadius---that was clearly quite an effort.  I've been working on my turn in the background (it's complex) and expect to finish this weekend.

Thank you :)

I'm giving some thought to future turns now, digging into history for stuff that might be fitting. (And seriously, I have got to give the DC and LC some real combat already - I don't think either of you has lost a ship yet.) I'll try to do NPC turns this weekend, and write up the turn next week.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 06 September 2018, 21:24:06
Lena Wilhight finds Shannon Bream's assumed aggressive fighter posture appealing and cultivates it by encouraging her to build an 'appropriately aggressive doctrine' for a wartime tactics together with studies and policy changes necessary to make it happen. 

Test Results
The results of the tests are somewhat puzzling, but perhaps that simply represents the natural variation to be expected in combat situations.  Test 1 results are consistent with about a 30% chance of a kill/MG.   In test 2, the Crestbreaker crews proved significantly less effective than onboard MGs, by approximately a factor of 4 and yet after accounting for this reduced effectiveness, the onboard MG equivalents (approximately 200) had about an 85% chance of a kill, substantially higher than test 1.  From all the tests, we discover that:

ASF
The new doctrine is pervasive antimissile defense, as exhibited by the first Taurian-designed and made heavy strike fighter, a second product of the earlier generation's design war.   The Rager draws inspiration from the Shu heavy fighter except bigger and meaner with a heavy intrinsic antimissile defense.
Code: [Select]
90 ton Rager Base Tech Level: Standard (IS)
Tech Rating: D/C-E-D-D 
Weight: 90 tons
BV: 1,576
Cost: 5,425,030 C-bills 
Movement: 6/9
Engine: 360
Heat Sinks: 10
Fuel Points: 400 (5.0 tons) 
Structural Integrity: 9
Armor: 400
Nose: 120
Left/Right Wing: 100
Aft: 80

Weapons Loc Heat
2x Machine Gun NOS
2x SRM 6 NOS 8
AC/5 NOS 1
5x Machine Gun RW
5x Machine Gun LW
 
Ammo Shots

SRM 6 Ammo (30 shots)
Machine Gun Ammo (200 shots)
AC/5 Ammo (20 shots)
The Rager is designed as a missile delivery vehicle, sporting 5 tons of fuel and a massive engine allowing it to carry up to 3 Barracudas or a Killer Whale and a White Shark while accelerating at 2.25g.  Against faster targets, it can carry a single Killer Whale with 2.9g acceleration or a single Barracuda with 3.4g.  In the missile-heavy environments typical of the modern battlefield, the Rager has substantial built-in defense provided by 12 machine guns making it capable of both self-defense and potentially defending allies.   With missiles away, the Rager's massive engine turns it into a powerful dogfighter capable of routinely pulling 4.5g maneuvers and a more armor than any other fighter in the inner sphere.  The Rager's AC-5 provide a significant punch at medium range against the scout ASFs which are capable of eluding it while the new twin SRM-6's  machine guns pull double-duty as a dogfighting buzzsaw. 
Fleet upgrades
The admiralty remains somewhat split on the decision to go with a Rube Goldberg Warship.  Although those against have not yet developed an effective doctrine given budgetary constraints, two criticisms appear both imminently valid and addressable:
To address these criticisms a new variant of the Taurus I (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1g5scAMMNweNWYZGXjPdWFFuXHM3Ln9_m_3MkrQzPouA/edit?usp=sharing) is created and all are converted into the new variant.
Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Taurus I, block II
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $346,280,000.00
Magazine Cost: $61,000.00
BV2: 13,456

Mass: 100,000
K-F Drive System: None
Power Plant: Station-Keeping Drive
Safe Thrust: 0
Maximum Thrust: 1
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
12 Naval Laser 55
608 Machine Gun (IS)

Class/Model/Name: Taurus I, block II
Mass: 100,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 1,200
Thrust
Safe: 0.2
Maximum: 1
Controls: 100
Structural Integrity: 1 1,000
Total Heat Sinks: 1020 Single 927
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 40000 points 4,080
Fire Control Computers: 18
Armor: 315 pts Standard 393
Fore: 65
Fore-Left/Right: 60/60
Aft-Left/Right: 45/45
Aft: 40

Dropship Capacity: 1 1,000
Grav Decks:
Medium: 1 100
Life Boats: 328 2,296

Crew And Passengers:
30 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 300
35 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 245
114 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 798
744 Bay Personnel 0
2172 Steerage Passengers 10,600

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass Ammo Rounds Mass
12 Naval Laser 55 Nose 1020 660 (66-C) Extreme-C 13,200 Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 2400 12.00
120 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 240 (24-C) Short-PDS 60 Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 2400 12.00
120 Machine Gun (IS) FR 240 (24-C) Short-PDS 60 Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 2400 12.00
120 Machine Gun (IS) FL 240 (24-C) Short-PDS 60 Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 2400 12.00
120 Machine Gun (IS) AR 240 (24-C) Short-PDS 60 Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 2400 12.00
120 Machine Gun (IS) AL 240 (24-C) Short-PDS 60 Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 200 1.00
8 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
40 Small Craft+24 ASF 11,600 3
40 Small Craft+24 ASF 11,600 3
40 Small Craft+24 ASF 11,600 3
28,100 Cargo, Standard 28,100 1
Taking advantage of an overhaul, the Taurus I also has onboard MGs doubled as suggested by test results and adds a docking collar for easy cargo transport to and from  existing dropships.  The net result is a design that is better defended from missiles, with more range, and with much more operational flexibility.   For example, the new Taurus I can quarter and transport two regiments of vehicles with one ready to land from the new Skyfall combat drop shuttle and the other transported as cargo.
Code: [Select]
200 ton Smallcraft Skyfall Combat Drop Shuttle Base Tech Level: Standard (IS)
Tech Rating: D/D-E-D-D 
Weight: 200 tons BV: 776
Cost: 7,135,560 C-bills 
Movement: 3/5
Heat Sinks: 0
Fuel Points: 240 (3.0 tons)
Tons Per Burn Day: 1.84 
Structural Integrity: 5

Armor: 300
Nose: 90
Left/Right Wing: 75
Aft: 60

Weapons Loc Heat
6x Machine Gun NOS 0
Machine Gun Ammo (100 shots)

Carrying Capacity
Heavy Vehicle Bay (1 door) - 1 unit // the Light variant carries two light vehicle bays.
Cargo Space (1 door) - 10 tons 

Crew
Officers 1
Enlisted/Non-rated 2
Gunners 1
Bay Personnel 8
The Taurus I block II loaded for space combat (the default) has 12 Crestbreaker missile defense shuttles, 12 David Marine shuttles with 2 reinforced Regiments of marines (1800), and 7 Air Divisions (168 ASF) with 120 tons of Capital Missiles/ASF. 

For ground combat, the load is 12 Crestbreaker missile defense shuttles and 5 air divisions (108) of Skyfall combat dropshuttles loaded with a regiment of combat vehicles (a heavy battalion and 2 light battalions).  A second regiment is carried as cargo with each regiment quartered on the Taurus I and an extra 10 tons of cargo space for reloads & repair associated with each vehicle.   In addition, 3 Air divisions (72 ASF) provide air support for the ground forces supported by 100 tons of cargo space/ASF for missiles, bombs, etc...

In either configuration, the Taurus I has fuel to support 20 jumps and provisions for a half year as well as a kiloton of extras for reload & repair.

The Taurus I still has a gaping hole in it's missile defense around it's primary laser battery.  To address this, a block II design for the Tick was created which mounts 120 Machine guns in a single arc allowing it to plug the missile defense hole. 
Code: [Select]
5000 ton Tick Dropship block II Base
Tech Level: Standard (IS)
Tech Rating: D/E-E-E-E 
Weight: 5000 tons
BV: 4,691
Cost: 235,303,600 C-bills 
Movement: 11/17
Heat Sinks: 155
Fuel Points: 5400 (175.0 tons)
Tons Per Burn Day: 1.84 
Structural Integrity: 20
Armor: 1232

Armor
Nose 308
Left Side 308
Right Side 308
Aft 308

Weapons Loc Heat
120x Machine Gun  AFT 0
Machine Gun Ammo AFT 1800

   Carrying Capacity Cargo Space (1 door) - 29.5 tons 
Equipment: Naval Tug---600 tons
Crew
Officers 5
Enlisted/Non-rated 0
Gunners 20
With the upgraded onboard machine guns, Crestbreaker smallcraft, and Rager ASF, almost 3 thousand machine guns can potentially be brought to bear against a missile wave.

Transport Infrastructure & Intelligence
Lena is also concerned with improving the reaction time of TC forces.  Although many merchants operate in the TC, as a matter of profit they try to always jump to and from inhabited systems causing the TC to be broken into several weakly-connected archipelagos of merchant traffic.  To improve the rate and reliability of communication, a plan to create several 'rest stops' along 'highways' assisting merchant travel is developed.  Several of these, use stars without habitable planets to bridge these archipelagos.  Doing this requires a Mother-transportable design for a station which necessitates a depot approach instead of more standard recharge batteries.
Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Siesta
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $131,430,000.00
Magazine Cost: $12,000.00
BV2: 6,570

Mass: 100,000
K-F Drive System: None
Power Plant: Station-Keeping Drive
Safe Thrust: 0
Maximum Thrust: 1
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
108 Machine Gun (IS)
3 Naval Laser 55

Class/Model/Name: Siesta
Mass: 100,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 1,200
Thrust
Safe: 0.2
Maximum: 1
Controls: 100
Structural Integrity: 1 1,000
Total Heat Sinks: 255 Single 162
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 240000 points 24,480
Fire Control Computers: 0
Armor: 315 pts Standard 393
Fore: 53
Fore-Left/Right: 53/53
Aft-Left/Right: 52/52
Aft: 52

Dropship Capacity: 2 2,000
Grav Decks:
Small: 1 50
Life Boats: 36 252

Crew And Passengers:
15 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 150
50 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 350
21 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 147
182 Bay Personnel 0
164 Steerage Passengers 820

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass Ammo Rounds Mass
18 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 36 (3.6-C) Short-PDS 9 Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 400 2.00
18 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 36 (3.6-C) Short-PDS 9 Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 400 2.00
18 Machine Gun (IS) FR 36 (3.6-C) Short-PDS 9 Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 400 2.00
18 Machine Gun (IS) FL 36 (3.6-C) Short-PDS 9 Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 400 2.00
18 Machine Gun (IS) AR 36 (3.6-C) Short-PDS 9 Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 400 2.00
18 Machine Gun (IS) AL 36 (3.6-C) Short-PDS 9 Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 400 2.00
1 Naval Laser 55 Nose 85 55 (5.5-C) Extreme-C 1,100
1 Naval Laser 55 AL 85 55 (5.5-C) Extreme-C 1,100
1 Naval Laser 55 AR 85 55 (5.5-C) Extreme-C 1,100

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
6 Bay Small Craft 1,200 3 (1 Crestbreaker AMS craft, 1 David Marine Shuttle, 4 utilitarian)
62,945 Cargo, Standard 62,945 1
400 Cargo, Insulated 460 1
6 Bay Fighter 900 3
5 Bay Conventional Infantry (IS), Foot 25
The Siesta station (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UnypI6JpjYGIULn4O_QddXnKJUl_A1LBx2BRcLl4KFY/edit?usp=sharing) is capable of fueling well over 120 jumpship charges before resupply, has ample space for transshipment storage, and it can simultaneously refuel 3 jumpships via 2 docking collars and a refueling drogue with a ready load.  The design sports substantial antimeteor defenses that can also be used in a missile defense role, as well as a few powerful capital lasers to enforce security non-capital craft in it's immediate environment.  The heavy armor and ASF bays provide significant security against small scale pirates and a company of marines provide security within the station itself.   All civilian vessels using the Siesta fuel stations are expected to carry and retransmit encrypted military messages as a matter of course.  Furthermore, interviews with jumpship crew members about news they've seen while they charge the jump drive are a common part of Siesta use.   The transshipment facilities are capacious and available for reasonable rental rates as long as cargo passes safety inspections.  In effect, the Siesta stations both create and conduct TC intelligence.

Aside from transportability, which allows these stations to be easily installed in uninhabited systems or even the deep black, the Siesta design provides the ability to service surges of jumpship traffic unlike standard battery-based designs.  The significant drawback of this approach is the refuel requirements which will be dealt with by dedicating a Mother with a tanker variant of the Siesta (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmpEIivh1EDgkWOubxxvD9ckQIY7R1D9X9IRm5-I5_0/edit#gid=0) to resupply.  Since hydrogen is easily available from cracking water, the cost of hydrogen is essentially all in the transport so this should keep the cost of fuel down. 
Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Siesta Tanker
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $159,735,000.00
Magazine Cost: $3,000.00
BV2: 5,548

Mass: 100,000
K-F Drive System: None
Power Plant: Station-Keeping Drive
Safe Thrust: 0
Maximum Thrust: 1
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
18 Machine Gun (IS)

Class/Model/Name: Siesta Tanker
Mass: 100,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 1,200
Thrust
Safe: 0.2
Maximum: 1
Controls: 100
K-F Hyperdrive: None (0 Integrity) 0
Jump Sail: (0 Integrity) 0
Structural Integrity: 1 1,000
Total Heat Sinks: 93 Single 0
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 850000 points 86,700
Fire Control Computers: 0
Armor: 315 pts Standard 393
Fore: 53
Fore-Left/Right: 53/53
Aft-Left/Right: 52/52
Aft: 52

Dropship Capacity: 1 1,000
Grav Decks:
Small: 1 50
Life Boats: 18 126

Crew And Passengers:
12 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 120
53 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 371
3 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 21
70 Bay Personnel 0
52 Steerage Passengers 260

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass Ammo Rounds Mass
3 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 6 (0.6-C) Short-PDS 2 Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 100 0.50
3 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 6 (0.6-C) Short-PDS 2 Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 100 0.50
3 Machine Gun (IS) FR 6 (0.6-C) Short-PDS 2 Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 100 0.50
3 Machine Gun (IS) FL 6 (0.6-C) Short-PDS 2 Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 100 0.50
3 Machine Gun (IS) AR 6 (0.6-C) Short-PDS 2 Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 100 0.50
3 Machine Gun (IS) AL 6 (0.6-C) Short-PDS 2 Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 100 0.50

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
6 Bay Small Craft 1,200 3
6,082 Cargo, Standard 6,082 1
400 Cargo, Insulated 460 1
1 Bay Conventional Infantry (IS), Foot 5 1
6 Bay Fighter 900    3
The initial highways here are:
Taurus/Pleiades: Taurus<->Midale<->Fintoft<->Pleiades (4 jumps)
Zanzibar/Badlands: Zanzibar<->Corodiz<->deep<->Midale<->Brockway<->deep<->deep<->Warren<->deep<->Montour<->Verdigreis<->deep<->Badlands Cluster (12 jumps)
Malagrotta cutoff: Montour<->Cohagen<->Estuan<->black<->Malagrotta (4 jumps)
where 'black' indicates the use of an otherwise uninhabited intermediately located star and 'deep' indicates the use of a deep space station sheltered inside a more minor object capable of generating a hyper limit.  Typically, these stations are posted just inside the hyper limit, about 10 minutes away.  (OOC, I'm combining information about distance from this map: http://battletech.rpg.hu/dynmech/planets/ismap_standalone.php?era_id=0&id=1943 with the Capellan/TC border from this map http://www.sarna.net/wiki/File:Taurian_Concordat_partial_2366.png and the overall structure of this map http://cfw.sarna.net/wiki/images/2/24/TC_2571.png.) 

These highways leave virtually all TC stars at most a single jump from the highway and offer more direct transit routes between distant stars. As an example of this, Verdigreis<->Taurus is 11 jumps by conventional routes, and a border must be crossed into FedSuns territory.  Using the highway system, this is only 8 jumps entirely within the TC.  Given standard merchant traffic, this should leave all parts of the TC informed of important events in about a 2 week or smaller timeframe while reducing response time to a near-minimum.

Budget
The budget breaks down as:
Code: [Select]
              Cost/unit #active Maintenance
Kutai                    6092 2         1218
Marathon              621 7         435
Independence    4567   (1 mothball) 0
Fighters                 5 1325         663
Smallcraft                10 96          96
Mother              933 4         373
Taurus I              552 4         221
Light DS              300 8         240
Total Maintenance 3246

Prototyping costs, total 501
Siesta                 131
Siesta Tanker variant   80
Tick I block II variant 118
Taurus I block II variant 173

Refits #done
Refit, Taurus I Block II 4 80
Refit, Tick 1 block II 4 36 Assuming this can be done without taking up yard space.

New Construction
Mother         2     1866 One refuels the highways with a Siesta Tanker while the other does special missions.
Taurus I, block II 1 346
Tick, block II         1 235 
Fighters              360 1800 Ragers, posted on 2 Taurus I's by default.
Smallcraft              216 2160 Skyfall combat dropshuttles that can drop or lift a regiment from or to a Taurus I.
Siesta              20 2620
Siesta Tanker        1 160

Research                 130
Savings from last turn -183
Savings for next turn 2

Policy
To minimize reaction time, the Taurus I fleet will be moved to the Midale crossroads system.  This fleet is meant to be kept concentrated although up to 1 RGW may be detached for other duties if it is deemed a clearly sufficient force.  In the event of an overwhelming invasion, the policy is to fall back to Taurus and link up with the orbital forts for maximal force concentration.  The Taurus I may be used for regimental transport of land forces, but by default they remain ASF carriers with the new Rager ASFs carrying missile loads of Killer Whales, Barracudas, or a mixture depending on the mission.  The general doctrine is to prefer attacking capital ships over ASF, although it's entirely plausible to use a Killer Whale+Barracuda load, salvo the Barracudas to eliminate ASF defenders, then salvo the Killer Whales to eliminate the capital ships.

Kutai Alpha patrols the Midale/Badlands and Montour/Malagrotta highways using 2 ASF heavy dropships for support.  Kutai Beta patrols the Pleiades/Taurus and Midale/Zanzibar highways using 2 ASF heavy dropships for support.  If ground support is needed, the Kutai can interdict a planet and call in a Taurus I with ground forces.

Planetary airwings will consist of a minimum of 2 squadrons (~600 ASF in total) with much more for important worlds.  Defense doctrine has the ASF primarily attacking invaders in atmosphere to maximize the advantage of ASF over other spaceborn assets.

Each deployed Siesta will have a squadron of ASF used for defense.

Edit: an Addendum (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1444988#msg1444988)
Edit: Fixed fire control tonnage on Taurus I v2
Edit: added links
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 06 September 2018, 21:32:36
1.)  Love the turn and the detail, as well as the report on test findings.  Like the idea of stations over useful unihabited systems - may steal.

2.) In my head, Ranger is totally Shuu 2.0, or prounced Shoo-Point-O.  :)  Though the generalization of fighters keeps it from mattering in play (and I support this decision), when I get around to the Shuu refit, itll look a lot like that.

3.)  So, Im confused - Siesta is a gas station to carry hydrogen?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 07 September 2018, 05:59:34
3.)  So, Im confused - Siesta is a gas station to carry hydrogen?
Yes---it supports fast and reliable turn-around for jumpships via the fuel necessary for a fusion plant based charge.  My understanding is that this method is atypical since the fuel carried by a jumpship is rather small but entirely feasible as per SO 87, 124, 125.

It has other roles as well, of course such as transshipment warehouse.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 07 September 2018, 07:16:55
1.)  Love the turn and the detail, as well as the report on test findings.  Like the idea of stations over useful unihabited systems - may steal.
Have fun.  The TC seems particularly well suited to this due to it's linear structure and Midale is an excellent crossrooads---it has a large number of inhabited systems right at the 30 light year limit.   One way to measure the quality of a highway is via the number of extra jumps required to get somewhere compared to a sequence of all-black stations spaced precisely 30 light years apart in deep space.  There is only one wasted jump on the Zanzibar/Badlands highway with none elsewhere.  The one wasted jump seems a worthwhile tradeoff against easier refueling, backup access to a star for recharging, and zero additional jumps to several systems.
2.) In my head, Ranger is totally Shuu 2.0, or prounced Shoo-Point-O.  :)  Though the generalization of fighters keeps it from mattering in play (and I support this decision), when I get around to the Shuu refit, itll look a lot like that.
Yeah, the Rager is probably closer to what you had in mind given the discussion about SI.  It also seems like the logical design given the combat situation.  I considered an SRM-heavy load which certainly has a higher damage ceiling, but missile defense likely inverts that relationship even in conventional battletech.  Also, the medium range of the AC-5 has some real value.

W.r.t. generalization of fighters the current plan for the TC is to replace all fighters over the coming decades making the generalized 2 MGs/fighter for the TH deeply unrealistic for the TC.  I think if we want to keep this all about warships, then abstracting fighters makes some sense, but on the other hand the Rager design indicates that the design of small units like ASF matters significantly in aggregate at the warship scale.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 07 September 2018, 07:50:18
A few notes:

1) Stations can be constructed in uninhabited systems, per my discussion here (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1442970#msg1442970). I think the RWR command circuit contains one Renaissance "in the black", from what I recall of routes when I made it. As such, you're not limited to 100,000 tons. You might still prefer to keep them that small, but I wanted you to know the choice exists.

2) To keep the math simple, you can assume a proper site for a "black" station exists that will let you cover 25LY of linear distance per jump, so if you want to bridge a 75LY gap without hitting inhabited systems, you can use two in the middle instead of following the inhabited-planet route you'd get from a jump planner. (Stars aren't literally everywhere, but they're pretty common, so this seems reasonable).

3) Machine guns act as meaningful missile defences against capital missiles only. They might shoot down the odd SRM, but they won't be much easier to hit than a Killer Whale - less armour, but also smaller and with much less tracking time before impact. Given they do 1/20 the damage, that means the same MG battery prevents 1/20 as much damage at best, which rounds to zero. This may change when true AMS comes into the equation, but for now I wouldn't worry about SRM/LRM attacks being shot down en masse.

4) You can make designs for your own support craft, but I will not take them into account when resolving battles, other than to get a general sense of "most of their DS are carrier-fit" or "they use SC mostly as AMS defences" or the like. You can pick genres, but I can't possibly keep all the individual designs straight - it already takes about as much time for me to understand the setup for a battle as it does to write the thing, even ignoring all of those designs.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 07 September 2018, 09:25:16
1) Stations can be constructed in uninhabited systems, per my discussion here (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1442970#msg1442970). I think the RWR command circuit contains one Renaissance "in the black", from what I recall of routes when I made it. As such, you're not limited to 100,000 tons. You might still prefer to keep them that small, but I wanted you to know the choice exists.
While it may be possible to construct a space station on location, it's likely easier to construct it at Taurus (for example) with yard support, then transport it so I'll stick with the a 100K ton design unless you see a functional flaw.   Consider this fluff.
2) To keep the math simple, you can assume a proper site for a "black" station exists that will let you cover 25LY of linear distance per jump, so if you want to bridge a 75LY gap without hitting inhabited systems, you can use two in the middle instead of following the inhabited-planet route you'd get from a jump planner. (Stars aren't literally everywhere, but they're pretty common, so this seems reasonable).
This causes issues for the TC highways as designed.  Would you go lower?

Extrapolating from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars_and_brown_dwarfs there are ~324 stellar systems within a 30 light year radius of Sol, roughly one star per 200 cubic light years.  Playing with trigonometry, it's possible to make 25LY of linear progress within the cap made by a 33 degree radius cone intersecting a sphere which seems to have about 2000 cubic light years suggesting the 5 LY gap is rather conservative.  The relationship between the volume available and the linear gap is cubic which suggests a 30-(2000/200)^0.333 = 27.85LY is a more typical average linear progress at Sol-neighborhood densities. 

Barring this, how do you feel about deep black stations? 
3) Machine guns act as meaningful missile defences against capital missiles only. They might shoot down the odd SRM, but they won't be much easier to hit than a Killer Whale - less armour, but also smaller and with much less tracking time before impact. Given they do 1/20 the damage, that means the same MG battery prevents 1/20 as much damage at best, which rounds to zero. This may change when true AMS comes into the equation, but for now I wouldn't worry about SRM/LRM attacks being shot down en masse.
Interesting---I might revisit the Rager design given this change.
4) You can make designs for your own support craft, but I will not take them into account when resolving battles, other than to get a general sense of "most of their DS are carrier-fit" or "they use SC mostly as AMS defences" or the like. You can pick genres, but I can't possibly keep all the individual designs straight - it already takes about as much time for me to understand the setup for a battle as it does to write the thing, even ignoring all of those designs.
Your part of this does seem like the limiting factor so we should not add to that.  Maybe we can agree on a baseline ASF design that you can just use as the default?  There have only been two proposed, and they are rather similar.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 07 September 2018, 09:32:27
What distances did you assume when making your jump routing? I picked 25 because it was easy, but 27-28 wouldn't bug me.

I was thinking of making "standard" designs over the weekend, to give us all a common benchmark. We'll see if I have the time.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 07 September 2018, 09:53:45
What distances did you assume when making your jump routing? I picked 25 because it was easy, but 27-28 wouldn't bug me.
Honestly, I forgot to take this into account.  Looking through:
Midale<->Condiz is 55.84LY
Brockway<->Warren is 85.27LY (3 jumps)
Warren<->Montour is 51.12LY
Verdigreis<->Badlands is 56.6LY
Estuan<->Malagrotta is 47.83LY

Only Estuan<->Malagrotta succeeds with 25LY/jump.  Brockway<->Warren and Verdigreis<->Badlands requires slightly over 28LY/jump.

Having a standardized reference design does seem like it would be helpful.  You also don't necessarily need to do that yourself.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 07 September 2018, 10:01:53
I can't justify anything over 28 - that's too generous. Let's say 25 LY/jump if you want to keep them above a star. 30 LY/jump is possible, but they'll be deep space stations, meaning you have no local infrastructure support, no hyper limit to hide inside, and no ability to power yourself with solar panels. A typical station can survive that, but it'll impose a heavier logistics load than most. (And on the up side, if your engine dies you won't fall into the star the way so many recharge stations did in the SW era)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 07 September 2018, 11:33:11
I can't justify anything over 28 - that's too generous. Let's say 25 LY/jump if you want to keep them above a star. 30 LY/jump is possible, but they'll be deep space stations, meaning you have no local infrastructure support, no hyper limit to hide inside, and no ability to power yourself with solar panels. A typical station can survive that, but it'll impose a heavier logistics load than most. (And on the up side, if your engine dies you won't fall into the star the way so many recharge stations did in the SW era)
The logistics load doesn't seem like a problem for now given the dedication of a Mother to servicing these stations and a vast cargo hold.  We'll go with the deep black stations where necessary for a decade and see if the merchants can become comfortable with the profit margins they create.

W.r.t. hyper limits, can a Kutai (with a small NCSS) find an Oort cloud-like object for the stations?  I understand these are reasonably common and it would prevent misjump accidents from taking out a station if it's just inside the hyper limit of some minor planetoid / large comet.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 07 September 2018, 11:40:10
Anchor near a rogue planet?

Just skimming wikipedia, there are estimates of between .25 and 2 Jupiter sized rogues per star.

And theres a 2012 article in the Stanford Reporter suggesting up to 100,000 rogues per actual star. (Though by my poor understanding, this estimate assums that the dark matter is rogues)

But yeah, depending on facts not in evidence IRL, there may be plenty of gravitic anchors... and resources... out in the black.

And, Ill admit, I find frozen rogue worlds, sailing through space, strangely romantic.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 07 September 2018, 11:51:58
Tidal force is stated as the cause of jump limits, and tidal force is proportional to M/(R^3). The Sun's jump radius is just over 1.58 billion km, so an Earth-sized anchor (which weighs ~1/333,000 of the Sun's mass) would have a limit of (1/333,000)^(1/3) of the Sun's, or about 1/69 as large. That's about 23 million km, which is probably plenty for your purposes. For something the size of Ceres, it's about 1.2 million km, which is getting small-ish - a typical attacker could get to the anchor's orbit in about 4 hours, even at an easy 1g burn, or just over six hours if they want to stop when they get there.

Something Ceres-sized is likely to be in the desired volume, but finding it is difficult and would require serious survey efforts. Something larger is rarer, but also easier to find if it does exist. So I'll say that you can probably find some kind of anchor for most of your stations that are truly in the black, but they'll be very much a mixed bag, and some will be pretty useless.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 07 September 2018, 15:21:26
All of these seem entirely fine.   In fact, the Siesta stations will adopt a policy of being only 10 minutes inside of a hyper limit at 1G (~= half hour at .1G).  The point of these stations is being easy to get to, and we only keep the buffer to avoid navigational accidents and support human level reaction times in case of need. 

Related to your estimates, SO page 133 lists a typical Kuiper belt object as have a proximity limit at 10000 km with a transit time of .56 hours. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 08 September 2018, 16:06:43
I made adjustments to designs based on the discussion above.

--The Rager ASF dropped an AC/5 for 2 SRM-6s. (It doesn't matter to the game, but it's plausibly a worthwhile tradeoff.)
--The TDF is apparently organized around 30 man platoons http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Taurian_Defense_Force so I added some quarters to the Taurus I.
--I adjusted the Taurus I to have 108 variably used Smallcraft bays, 12 always-smallcraft bays and 72 always-ASF bays after realizing that ASF support is probably important if  the Taurus I is tasked with ground combat mission support.
--I added a design for the 'Skyfall combat dropshuttle' which supports 100 tons of vehicles, 10 tons of cargo, some significant armor, and a small array of MGs for combat.
--I added some detail about how the Taurus I supports 2 regiments of ground forces.
--I added 3 NL/55s to each Siesta.  Given the deep space mission profile it seems important to have a capital scale weapon as well as capital scale armor.
--I adjusted the budget in various ways to pay for everything.
--I marked which stations are 'deep' vs. merely 'black'.

In addition, I found the exact formula for a spherical cap here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cap.  Using the formula, 28.06 light years is the linear distance such that the spherical cap contains a volume equivalent to the average volume/star within the 5 parsec neighborhood of Sol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars_and_brown_dwarfs while at 25 light years the cap contains about 6.4 times as much volume.  I'm fine sticking with 25 on the theory that the stellar medium has significant density variations if that's what you prefer, but 28 also seems pretty reasonable.  28 would leave two of the stations deep black.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 08 September 2018, 20:01:35
I added the Tick II as a separate entry in the Master Sheet. I originally left it as just a part of the Taurus I, but though having it separate would be better in case you build spares.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 08 September 2018, 21:56:05
I added the Tick II as a separate entry in the Master Sheet. I originally left it as just a part of the Taurus I, but though having it separate would be better in case you build spares.
Thanks.   It ended up not being relevant this round.  Maybe in later rounds....

We should try to reconcile budgets, partly to make sure I'm doing things right.  Things I see:
1) I think you dropped the 4 older Tick's maintenance.
2) The total budget is 13B, 1B larger.
3) The Independence is entirely mothballed (0% maintenance).
4) I have research at 130M.
5) I was using the 'ship refit' rules for the block II designs rather than an entirely new design, which is half price.  (Did I get that right?)
6) The Taurus I block II is 346M, not 330M (life support is expensive...)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 09 September 2018, 01:01:37
Thanks.   It ended up not being relevant this round.  Maybe in later rounds....

We should try to reconcile budgets, partly to make sure I'm doing things right.  Things I see:
1) I think you dropped the 4 older Tick's maintenance.
2) The total budget is 13B, 1B larger.
3) The Independence is entirely mothballed (0% maintenance).
4) I have research at 130M.
5) I was using the 'ship refit' rules for the block II designs rather than an entirely new design, which is half price.  (Did I get that right?)
6) The Taurus I block II is 346M, not 330M (life support is expensive...)

1) to 4) - That budget would be for last turn, tbh I haven't worried about doing a turn by turn budget on the Master Sheet, I trust your math.

5) You would be correct, the sheet just doesn't identify between refits and new production. Again I trust the math on your budget.

6) Whoops, my mistake. This has been fixed.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 09 September 2018, 08:41:27
1) to 4) - That budget would be for last turn, tbh I haven't worried about doing a turn by turn budget on the Master Sheet, I trust your math.

5) You would be correct, the sheet just doesn't identify between refits and new production. Again I trust the math on your budget.

6) Whoops, my mistake. This has been fixed.
Sounds good. 

You might want to update the TC as not an NPC on the first page.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 09 September 2018, 09:30:03
The Rim Worlds Republic feels that its mobile forces are sufficient for the moment. Efforts for the next decade will be focused on infrastructure and fixed defences. The secondary shipyard at Finmark is being upgraded to be able to produce ships of the same scale as the Vittoria, and a new defensive station will be built to protect the important planets of Finmark and Apollo.

The Scutum retains the same anti-fighter emphasis as the Vittoria, but it diversifies its weapons load somewhat by using AR-10 launchers. While the standard missile load does focus on Barracudas, the station also has the ability to launch substantial numbers of ship-killer missiles if needed. The Terran "pit stop" model of fighter bays to reload planet-based fighter squadrons has also been adopted, to give the planet-based fighter squadrons a faster method of reloading and refueling during orbital combat.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Scutum
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $400,587,025.00
Magazine Cost: $18,216,400.00
BV2: 29,796

Mass: 120,000
K-F Drive System: None
Power Plant: Station-Keeping Drive
Safe Thrust: 0
Maximum Thrust: 0
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
120 Machine Gun (IS)
96 AC 5
16 Naval Laser 55
64 Capital Launcher AR-10

Class/Model/Name: Scutum
Mass: 120,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 1,440
Thrust
Safe: 0.1
Maximum: 0.1
Controls: 120
K-F Hyperdrive: None (0 Integrity) 0
Jump Sail: (0 Integrity) 0
Structural Integrity: 1 1,200
Total Heat Sinks: 2736 Single 2,638
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 2500 points 510
Fire Control Computers: 6,872
Armor: 368 pts Standard 460
Fore: 80
Fore-Left/Right: 70/70
Aft-Left/Right: 55/55
Aft: 38

Dropship Capacity: 0
Grav Decks:
Small: 2 100
Medium: 0
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 25 175
Life Boats: 25 175

Crew And Passengers:
32 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 320
37 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 259
116 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 812
108 Bay Personnel in 2nd Class Quarters 756
28 Marines in 2nd Class Quarters 196

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
20 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
20 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
20 Machine Gun (IS) FR 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
20 Machine Gun (IS) FL 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
20 Machine Gun (IS) AR 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
20 Machine Gun (IS) AL 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
16 AC 5 Nose 16 80 (8-C) Medium 128
16 AC 5 Aft 16 80 (8-C) Medium 128
16 AC 5 FR 16 80 (8-C) Medium 128
16 AC 5 FL 16 80 (8-C) Medium 128
16 AC 5 AR 16 80 (8-C) Medium 128
16 AC 5 AL 16 80 (8-C) Medium 128
16 Naval Laser 55 Nose 1360 880 (88-C) Extreme-C 17,600
16 Capital Launcher AR-10 FR 320 640 (64-C) Extreme-C 4,000
16 Capital Launcher AR-10 FL 320 640 (64-C) Extreme-C 4,000
16 Capital Launcher AR-10 AR 320 640 (64-C) Extreme-C 4,000
16 Capital Launcher AR-10 AL 320 640 (64-C) Extreme-C 4,000

Ammo Rounds Mass
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 12000 60.00
AC 5 Ammo 9584 479.20
Capital Launcher Barracuda Ammo 640 19,200.00
Capital Launcher Killer Whale Ammo 320 16,000.00
Capital Launcher White Shark Ammo 320 12,800.00

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
15,000 Cargo, Standard 15,000 2
12 Bay Small Craft 2,400 2
24 Bay Fighter 3,600 6

BUDGET: $28,000m
Maintenance (@100%): $8,549m
Shipyard (Finmark 1>2): $10,000m
Scutum R&D: $401m
16x Scutum: $6,416m
192x small craft: $1,920m
Research: $714m

---

The United Hindu Commonwealth remains dedicated to peaceful co-existence secured by powerful self-defence capability. While they are still eschewing black-water navy construction, they've redoubled their efforts to defend their space. The single Pratham station at each jump point of Panpour has been reinforced to four stations each, and substantial investments in support craft have been made for local system defence.

BUDGET: $25,000m
Maintenance(@150%): $8,231m
6x Pratham: $3,030m
2x DropShip: $600m
180x small craft: $1,800m
2100x fighter: $10,500m
Research: $839m
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 09 September 2018, 21:23:02
A simple rules question: Is the cost of a refit the price difference (as stated in the arms race master spreedsheet)?  Or is it the absolute value of the price difference (as might make more sense when viewing this as work done)?  Or something else when a refit is cheaper than the original?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 10 September 2018, 06:42:18
The price difference, minimum zero. I figure that if you're stripping NAC/40s off to replace them with cargo space, you can re-use or re-sell the guns to recoup some of the costs. (This is also why doing a refit requires paying R&D costs - I figure that'll keep people honest, so I don't need to worry too much about abuses of refit rules.)

---

Langdon Echohawk had taken control of the Terran Hegemony, but his task now was to keep that control. Unlike James McKenna 80 years prior, the government he overthrew was relatively functional, and respected(if not always liked) by most of the populace. To bring the population around, Echohawk reduced taxes, increased spending on prominent infrastructure programs, and pandered shamelessly to as many groups as he could. While more economically savvy citizens worried about the giant deficits he was running, most preferred the cash in hand to abstract budgetary debates.

Keeping the military on-side was a more difficult challenge, if only because they had the ability to do unto him as he had done unto others. The problem he faced was, at root, that Brian Cameron's proposed changes were mostly logical, and he'd used opposition to them as his path to power. Since he couldn't simply turn around and implement his own casus belli, he needed to get creative.

The Army's opposition to Cameron's naval changes had centred on the reduced cargo-carrying capacity of the fleet ships, and so he decided to pacify them with two new designs. The Potemkin was a heavily armoured assault transport, designed to carry a whole division into combat and provide it with logistical and bombardment support. The ship is incredibly expensive, due to the decision to give it fully twice as many DropShip collars as any other ship in service, but the cost was secondary in Echohawk's mind to the need to prove that he was taking the Army's concerns seriously.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Potemkin
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $19,869,128,004.00
Magazine Cost: $61,360,000.00
BV2: 60,797

Mass: 1,400,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 2
Maximum Thrust: 3
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
160 Machine Gun (IS)
96 LRM 20 (IS)
16 Naval AC 10
8 Naval Laser 55
4 Naval PPC Heavy

Class/Model/Name: Potemkin
Mass: 1,400,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 168,000
Thrust
Safe: 2.0
Maximum: 3.0
Controls: 3,500
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (28 Integrity) 633,500
Jump Sail: (6 Integrity) 100
Structural Integrity: 120 168,000
Total Heat Sinks: 1768 Single 1,144
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 6000 points 2,448
Fire Control Computers: 5,384
Armor: 1416 pts Standard 3,360
Fore: 220
Fore-Left/Right: 250/250
Aft-Left/Right: 250/250
Aft: 196

Dropship Capacity: 12 12,000
Grav Decks:
Small: 0
Medium: 6 600
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 1300 9,100
Life Boats: 1300 9,100

Crew And Passengers:
67 Officers in 2nd Class Quarters 469
258 Crew in Steerage Quarters 1,290
71 Gunners and Others in Steerage Quarters 355
3840 Bay Personnel 0 (included below)
480 2nd Class Passengers 3,360
16000 Steerage Passengers 80,000

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
20 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
20 Machine Gun (IS) RBS 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
20 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
20 Machine Gun (IS) LBS 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
20 Machine Gun (IS) FR 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
20 Machine Gun (IS) FL 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
20 Machine Gun (IS) AR 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
20 Machine Gun (IS) AL 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
12 LRM 20 (IS) Nose 72 144 (14.4-C) Long 120
12 LRM 20 (IS) RBS 72 144 (14.4-C) Long 120
12 LRM 20 (IS) Aft 72 144 (14.4-C) Long 120
12 LRM 20 (IS) LBS 72 144 (14.4-C) Long 120
12 LRM 20 (IS) FR 72 144 (14.4-C) Long 120
12 LRM 20 (IS) FL 72 144 (14.4-C) Long 120
12 LRM 20 (IS) AR 72 144 (14.4-C) Long 120
12 LRM 20 (IS) AL 72 144 (14.4-C) Long 120
4 Naval AC 10 FR 120 400 (40-C) Long-C 8,000
4 Naval AC 10 FL 120 400 (40-C) Long-C 8,000
4 Naval AC 10 AR 120 400 (40-C) Long-C 8,000
4 Naval AC 10 AL 120 400 (40-C) Long-C 8,000
4 Naval Laser 55 RBS 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
4 Naval Laser 55 LBS 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
4 Naval PPC Heavy Nose 900 600 (60-C) Extreme-C 12,000

Ammo Rounds Mass
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 32000 160.00
LRM 20 (IS) Ammo 8400 1,400.00
Naval AC 10 Ammo 3200 640.00

Bay 1: (4 doors) - cargo, including fresh food and fuel
150,000 Cargo, Standard 150,000
8,700 Cargo, Refrigerated 10,000
18,200 Cargo, Liquid 20,000

Bay 2: (12 doors)
120 Bay Small Craft 24,000
120 Bay Fighter 18,000

Bay 3: (6 doors) - drop facilities for orbital insertion
200 Bay Vehicle Heavy 20,000
50 Bay Conventional Infantry (IS), Foot 250

The Charon is a dedicated military transport, intended for rapid replenishment of underway forces, both ground and space. Boasting far less passenger capacity than a Potemkin(a regiment, instead of a division), but nearly the same cargo capacity, the Charon is also designed with gigantic fuel reserves to allow for fast recharging of her jump drive, or even high-speed 3g burns to a planet in situations where resupply is urgent.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Charon
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $8,349,438,004.00
Magazine Cost: $24,120,000.00
BV2: 16,632

Mass: 700,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 4
Maximum Thrust: 6
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
240 Machine Gun (IS)
80 LRM 20 (IS)

Class/Model/Name: Charon
Mass: 700,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 168,000
Thrust
Safe: 4.0
Maximum: 6.0
Controls: 1,750
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (15 Integrity) 316,750
Jump Sail: (5 Integrity) 65
Structural Integrity: 60 42,000
Total Heat Sinks: 624 Single 0
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 32000 points 13,056
Fire Control Computers: 184
Armor: 372 pts Standard 840
Fore: 72
Fore-Left/Right: 50/50
Aft-Left/Right: 50/50
Aft: 100

Dropship Capacity: 2 2,000
Grav Decks:
Small: 0
Medium: 2 200
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 140 980
Life Boats: 140 980

Crew And Passengers:
40 Officers in 2nd Class Quarters 280
145 Crew in Steerage Quarters 725
54 Gunners and Others in Steerage Quarters 270
300 Bay Personnel in Steerage Quarters (see below)
16 1st Class Passengers 160
60 2nd Class Passengers 420
1500 Steerage Passengers 7,500 (including bay personnel)

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
30 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 60 (6-C) Short-PDS 15
30 Machine Gun (IS) RBS 60 (6-C) Short-PDS 15
30 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 60 (6-C) Short-PDS 15
30 Machine Gun (IS) LBS 60 (6-C) Short-PDS 15
30 Machine Gun (IS) FR 60 (6-C) Short-PDS 15
30 Machine Gun (IS) FL 60 (6-C) Short-PDS 15
30 Machine Gun (IS) AR 60 (6-C) Short-PDS 15
30 Machine Gun (IS) AL 60 (6-C) Short-PDS 15
10 LRM 20 (IS) Nose 60 120 (12-C) Long 100
10 LRM 20 (IS) RBS 60 120 (12-C) Long 100
10 LRM 20 (IS) Aft 60 120 (12-C) Long 100
10 LRM 20 (IS) LBS 60 120 (12-C) Long 100
10 LRM 20 (IS) FR 60 120 (12-C) Long 100
10 LRM 20 (IS) FL 60 120 (12-C) Long 100
10 LRM 20 (IS) AR 60 120 (12-C) Long 100
10 LRM 20 (IS) AL 60 120 (12-C) Long 100

Ammo Rounds Mass
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 24000 120.00
LRM 20 (IS) Ammo 4800 800.00

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
100,000 Cargo, Standard 100,000 4
18,200 Cargo, Liquid 20,000 3
8,700 Cargo, Refrigerated 10,000 2
60 Bay Small Craft 12,000 6

The discovery of an anti-fighter weapon system substantially better than the venerable AC/5 led to refits of some old ships. While Echohawk did not wish to bring the whole fleet in for refit simultaneously, the Black Lion, Lola, and Quixote classes were selected for staggered updates.

The Black Lion was a well-regarded ship by the fleet overall, despite its losses at Kentares. The main gun battery of the design would remain unchanged, though the missiles would be removed in favour of fighter bays to more efficiently use the ship's cargo bay. The light weapons were also replaced with more modern equivalents.
64x AC/5 -> 64x LRM-20
64x AC/2 -> 64x MG
12x Killer Whale -> 72x Fighter
Cost: $7,043m -> $7,033m

The Lola was a good design on paper, but it was deemed to have sacrificed too much in the way of crew accommodations, which made it nearly impossible to operate outside the support of a larger fleet. Crew accommodations would be improved, grav decks added, defensive systems updated, and the fighter and small craft wings increased substantially.
2nd Class/Steerage -> 1st Class/2nd Class accommodations
32x LL -> 64x LRM-20 (Note that I actually treated them as AC/5s in combat, even though the canon design is anachronistic)
Point defence: Nil -> 64x MG
Grav decks: Nil -> 2x 250m
2x small craft -> 12x small craft
6x fighter -> 72x fighter
Armor: 284 -> 302
Cargo: 115k -> 101k
Cost: $6,632m -> $6,724k

The Quixote was the primary missile ship of the Hegemony's heavy fleets, but the complex array of missile tubes had proved unable to cope with the rapidly shifting battlefields experienced in practice. To deal with this, all launchers were replaced with AR-10 launchers, to allow for better shifting of the ship's fire. The already substantial missile magazines of the ship were expanded even further, with room for 1200 tons of missiles for each launcher. A modern point defence battery was also added.
24x Barracuda, 24x White Shark, 18x Killer Whale -> 66x AR-10
20 missiles per launcher -> 30 missiles per launcher(10 of each type)
Point defence: Nil -> 64x LRM-20, 64x MG
Cargo: 176k -> 134k
Cost: $11,766m -> $11,843m

---

BUDGET: $770,000m
Maintenance(@100%): $252,106m
Repairs: $34,000m
R&D (Potemkin, Charon, Black Lion II, Lola II, Quixote II): $41,021m
Conversion costs(24x Black Lion II, 23x Lola II, 40x Quixote II): $5,196m
6x Potemkin: $119,232m
6x Charon: $50,094m
43x Ancile: $21,801m
16x Vincent: $102,064m
331x DropShip: $99,300m
1673x small craft: $16,730m
4950x fighter: $24,750m
Research: $3,706m

---

The doctrine of the Terran navy is not changing in the broad strokes, but there are some new differences in emphasis due to the plethora of new designs.

Black Lion II battlecruisers will still be used in the same fashion as they were previously. The comparatively minor changes do not warrant any serious difference in doctrine from the Black Lion I, aside from a new need for fighter group training.

The increased habitability and self-defence capacity of the Lola II allows for longer-ranged deployment of fast ships in situations where speed is necessary. The primary Lola/Cruiser wings will remain attached to the three main fleets, but they will be trained for long-range operations in addition to their historical role as a "cavalry" force for heavier units.

Quixote II missile cruisers are expected to be deployed somewhat more aggressively for anti-fighter work than their Quixote I predecessors, due to their substantially increased anti-fighter weaponry. Despite their comparatively slow speed, the ideal deployment has them near the Vincent-class escorts, to serve as protection for heavier units. However, they are expected to remain behind the support craft anti-missile screen if enemy fighters are expected to appear in force.

Potemkin-class assault transports will always be deployed with the three "heavy" fleets if any serious opposition is possible, to ensure these valuable and heavily-loaded ships are properly defended. First Fleet, based at Terra, will have the bulk of these units(four of the initial six), as only Terra has the ground forces necessary to load multiple Potemkins without entirely stripping the planet of defenders, and the Terran troops are considered to be the most loyal to Echohawk's new government.

Charon-class fast transports are deployed more widely, with one attached to each of the three "heavy" fleets and one to each of the three "fast" fleets, to allow for any necessary resupply or small-unit movements.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 11 September 2018, 14:34:12
[Edited:  Changes from previous post are underlined.]

CC Turn 6:

I believe the master spreadsheet is incorrect.  It shows 2 Quzhujian and 0 Qinru Zhe active, when I believe it should be 2 and 1 respectively.  (I'm not repairing the damaged Quzhjian, otherwise it would be 3 and 1 respectively)  Fixed _my_ spreadsheet, should be 1 and -1 active.  Fixing the -1 below.

Budget: $96,000M
Surplus(previous turn): $291M
Repair:  $9000M   (Damaged Quzhujian was scrapped, not repaired)
Spent $87,291M
Surplus this turn:  $297M
---
Total maintenance paid: $21,503M
Fighters: 150%
Small Craft: 150%
DS: 120%
JS: 120%
Qinru Zhe: 120%
Quzhujian: 120%
Bringer of Beer: 120%
Bringer of Shots: 120%
Wife's Wrath: 120%
Rapid Ventiliation: 120%  (New Ship design below)

Doctrine Change:
Due to last decade's major campaigns, training and maintenance was raised across the board to 120% for all but ASF and SC.  Fighters remain at 150% while Small Craft, due to their increased use and reliance for fleet defense, anti-missile rolls, and ASF support were brought up to parity with ASF to 150%.   (150% ASF/SC, 120% everything else)

Research:  $50M

Construction:
Fighters:  1731     Total: 5000
SC:             44      Total: 1267
DS:             17      Total:    88
JS:               0       Total:     3
Chongzhi:    -        Total:    27
Qinru Zhe:   1        Total:      0  (lost 4, due to my sheet error had only 3, paid difference, call it 'massive damage to ship in one battle, spent money to repair it, then lost it completely in next battle, repairs equal to cost of ship?  Fluff, but it makes the accounting work)
Quzhujian:   -        Total:      1  (lost 1, scrapped 1)
Br. Beer:      -         Total:     1
WifeWrath:  2        Total:    10 (lost 1)
Br. Shots:    1        Total:    12
Ventilation:  2        Total:      2

Yard Upgrades:
None.

Commemorative Statues:  $5M
  To honor the victorious and the fallen, the Navy has commissioned several statues and art works to be spread around the Confed.

New Ship classes:
Heavy Cruiser/Cruiser Hunter:

Kuàisù tōngfēng (Rapid Ventilation/Fast Zephyr)

Quote
Class/Model/Name:   Rapid Ventilation/Fast Zephyr (Kuàisù tōngfēng)
Tech:    Inner Sphere
Ship Cost:   $8,840,382,000.00
Magazine Cost:   $233,464,000.00
BV2:   96,042
   
Mass:   1,000,000
K-F Drive System:   Compact
Power Plant:   Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust:   4
Maximum Thrust:   6
Armor Type:   Standard
Armament:   
22   Naval Laser 55
60   Capital Launcher Barracuda
160   AC 2
16   Naval AC 40

Class/Model/Name:   Rapid Ventilation/Fast Zephyr (Kuàisù tōngfēng)      
Mass:   1,000,000      
         
Equipment:         Mass
Drive:         240,000
Thrust         
Safe:   4.0      
Maximum:   6.0      
Controls:         2,500
K-F Hyperdrive:   Compact (21 Integrity)      452,500
Jump Sail:    (5 Integrity)      80
Structural Integrity:   145      145,000
Total Heat Sinks:   4837 Single      4,100
Fuel & Fuel Pumps:   5875 points      2,397
Fire Control Computers:         2,828
Armor:   1250 pts Standard      2,900
Fore:   220      
Fore-Left/Right:   205/205      
Aft-Left/Right:   205/205      
Aft:   210      
         
Dropship Capacity:   0      0
Grav Decks:         
Small:         0
Medium:         0
Large:         0
Escape Pods:   200      1,400
Life Boats:   100      700
         
Crew And Passengers:         
63   Officers in 1st Class Quarters      630
182   Crew in 2nd Class Quarters      1,274
131   Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters      917
60   Bay Personnel      0
   1st Class Passengers      0
   2nd Class Passengers      0
   Steerage Passengers      0

#   Weapons   Loc   Heat   Damage   Range   Mass
6   Naval Laser 55   Nose   510   330 (33-C)   Extreme-C   6,600
8   Capital Launcher Barracuda   Nose   80   160 (16-C)   Extreme-C   720
20   AC 2   Nose   20   40 (4-C)   Long   120
3   Naval Laser 55   FR   255   165 (16.5-C)   Extreme-C   3,300
3   Naval AC 40   FR   405   1200 (120-C)   Medium-C   13,500
8   Capital Launcher Barracuda   FR   80   160 (16-C)   Extreme-C   720
20   AC 2   FR   20   40 (4-C)   Long   120
3   Naval Laser 55   RBS   255   165 (16.5-C)   Extreme-C   3,300
3   Naval AC 40   RBS   405   1200 (120-C)   Medium-C   13,500
8   Capital Launcher Barracuda   RBS   80   160 (16-C)   Extreme-C   720
20   AC 2   RBS   20   40 (4-C)   Long   120
2   Naval AC 40   AR   270   800 (80-C)   Medium-C   9,000
8   Capital Launcher Barracuda   AR   80   160 (16-C)   Extreme-C   720
20   AC 2   AR   20   40 (4-C)   Long   120
3   Naval Laser 55   FL   255   165 (16.5-C)   Extreme-C   3,300
3   Naval AC 40   FL   405   1200 (120-C)   Medium-C   13,500
8   Capital Launcher Barracuda   FL   80   160 (16-C)   Extreme-C   720
20   AC 2   FL   20   40 (4-C)   Long   120
3   Naval Laser 55   LBS   255   165 (16.5-C)   Extreme-C   3,300
3   Naval AC 40   LBS   405   1200 (120-C)   Medium-C   13,500
8   Capital Launcher Barracuda   LBS   80   160 (16-C)   Extreme-C   720
20   AC 2   LBS   20   40 (4-C)   Long   120
2   Naval AC 40   AL   270   800 (80-C)   Medium-C   9,000
8   Capital Launcher Barracuda   AL   80   160 (16-C)   Extreme-C   720
20   AC 2   AL   20   40 (4-C)   Long   120
4   Naval Laser 55   Aft   340   220 (22-C)   Extreme-C   4,400
4   Capital Launcher Barracuda   Aft   40   80 (8-C)   Extreme-C   360
20   AC 2   Aft   20   40 (4-C)   Long   120

Ammo   Rounds   Mass
Capital Launcher Barracuda Ammo   350   10,500.00
Naval AC 40 Ammo   1600   1,920.00
AC 2 Ammo   12000   266.67

Number   Equipment and Bays   Mass   Doors
25,000   Cargo, Standard   25,000   2
12   Bay Small Craft   2,400   8
   NCSS Small   100   2



Fluffy time---

[Intro music, fast paced-martial horns and drums]
This is MSCBNBCNN WarDesk Earthside, bringing you the latest breaking news from around the universe!  I'm Daniel Parrot-Eagle.

And I'm Alice Cho Vanderlund.

Tonight, on WarDesk we have news from the Capellan Confed.  They revealed their latest warship design with great pomp and fan service.  Massing in at nearly a million tons...

Um, Daniel, I believe the phrase is Fan Fare.

Ah, right you are, Alice.  Um...  Where was I...  Ah... yes, the new ship, the Kow-eye tonguefang...

Kuàisù tōngfēng, Daniel.

Ah, yes, thank you Alice.  The Kuasak...  The Rapid Ventilation is s-

That can't be right, Daniel.

But... it says that right here on my holo-prompt.  The Kua... Ton...  whatever translates to Rapid Ventilation. 

No, that should be Speedy or Fast Wind, like a Zephyr.  The Confed uses an older dialect of Canto-

Well, Alice, I'm going with what our expert translation software says.  The Capellan Confed has said that the Rapid Ventillation masses at 1Mton, and while the actual specifications are tightly held secrets, our analysts are saying that from the information given and the recordings they've reviewed, she appears to be a gunship.  Our analysts are split, nearly half and half, some speculating that she's to be a new raider class, pointing to the large and long range laser mounts seen on her chase armament.  The other camp is saying she's a main warship, with the obviously heavy autocannon she mounts.

Only time will tell, Daniel.  This has been Alice Cho Vunderland-

And Daniel Parrot-Eagle-

Bringing you all the news, that's fit to view.

[outro-music]

Annnnd we're clear!  Good show, wrap it, can it, transmit it!

What a bad name to give a ship, Rapid Ventilation!

Well, Daniel, if you must know, in some of our modern Terran dialects, tōngfēng means to...  break wind.

So...  you mean that could have translated to Rapid Breaking Wind?

...  *sigh*  Yes.

Bwahahahahaha!

---
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 11 September 2018, 15:39:39
Wow a Cappelan Fart joke!  :o

Nice ship, it's surly gassy... the speed I mean!

TT

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 11 September 2018, 17:55:00
True story, I was running various names through translation, and decided to see how bad they were mangled so I reversed the translation.  Fast Zephyr comes back as Rapid Ventilation (have to use the chinese characters, iirc).  I laughed hard at that one, cause I thought it was either the worst, or best name for a gun ship.  Depending on your perspective.  Then, in one of my trials to come up with a good name, I got Passing West Wind back, and... well, the joke wrote itself.  :)  I'm also a Schlock fan, so that didn't help.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 11 September 2018, 18:10:38
CC Turn 6:

I believe the master spreadsheet is incorrect.  It shows 2 Quzhujian and 0 Qinru Zhe active, when I believe it should be 2 and 1 respectively.  (I'm not repairing the damaged Quzhjian, otherwise it would be 3 and 1 respectively)


Actually gong back through the posts I noticed an inconsistency in your turns. End of Turn 3 you had 1x Qinru Zhe and 3 Quzhujian, and on turn 4 you built 2 Qinru Zhes and no Quzhujians, and yet somehow had 5 Qinrus and 4 Quzhujians...

Then last turn you lost 4 Qinru Zhe's when you apparently hadn't built 4, plus 1 Quzhujian destroyed and another crippled, along with the Wrath.

This leaves you with -1 Qinru Zhe (somehow), 2 Quzhujian active and 1 crippled, which you have said you are not fixing.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 11 September 2018, 20:31:48
For some reason my spreadsheet didn't mark off the losses for Turn 3.

I'm at -1 Qinru Zhe, but re-reviewing I'm at 1 Quzhujian @100%, and 1 Quzhijian in need of repairs.
Quzhujian were built turn 1 and turn 2, 2 each turn, for 4 total.
Turn 2, I lost 1, and turn 5 I lost 1, and had one damaged.   -1, 1 and 1.  And since I'm not repairing, that leaves me with only 1 Quzhijian left.

Am I still missing something?  I went back and re-read all of my turns, but I've twice missed something even while doing that.  There's a reason I built my personal spreadsheet with turn history.  (And then screwed it up...)

I will redo this turn, and take out the price of the phantom Qinru Zhe, to square things away.  And fix my spreadsheet.  Not sure why it quit subtract losses when carrying forward the last turn's results.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 11 September 2018, 20:42:50
Yes sorry, 1 Quzhijian active and 1 crippled... my stuff up there.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 11 September 2018, 22:15:53
This is an addendum for the TC turn.

Shannon Bream's study of ASF tactics creates a new battle strategy applicable against opponents at a known or suspected destination.

Shannon's Ghost Fighters
According to Shannon's calculations, opponents will have less than a minute of warning when the ASF radar comes up and the ASF move into radar range, likely significantly impairing defense.  Furthermore the great velocity of the capital missiles on impact should dramatically magnify their damage potential.  The total time spent in the ASFs is about 13 hours, comfortably less than the 24 hours of life support available to ASF pilots.  If no targets are in the expected location, that's ok as the tactic can be used 10+ times before running out of fuel. 

Lena is impressed by the ghost fighters and orders flight testing.

(OOC, this is a "fast" high speed engagement as per SO pages 75-85 implying a +2 to hit modifier and damage from missiles is multiplied by 4 so a Killer Whale does 16 capital damage and a Barracuda does 8.)

(FYI, I also noticed a bug in the Tick II design and in fixing it I made a very minor change---it now has 120 MGs in a single arc.  This raised the cost to 235M so I adjusted the budget to handle it.)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 12 September 2018, 10:21:01
Speaking of high speed engagements:

One of the designs Im flirting with is a 4/6 (maybe 5/8!) wrecking ball...  very heavy front armor, big ole NAC cluster on the nose, anti-shipping missiles on flanks, intended to use its speed (and large fuel reserves) to force a high speed engagement, and outperform slower ships in that engagement by being optimized for it.

Im just not sure about the geometry, detection ranges, etc as to how possible it is... and amusingly, it would be terribly vulnerable to the fleet Ive already built...  charging into a fighter swarms single huge missile salvo is probably not a great plan.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 12 September 2018, 10:29:20
Speaking of high speed engagements:

One of the designs Im flirting with is a 4/6 (maybe 5/8!) wrecking ball...  very heavy front armor, big ole NAC cluster on the nose, anti-shipping missiles on flanks, intended to use its speed (and large fuel reserves) to force a high speed engagement, and outperform slower ships in that engagement by being optimized for it.

Im just not sure about the geometry, detection ranges, etc as to how possible it is... and amusingly, it would be terribly vulnerable to the fleet Ive already built...  charging into a fighter swarms single huge missile salvo is probably not a great plan.
There is an 'advanced sensors' section in SO pages 117-119 which gives specific ranges for each sensor.  There are modified by the naval comm scanner suites in TO page 333.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 12 September 2018, 20:22:59
I fixed my sheet, made turn corrections in my turn post.  Turns out, pulling the wrong column from the previous sheet will give you wrong results.  Who knew?  I'm shocked, I tell ya, shocked.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: DOC_Agren on 13 September 2018, 12:49:51
I fixed my sheet, made turn corrections in my turn post.  Turns out, pulling the wrong column from the previous sheet will give you wrong results.  Who knew?  I'm shocked, I tell ya, shocked.
Sounds like a typical government worker   8)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 14 September 2018, 17:06:50
Alsadius, does waiting for the last player slow you down significantly?  Or can you work around that by getting most of the turn ready in parallel?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 14 September 2018, 19:03:41
Haven't seen Maingunnery post in here in a few weeks, which is concerning.

To keep us entertained and talking in the meantime, I give you the Ship Comparison Chart, updated to 2400. I have also included AAA damage and Point Defense guns, counting AC/2s as half a PD each.

Class I Ships Sorted by Speed:

Station Keeping
Taurus I Mk2 (TC) (2400)  66 Throw Weight, 0 AAA, 728 PD, 315 Armour, 1/120/72, 4 Under Refit, 1 Under Construction

2/3
Independence (TC) (2350) 73 Throw Weight, 64 AAA, 16 PD, 218 Armour, 1/4/12, 1 Mothballed
Beer (CC) (2360)  0 Throw Weight 160 AAA, 40 PD, 122 Armour, Transport, 2/10/0, 1 Built
Scapha (MH) (2360)  40 Throw Weight, 220 AAA, 112 PD 132 Armour, Armed Transport, 0/10/20, 7 Built
Scapha II (MH) (2370)  0 Throw Weight, 220 AAA, 112 PD 110 Armour, Transport, 2/30/40, 2 Built

3/5
Trojan (DC) (2360)  96 Throw Weight, 360 AAA, 32 PD 48 Armour, 0/12/12 Q-Ship, 3 Built
Trojan II (MH) (2390) 94 Throw Weight, 480 AAA, 96 PD 48 Armour, 1/10/10 Q-Ship, 2 Built
Shots (CC) (2370) 0 Throw Weight, 160 AAA, 40 PD 162 Armour, 0/10/250 Escort Carrier, 11 Built, 1 Under Construction
Tate (DC) (2390) 212 Throw Weight, 600 AAA, 120 PD, 208 Armour, 0/12/36 Corvette, 6 Built, 6 Under Construction

4/6
Kutai(DC/TC/MH) (2350) 124 Throw Weight, 240 AAA, 32 PD, 120 Armour, 2/12/36 Corvette, 6 Built
Heimdaller-II (LC) (2370) 80 Throw Weight, 800 AAA, 160 PD 174 Armour 0/20/80 Escort Carrier, 9 Built
Vincent (TH) (2390) 88 Throw Weight, 448 AAA, 112 PD, 172 Armour, 2/6/72 Corvette, 30 Built, 16 Under Construction

6/9
Phalanx(FWL) (2350) 48 Throw Weight, 120 AAA, 118 PD, 70 Armour, 0/6/18 Corvette, 5 Built

Class 2 Ships Sorted by Speed

3/5:
Fubuki (DC) (2350) 629 Throw Weight, 320 AAA, 32 PD, 317 Armour, 2/12/36 Destroyer, 3 Built
Minekaze (DC) (2370) 730 Throw Weight, 160 AAA, 48 PD, 506 Armour, 0/12/36 Destroyer, 9 Built
Wife's Wrath (CC) (2370) 586 Throw Weight, 180 AAA, 45 PD, 604 Armour, 0/12/64 Destroyer, 8 Built, 2 under construction

4/6:
Cruiser (TH) (2325) 546 Throw Weight, 0 AAA, 0 PD, 348 Armour, 2/6/0 Light Cruiser, 27 Built
Quzhujian (CC) (2350) 424 Throw Weight, 160 AAA, 80 PD, 552 Armour, 0/6/48 Destroyer, 1 Built
Vittoria (RWR) (2370) 300 Throw Weight, 400 AAA, 160 PD, 533 Armour, 0/2/0 Destroyer, 6 Built
Robinson (FS) (2370) 372 Throw Weight, 135 AAA, 47 PD, 552 Armour, 2/3/12 Light Cruiser, 7 Built

5/8:
Albion (FS) (2350) 200 Throw Weight, 320 AAA, 39 PD, 570 Armour, 2/0/6 Raider, 7 Built
Qinru Zhe (CC) (2350) 208 Throw Weight, 240 AAA, 60 PD, 356 Armour, 2/2/0 Raider, 0 Built

Class 3 Ships Sorted by Speed

2/3
Tyr (LC) (2360) 1336 Throw Weight, 0 AAA, 80 PD, 590 Armor, 0/6/20 Cruiser, 9 Built
Walkure (LC) (2370) 160 Throw Weight, 1600 AAA, 320 PD, 528 Armor, 0/24/720 Carrier, 9 Built
Aegis (TH) (2371) 1260 Throw Weight, 0 AAA, 0 PD, 586 Armour, 4/10/18 Cruiser, 9 Built

3/5
Heracles (FWL) (2350) 680 Throw Weight, 240 AAA, 48 PD, 594 Armor, 2/12/72 Cruiser, 19 Built
Atago (DC) (2360) 858 Throw Weight, 240 AAA, 24 PD, 840 Armor, 2/12/72 Cruiser, 9 Built
Akagi (DC) (2400) 240 Throw Weight, 800 AAA, 120 PD, 760 Armour, 2/12/180 Carrier, 3 Under Construction
Essex (TH) (2351) 219 Throw Weight, 0 AAA, 0 PD, 150 Armour, 0/12/0 Destroyer, 20 Built
Black Lion II (TH) (2400) 640 Throw Weight, 1280 AAA, 64 PD, 480 Armour, 0/6/72 Battlecruiser, 24 Under Refit

4/6
Charon (TH) (2400) 0 Throw Weight, 1600 AAA, 240 PD, 372 Armour, 2/60/0 Collier, 6 Under Construction
Lola II (TH) (2400) 237 Throw Weight, 1280 AAA, 64 PD, 302 Armour, 0/12/12 Destroyer, 23 Under Refit

5/8
Kentares IV (FS) (2390), 176 Throw Weight, 160 AAA, 64 PD, 330 Armour, 0/25/200 Carrier, 2 Built

Class 4 Ships Sorted by Speed

2/3
Quixote II (TH) (2400) 417 Throw Weight, 1280 AAA, 64 PD, 516 Armour, 6/6/12 Missile Frigate, 40 Under Refit

3/5
Crucis (FS) (2370) 1268 Damage, 145 AAA, 43 PD, 1290 Armor 3/12/36 Battleship, 5 Built

4/6
Galahad (FS) (2350) 988 Damage, 110 AAA, 48 PD, 1092 Armor 3/3/12 Heavy Cruiser, 2 Built
Rapid Ventilation (CC) (2400) 881 Throw Weight, 320 AAA, 80 PD, 1250 Armour  0/12/0 Heavy Cruiser, 2 Under Construction

Class 6 Ships Sorted By Speed

2/3
Monsoon (TH) (2368) 852 Throw Weight, 0 AAA, 0 PD, 997 Armour, 6/6/18 Battleship, 16 Built
Potemkin (TH) (2400) 264 Throw Weight, 1920 AAA, 160 PD, 1416 Armour, 12/120/120 Assault Transport, 6 Under Construction

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 14 September 2018, 22:26:59
Federated Suns Turn 6
2390-2400


Looking Forward

The Federated Suns Navy spent the majority of the 2490s repairing the damage done to it in both the battle of Kentares IV and Novaya Zemyla. While the nation had not lost many warships in either battle, the attrition on small craft, dropships and, most notably the Navy's heavy cruisers had reached critical levels when nearly 2/3 of the Navy's escorts and a further Galahad-class heavy Cruiser were lost to the Confederation in '99.

The next 10 years saw a substantial increase in development and research in to smaller craft which had proven so lackluster at Novaya Zemyla and restarting the production lines of the reliable Galahad in the face of new and larger warship designs.

New Units

Rainbow-class escort dropship

In late 2398 Galactic Gear, a popular New Avalon spacecraft magazine, and television program launched a design challenge named "The Next Great Spaceship", where amateur draftsmen from across the world were asked to produce "A spacecraft which would revolutionize its field". The contest ran for six months and received entries from nearly every corner of Federated Suns space, which ran the gamut from traditional racing yachts to science-fiction fueled transforming robotic aerospace fighters. The winner was a rather utilitarian but no less brilliantly designed parasite warship called the Rainbow, designed by Western Avalon University engineering student Robert De la Croix on a dare by his classmates.

The Rainbow was built from the ground up as a jack of all trades mini-warship. It was capable of fleet and convoy escort, solo system patrol and long-range picket duty. Called a pocket-corvette by many its main armament of 4 Barracuda missile launchers, a full squadron of aerospace fighters, and sizable a array of 16 class 5 autocannons and 46 point-defence machine guns meant it could engage both other dropships and fighters effectively at nearly any range.

However the true brilliance of the Rainbow was that it could be manufactured from standardized parts, nearly anywhere in the Federated Suns where there was traditional construction equipment and a large ferrocrete pad. It was this that drew the attention of the FPFN's procurement board in 2399 when nearly 2/3 of all the Navy's escorts were destroyed in the battle of  Novaya Zemyla. The paperwork signing over the rights to produce the now called Rainbow-class Escort Dropship to Orange Star Shipyards of New Avalon was done in the university cafeteria and Robert de La Croix became the galaxy's youngest professional shipwright.

Code: [Select]
Rainbow Dropship
IS TW non-box set
5000 tons 
BV: 7,640
Cost: 252,000,000 C-bills

Movement: 4/6
Heat Sinks: 94

Structural Integrity: 20
Armor: 1370 (Ferro-Aluminum)
                        Armor
-----------------------------
Nose                      412
Left Side                 342
Right Side                342
Aft                       274

Armament                   Number
---------------------------------
Capital Launcher Baracuda       4
AC/5                           18
Machine Gun(IS)                46

Weapon                         Loc  Heat
----------------------------------------
AC Bay                         NOS     4
Point Defense Bay              NOS     0
Capital Missile Bay             RS    20
AC Bay                          RS     4
AC Bay (R)                      RS     2
Point Defense Bay               RS     0
Point Defense Bay (R)           RS     0
Capital Missile Bay             LS    20
AC Bay                          LS     4
AC Bay (R)                      LS     2
Point Defense Bay               LS     0
Point Defense Bay (R)           LS     0
AC Bay                         AFT     2
Point Defense Bay              AFT     0

Ammo                           Loc Shots
----------------------------------------
AC/5 Ammo                      NOS   160
Machine Gun Ammo               NOS  1600
Barracuda Ammo                  RS    20
AC/5 Ammo                       RS   160
AC/5 Ammo                       RS    80
Machine Gun Ammo                RS  1200
Machine Gun Ammo                RS  1600
Barracuda Ammo                  LS    20
AC/5 Ammo                       LS   160
AC/5 Ammo                       LS    80
Machine Gun Ammo                LS  1200
Machine Gun Ammo                LS  1600
AC/5 Ammo                      AFT   160
Machine Gun Ammo               AFT  1600


Aerospace Fighter (2 doors) - 6 units (4 recovery open)
Cargo Space (1 door) - 365 tons


Cyclone Heavy Aerospace Fighter

While Novaya Zemyla had been another victory for the Federated Suns Navy, it had also been another learning experience. In the Capellan's first strike nearly 10% of the nation's aerospace fighters were destroyed or damaged beyond repair. It was a bitter pill to swallow, but through years of neglect and complacency had left the Fleet Air Arm hopelessly behind in both size and capability of its fighters.

To rectify this the Navy turned to Avro-Galactic to produce a heavy aerospace interceptor which incorporated the latest technology, and could defeat any contemporary fighter.

Avro-Galactic answered this challenge with gusto and within a year of receiving the project a new superfighter was tearing through the skies of Avalon city rattling windows and causing persnickety citizens to annoy to their local representatives with complaints.

The Cyclone was everything the Navy could have wanted, fast, agile, and armed to the teeth with a heavy armament of 2 class 5 autocannons, 16 newly developed SRM tubes and a staggaring 6 machine guns. To cap it off the Cyclone was also capable of a bone crushing 4.5g of acceleration, allowing it to not only outfight but also outrun nearly any contemporary spacecraft.

Code: [Select]

Cyclone Aero
IS TW non-box set
80 tons 
BV: 1,210
Cost: 4,802,653 C-bills

Movement: 6/9
Engine: 320
Heat Sinks: 13

Structural Integrity: 8
Armor: 241 (Ferro-Aluminum)
                        Armor
-----------------------------
Nose                       73
Left Wing                  60
Right Wing                 60
Aft                        48


Weapon                         Loc  Heat
----------------------------------------
Machine Gun                    NOS     0
Machine Gun                    NOS     0
SRM 4                          NOS     3
SRM 6                          RWG     4
AC/5                           RWG     1
SRM 6                          LWG     4
AC/5                           LWG     1
Machine Gun                    AFT     0
Machine Gun                    AFT     0
Machine Gun                    NOS     0
Machine Gun                    NOS     0

Ammo                           Loc Shots
----------------------------------------
SRM 4 Ammo                     NOS    25
SRM 6 Ammo                     RWG    15
AC/5 Ammo                      RWG    20
SRM 6 Ammo                     LWG    15
AC/5 Ammo                      LWG    20
Machine Gun Ammo               AFT   200


Turn

Administration
Budget - 101
Upkeep - 24.3
Unspent - 14.7

R&D
None

Construction

Shipyards
Upgrade Delevan 3-4

Ships
2x Galahad - 21.6

Stations
None

Misc
32 x Lt Dropship - 9.6
50 x Small Craft - 0.5
250 x Fighter - 1.2

Research & Other
Repairs - 9
116x Research - 0.116
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 14 September 2018, 22:46:05
Minor corrections (to Smegish's post):

Taurus I Mk 2 has a move of about 0.7/1 and has 315 armour.  It has 1/120/72 for dropcollar/smallcraft/fighter bays, but a docking collar means something quite different on a space station than a warship, so I'd suggest discounting that.  Also, 4 are being refitted and 1 is under construction.  And, if we regard the Tick as integral, it adds 120 MGs.

MGs can also be used against ASF if they should happen to wander particularly close, right?

Independence is TC, not TH.

Kutai is TC, not TH.

3/5 is 3/4.5

5/8 is 5/7.5

Also, it's interesting to compute totals as they do illustrate different styles.  I added up each category for each nation, computed a grand total, then computed the fraction for each nation, then computed the average fraction for each nation, then divided by the average fraction to create this table.
Code: [Select]
Throw AAA PD Armor Drop SC Fighter
TC 0.08 0.08 2.73 0.27 0.41 2.94 0.49
MH 0.17 1.05 2.04 0.48 0.78 1.75 0.73
DC 1.27 1.02 0.99 1.11 0.68 1.05 0.88
CC 0.91 0.52 0.61 1.14 0.06 0.91 2.85
TH 1.00 1.38 0.85 0.83 1.26 0.85 0.83
FWL 1.28 0.57 0.76 1.20 1.20 0.84 1.14
RWR 0.95 1.43 2.63 1.77 0.00 0.21 0.00
FS 1.31 0.52 0.56 1.87 1.65 0.47 0.60
LC 0.66 1.14 1.22 0.57 0.00 0.70 2.73
From this we can see:
TC is heavy on PD and SC.  The small craft are really fighters unless the navy is supporting land forces.
MH is heavy on PD, and SC.
DC is pretty near average in all categories.
CC is heavy on Fighters.
TH is heavy on AAA and Dropships.
RWR is heavy on AAA, PD, and Armor.
FS is heavy on Throw, Armor, and Dropships.
LC is particularly heavy on Fighters.
Several nations basically don't believe in Dropships.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 15 September 2018, 02:36:42
Corrections made, though I did not include the MG damage into AAA, because the effective range is too short to be useful unless that ASF is trying to kamikaze.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 15 September 2018, 06:39:13
MGs can be used against ASF, but it doesn't happen much in practice. Excluding them from AAA makes sense to me. Same reason nobody has used SRMs for PD work as of yet - they're fighter weapons, not WarShip weapons, because you need a speed/agility advantage to make good use of them offensively.

Alsadius, does waiting for the last player slow you down significantly?  Or can you work around that by getting most of the turn ready in parallel?

Most of it doesn't require me to wait. Kiviar sent me the numbers for his turn last week, so I don't really need to wait for his post. And unfortunately, Maingunnery is departing. His original message was tentative, so I wanted to hold off to see if he returned, but I haven't heard from him since then, so I'm assuming he's gone. It's a shame, but c'est la vie.

---

The Free Worlds League is primarily working to increase their shipyard capacity for the moment, though they are also making good some of the losses they took at Antipolo.

BUDGET: $105B
Maintenance(@100%): $24,350m
Repairs: $3,200m
Shipyards(Atreus 5>6): $60,000m
8x Eros: $4,760m
30x DropShip: $9,000m
67x small craft: $670m
910x fighter: $4,500m
Research: $854m
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 15 September 2018, 10:54:08
Its interesting that our ASF designs are focusing on the 80-90 6/9 design space.

May make my next one either a straight up Lyran Recce Bird, or flip to the interceptor end of the design spectrum... something in a 30 ton 10/15, maybe?  But without terrain or TMM, with +2 free thrust and overthrust forcing control rolls - I have trouble justifying anything but the biggest, meanest ASFs in 150 ton Fighter Bays.

Maybe a redesign of the aerospace rules needs a light fighter bay - or to simply unify carried tonnage of fighters!  “A ship may operate X tons of ASF and SC for every 1.5X of mass devoted to bays”

The ‘grand unified ship charts’ are cool, and Im glad to have them.  Lets keep a grain of salt for them, though... most notably, throw weight is absolute value of weapons, which makes NACs, espc big NACs and Missiles over-valued (Range and Ammo/Intercept Issues, respectively), while making Naval Lasers, PPCs and (eventually) Gauss Rifles appesr low value, due to not reflecting accuracy.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 15 September 2018, 11:10:37
Several nations basically don't believe in Dropships.

Problem with droppers is cost.  300M for a (relative to warships) eggshell carrying 12 fighters (or equivalent mission load) is pushing the boundaries of good sense, IMHo.  Consider how much you can do with say a 6 or 9B CBill Warship compared to 20-30 Small Droppers.  Now, medium and (especially!) Large droppers go a long way to fixing this... the 1B Large dropper is a thing of real value, and the relative flexibility probably makes droppers a defensible choice once you hit mediums.  But...

.8 B per collar.  By the time you've brought 12 dropships on collars, the collars could have bought a battleship.  But you say, Im taking my losses on droppers, not warships, and the collars survive!  Yes... -if- Droppers could out-perform their cost in warships ‘naked’, without having to worry about FTL costs.  Nothing indicates that is the case.

Now - flexibility is still a thing.  10 Collars full of droppers could be troop landings.  It could be fuel.  It could be 10 Droppers worth of anything.  That has value.  Its landing troops in giant armored boxes instead of in drop chutes or small craft landers (I think small craft landeds are a better idea, but reasonable minds differ).  This could be good.

And droppers can ride on Jumpships, greatly lowering the FTL cost... but adding a vulnerability. 

Eventually, the LF Battery will come along and greatly escalate the already no-joke Collar costs - to the point where even with militarized behemoths hanging off them, I can’t make it work in my head.   This leaves us with a ‘slow’ fleet, maybe with collars for big droppers, a fleet mix of fast and slow, focusing collars on slow ships, or an all fast (LF fleet) likely without collars, though the Hegemony might well choose ‘less, more flexible/faster’ ships, because when your budget is infinite and your foes outweighed 10:1, you are more interested in covering -every- capability and having -no- vulnerabilities that might be exploited than you are in scrabbling for every advantage and taking bad trade-offs like the mere mortals.  :D
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 15 September 2018, 12:16:36
Yeah, the economics of DS are problematic. I suspect medium-sized DS will help a lot with that - quadrupling cargo or tripling carrier capacity for +67% cost(or more like +20% if you count the collar) is a much more attractive proposition. By the time we get to L-F batteries I think I'll have enough of a grasp on how the cost calculations work in practice to judge whether I want to amend the rules or not. Tripling the K-F cost is just so crippling. It's already $802M for a WarShip to add a single collar by my count($80,200,000 to base KF drive cost, x5 for a compact drive, x2 for a WarShip hull), and if it's $2.4B that's just nutty. I might do something like make it a flat billion(so $2B net on a WarShip) to add a L-F battery, in the hopes that people will use them for something other than a dedicated scout/raider. (Alternately, I might just tell you that the cost is staying the same but you can charge both drives at once, to double strategic flexibility. IDK.)

In the same vein, I've given some thought to making a tech unlock reduced maintenance costs. No promises yet, but in the short term I'm going to merge all three laser types into a single tech instead of making SL/ML and LL separate, and juggle a few things thereafter. That'll give me room to add new techs to the game. It might just be Invasion-era stuff that's appropriate for a Age of War-era game, but tech is feeling like it has a lower impact and less player buy-in than I hoped for. I want to have a bit more flexibility, because I want to fix that, and I also want to have the freedom to make big changes without needing to simply change the ground rules by decree.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 15 September 2018, 12:33:23
Its... gonna be hard to get buy in on tech, at least under the rules we have.

You pay money, to get a no better than 1 in 6 chance (inasmuch as the the Hegemony wins at will) chance of having a technology 1 turn earlier than everyone else.

Then, once you have that technology, there has to be a conflict during your 1 turn advantage.  Most nations dont have fights most turns, so now your at spending real CBills for a 1 in 12 to 1 in 18 chance of it mattering.

Then, come the turn in question, it has to matter -as much or more- than the 12 to 18 turns worth of expenditures would have.  Very few technologies on the list offer that sort of advantage - most of them are relatively meaningless upgrades to fighter scale weaponry. Theres a few big ones (Armor is huge, bearings only will be huge, LF Batteries are a game changer).  But outside of those (and that suggests strategic shopping based on player foreknowledge) - who wants to be the guy who threw away a few cruisers worth of CBills to have LB-X Autocannons a turn early?

As a side issue, the single most important technology existed at game on.  Naval Accept No Substitutes Autocannon.  Cheap, flexible, more damage efficient than anything rlse and varying from the biggest point blank boom out to nearly as long range (and far moee damage and cost efficient) than the naval energy weapons, NACs are simply too good.  Not ‘break the game’ too good, but certainly ‘Medium lasers and PPCs in 3025’ too good - if your not using them, have a good reason!

RE:  Lithium Fusion - even if you cant double-charge, the double jump instant response and tactical FTL are huge.  And I never understood why one could not charge the core off of the sail and the batteries off of the Fusions (or vice versa).  Or hang a double sized sail.  Or run your fusions more and feed both.  Or run two sets of hardlines from a station.

Reducing Maintenance:  Might be interesting.  Another thought would be to tie warship maintenance to mass rather than construction cost - and perhaps climb faster than size goes up, such that the expensive to build small ships are cheap to makntain, and the battlewagons are cheap to build but hard to keep in space?

Heres one:  Exclude collars from maintenance cost, and put in tech to lower dropship COST (but leave maintenance alone).  Then collars make sense on long lived ships, and Droppers are (relatively) expendable attrition units.

We know that as much as we worship the Holy CBill (all hail!) here, in-universe component costs cannot be static - I give you proof in the form of the mere existence of XXL equipped mechs, or the fact that a CERPPC costs the same as its IS Cousin.

Wanna see tech expenditures go up?  Announce whats being researched, blind auction it in PMs, and give the winner exlusivity for a while.  How long?  Lets say default 10 turns, and for every full 10% of the winning bid you put up, you get it one turn sooner.

Then allow espionage to play catchup, but at increased cost - say 2-1.  And maybe give the Capellans 1-1 Espionage, cause Capellan.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 15 September 2018, 13:23:15
My Trojan MK2 has a twin, Smeg.  :thumbsup:

I might not be able to post for awhile, work has me doing massive amounts of hours for the next month. Just assume I'm watching. Hard numbers when Internet and new Laptop battery arrives.

TT

DON'T EAT ME YOU PURPLE BYRD!!!
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 15 September 2018, 13:35:24
Then allow espionage to play catchup, but at increased cost - say 2-1.  And maybe give the Capellans 1-1 Espionage, cause Capellan.

I second this, but give us the ability to go after SAFE as they have a sucky counterintelligence. LOKI should also get this, but their a bit stronger... need more booze and gold than normal!

 :))

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 15 September 2018, 14:15:54
W.r.t. LF batteries, they already allow concurrent charging according to TO page 323, as long as you have multiple power sources amongst {Sail, Fusion Drive, Energy Recharge Battery}.  This means that moving twice as fast is routinely possible with an LF-core.  Restated, you can reach a factor of 8 more volume with an LF drive (or a factor of 4 given the planarization of stars in BT).  It's actually somewhat better than this because you can more routinely shortcut through uninhabited systems.   Doing Sail + Fusion Drive for example should be easy, and it provides much stronger motivation for energy recharge batteries.  Overall, the price of LF is high at x3, but at the same time if it's reduced by any significant amount it becomes a must-have rather than a plausible design choice.

Dropships are quite noneconomical right now, although I agree that will change in the future with large dropships.  Cost is a significant factor, but another very significant factor here is the fact that design does not matter.  If design mattered, significantly more value would be eaked out of dropships and dropcollars would naturally become a more preferred option.  Overall, this seems like an issue that will simply go away over time, and it seems fine to have different nations pursuing different strategies at this time.

W.r.t Research, I agree that the optimal strategy is to go with 'zero' given the current rules.  I've left it pegged at 1% of the budget for the TC on the theory that this justifies reverse-engineering developed tech and that wild swings in research dollars are counterproductive.  For more realistic rules:

Edit: This approach satisfies several realistic properties.
It also makes research significantly more desirable since proliferation is not automatic.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 15 September 2018, 15:18:15
Cost is a significant factor, but another very significant factor here is the fact that design does not matter.  If design mattered, significantly more value would be eaked out of dropships and dropcollars would naturally become a more preferred option.

I have been on Alsadius' case from day one about making dropships non-generic for this exact reason. Aerospace fighters I can accept because that would be a pretty big nightmare to organize, but having the design of dropships not matter not only cuts us out from 1/3 of the design field in a game about design, but it also leads us to situations where players can just ignore one the most iconic vehicles in the setting because it is not efficient.

As it stands, even light dropships aren't really that bad. A typical Federated Suns fleet has the collars to carry about 12 of them, and assuming they are all Rainbows that is 48 barracudas, 192 ac5s, 552 machine guns, 72 aerospace fighters and 16000ish armour. Deploying them may be roughly the cost of a class 4 ship, but, you are getting a lot more versatility and mobility with them than a single battleship is going to give you.

But ultimately I think we need to remember that we aren't fighting TT games here, so WAAC thinking is ultimately just going to hurt the experience, as, nobody is really going to 'win' anyway.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 15 September 2018, 17:07:40
On the flip side - they arent proven inefficient enough that noone uses them - I mah in fact be wrong!  And I enjoy having diversity in fleet concepts.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 15 September 2018, 18:23:55
To the extent that the Tick is an exception to the "dropships are abstract" rule, the ability to make dropships explicit was obviously super-helpful for the overall RGW design. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 15 September 2018, 19:07:31
I figured that the tech auction system would result in the price finding a natural level. If it's too expensive at $15B total invested per turn, people stop until it's at $5B(or whatever). That said, I don't think it's really worked like that - it seems to be more of a fluff investment for most people, not a game-optimal one. Thinking about it, I think I might have a better system:

Tech is divided into three fields - Miniaturization, Strengthening, and Advancement. Miniaturization is heavy on mech-sized weapons, but also includes things like mobile HPGs. Strengthening is big on armour and increased scale of construction. Advancement is blue-sky tech, or substantial jumps to existing tech that aren't really smaller or stronger. (Yes, these fields are a bit vague. That's intentional - it lets me keep them fairly balanced, and it means it's not totally obvious which tech is in which category, to discourage excessive targeting.)

Each player's research budget is divided up between the three fields. Each turn there will be a roll in each field for each player. If a tech is found in that field, your research budget there is reset and you get the tech. If it's not found, the research budget carries over to the next turn. Yes, this means you can discover up to three techs a turn(though I expect an average of 1-2 instead). I want to get to all the cool 2700s techs before we all get bored or too busy to continue, and that might help.

Each player researches independently. However, to allow for spread, the base cost of a tech is reduced by 10% per turn since discovery, plus 20% if a neighbour has it and a further 30% if you've salvaged it from them in battle. There's still no espionage (consider any spying efforts to be part of your research budget), but for really important techs, you might wind up launching an attack for the sole purpose of trying to blow up something that carries it.

I referred to the "base cost" of a tech, not the "cost". It's not a cost system per se - it remains a raffle system. If the base cost of a tech is $2,000m, that basically means that 2,000 raffle ballots saying "You lose!" are put into the draw. If you invest $1,000m into that field, that's 1,000 ballots with "You win!" on them, which means a 1/3 chance of winning. If you don't get it, then those 1000 ballots carry over, plus any additional that you invest on the next turn. If you invest another billion, you now have 2000 ballots, for a 50/50 chance of winning(or better, if your neighbour discovered it since then)

So, a few questions for the crowd:
1) Is this more interesting?
2) Am I worrying too much about obfuscation? I want to avoid "Oh, the next turn is improved armor, I'll snap that up for sure!", but I'm not sure secrecy is the right play there.
3) Would you feel like I was taking options away from you by essentially forcing you to buy research every turn?
4) Is the faster tech pace something you'd like to see?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 15 September 2018, 19:15:49
1.)  Interesting.
2.)  Computational overhead/bookkeeping concern?
3.)  Major midstream rules change - pro/con.
4.)  Willing to give it a try.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 15 September 2018, 19:33:27
While I'm not a huge fan of changing rules mid-game, that particular change, combined with the opportunity to have some new piece of tech long enough  to get an advantage out of it looks good to me. The big issue would be bookkeeping, but most of us are already running spreadsheets in various forms to track this game anyway, so shouldn't be too big a hassle.

The costs coming down based on time since discovery and for each neighbour with it gives me a strong Europa Universalis vibe, which I'm good with.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 15 September 2018, 19:39:30
Re #3, to be clear the tech being researched this turn would still work under the old system. It'll be discovered in 2409, exclusive to the discoverer for 2410-2419, and universally available in 2420. But research budgets for next turn would work under the new system.

Re #2, it'll be somewhat more. But with a decent spreadsheet, I don't think it'll be too bad. I feel like having a chance at any of the next 2-3 techs might be better than security through obscurity, but that means bookkeeping of a different sort to replace it, and I have to figure out which tech you get. But it means I can offload the record-keeping onto the player base if I need to, because I don't need to keep stuff hidden.

Hypothetical system: Costs of each tech are somewhat higher, but every turn you roll against the next three techs in order within each category. You'll usually get the oldest(since it'll be cheapest, and you'll have first crack at it), but if you miss then you get a chance at the next one, and the one after. This does mean you can blow a chance at reverse engineering something you salvaged and get an unrelated tech instead, but that actually seems kind of realistic.

Oh, also, one wrinkle I didn't add above. If we ever get to 1SW levels of saturation nuking, I might throw tech loss ballots in as a penalty for damage taken. If those hit, you lose access to a tech you've previously unlocked. Seems like a good way to model a dark age, IMO, which the current system can't do.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 15 September 2018, 21:59:15
1) More interesting, and modestly more realistic.
2) Overhead is not a concern.
3) Either way.
4) This will make tech advancements significantly more difficult for the TC given the budget disparity---I'd estimate 60-70 years behind or 30-40 years behind if salvage is relevant.  This also seems to shift a bit to far towards nonproliferation compared to modern human history.

The history of nuclear weapons on Earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_nuclear_weapons):
July 16 1945: United States Trinity Test
T+4 years, .86GDP: Soviet proliferation
T+7 years, 0.021GDP: British proliferation (Involved in manhattan project)
T+15 years, 0.027GDP: French proliferation
T+19 years, 0.025GDP: China proliferation
T+22 years, 0.0017GDP: Israel proliferation (Estimated, not officially acknowledged)
T+25 years, NPT (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons) goes into effect.
T+29 years, 0.039GDP: India proliferation
T+53 years, 0.027GDP: Pakistan proliferation
T+61 years, 0.017GDP: North Korea proliferation

Drawing analogies, the United States was a TH level superpower coming out of WWII, so there was proliferation to two 'house' militaries within the first decade, two more within another decade, and then two significant peripheral powers within 3 decades.  Even with extremely active attempts by existing powers to disrupt further proliferation it spread to relatively minor countries in 5-6 decades.  I'd peg the TC as a 'significant peripheral power', so it would be nice if the TC could be only 30 years behind the TH, and it should be significantly less so with battle salvage (none of which occurred in the case of nuclear weapons above).  Given the factor of 60 disparity in budgets between TH and TC, you can see why I'm assuming the TC will acquire techs at 0-10% of the base cost.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 15 September 2018, 22:12:42
Its certainly slow proliferation - and thats gonna be hard on everyone who isnt the Terran Hegemony or a very rich IS power.

OTOH - How long did it take the entire Inner Sphere to start meaningful production of clan grade equipment?

If its not a long (long) potential advantage, though, noones going to bother to spend meaningful money on R&D, because even the biggest game changers really arent.  We could freeze tech right now and build navies that could give anything possible in the rules a real fight, even if built to 3150 standards.  Theyd be outclassed, yes, but as discussed - NACs never go out of style, and the many billions saved over those turns would go a long way to redressing the balance.

Ultimately, while I think its a neat idea, the tech curve just feels too flat to me on Capital Weaponry to get us to want to chase tech, other than for fluff purposes - if we saw the kind of changes that lead from ‘AC/5s’ to ‘DHS XL Engine TComp CERPPC/iATM’, well, that would be different.  But the best guns for Naval Combat were in service at game on, Manuver Drives never improve... armor does, radically, and LF Batteries change the world - but thats about it.

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 15 September 2018, 23:06:09
If proliferation is not automatic but rather costs money, then people will certainly spend money on research for useful techs at whatever rate makes sense given the cost. 

The remaining issue is the number of useful techs.  I don't know a general answer here, but for the many ASF-scale weapons which plausibly don't matter, there is an alternative mostly consistent with the battles so far.  Declare that capitol scale armor subtracts 10% of it's value (i.e. 1% of the standard scale value) from a weapon's incoming damage. Thus 20 capital armor (i.e a Kutai) grants immunity to an AC/2 or MG and significant resistance to an AC/5.  When an AC/10 comes along, that matters for warship design, and an AC/20 even more so as you need 200 capital armor to resist.

Edit: I added an estimate of GDP (in current dollars) of the countries at the time of nuclear proliferation.   This seems to be consistent with the cost dropping by about an order of magnitude/decade until the NPT came into effect which raised the cost significantly.   Presumably, production creates a minimum cost.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 17 September 2018, 08:36:48
A quick update - I don't have the turn written(clearly), and likely won't for at least a few more days. And the tech system needs some further thought as well, because I'm not sure that what I outlined will actually work. I'll keep you posted.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 17 September 2018, 15:34:44
I wanted to mention a few things I found while reading up on the Taurian Concordat (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Taurian_Concordat).
In the earlier discussion about budget per inhabited planet, there seemed to be a consensus that the periphery nations budget/planet was higher.  If the above is correct, it's actually a substantially lower budget/system for the TC.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 17 September 2018, 18:19:00
1) Is this more interesting?
Yes, if this weren't BT with BT tech.  But unless we significantly butterfly into a 4X type game that kinda resembles BT, I don't see research being that big of a deal.  The other issue is that in game/canon, new tech spreads like wild-fire.  Plasma Cannon/Rifles came out in 3068 from the CC, but according to the Techmanual, "the Sharks managed to mimic this weapon system the following year..."  ER ML/SL came in 3058, not 10 years after the clans showed up and, according to the TechManual, people showed an interest in them.  Reverse engineering "helped".  Targeting computers took 12 years til the Fed Suns had them.

Triple-Strength Myomers came out in 3050 in CC, and by 3058 DC had the No-Dachi using them.  (Funny, some texts say CC came out with TSM in 3050, some say the Feds in 3050...)  The Lyran's had the Defiance in 3057.  (Of course, either could have gotten the tech from "alliance" or through trade.  A number of techs are described as passed along that way...)

Either way, 10 years, 20 at the outside, seems to be all it takes for tech to spread.

2) Am I worrying too much about obfuscation? I want to avoid "Oh, the next turn is improved armor, I'll snap that up for sure!", but I'm not sure secrecy is the right play there.

While that would be nice, if the tech doesn't matter all that much, then it doesn't matter if its known or not.

3) Would you feel like I was taking options away from you by essentially forcing you to buy research every turn?

I'm a tech junky.  I'm the guy that plays Axis and Allies as the 'merkins and throws all his cash every turn at research.  On the flip side, this is a money sink CC can't afford, so the end result doesn't matter to me.

4) Is the faster tech pace something you'd like to see?

I'm here to design fleets that are 'sane' BT fleets.  But an RPG/roleplayed 4X game sounds like fun to me as well.  I'm just not sure it conforms with what we said we were going to do way back when.  It's one thing to say "the TH had a coup" but its still the TH juggernaut.  Its another to say "The Capellan Confed demonstrated their new Wave-Motion Main gun today.  First of the new cybortechnology powered by pure tardoculture, it's expected to lead the fight against the newly discovered 50 foot tall aliens called the Zebrelli."

Seriously though...  I think an RPG based on a 4x game sounds like a hell of a lot of fun.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 18 September 2018, 05:06:41
I wanted to mention a few things I found while reading up on the Taurian Concordat (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Taurian_Concordat).
  • Apparently, the TC had the second largest navy in the inner sphere with 127 warships (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Taurian_Defense_Force#Deployment_Status) in 2575, just before it all came crashing down in the Reunification war.
  • I also discovered that the Pleiades cluster (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Pleiades_Cluster) apparently ends up with 100 inhabited worlds beyond the major ones (Electra, Maia, Merope).  The TC in this era seems to be about 65 inhabited worlds + the Pleiades.  In 2400, the Pleiades is 50-100 more inhabited systems (varying due to an uncertain timeline for colonization) doubling or tripling my understanding of the TC size.
In the earlier discussion about budget per inhabited planet, there seemed to be a consensus that the periphery nations budget/planet was higher.  If the above is correct, it's actually a substantially lower budget/system for the TC.

Huh. I knew the TC did well in combat, but I thought it was mostly TC luck, SLDF incompetence, and heavy use of local "terrain". They were actually that big a player? I'd basically pegged them as having a lot of thinly-populated planets anchored by a few industrialized ones. I may need to give that some thought too.

1) Is this more interesting?
Yes, if this weren't BT with BT tech.  But unless we significantly butterfly into a 4X type game that kinda resembles BT, I don't see research being that big of a deal.  The other issue is that in game/canon, new tech spreads like wild-fire.  Plasma Cannon/Rifles came out in 3068 from the CC, but according to the Techmanual, "the Sharks managed to mimic this weapon system the following year..."  ER ML/SL came in 3058, not 10 years after the clans showed up and, according to the TechManual, people showed an interest in them.  Reverse engineering "helped".  Targeting computers took 12 years til the Fed Suns had them.

Triple-Strength Myomers came out in 3050 in CC, and by 3058 DC had the No-Dachi using them.  (Funny, some texts say CC came out with TSM in 3050, some say the Feds in 3050...)  The Lyran's had the Defiance in 3057.  (Of course, either could have gotten the tech from "alliance" or through trade.  A number of techs are described as passed along that way...)

Either way, 10 years, 20 at the outside, seems to be all it takes for tech to spread.

2) Am I worrying too much about obfuscation? I want to avoid "Oh, the next turn is improved armor, I'll snap that up for sure!", but I'm not sure secrecy is the right play there.

While that would be nice, if the tech doesn't matter all that much, then it doesn't matter if its known or not.

3) Would you feel like I was taking options away from you by essentially forcing you to buy research every turn?

I'm a tech junky.  I'm the guy that plays Axis and Allies as the 'merkins and throws all his cash every turn at research.  On the flip side, this is a money sink CC can't afford, so the end result doesn't matter to me.

4) Is the faster tech pace something you'd like to see?

I'm here to design fleets that are 'sane' BT fleets.  But an RPG/roleplayed 4X game sounds like fun to me as well.  I'm just not sure it conforms with what we said we were going to do way back when.  It's one thing to say "the TH had a coup" but its still the TH juggernaut.  Its another to say "The Capellan Confed demonstrated their new Wave-Motion Main gun today.  First of the new cybortechnology powered by pure tardoculture, it's expected to lead the fight against the newly discovered 50 foot tall aliens called the Zebrelli."

Seriously though...  I think an RPG based on a 4x game sounds like a hell of a lot of fun.

1) Timelines got compressed a hell of a lot in the Invasion era, because that's the era the books cover. Compare that to the best-described Age of War tech - Mechs - where the key tech was invented in 2350, the first actual Mech was fielded in 2439, and they were first used in battle in 2443. The first other house to take the tech stole it in 2455 and first used them in 2459, and it wasn't until 2466 that all the great houses had the tech. Almost 30 years, with house-sized research budgets. I'd wager it took the Periphery even longer. That's the pace of tech advancement when it's not being driven by the time pressure of the fictional stories(and tech sharing due to fear of the Clans).

2) I feel like if the tech doesn't matter, I've screwed up.

4) I don't expect to go past Dark Ages tech, regardless of system. Maybe there'll be a couple non-canon techs here and there to address game-breaking strategies, or to fix holes in rules(like my discussion of maintenance reduction as a tech), but I don't want Death Stars here. I feel the need to quote TVTropes here:

> Over the course of a decades-long struggle, Civilization and Boskone went from ordinary starship battles to star-powered lasers, antimatter bombs, planets used as missiles, antimatter planets used as missiles, faster-than-light missiles, faster-than-light antimatter planet missiles...

Amusing to read about, of course, but that was not my goal. I want realistic Battletech units too, and most of my rule changes so far have been an effort to make things more realistic instead of less. That is still my goal going forward.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 18 September 2018, 06:21:04
Regarding tech not mattering - to reiterate an earlier point, I think this is a case where the fault lies in your stars, not yourself.

BTech just doesnt advance fast enough and those advances dont change things enough.  Where they do advance, cross contamination keeps advancements from staying secret and piling on. 

Even for all their technological might, the Star League ‘Royal’ Mechs are only a moderate qualitative edge over their House Standard Designs.  The most extreme case of uptech advantage, the clans, rests on a foundation of sufficient handwaving, fiat, and just so stories that I do not feel it is a good model.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 18 September 2018, 07:12:25
Huh. I knew the TC did well in combat, but I thought it was mostly TC luck, SLDF incompetence, and heavy use of local "terrain". They were actually that big a player? I'd basically pegged them as having a lot of thinly-populated planets anchored by a few industrialized ones. I may need to give that some thought too.
The general model of "a lot of thinly-populated planets anchored by a few industrialized ones" seems to be accurate, so it's mostly a question of scale.   The "big" planets seem to be those mounting a regiment+ of volunteer guards (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Taurian_Volunteer_Guard) (+ the Pleiades + Taurus).  Several of these colonies cease to exist after the reunification war and several more change hands.

I don't know about TC luck or SLDF incompetence, but "terrain" is supposed to really matter when jumping into the Hyades cluster, with a significant chance of losing a ship unless you have a Taurian astrogator.   There also seems to be a deep militarization of society due to FS paranoia.    For example the Constabulary (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Concordat_Constabulary) has a mission profile of training civilians into guerilla fighters in the event of invasion.  There are also a few elite forces like the SASF (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Special_Asteroid_Support_Force).  Given the latter, I need to increase maintenance to reflect troop quality.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 18 September 2018, 07:53:29
Regarding tech not mattering - to reiterate an earlier point, I think this is a case where the fault lies in your stars, not yourself.
In some sense, it's a shame we didn't do dropshuttles here, as the difference between dropshuttles and dropships matters significantly.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 18 September 2018, 07:56:53
If we are adding technologies, something that changes the math on droppers seems to be a grand idea - lowering costs for collars and droppers, and/or their maintenance, would be interesting.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 18 September 2018, 11:20:58
A quick update - I don't have the turn written(clearly), and likely won't for at least a few more days. And the tech system needs some further thought as well, because I'm not sure that what I outlined will actually work. I'll keep you posted.

Turn is written when its written.  Right is better than Fast, and if I get a lot of fighting this turn, its going to settle at least some debates currently running hot in the LCN Design Bureas (IE the back of my head) - so much the better if its good data!
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 18 September 2018, 13:31:06
* Thumps his service baton open palm like *

Get crakin'  or the coals for you!

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 19 September 2018, 13:25:44
Generalist ‘Warships’.

Ive been fiddling with a lot of concepts as my ‘yard mania’ phase draws to a close.

I notice that my current designs are cargo light, Ive built no droppers (I hates the cllar costs, I hates them, precious) and Ive built no invasion transports.

Has anyone fiddled with a ‘Star Destroyer’ type concept - hybrid carrier/gunship with a defent cargo load and a heavy vehicle/infantry carriage capacity? 

Im wondering if the advantage of multirole utility, freedom of action, and increased difficulty of enemy targeting (by spreading capability across multiple hulls) will pay for the fact that your essentially ‘down’ 3:2 - IE it takes 3 hybrids to match the combat power of 2 purist warships?  If nothing else, large cargo bays and the ability to carry multiple regiments of troops makes the defender’s life really tough, if any enemy warship could, suddenly, jump out if the nodal point your monitoring wih enough cargo to go almost anywhere and possibly an invasion force onboard...

I suppose one advantage is it would delay obsolesence - even if the dominant paradigm for weapons, speed, and doctrine changes, a big, burly, multirole unit will never be ‘out of style’
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 19 September 2018, 13:31:28
Has anyone fiddled with a ‘Star Destroyer’ type concept - hybrid carrier/gunship with a defent cargo load and a heavy vehicle/infantry carriage capacity?

Me, Scapha II.

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 19 September 2018, 13:51:57
Isn't that basically every Terran ship? They don't have the vehicle bays or crew quarters, so all ground forces need to go into cargo pods, but they all have the space for that. (The Cruiser is the one exception, with 5ktons of cargo, but that seems like a mistake somewhere in the source materials. 5k was my calculated space, but Sarna claims it should have 95ktons.) They're a bit fighter-light by this game's standards, I guess, but this seems to be their intended design theory.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 19 September 2018, 14:01:11
Isn't that basically every Terran ship? They don't have the vehicle bays or crew quarters, so all ground forces need to go into cargo pods, but they all have the space for that. (The Cruiser is the one exception, with 5ktons of cargo, but that seems like a mistake somewhere in the source materials. 5k was my calculated space, but Sarna claims it should have 95ktons.) They're a bit fighter-light by this game's standards, I guess, but this seems to be their intended design theory.

I think of it as 'Terran Moreso' - there have to be some advantages of moving your troops in troop bays and your vehicles in vehicle bays, vs. just tossing them all in the big ole cargo hold.  (For one thing, having them 'hot' in vehicle bays vs. 'cold' as Cargo lets you drop them from orbit or quickly load them onto small craft combat transports'.

But you arent wrong - Its essentially a more refined version of 'Terran 101'.  And even if I later go back to 'pure' warships, having warships that are also cargo transports/troop transports as part of the battlegroup will fill that collier/transport role, without demanding separate, vulnerable, fragile, logistical tail.  If nothing else, the 'Terran Hull' ship could fill every available space with butter and wrenches and serve as collier to his guns-heavier companions.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 19 September 2018, 15:45:33
Has anyone fiddled with a ‘Star Destroyer’ type concept - hybrid carrier/gunship with a defent cargo load and a heavy vehicle/infantry carriage capacity? 
The Taurus I mk II refit is like this, except scaled down by an order of magnitude (because: budget) if you load it for a land invasion instead of pure anti-warship combat.  The elements are:
I'm not really decided on whether this is the right way to go in general.  On the one hand, you get robustness, self-sufficiency, and better deployability due to more even use of door limits.  On the other hand, you lose significantly more when defenses fail and all the parasitic ships die also.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 19 September 2018, 18:54:46
Its funny you mention the self-annihilating main gun.  One design approach that Ive flirted with but keep dismissing for various reasons is to just put all the major anti-capital armaments on the nose.  I hate pointing the bridge at the enemy, but man, the concentrated firepower.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 19 September 2018, 20:27:48
Not for gameplay purposes, but I made a thing:

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: All-Arounder
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $10,857,138,004.00
Magazine Cost: $133,325,000.00
BV2: 107,414

Mass: 1,000,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 3.0
Maximum Thrust: 4.5
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
240 Machine Gun (IS)
80 LRM 20 (IS)
24 Naval Laser 55
16 Naval AC 30
16 Naval PPC Heavy

Class/Model/Name: All-Arounder
Mass: 1,000,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 180,000
Thrust
Safe: 3.0
Maximum: 4.5
Controls: 2,500
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (21 Integrity) 452,500
Jump Sail: (5 Integrity) 80
Structural Integrity: 120 120,000
Total Heat Sinks: 4645 Single 4,000
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 5250 points 2,142
Fire Control Computers: 15,820
Armor: 1032 pts Standard 2,400
Fore: 180
Fore-Left/Right: 180/180
Aft-Left/Right: 180/180
Aft: 132

Dropship Capacity: 2 2,000
Grav Decks:
Small: 0
Medium: 2 200
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 150 1,050
Life Boats: 150 1,050

Crew And Passengers:
62 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 620
183 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 1,281
122 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 854
684 Bay Personnel in 2nd Class Quarters 4,788
65 1st Class Passengers 650
1000 Steerage Passengers 5,000

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
40 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 80 (8-C) Short-PDS 20
40 Machine Gun (IS) RBS 80 (8-C) Short-PDS 20
40 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 80 (8-C) Short-PDS 20
40 Machine Gun (IS) LBS 80 (8-C) Short-PDS 20
20 Machine Gun (IS) FR 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
20 Machine Gun (IS) FL 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
20 Machine Gun (IS) AR 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
20 Machine Gun (IS) AL 40 (4-C) Short-PDS 10
10 LRM 20 (IS) Nose 60 120 (12-C) Long 100
10 LRM 20 (IS) RBS 60 120 (12-C) Long 100
10 LRM 20 (IS) Aft 60 120 (12-C) Long 100
10 LRM 20 (IS) LBS 60 120 (12-C) Long 100
10 LRM 20 (IS) FR 60 120 (12-C) Long 100
10 LRM 20 (IS) FL 60 120 (12-C) Long 100
10 LRM 20 (IS) AR 60 120 (12-C) Long 100
10 LRM 20 (IS) AL 60 120 (12-C) Long 100
6 Naval Laser 55 Nose 510 330 (33-C) Extreme-C 6,600
6 Naval Laser 55 RBS 510 330 (33-C) Extreme-C 6,600
6 Naval Laser 55 Aft 510 330 (33-C) Extreme-C 6,600
6 Naval Laser 55 LBS 510 330 (33-C) Extreme-C 6,600
4 Naval AC 30 FR 400 1200 (120-C) Long-C 14,000
4 Naval AC 30 FL 400 1200 (120-C) Long-C 14,000
4 Naval AC 30 AR 400 1200 (120-C) Long-C 14,000
4 Naval AC 30 AL 400 1200 (120-C) Long-C 14,000
4 Naval PPC Heavy FR 900 600 (60-C) Extreme-C 12,000
4 Naval PPC Heavy FL 900 600 (60-C) Extreme-C 12,000
4 Naval PPC Heavy AR 900 600 (60-C) Extreme-C 12,000
4 Naval PPC Heavy AL 900 600 (60-C) Extreme-C 12,000

Ammo Rounds Mass
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 25000 125.00
LRM 20 (IS) Ammo 3600 600.00
Naval AC 30 Ammo 1600 1,280.00

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
50,000 Cargo, Standard 50,000 2
12 Bay Small Craft 2,400 2
72 Bay Fighter 10,800 6
60 Bay Vehicle Heavy 6,000 6
40 Bay Infantry Compartment 40 2
1 NCSS Large 500

So far as I can tell, this could be a good generic ship for the entire span of BT history, with only minor tweaks(MG>AMS, armour upgrades, and vee>mech bays. Optionally, also LRM20>ERPPC+Cap and SHS>DHS). If the THN could only build one ship, this might be it? IDK, I got bored.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 19 September 2018, 20:55:09
i like it. 
My StarCruiser (tm) offloads the PDS/Anti-fighter role to carried fighters and escort SC, but quite similar.  Long haul multi-role ship of all work that still carries decent armament.  More Constitution/Galaxy/Voyager than Excelsior/Defiant/Soverign, if you will.  Or maybe kinda Star Destroyer.

I was tempted to add crew and devote space for science labs.  :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 19 September 2018, 21:03:18
Its funny you mention the self-annihilating main gun.  One design approach that Ive flirted with but keep dismissing for various reasons is to just put all the major anti-capital armaments on the nose.  I hate pointing the bridge at the enemy, but man, the concentrated firepower.
This is one of the points where BT rules are rather off in a couple ways.   As it stands, you can accelerate towards an enemy then turn broadside giving both the 3 arcs of weapons _and_ the lowest chance of being hit.   The 3 arcs makes sense, but the low chance of being hit does not---this maneuver maximizes your cross-section.   I expect (with no evidence) that the designers have a built-in assumption that presenting the broad side is equivalent to movement or acceleration perpendicular to the line between two opponents, but that's just not so in general.  A better system would assign to-hit penalties based on transverse velocity and acceleration and to-hit bonuses based on exposed cross-section.

The other confusing thing here is that fire control is in some sense dirt cheap.  In particular, you need to overload an arc by a factor of 10 before the fire control even equals the weight of the original weapons.  Paying a factor of 2 in tonnage is precisely what you do when placing weapons into side arcs.  Granted, side arcs give you redundancy, and the potential of doing double damage if you pass directly through an enemy formation, but these seem relatively minor as benefits.  Rolling sides basically means you probably lost the fight already and passing directly through an enemy formation is dangerous as you expose aft arcs.

For space stations, concentrating on an arc is generally a pretty bad choice.  A normal space station(i.e. one without a tug like the Tick) takes 5 minutes(!) to build up or cancel a rotational velocity of 1 so an opposing fast or nearby ship can just choose to not be in an arc.   If an opponent is n hexes from the space station it needs to be able to alter a transverse velocity by n/5 or more hexes to alter it's radial location as much as the station keeping drive can alter the radial location of a chosen arc.  At 50 hexes, this means a 7/10.5 design works. At 40 hexes, a 6/9 design works.  At 25 hexes, a 4/6 design works, and at 12 hexes, even a 2/3 design works. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 19 September 2018, 21:24:22
If your playing advanced aero movement, the ‘nose/tail/side’ modifer is based on vector, not facing.

The reason I am reluctant to show nose arcs is based on the critical chart - bridge etc. criticals on the nose chart can quickly cripple a ship as a combatant.

I have, as I said, so far eschewed construction of the ‘spinal mount’ style ship - out of a combination of concern for vulnerabilities and good taste - but you are correct.  Barring a very close ‘enemies on all sides’ battle pass, guns mounted on opposing sides are at best spares.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 19 September 2018, 21:35:24
Also lets you roll over to reveal fresh armour mid fight, without giving the enemy a clear shot up your rear end
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 19 September 2018, 22:02:39
Also lets you roll over to reveal fresh armour mid fight, without giving the enemy a clear shot up your rear end

A definite advantage.  In the alternate, one can respond by moving the majority kf the armor to the facing that will be towards the foe (front, here, rather than sides).

My anticipation is that the ‘nose only’ designs, delivering more firepower and having more facing armor, may show poorly at the duel and small squadron level (due to havig leas flexibility), but will show relatively better and better as the number of units increAse, and weight of fire is measured in ‘ship kills per salvo’ such that one wants to madimize firepower and ability to survive a single salvo above all - in such an environment, crits matter less, and armor on any facing other than the one towards the enemy is largely redundant.

This of course works until a swarm of fighters jumps your ‘all nose’ design on its weak rear flanks, or until it finds itself surrounded, or with a more agile foe out or its nose arc.  Nithing is perfect!
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 20 September 2018, 07:16:44
If your playing advanced aero movement, the ‘nose/tail/side’ modifer is based on vector, not facing.
That helps, thanks.
The reason I am reluctant to show nose arcs is based on the critical chart - bridge etc. criticals on the nose chart can quickly cripple a ship as a combatant.
I hadn't thought about this aspect much.   My default assumption w.r.t. the Taurus I is that it will be destroyed before criticals really matter.  It's something like a very slow light mech mounting a heavy gauss rifle.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 20 September 2018, 11:24:53
Also, re tech, I've thought of a much simpler system. Keep the same three fields of technology, but get rid of the "raffle ticket" system. You can spend a billion to purchase a tech roll in a given field. Each tech roll gives you a 25% chance of unlocking a tech you didn't have at the start of the turn(i.e., roll 1d12, success on 1-3, unlocking tech #1-3 as appropriate). Each turn, each tech has a 25% chance to spread to neighbours, raised to 50% if you salvage some(i.e., roll 1d4, success on 1, or on 1-2 with salvage). In each field, you can only research one new tech per turn, but anything you gain by spread is additional to that.

Let's imagine the TH puts $5B in each field each turn, a great house spends $1B per field, and a periphery nation spends nothing. The TH gains an average of 0.76 techs per field, or about 2.3 total techs per turn. The great house gains 0.25 per field, or 0.75 total from research. They'll catch up in research speed when they gain 1.5 techs per turn from spread, which means they need to be a total of 6 techs back(i.e., 2 per field) from the TH to have the same average growth rate. The periphery will catch up in research speed when they're getting 2.3 techs per turn from spread, which means they'll need to be about 9 techs back on the great house(i.e., 3 per field).

A couple potential wrinkles come to mind - one, I might make the purchase cost less than a billion for periphery nations, so that they can still participate despite their smaller budgets. Two, I'm not sure if being adjacent to multiple nations with the tech should improve spread chances. It'd make things spread faster, so it'll be flatter overall, but that's a mixed blessing. It also harms nations like the Marians that have very few neighbours - by my count it's TH/FS 5, CC/LC/FWL 4, DC 3, UHC/TC 2, and MH/RWR 1.

Still, I think I like this one better. Way less bookkeeping - I have to track who owns what, but otherwise it can be done with a single physical d12 if I have to.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 20 September 2018, 11:53:19
Could be cool to try.

I think multiple adjacent neighbors shouldnt stack - would be super-hard on the periphery realms.  Even without it, being adjacent to multiple people is a serious advantage that the P doesnt have.

At the same time, I dont think there should be an R&D discount for small economies - befause if there was, a split second later we would pay a periphery nation we arent adjacent to to do the research and share its findings.  The large house gets more bang from its buck, the Periphery Realm gets technology it otherwise wouldnt, and one of my hostile neighbors gets an upteched potentially hostile power on its border.  Even as it is, if I were the Combine, id sell or give tech to the TC in a heartbeat.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 20 September 2018, 14:19:43
Do we want to increase the rate of new techs by a factor of 2.3?

To be eligible to receive a spreading tech, perhaps some minimal investment in research should occur?  Maybe 1/10th?  A completely free ride seems unrealistically low while 300M/turn is an acceptable investment from the TC perspective. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 20 September 2018, 14:20:25
Thanks for looking out for us little guys!

After all, we can always go around SAFE... so easy for us to make them look elsewhere... >:D

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 20 September 2018, 14:38:17
At the same time, I dont think there should be an R&D discount for small economies - befause if there was, a split second later we would pay a periphery nation we arent adjacent to to do the research and share its findings.  The large house gets more bang from its buck, the Periphery Realm gets technology it otherwise wouldnt, and one of my hostile neighbors gets an upteched potentially hostile power on its border.  Even as it is, if I were the Combine, id sell or give tech to the TC in a heartbeat.

That's easy to fix - no tech trading. (You can still license ship designs, but that doesn't grant the underlying techs - maybe this is a bit handwavey, but it does encourage commerce between players)

Do we want to increase the rate of new techs by a factor of 2.3?

To be eligible to receive a spreading tech, perhaps some minimal investment in research should occur?  Maybe 1/10th?  A completely free ride seems unrealistically low while 300M/turn is an acceptable investment from the TC perspective. 

Maybe instead of tech spread being free, it's $100m to buy your chance at it? That would actually hurt the Periphery even more, though - now in order to keep up, you need to spend $900m/turn to buy the right to keep yourself only 9 techs behind your neighbours. That's a big chunk of your budget.

And yes, I want the tech growth rate increased. At this pace of turn resolution, it'll be about a year until we see HPGs or L-F batteries. Speaking realistically, I doubt I'll be able to dedicate this much of my free time to it for years on end, so I kind of like accelerated tech as a way of making the game reach a natural conclusion before 2023.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 20 September 2018, 14:45:05
THN should " help " us little guys by setting up waystations and giving us a chance to get tech!

I mean, damn, they gave the Houses a bunch of lucrative deals and us peripherals nothing awhile back!

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 20 September 2018, 16:23:11
My understanding is that this puts the periphery about 5 decades (= (9+3)/2.3) behind the TH.   That's fairly painful.  It may be explainable compared to the faster tech transfer which happens on earth due to the significantly greater communication & travel times. 

I do believe buying and selling tech at negotiated rates should be allowed, as that makes sense and it would help address the time lag.

W.r.t. the cost, I'm personally willing to go for $100M for the chance of tech spread although you are right that it really adds up when there are many techs.   On the other hand, the TC could pick & choose to some extent.  If TT prefers halving the price of tech spread "research" to $50M, that seems fine as well.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 20 September 2018, 16:33:42
Whatever get's me tech fastest!

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 21 September 2018, 21:29:24
I tracked down some details of the Reunification War (starting in 2575).
Code: [Select]
          Warships    Regiments (mech or combined arms)
TH:     507           270
FS:      78              88
CC:      45             61
DC:      49             94
FWL:    75            115
LC:       67             96
MC:      11            29
RWR:    17            25
TC:      127           33
The "heavily industrialized and well populated" TC worlds in 2575 are Electra, Maia, Merope, Rollis, New Vandenburg, Taurus.
The "industrial" TC worlds in 2575 are Flintoft, Deifenbaker, Horsham, Bromhead, Pinard, Macleod's Land.

Apparently, there were quite a few inner sphere refugees fleeing Age of War related combat who resettled into the TC over the prior century which perhaps partially accounts for the very high number of warships. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 21 September 2018, 22:35:31
Interesting. What's the source on that? And are those forces committed to the war, or total forces? Because those regiment numbers, in particular, seem very low.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 21 September 2018, 23:15:32
Interesting. What's the source on that? And are those forces committed to the war, or total forces? Because those regiment numbers, in particular, seem very low.
It's this book (https://bg.battletech.com/?wpsc-product=historical-reunification-war).  I believe these are total forces, but it's essentially just regiments of mechs---armor is only counted if it is part of a combined arms regiment.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 22 September 2018, 13:41:43
Do we have an understanding of how increased maintenance translates into elite/veteran/regular/green quality troops?   
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 22 September 2018, 14:01:08
Lagrange - what we know is that 100% is baseline.  Id assume regular.  50% is courting mutiny.  200% is where your hitting ‘gilding lillies’.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 22 September 2018, 20:10:38
100% means your die rolls are used unmodified. Higher improves your rolls(with diminishing returns), while lower harms them. Anything below 50%, the unit is presumed to be in mothballs and unable to fight unless re-activated. Note also that maintenance has inertia - 200% this turn is nice, but 200% for the last several turns is better.

Also, an update: writing the turn has been going embarrassingly slowly, and while I'll try to finish it this weekend, I can't promise that. Sorry(yet again).
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 22 September 2018, 20:26:02
In terms of maintenance, what would roughly correspond to 10% elite, 40% veteran, 40% regular, and 10% green?  This seems to be something like the typical TC force composition. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 22 September 2018, 20:33:39
I haven't tended to think of it as a distribution of skill levels, I've added that sort of distribution elsewhere(to-hit chances, etc.). What would a "normal" distribution look like in those terms?

My gut says you're looking for perhaps 120-150%, but I'm not used to thinking of it that way.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 24 September 2018, 20:48:36
I know I've been really slow this turn - I haven't been able to dedicate much time to the writing.

As a way of keeping you entertained until I can get it done, while also producing useful material, I think there might be call for support craft designs. To avoid multiplicity I want these to be generic - i.e., everyone uses the same ones, and the list of options is on the smaller side. However, that's still a dozen or so units. Feel free to post designs for fighters, small craft, and DropShips.

I can see the following obvious categories:
- Fighters: Light interceptor(~30 tons), medium jack-of-all-trades (~50 tons), heavy strike(~80 tons)
- Small craft: Infantry shuttle, vehicle shuttle, cargo shuttle, tanker, anti-missile/anti-fighter
- DropShips: ASF carrier, vehicle transport, cargo transport, pocket WarShip

If you see some holes, feel free to add more designs, but keep it within reason. The goal here is a quick reference guide for what a fleet might plausibly be packing, and one that's easy for me to use. Perfection and rules lawyering are actively discouraged - I want designs that look like canonical designs, not like min-maxed Clan LPL+DHS zombie mechs. (That said, don't make them too awful. I mean canon like the Archer 2R, not canon like the Charger 1A1)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 25 September 2018, 19:27:14
A little more guidance would help me.  Looking through, there are 3 heavy strike fighters that have been proposed:

There is one vehicle shuttle:
Skyfall (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1443669#msg1443669) 3/5 aerodyne, 1 heavy vehicle (variant:2 light vehicles), 10 tons cargo, 6x MG, 18 tons of armor, 3 tons fuel.

There is one anti-missile shuttle:
Crestbreaker (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1438684#msg1438684) 1/2 spheroid, 54x MG, 68 tons of armor, 3 tons fuel.

There is one infantry shuttle:
David (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1438684#msg1438684) 7/11 spheriod, 5 platoons, 4 tons cargo, 54 tons armor, 3 tons fuel.

There is one combat/carrier mixed role dropship:
Rainbow (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.870) 4/6 spheroid, 6x ASF, 4x Barracuda, 18x AC/5, 46x MG, 365 tons cargo, 72 tons FA armor, ?? tons fuel.

Are any of these what you are looking for?  For those that aren't what are the issues you see?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 25 September 2018, 20:51:51
Shu is badly out of date at this point - bith due to my rounding error and the advance of technology.  That said, the LCN is refitting some, replacing 2xAC/5 with 4xSRM6 and some heat sinks - probably will do a new fighter (90 or 100 tons, cant decide if 1 point of thrust is worth the massive weight of the 360 Engine)

Fast Interceptor will probably wait on Lasers.  As for 50-60 ton medium fighters... I cant convince myself they are a good investment.  Unsafe thrust means pilotig roll means ot of control means dead....)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 25 September 2018, 21:13:23
Fair point. I was thinking more of hole-filling than of going for what had already been posted - I dashed that one off quickly before bed last night, so I didn't think of all the various considerations.

Those fighters all seem reasonable. I lean towards the Cyclone, because it's got a more plausible MG count than the others, but any would be fine. The nature of my missile rules mean there's important break-points in desired fighter sizes. That's why I said 30/50/80 - 30 for a single Barracuda in a light anti-fighter model, 50 for a single ship-killer in the medium, and 80 for either 2x WS or KW/Barracuda in the heavy. (40, 60, 90, and 100 have some appeal as well, but I wanted to keep it simple). That does limit design space in an unfortunate way, but if we're only using a few models it's probably fine.

The Skyfall is pretty much exactly what I had in mind for a tank shuttle. I forgot that existed, but given that it does, it's good to use as-is. (I don't want all the shuttles to be 200 tons exactly, especially because that's the bay weight, but the vehicle shuttle probably should be)

The Crestbreaker is a bit too optimized, IMO. A generic screening small craft would be more able to keep up with a generic fleet(maybe 5/8 movement?), and it might well have fewer MGs in favour of some anti-fighter weapons to make it a multi-role screen. Yours is great at its job, but it's designed specifically for the Taurian doctrine, and...well, you wanted to go atypical, and you've succeeded.

The David is probably too big for its role, especially if I want some below-max-size SC. Seems like a bit less speed and a bit less armour would let you cut it down to maybe 120 tons or so, and it'd be a rare situation where you'd use 5.5g of thrust with 150 guys inside. But the design principles are solid.

The Rainbow is a good jack of all trades, and if I just made every DS in everyone's fleet into a Rainbow it'd probably be a reasonable approximation. But a bit of specializing should be possible too, so I don't want to leave it at that.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 25 September 2018, 22:08:00
Fast Interceptor will probably wait on Lasers. 
A fast interceptor base on MGs would not be terrible.  It could function as an aggressive backstabber in combat and offer high-G response elsewhere.
30 for a single Barracuda in a light anti-fighter model
Is a light anti-fighter carrying a Barracuda worthwhile?  A 30 tonner might go 11/16.5, but that's reduced to 5.5/8.25 when carrying the Barracuda.  Presumably, the stresses of accelerating a Barracuda at max thrust are similar to the stresses of max thrust, so the 30 tonner can only safely go 5.5.  This is only modestly slower than a 6/9 90-ton heavy strike fighter carrying a single Barracuda at 6.75 using max thrust (safely, since it has SI 9).   Even an 80 ton 6/9 design which only uses thrust 8 for safety can put out 5.8 thrust.  Similar arguments apply to 50 ton designs.  The only advantage lighter fighters seem to enjoy is lower price which is hard to justify given the all-up cost of an ASF bay.  At best, these seem justifiable for planet-based ASF.

Maybe just simplify everything to a single heavy strike fighter?
The David is probably too big for its role, especially if I want some below-max-size SC. Seems like a bit less speed and a bit less armour would let you cut it down to maybe 120 tons or so, and it'd be a rare situation where you'd use 5.5g of thrust with 150 guys inside. But the design principles are solid.
I'm hard-pressed to find any canon combat smallcraft less than 150 tons as the design rules are quite unforgiving of low tonnage designs.

W.r.t. bay size somehow accommodating bay personnel with 0 leftover tons.
(1) There are many other places in the rules where leftover tons are wasted so a minor case of rounding the other way does not concern me much.
(2) As far as I know, housing the bay personnel for a smallcraft in the smallcraft is allowed.  It's also wise as the consumables for bay personnel are prohibitively higher.

Edit: Thinking about this further, it seems important to distinguish between an infantry shuttle and a marine boarding craft.  The former should probably be aerodyne, maybe sport a few modest weapons, and need only really go 3/5.  The latter should probably be a spheroid and needs a minimum of 6/9 to have an adequate overtake velocity.   Maybe this should imply separate designs?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 27 September 2018, 07:28:00
Well, I'll have a crack at the ASF designs, with 2 variants released at 2400, and 1 every 100 years after that to allow for improved technology.

The 30-ton Tanto (Dagger)

Code: [Select]
                    AeroTech 2 Vessel Technical Readout
                                  VALIDATED

Class/Model/Name:  Tanto TNT-01
Tech:              Inner Sphere / 2400
Vessel Type:       Aerospace Fighter
Rules:             Level 2, Standard design
Rules Set:         AeroTech2

Mass:              30 tons
Power Plant:       210 Fusion
Safe Thrust:       9
Maximum Thrust:    14
Armor Type:        Ferro-aluminum
Armament:         
    1 Autocannon/2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class/Model/Name:  Tanto TNT-01
Mass:              30 tons

Equipment:                                                              Mass
Power Plant:  210 Fusion                                                 9.00
Thrust:  Safe Thrust: 9
      Maximum Thrust: 14
Structural Integrity: 9                                                   .00
Total Heat Sinks:    10 Single                                            .00
Fuel:                                                                    4.00
Cockpit & Attitude Thrusters:                                            3.00
Armor Type:  Ferro-aluminum  (125 total armor pts)                       7.00
                           Standard Scale Armor Pts
   Location:                            L / R
   Nose:                                 42
   Left/Right Wings:                  31/31
   Aft:                                  21

Weapons and Equipment      Loc        SRV    MRV    LRV    ERV  Heat    Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Autocannon/2             Nose         2      2      2     --    1      6.00
  Ammo (AC/2) 45           ---                                           1.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS:                                                     Heat: 1     30.00
Tons Left:                                                                .00

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost:        1,658,415 C-Bills
Battle Value:      453
Cost per BV:       3,660.96
Weapon Value:      494 (Ratio = 1.09)
Damage Factors:    SRV = 2;  MRV = 1;  LRV = 1;  ERV = 0
BattleForce2:      MP: 9,  Armor/Structure: 3 / 0
                   Damage PB/M/L: -/-/-,  Overheat: 0
                   Class: FL;  Point Value: 5


Code: [Select]
  AeroTech 2 Vessel Technical Readout
                                  VALIDATED

Class/Model/Name:  Tanto TNT-02
Tech:              Inner Sphere / 2400
Vessel Type:       Aerospace Fighter
Rules:             Level 2, Standard design
Rules Set:         AeroTech2

Mass:              30 tons
Power Plant:       210 Fusion
Safe Thrust:       9
Maximum Thrust:    14
Armor Type:        Ferro-aluminum
Armament:         
    1 SRM 6
    4 Machine Gun
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class/Model/Name:  Tanto TNT-02
Mass:              30 tons

Equipment:                                                              Mass
Power Plant:  210 Fusion                                                 9.00
Thrust:  Safe Thrust: 9
      Maximum Thrust: 14
Structural Integrity: 9                                                   .00
Total Heat Sinks:    10 Single                                            .00
Fuel:                                                                    4.00
Cockpit & Attitude Thrusters:                                            3.00
Armor Type:  Ferro-aluminum  (125 total armor pts)                       7.00
                           Standard Scale Armor Pts
   Location:                            L / R
   Nose:                                 42
   Left/Right Wings:                  31/31
   Aft:                                  21

Weapons and Equipment      Loc        SRV    MRV    LRV    ERV  Heat    Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 SRM 6                    Nose         8     --     --     --    4      3.00
  Ammo (SRM 6) 15          ---                                           1.00
2 Machine Gun              RW           2     --     --     --    0      1.00
2 Machine Gun              LW           2     --     --     --    0      1.00
  Ammo (MG) 200            ---                                           1.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS:                                                     Heat: 4     30.00
Tons Left:                                                                .00

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost:        1,719,365 C-Bills
Battle Value:      526
Cost per BV:       3,268.75
Weapon Value:      775 (Ratio = 1.47)
Damage Factors:    SRV = 15;  MRV = 0;  LRV = 0;  ERV = 0
BattleForce2:      MP: 9,  Armor/Structure: 3 / 0
                   Damage PB/M/L: 2/-/-,  Overheat: 0

The two variants give you the option between long range sniping, and possible long range missile defense as well, or going for a short range brawler. Either way you have a machine with superior speed to the other, larger designs, while keeping sufficient armour to withstand a few hits being needing to withdraw. Can also be used as part of its carrier vessel's missile defense screen.

Code: [Select]
AeroTech 2 Vessel Technical Readout
                                  VALIDATED

Class/Model/Name:  Tanto TNT-03
Tech:              Inner Sphere / 2500
Vessel Type:       Aerospace Fighter
Rules:             Level 2, Standard design
Rules Set:         AeroTech2

Mass:              30 tons
Power Plant:       210 Fusion
Safe Thrust:       9
Maximum Thrust:    14
Armor Type:        Ferro-aluminum
Armament:         
    4 Medium Laser
    4 Machine Gun
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class/Model/Name:  Tanto TNT-03
Mass:              30 tons

Equipment:                                                              Mass
Power Plant:  210 Fusion                                                 9.00
Thrust:  Safe Thrust: 9
      Maximum Thrust: 14
Structural Integrity: 9                                                   .00
Total Heat Sinks:    10 Single                                            .00
Fuel:                                                                    4.00
Cockpit & Attitude Thrusters:                                            3.00
Armor Type:  Ferro-aluminum  (125 total armor pts)                       7.00
                           Standard Scale Armor Pts
   Location:                            L / R
   Nose:                                 42
   Left/Right Wings:                  31/31
   Aft:                                  21

Weapons and Equipment      Loc        SRV    MRV    LRV    ERV  Heat    Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 Medium Laser             Nose         5     --     --     --   12      4.00
2 Machine Gun              RW           2     --     --     --    0      1.00
2 Machine Gun              LW           2     --     --     --    0      1.00
  Ammo (MG) 200            ---                                           1.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS:                                                    Heat: 12     30.00
Tons Left:                                                                .00

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost:        1,780,315 C-Bills
Battle Value:      756
Cost per BV:       2,354.91
Weapon Value:      1,258 (Ratio = 1.66)
Damage Factors:    SRV = 21;  MRV = 0;  LRV = 0;  ERV = 0
BattleForce2:      MP: 9,  Armor/Structure: 3 / 0
                   Damage PB/M/L: 3/-/-,  Overheat: 0
                   Class: FL;  Point Value: 8
Based upon the -02, this machine replaced the missile rack with a quartet of medium lasers, for improved armour penetration.

Code: [Select]
  AeroTech 2 Vessel Technical Readout
                                  VALIDATED

Class/Model/Name:  Tanto TNT-04
Tech:              Inner Sphere / 2600
Vessel Type:       Aerospace Fighter
Rules:             Level 2, Standard design
Rules Set:         AeroTech2

Mass:              30 tons
Power Plant:       240 XL Fusion
Safe Thrust:       10
Maximum Thrust:    15
Armor Type:        Ferro-aluminum
Armament:         
    5 Medium Laser
    6 Machine Gun
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class/Model/Name:  Tanto TNT-04
Mass:              30 tons

Equipment:                                                              Mass
Power Plant:  240 XL Fusion                                              6.00
Thrust:  Safe Thrust: 10
      Maximum Thrust: 15
Structural Integrity: 10                                                  .00
Total Heat Sinks:    10 Double                                            .00
Fuel:                                                                    4.00
Cockpit & Attitude Thrusters:                                            3.00
Armor Type:  Ferro-aluminum  (143 total armor pts)                       8.00
                           Standard Scale Armor Pts
   Location:                            L / R
   Nose:                                 50
   Left/Right Wings:                  35/35
   Aft:                                  23

Weapons and Equipment      Loc        SRV    MRV    LRV    ERV  Heat    Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Medium Laser             Nose         5     --     --     --   15      5.00
3 Machine Gun              RW           2     --     --     --    0      1.50
3 Machine Gun              LW           2     --     --     --    0      1.50
  Ammo (MG) 200            ---                                           1.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS:                                                    Heat: 15     30.00
Tons Left:                                                                .00

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost:        3,689,315 C-Bills
Battle Value:      1,011
Cost per BV:       3,649.17
Weapon Value:      1,482 (Ratio = 1.47)
Damage Factors:    SRV = 34;  MRV = 0;  LRV = 0;  ERV = 0
BattleForce2:      MP: 10,  Armor/Structure: 4 / 0
                   Damage PB/M/L: 4/-/-,  Overheat: 0
                   Class: FL;  Point Value: 10

The -04 makes use of XL Engine technology to free up space for a fifth laser, as well as a larger, more powerful engine and an additional ton of armour. Double Heat Sinks fix the minor heat issues the -03 suffered.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 27 September 2018, 07:30:11
And now the 50-ton Wakizashi

Code: [Select]
  AeroTech 2 Vessel Technical Readout
                                  VALIDATED

Class/Model/Name:  Wakizashi WAK-01
Tech:              Inner Sphere / 2400
Vessel Type:       Aerospace Fighter
Rules:             Level 2, Standard design
Rules Set:         AeroTech2

Mass:              50 tons
Power Plant:       250 Fusion
Safe Thrust:       7
Maximum Thrust:    11
Armor Type:        Ferro-aluminum
Armament:         
    2 Autocannon/5
    2 Machine Gun
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class/Model/Name:  Wakizashi WAK-01
Mass:              50 tons

Equipment:                                                              Mass
Power Plant:  250 Fusion                                                12.50
Thrust:  Safe Thrust: 7
      Maximum Thrust: 11
Structural Integrity: 7                                                   .00
Total Heat Sinks:    10 Single                                            .00
Fuel:                                                                    5.00
Cockpit & Attitude Thrusters:                                            3.00
Armor Type:  Ferro-aluminum  (170 total armor pts)                       9.50
                           Standard Scale Armor Pts
   Location:                            L / R
   Nose:                                 58
   Left/Right Wings:                  42/42
   Aft:                                  28

Weapons and Equipment      Loc        SRV    MRV    LRV    ERV  Heat    Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Autocannon/5             Nose         5      5     --     --    2     16.00
  Ammo (AC/5) 40           ---                                           2.00
2 Machine Guns             Nose           4     --     --     --    0       1.00
  Ammo (MG) 200            ---                                           1.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS:                                                     Heat: 2     50.00
Tons Left:                                                                .00

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost:        2,551,042 C-Bills
Battle Value:      740
Cost per BV:       3,447.35
Weapon Value:      1,129 (Ratio = 1.53)
Damage Factors:    SRV = 13;  MRV = 7;  LRV = 0;  ERV = 0
BattleForce2:      MP: 7,  Armor/Structure: 4 / 0
                   Damage PB/M/L: 1/1/-,  Overheat: 0
                   Class: FM;  Point Value: 7


Code: [Select]
                   AeroTech 2 Vessel Technical Readout
                                  VALIDATED

Class/Model/Name:  Wakizashi WAK-02
Tech:              Inner Sphere / 2400
Vessel Type:       Aerospace Fighter
Rules:             Level 2, Standard design
Rules Set:         AeroTech2

Mass:              50 tons
Power Plant:       250 Fusion
Safe Thrust:       7
Maximum Thrust:    11
Armor Type:        Ferro-aluminum
Armament:         
    1 Autocannon/5
    4 Machine Gun
    2 SRM 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class/Model/Name:  Wakizashi WAK-02
Mass:              50 tons

Equipment:                                                              Mass
Power Plant:  250 Fusion                                                12.50
Thrust:  Safe Thrust: 7
      Maximum Thrust: 11
Structural Integrity: 7                                                   .00
Total Heat Sinks:    10 Single                                            .00
Fuel:                                                                    5.00
Cockpit & Attitude Thrusters:                                            3.00
Armor Type:  Ferro-aluminum  (170 total armor pts)                       9.50
                           Standard Scale Armor Pts
   Location:                            L / R
   Nose:                                 58
   Left/Right Wings:                  42/42
   Aft:                                  28

Weapons and Equipment      Loc        SRV    MRV    LRV    ERV  Heat    Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Autocannon/5             Nose         5      5     --     --    1      8.00
  Ammo (AC/5) 20           ---                                           1.00
2 Machine Gun              RW           2     --     --     --    0      1.00
2 Machine Gun              LW           2     --     --     --    0      1.00
  Ammo (MG) 200            ---                                           1.00
1 SRM 6                    RW           8     --     --     --    4      3.00
1 SRM 6                    LW           8     --     --     --    4      3.00
  Ammo (SRM 6) 30          ---                                           2.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS:                                                     Heat: 9     50.00
Tons Left:                                                                .00

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost:        2,736,667 C-Bills
Battle Value:      827
Cost per BV:       3,309.15
Weapon Value:      1,140 (Ratio = 1.38)
Damage Factors:    SRV = 27;  MRV = 4;  LRV = 0;  ERV = 0
BattleForce2:      MP: 7,  Armor/Structure: 4 / 0
                   Damage PB/M/L: 3/1/-,  Overheat: 0
                   Class: FM;  Point Value: 8

Much like the Tanto, the choice must be made between long range or short range firepower, though less focused. Much like the Tanto it can also serve as a last ditch missile screen for its carrier vessel.

Code: [Select]
                    AeroTech 2 Vessel Technical Readout
                                  VALIDATED

Class/Model/Name:  Wakizashi WAK-03
Tech:              Inner Sphere / 2500
Vessel Type:       Aerospace Fighter
Rules:             Level 2, Standard design
Rules Set:         AeroTech2

Mass:              50 tons
Power Plant:       250 Fusion
Safe Thrust:       7
Maximum Thrust:    11
Armor Type:        Ferro-aluminum
Armament:         
    1 PPC
    3 Medium Laser
    4 Machine Gun
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class/Model/Name:  Wakizashi WAK-03
Mass:              50 tons

Equipment:                                                              Mass
Power Plant:  250 Fusion                                                12.50
Thrust:  Safe Thrust: 7
      Maximum Thrust: 11
Structural Integrity: 7                                                   .00
Total Heat Sinks:    16 Single                                           6.00
Fuel:                                                                    5.00
Cockpit & Attitude Thrusters:                                            3.00
Armor Type:  Ferro-aluminum  (188 total armor pts)                      10.50
                           Standard Scale Armor Pts
   Location:                            L / R
   Nose:                                 63
   Left/Right Wings:                  47/47
   Aft:                                  31

Weapons and Equipment      Loc        SRV    MRV    LRV    ERV  Heat    Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 PPC                      Nose        10     10     --     --   10      7.00
1 Medium Laser             Nose         5     --     --     --    3      1.00
2 Machine Gun              RW           2     --     --     --    0      1.00
2 Machine Gun              LW           2     --     --     --    0      1.00
  Ammo (MG) 200            ---                                           1.00
1 Medium Laser             RW           5     --     --     --    3      1.00
1 Medium Laser             LW           5     --     --     --    3      1.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS:                                                    Heat: 19     50.00
Tons Left:                                                                .00

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost:        2,679,792 C-Bills
Battle Value:      1,059
Cost per BV:       2,530.49
Weapon Value:      1,591 (Ratio = 1.50)
Damage Factors:    SRV = 25;  MRV = 6;  LRV = 0;  ERV = 0
BattleForce2:      MP: 7,  Armor/Structure: 5 / 0
                   Damage PB/M/L: 3/1/-,  Overheat: 0
                   Class: FM;  Point Value: 11

Replaces the AC/5 with a PPC, and the SRM racks with lasers to relieve the Wakizashi of ammunition concerns, though heat is a factor. Also the armour was improved by a ton.

Code: [Select]
                   AeroTech 2 Vessel Technical Readout
                                  VALIDATED

Class/Model/Name:  Wakizashi WAK-04
Tech:              Inner Sphere / 2600
Vessel Type:       Aerospace Fighter
Rules:             Level 2, Standard design
Rules Set:         AeroTech2

Mass:              50 tons
Power Plant:       250 XL Fusion
Safe Thrust:       7
Maximum Thrust:    11
Armor Type:        Ferro-aluminum
Armament:         
    1 PPC
    2 Large Laser
    4 Machine Gun
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class/Model/Name:  Wakizashi WAK-04
Mass:              50 tons

Equipment:                                                              Mass
Power Plant:  250 XL Fusion                                              6.50
Thrust:  Safe Thrust: 7
      Maximum Thrust: 11
Structural Integrity: 7                                                   .00
Total Heat Sinks:    13 Double                                           3.00
Fuel:                                                                    5.00
Cockpit & Attitude Thrusters:                                            3.00
Armor Type:  Ferro-aluminum  (224 total armor pts)                      12.50
                           Standard Scale Armor Pts
   Location:                            L / R
   Nose:                                 75
   Left/Right Wings:                  56/56
   Aft:                                  37

Weapons and Equipment      Loc        SRV    MRV    LRV    ERV  Heat    Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 PPC                      Nose        10     10     --     --   10      7.00
1 Large Laser              RW           8      8     --     --    8      5.00
1 Large Laser              LW           8      8     --     --    8      5.00
2 Machine Gun              RW           2     --     --     --    0      1.00
2 Machine Gun              LW           2     --     --     --    0      1.00
  Ammo (MG) 200            ---                                           1.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS:                                                    Heat: 26     50.00
Tons Left:                                                                .00

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost:        6,012,292 C-Bills
Battle Value:      1,403
Cost per BV:       4,285.31
Weapon Value:      1,757 (Ratio = 1.25)
Damage Factors:    SRV = 31;  MRV = 19;  LRV = 0;  ERV = 0
BattleForce2:      MP: 7,  Armor/Structure: 6 / 0
                   Damage PB/M/L: 3/3/-,  Overheat: 0
                   Class: FM;  Point Value: 14

The weight freed up by the use of an XL Engine and Double Heat Sinks allows the -04 to carry 3 large energy weapons to punch through all but the thickest of ASF armour.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 27 September 2018, 07:30:41
And finally, the 80-ton Yari (Spear)

Code: [Select]
                   AeroTech 2 Vessel Technical Readout
                                  VALIDATED

Class/Model/Name:  Yari YAR-01
Tech:              Inner Sphere / 2400
Vessel Type:       Aerospace Fighter
Rules:             Level 2, Standard design
Rules Set:         AeroTech2

Mass:              80 tons
Power Plant:       320 Fusion
Safe Thrust:       6
Maximum Thrust:    9
Armor Type:        Ferro-aluminum
Armament:         
    8 Machine Gun
    3 Autocannon/5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class/Model/Name:  Yari YAR-01
Mass:              80 tons

Equipment:                                                              Mass
Power Plant:  320 Fusion                                                22.50
Thrust:  Safe Thrust: 6
      Maximum Thrust: 9
Structural Integrity: 8                                                   .00
Total Heat Sinks:    10 Single                                            .00
Fuel:                                                                    5.00
Cockpit & Attitude Thrusters:                                            3.00
Armor Type:  Ferro-aluminum  (278 total armor pts)                      15.50
                           Standard Scale Armor Pts
   Location:                            L / R
   Nose:                                 94
   Left/Right Wings:                  69/69
   Aft:                                  46

Weapons and Equipment      Loc        SRV    MRV    LRV    ERV  Heat    Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Machine Gun              Nose         2     --     --     --    0      1.00
  Ammo (MG) 200            ---                                           1.00
1 Autocannon/5             Nose         5      5     --     --    1      8.00
  Ammo (AC/5) 20           ---                                           1.00
1 Autocannon/5             RW           5      5     --     --    1      8.00
1 Autocannon/5             LW           5      5     --     --    1      8.00
  Ammo (AC/5) 40           ---                                           2.00
2 Machine Gun              RW           2     --     --     --    0      1.00
2 Machine Gun              LW           2     --     --     --    0      1.00
  Ammo (MG) 200            ---                                           1.00
2 Machine Gun              Aft          2     --     --     --    0      1.00
  Ammo (MG) 200            ---                                           1.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS:                                                     Heat: 3     80.00
Tons Left:                                                                .00

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost:        4,640,953 C-Bills
Battle Value:      1,084
Cost per BV:       4,281.32
Weapon Value:      1,499 (Ratio = 1.38)
Damage Factors:    SRV = 28;  MRV = 11;  LRV = 0;  ERV = 0
BattleForce2:      MP: 6,  Armor/Structure: 7 / 0
                   Damage PB/M/L: 3/2/-,  Overheat: 0
                   Class: FH;  Point Value: 11


Code: [Select]
                  AeroTech 2 Vessel Technical Readout
                                  VALIDATED

Class/Model/Name:  Yari YAR-02
Tech:              Inner Sphere / 2400
Vessel Type:       Aerospace Fighter
Rules:             Level 2, Standard design
Rules Set:         AeroTech2

Mass:              80 tons
Power Plant:       320 Fusion
Safe Thrust:       6
Maximum Thrust:    9
Armor Type:        Ferro-aluminum
Armament:         
    6 Machine Gun
    1 Autocannon/5
    2 LRM 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class/Model/Name:  Yari YAR-02
Mass:              80 tons

Equipment:                                                              Mass
Power Plant:  320 Fusion                                                22.50
Thrust:  Safe Thrust: 6
      Maximum Thrust: 9
Structural Integrity: 8                                                   .00
Total Heat Sinks:    11 Single                                           1.00
Fuel:                                                                    5.00
Cockpit & Attitude Thrusters:                                            3.00
Armor Type:  Ferro-aluminum  (296 total armor pts)                      16.50
                           Standard Scale Armor Pts
   Location:                            L / R
   Nose:                                 99
   Left/Right Wings:                  74/74
   Aft:                                  49

Weapons and Equipment      Loc        SRV    MRV    LRV    ERV  Heat    Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Machine Gun              Nose         2     --     --     --    0      1.00
  Ammo (MG) 200            ---                                           1.00
1 Autocannon/5             Nose         5      5     --     --    1      8.00
  Ammo (AC/5) 20           ---                                           1.00
1 LRM 15                   RW           9      9      9     --    5      7.00
1 LRM 15                   LW           9      9      9     --    5      7.00
  Ammo (LRM 15) 32         ---                                           4.00
2 Machine Gun              RW           2     --     --     --    0      1.00
2 Machine Gun              LW           2     --     --     --    0      1.00
  Ammo (MG) 200            ---                                           1.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS:                                                    Heat: 11     80.00
Tons Left:                                                                .00

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost:        5,107,153 C-Bills
Battle Value:      1,359
Cost per BV:       3,758.02
Weapon Value:      1,711 (Ratio = 1.26)
Damage Factors:    SRV = 32;  MRV = 17;  LRV = 5;  ERV = 0
BattleForce2:      MP: 6,  Armor/Structure: 7 / 0
                   Damage PB/M/L: 4/2/2,  Overheat: 0
                   Class: FH;  Point Value: 14

Machine guns scattered across both designs make the Yari quite effective as part of a anti-missile screen, while the 3 AC/5s (for simplicity's sake) or a single AC/5 backed by LRM 15's racks in each wing give it ample firepower to deal with enemy strike craft.

Code: [Select]
                   AeroTech 2 Vessel Technical Readout
                                  VALIDATED

Class/Model/Name:  Yari YAR-03
Tech:              Inner Sphere / 2500
Vessel Type:       Aerospace Fighter
Rules:             Level 2, Standard design
Rules Set:         AeroTech2

Mass:              80 tons
Power Plant:       320 Fusion
Safe Thrust:       6
Maximum Thrust:    9
Armor Type:        Ferro-aluminum
Armament:         
    2 Machine Gun
    1 PPC
    2 LRM 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class/Model/Name:  Yari YAR-03
Mass:              80 tons

Equipment:                                                              Mass
Power Plant:  320 Fusion                                                22.50
Thrust:  Safe Thrust: 6
      Maximum Thrust: 9
Structural Integrity: 8                                                   .00
Total Heat Sinks:    16 Single                                           6.00
Fuel:                                                                    5.00
Cockpit & Attitude Thrusters:                                            3.00
Armor Type:  Ferro-aluminum  (296 total armor pts)                      16.50
                           Standard Scale Armor Pts
   Location:                            L / R
   Nose:                                 99
   Left/Right Wings:                  74/74
   Aft:                                  49

Weapons and Equipment      Loc        SRV    MRV    LRV    ERV  Heat    Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Machine Gun              Nose         2     --     --     --    0      1.00
  Ammo (MG) 200            ---                                           1.00
1 PPC                      Nose        10     10     --     --   10      7.00
1 LRM 15                   RW           9      9      9     --    5      7.00
1 LRM 15                   LW           9      9      9     --    5      7.00
  Ammo (LRM 15) 32         ---                                           4.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS:                                                    Heat: 20     80.00
Tons Left:                                                                .00

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost:        5,189,053 C-Bills
Battle Value:      1,418
Cost per BV:       3,659.42
Weapon Value:      1,995 (Ratio = 1.41)
Damage Factors:    SRV = 23;  MRV = 16;  LRV = 4;  ERV = 0
BattleForce2:      MP: 6,  Armor/Structure: 7 / 0
                   Damage PB/M/L: 3/3/2,  Overheat: 0
                   Class: FH;  Point Value: 14

Based upon the -02, this variant replaces the AC/5 with a PPC, which aids the one-shot-kill potential of the craft, but leaves it with potential heat issues if all the firepower is used at once.

Code: [Select]
                  AeroTech 2 Vessel Technical Readout
                                  VALIDATED

Class/Model/Name:  Yari YAR-04
Tech:              Inner Sphere / 2600
Vessel Type:       Aerospace Fighter
Rules:             Level 2, Standard design
Rules Set:         AeroTech2

Mass:              80 tons
Power Plant:       320 XL Fusion
Safe Thrust:       6
Maximum Thrust:    9
Armor Type:        Ferro-aluminum
Armament:         
    1 Autocannon/20
    4 Machine Gun
    2 PPC
    2 Medium Laser
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class/Model/Name:  Yari YAR-04
Mass:              80 tons

Equipment:                                                              Mass
Power Plant:  320 XL Fusion                                             11.50
Thrust:  Safe Thrust: 6
      Maximum Thrust: 9
Structural Integrity: 8                                                   .00
Total Heat Sinks:    14 Double                                           4.00
Fuel:                                                                    5.00
Cockpit & Attitude Thrusters:                                            3.00
Armor Type:  Ferro-aluminum  (332 total armor pts)                      18.50
                           Standard Scale Armor Pts
   Location:                            L / R
   Nose:                                111
   Left/Right Wings:                  83/83
   Aft:                                  55

Weapons and Equipment      Loc        SRV    MRV    LRV    ERV  Heat    Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Autocannon/20            Nose        20     --     --     --    7     14.00
  Ammo (AC/20) 20          ---                                           4.00
2 Machine Gun              RW           2     --     --     --    0      1.00
2 Machine Gun              LW           2     --     --     --    0      1.00
  Ammo (MG) 400            ---                                           2.00
1 PPC                      RW          10     10     --     --   10      7.00
1 PPC                      LW          10     10     --     --   10      7.00
2 Medium Laser             Aft          5     --     --     --    6      2.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS:                                                    Heat: 33     80.00
Tons Left:                                                                .00

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost:        12,546,053 C-Bills
Battle Value:      1,767
Cost per BV:       7,100.2
Weapon Value:      2,495 (Ratio = 1.41)
Damage Factors:    SRV = 45;  MRV = 12;  LRV = 0;  ERV = 0
BattleForce2:      MP: 6,  Armor/Structure: 8 / 0
                   Damage PB/M/L: 5/2/-,  Overheat: 0
                   Class: FH;  Point Value: 18

The -04 sees the whole fighter rebuilt from the ground up, with a nose-mounted AC/20 for breaking open fighters or dropships at close range, and a PPC in each wing for medium range engagements. The armour is also substantially improved.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 27 September 2018, 17:29:15
The David is probably too big for its role, especially if I want some below-max-size SC. Seems like a bit less speed and a bit less armour would let you cut it down to maybe 120 tons or so, and it'd be a rare situation where you'd use 5.5g of thrust with 150 guys inside. But the design principles are solid.

I'd imagine any combat dropper would want as much "dodge and juke" as possible for entering and exiting a hot LZ, not to mention armor.  And if its used as a boarding shuttle, the armor and thrust also make sense.

With my merc force I occasionally end up with missions where a DS is involved, and with just 3025 tanks, armor is -critical-...  Although, to be fair, not many people intentionally crash Union droppers into enemy formations like I do...  "I came in like a wreeeeecking balll.... so hard I blew a lannnnce away..."

Side note...  The rules as written mean that on average, _elite_ pilots will crash a spheroid dropship roughly 11% of the time, just doing normal flight maneuvers in atmosphere.  Things like landing or taking off.  Not combat operations, not while taking fire, just flying around... 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 27 September 2018, 21:24:13
Here's an all-roles infantry shuttle.   200 ton Aerodyne, 6/9, 6x MG, 6x Infantry Platoon (=2 companies), 6.5 tons cargo, 45 tons armor, 5 tons fuel.  Variants for motorized/mechanized infantry can support 4 platoons with some cargo.
Code: [Select]
200 ton Smallcraft Centauro Aerodyne Combat Shuttle
Base Tech Level: Standard (IS)
Tech Rating: D/D-E-D-D

Weight: 200 tons
BV: 1,951
Cost: 15,232,600 C-bills

Movement: 6/9
Heat Sinks: 1
Fuel Points: 400/400 (5.0 tons)
Tons Per Burn Day: 1.84

Structural Integrity: 10
Armor: 760
            Armor 
-------------------
Nose          228 
Left Side     190 
Right Side    190 
Aft           152 

Weapons      Loc  Heat 
------------------------
Machine Gun  NOS    0   
Machine Gun  NOS    0   
Machine Gun  NOS    0   
Machine Gun  NOS    0   
Machine Gun  NOS    0   
Machine Gun  NOS    0   

Ammo                   Loc  Shots 
-----------------------------------
Half Machine Gun Ammo  NOS    100 

Carrying Capacity
-----------------
Infantry Bay (1 door) - 6 Foot platoons
Cargo Space (1 door) - 6.5 tons

Crew                   
-----------------------
Officers              1
Enlisted/Non-rated    2
Gunners               1
Bay Personnel       168

If you really want a light version, here's a 150 ton one.  6/9, 6x MG, 3x Infantry Platoon (=1 company), 9 tons cargo, 30 tons armor, 5 tons fuel.  Variants for motorized/mechanized infantry can support 3/2 platoons with cargo.
Code: [Select]
150 ton Smallcraft Centauro Aerodyne Company Combat Shuttle
Base Tech Level: Standard (IS)
Tech Rating: D/D-E-D-D

Weight: 150 tons
BV: 1,339
Cost: 9,410,080 C-bills

Movement: 6/9
Heat Sinks: 0
Fuel Points: 400/400 (5.0 tons)
Tons Per Burn Day: 1.84

Structural Integrity: 9
Armor: 516
            Armor 
-------------------
Nose          155 
Left Side     129 
Right Side    129 
Aft           103 

Weapons      Loc  Heat 
------------------------
Machine Gun  NOS    0   
Machine Gun  NOS    0   
Machine Gun  NOS    0   
Machine Gun  NOS    0   
Machine Gun  NOS    0   
Machine Gun  NOS    0   

Ammo                   Loc  Shots 
-----------------------------------
Half Machine Gun Ammo  NOS    100 

Carrying Capacity
-----------------
Infantry Bay (1 door) - 3.0 Foot platoons
Cargo Space (1 door) - 9 tons

Crew                 
----------------------
Officers             1
Enlisted/Non-rated   2
Gunners              1
Bay Personnel       84
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 27 September 2018, 22:52:45
Are these just generic use or faction based?

And I want to see what a Yuri looks like from Smegish! ( LRM based )

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 28 September 2018, 00:19:55
Alsadius asked for generic, so I'm giving generic.

And the YARI -02 probably resembles an Ostrogoth or Wusun, at least in weapon layout. Bodywork wouldn't look that cool yet.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 28 September 2018, 20:55:35
Here are 4 specialized dropships.  All of these except the assault dropship are aerodyne to support atmospheric operations if they are necessary.  They also each have 200 tons of fuel.

A carrier.  Aerodyne 3/5, 12 ASF bays each with 100 tons of cargo + 63 extra tons of cargo, 12x MG in RW/LW, 8x MG in Nose (32x MG total forward facing), 4x LRM-20 in Nose, 2x LRM-20 Aft, 10x MG Aft, 54 tons FA armor.  Includes quarters for all bay personnel.
Code: [Select]
5000 ton dropship Carrier
Base Tech Level: Standard (IS)
Tech Rating: E/E-F(F*)-E-E

Weight: 5000 tons
BV: 3,855
Cost: 232,516,800 C-bills

Movement: 3/5
Heat Sinks: 48
Fuel Points: 6000 (200.0 tons)
Tons Per Burn Day: 1.84

Structural Integrity: 12
Armor: 1015 (Ferro-Aluminum)
            Armor 
-------------------
Nose          304 
Left Side     254 
Right Side    254 
Aft           203 

Weapons            Loc  Heat 
------------------------------
LRM Bay            NOS   24   
4x LRM 20                       
 LRM 20 Ammo         78       
Point Defense Bay  NOS    0   
 8x Machine Gun                   
 Machine Gun Ammo   200       
Point Defense Bay   RS    0   
 12x Machine Gun                   
 Machine Gun Ammo   200       
Point Defense Bay   LS    0   
 12x Machine Gun                   
 Machine Gun Ammo   200       
LRM Bay            AFT   12   
2x LRM 20                       
 LRM 20 Ammo         36       
Point Defense Bay  AFT    0   
 10x Machine Gun                   
 Machine Gun Ammo   200       

Carrying Capacity
-----------------
Aerospace Fighter (6 doors) - 12 units (12 recovery open)
Cargo Space (2 doors) - 1,263 tons

Crew                 
----------------------
Officers             3
Enlisted/Non-rated   2
Gunners              8
Bay Personnel       24

An armor transport.  Aerodyne 3/5, 36 light vehicle bays (Variant: 18 heavy vehicle) +305 tons of cargo, 12x MG in RW/LW, 8x MG in Nose (32x MG total forward facing), 4x LRM-20 in Nose, 2x LRM-20 Aft, 10x MG Aft, 54 tons FA armor.  Includes quarters for all bay personnel.
Code: [Select]
5000 ton dropship Battalion
Base Tech Level: Standard (IS)
Tech Rating: E/E-F(F*)-E-E

Weight: 5000 tons
BV: 3,780
Cost: 269,380,800 C-bills

Movement: 3/5
Heat Sinks: 48
Fuel Points: 6000 (200.0 tons)
Tons Per Burn Day: 1.84

Structural Integrity: 12
Armor: 1015 (Ferro-Aluminum)
            Armor 
-------------------
Nose          304 
Left Side     254 
Right Side    254 
Aft           203 

Weapons            Loc  Heat 
------------------------------
LRM Bay            NOS   24   
 4x LRM 20                       
 LRM 20 Ammo         60       
Point Defense Bay  NOS    0   
 8x Machine Gun                   
 Machine Gun Ammo   200       
Point Defense Bay   RS    0   
 12x Machine Gun                   
 Machine Gun Ammo   200       
Point Defense Bay   LS    0   
 12x Machine Gun                   
 Machine Gun Ammo   200       
LRM Bay            AFT   12   
 2x LRM 20                       
 LRM 20 Ammo         30       
Point Defense Bay  AFT    0   
 10x Machine Gun                   
 Machine Gun Ammo   200       

Carrying Capacity
-----------------
Light Vehicle Bay (7 doors) - 36 units
Cargo Space (1 door) - 305 tons

Crew                   
-----------------------
Officers              3
Enlisted/Non-rated    2
Gunners               8
Bay Personnel       180

A militarized cargo craft.  Aerodyne 3/5, 3383.5 tons of cargo, 8x MG in Nose, 2x LRM-20 in Nose, LRM-20 Aft, 10x MG Aft, 40.5 tons armor. 
Code: [Select]
5000 ton dropship Cargo
Base Tech Level: Standard (IS)
Tech Rating: D/E-E-E-E

Weight: 5000 tons
BV: 2,367
Cost: 150,904,800 C-bills

Movement: 3/5
Heat Sinks: 48
Fuel Points: 6000 (200.0 tons)
Tons Per Burn Day: 1.84

Structural Integrity: 9
Armor: 684
            Armor 
-------------------
Nose          206 
Left Side     171 
Right Side    171 
Aft           136 

Weapons            Loc  Heat 
------------------------------
LRM Bay            NOS   12   
 2x LRM 20                       
 LRM 20 Ammo         42       
Point Defense Bay  NOS    0   
 8x Machine Gun                   
 Machine Gun Ammo   200       
LRM Bay            AFT    6   
 LRM 20                       
 LRM 20 Ammo         18       
Point Defense Bay  AFT    0   
 10x Machine Gun                   
 Machine Gun Ammo   200       

Carrying Capacity
-----------------
Cargo Space (8 doors) - 3,383.500 tons

Crew                 
---------------------
Officers            2
Enlisted/Non-rated  3
Gunners             4
Bay Personnel       0

An assault dropship.  Spheroid 7/11, 1 smallcraft bay (could be used for a marine transport) +178 tons of cargo, 10x LRM-20 in Nose, 2xBarracuda in Nose, Killer Whale in Nose, 12x MG in FR/FL/AR/AL,  2x LRM-20 Aft, 10x MG Aft, 79 tons FA armor.  Includes quarters for all bay personnel.
Code: [Select]
5000 ton dropship Assault
Base Tech Level: Standard (IS)
Tech Rating: E/E-F(F*)-E-E

Weight: 5000 tons
BV: 14,730
Cost: 305,726,400 C-bills

Movement: 7/11
Heat Sinks: 124
Fuel Points: 6000 (200.0 tons)
Tons Per Burn Day: 1.84

Structural Integrity: 22
Armor: 1503 (Ferro-Aluminum)
            Armor 
-------------------
Nose          451 
Left Side     376 
Right Side    376 
Aft           300 

Weapons                                  Loc  Heat 
----------------------------------------------------
LRM Bay                                  NOS   54   
 9x LRM 20                                             
 LRM 20 Ammo                              180       
Capital Missile Bay                      NOS   40   
 2x Capital Missile Launcher (Barracuda)               
 Capital Missile Launcher (Killer Whale)             
 Barracuda Ammo                            20       
 Killer Whale Ammo                         10       
Point Defense Bay                         FR    0   
 12x Machine Gun                                         
 Machine Gun Ammo                         600       
Point Defense Bay                     AR    0   
 12x Machine Gun                                     
 Machine Gun Ammo                         600       
Point Defense Bay                        FL    0   
 12x Machine Gun                                         
 Machine Gun Ammo                         600       
Point Defense Bay                       AL    0   
 12x Machine Gun                                     
 Machine Gun Ammo                         600       
LRM Bay                                  AFT   12   
 2x LRM 20                                             
 LRM 20 Ammo                               36       
Point Defense Bay                        AFT    0   
 10x Machine Gun                                         
 Machine Gun Ammo                         600       

Carrying Capacity
-----------------
Small Craft (1 door) - 1 unit (2 recovery open)
Cargo Space (1 door) - 178 tons

Crew                 
----------------------
Officers             5
Enlisted/Non-rated   0
Gunners             15
Bay Personnel        5

Edit: changed Assault to Spheroid.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 29 September 2018, 21:13:58
One more: a 5/8 missile defense smallcraft.   200 ton spheroid, 5/8, 5 tons of fuel, 50 tons FA armor, 36x MG in Nose, 2 tons cargo.

I considered making an anti-fighter smallcraft but I don't see smallcraft as effective in an anti-fighter role.  They are slow (lose initiative), they cost substantially more, they require substantially more tonnage for consumables, and they don't even generally give an advantage over ASF in weapons per transport tonnage at 5/8.  In contrast, a single missile defense smallcraft is worth 2-3 ASF in the same role which provides an advantage in transport tonnage. 
Code: [Select]
200 ton Fireshield Missile Defense Smallcraft
Base Tech Level: Standard (IS)
Tech Rating: D/D-E-D-D

Weight: 200 tons
BV: 2,644
Cost: 16,690,100 C-bills

Movement: 5/8
Heat Sinks: 10
Fuel Points: 400 (5.0 tons)
Tons Per Burn Day: 1.84

Structural Integrity: 14
Armor: 952 (Ferro-Aluminum)
            Armor 
-------------------
Nose          286 
Left Side     238 
Right Side    238 
Aft           190 

Weapons      Loc  Heat 
------------------------
36x Machine Gun  NOS    0   

Ammo              Loc  Shots 
------------------------------
Machine Gun Ammo  NOS    600 

Carrying Capacity
-----------------
Cargo Space (1 door) - 2 tons

Crew                 
---------------------
Officers            2
Enlisted/Non-rated  1
Gunners             6
Bay Personnel       0
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 29 September 2018, 23:40:02
I really wish robotic controls were further advanced in this era.  Ive a mental image of drone fighters and small craft providing anti-fighter/anti missile defense - effectively ablative, cause there is no human cost.  Fighters faster, the small craft being almost like detached turrets, with one more safe thrust than the warship for station keeping.

But that starts to feel more ‘Culture’ and less ‘WW 1-2 in spaaace..’
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 30 September 2018, 01:45:25
I'd prefer slow as crap old-school ' Ironclad ' Corvettes over blundering fast BBs myself.

How goes the writing?

* pokes Mr. GM with a half-eaten corncob in the jibs *

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 30 September 2018, 06:25:30
How goes the writing?

* pokes Mr. GM with a half-eaten corncob in the jibs *

Frankly, shitty. I haven't had a lot of free time the last few weeks, and I've had real trouble getting into the writing when I have had time. I'm getting through it, but far slower than I want to be.

That said, I have a new tech list up on the master spreadsheet. It's using the same rules as outlined above, except that I'll make RWR and MH adjacent for tech spread, and I'm still a bit undecided on how to buff periphery tech - I'm thinking of either giving small nations a 3-for-1 deal on the first billion they invest in tech each turn, or possibly just buffing periphery budgets substantially. Doubling them(except for the UHC) seems like it could be fitting as well as more fun, but that puts the LC (and to a lesser extent FS and FWL) in an interesting position, because they'll have much stronger threats on the outsides of their realms than they've had up until now.

In any case, you can take a look at which techs will be available.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 30 September 2018, 11:27:31
Frankly, shitty. I haven't had a lot of free time the last few weeks, and I've had real trouble getting into the writing when I have had time. I'm getting through it, but far slower than I want to be.
Would making things more incremental be helpful?  (More generally, what would be helpful?)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 30 September 2018, 12:01:25
Ohh... shiny new tech tree!

Me likey...

Whatever you want to gives us lil' folk, I'm in! ( As if duh, fur shore boss dude(tte?)! Most exultant! ) > me watching to much Bill & Ted's Adventure(s) re-runs  xp <

So if I get this right, let's say I dump in about 3-4 Billion next turn, straight cash, how would that increase my ability to this newer list? Would this, in game, allow me to do espionage, which we agreed wasn't allowed but technically is but not for us to play Black Ops, later? As in, " you've paid some people to keep their eyes and ears open, preferable your neighbors people to spy for you " so you can get a chance to see what they are pre- building / developing currently this ' turn ' for next. In other words, your chances for their tech in the lab is X-amount percentage for X-amount cash, which only I - Alsadius, your resident Lord and Mas....  :thumbsup: - can decide.

Pay X get X chance to get neighbor's tech before they deploy! Or is something that hasn't cross your collective mind yet? In a sense, we can piggy-back the new tech same decade!

TT

EDIT:

Just checked my side of the spreadsheet... needs to update: Ribe station- I do NOT have 120 stations! That's Marcus, I really don't want to be a periphery LC clone, thank you very much!

As of turn 6, I have the following added to my current list:
Code: [Select]
Buying, Ribe Station, Steiner:      .175 Million ( x1 total ) Alphard
Buying, Onsen Station, Kurita:     .551 Million ( x1 total ) Lothario
Buying, Tenshi Station, Kurita:   2.628 Billion ( x6 total ) 4 Alphard, 2 Lothario
Buying, Small Craft:                     .300 Million ( 30 Small craft )
Buying, Jumpship:                      2 Billion ( x4 total )
Buying, Dropship:                       3.600 Billion ( x12 total )
Buying, Ala x 10 ( 10 asf each )   .500 Million ( 100 fighters )

Thanks!

( And so I don't have to re-scroll to find my ending budget: End Turn 6 Budget: 1 Billion, 637 Million )
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 30 September 2018, 17:16:15
I was trying to reconcile something confusing and discovered there is a bug in the warship design worksheet.   

SO page 160 states that quarters & infantry bays are free on all advanced aerospace units.  This does not obviate the need for life support (at 5K/head), but it means the the choice of quarter should not matter.  From experimenting, it appears that the cost of quarters used is 30K for first class, 15K for second class, and 10K(?) for steerage, all of which should be zero instead (while keeping the 5K/head for life support).
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 01 October 2018, 05:56:44
Would making things more incremental be helpful?  (More generally, what would be helpful?)

Sadly, this isn't one you guys can help much with. Most of it boils down to my RL - I've been busier at work and less able to take long lunches for writing, and busier at home with less ability to block off lots of time.

I was trying to reconcile something confusing and discovered there is a bug in the warship design worksheet.   

SO page 160 states that quarters & infantry bays are free on all advanced aerospace units.  This does not obviate the need for life support (at 5K/head), but it means the the choice of quarter should not matter.  From experimenting, it appears that the cost of quarters used is 30K for first class, 15K for second class, and 10K(?) for steerage, all of which should be zero instead (while keeping the 5K/head for life support).

Look at the top of page 159 - crew quarters have a cost per page 293 of Tech Manual, which is non-zero. I read that as saying that it's built into the base cost of the ship, instead of being a separate entry in the equipment list. I'm not sure of this, however, and the errata provides no clarification.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 01 October 2018, 06:49:41
Look at the top of page 159 - crew quarters have a cost per page 293 of Tech Manual, which is non-zero. I read that as saying that it's built into the base cost of the ship, instead of being a separate entry in the equipment list. I'm not sure of this, however, and the errata provides no clarification.
Page 160 is all about the cost, so the special exemptions paragraph is definitely about the cost rather than the equipment list in context.  It looks like the contradiction is only confined to crew quarters and (maybe) infantry bays.  Passenger quarters are not addressed in the table with only the text on page 160 discusses their cost (i.e. free).

I asked for a rules clarification here (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=63073.0) although it may take some time to get an official answer. I vaguely expect "free" is the right answer as the amount of thought going into a paragraph probably exceeds the amount of thought going into a table entry. 

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 01 October 2018, 13:02:55
Another one: I was looking into cheap warships for which the Scapha (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1423161#msg1423161) stands out since it's half the price of anything else.  However, I can't replicate it in the spreadsheet, instead getting something around 4B.  I suspect the difference is the support system cost (1.2B)?  Having no support systems cost in return for only being able to jump 16 light years seems reasonable enough.  Nevertheless, I wanted to make sure that's kosher before considering such possibilities.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 01 October 2018, 13:11:39
Primitive Cores are much less expensive...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 01 October 2018, 13:29:44
Primitive Cores are much less expensive...
That makes some sense, but what is the price supposed to be?  The price doesn't seem to be in the spreadsheet.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 01 October 2018, 13:48:01
My Scapha are based off the navalized Aquilla, uses primitive core and is considered a warship only because they use transit drives.

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 01 October 2018, 14:09:03
My Scapha are based off the navalized Aquilla, uses primitive core and is considered a warship only because they use transit drives.

TT
Right.  I'm just trying to figure out how to replicate it.   

Interstellar Operation page 187 says:
Quote from: Primitive... Large Craft
... the costs for all of the primitive forms of the various aerospace unit types that are larger than aerospace fighter may be computed as normal for those unit types.
... which suggests calculating things for a primitive jumpship with costs like a jumpship.  It also says:
Quote from: Primitive... Large Craft
... for cost purposes, all Primitive K-F jump drives are treated compact-core drives, rather than standard core drives.
So, the right thing to do is to charge a support systems cost like a jumpship but with a K-F drive price like a compact core?  Doing this, I get 1.66B for my Scapha simulator which is somewhat cheaper.  (Of course, with a 16 light year jump, it's also quite slow on strategic scales).
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Hairbear541 on 01 October 2018, 14:10:09
been a while since i have been able to check in here , rl does have a way messing things up . so my question is who has which faction now , and has any new writeups been posted ?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 01 October 2018, 14:45:49
been a while since i have been able to check in here , rl does have a way messing things up . so my question is who has which faction now , and has any new writeups been posted ?
See links from the original post.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 01 October 2018, 14:56:51
So, the right thing to do is to charge a support systems cost like a jumpship but with a K-F drive price like a compact core?  Doing this, I get 1.66B for my Scapha simulator which is somewhat cheaper.  (Of course, with a 16 light year jump, it's also quite slow on strategic scales).
Thinking about this further, the two bits that I'm confused about price-wise are:
Jumpship multiplier + jumpship support => 1.037B
Warship multiplier + jumpship support => 1.659B
Jumpship multiplier + warship support => 2.412B
Warship multiplier + warship support => 3.859B
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 01 October 2018, 16:23:22
There is a Q&A answer here (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=53027.0) which says that the answer is "warship support, warship multiplier".
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 01 October 2018, 20:29:56
Then primitive core jumpships cost just as much as full warships?  The error is mine as I designed those.  I cross checked the soreadhseet Im using with the one everyone else is for some warships, but did not for the primitive.  If you can nail down how much it should have cost, Ill cover the difference out of next turns budget.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 01 October 2018, 21:40:09
Then primitive core jumpships cost just as much as full warships?  The error is mine as I designed those.  I cross checked the soreadhseet Im using with the one everyone else is for some warships, but did not for the primitive.  If you can nail down how much it should have cost, Ill cover the difference out of next turns budget.
I'm not sure falling on your sword is the right thing here---perhaps Alsadius should weigh in.  But, I'm bored so...

If I assume 2nd class quarters to troopers & marines and use a 15 light-year jump (like the Aquilla), my Scapha replica is just 94 tons light. 

But the cost is dependent on the other rules question about quarters.  The existing spread sheet says 3879M.  If you subtract off the passenger quarters which seems to be unambiguously the rules, you get 3861M.  If you also subtract off the crew quarters (ambiguously correct given rules pointing both ways), you get 3858M.  The base price here (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1423161#msg1423161) is 2066M, so 1813M (vanilla), 1795M (passenger quarters free), 1792M (quarters free).

The Scapha II (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1427916#msg1427916) is more of a puzzle.  The closest I can get tonnage-wise is not allocating any passenger quarters for bay personnel or troopers (hopefully your 27 bunkmates don't snore...) which leaves it 1376 tons light (a substantially larger disparity).  The cost is 5459M or 5456M if crew quarters are free with the cost increase mostly due to the drop collars.  Given the base price of 3062M, this implies a missing cost of 2397M or 2394M.

Altogether, it's 17485M(vanilla), 17359(passengers free), or 17332(quarters free).
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 01 October 2018, 22:12:01
On the flip, given that the cost is the same, it will at least give him full up warships!
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 02 October 2018, 05:07:16
One of the reasons I specified a particular construction tool was to make these debates less important. Even if the Google Docs spreadsheet isn't accurately representing BT rules, it's still correct for the purposes of our game.

That said, a quick test suggests that the sheet uses near-identical costs for a primitive-drive ship with 15LY range as a compact-core ship with 30LY range. The difference on a test ship was $200k out of $10B total cost(due to differences in free heat sinks and K-F tankage costs). Only the mass changes between the two, really.

Who created these ships, and what tool did they use?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 02 October 2018, 06:20:19
I created them, different spreadsheet (that apparently used the pre-errata costs for cores).  Ill switch over to the other one to avoid problems in the future, and have already offered to cover the cost difference of those ships out of next turns budget.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 02 October 2018, 06:52:50
On the flip, given that the cost is the same, it will at least give him full up warships!
That's a good point.  Double range to 30 light years and you free up 4.75k tons.   Maybe even make it a full refit to take advantage of the extra tonnage.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 02 October 2018, 13:34:11
Wait... I have free tonnage?

I'll pay for the cost, as it was my design originally. Just tell me what is needed and I'll put it into play as for the extra open tonnage... cargo would be nice.

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 07 October 2018, 16:08:32
Any status update on the turn?

One thought: Is it possible to farm out individual battles to 3rd parties?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 08 October 2018, 14:36:29
Yeah, it's time for an update. Long story short, I've made some progress, but Thanksgiving kicked my ass with two separate family get-togethers, my wife's birthday is tomorrow, and work is still crazy. Given how atrociously long this turn has taken, I'm going to start farming out some of the writing and cutting the filler content. I should be able to do better than this in the long run(2-3 weeks ought to be attainable), but clearly that hasn't worked out this time.

If you're willing to write a scene, please let me know. It won't involve anything meaningful happening to your own country or any of your neighbours, but I see no reason why we couldn't have, for example, Kiviar writing a LC-FWL battle. Please only volunteer if you can have it finished by this coming Saturday, the 13th.

I'll have next turn posted by this coming weekend, no matter what is or isn't finished, just so we can move on. Even if it means battle reports with nothing but a loss list, it'll be up. Sorry again for the delays.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 08 October 2018, 20:50:01
Given that you tell me the outcome (and ideally some idea why the outcome is the outcome) I'm willing to take a swing at anything.  I reckon about 72 Hrs turnaround just to be safe.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 14 October 2018, 16:49:57
Are we still in limbo?

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 14 October 2018, 20:02:48
No Alsadius is just busy editing my tale of melodrama, betrayal, illegal dumping and dropped calls in to something coherent.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 14 October 2018, 20:07:04
Are we still in limbo?

As promised, I'll be posting something before I go to bed tonight. There may be a few gaps, but it'll be a basically-complete turn. I'm editing the segments other people gave me right now, and then I have a battle and a half to write up(briefly).

No Alsadius is just busy editing my tale of melodrama, betrayal, illegal dumping and dropped calls in to something coherent.

Pretty much this. Did you have to name everyone X, though? Battletech isn't a 60s radical group, it's an 80s anime, get it right :P .
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 14 October 2018, 22:26:40
Turn 6: 2400-2409

Previous turn: 2390-2399 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1440488#msg1440488)

Player Turns:
Lyran Commonwealth: Budget $107B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1442820#msg1442820)
Draconis Combine: Budget $116B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1442721#msg1442721)
Federated Suns: Budget $101B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1445709#msg1445709)
Capellan Confederation: Budget $96B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1444859#msg1444859)
Marian Hegemony: Budget $14B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1443017#msg1443017)
Taurian Concordat: Budget $13B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1443669#msg1443669)

NPC Turns:
Terran Hegemony: Budget $770B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1444403#msg1444403)
Free Worlds League: Budget $105B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1445751#msg1445751)
United Hindu Collective: Budget $25B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1444186#msg1444186)
Rim Worlds Republic: Budget $28B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1444186#msg1444186)

2400:
Frustrated with the fact that so much combat had been happening in recent years and none of it had involved the Combine, Robert Kurita decided to launch his own war. Wanting to prove himself against an unwounded foe, he decided to attack the Lyrans with the grandest possible attack - a dual pincer, with one stroke landing near the Hegemony border and the other through the Tukayyid area. The goal was for the two pincers to meet near Arcturus, and slice off dozens of Lyran worlds to be digested at leisure.

Nearly the whole fleet was used in the attack, as it was expected that the Suns would pose no threat due to their recent combat against the Capellans(results of which had arrived about a month prior). The elderly Kutai and Fubuki-class ships were held back for internal security, but nine Atago cruisers, nine Minekaze destroyers, and six Tate escorts were available. Two thirds of the fleet struck at Vega, intending to draw the main Lyran fleet in, while the remaining third would be used to cover the invading forces through Tukayyid, which would be launching roughly a month later. Facing this, the Lyrans had a fleet totalling nine each of their Heimdaller II escort carriers, Tyr gun cruisers, and Walkurie fleet carriers, but a third of this fleet was needed to guard the Marik border(and was too far away for easy redeployment in any case).

As with most major combined-operations invasions, the initial attack faced minimal resistance, with border worlds falling as the necessary defensive forces formed up - guerrilla war continued once the WarShips left, but no major combat formations could withstand serious orbital bombardment. Four worlds had fallen, and the Draconis fleet was burning towards the regional capital of Kannon, when the Lyran fleet arrived in force. Eager to protect another world from falling, they moved to intercept near the planet.

The Combine fleet arrived first, and began landing troops and trying to create a fait accompli on the ground before the Lyrans could interfere(as well as protecting their valuable, and vulnerable, invasion forces). In the interests of attempting to give their fighters a chance to make two strikes against the Draconis fleet, the Lyran ships pulled up short of the planet and launched their fighters. Almost five thousand fighters. Both sides were well-equipped with advanced sensor systems, so this was not an effort to totally evade detection, merely to give the Kurita fleet as little warning as practical. Instead, they tried to avoid a Tikonov-style raid on the fighter wing by virtue of equipping a quarter of their number with Barracudas and using them as a screen. The Draconis fleet was estimated to have perhaps 800 fighters, so 1200 of the elite Lyran pilots were deemed sufficient to protect the balance of the force. In the end this was mostly unnecessary - the Draconis fighters stayed to protect their fleet, and so the Lyrans approached to firing range unmolested.

Lyran doctrine emphasized the protection of the fleet over the protection of individual fighters, and so instead of trying to launch an extreme-range attack to preserve their own craft from outside the range of the Kurita naval lasers, they drove inwards. Their closing speed was substantial, so the defenders didn't have long to shoot them down - not all batteries even got off a second shot. But eight hundred fighters, four hundred lasers, over a hundred DropShips, and almost a thousand light autocannons can still leave a mark. 4920 fighters flew towards the Kurita fleet, but less than 3500 flew out again. However, in that brief orgy of violence, the survivors launched over 5000 missiles. Some missed, and excellent point-defence work shot down almost half of those that didn't, but far too many got through.

The primary targets were the heavy Atago-class cruisers, and the Atagos suffered badly in the attack. Two died outright, one was too crippled to keep fighting, and the remaining three all suffered various levels of damage. The suppressing fire and anti-fighter missiles also killed one Tate, over a dozen DropShips, and hundreds of small craft and fighters. Conversely, the fire of the surviving ships against the passing fighters killed hundreds more Lyran pilots after their missiles were launched, even despite their dramatically improved evasion.

Despite the thinned ranks of Lyran pilots, the cramped hangar decks of the Walkuries would still make it an extended process to turn around the fighter wings. And the slow speed of the Lyran ships, combined with the momentum that the Kuritas had built up during the fighter attack, meant that the Steiner fighter forces could not be reloaded in sufficient numbers to launch a second devastating attack on the oncoming gunships. Instead, the batteries of the Tyr-class heavy cruisers would need to protect the fleet, backed up by whatever force the exhausted fighter pilots could still muster after close to a day strapped into their cockpits.

The Draconis gunships were still more numerous and powerful than the Lyran gunships, as well as having a speed advantage, but total firepower was biased towards the Lyrans due to the immense numbers of missile tubes the ships carried. Admiral Kurosawa's primary goal was to get the Lyrans to waste their very limited missile magazines at extreme range, without taking so much time that their fighters would be able to reload in large quantities. In this, he was mostly successful - his superior mobility allowed him to stay at extreme gun range and threaten to whittle down the Lyran gunships, and after it became clear that his gunnery crews were hitting more of their targets than the Lyrans and were likely to win a gun duel, the missile batteries opened up before waiting to lose any ships.

At extreme range, the Draconis ECM managed to spoof large numbers of the Lyran missiles, and their machine guns dealt with many of the stragglers. However, the Barracuda-heavy armament of the Lyran fleet meant that the smaller Combine ships suffered badly - their already-brutalized fighter wing lost most of its remaining strength, and the DropShips that were thickening up the fleet's defences also suffered. The main fleet got off comparatively light, however - between the gunfire and missiles, one of the damaged Atagoes died, and another was badly wounded. In the same time, the Draconis guns managed to badly damage one Tyr and wreck half its turrets, as well as opening a few small breaches in three of the others.

With the Lyran missiles seemingly exhausted, the Kuritas began closing the range. Their advantage in gunnery skill held true, and between that and their advantage in numbers of guns, they landed over half again as many hits as the Tyrs. The Lyrans tried to turn the tide by launching their fighters on strafing runs against damaged sections of the Draconis ships, and it was an effective tactic, but one that resulted in substantial losses to the defending ships.

Regrouping for a final attack run, the Lyrans were beginning to worry more about escape than about victory. Their gun line was faltering, and the slow speed of their carriers would mean their doom if the Kurita force was strong enough to give chase. As such, they began to focus their fire on engines, hoping to slow the Draconis ships enough to allow their fleet to withdraw. The approach was not entirely successful, but the Lyrans had one final trick up their sleeve. While they had fired their missile mounts dry on most facings, the aft magazines were still full, and the missile transfer tubes had been busy. Firing the last few husbanded missiles, along with the fighters it had been possible to re-arm, the Lyrans launched one last missile strike. It was much smaller than their prior attack, but it was almost totally unexpected, and it came in at a time when the Draconis defensive systems were focused almost entirely on the swarming fighters.

The timing of the attack wasn't perfect, but it was enough to do the job. Four of the big Kurita gunships lost large parts of their engine power, and one was destroyed outright by a fighter squadron getting an immensely lucky shot against an exposed reactor. The Lyrans turned to withdraw immediately, scooping up their exhausted fighter pilots as soon as they left gun range, and the equally exhausted Draconis fleet let them go, preferring to head back to Kannon and mop up the world's defenders.

While the materiel losses were somewhat to the Commonwealth's advantage overall, the strategic effect of the operation was a resounding victory for the Combine. The Tukayyid fleet was nearly unopposed and mopped up six worlds before the Lyran fleet regrouped to challenge them, and the five invaded by the Vega arm of the attack were all flying the dragon's flag as well. The grand dream of a pincer attack slicing off whole regions of the Commonwealth was not realized, but the loss of eleven worlds was still a shocking result. Lyran counter-attacks retook two in fairly short order, and even snapped up the poorly defended Draconis border world of Sendai. But Robert Kurita was still crowing about his victory for years to come, and began to set his sights on his next target.

Losses:
Draconis Combine: 3x Atago, 1x Minekaze, 1x Tate. 27 DropShip, 81 small craft, 714 fighters. Repair costs = $24B
Lyran Commonwealth: 3x Tyr, 1x Heimdaller II. 43 small craft, 2525 fighters. Repair costs = $12B

2401: (Special thanks to Sarna.net for writing this  :-[ )
In mid 2401, Marie Davion suffered what appeared to be a series of strokes and died at the age of 54. Simon, her preferred successor, was just 24, and his training in governmental affairs was still in the early stages. While there were rumors that Marie had been poisoned and that the publicly-declared cause of death was a cover-up, the military and political situation in the Federated Suns made Edmund Davion her inevitable successor.

Despite a number of calls for Marie's remains to be tested after her death, the Davion family seems unlikely to authorize a new autopsy. Marie's death provided ample fodder for conspiracy theorists, who pointed out the convenience of Marie, a woman with no significant medical problems or indicators of ill health suddenly succumbing to a stroke and then dying from complications caused by that stroke. Alert but unable to communicate after a brief period on life support, Marie's medical records indicated that her doctors believed she had a good chance to recovery before taking a sudden turn for the worse, falling into a coma and dying without regaining consciousness. Edward was a mediocre politician at best, largely propped up by Marion Michaels-Davion, whilst Simon was rapidly proving himself a highly capable individual. Rumors persist that elements of Marie's journal indicate that at the time of her death, she was close to confirming Simon as her successor, removing Etien's successors permanently from the line of succession.

2402:
Buoyed by the capture of several planets two years prior, and with the damages from that campaign mostly repaired, the Draconis Combine again decided to launch an ambitious attack on one of its neighbours. Eschewing the traditional approach of simply grabbing a few border worlds before defenders can respond, Robert Kurita kept pushing his admirals for more ambitious options until they came up with a plan that met his approval. An old staff exercise had led to a complex multi-pronged plan of attack against the Robinson area of the Federated Suns, and it was entirely to Kurita's liking.

The original plan called for substantially larger forces than were actually available, but the fleet hurried to make adjustments to have the plan fit the forces originally available. 33 modern capital ships were originally planned for the operation, while only 20 were actually active within the fleet. Of those 20, a meaningful force needed to be held for use against the Lyran border, and a final force of 14 ships was available for the attack. However, the Admiralty judged this to be sufficient for the operation, albeit with very little room for error.

A large concentration of force, 8 ships in all, was sent to Robinson by the fastest available path(via New Ivaasrsen and Lucerne), with the expectation that it would be spotted and draw off all available forces for a traditional battle. Sure enough, this force was spotted, and the AFFS began to gather its naval assets to repel the invasion. The Kurita fleet proceeded at a somewhat leisurely pace, and by the time they actually reached Robinson's jump point, three large Davion fleets were closing in. The Delevan fleet was waiting one jump away at Blandinsville for reinforcements, where the Kentares fleet had just arrived and started recharging, giving them a combined total of 12 hulls. The Fairfax fleet was two jumps away at Sauk City with an additional 5 ships.

The heavy merchant traffic around Robinson gave the Suns fleet excellent coverage of what was happening in Robinson, and the unusual fleet composition was immediately apparent. It was clear that this was no invasion, as there were no JumpShips and very few DropShips, and it was also equally clear that this was not an attempt to fight a decisive naval battle, as the forces in Robinson were less than half of the Kurita fleet. Admiral Robert Sortek's first thought was that it was a diversion, but he made the conscious decision to simply ignore it and smash the invading fleet, as no plausible target could carry a price higher than he was willing to pay to destroy 40% of the Draconis fleet.

As the Draconis fleet was burning towards the planet of Robinson, news came from the Galtor region - Galtor III, Marduk, and Cussar were all under attack, though there was no word of naval forces attached to the invading fleets. The attacking forces were substantial - estimated at perhaps half a dozen regiments per world - and the defenders were hard-pressed to hold their ground. Admiral Sortek decided to attack the fleet that was in his hand before attempting to clear out the invading forces, and again ignored the attack to smash the diversion.

Sure enough, the diversionary force was in trouble. They had arrived at Robinson and spent some time demolishing the planet's orbital industry and the light fortifications around the planet, but they did not resort to substantial planetary bombardment, and they had no ground element to attack the surface. Rather than trying to hold ground, they decided to head out to the jump limit and reunite with their other forces. Before they could, the Kentares fleet was ready to jump, and twelve ships attacked eight. The astrogator on the Crucis-class FSS Comet had found a fleeting pirate point that would be available very close to the invaders' trajectory, and the fleet made the difficult jump without incident. Once the battle was joined, it seemed almost a foregone conclusion - the four Crucis-class battleships alone massed as much as the entire Kurita force, and with the eight escorts added to the fight it was a foregone conclusion.

The Kurita fleet's morale was low from being so obviously out-gunned, though they at least trusted that they could punch through the Davions and escape to safety. The fleets clashed at tremendous speed, and in the blink of an eye three Kurita ships were expanding balls of gas and plasma. The FSS Comet nearly died with them, as her hull buckled from the relativistic autocannon shells, but the execrable gunnery of the Draconis fleet seemed to have saved her. Post-battle analysis revealed her survival was even luckier than previously imagined - two of the better-aimed autocannon shells had impacted escorting fighters, with one detonating prematurely and the other being deflected clear of Comet's hull. Given the state of the Comet as she streamed a flaming tail of debris through Robinson's inner solar system, those two fighters had likely made the difference between life and death for their ship.

Unfortunately for the battered survivors of the Draconis fleet, the force from Fairfax had been given information on where and when the survivors would reach the jump limit, and were ordered by Sortek to intercept them for another attack. Unfortunately for Sortek, however, the merchant JumpShip conveying the message had made a transposition error in relaying the estimated travel times of the fleets involved, and the five ships jumped to intercept a day after the survivors had fled the system. A disgruntled Sortek reorganized his forces, and moved to intercept the invading fleets in the Galtor area.

While this took place, the third force was making its move. Creeping through uninhabited systems, the six ships that had set out from Proserpina were making their move. The shipyards at Layover had been left with no mobile defenders, and the fixed defenses in system were limited to one Northumberland-Barghest group with a token force of fighters in support. The defences lasted for only a few minutes once the fleet came into range, and fewer than a quarter of their crews made it to the escape pods in time. With the system's defences crushed, the Kurita fleet tore apart the shipyards at leisure. Some of the support installations were in built-up urban areas that the Draconis fleet declined to attack, and the skilled crews in the shipyards had sufficient time to evacuate to safety, but the shipyards themselves were shattered.

Back in Galtor, the invading forces were hanging out on a limb far more precarious than they knew. Their JumpShips and DropShips were completely unprotected, and as soon as a serious Davion force arrived they could be crushed. In the end, the self-aware insanity of their attack was what saved them from disaster - Colonel Shōda, commanding the JumpShips at Marduk, had ordered his ships to scatter around the jump limit to avoid presenting any form of concentrated target. Conversely, Sortek kept his forces concentrated to ensure military superiority in the event of fleet combat. The fleet managed to run down a pair of isolated JumpShips and a few DropShips, but the rest of the force was evacuated safely. In the end, the fleeing ships rallied to the attack of Galtor III, which was rapidly taken with the new reinforcements. However, the attacks on Cussar and Marduk were abandoned with heavy losses in the process.

The final drama of this operation took place on the retreat back to Draconis space. One of the surviving Minekaze-class destroyers from Robinson suffered total loss of jump capability en route back home, when damage caused by the battle combined with the stresses of her jumps finally proved too much for the drive to endure. No repair was possible from the limited stock of on-board spare parts, so the rest of the fleet took on her crew and scuttled the ship to avoid capture.

Losses:
Federated Suns: 2x Federation, 1x Northumberland, 5x Barghest, 3x DropShip, 11x small craft, 157x fighter.  Layover shipyard reduced from 3/2 to 1. Repairs = $12B ($9B for 1x Crucis)
Draconis Combine: 1x Atago, 2x Minekaze, 1x Tate, 2x JumpShip, 9x DropShip, 43x small craft, 191x fighter. Repairs = $11B.

2403:
A decade after Echohawk's coup, Richard Cameron is still the titular Director-General of the Terran Hegemony. Almost 15 years old, Cameron is the only close heir of the old regime left. While he obviously has no real power, he's an important symbol for any usurper who wants to be seen as legitimate. So it wasn't a total surprise when General Lee attempted to kidnap young Richard as the opening stage of her own coup.

Striking from surprise while he was being convoyed home from school, the attacking forces destroyed the leading and following cars almost instantly, and several guards perished in the attack. Unknown to the attackers, new security arrangements were being tested at the time, and Cameron had actually been in the rear vehicle, not the central one. The rest of the bodyguards(and most of the attackers) died before the truth was discovered, but the attacking forces were left empty-handed, having obviously failed in their attempt. Their despair was to last only moments, however - a fighter wing nearby heard the distress calls, and managed to pulverize the attackers with their built-in weaponry - not one soldier, attacking or defending, ultimately survived the attack.

The rest of the coup was even more of a shambles. Few forces moved, and no serious efforts were made to strike home anywhere - it was as if the attack on Cameron had taken all the courage out of them, and what few attackers did make token efforts rapidly fled, generally before they could even be identified.

A visibly despairing Langdon Echohawk appeared on a special Terran-wide broadcast shortly after the attack. He explained that the guilty party was General Lee of the Fourth Terran Division, a known adversary of his, and that she had already been shot resisting arrest. With no Cameron left to take over the reins of government, he announced his intention to officially name himself Director-General, and asked the High Council to formally accord him this title to ensure the safety and good order of the Hegemony.

The move was not well-received across the board. On one hand, the inner planets and the lower classes had mostly been friendly to Echohawk's government for years, due to his generous spending. The Army, who thought little more of Lee than Echohawk himself had, was surprisingly content with one of their own receiving the blame that she did. However, the outer planets and the upper classes were more restive. Some dark murmurs about the true nature of Cameron's attackers began circulating, and a petition to leave the Hegemony and join the Free Worlds League even started circulating on Connaught(though nothing came of it in the end save a few arrests for seditious behaviour).

2404:
I was going to have a filler event here, but I'm cutting it for now.

2405: (Special thanks to Smegish for writing this)
After the successful assault on Lothario some years earlier, the Hegemony's gaze has moved to their other small neighbour: Illyria. The Illyrians have known it was coming, and have had far more time to prepare their defences. Unfortunately for them, without the small mountain of germanium that the Marians possess, they simply lack the budget to build or purchase WarShips of their own, and have to make do with smaller craft while they beg borrow or steal whatever they can to shore up their defences.

Finally in 2405 the attack came, with the six ships of the Marian I Fleet (including their newly purchased Kutai-class corvette) conducting the assault. Thanks to some successful intelligence gathering from the Q-ship MHS Trojan in previous weeks, the Marians were able to make use of the pirate point between Illyria and its moon, but upon arrival the Marian admiral immediately wished he hadn't after his Sensors Officer reported the presence of the Vittoria-class destroyer RWS Wade Rowe in high orbit over Illyria.

His blood pressure recovered however, when the Rim Worlds ship hailed him to report that they were there to escort a diplomatic mission, and if the Marians would hold off their attack for a few hours they would retrieve their VIPs and start their return journey to Apollo, an offer the Marians gladly accepted. Despite the desperate pleading of the Illyrian ruler, the Rim Worlds ship had specific orders to not engage the Marians unless fired upon, and so they quickly cancelled the trade talks (which they didn't think were lucrative enough to be worth going to war over), evacuated their personnel, and burned for the zenith point. Without the Wade Rowe to assist, the Illyrians knew a successful defense of their world relied entirely on preventing the Hegemony from landing their forces. Therefore, all their energy was spent on destroying the MHS Alphard, as the one Scapha II carried the bulk of the Marian invasion force.

With 2 of their 6 DropShips still burning in-system from their guard stations at the zenith and nadir points, the remaining four, plus over 80 fighters (all 50-ton Wakizashi WAK-01 knockoffs bought cheaply from the Allied Conglomerates of Military Engineering company) all lifted off from Illyria in time to meet the Marians as they reached orbit. Sadly for the Illyrians they had not had the proper time to test their newly bought fighters and anti-ship missiles, and over half suffered malfunctions when they armed them just prior to entering firing range. Some immediately separated from the launching fighter with the rocket engine firing, others instantly fired their rocket engines and refused to separate from the fighter carrying it, launching it towards the Hegemony fleet ahead of its brethren. The two dozen fighters thus afflicted blew through the Hegemony's fighter screen without any resistance, as none of the Marians knew what was going on, but none made it past the Kutai-class MHS Neapolis at the head of the Hegemony flotilla, with its triple A dealing with them easily.

The Marians did not have it all their own way, however. The missile volley from the remaining Illyrian fighters still armed with them was all aimed at a single Scapha vessel. Sadly for the Illyrians it was not the Alphard, but instead the Scapha I-class MHS Spica, and due to the extreme range they were forced to fire from many missed or were shot down. Of the few missiles that did penetrate the Marian defensive screen, one penetrated the armour right beside one of the Naval Autocannon mounts, detonating the ammunition loaded in said cannon (but fortunately not the rest of the magazine), destroying the gun mount entirely and leaving a gaping hole in the fore quarter of the Spica. But covering fire from the rest of the fleets AAA cleared away the Illyrian fighters, while the Illyrian DropShips were wiped out well before entering weapon range, obliterated by a mix of naval autocannons and Killer Whale missiles.

With the death of the Illyrian fleet, such as it was the Hegemony fleet settled into orbit, and began dropping their forces around the Dalmatia, the only major city. Only token resistance was offered before the government surrendered, with most of the Illyrian army running to the hills to wage a guerrilla campaign.

Losses:
Marian Hegemony: 20x Fighter. 1x Scapha I crippled (800m repair bill).
Illyrian Palatinate: Total (6 x Dropships, 12 x Small Craft, 108 x Fighters)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 14 October 2018, 22:27:13
2406: (Special thanks to Lagrange for writing this)
In the year 2406, the Terran Hegemony sent their Second Fleet on a well-advertised tour of their borderworlds showing off their revamped fleet with excellent anti-fighter weapons and generally reassuring unsettled worlds of the Hegemony that all is well.  If this enormous fleet reminded other nations of the economic and military might of the Terran Hegemony, that was a fine outcome as well.

In the Lyran Commonwealth contradictory intelligence reports suggested this was (or was not) a ruse for the invasion an unspecified realm. These reports were viewed with significant alarm, resulting in Marsden ordering some "naval exercises" around Skye when 2nd fleet passed nearby.

Unbeknownst to the Lyran intelligence community, the reports were poisoned by suborned agents working on behalf of the Draconis Combine. The Combine successfully acquired secret route plans in advance, discovering that the Lyran portion of the border was the last visited. Sensing an opportunity, they injected false intelligence into the Lyran pipeline suggesting that one of the houses was in for a "demonstration" from Second Fleet.  As the tour progressed, the tension in the Commonwealth steadily ratcheted up with attention heavily focused on the large renewed warship fleet at the Terran Hegemony border.

In the meantime, with almost a year's advance warning of where the Lyran fleet was going to be, the Combine operated a planetary conquest plan focused on the worlds of Lovinac, Rodigo, and Unzmarkt. The plan avoided any overt movement of the Combine warfleet while marshaling a total of 23 regiments from all corners of the Combine. No more than a single regiment from any world was used to avoid notice.  These regimental movements were all timed to converge on New Oslo in a single week.

Upon discovering a fleet of 50 jumpships marshalling near their border, the Lyran planetary governors immediately realized they had a serious problem - their planets could be invaded before a message even reached the Lyran warfleet.  Relief from that quarter was clearly months away.  What to do?

Each border governor immediately invoked mutual protection clauses, but naturally nearby systems were reluctant to strip significant supporting garrison forces in the face of an imminent invasion. 

The governor of Lovinac, Pieter Kurzen, the wealthy scion of a merchant family, new exactly what to do: hire help.  He immediately offered enormous bounties backed by his family fortune for the capture or destruction of Draconis forces in Lyran systems.

The Combine's mustering process faced some unpleasant delays due to the extremely diverse set of starting locations and several Onsen waystations becoming overloaded by the scale of the transiting forces. Altogether, commander Nagoya Abe tolerated only an extra month's delay before moving ahead with the 20 regiments that were assembled.  Splitting his forces into 7, 7, and 6 regiments, a jump invasion was launched.

At Unzmarkt, the invasion fleet jumped en masse into the nadir jump point and DropShips immediately embarked for the planet.  The planetary governor was an aerospace fighter fan and had assembled a small fleet of 36 fighters aboard 3 cargo DropShips with a JumpShip at the zenith.  Finding themselves misplaced, the JumpShip made an intra-system transit a day later to the Nadir.  Without their DropShip escorts (which were headed in-system) the conscripted JumpShip captains were forced to surrender to the (very slowly deployed) fighter fleet.  The Combine DropShips turned around, presenting an overwhelming force against the Lyrans 4 days later. While the Combine could easily destroy the Lyrans, the Lyrans could easily destroy the JumpShips leading to a tense standoff.   After a week of tense negotiations individual JumpShips loaded with DropShips were allowed to depart the system one at a time for scattered locations.

At Rodigo, the single garrison regiment was reinforced by another regiment's worth of armor from deeper worlds.  They dug in, and fought hard, but it was only a matter of time against the 7 incoming regiments. 

At Lovinac, Pieter's call was heard with forces scrambling from all over the near sector, including even forces from Black Nebulae industries of the Rim Worlds Republic.  Using pirate jump points 4 regiments of governmental and mercenary units were assembled by the time 6 regiments of Combine armor attacked what was assumed to be the least defended world.  Given the homeworld advantage this was a fair fight that went steadily downhill for the Combine as each week another regiment of mercenaries arrived.  This clearly wasn't working, so Abe pulled out after 3 weeks with only half of his original forces in fighting order.

Several of the mercenary regiments hadn't managed much bounty, so 3 of them promptly re-boarded DropShips.  A brilliant astrogator by the name of David Snee managed to find a direct pirate-to-pirate jump solution which all JumpShips used in a 20 minute window.  The last forces to board DropShips were on Rodigo about 6 hours later, leading to more than one joke about the commute.

The governmental forces on Rodigo, down to 2 Battalions, were in their final redoubt when the mercenary regiments executed a hot drop on the Combine staging areas led by the Black Nebulae industries security group.  This was overenthusiastic given their training, but amongst the 20 units that turned into a fireball, 3 of them directly struck and destroyed DropShips. With the Combine staging area overrun, the Combine fighting forces racing to counter, and the pyrotechnics of failed drops all around a grand melee resulted in massive destruction to all sides.  When the dust settled it was clear the Combine could no longer exert effective control over the world leading inevitably to a decision to retreat.

In the ensuing year Pieter tried to avoid payment for all combat on Rodigo, claiming that "the contract was only for Lovinac in context". However, the courts upheld the claims, bankrupting the Kurzen family.

2407:
This was intended to be a background fluff event for the UHC. Unfortunately, Marcus has apparently been ill and unable to write this. I'll bump it to next turn so he has time to recover.

2408: (Special thanks to Kiviar for writing this)
Prelude
On November 8th 2407 the cargo-DropShip ‘Occurrence Border’ flying under the flag of the Lyran Commonwealth experienced a catastrophic drive failure en route to the Free Worlds League world Amity. Despite the best efforts of its crew, the ship’s engines were too damaged to be repaired, and no League ships were close enough to either rescue or deflect the out of control DropShip. The captain of the Occurrence Border, Cassandra Mayweather, decided that any further risk to her crew was unwarranted and that after contacting the planetary government, the ship would be abandoned to burn up in Amity's atmosphere.

The government quickly agreed to the captain’s assessment of the situation and began an evacuation of the suspected crash zone. Unfortunately what the crew had not told the planetary government was that they were hauling a significant amount of illegal radioactive material, and, when the Occurrence Border’s hull ruptured and the ship exploded as it deorbited, it spread radioactive fallout across much of Amity's major continent.

In the aftermath of what the media was now calling “The Amity Incident”, Mayweather and her crew were arrested and held on numerous charges including illegal transportation of a hazardous material, falsifying cargo manifests, lying to a government official and illegal dumping. However the people of the FWL were not satisfied at the prospect of mere jail-time, and violent protests erupted across League space demanding the government force the Lyrans to pay.

The Commonwealth refused any discussion without the immediate and unconditional return of Captain Mayweather and her crew to Lyran Space. This proved to further enrage the FWL population who continued to demand “justice for Amity”, and in a closed session of Parliament, the FWL government decided that in the absence of any hint of cooperation from the Lyran government that the League would be forced to take matters into its own hands.

It was decided that the Navy would launch a series of patrols in to the border region of the Lyran Commonwealth which would stop and inspect every LC flagged drop and jumpship they encountered. On December 29th of 2407 the FWLN’s 4th fleet under the command of Admiral Tomasi crossed the border into Lyran Commonwealth territory.

Battle over Ford
After struggling in vain to intercept the League patrols harassing their citizens for over three months, on March 27 2408 a squadron under the command of Leutnant-Kommodore Weir finally managed to arrive in the Ford system in time to find the Heracles-class battlecruiser Hector and Phalanx-class corvette Spatha still 1 day out from the jump point her squadron had just arrived in.

While Weir's squadron of the Tyr-class cruiser Asgard and Heimdaller II-class escort-carrier Bifrost, was roughly equal to the FWL force in terms of tonnage and firepower, it was at a significant disadvantage in terms of speed and had little chance of bringing the League force to battle, meaning it would have to settle on a single high-speed pass before the enemy was able to flee the system. With this in mind Weir dispensed with the usual fighter screen for such a maneuver and had every aerospace fighter under her commanded loaded with as many anti-ship missiles as they could carry, and formed up in close proximity to her two warships.

The following battle was brutal and short. The League commander, suspecting his opponent would try to shelter her aerospace assets for one massive strike, took advantage of the lack of proper fighter cover and launched a devastating fighter strike of his own before the warships arrived. Within 10 seconds, 46 of the lyran fighters were either destroyed or crippled, and despite a staggering amount of return fire from the 120 barracuda tubes of the two Lyran warships, only 17 League fighters were lost.

Despite such heavy losses to her fighter wing, Leutnant-Kommodore Weir was unphased. While the League’s fighters had just bloodied her fleet and escaped nearly unscathed, they had also taken themselves out of the battle entirely. At a full-burn pass, it would be minutes before they could turn around and accelerate back to combat range, and by then the battle would be long over.

With both warship forces now entering the extreme ranges of their armament it was the Lyran’s turn to respond. Hoping to get at least two volleys in before the fleets passed Weir ordered her warships to open fire at the very edge of their effective range. Within seconds a blizzard of 200 anti-ship missiles was hurtling off towards the two rapidly growing stars in the distance. Unlike the previous volley, this one found its mark and both of the Hector’s escort DropShips were destroyed and significant damage was dealt to the Spatha. With the League fleet’s anti-missile defenses crippled, the next volley, combined with the killer-whales from the aerospace wing and naval autocannon fire wrecked even more havoc to the League ships. The Nose of the Spatha was in ruins, and she was venting atmosphere from several major breaches along her starboard side, and the Hector had received significant damage both its nose and port gun-batteries. The League’s reply however was equally deadly, and despite their superior anti-missile cover, heavy damage was dealt to the Asgard while the (Heimdaller II) was raked badly by the Hector’s class-30 autocannons.

Despite the savaging both fleets received, neither managed to inflict any critical damage. Like knights of old they charged with absolute ferocity, but only succeeded in shattering their lances on each other’s shield.

Red Friday
With the savaging Commodore Munroe's squadron received at the battle of Ford the FWLM command decided that any further adventurism on the Lyran border would only prove a drain on the Navy. The 4th fleet was recalled to League space and Parliament hoped that now negotiations could start.

The Commonwealth instead viewed this as an opportunity to capitalize on their success in the Ford system, and launched a series of raids in to FWL space. With the 4th fleet preocupied with reorganizing and resuppling after their retreat from Lyran space, in an ironic reversal the navy was forced to spread the 2nd fleet across the coreward border in hopes of intercepting the Lyran raiders.

Unlike the lyrans, the League met with success far earlier, and on April 24th reports from a fleeing merchant-class jumpship reached he FWLS Oedipus commanded by Captain Mercutio Princip. The merchantman claimed that a lone Tyr-class cruiser had just jumped in system and was  currently burning towards the system’s sole habitable planet. Hoping to cut the lyrans off before they reached the planet and destroyed its valuable orbital installations captain Princip ordered his ship to jump immediately.

Upon entering the (system Z) system, to their horror it turned out that the merchantman’s report had been incorrect and not only was the Tyr-class cruiser not burning sunward, it was also accompanied by 2 Heimdaller II-class escort carriers. As Captain Princip scrambled to turn his ship and escape certain destruction the first waves of lyran fighters arrived pelting the Oedipus with capital-class missiles as she desperately tried to flee sunward to whatever help (planet Z) could muster. Unfortunately the Lyran’s opening salvo had damaged the Oedipus's engines and she was unable to open any significant distance from the Lyran fleet as she fled sunward. After 24 hours of constant skirmishes the Oedipus was at the breaking point. The ship’s aerospace wing had lost nearly half its of its strength, and significant damage and been dealt to the ship’s stern and port. The final blow came at T+26h31m when a killer-whale missile managed to slip through the Oedipus's defensive fire and impacted the ship’s Number 3 nozzle further crippling her engines.

It was then that Captain Princip decided that whatever honour there was in continuing the battle was not worth the lives of his men and offered his ship’s surrender.

No reply came from the Lyran fleet.

Fearing the Lyrans didn’t hear his first offer, the captain ordered the transmission rebroadcast on all channels, but, once again there was no response from the Lyran fleet. As the crew of the Oedipus scrambled to figure out why the enemy was not responding to their surrender a fresh wave of lyran fighters and the three enemy warships moved in for the kill.

As the ship shuddered under fury of the Tyr’s tremendous missile barrage, the CIC of the Oedipus was in a state of pandemonium and Captain Princip had come to a horrifying realization. His ship was dying around him, and he and his crew would soon be dead. If the Lyrans were ignoring his surrender they would most likely fire on escape pods, which left the captain with one last horrifying option. Like most FWLN ships the Oedipus was equipped with a limited number of nuclear-armed missiles, which, by the strictest rules of the Navy were only to be used with the explicit permission of Parliament in times of war.

With no other options left to him, and in the face of such utter barbarism, Captain Princip ordered the launch of the ship’s entire complement of nuclear-tipped Barracuda missiles. Despite their own misgivings that their lives might not be worth the heavy price the galaxy will pay for this, the crew carried out the Captain’s orders without complaint, and with the flip of a few buttons the missiles were away.

The violence of the impact was as brutal as it was sudden, and within the blink of an eye the Lyran fleet erupted in blinding light. When the fireballs faded and electromagnetic interference subsided the crew of the Oedipus saw their grim handiwork. One of the carriers had entirely vanished, and the other was drifting dead in space. The Tyr appeared undamaged by the onslaught, but was rotating to begin braking maneuvers. With her work done, and the Lyran fleet ending their pursuit the FWLS Oedipus limped sunward to safety.

When reinforcements from the 2nd Fleet arrived two weeks later and learned the horrendous story of the battle, Admiral Burlew ordered Captain Princip arrested. Unfortunately the remains of the Lyran fleet had long since fled the system and brought news of their foe’s depravity.

The Solaris Catastrophe
The actions of Captain Princip had escalated the conflict far beyond what either side had anticipated. The League refused to accept the Commonwealth’s claims that they never received any offer of surrender, and the Lyrans were unwilling to believe any evidence that Captain Princip did in fact send the message. With room for neither negotiation nor compromise both nations were now teetering on the precipice of all out war, and, with the nearly the entire might of both nation’s navies hurtling towards the border it appeared that, like Kentares IV and Echohawk’s rebellion, the Inner Sphere would once again see a new and terrifying expansion of violence.

However, no one could have possibly imagined what would happen when the two grand fleets did finally meet.

In retrospect it was obvious that the strategically vital world of Solaris would be be both the primary staging point for the FWLN as well as primary target of the LCN, and it should have been no surprise then when the Lyran Commonwealth’s high-space fleet jumped in system on the 28th of June, 2408. However it was quite the surprise when the massive fleet of 7 carriers, 5 cruisers, and 4 escort-carriers jumped in, mostly because the FWLN’s Grand Fleet had, at the same jump point, only arrived moments before.

The ensuing catastrophe erupted immediately as the Walkurie-class carrier LCN Sigrun phased in on top of the Phalanx-class FWLS Pilum rupturing her fusion reactor and annihilating both ships without a shot fired. Lyran commander Admiral Thurston Gibbons died instantly. Seconds later the Tyr-class cruiser LCN Asgard phased in within meters of the FWLN DropShip Danube, which subsequently exploded savaging both the Asgard and nearby Heracles-class battlecruiser Lycurgus. As panic began to grip the FWL fleet, the battlecruiser Jason attempted to extricate herself from the growing melee and fired up her engines for an emergency burn. Seconds later when her engines had spooled up to their full 2.5g the ship collided with the newly materialized escort-carrier LCN Vindler, hitting directly amidships and snapping the diminutive ship’s spine.

As every subsequent Lyran ship jumped in, the chaos of the battle grew. Admiral Tomasi tried his best to organize his fleet in the growing melee, but his attempt to put forth some sort of coherent counterattack was cut short when a class-20 naval autocannon shell ripped through the CIC of the FSN Theseus. With both fleets leaderless, confused and terrified that the other side would resort to using nuclear weapons at any moment, a call retreat was issued by both fleets nearly simultaneously.

And so, within 15 minutes of joining battle, the fleets of two of the most powerful nations to ever exist limped away from each other, bloodied and battered, neither willing to continue the senseless slaughter.

The catastrophe at Solaris had cooled both nation’s bloodlust considerably and with their fleets battered and other, more pressing, threats demanding their attention, an uneasy calm settled over the League/Commonwealth border. Neither nation was willing to let the transgressions of the past seven months go, but, neither were they willing to step back to the precipice of mutual annihilation.

Ultimately, the League tried and convicted Captain Mayweather and her crew, Captain Princip was stripped of his commission and dishonourably discharged from the Navy. Conversely, the Lyran Commonwealth never apologized or offered any reparations for the Amity Incident, and never offered any credible evidence that they had not received Princip’s surrender.

Quote
“If the galaxy can find it in their hearts to forgive the Federated Suns when that bastion of justice and nobility decides to bomb her own citizens for disagreeing with their wonderful little princelings, then what right does it have to question the lengths I take to ensure the lives of my men. What perversions of justice do they believe in when I cannot use whatever tools I have to defend my brothers and sisters from the same barbarism they claim to oppose?”

-Mercutio Princip

Losses:
Free Worlds League: 1x Heracles 2x Phalanx 12x lt DropShip, 398x Fighter - 4b in repairs
Lyran Commonwealth: 1x Heimdaller II 1x Walkurie 1240x Fighters - 9b in repairs

2409:
After the madness of the recent battles, and the terrifying re-introduction of high-yield nuclear weaponry to active warfare, many leaders seemed to hold their breath for a moment. The first to react openly was Aleisha Liao. Worried by the fact that it had been the FWL who first used nuclear weapons - the same FWL her nation had so often been at war with - but not suffering from the same public-relations disaster as the Lyrans, she decided to advance a potential set of new laws of war, designed to reduce the barbarism of combat. While she was willing to campaign hard to bring her dream to fruition, the nuclear genie being released was enough to open doors. Within two months, word had come back from every foreign capital agreeing to hear out her terms at a conference to be held at the luxurious New Olympia resort on the planet of Ares. The conference was scheduled for early 2410, and capitals across the Inner Sphere were abuzz with strategy sessions and meetings with military leaders over what would be acceptable.

Action Item: The Ares Conventions (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Ares_Conventions) are being debated. On the agenda are a variety of civilian protection laws, rules for parley and proper treatment of prisoners of war, proper conduct of espionage, and the centerpiece, a ban on nuclear weapons in warfare. Your task is to advise your leadership on what you want from the Conventions and what you don't want. As with the jointly-owned worlds proposal, you don't have final say here, but you do have influence. However, in this case, there will be direct communication between military representatives, so feel free to have in-character negotiations. (I might chime in for the NPC nations here and there, depending how it goes). If everyone agrees to a treaty, it'll be implemented as-is, and if not I'll find a compromise and see who signs. Canonically, most nations signed - the two exceptions were the UHC, who stayed out for fear that it'd legitimize war, and the TC, who felt that the Capellans were being grossly hypocritical given some of their own atrocities.

Research
DC: $2,032m
FS: $116m
CC: $50m
TC: $130m

TH: $3,706m
FWL: $854m
RWR: $714m
UHC: $839m

TOTAL: $8,441m

The winner is the Draconis Combine, getting Mech-sized lasers (small, medium, and large). All nations now have access to LRMs.

Important Change: We'll be switching to the tech system outlined above, with slight modifications:
- All past techs, and this turn's discovery of lasers, still operate under the old system.
- Technologies beyond the present level are split into three fields: miniaturization, strengthening, and advancement.
- Each billion dollars spent on a tech field gives a 1/4 chance to discover a tech in that field. Any of the next three techs you haven't yet discovered are available, with an equal chance of each.
- If you get multiple successes, you'll get the least advanced tech you roll, to avoid the TH jumping too far ahead.
- A tech possessed by one or more neighbours has a 1/4 chance of spreading to you each turn. This process does not cost money - think of it as being funded by the intelligence agency and civilian interests. Heck, even those fools in the Army might stumble across something once in a while.
- Clarification: In addition to the obvious borders between the TH and the big five, the following pairs of nations are considered adjacent: FS-UHC, FS-TC, UHC-TC, CC-TC, FWL-MH, LC-RWR, and MH-RWR. (The MH-RWR adjacency is a bit of a stretch, but it gives each of them a second neighbour.)
- If you salvage examples of a technology in combat, you will get an extra 1/4 chance to discover it by spread. This is again free.

Budgets
Instead of coming up with a Periphery bonus on tech, I decided to just give them more money. The TC, MH, and RWR all get +10B/turn to increase their capacity to build interesting designs, and help them adjust to the new tech system. The UHC does not, as they don't really need it given their lack of a Navy.
CC: $98B
DC: $117B
FS: $103B
LC: $112B, as post-Marsden growth slows down
MH: $24B, due to Periphery rebalance
TC: $23B, due to Periphery rebalance

TH: $775B
FWL: $107B
UHC: $26B
RWR: $38B, due to Periphery rebalance
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 15 October 2018, 00:19:34
HOT DAMN! >> Here is where I Snafu'd should be turn 7 not 6th <<

Losses:
Marian Hegemony: 20x Fighter. 1x Scapha I crippled (800m repair bill).

Ahem*

End Turn 5 Budget: 1 Billion, 637 Million
TAXES and Loot: 24 Billion

Beginning Turn 6: 25 Billion, 637 Million

Repair Bill: 800 Million ( Scapha I, MHS Spica

Periphery Aid Package:             1 Billion, helping the Illyrian Palatinate, rebuild
Maintenance:                             4 Billion ~ 120% ( or close to that )
Buying, Ribe Station, Steiner:      .175 Million ( x1 total ) Lothario
Buying, Onsen Station, Kurita:     .551 Million ( x1 total ) Alphard
Buying, Tenshi Station, Kurita:   5.256 Billion ( x12 total ) 2 Alphard, 4 Lothario, 3 each Lordinax and Leximon, ( orbital )
Buying, Small Craft:                     .600 Million ( 12 Small craft )
Buying, Jumpship:                      2 Billion ( x4 total )
Buying, Dropship:                       7.200 Billion ( x24 total )
Buying, Ala x 20 ( 10 asf each )  1 Billion ( 200 fighters ) < replacements and kitting out the new stations >

End Turn 5 Budget: 3 Billion, 855 Million

Story time...

Marian Action News Network ( MANN )
Vatnajökull, Lothario
Marian Hegemony Embassy

MANN Reporter:" I'm reporting from the Hegemony Embassy where just yesterday His Lordship, Imperator Pi, had just arrived for a diplomatic meeting with the Lotharian Senate about Parliament settings when word reached him about the surprise, but expected, swift attack on the Illyrian Palatinate defenses. He recruited senatorial help from both Senates to enact a Periphery Aid Program, such as the one for Lothario, citing new revenues for all. Exclaiming his " Service equals Citizenship " passage, he proclaims the Lotharians as ' Proud members of the Marian Hegemony, and so can you! ' Would you like more?

{Meanwhile over Illyria }

The Second Legio, lead by Perfect Judas O'Hara, continues to patrol the heavily dense surroundings in hope of finding the Illyrian rebels. Her General, Miles Tanner, had selected her training regime with care, while a Principes, she lead her Maniple victory in the Battle for Jax's Pass, a mountain point on Lothario. Now she commands a force made up of mostly Lotharians and is currently in the lead for Aquila rank.

FLEET ACTION:

First Fleet: aka Alpha, currently in route to Alphard for repairs
Alphard is a Scapha II, leadship Alphard Task Force
Spica is a Scapha I, Spike
Ignis is a Scapha I, Fire
Bellator is a Scapha I, Warrior *
Trojan is a Trojan II, Scout for ATF

Attached: MHS Neapolis is a Kuati-class on shakedown trails

Second Fleet: aka Beta, currently in route to Illyria for siege and pacification
Vi Unitatis Thru is a Scapha II, leadship of Vi Task Force
Letum is a Scapha I, Death *
Rana is a Scapha I, Frog *
Pompeii is a Trojan II, Scout for VTF

Lothario Fleet: aka Delta, currently in route carrying relief aid to Illyria
Pride of Lothario is a Scapha I
Frozen Myst is a civilian jumpship, commands Tenara 1

Fleet Tenders: aka Tenara 1 < Latin for Tender >
Using numbers... generic jumpers so Invader-like.

#2
#3
#4
#5 < all attached to Lothario Fleet >

Fleet Tenders: aka Tenara 2
Republic of Justice is a civilian jumpship, commands Tenara 2
#7
#8
#9< just bought will be attached to the Kuati, ex-DCS / TCS Neapolis  now MHS Neapolis when she returns to Alphard >

TT

* = Retcon'd, meaning they are temporarily un-built per instructions on how I could " pay " for a technical error. ( ...removing 3 Scapha I's, and their ASF and SC... I'll should be even, of course this means I'll need your approval (TT). ...seems like a reasonable solution to me. Go for it... (Alsadius) via PM ) So my Battle for Illyira would have had Pride of Lothario, Spica, Rana, Alphard, Neapolis and Trojan...

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 15 October 2018, 01:45:47
Will update the Master Sheet when the report is finished.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 15 October 2018, 09:24:21
Feeling better, and am working on my overdue writing homework. :)

Fun turn.  Its interesting how well all the difference authors writing styles mesh - or is that you, Alsadius?  Anyway, good stuff as always.  Once I get the butchers bill in toto, I'll figure out what I'm doing with my money.  Call it the 'Whole New Fleet Initiative'. :)

As for nuclear policy, desired outcome:

1.)  Ban ANY use as a war crime, subject to nuclear weapons free against the offending power, and enforced by the actions of ALL OTHER POWERS.  The violating house will have its surviving assets (if any) divided amongst the conquerors.

2.)  FWL is to pay reparations,  ((LC may not have much ability to make an issue on this one - if they lost as many ships as I THINK they did!))



RE:  Technology, some questions:

Order of Operations Question:

I.  Do we check for tech bleed/espionage/spoils spread BEFORE or AFTER the research rolls?
     a.  If Yes, does this allow you to gain mulitple technologies per turn?

II.  You indicated that if you win multiple rolls on research expenditures, you will roll the dice to see which tech you get, and then get ONLY the LOWEST tech result from those rolls?  Thus you gain AT MOST one tech in each category per turn via research?

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 15 October 2018, 09:34:26
Feeling better, and am working on my overdue writing homework. :)

Good to hear.

Fun turn.  Its interesting how well all the difference authors writing styles mesh - or is that you, Alsadius?  Anyway, good stuff as always.  Once I get the butchers bill in toto, I'll figure out what I'm doing with my money.  Call it the 'Whole New Fleet Initiative'. :)

I did some basic cleanup - fixed the odd typo, added a few names, re-worded a few sentences for clarity, and so on. The writing is theirs, though I suspect we're all taking inspiration from each other's work here. And yes, I owe three of you butcher's bills, so I'll get to work on that.

RE:  Technology, some questions:

Order of Operations Question:

I.  Do we check for tech bleed/espionage/spoils spread BEFORE or AFTER the research rolls?
     a.  If Yes, does this allow you to gain mulitple technologies per turn?

II.  You indicated that if you win multiple rolls on research expenditures, you will roll the dice to see which tech you get, and then get ONLY the LOWEST tech result from those rolls?  Thus you gain AT MOST one tech in each category per turn via research?

II: Correct. Only one tech per category per turn from research.

I: Probably before. I hadn't consciously considered this, but it makes sense to me that way.

I(a): Tech spread is in addition to research. If it wasn't, nobody could ever catch up.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 15 October 2018, 10:33:38
Thank you!

Really looking forward to seeing the rest of the LC/DC fight.  The future of carrier doctrine depends, ultimately, on whether the surviving ‘dry’ fighters can contribute significantly to the gun duel by exploiting any damaged ships, or suppressing enemy ships.

If they arent decisive here (having gone as far as massed fighter strikes can go, at the high water mark of fighter utility, against a tonnage-inferior force, and having given up mobility to get weight of fire) then their probably are a dead end.  Faster carriers would allow for reload/restrike, but they would cut the deckload at least in half - implying a more than 50% reduction in effect.  So thats probably futile other than for clubbing an outnumbered enemy, or when you dont care if you have to retreat.  Also - AMS is coming, good anti fighter weapons are here - better armor is coming.  Missiles are pretty much at their limit - they dont get lighter or hit harder - so fighter losses will go up, hit rates will drop, and effect of hits will drop.

Just where my head is right now.  Will know more when we know more, and maybe after DC/FS does their dance.  The other batreps arent really informative, other than ‘dont jump into a jump point, jump a bit outside it at a random location’ and ‘nukes flip the table mkay’  :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 16 October 2018, 07:12:20
A side question: Is the deep space highway in the TC seeing significant use by merchants? 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 16 October 2018, 13:59:06
* I'm watching that answer ... closely. *

Cause I have a - Non of your beeswax ! - solution to that!

TT

(  >:D )
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 17 October 2018, 01:04:46
Aaaand still waiting on that update Mr GM sir if you please.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 17 October 2018, 21:23:07
Really looking forward to seeing the rest of the LC/DC fight.  The future of carrier doctrine depends, ultimately, on whether the surviving ‘dry’ fighters can contribute significantly to the gun duel by exploiting any damaged ships, or suppressing enemy ships.
Some peanut gallery comments:
Overall, I'm interested to see how this turns out as well.   Presumably Alsadius is busy with real life for now...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 18 October 2018, 23:11:38
Just an update, the Master Sheet has been updated for everyone except those that still have outstanding combat reports (Myself, Steiner and Feddies)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 20 October 2018, 17:13:21
As an (as of yet) outsider, reading the combat reports until now, would I be correct to assume that capital missiles are basically only useful when delivered by massed fighter strikes?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 20 October 2018, 20:30:30
As an (as of yet) outsider, reading the combat reports until now, would I be correct to assume that capital missiles are basically only useful when delivered by massed fighter strikes?

Yes, but the Lyran navy has the best chance of being able to do something beyond this so we might see something when the current round is finished.  My understanding is that we are looking at a broadside of 390 Barracudas, 120 White Sharks, and 120 Killer Whales each round against a defense which is partly fractured by the initial fighter missile strike.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 20 October 2018, 22:52:30
May be a bit more than that... the GM is treating ship-mounted tubes as being capable of off-bore fire.  Of course, the tubes on my ships carry limited reloads, but thats still -a lot- of missiles.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 21 October 2018, 07:37:48
I just guessed that, since even on a fighter strike a lot of missiles are being shot down, regular ship fire would stand an even lower chance of success.
Then again, salvoes become harder to intercept the larger they are, so if a ship fired 15 killer whale missiles at once, that'd be harder to intercept than multiple squadrons of fighters shooting just 12?
If I calculated that correctly, such a salvo, under standard rules, would require at least 180 AMS working in conjunction to shoot down, or twice as many point defense weapons - and as far as I've gathered they are weaker here.
Just noted that I could read of multiple massive missile strikes, yet they were mostly delivered by fighters, and their results fell a bit short.

Also, looking at the construction rules (Are they actually mostly standard? Aka, could one just build warships in MML and port them over?), there is really no reason to build a small ship, is there?
Starting at 250k tons, bigger is better, carrying more armour and offering a better capability for the price. Or am I missing something?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 21 October 2018, 07:46:42
The GM had gone with a different paradigm for missile intercept - in essence, each MG/AMS gets to fire several times, but -cannot- fire at every incoming missile (the way they do in the RAW, which is why AMS can easily neuter an infinitely large missile salvo).

Now, fighters and ship-board launchers are still a huge investment, and their return on that investment is still being measured - especially here, when a maximum fighter load fleet, and one with heavy shipboard launchers as well, is fighting a force with some anti-fighter/anti-missile capability, but not a large one.

TLDR - the Lyran Force really cant get more missiles/fighters unless it rebuilds its gunships as -also- being carriers - which has huge drawbacks.  The DC force could easily raise its point defense carriage by several times over, perhaps an order of magnitude.  So theres a lot of anticipation to see if the fighter/missile paradigm works here, and how well.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 21 October 2018, 08:16:59
May be a bit more than that... the GM is treating ship-mounted tubes as being capable of off-bore fire.  Of course, the tubes on my ships carry limited reloads, but thats still -a lot- of missiles.
Interesting---I'm still learning the rules.  In this case, we're looking at 1200 Barracudas, 240 White Sharks, and 240 Killer Whales per round.

W.r.t. construction, the cost of yards is quadratic in the yard's build tonnage so very large ships are particularly expensive to create the capacity to build.

W.r.t. construction rules, you should use the spreadsheet linked in the OP which has some variations and caveats
1) Crew and Passenger quarters have a cost.  Passengers quarters (and possibly crew quarters) are free in the standard rules.
2) Creating monitors (warships minus jump cores) is allowed by the spreadsheet but disallowed by the game.
3) The SI limit for slow warships was removed. (No one has used this yet.)
4) There is no rounding for max thrust.
5) Fractional thrust is allowed.  (No one has used this yet.)
6) Jumpships and Space Stations must use a station keeping drive rather than a fractional thrust maneuvering drive.
7) The set of technologies available (see other OP spreadsheet) is limited and growing over time.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 21 October 2018, 09:08:28
Aye, I've seen that.
Just, for quickly trying out designs, MML is far more practical, so I figured if there's no differences in tonnage involved, I could use that as a laboratory, and then, once I find something I like, check it into the spreadsheet to see what changes. Pity dropships are so useless - I still don't get why you guys can't use shuttle hangars.
(the way they do in the RAW, which is why AMS can easily neuter an infinitely large missile salvo).
Ah, I was under the impression that missile salvoes (which only roll for a crit once, after all), were calculated together, so a 4 capital hit against a KW salvo would only divert one missile and leave the rest unmolested. No idea where I gathered that, I didn't find it again.
I guess I mixed up some Tele-Op Info with the SOP rules.  Edit: Actually, where are the rules for missile intercepts?

Regarding, size, I just noted that once you have the yard, you tend to build as large as possible, as there's no reason not to, and that means nearly all designs tend to end on a multiple of 250k.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Andras on 21 October 2018, 09:32:42
Aye, I've seen that.
Just, for quickly trying out designs, MML is far more practical, so I figured if there's no differences in tonnage involved, I could use that as a laboratory, and then, once I find something I like, check it into the spreadsheet to see what changes. Pity dropships are so useless - I still don't get why you guys can't use shuttle hangars. Ah, I was under the impression that missile salvoes (which only roll for a crit once, after all), were calculated together, so a 4 capital hit against a KW salvo would only divert one missile and leave the rest unmolested. No idea where I gathered that, I didn't find it again.
I guess I mixed up some Tele-Op Info with the SOP rules.


You might have seen this thread,
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=5106

But here's the rule clarification three years later
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=38671.0


Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 21 October 2018, 09:34:33
I think you are right... but even so, finding enough AMS to knock down even a maximum strength missile salvo is far cheaper, in mass, than launching that salvo...

Ergo, under the official rules, missiles are worthless as soon as someone decides to make them so.  It is only the fact that canon designs are -soo bad- (though not entirely their fault, due to changing rules) that masks this fact.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 21 October 2018, 13:49:39
TLDR - the Lyran Force really cant get more missiles/fighters unless it rebuilds its gunships as -also- being carriers - which has huge drawbacks.  The DC force could easily raise its point defense carriage by several times over, perhaps an order of magnitude.  So theres a lot of anticipation to see if the fighter/missile paradigm works here, and how well.

My point defense is not what it could be mostly because my 2 bigger ship classes were designed before the Lyran Cloud Generator (Walkurie) was released, and noone else had built a ship with fighters or missiles on that kind of scale. This issue would have been solved by now, except I've been delaying refitting my ships until I get better armour, to save doing it twice in 20 years.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 21 October 2018, 14:34:40
My point defense is not what it could be mostly because my 2 bigger ship classes were designed before the Lyran Cloud Generator (Walkurie) was released, and noone else had built a ship with fighters or missiles on that kind of scale. This issue would have been solved by now, except I've been delaying refitting my ships until I get better armour, to save doing it twice in 20 years.

Absolutley!  Given the showing thus far, even a straightforward upgrade to the PDS suites on your cruiser, or a 600 MG per facing escort (numbers pulled from hat) would have swatted that salvo and laughed.

Thats got some historical basis, too - by the end of WW2, a US Fleet was very resistant to japanese carrier attack - and a slight difference inwhat technologies matured when might have prevented carrier dominance alltogether.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 21 October 2018, 19:48:01
What, you can't refit ships? One would assume replacing the armour plating isn't the most difficult task.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 21 October 2018, 19:54:26
What, you can't refit ships? One would assume replacing the armour plating isn't the most difficult task.
You can refit.   There is an upfront 50% cost for the refit design and it takes 1/10th of a yard + any increase in the design cost. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 21 October 2018, 21:14:19
Armor is easy, just justifying the cost is hard.  Now if I can only get more usage out it!  :P

I tell ya, is more better or using less armor to cover the cost...

Meaning I have 100 tons of standard, but FF would allow me better protection for same tonnage, just increased cost... unless I lowered the tonnage to match the cost and protection of the original. Which is better?

I scare people a lot... including myself sometimes!

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 22 October 2018, 01:38:36
I believe until you get to lamellor, More armour is always better, and fluff wise it'd be a cheaper refit to just add the same tonnage as before.
As for the cost - yes, you can save by not refitting and building later, but lose just one mid-sized ship to a lack of either armour or combat capability, and you might just have saved yourself to death. ;)
Still haven't read through all the reports yet...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 22 October 2018, 11:41:35
Alsadius, any update on turn completion?  Anything I can help with?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 22 October 2018, 12:40:32
Alsadius, any update on turn completion?  Anything I can help with?

tl;dr, I'm a bad person who should feel bad. I keep sitting down to try to finish those battles, and keep not getting anything written. Let's see if I can do any better in the next couple days, because I'm out of town this weekend and most of next week.

On the up side, the workplace project that's been the biggest drain should be finished at the end of this week. If that happens on schedule, and if sanity is restored, I should at least be able to get back to my former slow-but-tolerable pace.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 22 October 2018, 12:58:37
Thanks.

tl;dr, I'm a bad person who should feel bad.
This seems over-harsh.  More generally, if a game makes you feel bad, consider how to change the game...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 22 October 2018, 13:00:44
tl;dr, I'm a bad person who should feel bad. I keep sitting down to try to finish those battles, and keep not getting anything written. Let's see if I can do any better in the next couple days, because I'm out of town this weekend and most of next week.

On the up side, the workplace project that's been the biggest drain should be finished at the end of this week. If that happens on schedule, and if sanity is restored, I should at least be able to get back to my former slow-but-tolerable pace.

Well, if you cant find the juice to write them, a box score and brief outline of why would let the ball keep rolling.  Writer's Block is a thing, and I wonder if constatnly setting a high bar for what you write (no matter how much we enjoy and praise it) isnt part of whats wearing you out.  Weve gone from 'design exercise' to 'Naval and Political History of the Inner Sphere'.  Which while awesome may be a bridge too far.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 22 October 2018, 13:33:31
"I'm a bad person who should feel bad."  No, please don't.  So things aren't progressing as fast as everyone "thinks" they should.  Meh.  We're in this for fun, and if anyone isn't having fun, including you, then we should stop.

CC Turn 7:

More than a decade of (relative) peace has brought new light and life to the Confed!  Woot!  Given that, I think I can post my turn early-

Budget: $98,000M
Surplus: $0M
Maintenance:  $29,645
Fighters @150%
Small Craft @150%
Light Dropships @120%
Jumpships @120%

Quzhujian @200%* (Training ship)
All other ships and stations @120%

Research: $1,000M
--Building:
Yards:
New Lvl 1 in Capella
Lvl 1->2 upgrade in Capella
Lvl 2->3 upgrade in Capella
This should make 4 yards, one of each type from 1-4 in Capella.

Ships:
2x Rapid Vents
1x Duck

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Дух ветра (Dukh vetra - Wind Spirit/Duck)
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $7,610,866,000.00
Magazine Cost: $4,210,000.00
BV2: 79,293

Mass: 750,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 5
Maximum Thrust: 8
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
80 AC 2
36 Naval Laser 55
20 Capital Launcher AR-10
16 Capital Launcher Barracuda
Class/Model/Name: Дух ветра (Dukh vetra - Wind Spirit/Duck)
Mass: 750,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 225,000
Thrust
Safe: 5.0
Maximum: 7.5
Controls: 1,875
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (16 Integrity) 339,375
Jump Sail: (5 Integrity) 68
Structural Integrity: 120 90,000
Total Heat Sinks: 3315 Single 2,600
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 6875 points 2,805
Fire Control Computers: 2,034
Armor: 882 pts Standard 2,025
Fore: 224
Fore-Left/Right: 130/130
Aft-Left/Right: 130/130
Aft: 180

Dropship Capacity: 0 0
Grav Decks:
Small: 0
Medium: 0
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 145 1,015
Life Boats: 150 1,050

Crew And Passengers:
50 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 500
145 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 1,015
98 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 686
10 Bay Personnel 0
1st Class Passengers 0
2nd Class Passengers 0
Steerage Passengers 0
# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
10 AC 2 Nose 10 20 (2-C) Long 60
10 Naval Laser 55 Nose 850 550 (55-C) Extreme-C 11,000
10 Capital Launcher AR-10 Nose Extreme-C 2,500
10 AC 2 FR 10 20 (2-C) Long 60
4 Naval Laser 55 FR 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
3 Capital Launcher Barracuda FR 30 60 (6-C) Extreme-C 270
10 AC 2 RBS 10 20 (2-C) Long 60
4 Naval Laser 55 RBS 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
5 Capital Launcher AR-10 RBS Extreme-C 1,250
10 AC 2 AR 10 20 (2-C) Long 60
3 Naval Laser 55 AR 255 165 (16.5-C) Extreme-C 3,300
3 Capital Launcher Barracuda AR 30 60 (6-C) Extreme-C 270
10 AC 2 FL 10 20 (2-C) Long 60
4 Naval Laser 55 FL 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
3 Capital Launcher Barracuda FL 30 60 (6-C) Extreme-C 270
10 AC 2 LBS 10 20 (2-C) Long 60
4 Naval Laser 55 LBS 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
5 Capital Launcher AR-10 LBS Extreme-C 1,250
10 AC 2 AL 10 20 (2-C) Long 60
3 Naval Laser 55 AL 255 165 (16.5-C) Extreme-C 3,300
3 Capital Launcher Barracuda AL 30 60 (6-C) Extreme-C 270
10 AC 2 Aft 10 20 (2-C) Long 60
4 Naval Laser 55 Aft 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
4 Capital Launcher Barracuda Aft 40 80 (8-C) Extreme-C 360
Ammo Rounds Mass
AC 2 Ammo 10000 222.22
Capital Launcher Barracuda Ammo 180 5,400.00
Capital Launcher Killer Whale Ammo 75 3,750.00
Capital Launcher White Shark Ammo 75 3,000.00
Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
NCSS Large 500 2
20,000 Cargo, Standard 20,000 8
2 Bay Small Craft 400 2

Losses:
None.

Doctrine changes:
The Qinru Zhe line of ships has been retired.  It has been replaced by the Duck.

The last surviving Quzhujian has been retired to home fleet on a permanent station, and turned into an Advanced Tactical and Strategic Warfare live training vessel.  As a visible monument (when in dock and not on training maneuvers and life fire training), each class is expected to maintain and upgrade the vessel to venerate and honor those who served before.

The Dukh Vetra (Russian for Wind Spirit, and known as the Duck to all and sundry) is designed to replace the Qinru Zhe as the premiere raiding and scouting vessel of the Confed.  Unlike the Qinru Zhe's doctrine, Duck doctrine insists on avoidance of serious combat engagements while on raid patrols, strict use of pirate points where possible, and engaging only when the odds are stacked in their favor.  Even then, maintaining long to medium range is paramount, sacrificing the engagement entirely if the ranges can't be kept reasonably open.  During fleet operations, Ducks are to act as the fleet's eyes and ears, scouting the enemy, avoiding combat in the main wall of battle, only engaging enemy scouts, light craft, and crippled vessels that have fallen away from the main battle lines.  This last doctrine is unpopular and has given rise to the alternative nickname for the Wind Spirit, Vulture.

Regarding the Ares Convention, there is no Military consensus.  The convention deals with an extremely broad set of rules and treaties that precludes any real unity of advice.  That said, there are some broad themes.  The Ground forces are almost unanimous in support for limits on nuclear weapons.  They further push for limiting any and all space based Ortillary, in particular large scale Kinetic and Nuclear strikes, feeling that the indiscriminate nature and inherent inaccuracy of ortillary on worlds with non-combatants should be a warcrime.  The Navy, however, has strongly pressed for maintaining nuclear capabilities for ship-to-ship combat.  While willing to accept limits on usage near planetary bodies inhabited by civilians, the Navy is adament that no such restrictions be placed on space based structures such as habitats, industrial/mining facilities, or other space stations.  They feel that it would be to easy to hide weapons, or shield combatants, in such facilities, causing at best Naval losses, and at worse losses and a political nightmare.  Finally, both groups agree that while "first strike" usage should not be condoned regarding nukes on planets, the capability should be maintained, and allowed for, in the event of a need for "second strike" or retaliatory action.

Both sides largely agree on the general points on surrender and truce conditions and the treatment of prisoners (!! Many accusations against the FedSuns by the survivors of their tender mercies, including show-boating a number of... scarred and disabled individuals on camera and in ads to rile up the public, local and foreign).  A vocal minority (and those close to Liao) however, disagree, not on principle, but that by so defining things, we invite "rules lawyering" and atrocities, if only because they're "not prescribed, so must be legal."  They accuse the convention supporters of trivializing warfare, making it more palatable, and therefor more likely.  Finally, there's a small but notable minority that question who will enforce any agreement, and if not enforceable, then what use is it?

(The military is neither for, nor against it (or both for and against), but none of the sides in the CC military will be particularly happy with the results if they go as canon.)



On the (Master) Warship Spreadsheet:  Line A17 down on the TRO Workup sheet incorrectly calculates/collects the # of items. 
Field reads from columns A nd B starting at line 39, but should start at 32:
=IFERROR(IF(SUM(FILTER(Original!B39:B218,Original!A39:A218=B17))=0,"",SUM(FILTER(Original!B39:B218,Original!A39:A218=B17))),"")

And should be:
=IFERROR(IF(SUM(FILTER(Original!B32:B218,Original!A32:A218=B17))=0,"",SUM(FILTER(Original!B32:B218,Original!A32:A218=B17))),"")

Subsequent lines down the colum increment, I suspect due to a drag-n-drop copy of the original field and sheets being "helpful" and auto-incrementing.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 22 October 2018, 13:51:22
To be clear "bad and should feel bad" was as much a Futurama reference as it was a literal statement. I do feel like I've been jerking you guys around, but the problem there is the gap between promises and delivery, not the actual delivery in its own right.

I will agree that I've probably gotten too ambitious. I really do enjoy this level of detail, at least in principle, but it's no good if I can't actually follow through.

Also, Jester: You spent $1B on research, but didn't specify how it was being spent. Which category did you want to research?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 22 October 2018, 14:19:28
To be clear "bad and should feel bad" was as much a Futurama reference as it was a literal statement. I do feel like I've been jerking you guys around, but the problem there is the gap between promises and delivery, not the actual delivery in its own right.

I will agree that I've probably gotten too ambitious. I really do enjoy this level of detail, at least in principle, but it's no good if I can't actually follow through.

Also, Jester: You spent $1B on research, but didn't specify how it was being spent. Which category did you want to research?

Not suggesting you give up the detail.  Just pick your battles, and give the detail where you have inspiration and energy to do so.  If you dont.. dont!
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 23 October 2018, 19:55:19
DEV LEVEL ERATTA

Scapha I and Scapha II fixes, both to conform to rule regulations and simplistically, ie. wasting time not able to find it.

Scapha I
Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Scapha I
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $3,869,496,000.00
Magazine Cost: $1,724,000.00
BV2: 7,256

Mass: 100,000
K-F Drive System: Primitive
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 2
Maximum Thrust: 3
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
4 Naval AC 10
82 AC 5
112 Machine Gun (IS)

Class/Model/Name: Scapha I
Mass: 100,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 12,000
Thrust
Safe: 2
Maximum: 3
Controls: 250
K-F Hyperdrive: Primitive (4 Integrity) 50,000
Jump Sail: (3 Integrity) 35
Structural Integrity: 60 6,000
Total Heat Sinks: 202 Single 48
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 20000 points 2,040
Fire Control Computers: 116
Armor: 132 pts Standard 120
Fore: 22
Fore-Left/Right: 22/22
Aft-Left/Right: 22/22
Aft: 22

Dropship Capacity: 0 0
Grav Decks:
Small: 0 0
Medium: 0
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 20 140
Life Boats: 20 140

Crew And Passengers:
18 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 180
47 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 329
37 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 259
415 Bay Personnel 0
20 1st Class Passengers 200
84 2nd Class Passengers 588
0 Steerage Passengers 0

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
12 AC 5 Nose 12 60 (6-C) Medium 96
14 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 28 (2.8-C) Short-PDS 7
12 AC 5 FR 12 60 (6-C) Medium 96
14 Machine Gun (IS) FR 28 (2.8-C) Short-PDS 7
12 AC 5 FL 12 60 (6-C) Medium 96
14 Machine Gun (IS) FL 28 (2.8-C) Short-PDS 7
8 AC 5 LBS 8 40 (4-C) Medium 64
14 Machine Gun (IS) LBS 28 (2.8-C) Short-PDS 7
8 AC 5 RBS 8 40 (4-C) Medium 64
14 Machine Gun (IS) RBS 28 (2.8-C) Short-PDS 7
12 AC 5 AR 12 60 (6-C) Medium 96
14 Machine Gun (IS) AR 28 (2.8-C) Short-PDS 7
12 AC 5 AL 12 60 (6-C) Medium 96
14 Machine Gun (IS) AL 28 (2.8-C) Short-PDS 7
6 AC 5 Aft 6 30 (3-C) Medium 48
14 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 28 (2.8-C) Short-PDS 7
2 Naval AC 10 LBS 60 200 (20-C) Long-C 4,000
2 Naval AC 10 RBS 60 200 (20-C) Long-C 4,000

Ammo Rounds Mass
AC 5 Ammo 5280 264.00
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 11200 56.00
Naval AC 10 Ammo 80 16.00

Number Equipment and Bays Mass
10 Bay Small Craft 2,000  - 2 Doors
20 Bay Fighter 3,000  - 4 Doors
9,644 Cargo, Standard 9,644  - 2 Doors
25 Bay Vehicle Light 1,250
25 Bay Vehicle Heavy 2,500
112 Bay Infantry Compartment 112

Scapha II
Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Scapha I
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $5,448,896,000.00
Magazine Cost: $920,000.00
BV2: 4,819

Mass: 100,000
K-F Drive System: Primitive
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 2
Maximum Thrust: 3
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
64 AC 5
112 Machine Gun (IS)

Class/Model/Name: Scapha II     
Mass: 100,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 12,000
Thrust
Safe: 2
Maximum: 3
Controls: 250
K-F Hyperdrive: Primitive (4 Integrity) 50,000
Jump Sail: (3 Integrity) 35
Structural Integrity: 50 5,000
Total Heat Sinks: 202 Single 48
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 20000 points 2,040
Fire Control Computers: 13
Armor: 110 pts Standard 100
Fore: 17
Fore-Left/Right: 19/19
Aft-Left/Right: 19/19
Aft: 17

Dropship Capacity: 2 2,000
Grav Decks:
Small: 0 0
Medium: 0
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 20 140
Life Boats: 20 140

Crew And Passengers:
16 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 160
49 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 343
30 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 210
880 Bay Personnel 0
1st Class Passengers 0
2nd Class Passengers 0
0 Steerage Passengers 0

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
8 AC 5 Nose 8 40 (4-C) Medium 64
14 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 28 (2.8-C) Short-PDS 7
8 AC 5 FR 8 40 (4-C) Medium 64
14 Machine Gun (IS) FR 28 (2.8-C) Short-PDS 7
8 AC 5 FL 8 40 (4-C) Medium 64
14 Machine Gun (IS) FL 28 (2.8-C) Short-PDS 7
8 AC 5 LBS 8 40 (4-C) Medium 64
14 Machine Gun (IS) LBS 28 (2.8-C) Short-PDS 7
8 AC 5 RBS 8 40 (4-C) Medium 64
14 Machine Gun (IS) RBS 28 (2.8-C) Short-PDS 7
8 AC 5 AR 8 40 (4-C) Medium 64
14 Machine Gun (IS) AR 28 (2.8-C) Short-PDS 7
8 AC 5 AL 8 40 (4-C) Medium 64
14 Machine Gun (IS) AL 28 (2.8-C) Short-PDS 7
8 AC 5 Aft 8 40 (4-C) Medium 64
14 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 28 (2.8-C) Short-PDS 7

Ammo Rounds Mass
AC 5 Ammo 3840 192.00
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 11200 56.00


Number Equipment and Bays Mass
30 Bay Small Craft 6,000  - 2 Doors
40 Bay Fighter 6,000  - 4 Doors
6,204 Cargo, Standard 6,204  - 2 Doors
50 Bay Vehicle Light 2,500
50 Bay Vehicle Heavy 5,000
1,000 Bay Infantry Compartment 1,000

Units are 4-Scapha I's, 2-Scapha II's, 2-Trojan Mk2, 1-Kutai, 9-Jumpships, 2-Ribe, 2-Onsen and 18 Tenshi spread among Capital, 1 Major and 2 Secondary planets with the Fleet and a Tenara 1 ( Fleet Tenders ) arriving at Illyira, other Tenara 2 on convoy trades...

That is all.
TT
( ...removing 3 Scapha I's, and their ASF and SC... I'll should be even, of course this means I'll need your approval (TT). ...seems like a reasonable solution to me. Go for it... (Alsadius) via PM ) So my Battle for Illyira would have had Pride of Lothario, Spica, Rana, Alphard, Neapolis and Trojan...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 24 October 2018, 19:14:56
I am needing to subtract 2.574 Billion for the cost of both Scapha II's. This will be amended next turn.

And so I don't have to research: Turn 6 Budget: 3 Billion, 855 Million

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 26 October 2018, 01:21:12
Any chance of an update? even just a Box score of what casualties we suffered...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 26 October 2018, 08:05:50
Any chance of an update? even just a Box score of what casualties we suffered...
I believe we're stuck until the weekend after this one given Alsadius's last reply.  My todos:
(a) pin down what the default fighter / smallcraft / dropships are.  This has implications on larger ship designs. 
(b) figure out if the highway experiment is working (=effectively connecting otherwise disconnected parts of the TC).
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 26 October 2018, 08:36:06
I have the half-complete DC-LC battle almost finished, just need to check my notes at home(since I can't read all the spreadsheets at home to confirm my plot makes sense). I'll probably just post a box score for the DC-FS battle at this point, or a quick and dirty write-up. I'll probably have some time at lunch today, and if I can actually focus for once, I can at least get a box score and basic summary plot done up. I hope to be able to do that confirmation tonight, but I may be too busy packing. I'll let you know roughly what to expect after lunch (in 3-4 hours from this posting).

It's a shame that the DC-FS battle has been the most pushed back, because I want to implement that battle plan you PM'd me months ago. But I need the results from the first one before I can even plan it out in any kind of logical fashion, and I don't have that. This is where my writing style of writing the story and determining casualties as I go really bites me in the ass. I don't have a "box score" to give you, and don't know a good way of generating one other than writing up a whole battle. I should really come up with a better plan there.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 26 October 2018, 10:49:19
Maybe do that for a future turn, then?
No point to fret now.  8)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 26 October 2018, 12:18:34
Okay, I've written up the first battle. It's been added to the post above (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1452784#msg1452784). I'll want to double-check it tonight, and maybe tweak a few numbers, but it'll be close to that regardless. If I don't post any edits by the end of the day you can take it as official(which will mean Marcus can take his turn now).
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 26 October 2018, 14:03:05
Well, that answers the ‘do I use carriers’ and ‘do I include cargo on my ships’ questions nicely. 

I'm going to be a while figuring out how 3 Damaged 750 KT CAs and 6 Undamaged 500KT DDs manage to brutalize 6 Undamaged 750Kt CAs without taking meaningful damage in return.  Now, Atago is broadly superior to Tyr, due to greater SI (as a product of greater speed), that greater speed, and any firepower advantage Tyr  would have had based on its lower speed is occluded by the fact that it mounts missiles (a subpar choice in the current PDS paradigm, and one that will grow worse over time), and by the fact that Tyr was poorly designed inasmuch as it has cargo space. 

It will be interesting to see if a 2/3 ship, even at 180 SI, is a worthwhile investment, or if the design space collapses to '3/5, NACs, and a Box of Biscuits.  At this point, Im not sure if I can risk an investment in anything other than "Default Warship", but maybe someone else will sign up to experiment the next time around.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 26 October 2018, 14:33:57
I wonder if I could pay for " Exploration " or do I have to run the gauntlet of micro invasions?

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 26 October 2018, 15:03:39
Well, that answers the ‘do I use carriers’ and ‘do I include cargo on my ships’ questions nicely. 

I'm going to be a while figuring out how 3 Damaged 750 KT CAs and 6 Undamaged 500KT DDs manage to brutalize 6 Undamaged 750Kt CAs without taking meaningful damage in return.  Now, Atago is broadly superior to Tyr, due to greater SI (as a product of greater speed), that greater speed, and any firepower advantage Tyr  would have had based on its lower speed is occluded by the fact that it mounts missiles (a subpar choice in the current PDS paradigm, and one that will grow worse over time), and by the fact that Tyr was poorly designed inasmuch as it has cargo space. 

It will be interesting to see if a 2/3 ship, even at 180 SI, is a worthwhile investment, or if the design space collapses to '3/5, NACs, and a Box of Biscuits.  At this point, Im not sure if I can risk an investment in anything other than "Default Warship", but maybe someone else will sign up to experiment the next time around.

To be clear, I wasn't looking at the ship stats when I wrote that last part, just from memory. That's why I'm holding it for a review once I have all my materials. And you rolled somewhat worse than he did, which really saved his butt overall. Your fleet still did better than his in the end, but naturally a fighter-strike-based doctrine relies heavily on the fighter strikes, which are difficult to turn over quickly when carriers get too big.

Re doctrine, cargo has helped people before. There was one battle earlier where a ship was stranded and made repairs out of cargo, which a low-cargo ship wouldn't have been able to do. Likewise, NACs are good for damage, but they're not the be-all-end-all the way you're implying. Missile have a role too - Barracudas are excellent anti-fighter weapons(especially against a massed strike, where only having a few rounds of ammunition isn't a real problem), all missiles are effective in forts where cost matters way more than mass, and there's roles for them in anti-DropShip engagements and the like as well. Likewise, NLs are best for sustained anti-fighter operations at any range, and the larger energy weapons have better ranges than anything else around. Using advanced aerospace ranges and gunnery skill of 4, for example, a NL-55 or HNPPC has better damage per ton than a NAC-20 at ranges 22-26 and 32-39, and at 43-54 the NAC can't fire at all.

Re ship speeds, I think any of them are usable. 2/3 is just "you'd better win" speed, because it's a bad day if you don't. 4/6 is "meh, losing is okay", and 5/8 or 6/9 are "lol, what's a sustained engagement?".
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 26 October 2018, 15:12:08
I think the fighters did ok, given the tech available.
Which really is part of the problem.
The tech isn't there yet.
@Alsadius: Do you actually use the exact weapon ranges?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 26 October 2018, 15:46:39
To be clear, I wasn't looking at the ship stats when I wrote that last part, just from memory. That's why I'm holding it for a review once I have all my materials. And you rolled somewhat worse than he did, which really saved his butt overall. Your fleet still did better than his in the end, but naturally a fighter-strike-based doctrine relies heavily on the fighter strikes, which are difficult to turn over quickly when carriers get too big.

Re doctrine, cargo has helped people before. There was one battle earlier where a ship was stranded and made repairs out of cargo, which a low-cargo ship wouldn't have been able to do. Likewise, NACs are good for damage, but they're not the be-all-end-all the way you're implying. Missile have a role too - Barracudas are excellent anti-fighter weapons(especially against a massed strike, where only having a few rounds of ammunition isn't a real problem), all missiles are effective in forts where cost matters way more than mass, and there's roles for them in anti-DropShip engagements and the like as well. Likewise, NLs are best for sustained anti-fighter operations at any range, and the larger energy weapons have better ranges than anything else around. Using advanced aerospace ranges and gunnery skill of 4, for example, a NL-55 or HNPPC has better damage per ton than a NAC-20 at ranges 22-26 and 32-39, and at 43-54 the NAC can't fire at all.

Re ship speeds, I think any of them are usable. 2/3 is just "you'd better win" speed, because it's a bad day if you don't. 4/6 is "meh, losing is okay", and 5/8 or 6/9 are "lol, what's a sustained engagement?".

Well, weve seen that the deckloads of 6MT of carriers (6 CVs, 6 CVEs) are sufficient to kill 2.25MT of CAs, and damage 2.25MT more (though not enough to have a decisive impact on their effect).  This is.. NOT a great showing for carriers, because faster carriers would have smaller deckloads, and the fighter losses in that first strike would have pretty much removed all the fighters from the lighter strike of a faster set of CVs.  Now, a hypotetical setup with a 4/6 CV using half as many fighters and launching at maximum range to reload and restrike a few times MIGHT work better.. but your going to be burning so many tons of missiles that youll soon have not half, but a third or a quarter as many fighters (to allow tonnage for reloads).  At which point, no statistically significant missile hits are getting through.  And PDS/Anti Fighter improves... Anti-Ship Cap Missiles do not.  MUCH larger PDS/AAA belts are possible.  So, IN UNIVERSE, the day of the carrier being over is a logical assumption.

Stage 2 of the dance - cant reload/turn around.  Again, logical, a cost accepted for a big initial hit.  For reasons laid out above, I dont think 'reattack' is a better option than 'build to get one big hit in'.  More missiles mean more missiles get through, and fighters can/should stay out to engage injured ships in the gunfight.

Stage 3 of this PARTICULAR fight confused me... because as noted, 6 undamaged CAs vs 3 Damaged CAs and 6 Undamaged DDs... welp.  Now, as discussed, perhaps this can be blamed on Tyr being substantially inferior to Atago - Atago matches Tyr in firepower (not counting missiles), and beats her in manuverability and armor - because as discussed, Try squanders tonnage on 30KT of Cargo, and on missiles that can be wasted (and here were).  In any event, Tyr's day is done.  I might refit that 30KT of Cargo into a box of biscuits and more blam (like Atago!), or I might just leave them to fade away as support ships for the new line.  Unsure at this point.  I did a turn with a 3/5 BB and a 2/3 BB and cant decide which I hate less.  3/5, No Cargo is objectively better than 2/3 (it doesnt lose much blam or armor for a large bonus in agility - its only if you put on cargo that the collapsing mass fraction of the larger engine becomes a problem) - however a 3/5 hull means its speed ISNT GETTING USED, unless it leaves the rest of the fleet behind.

May have designed myself into a corner here based on bad assumptions that didnt play out - but thats naval life.  Imma kick the tires on a few options, including one thats at least as ridiculous as Walkurie... but the burned hand teaches best on getting away from 'default'.  Im not saying 'nothing beats 3/5 NACs Box of Biscuits', Im saying its -safe-.  It WORKS.  Quite well, especially with NAC/20s which have MOST of the range of energy weapons while being about twice the blam per ton.

Looking back at the fight - overall cost may be similar or slightly in my favor, despite initially looking like a loss due to high repair costs and massive fighter losses - But I didn't mentally include the cost of all the lost droppers, or the increased cost of the lost DC ships due to collars. 

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 26 October 2018, 15:48:13
There are several questions this engagement brings up for me.

1) Can the 70+ civilian dropships really be effectively used as missile screen elements?  That substantially decreases the reason to buy military dropships.
2) Why were so many Lyran fighters killed?  Even with standard BT rules amended so capital damage autokills fighters, it seems at least a factor of 2 to high.
3) The initial missile strike with 5000 missiles was remarkably ineffective.  If 150% maintenance fighters at short range miss 20% of the time and half the missiles are shot down, that's still 2K missiles.   You expect some overkill from misdisperson of fire, but the overkill on Atago's must have been extreme to account for this outcome.
4) Why weren't more DC fighters (100% maintenance) killed in the initial strike?  If the Barracuda's were all used on the Tate, you would still expect at least one round of fire from the many thousands of Lyran fighters (150% maintenance) to have a substantial effect.
5) Why were the DC warships (120% maintenance) notably more accurate than the Lyran warships (120% maintenance)?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 26 October 2018, 16:29:27
Lagragne: I believe many of those questions can be answered with 'Luck of the dice', with a roll made for Strategy/Leadership, Crew Skill and Luck for each side. I'm guessing luck and posibly crew skill went in my favour for this one.

I was expecting the mess to be a bit worse to be honest, need to upgrade the PD across the fleet, looking like I may not get to wait for IFA after all.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 26 October 2018, 16:33:40
-deleted-
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 26 October 2018, 18:25:56
Lagragne: I believe many of those questions can be answered with 'Luck of the dice', with a roll made for Strategy/Leadership, Crew Skill and Luck for each side. I'm guessing luck and posibly crew skill went in my favour for this one.
This seems like a reasonably plausible explanation for some of the outcome.  I can't explain (2) via this however---I don't see how to kill that many fighters that fast through luck and skill via the means available.  I'm also sketchy on (4) for similar reasons.  It takes an extreme amount of bad strategy to degrade the skill of a 4K+ fighters so they don't have a noticable impact vs. a few hundred fighters/dropships over 2-3 rounds.

Perhaps the confusion point here is around player agency.  In this particular case---an overwhelming air force against a poorly defended navy in a straight-up fight, it seems like the designs should matter to a significant degree as not indicated by the outcome and regardless of strategy, luck, or skill.   If the ~2000 missiles hitting, of which ~1500 where Killer Whales doing ~6000 capital damage were even moderately well dispersed, every Atago would have been out of action.  As is, the 1 Atago was crippled, 3 suffered apparently light damage, and 2 must have been killed about 4 times over.   

Perhaps the confusion is about the story itself.  If the roll determines the outcome, then perhaps a very different fight would make more sense.  For example, if the fleets jumped on top of each other and immediately started a knife fight with NACs it might be more congruous with the outcome.

This also makes me curious about the use of civilian dropships and jumpships.  I always assumed they were far to fragile to stick into a warzone.  But apparently not?  And if you borrow a large fleet of civilian dropships and get it destroyed (as happened here at least statistically), do you still owe damages after the fact?  I hadn't quite realized the degree to which you can freely impress civilian resources nor how effective they could be in combat.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 26 October 2018, 19:26:39
Most likely you'll have to compensate the civies for their " Emergency " usages, but that should fall under standard procedures of procurements. At least pay half cost for a new dropper to appease them? With the future promise of " In case of " again.

Thoughts?

TT

PS: Same for jumpers too?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Vition2 on 26 October 2018, 20:29:17
If I were to math out that battle, based on what has been mentioned previously in this thread, I think the results were pretty close to my expectations.  With a bunch of assumptions I calculated that roughly 5800 anti-shipping missiles were fired, but with a (albeit low) miss chance and point defense from just SC and Warships, the actual hits drop down to ~1400 (I calculated PD at a 1:1 ratio overall, so it might be high).  It takes roughly 280 missiles to outright destroy an Atago, 194 for a Minekaze, and 115 for a Tate (calculated using 1/3rd total armor plus IS) - rolling could potentially increase this, crit potential from ASF carried missiles is small enough to not significantly decrease these numbers, only by maybe 4%.  So I could fairly easily see most of the missiles targeted at the three primarily damaged Atagos and a Tate spoiling the attack runs of a fourth target.  This takes care of roughly 800-900 missiles, with the rest spread among every target, at roughly 32 per remaining target, you aren't going to see significant damage without a fair bit of luck.

What remains has a fairly significant firepower and armor advantage and maneuverability over the Lyran "wall" fleet, on the order of 50% more potential firepower and nearly double the armor (yes even after the missile damage is removed, this was roughly 3500 vs. 6300 armor). 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 26 October 2018, 21:03:50
If I were to math out that battle, based on what has been mentioned previously in this thread, I think the results were pretty close to my expectations.  With a bunch of assumptions I calculated that roughly 5800 anti-shipping missiles were fired, but with a (albeit low) miss chance and point defense from just SC and Warships, the actual hits drop down to ~1400 (I calculated PD at a 1:1 ratio overall, so it might be high). 
Offboard point defense was established as much less effective so you should (essentially) divide your point defense by 4 as virtually all of it is offboard.  Hence, many more missiles hit.   (In any case, the narrative said half hit which would be significantly more than 1400.)
It takes roughly 280 missiles to outright destroy an Atago,
280 killers whales = 1120 capital damage.  That's enough to take out the armor, take out the SI, and then take out the armor on the other side.
194 for a Minekaze, and 115 for a Tate (calculated using 1/3rd total armor plus IS)
Maybe you can detail your calculations?  I'm not following.  For example, for the Atago, 1/3 armor + SI = 420, which would suggest only 105 Killer Whales are needed.  I was actually figuring 200, just to be sure.
- rolling could potentially increase this, crit potential from ASF carried missiles is small enough to not significantly decrease these numbers, only by maybe 4%. 
I'm not following this.  TW page 239 says a Killer Whale has a 1-in-6 chance of a critical hit so you would expect roughly 16 critical hits per hundred missiles.   Maybe you mean the chance of a kill from crits alone?  I agree that's negligible, at least in a side arc.  The KF drive will take many crits, you'll lose several weapons bays and you'll lose docking collars and doors.  About 1 in 18 critical hits is a sensor hit which cuts significantly into accuracy. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Vition2 on 26 October 2018, 21:57:03
First, I was using the actual anti-shipping missiles - ie. they are functionally barracudas but take up 6 bomb slots, I averaged 2 AS Missiles per ASF (so 60-ton fighters, technically a little larger than the likely average).  If Killer Whale equivalents are being used, I would drop down to a single missile per ASF - Alsadius has commented on this being his typical assumption, but that was before AS missiles were brought up.  The 5000 missiles in this case would be too high, by almost double.

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

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

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

Edit: I will admit to a mistake though, AS missiles actually do 3 capital scale damage rather than 2, but their crit potential is barracuda equivalent.  That drops the required missiles to destroy an Atago, Minekaze, and Tate to 187, 130, and 77 respectively.  This increases the surviving missiles by 50% to (using my original numbers) ~2100.  And results in significantly higher damage.  But even with this extra damage, they are still likely to have a slight armor advantage, depending on distribution it's likely to be somewhere between 4000 and 4500 total vs. the LC's 3500.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 26 October 2018, 22:22:29
A few assorted notes:
1) What I said of the engagement time was "not all batteries got off a second shot". That implies that many did, and it seems a safe assumption that it's mostly going to be the long-range batteries(i.e., the NLs) that get two shots. Fighters are very limited by delta-v due to fuel limits(and the need to slow down and return home, while avoiding the fleet they just attacked), so they can't build up the same sort of crossing speeds that a WarShip fleet can. If we assume the average NL battery gets one shot at long range and one at short range, that's about 1.3 hits per laser at standard skill, or over 500 kills from NLs alone(since a NL will one-shot most fighters, IIRC).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6) I've looked over the numbers, and I was too light on damaging the Draconis fleet in the gunfight. They basically just lost one Minekaze while killing four ships. They had an advantage, but not that big an advantage. I've swapped the repair costs around a bit - instead of $16B for the Dracs and $20B for the Lyrans, it's now $24B for the Dracs and $12B for the Lyrans. That isn't all damage inflicted in the gun phase of the fight - some came from the initial carrier strike - but it seems to more accurately represent what should have happened. And with that, the report is now official, and I'm going to bed.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 26 October 2018, 22:37:42
4) Civilian DS have been a force multiplier in a few fights. They're pricey for what they do(since they're cargo and vehicle models, not carrier or PWS models), but you effectively only pay for them if they get blown up, at least as I've written it thus far.

So you do pay for them... interesting.

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 26 October 2018, 23:29:40
As for the armor calculations, it was calculated at 1/3rd armor plus double the internal structure (damage to IS is halved), so an Atago would have the equivalent toughness of 560 to be outright destroyed.  With their velocity and as many ASF in space as there are it would be impossible to get them all targeting the same location,
560 is reasonable.  Doing a more precise calculation against the dispersion of fire on a broadside arc, I see an expected 686 capital damage (=172 killer whales) to kill.  However, it's only expected 330 capital damage (= 83 killer whales) until the armor is stripped off (=> the warship becomes vulnerable to normal ASF weapons and critical hits rapidly render it a mission kill). 

If attacks hit other arcs, the nose and aft critical hits are much more severe which rapidly renders the warship either unable to hit (nose) or unable to move (aft).
If I were to use the Killer Whale assumption, then I'd be starting with ~3000 missiles actually getting fired at the warships (yes in my scenario roughly 2k fighters are destroyed or their attacks otherwise spoiled before getting to firing range),
How do you destroy 2000 fighters in 1 or 2 minutes?  In the narrative, weapons only fire once or twice before the missile release.    In either case, it's ~1K fighters (=20%) killed in the narrative before weapon release.  This seems unaccountably high, but it leaves ~3K KWs and ~1900 BCs incoming when you account for the double Barracuda load of 1200 fighters.
I used an 80% hit (as I said I used a high hit percentage, if I were going by straight numbers this would probably be lower), so that's roughly 2400 missiles left,
80% actually seems a tad low at close range with likely-veteran pilots.  Nevertheless, it's not to unreasonable. For example, veteran pilot vs. evading warship has a 17% miss chance.
(eliding the rest---divergence in numbers make it hard to discuss further)
A few assorted notes:
1) What I said of the engagement time was "not all batteries got off a second shot". That implies that many did, and it seems a safe assumption that it's mostly going to be the long-range batteries(i.e., the NLs) that get two shots. Fighters are very limited by delta-v due to fuel limits(and the need to slow down and return home, while avoiding the fleet they just attacked), so they can't build up the same sort of crossing speeds that a WarShip fleet can. If we assume the average NL battery gets one shot at long range and one at short range, that's about 1.3 hits per laser at standard skill, or over 500 kills from NLs alone(since a NL will one-shot most fighters, IIRC).
Several issues, at least w.r.t. standard BT rules.
1) NLs in AAA mode have a +3 to hit penalty.  Hence, the long range shot is a near automatic miss (11+ or 10+ with a veteran gunner), and the short range shot misses notably often.  This at least halves the expected number of NL hits on the way in compared to the above.
2) NLs normally don't have a 360 degree arc.  The Atago for instance, can broadside at most 14 NLs, the Minekaze 6, and the Tate 18, implying at most 132 NLs bearing on an approach vector.  This drops NL damage by another factor of 3 compared to the above. 
3) NL 35s, at least in standard rules, only do 35 damage which actually is survivable by quite a few medium/heavy fighters which would nerf the damage even further.  (Obviously, we could change the rule as we have done with capital missiles vs. ASF.)
Add to that the 1000+ Mech-sized autocannons and the guns on the DropShips(which should be roughly as numerous),
Two issues:
1) The ACs do pretty minimal damage.   Think about it in terms of armor---if every one of 1000 AC/5s hit, you do ~300 tons of armor damage.   With a reasonable dispersion of fire, this might mean 20 ASF are killed and with a really good dispersion 30 ASF.
2) I'm skeptical about the civilian dropships (2/3 of the dropship fleet) being armed like military transports.  Weapons are quite expensive so they really hurt under the x28 multiplier for dropships.  Realistically, civilians care about profits and militaries aren't to keen on heavily armed civvies.
and you're looking at the equivalent of about 280 more NLs. They'll be less efficient, because of damage spreading, but a hundred or so kills there is reasonable.

The Kurita fighters were full strength at this point, and would all be equipped for anti-fighter duties, so 800 fighters would be about 1000 Barracudas. They won't all hit, and won't all kill if they do hit, but I'd expect at least 500 kills there.
The Barracuda's weren't mentioned so I hadn't realized.  Nevertheless, I'm skeptical about 500 kills because the incoming Lyran ASF presumably have a pretty enormous number of MGs.   At 6/ASF, you are looking at 25000+ MGs.  How are they not killing the Barracuda swarm?  A handful might get through, but I don't see how this can be a real factor.
3) The Draconis fleet had a fair bit of on-board defence too. It carries 4800 total MG, which isn't as much as the Lyrans but is still substantial. It doesn't all get cut in 4.
Sure, just the vast majority in my understanding.  The Minekaze can bring 16 MGs to bear, the Atago 8, and the Tate 40.  So if the Atagos were the primary target that's 48 relevant onboard MGs, with the rest offboard.  Given that some of those 4800 MGs are out of arc, using 1/4 of the total seems like a reasonable estimate. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Vition2 on 27 October 2018, 00:28:50
If attacks hit other arcs, the nose and aft critical hits are much more severe which rapidly renders the warship either unable to hit (nose) or unable to move (aft).How do you destroy 2000 fighters in 1 or 2 minutes?  In the narrative, weapons only fire once or twice before the missile release.    In either case, it's ~1K fighters (=20%) killed in the narrative before weapon release.  This seems unaccountably high, but it leaves ~3K KWs and ~1900 BCs incoming when you account for the double Barracuda load of 1200 fighters.80% actually seems a tad low at close range with likely-veteran pilots. 
2000 in 1 or 2 minutes? NO very, very, very big NO.  The Combine isn't getting caught with their pants down, they have the time to sortie their fighters and intercept the incoming attack.  I had them at a 75% spoil rate, and I figured that two-thirds of the Combine's combat dropships were with the fleet, which because they aren't delineated between carrier or attack dropships I assigned them their 12 fighters each (40 of them total - I think the DC had 60 before the fight, but I could be wrong here). 

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

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

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

But really we're getting into the weeds on a hypothetical calculation that I would have run rather than the narrative approach that Alsadius is using.  So if you have anymore questions please send me a PM so we don't throw the conversation off any further.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 27 October 2018, 01:29:36
No matter how we approach it, fighters have been judged and found wanting.

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

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

5.) (edit)  Go full nuclear?  Weve seen that, delivering conventional munitions, fighters and missile tubes are a losing investment (6 MT of CV and CVE destroys/mission kills 2.25 MT of CA and then can no longer contribute, effectively mission killing themselves.)  However, nuclear munitions may prove decisive where conventional does not, and the LC is better situated than any other power to deliver them.  Pro:  Means not losing.  Con:  Means everyone loses and game stops being fun.
I just dont see any good answers, or for that matter even any okay answers.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 27 October 2018, 05:03:19
Several issues, at least w.r.t. standard BT rules.
1) NLs in AAA mode have a +3 to hit penalty.  Hence, the long range shot is a near automatic miss (11+ or 10+ with a veteran gunner), and the short range shot misses notably often.  This at least halves the expected number of NL hits on the way in compared to the above.
2) NLs normally don't have a 360 degree arc.  The Atago for instance, can broadside at most 14 NLs, the Minekaze 6, and the Tate 18, implying at most 132 NLs bearing on an approach vector.  This drops NL damage by another factor of 3 compared to the above. 
3) NL 35s, at least in standard rules, only do 35 damage which actually is survivable by quite a few medium/heavy fighters which would nerf the damage even further.  (Obviously, we could change the rule as we have done with capital missiles vs. ASF.)

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

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

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

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

Um...what? You won that battle pretty handily overall, despite losing the rolls.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 27 October 2018, 07:21:42
Every freak accident in the past centuries could be explained with a GM having an off day.  ;D
Forgive me if I'm just blind, for I couldn't find it, but: How are battles actually resolved?
And, assuming there's counting and virtual dice rolling involved: Would it make sense to send the preliminary numbers to a neutral party to check?

Now there's an interesting choice upon marcus:
Are the problems, in-universe, recognized as problems with the tactics, the technology, or bad execution at that moment?  :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 27 October 2018, 07:31:42
Um...what? You won that battle pretty handily overall, despite losing the rolls.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One doctrine change that IS possible... a high speed engagement profile might allow missiles to hit hard enough to meet their promise, but a 2/3 fleet only does high speed engagement where the enemy allows or it has serious recon superiority.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 27 October 2018, 07:35:38
2000 in 1 or 2 minutes? NO very, very, very big NO. 
Yeah, that's my thought.
The Combine isn't getting caught with their pants down, they have the time to sortie their fighters and intercept the incoming attack. 
Except that's not what happened.
I had them at a 75% spoil rate, and I figured that two-thirds of the Combine's combat dropships were with the fleet, which because they aren't delineated between carrier or attack dropships I assigned them their 12 fighters each (40 of them total - I think the DC had 60 before the fight, but I could be wrong here). 
In this case, they would have ~22 combat dropships and 80-or-so civilian dropships.
The damage done by the fighters, dropships, and capital missiles are done before the fighters even come onto what would be considered the combat map. 
It didn't happen and it doesn't account for the Lyran ASF.
Also: Attacking TN to hit: 3 (veteran) +2 (evasion) +2 (2 hexes ECM): 7+ (or ~60% hit rate)
Proper warship ECM hasn't been invented yet.
Okay, retcon time. The fighters came in strangely slow for some reason (maybe the Drac fleet had more time to react than expected, or maybe the Lyrans were using an old fighter design with too little fuel?), and so the 1-2 shots per battery was actually 2-3. This is probably unfair to Marcus, but I don't think I can plausibly re-write this battle at this point. I will try to keep this in mind next time, however.
We also haven't delved into what 5K-15K AC/5s from the Lyran ASFs should have done. 
Um...what? You won that battle pretty handily overall, despite losing the rolls.
I can see where Marcus is coming from here.   If the plan for a fighter-heavy strategy is:
it makes the fighter heavy strategy look like a cartoon.   Maybe the rolls are so overwhelmingly important that they wash out most/all of the value of design and even the battletech rules and commonsense.  Or maybe the plan is that every design is roughly equivalent with rules adjusting as necessary to make that so.  Either way, it means that investing fighter-heavy designs doesn't make much sense.  In the first case nothing matters while in the second case, you'd rather have 50% more battleships.

I'll note here that massed fighter strikes are easily countered with massed MGs---it just requires appropriate designs to do so (... see TC).   Hence, it's not like we are talking about something unbalanced.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 27 October 2018, 10:40:12
Come 10 turns, and fighters might just be a danger without missiles.
What I find to be quite humorous is that in the end, both navies might chalk this fight up as a failure.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 27 October 2018, 11:59:34
Come 10 turns, and fighters might just be a danger without missiles.
What I find to be quite humorous is that in the end, both navies might chalk this fight up as a failure.

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

My -hope- had been that fighter missiles could create an initial firepower edge, and then the now empty fighters would fire ACs, etc. into wounds created by capital weapons.  Thats... not what happened here, but rather than abandoning fighters and rebuilding the fleet, I may instead see if new, and more clearly expressed, donctrine can change this.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 27 October 2018, 13:37:52
Thats... not what happened here, but rather than abandoning fighters and rebuilding the fleet, I may instead see if new, and more clearly expressed, donctrine can change this.
Some clarification about fighter armor vs. mech scale weapons seems like a good idea.  If ASF armor is going to be treated as 1/10th normal thickness vs. mech scale weapons (as happened here) and the Combine upgrades AAA (entirely sensible after this battle), this may not be viable.

Related, I glanced through all the 50+ ton designs in TR3039 just now.  Every one of them (even the infamous Chippewa) would typically survive a single NL35 hit in the default rules.  I'm personally fine with treating capital scale damage as x100 standard scale damage as that makes more sense than the standard x10 anyways, but maybe we should be explicit about this.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 27 October 2018, 14:02:02
Funny you mention Chippewa.  I learned to loathe that machine flying Lyran ASFs on a succesion wars Megamek server - it was by far the most commonly available Lyran Heavy Fighter, and when the other team brings Stukas.. or god help you Reivers...

Also enjoyed serious success in the LCF-R20. (Remove LRM, add armor), and thus the Shu Heavy Fighter was born.  The fluff is actually a giant FU to the Chippewa...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 27 October 2018, 14:06:09
Good to know. Then fighters are indeed useless.
Which also means anti-fighter weapons are; That is a design consideration, after all. I'll keep that in mind.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 27 October 2018, 15:08:26
Good to know. Then fighters are indeed useless.
Which also means anti-fighter weapons are; That is a design consideration, after all. I'll keep that in mind.

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

Im just not seeing justification for building new carriers.  Ill likely keep the ones Ive got, and modify doctrine to make them useable, but its definitely gonna be battlewagons (2/3 or 3/5 is up in the air - 3/5 is likely superior, but wasted for me unless I throw away my existing fleet), likeky either ignoring PDS/AAA (thats what the carried fighters are for) cornerposting if PDS/AAA is called for, and devoting cargo space for a can if beans (over-cargoed existing designs can feed the battlewagons)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 27 October 2018, 15:37:46
A bug report: It appears that fire control tonnage is a factor of 10 to low for every arc except the nose.  As an example, J9 compute the total weapon tonnage in FR, then multiplies by 0.1.  J6 then multiplies by 0.1 again when computing fire control tonnage from the FR arc.

Is this something to fix or part of the rules of this game?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 27 October 2018, 15:47:22
A bug report: It appears that fire control tonnage is a factor of 10 to low for every arc except the nose.  As an example, J9 compute the total weapon tonnage in FR, then multiplies by 0.1.  J6 then multiplies by 0.1 again when computing fire control tonnage from the FR arc.

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

We never discussed changing the fire control tonnage of which I am aware - which suggests bug, though hopefully one that wont impact existing designs much.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 27 October 2018, 16:14:41
I was told that was known. Though I wasn't sure which side was the correct one.
Id not say useless.  Against an opponent with no PDS, AAA, or fighters, it worked pretty well (See FC vs TH).
That's a lot of ifs.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 27 October 2018, 16:22:59
Well the Lyran Commonwealth has been updated on the Master Sheet so you can do your turn Marcus, is that DC vs FS fight still on, or put off for next turn?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 27 October 2018, 16:28:00
Im.. considering my options.  Like Ive said, need to figure out what the right doctrine is before I can do anything else, and then figure out how to execute with the resources available or projected.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 27 October 2018, 18:36:05
I still need to know what I took, a single planet or several like last time?

TT

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

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 27 October 2018, 19:26:49
Believe I told you it was just the one, Illyria hasn't had time to expand yet.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 28 October 2018, 11:16:39
Thought that was writers fiat....

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

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

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

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

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 28 October 2018, 14:15:53
I found myself flipping through turns trying to find individual designs, so I made a master set of design links.   This provides easy access to detail beyond the turn-tracking spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rzh-GEbKmiqNfPPj-zQj-9ZqiWKz11MmtqM73815wOo/edit#gid=288116691).

Draconis Combine (Smegish (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=310249))
Trojan (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1422146#msg1422146) 100K 3/5 Q-ship
Kutai (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1420809#msg1420809) 200K 4/6 Corvette/Escort
Tate (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1434886#msg1434886) 250K 3/5 Frigate
Fubuki (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1420809#msg1420809) 420K 3/5 Destroyer
Minekaze (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1426664#msg1426664) 500K 3/5 Destroyer
Atago (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1422146#msg1422146) 750K 3/5 Cruiser
Akagi (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1442721#msg1442721) 750K 3/5 Carrier

Onsen (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1426664#msg1426664) 500K Jump Station
Tenshi (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1442721#msg1442721) 90K Defense Station

Tanto (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1448813#msg1448813) 30 ton 9/14 Fighter
Wakizashi (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1448814#msg1448814) 50 ton 7/11 Fighter
Yari (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1448815#msg1448815) 80 ton 6/9 Fighter

Wyvern (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1461666#msg1461666) 90 ton 3/5 Mech
Federated Suns (Kiviar (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=340588))
Albion (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421719#msg1421719) 400K 5/8 Frigate
Robinson (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1427708#msg1427708) 500K 4/6 Light Cruiser
Kentares IV (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1438378#msg1438378) 750K 5/8 Carrier
Galahad (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421719#msg1421719) 900K 4/6 Heavy Cruiser
Crucis (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1427708#msg1427708) 1M 3/5 Battleship

Barghest (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1427708#msg1427708) 20K Defense Station
Padfoot (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1460144#msg1460144) 30K Battlestation
Northumberland (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1427708#msg1427708) 240K Battlestation
Federation (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1423623#msg1423623) 400K Jump Station

Rainbow (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1445709#msg1445709) 5K 4/6 Carrier/Combat Dropship
Cyclone (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1445709#msg1445709) 80 ton Fighter
Free Worlds League
(Maingunnery (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=11225))
Heracles (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421006#msg1421006) 750K 3/5 Battlecruiser
Phalanx (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421006#msg1421006) 250K 6/9 Corvette

Eros (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1427008#msg1427008) 750K Jump Station

Atlanta (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1427008#msg1427008) 5K 6/9 Carrier Dropship

(Unlimited (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=59739))
Heracles II (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1458960#msg1458960) 750K 3/5 Battlecruiser
Lyran Commonwealth (marcussmythe (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=248682))
Heimdaller (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1420335#msg1420335) 240K 3/5 Frigate
Heimdaller II (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1426996#msg1426996) 240K 4/6 Escort Carrier
Tyr (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1423015#msg1423015) v2 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1455549#msg1455549) 750K 2/3 Heavy Cruiser
Walkure (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1426996#msg1426996) 750K 2/3 Super Carrier
Buri (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1455549#msg1455549) 1.25M 2/3 Battleship

Ribe (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1423015#msg1423015) 500K Jump Station

Shu (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1420335#msg1420335) 85 ton 6/9 Fighter
Shu-3 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1460894#msg1460894) 90 ton 6/9 Fighter
Lady Bat (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1460894#msg1460894) v2 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1460894#msg1460894) 100 ton 5/8 Fighter
Capellan Commonality
(Alsadius (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=339825))
Qinru Zhe (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421609#msg1421609) 480K 5/8 Raider
Quzhujian (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421660#msg1421660) 500K 4/6 Destroyer

Chongzhi (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1420827#msg1420827) 500K Jump Station

(Jester Motley (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=340620))
Bringer of Beer (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1424089#msg1424089) 250K 2/3 Troop Transport
Bringer of Shots (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1427408#msg1427408) 250K 3/5 Carrier
Hell of a Wife's Wrath (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1427408#msg1427408) 500K 3/5 Destroyer
Wind Spirit/Duck (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1454384#msg1454384) 750K 5/8 Raider
Rapid Ventilation (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1444859#msg1444859) 1M 4/6 Battlecruiser
Marian Hegemony (truetanker (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=1267))
Trojan Mk2 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1436979#msg1436979) 100K 3/5 Q-ship
Scapha (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1454602#msg1454602) 100K 2/3 Transport
Scapha II (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1454602#msg1454602) 100K 2/3 Transport

Falco/Bueto (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1425227#msg1425227) 65 ton 5/8 Fighter
Cyclonas (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1458428#msg1458428) 80 ton 6/9 Fighter
Taurian Concordat
(Marauder648 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=127727))
Independence (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1420220#msg1420220) 75K 2/3 Destroyer (Illegal)

(Alsadius (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=339825))
Marathon (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1427495#msg1427495) 145K Battlestation

(Lagrange (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=1159))
Taurus I (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1438684#msg1438684) v2 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1443669#msg1443669) 100K .75/1 Carrier Station
Nova (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1458431#msg1458431) 100K .75/1 Destroyer Station
Matador (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1458431#msg1458431) 200K 6/9 Raider

Siesta (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1443669#msg1443669) 100K Jump Station
Siesta Tanker (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1443669#msg1443669) 100K Tanker Station
Mother (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1438684#msg1438684) 100K Jumpyard

Tick (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1438684#msg1438684) v2 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1443669#msg1443669) 5K 11/17 Tug Dropship

Crestbreaker (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1438684#msg1438684) 200 ton 1/2 Antimissile smallcraft
David (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1438684#msg1438684) 200 ton 7/11 Marine boarding craft
Skyfall (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1443669#msg1443669) 200 ton 3/5 Combat Dropshuttle
Rager (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1443669#msg1443669) v2 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1458431#msg1458431) 90 ton 6/9 Fighter
United Hindu Collective (Alsadius (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=339825))
Maal (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1431756#msg1431756) 750K 2/3 Transport

Pratham (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1420772#msg1420772) 200K Jump station
Raksha (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1457808#msg1457808) 225K Defense Station
Rim Worlds Republic (Alsadius (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=339825))
Vittoria (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1428144#msg1428144) 480K 4/6 Frigate
Caesar (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1460033#msg1460033) 500K 4/6 Light Cruiser

Scutum (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1444186#msg1444186) 120K Defense Station
Renaissance (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1423862#msg1423862) 500K Jump Station
Terran Hegemony (Alsadius (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=339825))
Vincent (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1436897#msg1436897) 250K 4/6 Escort
Protector (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1458134#msg1458134) 500K 1/2 Jumpship Escort
Essex II (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1458134#msg1458134) 560K 3/5 Destroyer
Lola II (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1444403#msg1444403) 680K 4/6 Destroyer
Charon (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1444403#msg1444403) 700K 4/6 Transport
Black Lion II (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1444403#msg1444403) 720K 3/5 Battlecruiser
Quixote II (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1444403#msg1444403) 780K 2/3 Frigate
Monsoon II (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1458134#msg1458134) 1.31M 2/3 Battleship
Potemkin (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1444403#msg1444403) 1.4M 2/3 Assault Transport
Newgrange (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1458134#msg1458134) 2M 3/5 Yardship

Ancille (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1431399#msg1431399) 120K Defense Station
Generics (= default designs used in consideration for combat)
Light Fighter: Tanto-2 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1448813#msg1448813) - 30t, 9/14, 125 armor, SRM-6, 4x MG
Medium Fighter: Wakizashi-2 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1448814#msg1448814) - 50t, 7/11, 170 armor, AC/5, 2x SRM-6, 4x MG
Heavy Fighter: Cyclone (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1445709#msg1445709) - 80t, 6/9, 241 armor, 2x AC/5, 2x SRM-6, SRM-4, 6x MG

Infantry Small DS: (none yet)
Battalion (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1449218#msg1449218) - 5000t, 3/5, 1015 armor, 6x LRM-20, 42x MG, 18x heavy tank, 305t cargo
Carrier (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1449218#msg1449218) - 5000t, 3/5, 1015 armor, 6x LRM-20, 42x MG, 12x ASF, 1263t cargo
Cargo (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1449218#msg1449218) - 5000t, 3/5, 684 armor, 3x LRM-20, 18x MG, 3383t cargo
Rainbow (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1445709#msg1445709) - 5000t, 4/6, 1370 armor, 4x Barracuda, 18x AC/5, 46x MG, 6x ASF, 365t cargo

Shuttle: Centauro-150 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1449033#msg1449033) - 150t, 6/9, 516 armor, 6x MG, 3x Inf, 9t cargo
Screen SC: Fireshield (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1449388#msg1449388) - 200t, 5/8, 952 armor, 36x MG, 2t cargo
Tank Transport SC: Skyfall (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1443669#msg1443669) - 200t, 3/5, 300 armor, 6x MG, 1x heavy tank, 10t cargo
Tanker SC: (none yet)
Cargo SC: (none yet)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 28 October 2018, 15:15:29
Very useful, thank you
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 29 October 2018, 09:41:52
Lyran Commonwealth, Turn VII:  2410-2419

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


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


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

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

Battle of Vega:

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

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

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

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

Battles of Ford, Red Friday, and Solaris:

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

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

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

Conclusions - Doctrine:

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

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

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

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

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

Code: [Select]
Tyr II (Heavy Cruiser)

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

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

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

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

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


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

Crew:  461
Marines:    252

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

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


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


Weapons:

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

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

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


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


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

Code: [Select]
Buri (Battleship)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Crew:  656
Marines:    84

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

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


Weapons:

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

Fore Left/Right:
20 HNPPC 300

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

Aft Left/Right:
20 HNPPC 300


Rear:
150 LRM/20 (2700 Rounds)
50 AC/5 (1000 Rounds)
100 MG  (20000 Rounds
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Vition2 on 29 October 2018, 16:12:41
Buri (Battleship)

Might be illegal.  I say might because I think the issue has been brought up and the official construction rules regarding it thrown out (I just couldn't find where it was spoken about), and a similarly potentially illegal design was already submitted in Alsadius' Charon.  In both cases the SI is more than the maximum thrust allows according to the official construction rules - 30 times the max thrust (they both should max out at 90).

It's definitely a potent min-max ship that is using learned information from past battles though.

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 29 October 2018, 16:19:13
Might be illegal.  I say might because I think the issue has been brought up and the official construction rules regarding it thrown out (I just couldn't find where it was spoken about), and a similarly potentially illegal design was already submitted in Alsadius' Charon.  In both cases the SI is more than the maximum thrust allows according to the official construction rules - 30 times the max thrust (they both should max out at 90).

It's definitely a potent min-max ship that is using learned information from past battles though.

It has been ruled for purposes of this game that it is not necessary to install additional fusion torches hanging off a ships ass to increase the amount of ribs on its inside or plating on its skin. 

Absent such ruling, 2/3 does not exist as a real warship, as illustrated by the fate of Tyr.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 29 October 2018, 16:23:55
Well, yeh, a lot of rules have been changed, and for the worse.
Within those rules, this is a sound design.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 29 October 2018, 16:26:58
Well, yeh, a lot of rules have been changed, and for the worse.
Within those rules, this is a sound design.

Disagree about for the worst - run the numbers sometime on a pure carrier let loose on 'normal' warships sometime.  If standard scale weapons are a legit threat to capital scale armor, nothing but carriers exists.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 29 October 2018, 16:49:12
Didn't say worst, just worse.
I wasn't even talking about fighters; I agree that fighters are normally too strong. Although, just reducing their damage some, f.Ex. through clustering rules, might have been sufficient.
Now we'll only have ships of the line, I'm not quite sure I see the improvement in that.

What I meant was removing the limit on structure imposed by engine rating. This limit, while arbitrary, had the simple effect that a ship wanting to be tough also had be be able to move - both of which cutting into firepower.
I also think that if there's house rules, might as well increase the fuel usage, and grant a free dropship with every docking collar because no one in their right mind is using those.
Gotta work with what we have, though.  8)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 29 October 2018, 17:35:38
Eh, Im keeping the carriers.  I think a doctrine adjustment will make them worthwhile as part of a combined arms force.  Block III designs (IE whatever comes after Buri and Waljurie and Tyr) will probably be full up star-destroyer style hybrid gunship carriers, possibly with an assault component.

As for the SI limitation based on thrust - its based on overthrust, which is a lroduct of rounding.  This emphasizes 3/5 ships.  The fact that a no-cargo 3/5 of 150 SI and remaining tonnage in firepower is perfectly balanced between armor and guns, with reasonable mobity enhanced by a rounding advantage, really rips any complexity out of the design space.  3/5 150 SI is the default.  2/3 has some value if your addicted to cargo.  4/6 is for BBFs/BCs, everything higher is raiders.

Dropships get better with medium droppers and really quite good with large droppers.

Once we have large droppers and LF batteries we get some very interesting and hard choices.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 29 October 2018, 18:45:54
Well, there'd be no point in scrapping them now.
Yes, dropships get good in 10 or 20 turns. Or not, given that besides missiles they won't be able to mount any weapons that can damage a warship for a few centuries.
Edit: I just have a feeling I know where this is going to go, we'll see in a dozen turns or so if I'm right.

So is it already the next turn, now?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 29 October 2018, 19:06:57
DC and FS have an outstanding battle.  Once thats in, they should be able to do their turns.  Everyone else already can/has.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 29 October 2018, 21:05:14
The TC turn is waiting on some questions about fire control errata, highways, etc...  The Vega battle also raises some doctrine related questions I'd like to settle.

I updated the links post https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1455413#msg1455413 with Buri and Duck.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 31 October 2018, 22:02:46
FYI, I retconned the Taurus I v2 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1443669#msg1443669) to deal with the fire control bug.   The result is a very minor loss of 162 tons of cargo. 

Looking through the other designs, I suspect:
Design Missing FC
Scutum Capital Missiles https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1444186#msg1444186
Vittoria NL55s https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1428144#msg1428144
Trojan NL45s https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1436979#msg1436979
Scapha I NAC/10 https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1454602#msg1454602
Scapha II AC/5
Rapid Ventilation NAC/40 https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1444859#msg1444859
Heimdaler II Capital Missile https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1426996#msg1426996
Walkure CV https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1426996#msg1426996
Northumberland NL 55 https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1427708#msg1427708
Akagi NL 35 https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1442721#msg1442721
Tenshi Capital Missile https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1442721#msg1442721
Tate NL 35 https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1434886#msg1434886
Potemkin NAC/10 https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1444403#msg1444403
Charon LRM-20 https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1444403#msg1444403
Vincent NL 55 https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1436897#msg1436897

None of the above is confirmed, I just took a glance at the weapons layout and estimated whether or not there is an FC problem under the discovered bug.

Fixing all of that is quite a bit of work and it may indeed matter given the many have overloaded fire control with capital weapons.  Maybe we just want to go with  a fixed worksheet going forward?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 01 November 2018, 11:31:16
Sorry for the lengthy absence. I was in New York for most of the last week, and was too busy eating tasty food and dodging insane drivers to reply here. Brace yourselves for a very long reply post...

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

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

Battles are resolved by me rolling a few dice to see how everyone does that day(crew skill, command skill, and luck for each side) and then me crafting a battle that seems to fit with the fleets, stated doctrines, and dice rolls for both sides. There's no explicit mechanical rules available, largely because if there was you'd all max-min like crazy.

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

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

"Sustainable" is an interesting question in this context. If battles were more frequent, that would be an absolutely fantastic outcome. Even if 30% of those battles end with your fleet getting mousetrapped and killed, that's still a good loss ratio.

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

The CV wing *did* use their missiles, but they fired at extreme range and fell back once their tubes were dry. They need to stay close enough to recover fighters, and to provide some mutual support - it's not like scattering to avoid being run down would work in this case, after all, so they mostly just wanted to hang back a bit. (And even if they *had* been up close, they'd be low-priority targets in a gun battle. Unlike WW2, they have armor comparable to the gunships, so it's not like you can just rack up carrier kills. Better to silence the guns and run down the carriers later.)

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

Looking at responses to this battle, I think the "militia dropships" need some further consideration. We can argue that they're actually Army units, not militia, which answers the "why are they fighting in pitched battles?" question, but the budget is still wacky. (Hell, maybe I need to give you an army budget. No designs, but a price on regiments, combined with the ability to buy DS out of that budget, would perhaps fix this? IDK.)

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

Fair.

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

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

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

TBH, with your fleet the way it is, I'd probably aim for high-speed passing engagements as often as possible. Your fighter force is ridiculously large, and that has the best performance per unit mass in single-shot engagements by far. It's not even a mission kill for the carriers if they can stay out of combat for a day or so to recover, sleep, re-arm, and re-launch. And aside from the Charon, nobody has the fuel to move faster than 1g for any sort of strategic length of time, so you don't even have a mobility disadvantage there.

Proper warship ECM hasn't been invented yet. We also haven't delved into what 5K-15K AC/5s from the Lyran ASFs should have done. 

Some ECM exists (it's my fluff explanation for why it's harder to hit at long range, even with light-speed weapons), but it'll get better with the ECM tech. (I don't have numbers for this yet.) As for the AC/5s, they don't stick around for long in the first engagement, and they don't have time to adjust targets to aim for holes. They'll do some damage, but not very much, and it's incorporated into the damage done by the missiles.

I can see where Marcus is coming from here.   If the plan for a fighter-heavy strategy is:
  • NLs don't have a +3 to hit penalty.
  • NLs have a 360 arc.
  • NLs are an automatic kill vs. fighters
  • 5 AC/5 shots kill Lyran fighters.
  • 70+ Civilian dropships are up-armed and armored to military standards for free when facing fighter strikes.
  • Lyran ASF don't have (or refuse to use) MGs for defense against Barracudas.
  • Lyran ASF don't have (or refuse to use) AC/5s or other mech-scale weapons in their attack pass.
it makes the fighter heavy strategy look like a cartoon.   Maybe the rolls are so overwhelmingly important that they wash out most/all of the value of design and even the battletech rules and commonsense.  Or maybe the plan is that every design is roughly equivalent with rules adjusting as necessary to make that so.  Either way, it means that investing fighter-heavy designs doesn't make much sense.  In the first case nothing matters while in the second case, you'd rather have 50% more battleships.

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

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

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

I think it's clear that I need to analyze my numbers a bit more closely here.

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

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

That's a bug - previously mentioned in this thread, but I haven't had a chance to fix it. I'll fix it by this weekend.

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

Still on. I'll do it up this weekend.

Thought that was writers fiat....

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

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

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

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

The RWR has spent a lot of their budget encouraging colonial efforts and economic development thus far - between the faster communications of a command circuit, government-funded JS/DS to help establish colonies, and so on, it's probably been half their budget. They've seen their economy grow faster than other nations as a result. The outer limits of the Inner Sphere are not fixed, and this is not a SW-era game where exploration is considered passe. All nations are engaged in colonial activities right now(including the Marians), and that's part of the economic growth we see every turn.

This includes both the opening of new planets and the development of thinly-settled worlds, FYI - a planet outside the TH is considered large and important if it has a couple hundred million people in this era, but many settled planets can be developed to nearly the same scale as Terra if the economy and population exists to develop it that far.

I found myself flipping through turns trying to find individual designs, so I made a master set of design links.   This provides easy access to detail beyond the turn-tracking spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rzh-GEbKmiqNfPPj-zQj-9ZqiWKz11MmtqM73815wOo/edit#gid=288116691).

You are my hero.

Might be illegal.  I say might because I think the issue has been brought up and the official construction rules regarding it thrown out (I just couldn't find where it was spoken about), and a similarly potentially illegal design was already submitted in Alsadius' Charon.  In both cases the SI is more than the maximum thrust allows according to the official construction rules - 30 times the max thrust (they both should max out at 90).

It's definitely a potent min-max ship that is using learned information from past battles though.

Those are intentional rules changes. Speeds round to the nearest 0.1 now, and SI is un-capped.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 01 November 2018, 13:33:43
All nations are engaged in colonial activities right now(including the Marians)...

Yeah!  :)

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 01 November 2018, 20:31:19
Draconis Combine Turn - 2410

Quote
**FOR DCA PERSONNNEL EYES ONLY**

DCA Memorandum

3rd January 2410,

1. Despite the celebrations from high command, the battle of Kannon was a much closer affair then first believed. After the battle between twenty and thirty anti-ship missiles were found embedded in the hulls of each of the surviving vessels, their warheads having failed to detonate and their Allied Conglomerates of Military Engineering logos still legible on the side of the missiles. We estimate between fifteen and twenty percent of Lyran missiles either failed to detonate or suffered guidance malfunctions causing them to miss their targets even when fired at such close range.
2. Based upon the battle of Kannon and other engagements that have occurred across the Inner Sphere, We have reached the conclusion that fighters are almost harmless to all but the smallest WarShips after expending their anti-ship missiles. Thus there is little need to mount anti-fighter weapons upon the Atago or the still unbuilt Nagato designs. Such armament can be saved for the Tate, and to a lesser extent Minekaze.
3. Point Defense systems on board DCA vessels (with the exception of the Akagi and Tate) are grossly inadequate, only the unusually high failure rate of Lyran missiles kept our fleet intact. Possible refits to resolve this issue are currently in the planning stages.
4. An investigation into the Allied Conglomerates of Military Engineering -with whom we also do business- shall be held, and any wrongdoing on the part of A.C.M.E. Shall result in immediate cancellation of all contracts, and the arrest and trial of the offending parties.
5. As to these 'Ares Conventions', the Admiralty accepts the banning of nuclear weapons, mostly because we cannot match the Lyrans in volume of missile fire, and have already ordered against the use of orbital bombardment on civilian targets except when fired upon by ground-to-orbit weapons concealed within those civilian areas.

Code: [Select]
Year: 2410 Value in Millions
Money Available 117,000
Remaining from Last Turn 2400
Available Shipyards

Luthien 3/2/2/1
New Samarkand 5/2
Midway 1

Repairs Whole Fleet 35000

Maintanence Warships 209687 12% 25162.44
The Rest 55120 10% 5512

Prototype

Refits

Construction Unit Price
Shipyards New Sam


Stations Onsen 0 451 0
Tenshi 5 388 1,940
Warships Nagato 0 13,640 0
Atago 2 9,362 18,724
Akagi 0 9,016 0
Fubuki 0 7,221 0
Minekaze 1 6,097 6097
Tate 1 4,729 4,729
Kutai 0 6,081 0
Trojan 0 0 0
Jumpships 0 500 0
Dropships 40 300 12,000
Fighters 800 5 4,000
Small Craft 200 10 2000
Research Miniaturisation 2,000 1 2000
Strengthening 6000 1 6000
Advancement 2000 1 2000

Total Spent 129181.44

Income
Marian Loan 1 1000 1000
Kutai/Tech Sales 5000 5000

Remaining 236


Future Income



Start Turn In Service Value BV
Warships Atago 5 46810 83558
Akagi 3 27048 47717
Fubuki 3 21663 57421
Minekaze 6 36582 66478
Tate 10 47290 26605
Kutai 3 18243 15629
Trojan 3 12051 15229
Total 33 209687
Maintanence 12% 25162.44

Stations Onsen 20 9020
Tenshi 10 3880
Jumpships 36 18000
Dropships Small 0 0

Fighters 3106 15530
Small Craft 869 8690
Total 55120
Maintanence 10% 5512

Total Maintanence 30674.44




End Turn In Service
Warships Atago 7 65534
Akagi 3 27048
Fubuki 3 21663
Minekaze 7 42679
Tate 11 52019
Kutai 2 12162
Trojan 3 12051
Total 37 237173
Maintanence 12% 27978.72

Stations Onsen 20 9020
Tenshi 15 5820
Jumpships 36 18000
Dropships Small 30 9000

Fighters 3906 19530
Small Craft 1069 10690
Total 72060
Rest Maintanence 10% 7206
Total Maintanence 35184.72

Quote
Fleet Deployment

Galedon   Akagi-class –    Akagi
      Atago-class –    Atago, Maya
      Minekaze   Hayate, Shikinami
      Tate-class    -    Galedon, Proserpina, Oshika

Benjamin   Akagi-class – Kaga
      Atago-class – Takao, Kashima
      Minekaze    - Minekaze, Yukikaze
      Tate-class    - Benjamin, Dieron, Baldur

Rasalhague   Akagi-class – Soryu
             Atago-class – Kinagusa, Nachi
                 Minekaze    - Satsuki, Yayoi
             Tate-class    - Luthien, Pesht, Xinyang

Luthien   Atago-class       - Kako
                Minekaze-class  - Asagiri
                Tate-class         - Tinaca, Proserpina
                Fubuki-class   - Fubuki, Ibuki, Yudachi
      Kutai-class   - Kutai, Rasalhague

Each fleetgroup is centred upon it's Akagi-class carrier, with 2 Atago's and 2 Minekaze's providing the bulk of the firepower and the 3 Tate's keeping enemy strike craft at a safe distance. Luthien battlegroup represents the fleet reserve, used to reinforce any of our borders as needed and otherwise conducting internal anti-pirate patrols, waving the flag and bringing unaffiliated colonies along our border under the Coordinators protection.

EDIT: Added opinion on Ares Conventions in Memorandum.
Edit #2: Further edit to reflect sale of the DCS Trondheim to the Marian Hegemony.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 01 November 2018, 22:20:34
Wow.  41 hulls in service to my... 25.  Closer on total megatonnage, but still.  -starts writing letters to the Archons about a ‘Cruiser Gap’-

A lot of which is a product of over-upgrading yards, and doing not only a new hull, but a refit series - still, had to be done.

Also?  ACME?  I loled.  Hard.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 02 November 2018, 04:49:24
Wow.  41 hulls in service to my... 25.  Closer on total megatonnage, but still.  -starts writing letters to the Archons about a ‘Cruiser Gap’-

A lot of which is a product of over-upgrading yards, and doing not only a new hull, but a refit series - still, had to be done.

Also?  ACME?  I loled.  Hard.

Yeah, but when your doctrine is "the fleet shall never, ever be divided for any reason", hull count seems somewhat irrelevant.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 02 November 2018, 05:17:28
Larger ships have advantages. Like being more clearly better at everything both absolutely and per investment. You kind of pay for that in flexibility/mobility.
Do we have a list somewhere of the total amount of house rules?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 02 November 2018, 05:33:32
Unlimited, any chance we could convince you to join in? The Free Worlds League is looking for an admiral to lead them to greatness, or chaos. 😆
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 02 November 2018, 06:19:11
Yeah, but when your doctrine is "the fleet shall never, ever be divided for any reason", hull count seems somewhat irrelevant.

Well, yes and no.  I expect its going to become unavoidable from political necessity - politicians that dont understand that sending not enough ships is worse than sending zero ships, the inevitability of time in drydock/refit/reconditioning, etc.

Further - thats the line of battle, not the whole fleet.  Aside from needed escorts, some of those Class I are going to have to carry the flag, maintain presence, do all those ‘not fightthing other warships’ things warships do.  Im going to do up another light class next turn or two specifically for that - and to reduce the need to divy up the line.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 02 November 2018, 08:43:54
Wow.  41 hulls in service to my... 25.  Closer on total megatonnage, but still.  -starts writing letters to the Archons about a ‘Cruiser Gap’-

A lot of which is a product of over-upgrading yards, and doing not only a new hull, but a refit series - still, had to be done.

Also?  ACME?  I loled.  Hard.

Interestingly, MUCH closer on megattonage than I thought - 18.16 for the DC, 17.18 for the LC.  Situation is muddied somewhat because the DC maintains more 'older' hulls, and more smaller ships, but at the same time carriers more dropships with them into the fight.


"Geography is Destiny"
-many people


Running Income Totals, including starting yards:
1.)  FWL:  832B
2.)  DCL  813B
3.)  LC:  762B
4.)  FS:  736B
5.)  CC:  662B

This fits my internal perception of the relative positions of the various powers.  FWL's only real military conflict (other than last turns plot battle) has been with a significantly smaller power, and it has been advantaged thereby.  Being positioned between two weaker powers helps their position.  DC may exclipse FWL due to higher (current) income, but DC has the FS for a neighbor, and FWL has the CC.  I know which id rather deal with.

LC pretty comfortably in 3.  Little conflict (before this turn) allowed for an extended build phase on yards that (while regretted at the moment) may pay off over time - only the FWL has a larger yard, and it only has ONE.  LCs rising buget is helping, but it is still less than DC, and would have to be considerably above DC for a considerable period of time to make up the DC headstart.

FS might be better positioned than LC, even with the slightly smaller budget - both share a DC border, but again, the FS has the benefit of having a border with the CC, while the LC has to face the FWL.  Still, one can only expect that Spartafreedomerica the FedSuns will prosper, long term - once they inherit the UHCs budget and legacy production, for example, theyll likely shoot straight to the top of the power rankings.

The CC fills its designated role in the BT Universe, here exacerbated by frequent conflict with superior neighbors eager to pick off pieces of the CC for the free and permanent budget buff they can use against their 'real' opponents.  If LC and DC Leadership were -smart- (Protip:  They are not), theyd call off their own pissing contests and send a few squadrons down to the CC for 'joint training exercise' all up and down the FWL border and the Crucis March.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 02 November 2018, 09:43:45
Some questions to finish the TC turn:

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 02 November 2018, 09:58:10
Unlimited, any chance we could convince you to join in? The Free Worlds League is looking for an admiral to lead them to greatness, or chaos.
Actually, you can. I've even agreed already. However, so far I am not convinced the original player of the FLW isn't ever coming back, so as to not usurp someone's work, I figured I'd take a smaller faction. And yes, given my current preferred faction I am aware of the irony of that statement.
Of course, if the majority of people want all the large positions to be filled, or it is absolutely sure he's not coming back, I could reconsider.

On an interesting sidenode, quoting the smiley you used breaks posting.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 02 November 2018, 10:14:50
Actually, you can. I've even agreed already. However, so far I am not convinced the original player of the FLW isn't ever coming back, so as to not usurp someone's work, I figured I'd take a smaller faction. And yes, given my current preferred faction I am aware of the irony of that statement.
Of course, if the majority of people want all the large positions to be filled, or it is absolutely sure he's not coming back, I could reconsider.

On an interesting sidenode, quoting the smiley you used breaks posting.
Maingunnery has been inactive since August and explicitly told Alsadius at the time he probably would not be back.  I think it's preferable for you to take over the FWL from the overall game perspective. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 02 November 2018, 10:38:01
FWIW:  Im quite comfortable with Naval Lasers being one shot kills on fighters.  At 700 tons per mount for the NL/35, its unreasonable to expect a 100 ton at most fighter to survive - any more than being in the bursting radius of a 5” DP Proxy Shell was surviviable for a WW2 Naval Fighter.  That said, we have to figure out how many times they can fire and how accurately.

And for me the NLs are really just that.. the 4-6” dual purpose mounts. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 02 November 2018, 10:42:49
FWIW:  Im quite comfortable with Naval Lasers being one shot kills on fighters.  At 700 tons per mount for the NL/35, its unreasonable to expect a 100 ton at most fighter to survive - any more than being in the bursting radius of a 5” DP Proxy Shell was surviviable for a WW2 Naval Fighter.  That said, we have to figure out how many times they can fire and how accurately.
Yeah, I entirely agree here.  As far as I know, nothing breaks in the game if capital scale = x100 standard scale and many things arguably make more sense.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 02 November 2018, 11:10:21
I think fighters are already useless.
They can't damage warships, they die like flies, and any capability besides non-nuclear ground support they may provide is cheaper to just incorporate into the actual warship.
They are not quite as bad as dropships, but those are at least a necessity if one wants to actually capture a planet.
I originally wondered how to best create a Flak-ship, but I'm rather convinced now that "not" is the most reasonable answer.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 02 November 2018, 11:23:19
I think fighters are already useless.
They can't damage warships, they die like flies, and any capability besides non-nuclear ground support they may provide is cheaper to just incorporate into the actual warship.
They are not quite as bad as dropships, but those are at least a necessity if one wants to actually capture a planet.
I originally wondered how to best create a Flak-ship, but I'm rather convinced now that "not" is the most reasonable answer.

Eh.  I wouldnt go so far as to say useless.  Weve seen a LONG series of assumptions about PDS efficacy, AAA efficacy, missile accuracy, and the naval effectiveness of army dropships all break against them, and they still werent useless - nor do I think enemy fighters can be safely IGNORED, once present.

I do think that, like missiles, they are a bad design choice.  Both systems suffer from limited shots, and must be decisive within those limited shots.  Missiles are even worse - missiles do less damage per ton investment than 'normal' guns past about 8-10 rounds per tube, and thats BEFORE you allow PDS to shoot at them.  The TT payoffs for missiles (notably, the free crit chance) has not been noticeable here - likely due to balance decisions meant to prevent missile boat dominance, or perhaps because the scale of conflict is such that ships dont much get injured - mostly they just die.

So.. if you take over FWL... id either slap on some AAA/PDS, though likley (based on Vega) not much, or I'd lay an escort for your Heracles (though likely not a lot).  I dont think ignoring fighters is reasonable based on IC information - but neither do I think that going crazy-nuts on defenses makes sense, either. 

Frankly, with a bit more SI and a bit less cargo, the existing Heracles is a solid design.  Id likely either refit, or just do a follow on class.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 02 November 2018, 11:24:58
I think fighters are already useless.
They can't damage warships, they die like flies, and any capability besides non-nuclear ground support they may provide is cheaper to just incorporate into the actual warship.
They are not quite as bad as dropships, but those are at least a necessity if one wants to actually capture a planet.
I originally wondered how to best create a Flak-ship, but I'm rather convinced now that "not" is the most reasonable answer.
If you make a warship with 2160 (=3x 720) AC 5's in covering arcs, you need about 830K tons.  That's a significantly heavier payload than 720 fighter bays (=108K tons) with each fighter having 3x AC 5s.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 02 November 2018, 12:01:36
I think carriers are the optimal design for a high-speed crossing engagement - no other weapon option has an equal weight of damage per ton of ship weight, aside from the rather degenerate option of missile launchers with one shot each. And even they start getting worse on larger ships, as fire control weight adds up.

Also, does the idea of a bare-bones army budget hold any appeal for you guys? I'll keep the rules dead simple (perhaps 2-3 flat-cost regiment options, JS/DS, Castles Brian, and maintenance for those), but it may deal neatly with the "militia DropShips" issue.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 02 November 2018, 12:10:57
Yes, but what would AC5s even do? They can't damage warships? Meanwhile, using fighters as Point defense is reasonable, but at a limit of 20 guns per fighter, I'll have to have a lot of guns already for that to be more efficient.
High speed engagements might work, but those are mostly just a matter of "who loses less". I think just a plain damage modifier would have been sufficient to balance them.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 02 November 2018, 12:15:15
I think carriers are the optimal design for a high-speed crossing engagement - no other weapon option has an equal weight of damage per ton of ship weight, aside from the rather degenerate option of missile launchers with one shot each. And even they start getting worse on larger ships, as fire control weight adds up.

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

Im not against it as such - but I think it might be cleaner to just keep the Army oit of naval engagements entirely.  If our focus here is on naval matters, I fear that bringing the Army into it as a budgetary element under our control will result in us retasking as much as possible into serving naval interest.  Perhaps better to let the dropships we buy be the only ones of naval value, and the Army Transports merely be present - not contributing, even as fire sinks, and succeding or failing, suffering commensurate losses or not, as a side effect of the naval engagement.

As tor high speed engagement - Ive revised my thinking.  While greater agility allows one to chose or decline engagement and chose the engagement profile if any (unless detection range is too lose to counter the opponents vector), it seems that a defender, tied to a fixed point, would likelh be forced to accept high or low speed engagement at the attackers choice.  Thus at Vega, the ‘attacking’ LCN could have built up speed to force a high speed engagement against the DCN ‘defenders’ over the invaded world - leaving the DCN the choice of sidestepping with their greater thrust (and potentially surrendering control of the space over the planet, at least temporarily), or standing and accepting the high speed engagement.

To this end, and even with the presence of Buri (call her insurance for a low speed engagmeent condition) I agree that the LCN should probably try for high speed passes where possible - and will do so - so long as fighter/missile cover is sufficient.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 02 November 2018, 12:22:09
Yes, but what would AC5s even do? They can't damage warships? Meanwhile, using fighters as Point defense is reasonable, but at a limit of 20 guns per fighter, I'll have to have a lot of guns already for that to be more efficient.
High speed engagements might work, but those are mostly just a matter of "who loses less". I think just a plain damage modifier would have been sufficient to balance them.

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

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

At the least, I intend to explore this sort of synergy going forward - both in current designs and doctrine and in a (eventual) hybrid vessel designed to pack all those synergies into a single hull - to the detriment, of course, of superiority in any given area.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 02 November 2018, 12:24:55
PS:  Ill have you know that my degenerate high speed engagement designs have -4- missiles per tube. 

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

And I want enough for a second pass.  :) :) :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 02 November 2018, 12:50:14
For the Atago (which is a pretty tough ship) if you half kill it from one arc it exposes structure making ASF fire relevant.   Hence, a battleplan along the lines of marcussmythe's can potentially effectively double the firepower of battleships by leaving half-killed enemy warships for an ASF mopping crew.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 02 November 2018, 12:57:09
For the Atago (which is a pretty tough ship) if you half kill it from one arc it exposes structure making ASF fire relevant.   Hence, a battleplan along the lines of marcussmythe's can potentially effectively double the firepower of battleships by leaving half-killed enemy warships for an ASF mopping crew.

Though at the cost of the capital firepower that could have been carried in the tonnage devoted to ASFs.  That said, ASFs can serve multiple roles, while all a NAC does is make holes in things.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 02 November 2018, 13:10:08
Also, does the idea of a bare-bones army budget hold any appeal for you guys? I'll keep the rules dead simple (perhaps 2-3 flat-cost regiment options, JS/DS, Castles Brian, and maintenance for those), but it may deal neatly with the "militia DropShips" issue.
I'm personally open to this.  I've found the appropriate amount of planned regimental transport to be rather ambiguous so this would help.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 04 November 2018, 21:39:57
Quick update: The FS-DC battle is mostly written, and will be up tomorrow. The spreadsheet error is one I've actually already fixed, just in the wrong version of the sheet. The master version of CryHavok's sheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-CDKf4BJghLS2B52_9O5q4deG8h5G2A9W-hDcBHGcUY/edit#gid=0) has the correct math for fire control weight.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 04 November 2018, 22:41:07
Cool... would we be able to get an updated budget including both Army and Navy?

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 05 November 2018, 00:51:33
FYI, I retconned the Taurus I v2 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1443669#msg1443669) to deal with the fire control bug.   The result is a very minor loss of 162 tons of cargo. 

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


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

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

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

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

And somehow:

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

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

Will inform Maid Marian of the changes to their ships when I've gone over them.
Would advise everyone goes over their old ships in the new sheet, just to make sure, I haven't changed the prices on my ships on the master sheet, or redone my budget yet. Will give everyone a chance to see this first.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 05 November 2018, 04:28:10
The CryHavoc master sheet uses an x2 multiplier for stations (wrong) instead of x5 (right). 

As long as we are house cleaning, can we get the passenger quarters cost fixed as well?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 05 November 2018, 06:46:50
The station cost multiplier is fixed now for the CryHavok sheet. Smegish, I expect that's the reason for the station cost discrepancies, so re-check and see how it holds up.

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

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

Army budgets and rules haven't been created yet. I'll also need to give you the TO&E for your existing armies at the same time, which is a bit more work. If I decide to do that, I'll want to do it right, so I want to double-check everything when I have some extra time to think. That's gotten way easier the last few days - I sat down to write a battle last night and actually started writing, unlike the last month of being unable to do so - but it'll still be a few days, I expect.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 05 November 2018, 08:34:02
FYI, I'll create a fork of the design spreadsheet soon, since I expect I'll want to change the stats on AMS if nothing else. (A proper AMS mount is more likely to be ~100 tons than 0.5 tons, if only to avoid the issue of loading up a billion of them and laughing at a whole weapon class)
I'd somewhat prefer sticking with Battletech rules.   Instead, maybe consider watering down the effectiveness of point defense (which exceeds the battletech norm)?
Can you remind me what the issue was with passenger quarters costs?
SO page 160 (Special Exemption) says that Crew/Passenger Quarters and Infantry Bays/Compartments are free.   SO page 159 (top) says that Crew quarters cost as per TM.   This leaves a rules conflict for crew quarter cost (question here (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=63073.0)), but there is no rules conflict for Passenger quarters and Infantry Bays/Compartments.  (Note that the cost of life support does remain, regardless so costs do go up with quarters, just slower than they otherwise would.)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 November 2018, 08:58:55
Given the proven efficacy of MGs in a Point-Defense role, Im not sure I would invest in AMS at any tonnage.

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

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

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

In the alternate, we can perhaps assume that over Vega ‘something strange’ happened, and thus Vega has no value as precedent.  Perhaps the dice were actually 1:1:1 and 10:10:10.  Or the Lyran Missiles, like WW2 British Naval Rifle Shells, failed to detonate on impact.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 05 November 2018, 09:24:57
That kind of change to AMS stats would be paired with an eventual nerf to the effectiveness of MGs as tech improves. I don't want any strategy to become the obvious approach, and it's becoming clear that "just pile thousands of MGs onto your ships" is getting to be too strong, so I'm setting things up now to ensure that such a strategy can't just stay dominant forever. I did the same thing at the beginning, when I changed AMS and fighter rules substantially, and again when I tried to shake up the 3/5 150SI meta by uncapping SI and allowing fractional thrust. I'm keeping an eye out for any need to do that again going forward, and I think MGs are in need of that treatment.

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

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

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

If our MGs were as bad as TT MGs, Smegish would have lost his entire fleet in about thirty seconds this turn. Hell, even with improved MGs the battle wasn't too far from that - before I remembered the DropShips existed, the damage inflicted was so severe that even closing to gun range wouldn't have been a serious threat to Marcus, meaning he could safely play matador until the whole fleet was in ruins. And that's with only 2/3 of his ships in the same place, and with him losing the die rolls. There's no way on earth I'm weakening PD in a game where thousands of missiles can launch in a single salvo.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 November 2018, 10:01:41
...and I think MGs are in need of that treatment.

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

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

2.)  I'm aware of the drawbacks of a four corners approach.  Inasmuch as Buri is meant to operate as part of a fleet (mutual interlocking fields of fire, mutual support, etc.), greater WEIGHT of fire was prioritized over more even distribution of fire - a solo operator would be built rather differently.  I try to envision these vessels as more like WWI/II naval vessels, each having a job (or maybe more than one) in a unit - rather than something like the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701, which usually operates unsupported and so must fill every role that might be demanded of it.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 05 November 2018, 10:23:53
For one, the current rules are actually much less effective than BT standard, at least in the AMS era - 14 AMS mounts with sufficient ammo could shoot down an entire fleet's worth of missiles under tabletop rules.
I'm skeptical about this.  Those 14 AMS's require 7 double heat sinks and a ton of ammo for every missile, so against a 2000 incoming missiles they need 16000 tons of heat sink & ammo.   In comparison, investing in 1000 AMS (as double-strength MGs under house rules) together with 500 double heat sinks + ammo weighs somewhat less than 2000 tons.   There is a cost increase with the house rules here but also a weight decrease.
If our MGs were as bad as TT MGs, Smegish would have lost his entire fleet in about thirty seconds this turn.
Sure, with essentially naked designs as per the Atago.  On the other hand, there is quite a bit of room for design to compensate.  Every ASF could have 20 MGs and there is no reason you couldn't stack a couple thousand in a warship arc.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 05 November 2018, 10:51:03
Marcus: Fair, and I figured you knew. The fleet composition argument makes a lot of sense here as well. It's one I want to re-emphasize occasionally just to be sure.

Lagrange: You're generally carrying heat sinks with you even before you worry about AMS. If you need to tank an entire fleet of fighters, you just refrain from firing your main battery that round. It won't get you all the way to the necessary firepower to stop a really huge attack(even the Leviathan III only sinks 20,000 heat), but most capital ships will sink several thousand heat a turn. That's at least several hundred missiles stopped by a single ship, which is far more than we can do here. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 05 November 2018, 11:29:16
Lagrange: You're generally carrying heat sinks with you even before you worry about AMS.
That's fair.  The two worries would be:
(a) Combined ops as per the new LC doctrine seems like a soft counter.  Shutting down your big guns for a round in the middle of a battleship fight has some serious consequences when broadsides kill ships.
(b) I'm a little hazy on the order of operations.  If you shoot your big guns and then the other side shoots its missiles, what happens?  And if you avoid shooting your big guns because the other side _might_ shoot their missiles, that seems like a great way to defang a battleship.
That's at least several hundred missiles stopped by a single ship, which is far more than we can do here.
Err...  There's a design that I'm considering for the TC...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 November 2018, 11:34:56
That's fair.  The two worries would be:
(a) Combined ops as per the new LC doctrine seems like a soft counter.  Shutting down your big guns for a round in the middle of a battleship fight has some serious consequences when broadsides kill ships.
(b) I'm a little hazy on the order of operations.  If you shoot your big guns and then the other side shoots its missiles, what happens?  And if you avoid shooting your big guns because the other side _might_ shoot their missiles, that seems like a great way to defang a battleship. Err...  There's a design that I'm considering for the TC...

I think synergy and overwhelming the enemy force's ability to address threats is the biggest lesson learned at Vega.  The response to a missile wave is different than the response to a fighter close assault is different than the response to boarders is different than the response to an enemy line of battle at long range with NPPCs/Lasers is different than the response to a NAC CQB.  Given the failure of going 'all in' on a single dimension (even if this failure was predicated on one-off conditions that may not obtain in future - IE dice rolls, NL Arcs, MG effectiveness changes, etc.), I think I'm going to be looking at ways to present multiple, varying threat axis simultaneously.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 05 November 2018, 14:28:17
Here are some very tentative army rules for your commentary.

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

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

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

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

Questions
- Is this balanced?
- Is this interesting?
- How freely should forces be able to move back and forth between Army and Navy?
- Should Army research budgets be a thing?
- Should Army budgets simply be equal to Navy budgets, or set separately? (Or should I merge both budgets together and let you split them up as you see fit?)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 November 2018, 14:58:47
Here are some very tentative army rules for your commentary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will acknowledge that for my own part, budget change or not, It has been my intention (time allowing) to build transports (though my paradigm was based on a warship transport, and carriage of mechs/vehicles/infantry to ground via small craft, rather than dropships)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 05 November 2018, 15:28:43
I'm quite happy to leave this as just a Naval Race and leave the army alone. Turns have been slow enough as it is.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 05 November 2018, 16:32:24
I'm a bit concerned.

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

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

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

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

There is a question of responsibilities which we are grappling with.  I think it would be simpler to just say "if it can be or is spaceborn, then it's the navy's responsibility".  Then Alsadius can just provide some quantification of how many regiments of land forces can use transport for each power as well as what transport-related losses are associated with any combat.   The navy can choose to provide for transport or not, and can choose to have garrison ASF forces or not (The TC navy has already built ASF garrisons on every world, although in notably smaller strength than suggested here.)   Presumably a lack of garrison ASF forces makes worlds more vulnerable to invasion and lack of transport makes an invasion (or counter-invasion) process more difficult.  Impressed civilian dropships and jumpships are feasible on an emergency basis, but they are hideously vulnerable in a war zone often leading to significant loss of transported elements and presumably some economic impact.  Overall, this seems simpler and more inline with the original premise.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 05 November 2018, 17:57:46
I'm a bit concerned.

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

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

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

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

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 November 2018, 18:04:07
On further reflection, while Im not unwilling to do as the GM suggests, I fear that an additional layer would only consume time and diffuse focus.


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

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

I fear turning this into the ‘Succession Wars’ game, complete with all those little card counters.  :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 05 November 2018, 18:11:30
Hey I love those lil' counters, where every other planet gets a permanent fire and smoke chit during the first and second SW phases!  >:D

I'll bring the Marshmellows!
 :brew:

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 05 November 2018, 18:44:48
Same as you, you own Taurus only and no other planet system as of this time. I conquered others so I have four known systems. The others got theirs by default as they had already conquered / colonized multiple systems by the start of our little game.
There is an asymmetry---the Taurian Concordat existed at game start while the Marian Hegemony did not.  This (http://cfw.sarna.net/wiki/images/d/dc/Taurian_Concordat_partial_2366.png?timestamp=20120911084907) for example is part of a Taurian Concordat map in 2366.  Hence, the TC is in the 'got theirs by default' category, although I frankly had not realized how many planets they had initially, nor how large their navy became by the time of the Reunification War (~2570).  See here (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Taurian_Defense_Force):
Quote from: sarna.net
The Concordat Navy was larger than any other bar the Terran Hegemony's, with 127 WarShips, thousands of JumpShips and DropShips, and many squadrons of Aerospace Fighters.
I'm not at all clear on whether we'll get there, but the appropriate focus of the TCN is on holding and effectively defending the large number of thinly populated systems they already have.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 05 November 2018, 19:32:40
Also this is an AU...

So there's that...

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

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 05 November 2018, 20:00:35
But I do see your point... have you considered that these could be a mutual protection pact, much like the UHC, rather than a straight " we're one "?
It doesn't matter from the viewpoint of the TCN.  The Navy is there to protect everyone.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 05 November 2018, 22:05:17
Turn 6 is finally done! https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1452784#msg1452784 - the battle in 2402 is the final part of the turn.

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

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

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

The downside of this approach is that those are going to be true military ships that you don't need to pay for, so they will act as free force multipliers. Given that this is what's been causing the controversy, I'm not sure how well that will work. More thought is definitely needed here.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 05 November 2018, 22:45:55
Impressive---the first real yard destruction I've seen.

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

When you get a chance, can you answer the TC questions (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1456442#msg1456442)?  I should be able to finish my turn reasonably soon with the answers.

Oh, and: are the worksheet changes finalized?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 November 2018, 23:04:56
1.)  Like turn.  Holy crap DC, he who dares, wins, I take it?  Thats a very audacious plan, high risk, high reward, and I like the way the writing discusses the multiple phases of the campaign, and a campaign it was.

It really looks like the Coordinator got everything he wanted.  All it cost him eas his navy.

2.)  Free Force Multipliers:   Historically, Invasion transports have been slow, fragile, and vulnerable, an albatross around the naval neck, hard to defend and hideously vulnerable and expensive in blood and treasure when hit, and... (flips through books look at Union class Dropship)... this appears to be the case in battletech as well.

Lets go to the numbers...

Union is a small dropship, and the most classic of military transports Shes got about 180 standard armor on most facings,, and carries about 230 total standard scale damage in weaponry.

Buri puts out ~2000 damage from her standard scale secondary batteries.  She has four - giving her the firepower of approx 30 Union Dropships - and the firepower (if half weapons hit) to kill 10 Unions a turn with a single set of secondary armament.  If the NPPCs get involved, fired in pairs - thats probably 10 more hard kills or 20 mission kills every salvo - assuming that we leave capital weapons at a mere 10:1.  If we scale that up at all, each NPPC hit is a hard kill, and thats 20 kills a turn.  30 droppers, worth 9B, and carrying 2.5 regiments - and thats a single turn’s fire, at range, with just one facing side.  Carnage.

 The fighters off Walkurie would do a guesstimate potential.. say 40 each... so about ~2800 damage, somewhere in that ballpark?  Union only has 100 rear armor.  One deckload off a Walkurie CV is going to, assuming more than half the shots miss, wreck a dozen Unions a turn, every turn, for some time.  Thats a dead regiment and 3.6 Billion in dropships every turn.  And thats after they used their missiles on something important like a warship.

Based on this, I dont see ‘Transport Dropships’ as serving any role other than high value targets, picked up in a moments convenience by warship or fighter weapons that dont have -real- targets at that moment.  Certainly not tough or well armed enough to be significant from a naval perpective. 

Now, pure Assault style droppers - Triumph or Achillies, or their bastard descendents like Tiamat and Dragau and thier ilk, are a different matter - but thats what I figure were buying at 300/500/1B a pop

TLDR:
You want your invasion transports to contribute anything to your side other than misery, suffering, and frustration, and repair bills, the naval aquisitions board should whip out their chequebook.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 06 November 2018, 00:55:01
1.)  Like turn.  Holy crap DC, he who dares, wins, I take it?

Wins? Maybe. They spent 41b to kill 80b of unused yardspace but now their fleet is in shreds and Space Prussia The Federated Suns is pissed off.

I'd honestly rather we didn't just start gunning for yards though. Our budgets are already strained, and with the new research costs we have even less to spend on the actual point of the game, new warship designs. I'd rather we didn't add a further third of our turn in to a new mandatory overhead of keeping yards alive.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 06 November 2018, 01:00:25
That was an expensive turn. Really should have put some more stipulations in that plan... like waiting for the Akagis to be built, or not doing it at all after the big fight with Steiner... oh well.

Total casualties for that turn: 4x Atago, 3x Minekaze, 2x Tate... very expensive...

And my budget has been adjusted, and the master sheet has been updated to show the damage to both my forces and the Suns.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 06 November 2018, 07:52:12
Wins? Maybe. They spent 41b to kill 80b of unused yardspace but now their fleet is in shreds and Space Prussia The Federated Suns is pissed off.

I'd honestly rather we didn't just start gunning for yards though. Our budgets are already strained, and with the new research costs we have even less to spend on the actual point of the game, new warship designs. I'd rather we didn't add a further third of our turn in to a new mandatory overhead of keeping yards alive.

By that I meant high risk high reward (from his PoV).   Here it looks like both risk and reward came true.

One thing I do anticipate seeing is some centralization of yards, and maybe some static defense over them.  I probably should revise my turn to start tossing static defenses over the Yards I Care About...  but with my major yard so deep in my space static defenses are iffy - and if I throw battlestations up over them, the Archon is gonna want some for the capital...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 06 November 2018, 07:59:30
Shipyard destruction was hinted in the Irian fight back on turn 2 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1424614#msg1424614), and of course we all know the story of 1SW/2SW. This was always possible, and there's a reason why a few nations have invested so much into fixed defences for their shipyards and/or important worlds. This is definitely a thing that can happen, and preparations for it would be wise. A Maginot Line wouldn't be cost-effective for most(there's a reason that the late-stage SLDF is the only realm ever to try it in canon), but a few fortresses probably would be.

Also, in case it wasn't obvious, this battle was fought to a player's battle plan instead of an NPC's. You're allowed to submit your own, and player-created plans will be used in place of NPC plans when they're available. I don't promise success for your plans - if Layover had been one jump from Robinson instead of two, this probably would have been a total fiasco, for example - but feel free to PM me battle plans, contingency plans, or the like. It's also much easier to write the battle when I don't need to think of this stuff myself, so that's a plus as well.

Regarding the loss of the shipyards, the nominal cost is $65B, because the level 1 yard remains. (FWIW, that's a slight oversimplification - the yard space is all gone, but the support structure is better than a single level 1 would have - but I averaged it out) Most nations seem to have an excess of yard space, so the loss probably doesn't hurt the Suns nearly as badly as $65B of other assets being destroyed would hurt, but it's a big loss for sure.

Regarding research costs, I had a bit of a discussion with Kiv about this yesterday, so I'll post the math for all to see. In a given field of research, here are your chances of getting a new tech from research spending based on money spent in a turn, and the breakdown of the odds of which tech you would get (1st/2nd/3rd un-researched tech):
$1B = 25% (8%/8%/8%)
$2B = 44% (16%/15%/13%)
$3B = 58% (23%/19%/16%)
$4B = 68% (29%/22%/17%)
$5B = 76% (35%/25%/16%)
$6B = 82% (41%/26%/16%)
$7B = 87% (46%/26%/15%)
$8B = 90% (50%/27%/13%)
$9B = 92% (54%/26%/12%)
$10B = 94% (58%/26%/11%)
$11B = 96% (62%/25%/9%)
$12B = 97% (65%/24%/8%)

I suspect the typical great house will spend somewhere in the ballpark of $6B/turn between the three fields, but obviously that's your call.

Re TC questions, I'll answer those today, but I have to run to the dentist ( :-\ ).
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 06 November 2018, 09:33:27
Naval Estimates, 2410:

Federated Suns:

Naval Tonnage:  16.4 MT (pending builds, likely 20.4 after anticipated 4 x Crucis build)
Yards:  4/4/1/1

Currently suffering from limited total yard space due to the successful DC strike.   On the gripping hand, a lack of naval losses leaves the FS with (likely, after a turns production) the premier non-TH Navy.  Whether they chose to aggressively pursue this advantage while it lasts, or focus on rebuilding infrastructure, remains to be seen.

Free Worlds League:

Naval Tonnage:  14.25 MT (pending builds - may go a bit over 20MT)
Yards:  6/3/3/3/3/1

Almost a blank canvas.  The FWN has almost all of its tonnage in elderly but still serviceable Heracles class CAs, and sufficient yard space to lay and build more at phenomenal speed.  The FWN can go in almost any direction from here, and I for one am VERY curious to see what direction they choose.  Presence of Class 6 yard may not be as important as it appears - the high cost of designing, and then slowly building, 1.5MT heavy battleships might be a distraction from maximum rate cruiser production.  In any event, a lack of significant losses coupled with a consistently high budget and weaker neighbors leaves the FWL in the same ideal position it has held since 2350.

Lyran Commonwealth:

Naval Tonnage:  17.18 MT
Yards:  5/5/3/1/1/1

Presence of 2 BB Yards allows for relatively inexpensive tonnage, but limited CA and DD yards interfere with the ability of the fleet to make efficient use of its budget outside those battleships.   LC may be headed for a top-heavy fleet structure.  Jokes about a Lyran Recon Squadron will result in demotion.


Draconis Combine:

Naval Tonnage:  16.16MT
Yards:  5/3/2/2/2/1

The largest naval power before the heavy losses of this turn, the DCs continuing highest budget, coupled with a spread of yards (1BB, 1CA, 3DD) should allow it to regenerate its forces rapidly.  A broad set of designs allows for flexibility, but will make upgrading expensive and painful - some hard choices may have to be made.


Capellan Confederation:

Naval Tonnage:  13.5 MT
Yards:  4/3/2/2/2/2/1/1

1 BB, 1 CA, and 4 DD yards.  Best bet may be to take the Class 3 yard over Capella to Class 4, and build a hard counter to the Fed Suns Crucis.  Fleet composition is likely to be BB/DD mix.  Like DC, has a broad swath of designs giving tactical flexibility but complicating upgrade paths.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 06 November 2018, 12:57:38
Some questions to finish the TC turn:

1) I was looking into an Independence (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1420220#msg1420220) refit and discovered the base design has way to much armor.  I'm also shaky on whether or not a 75K ton primitive core ship is legal given that you are supposed to use the warship rules by default and 100K tons is the smallest warship.  Obviously, this is a nonissue as long as it's mothballed, but it's tempting to reactivate and refit a warship given the Navy's recent budget increase.  I'm not sure what to do exactly here.  Advice?

Armor ratios increase at small sizes, so it may be legal? I'll have to look into the rules. If you want to re-activate it, I'll allow it to continue as-is, and grandfather it. I don't imagine anyone else wants to bother with a 75kton ship, so I don't imagine this will be a concern from a balance perspective.

2) Are the Siesta stations working?  In particular, are they effectively connecting the Spinward and Anti-spinward portions of the TC?  Previously, the claim was that merchants propagate information at the speed of a jump every day or two.   Is that roughly accurate along the Siesta highways?  And is this enabling merchant traffic itself (goods & people) to more economically move about the TC? Basically, I'm wondering if I need a formal jump circuit or is the highway system effectively providing the desired benefits?

Transportation infrastructure is always helpful. The TC is less dense in most senses than most other realms, but stations like that do encourage in-fill and speed up trade routes. In particular, bridging "in the black" can be good for speeding up travel even before the recharge speed bonuses from station batteries come into play, if they're cutting a jump off a given route. The 31st century era of the novels will be long after any such stations were abandoned to die a slow death, but in a more active era, they do good work if they're placed in the right spots.

3) Can we settle on standard designs for non-capital classes?  That helps pin down fleet needs more crisply and may force a refit for the TC depending on whether this leaves existent designs viable.  All the named designs are here: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1455413#msg1455413  An extra personnel carrier is here: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1449033#msg1449033 and 4 specialized dropships are here: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1449218#msg1449218 .

Yeah, this is a big to-do task for me. I wanted to get the turn done first, so I was intentionally putting this off, but I'll aim to do it before the next turn.

4) I don't want to belabor the DC/LC fight more, but there are several policy implications around it related to how robust fighters are, how effective Naval Lasers are against fighters, and whether or not we can expect to borrow near mil-spec dropships at will.  Whatever clarity you can provide after you do a more careful review this weekend is welcome.

In practice, I've treated Barracudas as one-shot-one-kill weapons against typical fighters. They do 2 capital damage, while a typical heavy fighter will usually have something like 60-80 armor on the nose. That means the ratio I've been using is approximated at perhaps 30:1 or 40:1. However, I'd argue that a really heavy fighter like a Hydaspes (138 nose armor) should probably survive, which means a 100:1 ratio is probably too high.

Extending this to other anti-fighter weapons, a NL35 would do 140 damage, and put a Hydaspes into structure even in the best case. A NL45 would do 180, and kill outright no matter what. However, something like a Battle Taxi (200t small craft, 248 nose armor) could survive a NL55 hit. Again, that sounds plausible to me. This means that the added firepower of bigger NLs won't do a lot of good in the anti-fighter role, but they do get better range and can use their higher damage against SC, DS, and WS just fine. That seems balanced to me.

The other point to consider re: damage ratios is DropShips, whose HP is measured on the standard scale. A Union has 180 armor on its front, and an Achilles 290. Those are going to die fairly quickly to typical small capital weapons - a Killer Whale hitting them will almost put them internal, and a NAC/10 will kill outright. I'm not entirely comfortable with that. Even when we get to the bigger ones, the heaviest armor I can find on a canon DropShip is the Conquistador with 462, which would die to 12 capital damage. That sounds plausible enough - a 17kt DropShip probably shouldn't expect to survive a NAC/40 hit with armor left over - but I wouldn't want typical medium or large DS going much below that if they're expecting to see combat.

Going the other way, a fighter strike with a hundred fighters each shooting an AC/20 under ideal circumstances(i.e., THN=4) should be expected to hit with about 83 of them, doing 1660 standard-scale damage. That'd translate to 41.5 capital damage at the 40:1 ratio, which is enough to make a small WarShip feel like it's been given a good tap, and even go internal on the really light ones(Bonaventure, Kutai, etc.). Again, that sounds about right. However, I'll still keep the rule that small weapons can't be expected to do meaningful damage against WarShip-scale armour, so 10x MG will not be as effective as 1x AC/20 for this role. (Even an AC/20 will probably bounce off a Crucis or Potemkin, for that matter).

In sum, I'll leave the ratio a bit fuzzy, to deal with the effects of crit rolls, thresholding, and so on. 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. As such, capital weapons that hit against standard-sized craft will do substantially more damage than the 10:1 ratio in canon would imply. This does not eliminate the small-damage-reduction rule for fighter strikes vs capital ship armour, but it does reduce the impact of that rule in practice.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 06 November 2018, 14:09:12
Armor ratios increase at small sizes, so it may be legal?
Armor points per ton increases with smaller size, but there are just plain to many tons of armor---about 1 ton per 9 tons of structure.
I'll have to look into the rules. If you want to re-activate it, I'll allow it to continue as-is, and grandfather it. I don't imagine anyone else wants to bother with a 75kton ship, so I don't imagine this will be a concern from a balance perspective.
I'd only reactivate with a refit as it's difficult to justify the maintenance cost otherwise.   A refit leaving the armor intact seems a bit unreasonable.   A refit to a warship core seems a bit unreasonable given it's subscale.  A refit to the correct amount of armor with a warship core at 100kt violates the refit rules.  Hence, I'm stuck.  I'll just leave it in mothballs by default, but if there is an alternative I'm willing to consider it.
Transportation infrastructure is always helpful. The TC is less dense in most senses than most other realms, but stations like that do encourage in-fill and speed up trade routes. In particular, bridging "in the black" can be good for speeding up travel even before the recharge speed bonuses from station batteries come into play, if they're cutting a jump off a given route. The 31st century era of the novels will be long after any such stations were abandoned to die a slow death, but in a more active era, they do good work if they're placed in the right spots.
Thanks.  Perhaps the crisp question is: What is the current mean average information propagation time from Malagrotta to Zanzibar (13 jumps, the longest highway)?  This should be pretty observable.  If merchant traffic propagates at 1 jump/day, that's 2 weeks.  On the other hand, if it's 1 jump/week that's 3 months.  In the former case a jump circuit can shave the time by a factor of 2 while if it's 1 jump/week, the improvement is by a factor of 13.   It would be a real shame to learn that half the TC was invaded only after that fact. 
... <capital weapons vs. standard scale armor>...
Thanks, that helps.  What about standard weapons vs. standard scale armor?  Should we expect 1000 AC5s to take out 100 fighters/round (with misses and imperfect focus of fire ~5 AC/5 hits to kill a fighter)?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 06 November 2018, 15:11:39
Now I know I'm just coming into this:
Why not make use of the squadron rules for fighters?
With a few creative changes?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 06 November 2018, 20:10:04
Now I know I'm just coming into this:
Why not make use of the squadron rules for fighters?
With a few creative changes?

Thought these were being used?

Hence, I'm stuck.  I'll just leave it in mothballs by default, but if there is an alternative I'm willing to consider it.

I'll bite, for the right price that is...  :thumbsup:

What's our current budget costs for Turn 7?

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 07 November 2018, 00:36:06
The tonnage ratio was what I referred to keeping. I think it was a rules quirk with primitive-core ships - one that's not actually valid under SO/IO rules, but that was accidentally grandfathered in by use of an old construction tool. One hull massing 75,000 tons is not going to affect the balance of the game, and I think that'd be the only plausible reason for you to re-activate it, so I'll let it slide (even if you refit it).

Typical information propagation time is about a day per jump with no special measures taken. Possibly less in the TC, because merchant density is lower. Recharge stations in the black speed up the movement of goods, at least as compared to anything besides a command circuit, but the passage of data back and forth among typical merchant traffic (all of whom will have a sideline in passing messages in the pre-HPG era) will usually be faster. On that route you have a few spots where you use one black station to avoid a three-jump route, and one with two black stations to avoid a six-jump route, but a single ship jumping takes like 4-5 days IIRC. You'll shave some time off by occasionally getting ships to line up their arrivals properly, but in practice the biggest advantage of that network is the motion of ships, not of data. That said, I'd estimate you've gone from ~20 days to pass a message along that route before (15 jumps with no shortcuts, including some through UHC space, with a penalty for thin Periphery traffic), down to 10-15 days in a typical case.

Standard weapons vs standard armor function just like tabletop, generally speaking. I'm abstracting a bit, rather than rolling zillions of hit location dice, but I don't have any big changes in mind there.

Squadron rules are a simplification for tabletop. I can't see why they'd be needed in a narrative-driven game. Is there a particular part of them that you had in mind? (I'll admit, I'm not that familiar with those rules, been a while since I read them)

Also, a reminder - the Ares treaty is still up for debate. I'll weigh in with NPCs when I write up their turns. Spoiler alert, the FWL is very tentative about restrictions on nuclear weaponry.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 07 November 2018, 08:00:11
Stupid purple byrd!  Don't eat me!

I wonder if you'll have allow nuclear exchanges to happen? Or would everybody scream murder and launch?

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 07 November 2018, 08:38:46
The LCN position is:

Preamble:  The LCN is aware that it is currently the best positioned naval force in the inner sphere to use nuclear weapons to acheive naval objectives.  It is further, however, the position of the LCN that use of such weapons is incredibly destabalizing and would work to the detriment of all powers, the LCN included.  The LCN prefers a policy that strongly discourages such use, and thus its policy is that:

1.)  We will gladly agree to -reciprocal- non-use with any power willing to do so.

2.)  With such powers, we will not use nuclear weapons first, but reserve the right to use them second.  Second use will be proportional to enemy first use, plus enough to discourage the idea of ‘just this one time’ use for advantage.

3.)  Non-signatories are presumed to intend use of nuclear weapons.  Forces engaging non-signatories are at all times weapons free against -military- targets of such powers, including first use, in such fashion necessary to prevent enemy use against LCN forces.  Tactics, deployments, and force posture on such fronts will be adapted to such an environment. 

A study of the military outcome of the Vega Aerospace Fighter Strike, had such strike been armed with Killer Whale-N and Barracuda-N in place of conventional warheads is appended and may help to clarify the importance of mutual agreements aganst any use.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 07 November 2018, 09:03:37
...stuff...
Thanks, that helps a great deal. 

Did you want to also update the passenger quarters cost?  Or are the changes to the design sheets finalized?   (Passenger quarter costs likely matter more to the TCN than other navies due to the heavy marine complement, but it's not a big deal either way.)

The other remaining concern is around standardized smallcraft for point defense and boarding ops.  The Taurus I was designed with the David and Crestbreaker (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1438684#msg1438684) in mind.  The Crestbreakers proved disappointing in testing causing the TC admiralty to emphasize on-board MGs in a redesign.  Switching to something like the Fireshield (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1449388#msg1449388) is not as significant a drop in point defense but if the drop in point defense for standardized designs is more severe that's important.   Similarly, if the smaller Centauro (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1449033#msg1449033) becomes the standard, suddenly many more marine boarding craft are required to effectively use the 1800 marines aboard a Taurus I.  With the larger Centauro, there is no issue.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 07 November 2018, 10:01:03
Squadron rules are a simplification for tabletop. I can't see why they'd be needed in a narrative-driven game. Is there a particular part of them that you had in mind? (I'll admit, I'm not that familiar with those rules, been a while since I read them)

Well, squadron rules, in their simplicity, would fit the current situation well, and I think that'd allow us to balance their use even with just a multiplier of 2 for capital damage (20-1);
Squadron rules state kill criticals for incoming damage exceeding 1/4 of the fighters armour - if an NL35 deals 70 dmg, that'll be enough for a long while - and as damage seems to be rounded down. By just using clustering for the fighters, a 6 fighter squadron with 2x AC20s each would just deal (4x2x1) = 8 Capital damage.
I know I'm arguing for fighters when, no matter where I jump in, I'll be bordering plenty of them, but I'm at least concerned regarding dropships.
Because I sure won't use them outside of dropping troops.

Also, would it make sense to impose a limit on the maximum amount of firing gunners per facing? I've been pondering missile-defense designs and I'm feeling kind of silly with what I come up with.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 07 November 2018, 10:42:55
A thought from PM land, shared here -

IF the FWL stays with ‘nukes are good’ it will do crazy things to ship design.  Nukes dont care if Buri has 180 SI and MORE ARMOR THAN SENSE.  Nukes dont care about your broadside NACs.  Nukes dont respect ship size.  Nukes dont need a lot of weapons to kill anything in space - they certainly dont need the Vega Strike - nor will even fighters on the Vega Strike level ensure that your enemy doesnt get at least a few hits through.

Mind you, Im hoping that it doesnt go that way.  I think the conventional armament game is more interesting.  But Im also planning a nuclear environment doctrine and order of battle. 

And of course, once one power goes there, and its negihbors have to follow - will they be able to survive having to build two different navies, one for each border?  Will they be able to resist the temptation of employing their nuclear navy for certain victory against non-nuclear neighbors?  Its not for nothing that people in the real-world nuclear buisness had ‘If one flies, they all fly’ as a mantra.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 07 November 2018, 11:11:21
I haven't looked at the passenger costs again, but I recall thinking it was correct last time I looked. I'll review it by this weekend. (It'll also affect the TH, with that ridiculous Potemkin design, but of course they have the budget to handle it)

Re gun limits per facing, hard caps on gun count seem wrong to me. A 10m tall Mech, with front area ~30 m^2, can easily pack half a dozen of the relevant weapon types without being unduly burdened by it. A WarShip is like 800m long and perhaps 200m diameter, which means if we treat it as a simple cylinder it's got a surface area of about 565,000 m^2. That means it could carry a hundred thousand light weapons on its hull with the same density that's viable on a Mech. They'll be bigger, of course - a 5" naval mount is much larger than a 5" artillery piece, because it requires much more ammunition safety and heavy armour - but it's still not likely to be a serious restriction at our scale. I don't really like this dynamic, overall - I want limits imposed somehow, and fire control weight is a ham-fisted way to do it in practice - but I can't think of a change that's both sufficient to fix it and unlikely to be just as ham-fisted in its own way, while still in keeping with usual BT rules. (There's also the idea I posted some months ago (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=60602.0), if you want to look at that, but that's far too big a change for this game)

Re nukes, I think I'll play with the fluff of tech changes a bit, to reduce their impact if they get used again. For example, I've been thinking that improved ferro-aluminum armor might well be more resistant to nuclear weapons than previous armor models(over and above its superior protection per ton). That won't fix things in the short term, but if we go full 1SW at some point down the line, it should still allow ships to survive passably even in a nuclear battlefield.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 07 November 2018, 11:21:27
I haven't looked at the passenger costs again, but I recall thinking it was correct last time I looked. I'll review it by this weekend. (It'll also affect the TH, with that ridiculous Potemkin design, but of course they have the budget to handle it)

Re gun limits per facing, hard caps on gun count seem wrong to me. A 10m tall Mech, with front area ~30 m^2, can easily pack half a dozen of the relevant weapon types without being unduly burdened by it. A WarShip is like 800m long and perhaps 200m diameter, which means if we treat it as a simple cylinder it's got a surface area of about 565,000 m^2. That means it could carry a hundred thousand light weapons on its hull with the same density that's viable on a Mech. They'll be bigger, of course - a 5" naval mount is much larger than a 5" artillery piece, because it requires much more ammunition safety and heavy armour - but it's still not likely to be a serious restriction at our scale. I don't really like this dynamic, overall - I want limits imposed somehow, and fire control weight is a ham-fisted way to do it in practice - but I can't think of a change that's both sufficient to fix it and unlikely to be just as ham-fisted in its own way, while still in keeping with usual BT rules. (There's also the idea linked in my sig, if you want to look at that, but that's far too big a change for this game)

Re nukes, I think I'll play with the fluff of tech changes a bit, to reduce their impact if they get used again. For example, I've been thinking that improved ferro-aluminum armor might well be more resistant to nuclear weapons than previous armor models(over and above its superior protection per ton). That won't fix things in the short term, but if we go full 1SW at some point down the line, it should still allow ships to survive passably even in a nuclear battlefield.

I have been content from the beginning to assume that missile warheads are already nuclear, and that all other weapons are similar in their scale.  Given the ability of various units in battletech to absorb LARGE energy inputs without destruction (how fast is a Gauss Rifle round traveling on an aerospace map?  Whats the KE transfer in an Aerospace Fighter lithobraking - a survivable event!  Note the ability of heavy tanks in Battletech to survive ground scale nuclear weapons), I think that such resilience would not strain credulity, even if the rules as written (and what we have seen in game so far) suggest that nuclear weapons are orders of magnitude more destructive than conventional weapons.

I think transitioning warship armor over a series of upgrades, with each being more resistant to nuclear weapons than the one before (while maintaining only its listed resilience against conventional attack), to the point that by Lamellor Ferro-Carbide a Killer Whale (N) is no different than a Killer Whale (with perhaps behind the scenes tempest hardening, so nukes lose their 'you got nuked, all your sensors and computers are wrecked, ship is a mission kill effect) is the best solution, given that we have already defined in-universe that CURRENTLY, Nuclear Weapons are a trump card.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 07 November 2018, 11:32:45
I haven't looked at the passenger costs again, but I recall thinking it was correct last time I looked. I'll review it by this weekend. (It'll also affect the TH, with that ridiculous Potemkin design, but of course they have the budget to handle it)
Ok.  My present understanding is here (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1457027#msg1457027).
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 07 November 2018, 14:38:58
If anyone of you is interested in the physics (you don't want to see here), there's a 4X game called Aurora out there, whose creator at one point entertained the thought of a newtonian physics model.
A few interesting observations:
A large nuke is mildly dangerous at 250 meters, and completely ineffectual at 500 m.
Energy shields might reduce survivability.
Chance to hit is incredibly low, so being big is a horrible drawback  --- I think we could take a part of that; shouldn't a very large ship be at least somewhat easier to hit at close distances?
In short, what ever makes for good gameplay should be considered, because space combat is brutal, there is no such thing as a mission kill, and taking part in it means you already lost. Would make for a bland game.

Re gun limits per facing, .... (There's also the idea I posted some months ago (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=60602.0), ...
Fascinating proposal. Though we're probably more likely to oversimplify things at the scale we're playing at.
I originally thought about something like 20 gunners per facing, +1 for every 50k tons and maybe two facings (usually the broadsides) being able to exceed that limit. That'd be 120 std weapons on a 1m ton ship. With more guns and gunners, it could still be allowed, but not allowed to fire them at once.
But your proposal is interesting. What if guns above a specified limit just had a chance to be crit by fire that can't penetrate the armour? There's only so much you can install fully covered without turning your outer hull into something reminiscent of european cheese.
But if we were to impose actual extra rules, I'd be in favour of first raising the fuel cost. That strains suspension of disbelief far more than building a cruiser with several thousand guns.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 08 November 2018, 10:23:13
But your proposal is interesting. What if guns above a specified limit just had a chance to be crit by fire that can't penetrate the armour? There's only so much you can install fully covered without turning your outer hull into something reminiscent of european cheese.

It always seemed to me that the secondary weapons on warships (mech scale), would be outside the protection of the primary armor belt - much like the AAA/PDS armaments on their real world cousins - and could be targeted for destruction by mech-scale weaponry (and wiped away in broad swaths by non-penetrating capital scale strikes - this may point the way to fighter/capital weapon synergies in combined use - even if the belt armor holds up under NPPC/NAC fire, the PDS/AAA belt associated therewith might be degraded significantly)

Sensors and the like would probably be vulnerable to the same things. 

Capital weaponry would lack this vulnerability... the triple 18" mount on a Yamato cares little for .50BMG!

All of the above aside, it probably matters little enough at our scale, at least for major fleet engagements.  At the ranges of space combat, and with computers allocating fire, there is little reason for the classic 'each ship lines up and gun-duels its opposite number' - a fleet's weapons would likely be centrally directed, focusing fire sufficient (given conditions, ranges, anticipated accuracy) to kill as many targets as possible in a single salvo, with fire being redirected while the weapons cool and cycle.  Under such conditions, one mounts armor not to protect one ship (no one ship can be protected from an enemy fleets fire), but to minimize the total rate at which ships are lost - individual details of criticals and specific system resilience matter strongly in a duel, less so in a squadron engagement, and vanish almost entirely at the fleet scale.

Evasive Action can lower the impact of massed fire, if chosen intelligently.  For the LC, the Tyrs might go evasive early (due to their lower resilience compared to Buri) IF fighting an opponent who wants to target Tyr first (any opponent with significant NAC armament will want to kill Tyrs and close the range under Buri's guns before trying to outshoot Buri at point blank).  By using evasive action, the Tyrs preserve their NACs for use later on, once the foe has closed.  Against an enemy not inclined to close (say one with heavy or pure long range armament), the Tyrs would sail steady to maximize their fire output(not being a good target due to their NAC focused armament), while a Buri that started taking significant damage might well go evasive (to discourage further focused fire), yet remain in position to continue to fire to (reduced) effect.

((Note - if the above described fire coordination is NOT normal in the BTU, and NOT feasible under battlefield conditions, the LCN would like to know what expenditures in training and/or R&D would serve to make it so))
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 08 November 2018, 11:45:23
That's basically how I've been working it. The issue that the "strip the light guns" approach has in practice is that most of those light guns are anti-fighter, and the units best equipped to do the stripping are fighters. You can "school of piranha" down a ship's defences if you want, and it's happened in a few battles, but it either needs heavy numerical advantage or a willingness to take severe losses.

As for fire coordination, there's one important countervailing consideration that happened IRL - if you focus fire, most ships aren't under attack. If most ships aren't under attack, they don't need to dodge or worry, and they don't have any risk of losing the lightly-armoured stuff like rangefinders, and thus they can fight more effectively. There was also splash-spotting considerations in historical battles, which won't apply in space, but that could perhaps be a consideration for bombardment against Castles Brian or something. In game, I think that'll be a smaller consideration - a lot of that problem can be compensated for by tech in various ways (the motion of your own ship won't mess with your own accuracy nearly so badly, for example, so forcing evasive action on your enemy will be less important). On top of that, you have various problems with stacking things too tightly - overkill is one issue, especially with big salvoes, and having your missile exhaust blind your sensors (something something fight in the shade) is another.

On the whole, I'm assuming substantially more coordination of fire than WW2. But there is usually some spread, both as suppressive fire and due to the difficulty of getting everything onto the same targets at the same time in practical fashion. That said, you can easily play around with doctrine here - this is a default behaviour, not the One True Way.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 08 November 2018, 11:47:02
That's basically how I've been working it. The issue that the "strip the light guns" approach has in practice is that most of those light guns are anti-fighter, and the units best equipped to do the stripping are fighters. You can "school of piranha" down a ship's defences if you want, and it's happened in a few battles, but it either needs heavy numerical advantage or a willingness to take severe losses.

As for fire coordination, there's one important countervailing consideration that happened IRL - if you focus fire, most ships aren't under attack. If most ships aren't under attack, they don't need to dodge or worry, and they don't have any risk of losing the lightly-armoured stuff like rangefinders, and thus they can fight more effectively. There was also splash-spotting considerations in historical battles, which won't apply in space, but that could perhaps be a consideration for bombardment against Castles Brian or something. In game, I think that'll be a smaller consideration - a lot of that problem can be compensated for by tech in various ways (the motion of your own ship won't mess with your own accuracy nearly so badly, for example, so forcing evasive action on your enemy will be less important). On top of that, you have various problems with stacking things too tightly - overkill is one issue, especially with big salvoes, and having your missile exhaust blind your sensors (something something fight in the shade) is another.

On the whole, I'm assuming substantially more coordination of fire than WW2. But there is usually some spread, both as suppressive fire and due to the difficulty of getting everything onto the same targets at the same time in practical fashion. That said, you can easily play around with doctrine here - this is a default behaviour, not the One True Way.

Well, I guess what it turns on is what modifiers are out there?

Rules-As-Written there is only 'normal sailing' and 'evasive action'.  Ships taking evasive action take a penalty to their fire, and fire against them is penalized.

So, assuming that normal sailing is in fact normal, there isnt really an 'unengaged ship bonus', like there was in theory in the real world - outgoing fire is not penalized by incoming fire, nor advantaged by its lack.

Then we get into the trenches of damage effects on ships:
1.)  IRL ships do not have ablative armor.  Each incoming hit is a (largely) independent event.
2.)  IRL ships were often rendered combat ineffective LONG before their destruction.
3.)  IRL ships were also often subject to sudden, total destruction from a low-probability hit.

4.)  Battletech ships have ablative armor.  Each hit is largely meaningless, save for the last few.
5.)  Battletech ships retain the majority of their combat power until very late in their effective combat lifespan.
6.)  Battletech ships are very unlikely to be destroyed by a single hit.

Now, as noted above, choosing to go evasive penalizes your fire, and your enemies, and any ship that anticipates RECIEVING more fire than it would be delivering, or otherwise serves as a high priority target, should consider evasive action.  However, normal sailing gives neither benefit nor penalty - and is here presumed to be the norm.  (If all ships are evasive at all times, save when they intentionally stop doing so, then there would be an advantage to even fire distribution, to discourage the enemy from having unengaed ships stop evasive manuvering).

That said, even with the evasive concern, I think points 1-3 (IRL ships) and 4-6 (BT ships) illustrate that while distributed fire made very, very good sense at Jutland (more chances for the golden BB, greater spread of damage reduces enemy fire more quickly), concentrated fire makes more sense over Vega under the Rules As Written (ships killed by depletion of SI, ships retain most firepower until SI is depleted).

The winning naval strategy is to silence as many guns as possible on the enemy side as quickly as possible.  Under the BT RAW, this is accomplished most efficiently by punching through the armor facing and depleting the SI, as hits to armor that do not impact rarely silence guns, and hits to SI do not silence very many guns until the last of SI is depleted.  Further, ships are most efficiently removed when destruction is sudden and total, denying a damaged ship the opportunity to roll ship, go evasive, or otherwise mitigate damage.

For the above reasons, it appears that under RAW, combined fire is and always will be the proper approach, assuming sufficient weight of fire is available to render at least one target unit combat ineffective per unit time.  If there is not such weight of fire, then a decision has to be made between broad depletion of enemy armor/hunt for lucky crits, or focusing fire on one target WITHOUT killing it - possibly forcing it out of line or into evasive action, but at the same time reducing the value of subsequent fires against that target, due to greater range or that evasive action.

In any event, as fleet sizes climb, the threshold for condition #1, one or more hard kills per salvo, will eventually obtain.  What fleet size and firepower allows that goes to underlying assumptions about engagement ranges, gunnery skills, and the actual armor and firepower of the engaged vessels - but it seems that at some point that threshold will be reached, if it has not already.  Similarly, longer range weapons will increase in value as fleet size increases, as they grow in ability to silence shorter ranged guns before the range can be closed.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 08 November 2018, 16:14:48
I think it's not as clear cut. Distances are significant, and, ignoring the SLDFs Blackbox for now, instantaneous communication isn't.
I think that's what Naval C3 is supposed to depict in later years.
Also, once ECM is on the table, hitting enemy ships that are not on the front line becomes more difficult.
Meanwhile, on the front you could very well have a corvette not worthy of your entire fleets firepower, performing evasive maneuvers.
Further, the question remains if keeping the fleet together was feasible.
If someone attacks you, and he just sends 10 fleets of two ships + a troop transport, how many can you intercept?
Sending no ships may be better than too few when trying to have your ships survive, or win a battle, but any warship is kind in an undefended system.
Regarding the armour: We do have penetrative crits, unlikely as they may be. Currently, an NAC/40 will roll for criticals even on the toughest ship.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 08 November 2018, 17:13:42
I think it's not as clear cut. Distances are significant, and, ignoring the SLDFs Blackbox for now, instantaneous communication isn't.
I think that's what Naval C3 is supposed to depict in later years.
Also, once ECM is on the table, hitting enemy ships that are not on the front line becomes more difficult.
Meanwhile, on the front you could very well have a corvette not worthy of your entire fleets firepower, performing evasive maneuvers.
Further, the question remains if keeping the fleet together was feasible.
If someone attacks you, and he just sends 10 fleets of two ships + a troop transport, how many can you intercept?
Sending no ships may be better than too few when trying to have your ships survive, or win a battle, but any warship is kind in an undefended system.
Regarding the armour: We do have penetrative crits, unlikely as they may be. Currently, an NAC/40 will roll for criticals even on the toughest ship.

Ive not percieved through-armor criticals be significant as of yet.

Offense is always going to be easier than defense - but dispersing your attackers risks having local superiority in most places, and total local inferiority in a few - its a raiding strategy, not a planet holding one, as I see it.

Stacked defensive ECM does make ‘back line’ targets harder, so your going to be wanting to peel the onion from the outside in.  But that doesnt I think change the docus fire calculus, just where the fire is focused each turn.  The ‘do I focus fire’ calculation is based on what I can kill each salvo (if anything) and whether a ships firepower degrades more or less rapidly than its ability to survive further damage (expressed as averages, of course)

Ships are a long way apart, but weapons ranges and the amount of space filled by the wall is small enough that I dont anticipate light lag being large enough to affect coordination within the engaged wall of battle.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 08 November 2018, 22:12:10
The United Hindu Collective has always believed strongly in armed neutrality, as part of a broader effort to ensure peace and trust between nations. The UHC's primary goal with the proposed "Ares Convention" is to ensure that it does not indirectly encourage war by concealing the inherent horror of blood being shed for the aggrandizement of princes. A sailor who dies in a missile strike is no less dead than one who dies in a nuclear strike, and a soldier crushed under a tank's treads is in the same place as one who died to orbital bombardment or in the sack of a city. Any treaty which does not acknowledge this reality is inherently ignoring the realities of warfare, and the Collective has no interest in lying about the glories of war.

However, for greater clarity, we do hereby affirm that the UHC's traditional policy against the initiation of conflict includes nuclear conflict and the use of other weapons of mass destruction. Under no circumstances will the UHC begin a war of our own accord, and we will only use weapons of mass destruction against those who have initiated their use, or in the final defence of civilian population against indiscriminate slaughter on a similar scale.

---

The UHC has initiated its own system defence station program. Dubbed the Raksha, the new station is intended for close defence of a planet, and is intended to be used in bulk instead of as a single standalone station in deep space like the Pratham. Unlike the popular trend in station design of having a "primary" facing like the Marathon, Scutum, or Ancile, the Raksha follows in the Pratham's footsteps and is intended for use against any axis of threat without needing to slowly turn about-face. Numerous cost-saving measures were included in the station, such as the smaller naval laser mounts, but the most obvious was due to an unexpected glut of small missile mounts on the market in Basantapur. Rather than using large missile mounts with expensive on-board fire control system, smaller and individually less capable mounts have been used in larger quantity instead. The proliferation of gunner's mates keeps the mess hall busy, and the numerous light turret mounts on the hull give the Raksha a somewhat warty appearance, but the cost savings were seen to justify it.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Raksha
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $489,210,025.00
Magazine Cost: $52,876,000.00
BV2: 41,999

Mass: 225,000
K-F Drive System: None
Power Plant: Station-Keeping Drive
Safe Thrust: 0.0
Maximum Thrust: 0.0
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
216 Machine Gun (IS)
216 LRM 5 (IS)
72 Naval Laser 35
72 Capital Launcher AR-10

Class/Model/Name: Raksha
Mass: 225,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 2,700
Thrust
Safe: 0.0
Maximum: 0.0
Controls: 225
K-F Hyperdrive: None (0 Integrity) 0
Jump Sail: (0 Integrity) 0
Structural Integrity: 1 2,250
Total Heat Sinks: 2640 Single 2,522
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 500 points 102
Fire Control Computers: 27,576
Armor: 486 pts Standard 810
Fore: 81
Fore-Left/Right: 81/81
Aft-Left/Right: 81/81
Aft: 81

Dropship Capacity: 0
Grav Decks:
Small: 1 50
Medium: 0
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 40 280
Life Boats: 40 280

Crew And Passengers:
51 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 510
39 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 273
216 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 1,512
182 Bay Personnel in 2nd Class Quarters 1,274

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
36 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 72 (7.2-C) Short-PDS 18
36 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 72 (7.2-C) Short-PDS 18
36 Machine Gun (IS) FR 72 (7.2-C) Short-PDS 18
36 Machine Gun (IS) FL 72 (7.2-C) Short-PDS 18
36 Machine Gun (IS) AR 72 (7.2-C) Short-PDS 18
36 Machine Gun (IS) AL 72 (7.2-C) Short-PDS 18
36 LRM 5 (IS) Nose 72 108 (10.8-C) Long 72
36 LRM 5 (IS) Aft 72 108 (10.8-C) Long 72
36 LRM 5 (IS) FR 72 108 (10.8-C) Long 72
36 LRM 5 (IS) FL 72 108 (10.8-C) Long 72
36 LRM 5 (IS) AR 72 108 (10.8-C) Long 72
36 LRM 5 (IS) AL 72 108 (10.8-C) Long 72
24 Naval Laser 35 Nose 1248 840 (84-C) Long-C 16,800
24 Naval Laser 35 AL 1248 840 (84-C) Long-C 16,800
24 Naval Laser 35 AR 1248 840 (84-C) Long-C 16,800
24 Capital Launcher AR-10 FR 480 960 (96-C) Extreme-C 6,000
24 Capital Launcher AR-10 FL 480 960 (96-C) Extreme-C 6,000
24 Capital Launcher AR-10 Aft 480 960 (96-C) Extreme-C 6,000

Ammo Rounds Mass
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 27200 136
LRM 5 (IS) Ammo 18000 750
Capital Launcher Barracuda Ammo 720 21,600
Capital Launcher Killer Whale Ammo 720 36,000
Capital Launcher White Shark Ammo 720 28,800

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
20,000 Cargo, Standard 20,000 2
6 Bay Small Craft 1,200 3
48 Bay Fighter 7,200 6
2 Bay Conventional Infantry (IS), Foot 10 0


BUDGET: $26,000m
Maintenance (@150%): $10,620m
Raksha R&D: $489m
16x Raksha: $7,824m (Deployed 10 to Panpour and 6 to Basantapur)
600x fighter: $3,000m
100x small craft: $1,000m
Research: $3,000m (1A, 1S, 1M)
Remaining: $67m

---

Ok.  My present understanding is here (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1457027#msg1457027).

Thanks for the link. Looking at it again, I think I'll keep it as-is. Steerage quarters are cheap (even on the Potemkin, they're only $160M of the final cost), so it doesn't affect all that much. It makes sense to me that quarters cost more than bulk cargo space, so while I suspect you'll probably be ruled correct by Xotl, I prefer the rules as the spreadsheet does them. Also, it's easier to be sure I don't break the sheet if I don't change it, and it means we don't need to re-calculate all those previous ships.

Well, I guess what it turns on is what modifiers are out there?

Rules-As-Written there is only 'normal sailing' and 'evasive action'.  Ships taking evasive action take a penalty to their fire, and fire against them is penalized.

So, assuming that normal sailing is in fact normal, there isnt really an 'unengaged ship bonus', like there was in theory in the real world - outgoing fire is not penalized by incoming fire, nor advantaged by its lack.
...
Now, as noted above, choosing to go evasive penalizes your fire, and your enemies, and any ship that anticipates RECIEVING more fire than it would be delivering, or otherwise serves as a high priority target, should consider evasive action.  However, normal sailing gives neither benefit nor penalty - and is here presumed to be the norm.  (If all ships are evasive at all times, save when they intentionally stop doing so, then there would be an advantage to even fire distribution, to discourage the enemy from having unengaed ships stop evasive manuvering).

RAW, a fighter going evasive gets +3 to be hit when evasive but cannot fire, and large craft (DS/WS) get +2 to hit and to be hit. So assuming flat dice across the board, any ship being targeted by more than its own weight of fire should go evasive. These are more generous rules than I remembered(I've only used them for fighters), as long as we're not up to kill-per-salvo fleet sizes, so I should probably work them into more battles. I was thinking that real evasive action was fairly difficult, but the tabletop rules make it surprisingly easy and effective.

Then we get into the trenches of damage effects on ships:
1.)  IRL ships do not have ablative armor.  Each incoming hit is a (largely) independent event.
2.)  IRL ships were often rendered combat ineffective LONG before their destruction.
3.)  IRL ships were also often subject to sudden, total destruction from a low-probability hit.

4.)  Battletech ships have ablative armor.  Each hit is largely meaningless, save for the last few.
5.)  Battletech ships retain the majority of their combat power until very late in their effective combat lifespan.
6.)  Battletech ships are very unlikely to be destroyed by a single hit.

I've been using "semi-ablative" as my rule of thumb. Crits happen - you'll note lots of mentions of turrets blown off, mission kills, etc. - and I've been assuming that if a ship takes enough damage to rip off whole facings of armour it'll lose significant amounts of combat power before its last SI goes away. It's more ablative than IRL on the whole, but less ablative than tabletop StratOps gameplay.

As for golden BBs, I've had a few of those, mostly to implement the results of the luck roll on the dice. Usually that's what happens in my head when a ship suddenly gets hit in the fusion reactor or the magazine. Again, I think I'm partway between TT and IRL here.

That said, even with the evasive concern, I think points 1-3 (IRL ships) and 4-6 (BT ships) illustrate that while distributed fire made very, very good sense at Jutland (more chances for the golden BB, greater spread of damage reduces enemy fire more quickly), concentrated fire makes more sense over Vega under the Rules As Written (ships killed by depletion of SI, ships retain most firepower until SI is depleted).

The winning naval strategy is to silence as many guns as possible on the enemy side as quickly as possible.  Under the BT RAW, this is accomplished most efficiently by punching through the armor facing and depleting the SI, as hits to armor that do not impact rarely silence guns, and hits to SI do not silence very many guns until the last of SI is depleted.  Further, ships are most efficiently removed when destruction is sudden and total, denying a damaged ship the opportunity to roll ship, go evasive, or otherwise mitigate damage.

Your last point is very important here, but a big part of that is the effect of TT breaking combat into rounds. There's a few parts of our battles that are normally done in rounds - missile strikes being the most obvious, but also high-speed engagements - but the underlying combat model is continuous. As such, there's more time to go evasive in response to being targeted here than there would be in a TT battle of similar scale. It's not perfect, and light-speed weapons should probably have a real advantage when fighting someone who goes evasive, but it's not as simple as "push button, kill his mans".

For the above reasons, it appears that under RAW, combined fire is and always will be the proper approach, assuming sufficient weight of fire is available to render at least one target unit combat ineffective per unit time.  If there is not such weight of fire, then a decision has to be made between broad depletion of enemy armor/hunt for lucky crits, or focusing fire on one target WITHOUT killing it - possibly forcing it out of line or into evasive action, but at the same time reducing the value of subsequent fires against that target, due to greater range or that evasive action.

In any event, as fleet sizes climb, the threshold for condition #1, one or more hard kills per salvo, will eventually obtain.  What fleet size and firepower allows that goes to underlying assumptions about engagement ranges, gunnery skills, and the actual armor and firepower of the engaged vessels - but it seems that at some point that threshold will be reached, if it has not already.  Similarly, longer range weapons will increase in value as fleet size increases, as they grow in ability to silence shorter ranged guns before the range can be closed.

RAW, combining fire is definitely superior. In this game, my gut is that it's probably better in most cases, but it's not a slam dunk the way it is in TT. And sometimes the strategies go the other way - your fleet escaped at Vega by going for massive crit spreading, after all, and not by Lanchestering down single enemies sequentially.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 08 November 2018, 22:27:23
RAW, combining fire is definitely superior. In this game, my gut is that it's probably better in most cases, but it's not a slam dunk the way it is in TT. And sometimes the strategies go the other way - your fleet escaped at Vega by going for massive crit spreading, after all, and not by Lanchestering down single enemies sequentially.

Obviously.  And if the situation in your universe does not map 1:1 to the TT RAW in terms of damage effects, and damage per lifespan, Im comfortable leaving fire allocations in the hands of the NPC commanders, who (presumably) know how, exactly things work in their universe.  A disadvantaged force has to go for high risk high return strategies, which in this instance paid off.

While not 'push button kill mans', warships linked by laser communications and controlled by computers that are hopefully as capable as a C64 would seem to be able to arrange to fire weapons simultaneously, or within a few seconds of each other.  ToT Artillery fire was practiced in WW2 on equipment rather less advanced, after all - and they had to deal with a more complicated environment.

As I roll it around in my head, extending some accuracy 'edge' to energy weapons, beyond that baked into the rules, either in the Evasive Action condition or more generally, might help offset the numerous and painful drawbacks (Cost, Fire Control Inefficiency, poor damage per tonnage, inability to work to advantage in high speed engagement) that capital energy weapons suffer.

As for Vega more generally - the more I think about it, the more I think the best thing to do is lock Vega in a chest labeled 'not for publication' and throw it into the memory hole, given how many things we are looking at changing in light of Vega.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 08 November 2018, 22:40:36
Thanks for the link. Looking at it again, I think I'll keep it as-is.
Ok, so the design sheet is finalized.  I'll recheck my designs against it. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 09 November 2018, 08:57:20
The OP link sheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XW-l5w0nuEvtdhDpGjDDQICX2oPaJEEUwMI2xBSOlTA/edit#gid=0) seems to still have buggy fire control (30 AC 5s should have 24 tons of fire control).  Should we use the Cryhavoc sheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-CDKf4BJghLS2B52_9O5q4deG8h5G2A9W-hDcBHGcUY/edit#gid=0) instead?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 09 November 2018, 09:17:47
The OP link sheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XW-l5w0nuEvtdhDpGjDDQICX2oPaJEEUwMI2xBSOlTA/edit#gid=0) seems to still have buggy fire control (30 AC 5s should have 24 tons of fire control).  Should we use the Cryhavoc sheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-CDKf4BJghLS2B52_9O5q4deG8h5G2A9W-hDcBHGcUY/edit#gid=0) instead?

Yes. I'll update the OP.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 09 November 2018, 09:51:03
What's our current budget? I've been waiting for an update?

I've had 14 Billion in the past as the standard but got 24 last turn, I also invaded a new planet...

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 09 November 2018, 10:01:18
What's our current budget? I've been waiting for an update?

I've had 14 Billion in the past as the standard but got 24 last turn, I also invaded a new planet...

TT

Your budget for turn 7 (2410-2419) listed at the bottom of turn 6, is 24B
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 09 November 2018, 11:20:50
What's our current budget? I've been waiting for an update?

I've had 14 Billion in the past as the standard but got 24 last turn, I also invaded a new planet...

I jacked up the RWR, MH, and TC budgets to compensate for the new tech system, and to let you have a bit more resources to play with (because the old budgets left you a little too close to the edge). So yes, it's $24B - have fun!
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 09 November 2018, 11:44:18
Yes. I'll update the OP.
It looks like there is a different bug, although this may (?) only affect the TC.  Instead of Ceiling-1, you want Floor with a special case at 20.  something like:
=if(R22=20,0,0.1*FLOOR.MATH(R22/$R$28))
With the current form:
=MAX(0.1*(CEILING(R22/$R$28)-1), 0)
it underestimates the fire control tonnage at 40, 60, 80, etc... weapons.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 09 November 2018, 14:59:27
 :drool:

He..hehe..hehaha..buhahahAHAHA!

 >:D

-Ahem-

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 09 November 2018, 16:03:17
I originally planned to, and inquired about, taking over the Rim Worlds Navy. A nice blank sheet to get into this to little attention. But, due to popular request that the big players be filled, I decided to flip the bird.

Starting the current turn, I am taking over stewardship of the Free Worlds League. Or at least its Navy.
Hello again, everyone.

I'll take a bit to get acquainted, starting with reading up on my own forces.


...And just now, when the smaller players got more budget. A pity. But I figured, I just need to endure 65 turns and I can follow Thomas Marik and really turn some heads.  >:D
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 09 November 2018, 16:38:19
Stupid purple byrd! Don't eat me!

Welkome... neighbor?

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 09 November 2018, 20:31:38
Welcome sir, in desperate need of someone to distract Ze Germanz
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 10 November 2018, 12:32:46
It looks like there is a different bug, although this may (?) only affect the TC.  Instead of Ceiling-1, you want Floor with a special case at 20.  something like:
=if(R22=20,0,0.1*FLOOR.MATH(R22/$R$28))
With the current form:
=MAX(0.1*(CEILING(R22/$R$28)-1), 0)
it underestimates the fire control tonnage at 40, 60, 80, etc... weapons.

Silly me. I had the right formula on the nose arc, but didn't copy it down the column. Should be fixed now.
=IF(R20>$R$28, 0.1*FLOOR(R20/$R$28), 0)

I originally planned to, and inquired about, taking over the Rim Worlds Navy. A nice blank sheet to get into this to little attention. But, due to popular request that the big players be filled, I decided to flip the bird.

Starting the current turn, I am taking over stewardship of the Free Worlds League. Or at least its Navy.
Hello again, everyone.

I'll take a bit to get acquainted, starting with reading up on my own forces.


...And just now, when the smaller players got more budget. A pity. But I figured, I just need to endure 65 turns and I can follow Thomas Marik and really turn some heads.  >:D

Well, bird is the word, after all...

Welcome aboard!

---

Discussions of the Ares Convention within the Terran Hegemony's highest ranks have primarily focused on ensuring that the threat of nuclear weapons cannot be used by inferior powers to stop overwhelming Hegemony forces. As such, the Hegemony is considering a declaration that it would guarantee the treaty, and punish any violations with overwhelming force, to ensure that nuclear warfare never becomes accepted as a common tactical approach.

The Navy feels that its ongoing refit programs are sufficient to keep its fleet in fighting trim, and so the two new designs for the 2410s are both intended as logistical support ships.

Analysis of combat in outlying regions has shown a distressing tendency towards large numbers of JumpShips used to support ground operations, and then being left almost totally undefended for days or weeks. The Protector class is designed to protect against the inevitable loss of these ships if attacked. Far slower than any other naval vessel, the Protector cannot reach 1g even at full burn, and thus is impractical for routine transport between planets. However, it is faster than the JumpShips it's assigned to guard, and equipped with extremely sturdy armour and a range of weaponry well-suited to the defence of unarmed ships against raiders. It also carries a large fighter wing and advanced sensor systems to enhance the rather anemic sensors on typical JumpShips, while the unit cost has been kept low through the assumption that DropShips will be available on the escorted ships, and do not need to be docked to the Protector itself.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Protector
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $6,510,624,004.00
Magazine Cost: $127,438,000.00
BV2: 53,159

Mass: 500,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 1.0
Maximum Thrust: 1.5
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
16 Naval AC 30
16 Naval Laser 55
32 Capital Launcher Barracuda
32 LRM 20 (IS)
64 Machine Gun (IS)

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

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 30,000
Thrust
Safe: 1.0
Maximum: 1.5
Controls: 1,250
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (12 Integrity) 226,250
Jump Sail: (4 Integrity) 55
Structural Integrity: 150 75,000
Total Heat Sinks: 2544 Single 2,255
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 5000 points 2,040
Fire Control Computers: 0
Armor: 690 pts Standard 1,500
Fore: 110
Fore-Left/Right: 120/120
Aft-Left/Right: 120/120
Aft: 100

Dropship Capacity: 0 0
Grav Decks:
Small: 0
Medium: 2 200
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 45 315
Life Boats: 45 315

Crew And Passengers:
41 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 410
104 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 728
92 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 644
374 Bay Personnel in 2nd Class Quarters 2,618

# 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
8 Machine Gun (IS) LBS 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
8 Machine Gun (IS) RBS 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
4 LRM 20 (IS) Nose 24 48 (4.8-C) Long 40
4 LRM 20 (IS) Aft 24 48 (4.8-C) Long 40
4 LRM 20 (IS) FR 24 48 (4.8-C) Long 40
4 LRM 20 (IS) FL 24 48 (4.8-C) Long 40
4 LRM 20 (IS) AR 24 48 (4.8-C) Long 40
4 LRM 20 (IS) AL 24 48 (4.8-C) Long 40
4 LRM 20 (IS) LBS 24 48 (4.8-C) Long 40
4 LRM 20 (IS) RBS 24 48 (4.8-C) Long 40
4 Naval Laser 55 Nose 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
4 Naval Laser 55 Aft 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
4 Naval Laser 55 LBS 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
4 Naval Laser 55 RBS 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
4 Naval AC 30 FR 400 1200 (120-C) Long-C 14,000
4 Naval AC 30 FL 400 1200 (120-C) Long-C 14,000
4 Naval AC 30 AR 400 1200 (120-C) Long-C 14,000
4 Naval AC 30 AL 400 1200 (120-C) Long-C 14,000
4 Capital Launcher Barracuda Nose 40 80 (8-C) Extreme-C 360
4 Capital Launcher Barracuda Aft 40 80 (8-C) Extreme-C 360
4 Capital Launcher Barracuda FR 40 80 (8-C) Extreme-C 360
4 Capital Launcher Barracuda FL 40 80 (8-C) Extreme-C 360
4 Capital Launcher Barracuda AR 40 80 (8-C) Extreme-C 360
4 Capital Launcher Barracuda AL 40 80 (8-C) Extreme-C 360
4 Capital Launcher Barracuda LBS 40 80 (8-C) Extreme-C 360
4 Capital Launcher Barracuda RBS 40 80 (8-C) Extreme-C 360

Ammo Rounds Mass
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 15600 78
LRM 20 (IS) Ammo 1920 320
Naval AC 30 Ammo 1600 1,280
Capital Launcher Barracuda Ammo 320 9,600

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
35,000 Cargo, Standard 35,000 2
8,700 Cargo, Refrigerated 10,000 1
6 Bay Small Craft 1,200 2
144 Bay Fighter 21,600 8
2 Bay Conventional Infantry (IS), Foot 10 0
NCSS Large 500

The Newgrange is intended to offer logistical support to fleets on deep strike operations. It mounts no meaningful weaponry(only small defensive installations), but it's equipped with repair facilities sufficient to repair any ship expected to be in the Terran inventory for the foreseeable future, with a massive cargo bay to support its operations, and facilities for some 7,000 repair crew. While the ship is far too expensive to operate in large numbers, the goal is to attach one to each of the three principal fleets, to support any long-range operations which may be necessary.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Newgrange
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $42,842,306,004.00
Magazine Cost: $30,280,400.00
BV2: 25,902

Mass: 2,000,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 3.0
Maximum Thrust: 4.5
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
384 Machine Gun (IS)
96 LRM 20 (IS)

Class/Model/Name: Newgrange
Mass: 2,000,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 360,000
Thrust
Safe: 3.0
Maximum: 4.5
Controls: 5,000
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (39 Integrity) 905,000
Jump Sail: (8 Integrity) 130
Structural Integrity: 50 100,000
Total Heat Sinks: 893 Single 0
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 25000 points 10,200
Fire Control Computers: 346
Armor: 830 pts Standard 2,000
Fore: 110
Fore-Left/Right: 120/120
Aft-Left/Right: 120/120
Aft: 100

Dropship Capacity: 6 6,000
Grav Decks:
Small: 0
Medium: 0
Large: 4 2,000
Escape Pods: 600 4,200
Life Boats: 600 4,200

Crew And Passengers:
89 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 890
356 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 2,492
80 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 560
120 Bay Personnel (included below)
200 1st Class Passengers 2,000
7000 2nd Class Passengers 49,000

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
48 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 96 (9.6-C) Short-PDS 24
48 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 96 (9.6-C) Short-PDS 24
48 Machine Gun (IS) FR 96 (9.6-C) Short-PDS 24
48 Machine Gun (IS) FL 96 (9.6-C) Short-PDS 24
48 Machine Gun (IS) AR 96 (9.6-C) Short-PDS 24
48 Machine Gun (IS) AL 96 (9.6-C) Short-PDS 24
48 Machine Gun (IS) LBS 96 (9.6-C) Short-PDS 24
48 Machine Gun (IS) RBS 96 (9.6-C) Short-PDS 24
12 LRM 20 (IS) Nose 72 144 (14.4-C) Long 120
12 LRM 20 (IS) Aft 72 144 (14.4-C) Long 120
12 LRM 20 (IS) FR 72 144 (14.4-C) Long 120
12 LRM 20 (IS) FL 72 144 (14.4-C) Long 120
12 LRM 20 (IS) AR 72 144 (14.4-C) Long 120
12 LRM 20 (IS) AL 72 144 (14.4-C) Long 120
12 LRM 20 (IS) LBS 72 144 (14.4-C) Long 120
12 LRM 20 (IS) RBS 72 144 (14.4-C) Long 120

Ammo Rounds Mass
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 56080 280
LRM 20 (IS) Ammo 6000 1,000

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
450,000 Cargo, Standard 450,000 4
17,400 Cargo, Refrigerated 20,000 4
24 Bay Small Craft 4,800 6
2,000,000 Naval Repair Unpressurized 50,000 1
250,000 Naval Repair Pressurized 18,750 1

The elderly Dart-class cruisers have been removed from front-line service as WarShips entirely. They are now designated "armed transports", to reflect their substantial cargo-carrying capacity, generous DropShip complements, and slow speeds.

Phased upgrades of the fleet also continue through the 2410s. The two hulls selected for upgrades are the Monsoon and Essex.

The Monsoon is a large and powerful ship, but its firepower is lower than should be expected from a ship of that scale. The Cameron-era obsession with on-board cargo space has been scaled back to allow for a sufficiently powerful primary battery to justify the title of "battleship" against any conceivable opponent. The fighter wing has also been scaled up modestly, and a modern missile defence system has been added, though the dual-purpose naval lasers have been removed entirely. The Monsoon II will rely on its escorting Vincents, Quixotes, and fighter craft to target small opponents and act as a screen for enemy firepower, and will instead focus its own firepower exclusively on the enemy's battle line. As befits a flagship, the Monsoon II has also received an electronics upgrade, and now carries the same advanced sensor system as previously used by the Bonaventure.

The total cost of these changes is severe, both financially and in terms of the carrying capacity of a Terran fleet. However, the new ship models of the last two decades are expected to be able to deal with the cargo needs of the fleet even on deep-strike missions, and the clearer contrast between combat and non-combat ships should improve the fleet's overall efficiency.

12x NAC/35 + 8x NAC/30 -> 24x NAC/35 (broadside)
40x NL/45 -> 72x Heavy NPPC (nose/aft/quarters)
3x White Shark -> removed
Nil point defence -> 64x MG
8 small craft + 18 fighters -> 12 small craft + 72 fighters
Standard sensors -> LNCSS
295 kton cargo -> 80 kton cargo
$14,556m -> $16,498m

The Essex was designed primarily as a gun-carrying ship, but its armour was far too weak to stand in any sort of serious combat, and its guns were also badly under-powered for the role. Due to this confusion of roles, the ship was previously removed from production entirely under the Cameron regime, but the 20 old Essexes stayed in service. A final decision on this class was needed, and Echohawk's new government decided to retain and modernize the Essex instead of scrapping it outright. Rather than up-gunning it and allowing it to be picked off by any plausible enemy, it was instead converted to a fleet carrier, where its thin armour and poor structural strength would be less of a vulnerability, and where it could more effectively serve as an asset for the fleet. Only the lightest naval lasers were retained as capital weaponry, though as usual a modern point defence system was installed.

12x NAC/10 + 10x NL/45 -> removed
Nil point defence -> 48x LRM-20, 96x MG
12x small craft -> 6x small craft, 360x fighter
134 kton cargo -> 108 kton cargo
$5,983m -> $5,996m

BUDGET: $775,000m
Shipyards - Terra 7>8: $80,000m
Maintenance(@100%): $295,998m
R&D(Newgrange, Protector, Monsoon II, Essex II): $58,605m
Upgrades(16x Monsoon II, 20x Essex II): $31,332m
2x Newgrange: $81,684m
12x Protector: $78,192m
6x Charon: $50,094m
900x small craft: $9,000m
15,000x fighter: $75,000m
Research(5A, 5M, 5S): $15,000m

Remaining: $95m

---

Edit: To piggyback on Marcus' naval estimates (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1457233#msg1457233), the THN now has:
- 133.79 MT of front-line combat ships, of which:
> 107.78MT in modern ships(Vincents and Quixote/Black Lion/Lola/Monsoon/Essex IIs)
> 26.01MT in the form of un-modernized ships (Dreadnoughts, Aegises, and Cruisers)
- 14.7 MT of support combat ships (Bonaventures and Vigilants), with 6MT(Protectors) under construction
- 21.44MT of transport and support ships(Potemkins, Charons, Newgranges, and Darts), with 8.2MT under construction

Yards: 1x8/3x6/5x4/11x3/3x2/10x1

Their designs are intentionally specialized in odd ways, overcosted, and not especially optimal. They also don't spend much on training, and their best fleets are slow too. But still, that's a beatstick of a fleet. All five great houses combined have 77.49MT of fleet units, for reference. (The Echohawk coup killed 16.76MT of ships, which is more than anyone except the LC has in their fleet). And this is after I've spent two turns building zero new front-line WarShips. I am so glad I didn't let a human player have the TH...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 10 November 2018, 14:13:09
The Monsoon refit looks a lot like the Tyr refit writ large.  Not sure how the lack of on-board PDS/AAA will work out.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 10 November 2018, 15:07:39
W.r.t. the Newgrange, the rules don't directly say that a negative dropship capacity isn't allowed, but I had always assumed that.  Looking over TR3057, apparently this is not the case for various repair yards, so the maximum capacity of all repair bays can exceed the tonnage.

UnLimiTeD: great to have you :-)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 10 November 2018, 20:39:20
Yes. I was seriously considering creating a fleet of transformers that can fold into itself.
Alas, technology isn't advanced enough yet.
Were the rules on Grav Decks changed so warships can mount large ones?

Are there any plans to reduce machinegun spam or encourage ship sizes that can't be neatly divided by 250000?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 10 November 2018, 21:38:41
Believe that warships are limited to 250m grav decks.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 10 November 2018, 22:05:19
The Monsoon refit looks a lot like the Tyr refit writ large.  Not sure how the lack of on-board PDS/AAA will work out.

If it gets used in the way the TH predicts, it should be fine. Remember that it does have 64 MG, 72 ASF, and 6 DS, so it's not totally naked even if it was solo. In a fleet, it should work well enough. However, if the escorts get stripped away, the THN could have a very bad day. (I'm imagining their morale cracking in a bad battle, the Vincents turning tail, and the Monsoons getting left naked, for example). Specialization is a good strategy if you can make sure that you always have the right specialized tool for any given job, but it does tend to fall apart if you bring a knife to a gunfight.

W.r.t. the Newgrange, the rules don't directly say that a negative dropship capacity isn't allowed, but I had always assumed that.  Looking over TR3057, apparently this is not the case for various repair yards, so the maximum capacity of all repair bays can exceed the tonnage.

It's not really abuseable. The KF rules say you can't jump anything with a jump drive, and the repair bay rules say that you can't thrust with anything inside (unless it's a reinforced bay, but that tech doesn't exist yet). Despite being a bay large enough for its own mass, it also won't be able to self-swallow - it could carry a McKenna, but not another Newgrange. (There's no explicit rules for this, but meh. It's good to be GM.)

Yes. I was seriously considering creating a fleet of transformers that can fold into itself.
Alas, technology isn't advanced enough yet.
Were the rules on Grav Decks changed so warships can mount large ones?

Believe that warships are limited to 250m grav decks.

Huh, you're correct. I was going by the canon Newgrange, which has 4x 500m grav decks, but it seems that those are illegal now. Didn't notice that.

House rule: They're okay on repair ships, because of their ridiculous girth. If you're big enough to totally envelop a battleship with its own 250m grav decks, you're big enough to have your own 500m grav decks. The same can also be true of other ships that are unusually large for some reason. Given that big grav decks have no game-rule advantages I know of, feel free to use them whenever you feel that they're appropriate.

Are there any plans to reduce machinegun spam or encourage ship sizes that can't be neatly divided by 250000?

Re MG spam, my current plan is to change the stats on the AMS to be less spammable, and then make the MG slowly go obsolete thereafter. It's a long-term fix, but it's the only thing I can really do without causing chaos.

Re ship sizes, I trust the players not to max-min too relentlessly, and to use their powers in moderation, for the sake of a realistic and mutually satisfying game. (Or, if you want the serious answer, no. I figure 250kt is granular enough that it's not too egregious, and that's also too fundamental to easily change.)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 11 November 2018, 06:44:33
To solve that, a bit of brainstorming:


Regarding Grav-Decks: Why a newgrange does that, you needn't envelop another ship. It could very well just be a skeleton repair scaffolding.
Indeed, I was planning for a ship that could fold open said repair facility for field repairs on other ships.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 11 November 2018, 15:19:32
To solve that, a bit of brainstorming:

  • Building ships below the size cap for a yard is cheaper - f.Ex. for 2% lower, -1% cost. Capped at -2.5%, could be raised with technology
  • Fitting the above, maybe extra techs that reward mass production with extra production capacity or an additive cost reduction?
  • I'd recommend assuming that every Warship or armed jumpship automatically has limited, integral point defense. Say, +5 MGs or later 2 AMS per ship (I think you mostly roll the entire fleet for missile strikes, so no point in adding them to a facing).
  • Missile Strikes above an arbitrary number, say, 100 Missiles, are slightly easier to hit, assuming it's also more missiles than the ship has Point defense to bring to bear on them.
  • Repeated Missile interceptions in a single turn, from a single ship, degrade in efficiency, preferably more on larger PD-batteries. This and the above would encourage having multiple ships for the task.
  • I still think a softcap/effective limit on guns per facing, or how many can be fired at once, would do us good. Even if a large ship can fit far more bays, surface area doesn't increase as fast as volume.
  • Actually, may not add a tech for a 1-shot screenlauncher earlier in the techtree, and also dissect the important techs like EMC and bracketing into multiple levels?

Regarding Grav-Decks: Why a newgrange does that, you needn't envelop another ship. It could very well just be a skeleton repair scaffolding.
Indeed, I was planning for a ship that could fold open said repair facility for field repairs on other ships.

Those cost drops seem impractical. Too much bookkeeping, not enough benefit. If this was a computer game I'd be all over it(and I've mulled about similar ideas a few times, actually), but when we have to track everything more or less by hand, I shy away from rules like that.

I'm not sure what benefit integrated PD has, given that nobody except the THN has built ships lacking PD, and the THN really needs no help.

Diminishing returns to scale are definitely a part of how I've been conducting battles, both for the missile count and for PD. I don't have firm rules here, admittedly, but the principle is one I've been using.

Soft caps on weapon counts might be nice, but I don't know how to add them in a way that's better than what the fire control rules already do. (Fire control rules aren't very good, of course, but given that it needs to be compatible with existing designs and keep to the spirit of BT, I don't have better)

Splitting techs might make sense, and I've intentionally left a few slots open to allow for it if I come up with good ideas down the line.

Re the Newgrange, you're right that enveloping the ship to be repaired in a full-clamshell mobile shipyard is unnecessary. However, it's a THN ship, and "excessive overkill" is basically their modus operandi. If they're dropping $43B per ship on it(or more like $57B with R&D costs, given the low production run), then it'll have bells and whistles not dreamed of by mortal man.

Edit: An idea for fire control is coming to me, which might be better in some ways. If the fire control limit is 20, you can have 20 capital weapons and 20 light weapons per facing. You can go over that, but 21-40 is a -1 to hit, 41-60 is -2 to hit, and so on. No fire control mass, just to-hit penalties. Of course, I'd need to define "to hit" in the context of PD systems, and I might want to scale the number by ship size somewhat, but it could possibly work.

That said, I don't like it much right now. It's a fairly big change to the rules, it requires a big spreadsheet change, it messes with existing designs, and it doesn't really accomplish much that needs accomplishing right now. Likewise, I've been thinking over the army thing, and I'm not really a fan. It'll be happening in the background, but it doesn't need to move to the foreground. I may do a similar background effect of diminishing returns to more MGs(in whatever form that takes fluff-wise), but a big rule change like that may be overkill.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 11 November 2018, 17:08:44
Well, I figured multiplying the final price wouldn't be that hard, but I suppose it is a minor concern at worst. Throwing out random ideas has the disadvantage that most of them won't be any good. I mainly see the vast majority of designs in the future to be built after the corner-posting principle, with excessive amounts of PD, limited integral fighter support and little to no dropships, and larger ships always being better for everything until you reach fire control inefficiency. I can work with that, but I wanted to share that concern before

I honestly have no idea how you conduct battles, so you might indeed factor in things to counteract rules shenanigans. Of course, that also means that will inevitably have a bias towards how you think a fight should go down, but don't we all?

Edit: Where do I actually build space stations?
In yards, as well?
And I suppose I need a tug to move them?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 11 November 2018, 17:52:46
Well, I figured multiplying the final price wouldn't be that hard, but I suppose it is a minor concern at worst. Throwing out random ideas has the disadvantage that most of them won't be any good. I mainly see the vast majority of designs in the future to be built after the corner-posting principle, with excessive amounts of PD, limited integral fighter support and little to no dropships, and larger ships always being better for everything until you reach fire control inefficiency. I can work with that, but I wanted to share that concern before

I honestly have no idea how you conduct battles, so you might indeed factor in things to counteract rules shenanigans. Of course, that also means that will inevitably have a bias towards how you think a fight should go down, but don't we all?

Edit: Where do I actually build space stations?
In yards, as well?
And I suppose I need a tug to move them?

As you say, throwing around random ideas has a low success rate. Don't let my disagreements stop you from doing the same again - I try not to go too crazy here, but it's fun to think crazy sometimes.

I conduct battles based on feel, tbh. I don't have any hard-and-fast rules, which may be why I frustrate people with occasional inconsistencies.

As for building stations, they're assumed to be built on-site. They don't require any yard space. They're inherently a lot more limited than ships, so I don't mind giving people the ability to dream big.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 11 November 2018, 19:38:27
Does anyone have the editor links for my current ships?
Easier to recreate them if I can just get the plans. ^^
Though I suppose I can do that by hand if need be.

Going by feel, the most successful strategy is probably being as cost effective as possible, as numerical superiority invokes stronger feelings of win than minor advantages in quality, and in case of loss, it's a lower repair bill.  ^-^
Speaking of random ideas, ... no actually, let's not. But, what effect does cargo space have on maintenance?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 11 November 2018, 20:17:16
Does anyone have the editor links for my current ships?
Easier to recreate them if I can just get the plans. ^^

Try this:
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1455413#msg1455413 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1455413#msg1455413)
Just replace Maingunnery for you... I believe Lang can rewrite the players name for you even if the OP was different. Though only a MOD can fix any posts, best thing we can do is replace his name for yours. But the updated fixes would be your takes. Including if you just re-post them in your name.

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 11 November 2018, 21:38:52
THIS HAS BEEN RETCON'D FOR TURN 8

End Turn 6 Budget: 3 Billion, 855 Million
TAXES and Loot: 24 Billion

Beginning Turn 7: 27 Billion, 855 Million

Retcon:                                      2.574 Billion, Scapha II upgrade
Periphery Aid Package:             1 Billion, helping the Illyrian Palatinate, rebuild
Maintenance:                             4 Billion ~ 120% ( or close to that )
Buying, Cyclone-clones, Davion:   .250 Million ( these are pirated clones so nah!  :P ) 50 fighters / 5 Ala @ 10 ASF each ( Cyclonas- latin )
Buying, Kutai, Kurita:   5 Billion in Germanium no less! ( Notice: this is my way of using the yakuza-owned Terada Warship Yards as my supplier, fluffiness eh?  ;) ) ex-DCA Trondheim

End Turn 7 Budget: 15 Billion 31 Million

Story time...

Marian Action News Network ( MANN )
Illyrian Palatinate
Marian Hegemony Command HQ

Prefect O'Hara, commander of Second Legio, continues to patrol the heavily dense surroundings in hope of finding any remaining rebels. General Tanner had forwarded his recommendations for her to take the prized Aquila rank. Following her completion of the campaign on Illyria, her next a order of business would be to establish a permanent garrison of troops of which she'll hopefully would lead. Time will tell.

{ Meanwhile elsewhere... }

A lone independent tramp jumpship freighter crossed the fluctuated space border form FWL, carrying the news of a new Terran Hegemony mandate. The one about the makings of War and it's consequences, including the use of Nuclear weapons on a target. It will arrive transmitting several important coded messages to the outlining stations before leaving a week or so later back into the black inky void of known space...

Said messages were sent, decoded and forwarded to the Legatus Cornius, now Prefect Cornius, current Commanding officer of Collegium Bellorum Imperium, Special Division under direct command of Imperator Pi. His assignment is to improve as much of the HAF as possible, using Foreign and Domestic technologies. His most recent improvement was a clone copy of House Davion's Cyclone Aerospace fighter, naming it Cyclonas, it would hopefully lead the way towards future tech and more resources. His somewhat illegal endeavor might cause alarm, but it was considered a bold move none the least. Currently two Ala are assigned to Alphard and Vi with the other three are assigned to the Yards as fast interceptors for protection. Plans are currently underway to replace majority of the fighters with faster designs.

FLEET ACTION:

First Fleet: aka Alpha, currently on patrol
Alphard is a Scapha II, leadship Alphard Task Force
Spica is a Scapha I, Spike
Trojan is a Trojan II, scoutship for ATF
Neapolis is a Kuati, picket ship for ATF

Second Fleet: aka Beta, currently over Illyria
Vi Unitatis Thru is a Scapha II, leadship of Vi Task Force
Pompeii is a Trojan II, Scout for VTF
Ignis is a Scapha I, Fire

Lothario Fleet: aka Delta, currently over Illyria
Pride of Lothario is a Scapha I
Frozen Myst is a civilian jumpship, commands Tenara 1

Fleet Tenders: aka Tenara 1 < Latin for Tender >
Using numbers... generic jumpers so Invader-like.

#2 -  " Duo "
#3 -  " Tres "
#4 -  " Quattuor "
#5 -  " Quīnque "

Fleet Tenders: aka Tenara 2
Republic of Justice is a civilian jumpship, commands Tenara 2
#7 - " Septem "
#8 - " Octo "
#9 - " Novem "

* Ex-DCA Trondheim, Kutai-class, now MHS Trondheim.

Current Jumpship forces attached: RoJ and Octo; Beta and Novem; Alpha, Septem is attached to Delta.

Code: [Select]
Cyclonas Aero
IS TW non-box set
80 tons 
BV: 1,210
Cost: 4,802,653 C-bills

Movement: 6/9
Engine: 320
Heat Sinks: 13

Structural Integrity: 8
Armor: 241 (Ferro-Aluminum)
                        Armor
-----------------------------
Nose                       73
Left Wing                  60
Right Wing                 60
Aft                        48


Weapon                         Loc  Heat
----------------------------------------
Machine Gun                    NOS     0
Machine Gun                    NOS     0
SRM 4                          NOS     3
SRM 6                          RWG     4
AC/5                           RWG     1
SRM 6                          LWG     4
AC/5                           LWG     1
Machine Gun                    AFT     0
Machine Gun                    AFT     0
Machine Gun                    NOS     0
Machine Gun                    NOS     0

Ammo                           Loc Shots
----------------------------------------
SRM 4 Ammo                     NOS    25
SRM 6 Ammo                     RWG    15
AC/5 Ammo                      RWG    20
SRM 6 Ammo                     LWG    15
AC/5 Ammo                      LWG    20
Machine Gun Ammo               AFT   200

(  >:D You all know me... I have something up my sleeve... )

Pi

( Friendly reminder, PAGE 40 folks! ) Edit: Spelling errors.. perfect now!  ;)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 11 November 2018, 21:49:20
Taurian Concordat 2410-2419 (designs list (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1455413#msg1455413))

Kannon
When news of the battle at Kannon first reached the Taurian Concordat in 2401 it was assumed that later reports would correct it. When the more complete and comprehensive reports filtered in over 2402 it was still a shock.  Despite more than one wise-crack about 'paper mache Lyran fighters', a serious study was required.  Shannon Bream was again tapped by Lena to lead that study.  The Kannon study produced three conclusions:
In 2403 Lena Wilhight retires after 23 years, confident that Shannon Bream can take over effectively.  Shannon immediately commissions new designs to address learnings from the battle of Kannon.

Building the Wall
Even with a substantial increase in budgets projected for the coming decade, the disparity with greater powers requires careful design tradeoffs.  Two budget approaches were investigated: a refit of existing warships and a variant of the Taurus I taking advantage of the TC experience with massive fire control.  The former was eventually discarded as infeasible given the unfortunate weakness of small warship armor.  The design winner was the Nova (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/108AJlm_pwKPCSoIS6zg__vGmUVbPLpscvT7BT8fmFM8/edit?usp=sharing).  While the armor could not be improved, the Capital Weapon array features a massive battery of 38 NL55s arrayed around 9 NAC 20s spread across 3 bays.  All of this firepower is carefully arranged so that a Tick can nestle amongst it without being harmed.  The combined firepower is 3 times more than a Taurus I at extreme ranges and brutal in NAC 20 ranges while retaining the customary smothering TC missile defense. 
Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Nova Destroyer Station
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $630,030,000.00
Magazine Cost: $8,740,000.00
BV2: 44,707

Mass: 100,000
Power Plant: Station-Keeping Drive
Safe Thrust: .75 (with Tick)
Maximum Thrust: 1 (with Tick)
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
38 Naval Laser 55
9 Naval AC 20
1000 Machine Gun (IS)

Class/Model/Name: Nova
Mass: 100,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 1,200.00
Thrust
Safe: .75 (with Tick)
Maximum:         1 (with Tick)
Controls: 100.00
Structural Integrity: 1 1,000.00
Total Heat Sinks: 3770 Single 3,677.00
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 40000 points 4,080.00
Fire Control Computers: 13,360.00
Armor: 315 pts Standard 393.00
Fore: 65
Fore-Left/Right: 60/60
Aft-Left/Right: 45/45
Aft: 40

Grav Decks:
Small: 1 50.00
Escape Pods: 41 287.00

Crew And Passengers:
47 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 470.00
18 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 126.00
214 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 1,498.00
35 Bay Personnel 0.00
164 Steerage Passengers 820.00  (Marines and a few extra)

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
38 Naval Laser 55 Nose 3230 2090 (209-C) Extreme-C 41,800.00
9 Naval AC 20 Nose 540 1800 (180-C) 22,500.00 with 360 rounds
200 Machine Gun (IS) FL 400 (40-C) 100.00  with 4000 rounds
200 Machine Gun (IS) FR 400 (40-C) 100.00  with 4000 rounds
200 Machine Gun (IS) AL 400 (40-C) 100.00  with 4000 rounds
200 Machine Gun (IS) AR 400 (40-C) 100.00  with 4000 rounds
200 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 400 (40-C) 100.00  with 4000 rounds

Equipment and Bays:
5595 tons Cargo (Tick + supplies for a year) 1 door
7 Smallcraft bays (6 Crestbreakers and 1 David) 4 doors

Maximizing Aerospace Fighters
Testing revealed that the ghost fighters (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1444988#msg1444988) concept is viable against stationary opponents.  While invading forces are near-stationary for the time of a land invasion improving the targeting is essential.  Dusting off the warship refit designs, a new concept for the Kutai was created---an up-engined raider fast enough to avoid other ships with a sensor suite providing deep visibility into the battlefield.  The design was such a radical rethink that it was given a new name: Matador (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15CLxIiOhTNAgzQMWXqK9rsdCU4T5x4BFcWTtwMWCJ_k/edit?usp=sharing).  The Matador is designed for survivability through speed and massive point defense.  With 4.5g of acceleration, no fighter bearing missiles can close with it.  For unburdened fighters, the heavy strike 4.5g designs common in warship combat cannot close either as the Matador can always boost perpendicular to their closing velocity.  The Matador is designed to operate alone using it's overwhelming strategic speed and sensors to provide a comprehensive view of the battlespace and act on opportunities as they arise.   When forced into combat, the Matador is designed to literally run circles around an opponent while strafing with naval lasers.
Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Matador Raider
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $4,948,132,000.00
Magazine Cost: $4,379,000.00
BV2: 27,179

Mass: 200,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 6
Maximum Thrust: 9
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
12 Naval Laser 55
1558 Machine Gun (IS)
30 LRM 20 (IS)

Class/Model/Name: Matador
Mass: 200,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 72,000.00
Thrust
Safe: 6
Maximum: 9
Controls: 500.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (6 Integrity) 90,500.00
Jump Sail: (3 Integrity) 40.00
Structural Integrity: 40 8,000.00
Total Heat Sinks: 1200 Single 776.00
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 20000 points 4,080.00
Fire Control Computers: 1,891.00
Armor: 120 pts Standard 160.00
Fore: 16
Fore-Left/Right: 18/18
Aft-Left/Right: 23/23
Aft: 22

Dropship Capacity: 0.00
Grav Decks:
Small: 1 50.00
Escape Pods: 54 378.00

Crew And Passengers:
64 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 640.00
21 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 147.00
289 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 2,023.00
10 Bay Personnel 0.00
154 Steerage Passengers 770.00  (Marines and a few extra)

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
6 Naval Laser 55 AL 510 330 (33-C) Extreme-C 6,600.00
6 Naval Laser 55 AR 510 330 (33-C) 6,600.00
10 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 20 (2-C) 5.00
10 Machine Gun (IS) FL 20 (2-C) 5.00
10 Machine Gun (IS) FR 20 (2-C) 5.00
500 Machine Gun (IS) LBS 1000 (100-C) 250.00
500 Machine Gun (IS) RBS 1000 (100-C) 250.00
500 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 1000 (100-C) 250.00
14 Machine Gun (IS) AL 28 (2.8-C) 7.00
14 Machine Gun (IS) AR 28 (2.8-C) 7.00
10 LRM 20 (IS) FL 60 120 (12-C) 100.00
10 LRM 20 (IS) FR 60 120 (12-C) 100.00
10 LRM 20 (IS) Nose 60 120 (12-C) 100.00

All MGs have 100 shots and all LRMs have 24 shots

Equipment Mass
NCSS Large 500.00
Cargo                                      1983
Smallcraft bays                           2  (1 David, 1 Cargo)

Information
The Siesta highway's success has encouraged the TCN admiralty to search for additional methods to squeeze out reaction time, finding several sources.
The above changes reduce the the most active frontier to 5 or fewer jumps from Diefenbaker pushing reaction times down to less than a week.

Logistics
A logistics simplification program is run, reducing all ammo-using weapons to LRMs for ASF scale weapons, machine guns for point defense, and NAC/20s for capital warfare. This simplifies ammunition requirements while providing particularly long engagement ranges.  To support this effort, a Rager refit is created and applied systematically.
Code: [Select]
90 ton Rager II Base Tech Level: Standard (IS)
Weight: 90 tons
BV: 1,840
Cost: 5,978,205 C-bills
Movement: 6/9
Engine: 360
Heat Sinks: 10
Fuel Points: 400 (5.0 tons)
Structural Integrity: 9
Armor: 403 (Ferro-Aluminum)
Nose: 121
Left/right Wing: 101
Aft: 80

Weapons Loc Heat
2x LRM 15 NOS 5
3x Machine Gun NOS 0
4x Machine Gun RWG 0
4x Machine Gun LWG 0
Machine Gun Ammo: 200 shots
LRM 15 Ammo: 48 shots

Ares Conventions
The TCN admiralty regards nuclear weapons as an essential tool for asymetric warfare in the defense of the Concordat against determined assault by the greater powers of the Inner Sphere.  As such, they suggest simply copying the language of the UHC with the additional proviso that the TC will not engage in first use against civilian targets.

Deployments
The Matadors will patrol the jump network.   The Nova and Taurus I fleets will be based at Diefenbaker ready to respond to emergencies as/when they arise.  About half of the Aerospace Fighters are based with the fleet while the other half are scattered across the worlds in defensive bases.  Heavily Industrialized worlds have 2 air divisions of ASF, Industrialized worlds have an air division of ASF, major colonies have a flight of ASF, and minor colonies have an ASF wing.

Budget
The TCN has decided to increase the readiness of all frontline forces {ASF, Warships, Taurus I, and Nova} (OOC to 120%).  In addition, the TCN has decided to deeply emphasize strategic mobility by radically increasing pay, schooling, and other support for astrogators (OOC, represented by 1%).
Code: [Select]
Cost/unit #active Maintenance percent
Kutai 6092 2 1474 121
Marathon 621 7 435 100 All in Taurus orbit
Independence 4567 0 0 0 Mothballed
Fighters 5 1685 1011 120
Smallcraft 10 312 312 100
Mother 933 6 565 101 1 servicing Siesta network, 5 ready for action
Taurus I v2 346 5 208 120
Tick v2 235 5 118 100 1 per Taurus I, 1 per Nova
Light DS 300 8 0 0 8 mothballed
Siesta 131 20 262 100
Siesta Tanker 160 1 16 100
Total Maintenance 4401
The Matador and Nova are the primary new designs.
Code: [Select]
Prototyping costs 2784
Matador refit 2474
Nova refit 315
                  
Most of the budget goes towards building the new Nova class destroyer stations.
Code: [Select]
New Construction 14780
Matador 0 2 0 Refit
Nova 630 8 5048 New Build
Mother 933 3 2799 New Build
Fighters 309 1545 All Ragers
Smallcraft 156 1560
Siesta 131 6 786 One supports the fleet as a collier, the others build out the UHC jump network
Tick v2 235 10 2350 8 for the Nova class, 2 for the Taurus Is
Taurus I v2 346 2 692 Host ground forces
The TC has made a strategic decision to increase research by a factor of 8.
Code: [Select]

Research (Advancement) 1000
Savings from last turn -2
Savings for next turn 40

Edit: The TCN will lobby with the Protector to shift the army's transport budget to the TCN.  The TCN can transport and simultaneously land a regiment at a lower cost than the army's Dropship/Jumpship approach (2.5B instead of 2.8B).  When landing in two waves is acceptable, this can further drop to 1.25B instead of 2.8B.   Just tell us how many regiments of army transport are required and give us the budget.
Edit: Small update to Matador & added links.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 11 November 2018, 22:02:04
...Beginning Turn 7...

You have two Turn 7s.  One here (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1458428#msg1458428) and one here (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.1170).  The new overrides the old?

Also: the offer was 4 Billion for the Independence (not the Kutai).  Still want it?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 11 November 2018, 22:07:06
> Look elsewhere... <

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 11 November 2018, 22:56:00
Matador can't be that fast if it's a Kutai variant, thrust can only be adjusted +/-1 from the base design.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 11 November 2018, 23:23:45
Matador can't be that fast if it's a Kutai variant, thrust can only be adjusted +/-1 from the base design.
Huh, did the language on the refit rules just change?  My recollection (which I read pretty carefully) was that there are constraints on SI and tonnage but not on thrust, with variants having different rules that constrained thrust but relaxed SI & tonnage constraints.

I can roll with it, but I'd like confirmation before redoing my turn.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 11 November 2018, 23:30:33
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rzh-GEbKmiqNfPPj-zQj-9ZqiWKz11MmtqM73815wOo/edit#gid=1453108897 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rzh-GEbKmiqNfPPj-zQj-9ZqiWKz11MmtqM73815wOo/edit#gid=1453108897)

Under Items for Purchase
Bottom page, line 24.

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 11 November 2018, 23:49:21
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rzh-GEbKmiqNfPPj-zQj-9ZqiWKz11MmtqM73815wOo/edit#gid=1453108897 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rzh-GEbKmiqNfPPj-zQj-9ZqiWKz11MmtqM73815wOo/edit#gid=1453108897)

Under Items for Purchase
Bottom page, line 24.
Yes, I know where the wording is.  I just want to know if this change is official.  Previously, a refit was not a variant. 

I'm also unclear on whether a variant of a variant is allowed to have thrust change by 2. 

Depending on answers, you may yet get a Kutai  :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 12 November 2018, 03:55:01
Quote
Must do R&D for variant of the ship(=50% of new model's cost) before refitting.

That part of refitting has always been there as far as I recall.

Meanwhile my budget has been adjusted, due to sales to the Marians.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 12 November 2018, 04:16:45
Try this:
...
Ah, no, I just wondered if someone still has a filled online spreadsheet of the design or something. Guess I'll just recreate them by hand before modifying them. Need to be able to have something I could potentially refit the old ships to, but possibly also a new design to adapt to a changing battlefield. I have a rather ... small force list. 2 ships?
Btw, did maingunnery put a list of names for existing ships down somewhere?
They are named after existing planets, but I don't know which, as of yet.

What was the ruling on fighters now? Last I've read was a 40/1 ratio of std. to capital damage, and ... I think that's still too much. I'd recommend 20/1, with fighters dealing half damage against capital armour, so as to not kill dropships before they are even developed.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 12 November 2018, 07:36:10
That part of refitting has always been there as far as I recall.
Ok. 

What are the thrust limits on a variant of a variant?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 12 November 2018, 10:26:45
Seeing four-digit numbers of machine guns on designs, I'll make it official that there *will* be diminishing returns from numbers that high. Each additional gun still improves your PD value, but the marginal increase from the 1548th machine gun will be very small indeed. At some point, you're saturating your fire control computers, and the rest are just doing the spray-and-pray thing. FYI, one of my background projects is putting formulas on some of my rulings, to ensure consistency. These won't be public, but they should help ensure things stay the same from battle to battle. I've got formulas for maintenance expenses, and I'll be coming up with one for effective MG count before the next turn.

A variant can change by +- 20 ktons, +-  10 SI, and +- 1 thrust (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1425279#msg1425279). However, a refit is more limited, because you're stuck with an existing ship and not merely a blueprint. I can't check the master sheet at work, but I think I said that mass, SI, and thrust are all locked on a refit. Variants are for ships being produced new based on a similar design to an existing hull, which nobody has done yet.

That said, the TC's various Tick/Mother-portable station designs would all count as variants, for what that's worth. Stations don't have any thrust or SI options, so it's easy to fit within that range. I will add one more rule here - for stations to count as a variant, they need to have an equal number of recharge batteries. You can't really say that a Renaissance and a 500kt battlestation are actually variants of one another.

I haven't saved old designs for my ships as spreadsheets, and other than Kiviar I don't know of anyone who has. You'll need to re-build them in the spreadsheet to make changes. Sorry.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 12 November 2018, 10:49:17
Seeing four-digit numbers of machine guns on designs, I'll make it official that there *will* be diminishing returns from numbers that high. Each additional gun still improves your PD value, but the marginal increase from the 1548th machine gun will be very small indeed.
Is this known at all?  Is it worse than the uncoordinated offboard fire control penalty (x4ish reduction?).  Or is this just to be discovered the hard way?
I can't check the master sheet at work, but I think I said that mass, SI, and thrust are all locked on a refit.
The master spread sheet says:
Quote from: Refit Rules
Limited by yard space - 10 per yard per turn. Cannot change SI or tonnage. Must do R&D for variant of the ship(=50% of new model's cost) before refitting.
No mention of thrust, hence some confusion.    Note that the Heimdaller II changed thrust by 1, so locking out thrust changes requires either retcon or grandfather.
Quote from: Refit
I haven't saved old designs for my ships as spreadsheets, and other than Kiviar I don't know of anyone who has. You'll need to re-build them in the spreadsheet to make changes. Sorry.
This is almost surely unimportant, but I'm happy to provide links to the TC designs.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 12 November 2018, 11:07:30
Hemi I never saw battle, and IRRC was refit into Hemi II when we were still working out the refit rules.

Now, if you wanted a spread of ships with similar SI, different theust, same tonnage, nothing prevents you as I read it from designing a variant with higher thrust, and the  a variant OF that variant with yet higher thrust... but at some point - eh, just make new designs.  My core hulls (Walk, Tyr, Heimi) are about at the end of their lifespan - theyll probably get sold off or refit into non-combat roles, but they wont be in the wall of battle much more than a few more decades.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 12 November 2018, 11:28:36
I haven't even come up with the formula, so there's no answer on relative efficiency as of yet. I expect I'll provide similar soft caps on off-board MGs as well, so it's not as simple as just jacking up your small craft bay count to compensate. I don't intend to publish the formula, even after I have it.

Limiting thrust changes on variants but not refits doesn't make much sense to me, and the idea of massively changing the ship's power plant in a refit sounds like such a big job that you might as well just build new in practice. It'll be locked going forward. However, I'll grandfather existing refitted designs, including your Matador from this turn.

As for links, throw them into your turn posts if you want. But as you say, it's not a big deal either way - the TRO provides all necessary info to reconstruct it.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 12 November 2018, 11:33:02
I think a Variant could very well have a stronger engine. A refit, not so much. The cases where that happened in canon seem to be mostly downgrades, done by factions that had the know-how, but maybe not the resources for entirely new hulls, and from our point of view rather limited naval assets.

I've tried and recreated the Heracles, but I'm somehow lacking 60 Bay Personell and I have ~200 tons excess cargo.

Link (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eoTMoJPYO2OTLaI8ipijjLMbPw0AXNKeVgpYC4VjSgE/edit#gid=0)

So I got a question regarding that:
It says in the spreadsheet that the cost of a refit is the price difference. Does that mean I pay extra if the new version is significantly cheaper? Should I strive to keep the costs similar?
Is there no other cost attached to this process?
And is it possible to trade tech or units with other factions? Say, NPC-Factions?

Edit2: While I look forward to and commend the diminishing returns on point defense, I'd definitely prefer if they diminished slightly less if spread over multiple ships. So there's a point in actually spreading the point defense somewhat.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 12 November 2018, 11:57:06
I haven't even come up with the formula, so there's no answer on relative efficiency as of yet. I expect I'll provide similar soft caps on off-board MGs as well, so it's not as simple as just jacking up your small craft bay count to compensate. I don't intend to publish the formula, even after I have it.
Ok, the TC will learn the hard way. 
Limiting thrust changes on variants but not refits doesn't make much sense to me, and the idea of massively changing the ship's power plant in a refit sounds like such a big job that you might as well just build new in practice.
It seemed odd to me as well.   
It'll be locked going forward. However, I'll grandfather existing refitted designs, including your Matador from this turn.
Ok. 

What's currently written could be interpreted as 'thrust is unconstrained for refits' or 'thrust is constrained as for variants in refits'.  I think I interpreted it the first way when checking whether I could do the Matador and then the second when Smegish pointed it out last night.  Given this, I'm fine downgrading to a 5/8 if you would prefer that.
As for links, throw them into your turn posts if you want. But as you say, it's not a big deal either way - the TRO provides all necessary info to reconstruct it.
One issue I noticed here: the new sheet doesn't seem to count fighter/smallcraft bays as equipment. 

I've tried and recreated the Heracles, but I'm somehow lacking 60 Bay Personell and I have ~200 tons excess cargo.
Maybe add some marines?
It says in the spreadsheet that the cost of a refit is the price difference. Does that mean I pay extra if the new version is significantly cheaper? Should I strive to keep the costs similar? Is there no other cost attached to this process?
The cost of a refit to a lower cost point is zero.  This also came up with the Matador.
And is it possible to trade tech or units with other factions? Say, NPC-Factions?
My understanding is that all possible deals are on the table.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 12 November 2018, 12:11:50
Whelp, this was an unwanted post.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 12 November 2018, 14:45:33
While tech trading makes sense, Im not sure it would be good for the game?  Everyone is going to basically trade everything with anyone with whom they do not share a border - because to not do so is to get left out of the trading game, and get behind.

Formal and informal tech trading might well be a leadership or espionage function, outside our control, and handled best by the existing tech spread mechanisms.  We're the Chiefs of Naval Operations, not the Archon/Coordinator/Etc.

That said, Im pretty easy.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 12 November 2018, 14:52:39
Refits are free if the new ship costs the same as the old ship or less. (The R&D cost of creating the variant is what will prevent abuse here)

PD diminishing returns will probably be per-ship, not per-fleet.

The new sheet is using CryHavoc's original formula for bays, not the one I edited into the new sheet. You can copy the formula from the first cell of the equipment list over to your copy of the sheet, and it should work the same as before.

No tech trading - as Marcus says, it'll be used far too much, and it's not likely to happen in-character. I won't totally rule out the idea of tech gifts from greater powers to lesser ones in order to harass their rivals - e.g., the DC giving the FWL a new tech so that the LC will have a hard time - but those will only ever be NPC-initiated (i.e., outside your control).
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 12 November 2018, 16:15:38
Perhaps a compromise? Allow refits that change the tonnage, SI or thrust  (within existing limitations) but those refits cost 50% of the new ship rather than the difference?

As to tech sales, I am happy to accept the GMs decision on this, and will readjust my budget (again) when I get home from work
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 12 November 2018, 17:42:03
So, for an example: assuming I'd ask the Rim Worlds if they'd trade a few ships 1 for 1, could I ask them for the specs seeing that mine are more expensive?
After all, I would assume it is impossible to do a refit without the plans.

In other news, I'm having trouble figuring out what the hell I could cram into that giant hull that I have a yard to build.
Oh, and speaking of potential techs: Maybe an option for players to research cheaper baseline maintenance for mass production? Or to specialize stations for it? I read a little bit of maingunneries plan, and I think that the idea of a streamlined navy with few shiptypes really hinges on that granting some kind of advantage.

Because right now I'm wondering if it wouldn't be a great idea to create a ship that mounts one of every gun or something, and I'm really hoping someone will stop me.  ;D

edited for typo
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 12 November 2018, 17:57:48
The main advantage it gives is saving money on prototype costs, something I have spent quite a lot of cash on
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 13 November 2018, 01:44:59
Streamlining equipment doesn't, though.
If I want to fit my ship with triple turrets of NAC 10,20,30, a dual 25, a 40, 2 of every NPPC, every type of naval lasers in erratic mount sizes all over the ship, I kind of can do that.
Now, I won't, and I'm not sure it'd be such a great idea to get into the complexities of calculating the effect of parts commonality on maintenance difficulty, but I couldn't help but notice it.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 13 November 2018, 08:53:02
Streamlining equipment doesn't, though.
If I want to fit my ship with triple turrets of NAC 10,20,30, a dual 25, a 40, 2 of every NPPC, every type of naval lasers in erratic mount sizes all over the ship, I kind of can do that.
Now, I won't, and I'm not sure it'd be such a great idea to get into the complexities of calculating the effect of parts commonality on maintenance difficulty, but I couldn't help but notice it.

I mean, it is still a Battletech game. The thread of mine that I linked in the OP back on page 1 was an attempt to fix that, but in practice you can do all sorts of awful things to your quartermasters and nobody will really notice. Some players have kept with a simple supply chain even so(I think Smegish still only has three kinds of capital weapons), but others are getting more ambitious.

Even historically, this wasn't uncommon, for that matter. In the span of a decade pre-WW1, the Royal Navy went through five different battleship gun designs in three different calibres (12", 13.5", and 15"), and that was for a total production of 32 battleships. Now, they were being run by Jackie Fisher and Winston Churchill at the time, and a greater pair of mad bastards never lived, but other navies did similar. A capital ship is a big enough unit that keeping a custom supply chain for it is actually somewhat practical, even if it will occasionally make quartermasters cry, so messing around with what guns to use isn't as crazy as it sounds in this context. It's silly for a ragtag mercenary Mech lance, but that's not what we're playing here.

As for weird mixes on a single hull, though, that might best be avoided. Not because it's bad for supplies so much, but because it's bad for tactics. What do you do with a ship mounting HNPPCS, White Sharks, NL-35s, NAC-40s, and a mass driver? Especially when the ship behind it is a NAC-30 specialist, and the one in front of it is a screening unit with NAC-10s and Barracudas? There's something to be said for having options, but it's possible to go too far and wind up incoherent.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 13 November 2018, 10:08:52
Well, if a ship is mounting a mass driver, it is beyond saving anyways.  ;D
That said, I just have this itching to have gun turrets with 2 differently sized guns on them.
Just, if I go with 25/10, I'd introduce new guns that I technically don't need, while if I go with 30/10, I end up at the 70 dmg threshold and feel cheesy even though it doesn't actually make any positive difference at this point in time.

Anyways, in case I don't manage to get my planning done until tomorrow evening (I'll be off for 5 days starting thursday), here's the link for a preliminary refactor of the Heracles that I'll provide fluff for at my earliest convenience:
Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Heracles Battlecruiser (Block II)
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $8,321,238,000.00
Magazine Cost: $32,600,280.00
BV2:          86,596

Mass: 750,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 3
Maximum Thrust: 5
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
24 LRM 20 (IS)
176 Machine Gun (IS)
14 Naval AC 30
16 Naval Laser 45
20 Capital Launcher Barracuda
10 Naval PPC Heavy

Equipment: Mass
Drive:        135,000.00
Controls:    1,875.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact       (16 Integrity) 339,375.00
Jump Sail:              (5 Integrity)  68.00
Structural Integrity:      90                67,500.00
Total Heat Sinks:      5114 Single  4,550.00
Fuel & Fuel Pumps:      35000 points 14,280.00
Fire Control Computers:                 558.00
Armor:                 594 pts Standard 1,348.00
Fore:                 100
Fore-Left/Right: 101/101
Aft-Left/Right: 101/101
Aft:                  90

Dropship Collars: 1 1,000.00
Grav Decks:
Small: 2.00             100
Medium: 0.00
Large: 0.00
Escape Pods:            50 350.00
Life Boats:           50 350.00

Crew And Passengers:
49 Officers in 1st Class Quarters                        490.00
146 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters                              1,022.00
94 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters    658.00
212 Bay Personnel                                                    0.00
0 1st Class Passengers                                              0.00
76 2nd Class Passengers (Reserve Pilots)                         532.00
90 Steerage Passengers (Marines)                                  450.00

1 Fighter Bay    (38 / 6 doors)                            5700.00
1 Fighter Bay    (38 / 6 doors)                            5700.00
1 Small Craft Bay  (12 /2 doors)                                  2400.00
1 Repair Bay (Unpressurized, 20k tons, 1 door)               500.00
1 Cargo  Bay (58,423.720 tons, 1 door)                          500.00

# Weapons            Loc Heat Damage      Range Mass
6 LRM 20 (IS)        Nose 36 72 (3.6-C) Long 60.00
12 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 24 (1.2-C) Short-PDS 6.00
2 Naval AC 30        Nose 200 600 (60-C) Long-C 7,000.00
8 Naval Laser 45      FR 560 360 (36-C) Extreme-C 7,200.00
8 Machine Gun (IS) FR 16 (0.8-C) Short-PDS 4.00
2 Naval AC 30        FR 200 600 (60-C) Long-C 7,000.00
2 Naval AC 30        FR 200 600 (60-C) Long-C 7,000.00
8 Naval Laser 45      FL 560 360 (36-C) Extreme-C 7,200.00
8 Machine Gun (IS) FL 16 (0.8-C) Short-PDS 4.00
2 Naval AC 30        FL 200 600 (60-C) Long-C 7,000.00
2 Naval AC 30          FL 200 600 (60-C) Long-C 7,000.00
10 Capital Launcher Barracuda RBS 100 200(20-C) Extreme-C 900.00
10 Capital Launcher Barracuda LBS 100 200(20-C) Extreme-C 900.00
60 Machine Gun (IS) RBS 120 (6-C)  Short-PDS 30.00
60 Machine Gun (IS) LBS 120 (6-C)  Short-PDS 30.00
6 LRM 20 (IS)        AR 36 72 (3.6-C) Long 60.00
8 Machine Gun (IS) AR 16 (0.8-C) Short-PDS 4.00
2 Naval AC 30        AR 200 600 (60-C) Long-C 7,000.00
4 Naval PPC Heavy AR 900 600 (60-C) Extreme-C 12,000.00
6 LRM 20 (IS)        AL 36 72 (3.6-C) Long 60.00
8 Machine Gun (IS) AL 16 (0.8-C) Short-PDS 4.00
2 Naval AC 30          AL 200 600 (60-C) Long-C 7,000.00
4 Naval PPC Heavy AL 900 600 (60-C) Extreme-C 12,000.00
6 LRM 20 (IS)        Aft 36 72 (3.6-C) Long 60.00
12 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 24 (1.2-C) Short-PDS 6.00
2 Naval PPC Heavy Aft 450 300 (30-C) Extreme-C 6,000.00


The ammo output is completely shot, but rest assured every gun has at least 20 turns of fire.
Assuming I really don't find the time, and everyone else is done and wants the turn to progress, I'll upgrade the smaller yards in Atreus and Irian, spend my research money 2/5/3, and build a Heracles Block II in every free yard. Maybe a few jumpships to use up capacity.

Link to the original Heracles: Link (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421006#msg1421006)

Edit: First draft of Fluff:

After a change of leadership in 2408, following the Battle of Solaris, the Free Worlds Navy set about evaluating its Naval Assets.
The existing designs were almost 50 years old, and while the march of technology had not been unkind, it was clear that developments elsewhere in the galaxy demanded answers that the ageing hulls just could not provide.
The admiralty launched a series of inquiries aimed at finding weakpoints in the existing force structure, and tasked their best engineers with finding solutions to any perceived shortcoming.
Several Conclusions were drawn:

The immediate answer to this assessment was a large bag of compromises, which culminated in the Heracles receiving an overhaul:

The first Heracles Block II is expected to clear its moorings within two years, with multiple to follow. In addition, the admiralty sanctioned a refit program, intending to refit half of the existing fleet to the new standard within the decade.
A further expansion of yard space is meant to prepare for a substantial modernisation programme as soon as new technologies become available.

Doctrine Adjustments:
In case of offensive operations, capital missiles are to be used only against targets presumed to have insufficient point defence. Given the deep ammunition stores of the Block II, indiscriminate use against fighters is encouraged. 
Captains are advised to keep a sufficient screen of smaller craft nearby to not unduly weaken their own missile defences.
All League ships will continue to carry nuclear warheads. Pending the decision on the Ares Convention, they are to expressly be used in self defence in the face of a clear violation of what the military considers the common rules of engagement, citing examples such as using civilians as shields, firing upon non-military population centres, or refusing surrender.
If outside of league territory, naval commanders of all ranks are advised to retreat if the situation allows before resorting to the use of strategic weapons.
The fleets marine complement is meant to defend the ships against hostile boarding actions, and should not be wasted on the offence in the face of unclear chance of success.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 13 November 2018, 10:37:57
Id not worry too much about the damage threshold.  Were not really grouping bays and comparing threshold values in a strict mechanical sense.  Mount whatever feels appropriate and go on.

Agreed to some degree on standarization -  Ive tried to go with one laser, one PPC, and one NAC.  That said, Im not sure a mixed armament is -bad-.  Sure, youve got no single ideal engagement range - but that means you just identify your opponents and stay out of -their- ideal engagement range.  Wont make up for the difference if youve substantially less armament - 2 NAC 30s is strictly worse than 4HNPPC at -any- ranfe (barring high speed engagement) - but figuring the ideal range is always about expected damage and opponent expected damage in any rangeband.

Interesting redesign - I imagine your feeling the same pain I am with Tyr - repeat build/refit low SI ships cause youve already got the design, or pay for RnD (and increased upgrade costs in the future!) on a whole new hull.

By my math, if you refit all your CAs, you can lay 6 more THIS turn... (refitting that many will tie up two yards all turn, leaving you 6).  On the following turns, you can crank 10 a round, budget allowing.



FLEET STRENGTH CALCULATIONS
[/size]

I figured out the per-fleet throw weight and other considerations.  Treated missiles as half value (this likely radically OVERVALUES missiles, even at half).  Treat AC/2 as both 2 points of AAA, and 1/2 of a machine gun for PDS. 

Did not count small craft or pay note to weapon ranges.  Builds for FWL and FS are Projected (assumes FWL refits as above and builds 4 more Heracles 2, Assumes 4x Crucis BB build for FS)

TOTAL FLEET ARMOR/RESILIENCE (Standard Armor, Kilotons)
FS:  24.5
LC:  16.6
FWL:  15.7
CC:  14.5
DC:  14.1

Notes:  FS is a surprise winner here.  High SI from day 1 and little damage to their fleet after a history of easy, lopsided victories keeps fleet strength up. 

TOTAL FLEET FIREPOWER: (Capital Damage, Thousands)
FS:  18.5
FWL:  16.7
DC:  14.8
LC:  14.5
CC:  9.8

Notes:  FS, again - lack of combat losses, coupled with a focus on damage efficient short range autocannon, make them the winners here, again.

AAA/PDS Fits (Standard Damage in Thousands/MG or MG Equivalents)
LC:  71.6/6.5
DC:  15.2/2.5
FWL:  9.1/5
CC:  5.5/1.4
FS:  5.3/1.3

Given that the DC Outfitting fared reasonably well at Vega, the DC fit is probably 'about right'.  FWL is similar, with much lighter AAA, but nearly double the PDS.  CC and FS share no borders with a major carrier users, so their outfit makes sense.  LC is massively over invested in PDS/AAA, but (given results at Vega), should anticipate nigh total immunity to fighters and missiles.

Fighters:  (Naval Carriage in thousands)
LC:  6.5
CC:  3.7
DC:  2
FWL: 2.1
FS: .9

Interestingly, both the 'weak powers' (defined as having stronger neighbors on both borders) went heavy into fighters.  Based on the results of Vega, this is likely an error - but weaker naval powers engaging in radical approaches in the hope of making up their disadvantage, and then being beaten soundly when that radical approach fails, is a story as old as naval history.

Dropship Carriage:
FS:  67
DC:  34
FWL:  25
CC:  2
LC:  0

Originally percieved as an over-costed luxury item, the phenomenal success of dropships beyond anything that their armor, their armament, their carriage, or physics would have predicted proves that the luxury budget navies were wise to profligately waste cash on those luxuries.


OVERALL CONCLUSION:
Geography is ALMOST Destiny.  DC fared much more poorly than expected, probably based on heavy losses last turn.
FS looks better than expected - likely because they have focused on 'winner' technologies (NACs, Speed, SI) and
ignored 'loser' technologies (Fighters, Missiles, Cargo).  Having a solid budget and no real naval losses does not hurt.
FWL still strong, but suffering from having so much of its tonnage tied up in low-SI designs.  Its heavy cargo focus
hurts it on the numbers, but presents a large invasion threat, even if that tonnage is not divided up into vehicle bays.

LC and CC face similar problems, have attempted similar solutions, and have yet to profit thereby.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 13 November 2018, 13:55:59
Question for the Staff:

What value if any is there in having multiple ship types?

Observations:
1.)  Having a pure carrier just gives you 'wasted' armor, inasmuch as they will be ignored in the gun-battle stage.  Thats a HUGE disadvantage.

2.)  Having a pure gunship means you can end up with some idiot deploying them without carrier cover.  This makes you theoretically vulnerable to enemy fighters.

3.)  Having lots of different designs means the opponent can always pick out whats a danger TO HIM and engage it.

4.)  Having lots of different designs means that you have a lot of RnD costs.. each new design is basically a thrown away hull, and each refit is half of a thrown away hull.

5.) Having a uniform fleet of uniform hulls with uniform, balanced designs means nothing is unescorted, nothing is vulnerable, nothing is a more-valuable target for your foe, nothing can be ignored.  We dont have the design pressure that exist IRL that make 1 pure carrier and 1 gunship better than 2 hybrids.

6.)  Observation:  The DC would have easily another 3-4 major hulls had it less designs.  The FWL has profited by having a single design, and profits again this turn by refitting their entire navy for the RnD cost of 1/2 of 1 ship.  Now, granted, the FS has quite a few designs in service and has a very strong fleet despite this - but see earlier post for comment about easy wins, light losses, and choosing the 'winner' technologies.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 13 November 2018, 14:09:35
The advantage of variety is being able to tailor your fleet. If the battle plan is to hit with a strike from 720 fighters before battle(to pick an oversimplified example), 1x Walkurie is a vastly more efficient tool for the job than 10x Monsoon II. We haven't seen much of this because the battles have tended towards Jutland-style "concentrate and blast away" battle plans, which don't reward options very much.

There's been a real dearth of superior command rolls thus far. I'm not sure anyone's won a command roll by more than like 2 in the past several turns, other than maybe the FS at Kentares(whose reward was an incompetent TH fleet composition, not tactical mastery). As a result, I haven't had much reason to break out the crazy complex IJN-esque battleplans. But if some battle's command roll goes 8 to 3, there will be some advanced things attempted, and they will probably work pretty well. Options will probably pay off in that case.

Your call as to whether that's worth paying for, of course.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 13 November 2018, 15:02:26
The advantage of variety is being able to tailor your fleet. If the battle plan is to hit with a strike from 720 fighters before battle(to pick an oversimplified example), 1x Walkurie is a vastly more efficient tool for the job than 10x Monsoon II. We haven't seen much of this because the battles have tended towards Jutland-style "concentrate and blast away" battle plans, which don't reward options very much.

There's been a real dearth of superior command rolls thus far. I'm not sure anyone's won a command roll by more than like 2 in the past several turns, other than maybe the FS at Kentares(whose reward was an incompetent TH fleet composition, not tactical mastery). As a result, I haven't had much reason to break out the crazy complex IJN-esque battleplans. But if some battle's command roll goes 8 to 3, there will be some advanced things attempted, and they will probably work pretty well. Options will probably pay off in that case.

Your call as to whether that's worth paying for, of course.

I think its been fairly well established by this point that I have ZERO clue whats worth paying for.

Its pretty safe to say that if I got a magical do over button, the entire charlie-foxtrot that makes up the LCN would be replaced with something entirely unlike what I built.  Even Buri is a symptom, to be honest, of throwing good shipbuilding at shoring up bad decisions - but hopefully she can make the pile of seemingly reasonable but in retrospect HORRIBLE decisions that is my legacy navy functional while I try to build something that fits the game we are playing.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 13 November 2018, 15:09:56
I think its been fairly well established by this point that I have ZERO clue whats worth paying for.

Its pretty safe to say that if I got a magical do over button, the entire charlie-foxtrot that makes up the LCN would be replaced with something entirely unlike what I built.  Even Buri is a symptom, to be honest, of throwing good shipbuilding at shoring up bad decisions - but hopefully she can make the pile of seemingly reasonable but in retrospect HORRIBLE decisions that is my legacy navy functional while I try to build something that fits the game we are playing.

You've been by far the most aggressive optimizer in the game, and you also have a bit of a hair trigger sometimes. Other fleets generally aim to be well-rounded, but you've gone for the "do one thing really, really well" approach. You've done the one thing well, but sometimes it's not the thing you need.

That's not to say you've been a screwup admiral, of course. Optimizing to some extent is a good approach, and different approaches do keep things interesting. You're still not as "different" as the Periphery powers, either - all four of them have their own unusual strategies(mobile stations, immobile stations, armed merchants, and "ZOMG kill all the fighters!!!1!", more or less), and all of them will be interesting to see in practice against a serious enemy. But when everyone else aims for good and you aim for perfect, you're going to have a different experience of things.

EDIT: Just noticed your edit above. Cool analysis, I may do the same for the other powers soon. That said, one thing I wanted to note:

Originally percieved as an over-costed luxury item, the phenomenal success of dropships beyond anything that their armor, their armament, their carriage, or physics would have predicted proves that the luxury budget navies were wise to profligately waste cash on those luxuries.

It's not the Navy DropShips that have been doing most of the heavy lifting. It's the Army DropShips that have been saving the butts of out-gunned invasion fleets. And even then, they're quite expensive for what they do, they're just being paid for by another service, so you guys haven't needed to worry much about those losses.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 13 November 2018, 15:38:35
I've ended up with so many designs partially because I wanted that spy ship (Trojan) which came in handy for the Layover raid, and partly because my first two designs (Kutai and Fubuki) turned out way more expensive than they needed to be, too expensive to mass produce in the numbers I wanted.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 13 November 2018, 15:44:09
I've ended up with so many designs partially because I wanted that spy ship (Trojan) which came in handy for the Layover raid, and partly because my first two designs (Kutai and Fubuki) turned out way more expensive than they needed to be, too expensive to mass produce in the numbers I wanted.

*nods*  Its a learning experience all around.  Luckily for you, you learned IN TIME (I did not, obviously!).  That said, I imagine youll sell of the Kutai and Fubuki to anyone who will hold still.

Id sell my whole navy if anyone was buying and I had the yard space to replace it.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 13 November 2018, 16:05:05
To step back for a second, I'm hearing several players complain about their positions being weak. Complaints about high losses, insufficient budgets, poor strategic position, lock-in to bad fleet doctrines, and so forth have come to me from at least three players(and probably more). I'm not sure where this is coming from, which makes me think I'm doing something wrong.

I'll explain where I'm coming from, but please note that this is an explanation of where I've been coming from, not a justification of why it should work this way. (In other words, I am open to change on this if it's making you all grumpy.)

This is Battletech, a fairly gritty setting where ugly battles, nasty losses, betrayals, and literally bombing people back into the stone age are a fundamental part of the setting. Warfare is endemic and bloody, and so you're all going to get beaten around a lot. Temporary advantages are possible, and your skill and luck will be sufficient to win you some advantages, but those advantages are unlikely to ever be large enough to allow opponents to be taken off the board outright. As such, we're going to be here a while, you're all going to take some ugly hits in the process, and the key is to fix those losses when they happen, not to avoid them.

Is this more or less how you guys have been thinking? If not, how would you like me to change it? I don't promise to do any particular thing, but I'll listen, and if there's really some unhappiness afoot, I'd like to know how I might be able to fix it.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 13 November 2018, 16:26:11
I'm not overly worried. I know I got hit with the big stick last turn, but as long as Mr GM takes turns beating us like a red-headed step child, I'm good.

EDIT: I did notice my budget basically didn't change from last turn, despite taking a few worlds off Ze Germanz, I assume I had to pay indemnity for the civilian casualties?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 13 November 2018, 16:56:57
Question for the Staff:

What value if any is there in having multiple ship types?
...
6.)  Observation:  The DC would have easily another 3-4 major hulls had it less designs.  The FWL has profited by having a single design, and profits again this turn by refitting their entire navy for the RnD cost of 1/2 of 1 ship.  Now, granted, the FS has quite a few designs in service and has a very strong fleet despite this - but see earlier post for comment about easy wins, light losses, and choosing the 'winner' technologies.
... now I forgot posting that for over an hour and look how the discussion has passed on.

I really see multiple designs as the future of the FWL, as well.
Just maybe not line battle designs. But, say, a fast ship, or some cheap armour boxes to generate ECM to hide behind, might come up in the future. I could also see myself adopting an interval approach where I update one design every second serious opportunity and another one on the other.
Well, and I do have that 1.5m ton yard.
You are right, streamlining one's force drastically eases the pressure on finances. I just wonder if, long term, that will still be such a big concern: If our navies grow, the prototype cost for a refit will be a far lower share of the modernization effort. How many ships do I even have?
From what info I've gathered so far, the FWL ships mostly aren't even outdated, technologically - not much happened on that front in the first turns.
The battlefield just had other plans as to what was considered necessary. And with the march of technology, those ships may actually become viable again. Maingunnery produced a thoughtful design that could still be used to patrol borders, show the flag, or transport groundtroops, even if I don't see a future for the Heracles as a ship of the line around 2500.
Btw, does the FWL have actual fighter or Small Craft designs, or do I use whatever is considered standard?
I suppose until now fighters were basically additional missiles, so their stats didn't matter whatsoever.

I have a feeling what I originally wrote and what I added now didn't quite match and my post is all over the place.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 13 November 2018, 17:07:36
Specific fighters and small craft weren't a major concern when we started, if you don't have specific ones then some generic ASF/SC will be used. I could be persuaded to sell you my fighters if you want them.

Also, a more specific budget would be appreciated , when you have the time.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 13 November 2018, 17:26:56
... now I forgot posting that for over an hour and look how the discussion has passed on.

I really see multiple designs as the future of the FWL, as well.
Just maybe not line battle designs. But, say, a fast ship, or some cheap armour boxes to generate ECM to hide behind, might come up in the future. I could also see myself adopting an interval approach where I update one design every second serious opportunity and another one on the other.
Well, and I do have that 1.5m ton yard.
You are right, streamlining one's force drastically eases the pressure on finances. I just wonder if, long term, that will still be such a big concern: If our navies grow, the prototype cost for a refit will be a far lower share of the modernization effort. How many ships do I even have?
From what info I've gathered so far, the FWL ships mostly aren't even outdated, technologically - not much happened on that front in the first turns.
The battlefield just had other plans as to what was considered necessary. And with the march of technology, those ships may actually become viable again. Maingunnery produced a thoughtful design that could still be used to patrol borders, show the flag, or transport groundtroops, even if I don't see a future for the Heracles as a ship of the line around 2500.
Btw, does the FWL have actual fighter or Small Craft designs, or do I use whatever is considered standard?
I suppose until now fighters were basically additional missiles, so their stats didn't matter whatsoever.

I have a feeling what I originally wrote and what I added now didn't quite match and my post is all over the place.

I agree.  I think 1 generalist for all battle duties, and then specialists only as unavoidably necessary - as given KF Core costs, ANY specialist is a Battleship that didnt happen, cost-wise.  Though even so.. Im wondering if given that fact one isnt well served to just put a LITTLE cargo, a LITTLE troops, and SOME fighter onto every NACboat, and make every ship a NAC-heavy generalist.  (though if Buri shocks me, I may reassess the role of NAC vs Energy Weapons)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 13 November 2018, 18:19:54
Ok, the main reason I won't do that (Or at least didn't plan to, but I inherited a faction that does) is that NACs, fluffwise, aren't a lasting weapon.
I dunno where, but I've read somewhere that an NAC/40 essentially needs  barrel replacement after every engagement. They wear out.
So while the weapon is tonnage efficient, and relatively cheap, I'd assume their maintenance cost makes them fall even behind the chronically expensive and very heavy Gauss Rifles.
But yes, from a raw efficiency angle, producing middling speed NAC boats with integral fighter support, enough cargo for defensive deployment and sufficient marines to make boarding a risk sounds like a winning strategy. Biggest risk I see is that it's also a predictable strategy. Deep strikes need additional logistics support. An enemy could just create ships that are faster (for they are pretty much all longer ranged unless they mimic the armament) and fight on their terms.
If, instead, you make fast NAC boats, the opposition might be able to match firepower on slower designs, granting similar firepower but firing first. Your Buri is an example of that - a 4/6 NAC boat would potentially have more firepower, but you get a salvo in before they get in range. Of course, once ECM proliferates, we will see a period where short ranged designs are efficient because you simply won't hit at long range.
Really, the weapons to use seem to be NL/55 (or 35 if only used for AA), heavy NPPCs, and a flavour of NACs of choice - likely not 10s.
We will see.

Edit: I wonder if the FWL isn't also in a good position because for a turn it was a non-entity and thus not involved in large fights it could have otherwise been in? ^^
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 13 November 2018, 18:20:50
To step back for a second, I'm hearing several players complain about their positions being weak. Complaints about high losses, insufficient budgets, poor strategic position, lock-in to bad fleet doctrines, and so forth have come to me from at least three players(and probably more). I'm not sure where this is coming from, which makes me think I'm doing something wrong.

I'll explain where I'm coming from, but please note that this is an explanation of where I've been coming from, not a justification of why it should work this way. (In other words, I am open to change on this if it's making you all grumpy.)

This is Battletech, a fairly gritty setting where ugly battles, nasty losses, betrayals, and literally bombing people back into the stone age are a fundamental part of the setting. Warfare is endemic and bloody, and so you're all going to get beaten around a lot. Temporary advantages are possible, and your skill and luck will be sufficient to win you some advantages, but those advantages are unlikely to ever be large enough to allow opponents to be taken off the board outright. As such, we're going to be here a while, you're all going to take some ugly hits in the process, and the key is to fix those losses when they happen, not to avoid them.

Is this more or less how you guys have been thinking? If not, how would you like me to change it? I don't promise to do any particular thing, but I'll listen, and if there's really some unhappiness afoot, I'd like to know how I might be able to fix it.

Thanks.

Without reaching individual complaints, given the ‘grim gritty’ discussion above, one cannot but wonder that if everyone thinks they are losing - your doing something right!

I think the order of prosperity for the powers is:
TH (Duh - though internal division leaves them weaker than in OT.  A couple more coups or a nice nuclear civil war could unseat them, but would be an extreme event)
FWL (good headstart, weak neighbor)
FS (solid position, very strong fleet, weak neighbor - needs to avoid heavy losses till yards regenerate, could swap places with DC)
DC (lead in income, heavy losses this turn.  If it can breath while yards recover losses from high i come, could swap places with FS)
LC (stronger neighbors, solid yards though needs another 5 or a couple more 3s, climbing income may raise this long term)
CC (budget and yard constrained, recovering from heavy early losses.  Moving up from this position would take truely disruptive events)
RWR (largest/healthiest of the P powers)
MH (glorious isolation, could swap with TC)
TC (large unfriendly neighbor, wierd navy.  If it works, swap with MH)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 13 November 2018, 18:36:34
Ok, the main reason I won't do that (Or at least didn't plan to, but I inherited a faction that does) is that NACs, fluffwise, aren't a lasting weapon.
I dunno where, but I've read somewhere that an NAC/40 essentially needs  barrel replacement after every engagement. They wear out.
So while the weapon is tonnage efficient, and relatively cheap, I'd assume their maintenance cost makes them fall even behind the chronically expensive and very heavy Gauss Rifles.
But yes, from a raw efficiency angle, producing middling speed NAC boats with integral fighter support, enough cargo for defensive deployment and sufficient marines to make boarding a risk sounds like a winning strategy. Biggest risk I see is that it's also a predictable strategy. Deep strikes need additional logistics support. An enemy could just create ships that are faster (for they are pretty much all longer ranged unless they mimic the armament) and fight on their terms.
If, instead, you make fast NAC boats, the opposition might be able to match firepower on slower designs, granting similar firepower but firing first. Your Buri is an example of that - a 4/6 NAC boat would potentially have more firepower, but you get a salvo in before they get in range. Of course, once ECM proliferates, we will see a period where short ranged designs are efficient because you simply won't hit at long range.
Really, the weapons to use seem to be NL/55 (or 35 if only used for AA), heavy NPPCs, and a flavour of NACs of choice - likely not 10s.
We will see.

Given the paucity of engagements, most ships go 20 years or more without firing a shot in anger.  I think the barrels will be okay.  :)

Yes, there is some circular dominance - but its at the 1 thrust advantage level, I think, if it exists at all. The real advantage of higher speed is the ability to choose or decline engagement - the firepower and resilience lost in the service of this can and must be substantial.

A 2/3 should have long range armament - it MUST - or it gets murdered by anything faster.

A 3/5 NAC boat closes a 2/3 and may have an advantage - I honestly think the 2/3 NPPC fights about even with 3/5 NAC, due to range and accuracy.  But its a close call.  3/5 NAC has to worry about 4/6 NPPC.

A 4/6 NAC boat gives up too much hull and armament to beat a 2/3 NPPC even if it can teleport into point blank range... it has about 33% more firepower at point blank, but the PPC boat gets 50% more resilience.  That said, the 4/6 NAC will fight about even with a 3/5 NPPC, as I see it.  A 4/6 NPPC will stomp all over a 3/5 or slower NAC.

Past 4/6, you start leaving the realm of ‘Line of Battle’ and we are dealing with solo or small squadron operators, where individual concerns will control.

Of course, NACs show to advantage in high speed closing engagement, which is outside this analysis. 

This analysis also ignores fighters and missiles, because based on observed performance, ship mounted launchers are poor weapons even if PDS is absent - which it is not - and amounts of AAA/PDS sufficient to trivialize fighters and missiles can easily be mounted, assuming Vega has precidential value.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 13 November 2018, 19:01:50
Any word from Kiviar Mr GM sir?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 13 November 2018, 20:13:52
I anticipate Kiviar may have done his turn via PM, as I believe he has in the past.  I will note that Im enjoying the level of activity on this thread.


RE fleet force appreciations - Ive not done them for the periphery realms and the TH for a couple of reasons.  The TH because its force level holds steady at ‘Sumo Wrestler vs Unarmed Kindergartners’, and the Periphery powers because they are in a similar position vis a vis the Houses - and cant really reach each other to have their own fun little wars.

Ahistorical, but it might be fun to fast-grow the P realms for a while, and at the same time calve off some of the outlying TH planets into the houses if they continue their course of internal unrest.  Could also be a handy mechanic to keep the Great Houses on something like a level playing field if we need some divine intervention to keep the plot interesting.  Heavy handed Deus ex Machina?  Perhaps - but have you seen what the official writers get away with?  :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 13 November 2018, 22:17:02
What value if any is there in having multiple ship types?

To step back for a second, I'm hearing several players complain about their positions being weak. Complaints about high losses, insufficient budgets, poor strategic position, lock-in to bad fleet doctrines, and so forth have come to me from at least three players(and probably more). I'm not sure where this is coming from, which makes me think I'm doing something wrong.
I'm not concerned about high losses, insufficient budgets, poor strategic decisions, or lock-in to bad fleet doctrines.  In a real sense, I chose many of those with the TC and figuring out how to cope, starting with a crippling and crippled fleet of 6 Kutai, is my game.

I am somewhat concerned about whether or not the designs we make matter to the outcome.  The battle of Kannon/Vega looks like it was determined by a die roll without regard to the fleet compositions.  This seems antithetical to the premise if so.  However, it's only one battle and maybe I'm mistaken.

W.r.t. the army having a navy, the TCN will lobby with the Protector to shift the army's transport budget to the TCN.  The TCN can transport and simultaneously land a regiment at a lower cost than the army's Dropship/Jumpship approach (2.5B instead of 2.8B).  When landing in two waves is acceptable, this can further drop to 1.25B instead of 2.8B.   Just tell us how many regiments of army transport are required and give us the budget.  ( :)  I'll add this to my turn.)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 13 November 2018, 22:37:17
I've updated the design links post (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1455413#msg1455413) to all current designs.

For Alsadius: I included the attempts at generic designs at the bottom as I was losing track of them in the thread.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 14 November 2018, 05:52:59
I've updated by previous 'turn'-post with a bit of fluff and reasoning for the planned changes.

This will likely be as far as I can go on that before mid next week.
Further, I'd like to suggest a balancing measure:
Repair Facilities should be halved in cost on space stations.
They are immensely expensive on their own, making up easily half the cost of a ship for the larger ones, and thus are affected heavily by the space station cost multiplier.
I can take a Heracles and upsize it's repair bay to a million tons, and, lo and behold, it gets more expensive if I remove the jump drive.
I feel this would inevitably lead to 'jumping stations' to change cost, and I think that's just odd.
Alternatively, we could make use of the fact that space stations are allowed to mount multiple facilities, and drastically cut their cost for mounting multiples.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 14 November 2018, 07:57:48
W.r.t. the Heracles II, note that it take 12 hours to dock into the repair bay and 6-12 hours to undock.   During those times the Heracles II cannot use thrust without incurring structural damage. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 14 November 2018, 08:09:51
Yes, using repair bays as cheaper drop collars has disadvantages.
Honestly, I still don't know why why we don't have shuttle bays.
But then again, dropships are pretty much exclusively for troop transport or personell transfer, at least regarding the navy.
Which, btw, is the reason I still included one on the ships.
It must make maintenance and general operations a lot easier. I know we don't really depict that aspect, but I'm planning to incorporate those considerations into my designs in the future.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 14 November 2018, 08:56:01
Yes, using repair bays as cheaper drop collars has disadvantages.
Honestly, I still don't know why why we don't have shuttle bays.
But then again, dropships are pretty much exclusively for troop transport or personell transfer, at least regarding the navy.
Which, btw, is the reason I still included one on the ships.
It must make maintenance and general operations a lot easier. I know we don't really depict that aspect, but I'm planning to incorporate those considerations into my designs in the future.

The station modifier is crazy in its impact - Ive seen it myself when I design defsats, as it really impacts my armamnet choices.  I have no good solutions - we have many, many stations already in service.

I also dont know why you cant build a super-large version of a dropship bay and pit a dropship in it - or why droppers cost so much.  These are things Id change if I rewrote the rules - but again, these are the rules we have, and Im not sure we can afford any more major changes.

If your interested, I can bang out a version of your turn for your approval, and PM it to you, prioritizing in order 1.)  Refit Existing Heracles.  2.)  Build as many new Heracles II as possible, 3.) Pay 100% Maintenance, 3.)  Research as indicated, 4.)  Upgrade yards towards having more class 3 yards, 5.)  Savings.

Edit -went ahead and sent it.. at 100% Maintenance, I can get you your refit, 6 new builds (all avaialble yards, the refits fill two yards by themselves), your research, a yard upgrade from 1->2, and 2 dropships, which worked out exactly to your whole budget.  Details in PM.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 14 November 2018, 10:04:23
Thanks for the effort put in.
I've been wondering, though: Assuming I'll convert some of the heracles to engineering ships in the future (seeing as they won't competitive in a combat role, long term), and those repair bays will come at a significant markup as expected, wouldn't it make more sense to not refit some of them, as the old version is more expensive, thus reducing repair costs?

As for dropships: Only ships 5000 tons and below can be carried through a jump field. Which is why shuttle bays normally fit 1 or 2 5000 ton ships.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 14 November 2018, 10:13:00
Thanks for the effort put in.
I've been wondering, though: Assuming I'll convert some of the heracles to engineering ships in the future (seeing as they won't competitive in a combat role, long term), and those repair bays will come at a significant markup as expected, wouldn't it make more sense to not refit some of them, as the old version is more expensive, thus reducing repair costs?

As for dropships: Only ships 5000 tons and below can be carried through a jump field. Which is why shuttle bays normally fit 1 or 2 5000 ton ships.

Well, keeping the old version will save you on future upgrades... BUT... refitting them all to new versions saves on current maintenance, while increasing current combat power.  (And money now is always better than money later)

Still, its of course your turn, do what you want with it!  I just tried to follow your outline and save you the time/effort - I enjoy doing turns like that - may e should have been an accountant?

To quote my wife who was watching me doing some ship and turn design at one point:

Her:  “Honey, what game ya playin?”
Me:  *chipper voice*  “Spreadsheets!”
Her:  “Ahh.  Your FAVOURITE game.”
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 14 November 2018, 11:13:28
Hey, that is my favourite game, too.  ;D
You're right, though, I completely forgot about the reduced maintenance cost of the new build.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 14 November 2018, 11:37:25
Here are some very tentative army rules for your commentary.

.... A regiment is nominally 144 vehicles or equivalent
.... A regiment requires 9 small DropShips ... to carry it between systems.
... an additional 1/3 of the listed JS/DS strength will supply a force for a typical campaign.

Some observations:
I.)  A classic battletech regiment (12 Units to a Company, 3 Companies to a Battalion, 3 Battalions to a Regiment) is 108 Units, if Im remembering right?

II.)  9 Small Dropships (notionally, Union class) carries 12 units (and I note your Small Carrier Dropships carry 12 fighters).  This suggests that 9 droppers = 108 Units = 1 Regiment.

III.)  If 1 Dropship carries supplies for 3 dropships worth of units, then a unit's 'supply train' is about equal to 1/3 its carried mass (for Battlemech and Vehicle units).  This suggests that each mech wants 50 tons of cargo, each 100 ton vehicle 33 Tons, and each small vehicle ~16 tons. 

I'm working on a Walkurie Refit into a hybrid carrier/transport/gunship, (think Star Wars Ventator) and want to make sure I've enough biscuits to go around.  Having supply tonnage at about 1/3 the tonnage dedicated to carriage helps me keep things in line in my head - still not sure about provisioning infantry - how long can you deploy a soldier on a ton of supplies?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 14 November 2018, 13:07:20
Warning: long.

I'm not overly worried. I know I got hit with the big stick last turn, but as long as Mr GM takes turns beating us like a red-headed step child, I'm good.

EDIT: I did notice my budget basically didn't change from last turn, despite taking a few worlds off Ze Germanz, I assume I had to pay indemnity for the civilian casualties?

Don't worry, you'll all get beaten here and there. As for the budget, that was a victim of last turn's chaos. I set budgets before determining battle outcomes, and never went back to fix them. They'll be properly refreshed for next turn.

I really see multiple designs as the future of the FWL, as well.
Just maybe not line battle designs. But, say, a fast ship, or some cheap armour boxes to generate ECM to hide behind, might come up in the future. I could also see myself adopting an interval approach where I update one design every second serious opportunity and another one on the other.
Well, and I do have that 1.5m ton yard.
You are right, streamlining one's force drastically eases the pressure on finances. I just wonder if, long term, that will still be such a big concern: If our navies grow, the prototype cost for a refit will be a far lower share of the modernization effort. How many ships do I even have?
From what info I've gathered so far, the FWL ships mostly aren't even outdated, technologically - not much happened on that front in the first turns.
The battlefield just had other plans as to what was considered necessary. And with the march of technology, those ships may actually become viable again. Maingunnery produced a thoughtful design that could still be used to patrol borders, show the flag, or transport groundtroops, even if I don't see a future for the Heracles as a ship of the line around 2500.
Btw, does the FWL have actual fighter or Small Craft designs, or do I use whatever is considered standard?
I suppose until now fighters were basically additional missiles, so their stats didn't matter whatsoever.

I have a feeling what I originally wrote and what I added now didn't quite match and my post is all over the place.

I think everyone will have at least a few designs in practice. As you say, differential yard sizes will be one big driver - you can't spend your budget or defend your nation with 2x size 6 ships per turn, but you can't easily afford to build other lines up to similar sizes either.

I agree.  I think 1 generalist for all battle duties, and then specialists only as unavoidably necessary - as given KF Core costs, ANY specialist is a Battleship that didnt happen, cost-wise.  Though even so.. Im wondering if given that fact one isnt well served to just put a LITTLE cargo, a LITTLE troops, and SOME fighter onto every NACboat, and make every ship a NAC-heavy generalist.  (though if Buri shocks me, I may reassess the role of NAC vs Energy Weapons)

NACs are strong, but I don't want them to be the universal choice. No changes to announce yet, but much like how I intend to rescue NGauss with range rule changes, I may do similar to NACs. For example, if they all had their ranges cut by a third, that might help balance them against energy weapons a bit better? IDK.

Given the paucity of engagements, most ships go 20 years or more without firing a shot in anger.  I think the barrels will be okay.  :)

Yes, there is some circular dominance - but its at the 1 thrust advantage level, I think, if it exists at all. The real advantage of higher speed is the ability to choose or decline engagement - the firepower and resilience lost in the service of this can and must be substantial.

A 2/3 should have long range armament - it MUST - or it gets murdered by anything faster.

A 3/5 NAC boat closes a 2/3 and may have an advantage - I honestly think the 2/3 NPPC fights about even with 3/5 NAC, due to range and accuracy.  But its a close call.  3/5 NAC has to worry about 4/6 NPPC.

A 4/6 NAC boat gives up too much hull and armament to beat a 2/3 NPPC even if it can teleport into point blank range... it has about 33% more firepower at point blank, but the PPC boat gets 50% more resilience.  That said, the 4/6 NAC will fight about even with a 3/5 NPPC, as I see it.  A 4/6 NPPC will stomp all over a 3/5 or slower NAC.

Past 4/6, you start leaving the realm of ‘Line of Battle’ and we are dealing with solo or small squadron operators, where individual concerns will control.

Of course, NACs show to advantage in high speed closing engagement, which is outside this analysis. 

This analysis also ignores fighters and missiles, because based on observed performance, ship mounted launchers are poor weapons even if PDS is absent - which it is not - and amounts of AAA/PDS sufficient to trivialize fighters and missiles can easily be mounted, assuming Vega has precidential value.

This analysis made sense early, but remember that we have fractional thrust now. How much is a 0.2 thrust advantage worth to you? Nobody has played with it yet, but it might be interesting if anyone ever starts building to counter another fleet. A small thrust advantage like that will naturally not give you the same sort of maneuver dominance that a 1-thrust advantage would, but it's something.

Any word from Kiviar Mr GM sir?

He said I should have it by the end of the week. That's sooner than I'll plausibly finish, so it's sufficient. I also need to write up the RWR myself, and do a bit of prep work before I want to continue. I don't expect to have more than half a turn finished by this weekend. That said, I've been vastly more productive when I have had time to write, so I don't expect I'll run into the same writer's block that plagued turn 6.

I anticipate Kiviar may have done his turn via PM, as I believe he has in the past.  I will note that Im enjoying the level of activity on this thread.

RE fleet force appreciations - Ive not done them for the periphery realms and the TH for a couple of reasons.  The TH because its force level holds steady at ‘Sumo Wrestler vs Unarmed Kindergartners’, and the Periphery powers because they are in a similar position vis a vis the Houses - and cant really reach each other to have their own fun little wars.

Ahistorical, but it might be fun to fast-grow the P realms for a while, and at the same time calve off some of the outlying TH planets into the houses if they continue their course of internal unrest.  Could also be a handy mechanic to keep the Great Houses on something like a level playing field if we need some divine intervention to keep the plot interesting.  Heavy handed Deus ex Machina?  Perhaps - but have you seen what the official writers get away with?  :)

This activity level is fun, yeah. As for splitting the TH up, I'll see what happens. They'll get random internal events for a while yet, and if one goes badly for them it's possible.

  • There are some things that are fleet items rather than ship items, like the LNCSS.  Sticking one on every warship is a waste.
  • Making your entire fleet be high speed is armor/weapon inefficient, but having nothing with a high speed means that you can't catch fast opponents.  This hasn't really come into play yet, but it might.
  • On a human cost basis: Frontlining support personnel seems harsh.  Maybe reasonable, but certainly a plausible reason to have more designs.
I'm not concerned about high losses, insufficient budgets, poor strategic decisions, or lock-in to bad fleet doctrines.  In a real sense, I chose many of those with the TC and figuring out how to cope, starting with a crippling and crippled fleet of 6 Kutai, is my game.

I am somewhat concerned about whether or not the designs we make matter to the outcome.  The battle of Kannon/Vega looks like it was determined by a die roll without regard to the fleet compositions.  This seems antithetical to the premise if so.  However, it's only one battle and maybe I'm mistaken.

W.r.t. the army having a navy, the TCN will lobby with the Protector to shift the army's transport budget to the TCN.  The TCN can transport and simultaneously land a regiment at a lower cost than the army's Dropship/Jumpship approach (2.5B instead of 2.8B).  When landing in two waves is acceptable, this can further drop to 1.25B instead of 2.8B.   Just tell us how many regiments of army transport are required and give us the budget.  ( :)  I'll add this to my turn.)

1) Good point.
2) It amuses me how many of these discussions trigger "Ooh, I should write a battle where that happens!" moments.

Re Vega, the LC lost the dice and won the battle in material terms. Fleet composition mattered, I'd say.

Re army/navy cost calculations, can you elaborate for me? I'm not sure I follow the math.

I've updated the design links post (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1455413#msg1455413) to all current designs.

For Alsadius: I included the attempts at generic designs at the bottom as I was losing track of them in the thread.

You're awesome, thank you. I'll be dealing with generics in the next few days, and adding them to the spreadsheet. (I actually have a GM Aids tab at the end of the master sheet, after the periphery nations. Not complete yet, but I'll add things as I find them useful.)

I've updated by previous 'turn'-post with a bit of fluff and reasoning for the planned changes.

This will likely be as far as I can go on that before mid next week.
Further, I'd like to suggest a balancing measure:
Repair Facilities should be halved in cost on space stations.
They are immensely expensive on their own, making up easily half the cost of a ship for the larger ones, and thus are affected heavily by the space station cost multiplier.
I can take a Heracles and upsize it's repair bay to a million tons, and, lo and behold, it gets more expensive if I remove the jump drive.
I feel this would inevitably lead to 'jumping stations' to change cost, and I think that's just odd.
Alternatively, we could make use of the fact that space stations are allowed to mount multiple facilities, and drastically cut their cost for mounting multiples.

This is worth thinking about. I may make "station versions" that cost less than the ship-based versions, and since we have no repair stations yet, this should be easy to retcon.

What would you be building repair facilities into stations for? I've been handling that off-screen thus far. Would you want that to be put more front and centre?

W.r.t. the Heracles II, note that it take 12 hours to dock into the repair bay and 6-12 hours to undock.   During those times the Heracles II cannot use thrust without incurring structural damage. 

Wait, is that repair bay being used as a drop collar? That's...not an expected use of the rules. I was thinking it was just being made even more jack-of-all-trades than before. That may require some rule changes, or even the long-dreaded change to the ship cost formula. What's the effective cost of the repair bay?

To quote my wife who was watching me doing some ship and turn design at one point:

Her:  “Honey, what game ya playin?”
Me:  *chipper voice*  “Spreadsheets!”
Her:  “Ahh.  Your FAVOURITE game.”

You too, huh?

Some observations:
I.)  A classic battletech regiment (12 Units to a Company, 3 Companies to a Battalion, 3 Battalions to a Regiment) is 108 Units, if Im remembering right?

II.)  9 Small Dropships (notionally, Union class) carries 12 units (and I note your Small Carrier Dropships carry 12 fighters).  This suggests that 9 droppers = 108 Units = 1 Regiment.

III.)  If 1 Dropship carries supplies for 3 dropships worth of units, then a unit's 'supply train' is about equal to 1/3 its carried mass (for Battlemech and Vehicle units).  This suggests that each mech wants 50 tons of cargo, each 100 ton vehicle 33 Tons, and each small vehicle ~16 tons. 

I'm working on a Walkurie Refit into a hybrid carrier/transport/gunship, (think Star Wars Ventator) and want to make sure I've enough biscuits to go around.  Having supply tonnage at about 1/3 the tonnage dedicated to carriage helps me keep things in line in my head - still not sure about provisioning infantry - how long can you deploy a soldier on a ton of supplies?

I/II) Correct. I realized that later on, but didn't go back and edit, because I'd already figured I wasn't going to implement the rules.

III) I don't actually know how this works, tbh. I have a vague sense of IRL supply requirements, and I've given rules of thumb for ship cargo back in the early parts of the game, but I'm not confident of the internal consistency of these rules. That said, it seems about right for a BT game? Probably lower than IRL, but in line with how the force structure works in the setting, and it allows operations to happen. IDK.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 14 November 2018, 14:25:12
Wait, is that repair bay being used as a drop collar? That's...not an expected use of the rules. I was thinking it was just being made even more jack-of-all-trades than before. That may require some rule changes, or even the long-dreaded change to the ship cost formula. What's the effective cost of the repair bay?
Yes, yes it is ^-^. If you want, I can provide whacky rules for the coming 5 turns or so.  :D
Though both is true.
I originally planned with an engineer version, but decided against two prototypes when I can expect technology gains within the next 2 turns that would invalidate those designs. Adding a small bay was a compromise.
Using a repair bay instead of a collar saves about 600m ( I believe it's 5000 * Capacity, double for Pressurized), but immobilizes the ship for 6+ hours after the jump if it makes actual use of that. *
I see that as an acceptable trade-off for patrol duty near the periphery, and relocation within friendly territory. This grants the ship certain logistical utility while not impacting its combat performance(I maintain my stance that dropships are useless - Even if we only take a 20/1 factor for capital weapons they will be fragile and underarmed, while not having the ECM protection that larger ships enjoy).
Conversely, on a large repair bay, like I originally planned and how the rule writers might have envisioned it if they cared at all about costs, the free collars aren't an issue because the repair bays are so fiendishly expensive.
I mainly wanted a mobile repair ship to support offensive operations, but theoretically a large enough facility could be used for refits, too.
The newgrange, f.Ex. is stated to have enough cargo to store a disassembled destroyer and sufficient facility to build everything up to KF cores.
While I haven't planned for that, it might indeed be possible to create something akin to mobile yards. Only if that is actually possible is their cost anywhere near justified.

Damn, I didn't even think about fractional thrust. That could indeed offer possibilities.
*edit: In that light, dropship collars are kind of like LF batteries. A luxury item allowing mobility and flexibility.

Quote
NACs are strong, but I don't want them to be the universal choice.
They aren't. They are a common and very good choice, but as laid out they suffer from lower range than most energy weapons. If you want to limit their use, you could have them have an effect on maintenance cost.

Edit2:
With some help + suggestion by marcussmythe, here's a preliminary turn:
Code: [Select]
Budget:                                   107B
Repairs                                    -4B
Maintenance (100%)                      -23.76
R&D, Heracles Block II Class BC         -8.32
Refit, 17 Heracles-> Heracles Block II   -0
Production, Heracles Block II x 6       -41.62
Research, 2/5/3                        -10
Irian Upgrade, 1->2                   -10
Jumpship x 2                           -1
Remainder:                             8.32
With buffer. I'll revisit it if the turn hasn't been 'locked in' by the time I return, ~5 days from now.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 14 November 2018, 16:17:40
NACs are strong, but I don't want them to be the universal choice. No changes to announce yet, but much like how I intend to rescue NGauss with range rule changes, I may do similar to NACs. For example, if they all had their ranges cut by a third, that might help balance them against energy weapons a bit better? IDK.
I'm skeptical that NAC rules need to change.  They are good but not outclassed by less efficient weapons with longer range.

Edit: Oh, and I don't think Ngauss need rescue if you use individual weapon ranges.  Light NGauss have the longest range of any capital weapon.  Medium NGauss are the only extreme range kinetic weapon (useful for high speed engagements) and since they are comparable to HNPPC in damage efficiency they are a reasonable choice.  Maybe the Heavy NGauss needs something, but 1 lemon in a series isn't that bad.
Re army/navy cost calculations, can you elaborate for me? I'm not sure I follow the math.
1 Mother + 1 Taurus I + 1 Tick + 108 dropshuttles can simultaneously transport and land a regiment at a cost of 2.594B.   Here, I'm assuming that half of the regiment's transport is light vehicles and half heavy vehicles (162 vehicles in total). 

2 Jumpships + 6 dropships with each dropship transporting 1800 tons of vehicles can transport the same regiment for a cost of 500*2 + 300*6 = 2.8B.

Downside of the TCN approach: transit takes an extra 12-18 hours for unpacking and a factor of 20.5 for transport.   These downside are meaningless if the army is relying on the navy for escort. 
Upside of the TCN approach: Army can transport a second regiment for free in cargo to load and deploy in a second wave.  Army protected by capital armor.  Army protected by 12 NL55s and 720 MGs.  Every person has quarters (steerage, admittedly, but that's a step above bays) and the entire craft is stocked for one year deployments.  The smallcraft landing system is much more flexible than dropships.  The navy will also contribute 12 Crestbreaker point defense smallcraft and 72 ASF which can defend the transport and support the army in ground operations.
Wait, is that repair bay being used as a drop collar? That's...not an expected use of the rules. I was thinking it was just being made even more jack-of-all-trades than before. That may require some rule changes, or even the long-dreaded change to the ship cost formula. What's the effective cost of the repair bay?
Using repair bays for jump transport, as happens with the Mother, is cheaper than a dropcollar for small dropships and more expensive for large dropships with medium dropships in between.   Doing this on a warship means substantially impairs maneuverability.   Using a reinforced repair bay (not invented yet), is hideously expensive but addresses this issue.
III) I don't actually know how this works, tbh. I have a vague sense of IRL supply requirements, and I've given rules of thumb for ship cargo back in the early parts of the game, but I'm not confident of the internal consistency of these rules. That said, it seems about right for a BT game? Probably lower than IRL, but in line with how the force structure works in the setting, and it allows operations to happen. IDK.
I expect 1 ton of supplies for 1 person for 200 days, as per people housed in quarters, is generally reasonable.  On planet you'll get some 'freebies' like water & air, but you'll be more open cycle as well since you don't recycle as thoroughly as aboard ship.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 14 November 2018, 16:50:14
FLEET STRENGTH CALCULATIONS
I attempted to make the same calculations for the TC.  These numbers are for _after_ this turn assuming no losses (not sure which time point you used).

Armor tonnage: 6.2 K
Capital damage: 3.7 K
AAA: basically zero
PDS: 17.1 K MGs
ASF Carriage: 1.014 K ASF
Dropship Carriage: 0

PDS is way ahead of everyone else: The TCN really doesn't want to be hit by missiles..  Armor tonnage, capital damage, and AAA are significantly inferior.   ASF carriage is comparable to FS but otherwise substantially inferior.  Dropship Carriage is like CC & LC.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 14 November 2018, 18:39:15
R&D, Heracles Block II Class BC         -8.32
This should be 4.16 because it's a refit, not a new ship type.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 14 November 2018, 18:42:33
Holy crap!  Your right, I totally missed that.  Yeah, he will have some extra cash to play with.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 14 November 2018, 21:28:33
Lagrange~

Your Generic droppers do pose a problem, somewhat.

We can't use them, considerate that their Aerodyne and not Spheroid, which we have tech for. Aerodyne is Advanced Tech, Researchable only.

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 14 November 2018, 21:33:51
Your Generic droppers do pose a problem, somewhat.

We can't use them, considerate that their Aerodyne and not Spheroid, which we have tech for. Aerodyne is Advanced Tech, Researchable only.
My understanding is that this is true in battletech but not in the AU.  In particular, there is no aerodyne dropship on the tech advancement schedule.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 14 November 2018, 21:48:59
Old tech list gave us Aerodyne droppers with Medium DS from memory, just omitted from the new list
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 15 November 2018, 09:37:53
Code: [Select]
Budget:                                   107
Repairs                                    -4
Maintenance (100%)                     -23.76
R&D, Heracles Block II Class BC         -4.16
Refit, 17 Heracles-> Heracles Block II     -0
Production, Heracles Block II x 5      -41.62
Research, 2/5/3                           -10
Irian Upgrade, 1->2                       -10
Jumpship x 2                               -1
Remainder:                              12.48

Does that look like what you meant?  You had lowered the cost, and raised the remainder, to reflect building x5 Heracles, but still showed 6 being built - and then Lagrange was kind enough to point out that we only needed 1/2 price for the Heracles II R&D, as its a refit, not a new hull.

You might consider building a sixth Heracles, since Lagrange found an extra 4B in that R&D cost.  That said, 12B in the bank is a cushion against next turn.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 15 November 2018, 10:45:48
Yes, yes it is ^-^. If you want, I can provide whacky rules for the coming 5 turns or so.  :D
Though both is true.
I originally planned with an engineer version, but decided against two prototypes when I can expect technology gains within the next 2 turns that would invalidate those designs. Adding a small bay was a compromise.
Using a repair bay instead of a collar saves about 600m ( I believe it's 5000 * Capacity, double for Pressurized), but immobilizes the ship for 6+ hours after the jump if it makes actual use of that. *
I see that as an acceptable trade-off for patrol duty near the periphery, and relocation within friendly territory. This grants the ship certain logistical utility while not impacting its combat performance(I maintain my stance that dropships are useless - Even if we only take a 20/1 factor for capital weapons they will be fragile and underarmed, while not having the ECM protection that larger ships enjoy).
Conversely, on a large repair bay, like I originally planned and how the rule writers might have envisioned it if they cared at all about costs, the free collars aren't an issue because the repair bays are so fiendishly expensive.
I mainly wanted a mobile repair ship to support offensive operations, but theoretically a large enough facility could be used for refits, too.
The newgrange, f.Ex. is stated to have enough cargo to store a disassembled destroyer and sufficient facility to build everything up to KF cores.
While I haven't planned for that, it might indeed be possible to create something akin to mobile yards. Only if that is actually possible is their cost anywhere near justified.

Damn, I didn't even think about fractional thrust. That could indeed offer possibilities.
*edit: In that light, dropship collars are kind of like LF batteries. A luxury item allowing mobility and flexibility.
They aren't. They are a common and very good choice, but as laid out they suffer from lower range than most energy weapons. If you want to limit their use, you could have them have an effect on maintenance cost.

Edit2:
With some help + suggestion by marcussmythe, here's a preliminary turn:
Code: [Select]
Budget:                                   107B
Repairs                                    -4B
Maintenance (100%)                      -23.76
R&D, Heracles Block II Class BC         -8.32
Refit, 17 Heracles-> Heracles Block II   -0
Production, Heracles Block II x 6       -41.62
Research, 2/5/3                        -10
Irian Upgrade, 1->2                   -10
Jumpship x 2                           -1
Remainder:                             8.32
With buffer. I'll revisit it if the turn hasn't been 'locked in' by the time I return, ~5 days from now.

The repair bay rules also allow you to have up to 2x DS inside, so that's actually sort of like having three collars for the time being. However, the tradeoff is the time(as you say), but also that a repair bay is bulky and hard to armour. It's not fatal, but it will be a weakness in a front-line combat model. There's a reason that the Mother and Newgrange are designed to stay far away from enemy guns - cost and specialization are part of it, but there's also design tradeoffs at play. Note also that you're not required to change all of your ships of a given type - it's perfectly okay to refit half a dozen to Heracles II and leave the rest as-is, if you want.

Re DS value, I agree that they're weak right now. Not useless, but probably overcosted. Medium DS will change that somewhat, however.

Re budget, I noticed the same issues as Marcus - his correction seems proper.

Lagrange~

Your Generic droppers do pose a problem, somewhat.

We can't use them, considerate that their Aerodyne and not Spheroid, which we have tech for. Aerodyne is Advanced Tech, Researchable only.

Not quite. I used the canonical introduction date of aerodyne and spheroid DropShips to set my tech schedule. But the tech schedule limits mass, not style. Any DS up to 5000 tons is currently legal, whether aerodyne or spheroid. (This confusion is almost certainly my fault, as I think I kept using the names "aerodyne" and "spheroid" even after changing the rules. Sorry.)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 15 November 2018, 11:45:35
In his defense, I had also (mis!)read that as 'aerodyne drop ships are introduced along with medium sized drop ships.

Very well, error corrected, Aerodyne dropships available from day one.  Perhaps unsurprising, as 'Lifting Bodies' and 'Wings' are not exactly mysterious lostech.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 16 November 2018, 00:10:57
MH (glorious isolation, could swap with TC)
TC (large unfriendly neighbor, wierd navy.  If it works, swap with MH)

We're more prosperous than most periphery realms, good sir! Not our fault Nova Roma was built in a day...

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 16 November 2018, 10:46:09
Can we get a link to Lagrange's Warship Design Directory  in the original post?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 16 November 2018, 13:32:46
Can we get a link to Lagrange's Warship Design Directory  in the original post?

Done.

Also, as an update, the next turn will probably not go up this weekend. I've started writing a bit, but there's a few other things on my to-do list for the game as well, and I have a fair bit of RL stuff this weekend. It should be up next weekend, however.

This weekend, you can expect:
- Generic small ship designs will be finalized.
- The RWR turn will be posted.
- Army rules. I'll use the same stats as I discussed in my last post (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1457101#msg1457101), but it won't be under your control. Instead, I'll fully automate it, so it can be updated every turn without requiring me or you to do anything. (The goal here is to have a realistic, well-understood DS/JS fleet at every player's disposal, which can then give me guidance writing up battles, and which means that your losses will actually have some impact on the game instead of merely disappearing into the aether.)
- Stats on everyone's existing armies.

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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 16 November 2018, 15:29:19
FYI, made a minor change to the Matador, making the forward armament be a mixture of LRM 20s and MGs.

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?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 16 November 2018, 16:07:09
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.
For the TC highway map, I edited one of the Sarna maps.  I'm not very good at that, so it was annoying/slow, but it did work.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Vition2 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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe 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!
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange 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 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=63073.0) for official Battletech.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius 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 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=63073.0) 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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange 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).
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 17 November 2018, 08:47:32
Remind me to publish the Ferro-Aluminum upgrade of the Shuu next turn... :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 17 November 2018, 13:22:21
Federated Suns Turn 7
2410-2419

Fluff
Pending, but this (https://i.imgur.com/VAtAHV8.jpg) 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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange 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?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 17 November 2018, 22:20:25
Yeah just a couple typos when i fixed my post from earlier. Everything should be correct now.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange 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 :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish 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
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar 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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange 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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius 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 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1452785#msg1452785). 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 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1457101#msg1457101). 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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe 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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange 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?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius 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).
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange 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?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 18 November 2018, 18:13:21
On one hand, damn I got Blazers instead of IFA.

On the other hand, WOO MECHS!
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker 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  :'(
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish 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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius 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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe 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.


 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange 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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius 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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe 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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange 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 (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Taurian_Defense_Force#Doctrine) 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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius 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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange 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:
(Yes, I'm fully aware that excessive transport requirements are in the interest of TC given neighbors with larger budgets...)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish 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.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 19 November 2018, 14:45:20
My maintenance % hasn't changed for the fleet itself, just cut back on the support elements (stations, fighters etc).

Hunh.  Right you are.
 
So at Vega you were at 120% (Warships), 100% (everything else)
While the LCN was at 120% (Cruisers), 150% (Fighters) , 100% (everything else).

That change post-Vega was not you, it was me, inasmuch as I changed the above to 150% maintenance for gunships.  At Vega, we were spending the same amount on warships (me less, actually, as I wasn't paying the increased budget on my carriers - made more sense to spend it on fighters), though I was spending drastically more on my fighters.

Well, its spent, now, and we will see if it proves to have been well spent.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 19 November 2018, 14:51:53
Fusion sounds like a significant cost savings measure when taking into account transport costs.

In many ways it is. You'll notice that most obviously with the XL engine forces - more than tripling the cost to increase firepower 33-50% is a bit extortionate, until you factor in how much you're spending on transportation capacity. On defence, massed infantry is by a large margin the most cost-effective option, but at current tech levels it's $5.6B to get the lift capacity for a regiment. Would you rather spend $5.7B for a loaded infantry regiment, or $5.9B for a loaded tank regiment? It's a no-brainer.

Likewise, the difference in engine type is the biggest change between tanks and mechs in practice - the tabletop rules are being abstracted hard on this one, but TechManual tanks cost almost as much as mechs if they're fusion-powered, while the regiments differ in cost by nearly a factor of three. That's probably a factor of 4-5 on the vehicle costs, once you factor in all the other stuff that doesn't change like training and medical facilities. The implication is ICE tanks(or fuel cell at best) and fusion mechs.

Note that this will not change for at least several decades. One of the wildcard techs might be used to change up this dynamic, but until then, most of your ground units will be chemically-powered, not nuclear-powered.

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%.

The central limit theorem only holds when the probabilities are independent. Some supplies will be, but what if you get a bad batch of plasma rifles from a contractor with friends in high places, and need triple the usual spare parts? There's even more obvious situations, like summer vs winter uniforms for infantrymen. In RL warfare you can pick which one you want to give a regiment pretty easily, but in this setting you can go from the Sahara to Siberia in twenty minutes. That changes your supply needs a fair bit.

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...)

Part of why I picked those numbers was to be convenient - an infantry regiment is exactly 50 infantry bays and 3000 tons, for example, and other regiments are 30 infantry bays and 15,000 tons. I'll give some thought to your suggestions, but I'll tweak your numbers even if I accept the principle, to produce equally nice numbers.

Also, keep in mind that the easier transport is, the larger the invasion campaigns will get. In canon, truly big invasions are rare, difficult, and require either a huge tech edge or tremendous skill/luck differentials. The isolation of defending forces in this setting is profound, especially against a naval blockade, and so difficulties in transport are probably essential to avoid planet-smashing being too easy. If you can lift half your army, defenders spread across 200 worlds won't have a prayer against a hundred planets worth of attackers. This is also why I'm saying that large DropShips can't land - they can still be pocket WarShips, auxiliary cargo bays for real WarShips, carriers, etc., but they can't move whole regiments solo. If they could, invasions would get way too powerful. And even then, I'll probably cap their size well below 100,000 tons, because even simple auxiliary cargo gets too good at that scale.

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.

Note the numbers for a full regiment's weight, with "tail" included. The intention is to be nice and round, at least if it's packed away. But if you want to add a few vee bays for spares, nothing wrong with that.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 19 November 2018, 15:38:30
Part of why I picked those numbers was to be convenient - an infantry regiment is exactly 50 infantry bays and 3000 tons, for example, and other regiments are 30 infantry bays and 15,000 tons. I'll give some thought to your suggestions, but I'll tweak your numbers even if I accept the principle, to produce equally nice numbers.
Convenience is good, but I'm skeptical about infantry bays for interstellar travel.  30 people crammed into 5 tons is something like airline accommodations.  Reasonable for a few hours, tolerable for a day, but difficult to imagine for a week, let alone a month or 6.  I generally consider steerage quarters (i.e. rooms with bunk beds) to be more realistic while adding the mechanical advantage of reducing life support supplies by a factor of 10.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 19 November 2018, 15:40:13
Convenience is good, but I'm skeptical about infantry bays for interstellar travel.  30 people crammed into 5 tons is something like airline accommodations.  Reasonable for a few hours, tolerable for a day, but difficult to imagine for a week, let alone a month or 6.  I generally consider steerage quarters (i.e. rooms with bunk beds) to be more realistic while adding the mechanical advantage of reducing life support supplies by a factor of 10.

I flirt with putting my troops in 2nd class quarters, on the theory that well fed, well rested troops fight better.  Not sure I can justify the weight, though, once I start carrying infantry units.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 19 November 2018, 15:57:14
How about standard bays to sleep in, with a shedload of grav decks to train/exercise in?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 19 November 2018, 19:27:35
With my Snafu problem, My last TO&E posting a page or so ago will be considered Turn 8. SO I will be an observer until Turn 9, where I'll be posting again.

Anything I said in that posting is happening next turn....

Now for this Army thing:

A Century uses five Mechs, Tanks, Aero with PBI equaling 50 Troopers, 2 per Maniple.
A Maniple uses ten Mechs, Tanks, 100 PBI and Aero. ( 5 Air Maniples - 10 asf / Ala)
A Cohort is a mix of three Maniples, mostly Infantry and Vehicles.
And final a Legio uses four Cohorts, again mostly Infantry and Vehicles, but would incorporate an Aero Cohort. ( 2 Ala = 20 ASF )

So... I have 1,400 PBI, 24 or so Light Support vehicles and need 2K worth of supplies. While Armor gets 108 units, 48 or so Light Support vehicles and 6K worth of supplies.

Aero is same and so is Mechs, whenever I get them... now I'll be assuming three-quarters of these " supplies " to be fuel, with the rest as armor / ammo.

Leading me to Auto-rotate from the following:

Alphard -> 75 Infantry, 20 Armor, 20 Aero
Lothario -> 50 Infantry, 13 Armor, 10 Aero
Leximon / Lordinax -> 25 Infantry, 10 Armor, 9 Aero
Illyria -> 18 Infantry, 10 Armor, 7 Aero


Atypical Legio will be 3 Infantry Cohort, an Armor Cohort and an Aero Cohort.
( 900 Infantry, 30 Tanks and 20 ASF )

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 19 November 2018, 20:39:11
Some supplies will be, but what if you get a bad batch of plasma rifles from a contractor with friends in high places, and need triple the usual spare parts?
Usually, this sort of thing will be revealed in training and can be accounted for so it's not a surprise during deployments.
There's even more obvious situations, like summer vs winter uniforms for infantrymen. In RL warfare you can pick which one you want to give a regiment pretty easily, but in this setting you can go from the Sahara to Siberia in twenty minutes. That changes your supply needs a fair bit.
While covering Sahara vs. Siberia does require some additional weight, coming up with more than 100Kg/person of equipment across all infantry-deployable environments seems difficult. 

I would expect the biggest source of significant nonindependent maintenance failures to be environmental or adversarial.
-This is a super-humid climate which really corrodes equipment.
-The dust in the air here really clogs filters fast and a filter failure leads to an engine failure.
-The enemy really likes to use infernos which tends to cook our electronics much faster than normal. 

This class of problems suggest that combat vehicles have the most divergence from independence given the air breathing engine and default open construction.  Mechs & ASFs are sealed and fusion based.  Infantry are not "repairable" in a combat-effective sense, so their equipment is either adequate or they are non-deployable.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 19 November 2018, 22:20:16
One amusing note on ‘Fusion Engine Vehicles Cost Too Much’

- in many cases, the weight saved by going from ICE to Fusion allows a weight cut that gives you the same capability on a smaller, cheaper chassis, or so im told.  Need to math it myself, ofc.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 19 November 2018, 23:14:45
Also, I found this (https://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/mcgrath_op23.pdf) which talks about historical tooth-to-tail ratios. 

You can see that the tail fraction always increases as you move to larger elements which makes lots of sense. 

WWI: 21.6% tail for infantry divisions (page 14)
WWII: 32% tail for (partially motorized?) infantry divisions (page 21)
WWII: 42% tail for armor divisions (page 23)
Korean war: 38% tail for (motorized?) infantry divisions (page 27)
Vietnam: 42% tail for motorized/mechanized infantry divisions (page 31)
Cold war: 55% tail for armored division (page 37)
Desert Storm: 51% tail for armored division (page 41)
Past this point, it's all effectively combat vehicles and the organizational unit devolves to the brigade level.

The first conclusion (page 77) is that motorization is the primary driver of tail.

After reading through, it seems:
20-25% is a reasonable tail for foot infantry
50% is the reasonable tail for combat vehicles

The overall force in a theater is about 50% larger (=100% more tail) than these numbers would imply.  In our context, this would include dropship & jumpship crews for example.  It would also presumably incorporate a headquarters element at about a regimental scale in a planetary invasion context where a division (=9 regiments) is used.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 20 November 2018, 08:04:01
Ok, I am back from my trip in London.
I'll read up on what happened in the meantime soon; I'm a bit sleep-deprived now.

Regarding the Heracles Block IIs docking collars: I felt having 2 would be a bit cheesy, so I limited the repair bay to only one door. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 20 November 2018, 10:54:41
Convenience is good, but I'm skeptical about infantry bays for interstellar travel.  30 people crammed into 5 tons is something like airline accommodations.  Reasonable for a few hours, tolerable for a day, but difficult to imagine for a week, let alone a month or 6.  I generally consider steerage quarters (i.e. rooms with bunk beds) to be more realistic while adding the mechanical advantage of reducing life support supplies by a factor of 10.

It's a bare minimum, for sure. 1400 and 840 aren't too ugly as numbers go, though, so if you want to give them quarters then by all means do so.

I flirt with putting my troops in 2nd class quarters, on the theory that well fed, well rested troops fight better.  Not sure I can justify the weight, though, once I start carrying infantry units.

2nd class quarters for infantrymen are a luxury item. Add them for roleplay if you like, but they won't offer game-rule advantages over steerage. The THN went for 2nd class for Army officers and steerage for Army soldiers (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1444403#msg1444403).

How about standard bays to sleep in, with a shedload of grav decks to train/exercise in?

That's a plausible choice. Not as good as steerage, but better than bays.

With my Snafu problem, My last TO&E posting a page or so ago will be considered Turn 8. SO I will be an observer until Turn 9, where I'll be posting again.

Anything I said in that posting is happening next turn....

Now for this Army thing:

(snip)

Atypical Legio will be 3 Infantry Cohort, an Armor Cohort and an Aero Cohort.
( 900 Infantry, 30 Tanks and 20 ASF )

Those numbers aren't especially easy to reconcile with standard regiments. I'd say 4x legion = 5x infantry regiment, 1x vee regiment, and 1x aero regiment for gameplay purposes, more or less? It's not quite right, but it's pretty close.

Usually, this sort of thing will be revealed in training and can be accounted for so it's not a surprise during deployments.

While covering Sahara vs. Siberia does require some additional weight, coming up with more than 100Kg/person of equipment across all infantry-deployable environments seems difficult. 

I would expect the biggest source of significant nonindependent maintenance failures to be environmental or adversarial.
-This is a super-humid climate which really corrodes equipment.
-The dust in the air here really clogs filters fast and a filter failure leads to an engine failure.
-The enemy really likes to use infernos which tends to cook our electronics much faster than normal. 

This class of problems suggest that combat vehicles have the most divergence from independence given the air breathing engine and default open construction.  Mechs & ASFs are sealed and fusion based.  Infantry are not "repairable" in a combat-effective sense, so their equipment is either adequate or they are non-deployable.

Fair. I was also thinking about enemy-action-based dependant failure rates as well - you need to plan for that, so you bring a range of spares - but I guess I didn't say so.

I want to keep things fairly simple, though, which makes me wary of giving different stats to vee/mech/ASF regiments. (Remember also that mechs are bleeding-edge tech for a few turns yet, and will have much higher component failure rates than 31st century mechs will).

One amusing note on ‘Fusion Engine Vehicles Cost Too Much’

- in many cases, the weight saved by going from ICE to Fusion allows a weight cut that gives you the same capability on a smaller, cheaper chassis, or so im told.  Need to math it myself, ofc.

That kind of max-minning on ground unit designs is the sort of thing I'm trying very hard to avoid by keeping a lot of this stuff abstract ;)

Also, I found this (https://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/mcgrath_op23.pdf) which talks about historical tooth-to-tail ratios. 

You can see that the tail fraction always increases as you move to larger elements which makes lots of sense. 

WWI: 21.6% tail for infantry divisions (page 14)
WWII: 32% tail for (partially motorized?) infantry divisions (page 21)
WWII: 42% tail for armor divisions (page 23)
Korean war: 38% tail for (motorized?) infantry divisions (page 27)
Vietnam: 42% tail for motorized/mechanized infantry divisions (page 31)
Cold war: 55% tail for armored division (page 37)
Desert Storm: 51% tail for armored division (page 41)
Past this point, it's all effectively combat vehicles and the organizational unit devolves to the brigade level.

The first conclusion (page 77) is that motorization is the primary driver of tail.

After reading through, it seems:
20-25% is a reasonable tail for foot infantry
50% is the reasonable tail for combat vehicles

The overall force in a theater is about 50% larger (=100% more tail) than these numbers would imply.  In our context, this would include dropship & jumpship crews for example.  It would also presumably incorporate a headquarters element at about a regimental scale in a planetary invasion context where a division (=9 regiments) is used.

Fair. I'm embedding a lot of the theater-level tail in the regiment stats, FWIW, because when the corps HQ is on another planet you need to be pretty self-sufficient. The Korean numbers ex-Japan(i.e., 58% tail, page 25) might be the best model here, because some of the admin will still be taking place back home.

In canon, a Union(small) DS has a crew of 14, an Overlord(medium) DS has a crew of 43, and an Invader JS has a crew of 24. That's a total crew of 264 for a regiment now, or 204 with medium DS. The implied tail for an infantry regiment is thus 644 in the regiment and 264 in the transport, or 55% of total forces. Compare that to the US Army European theater as a whole in 1945(page 19), which was 61% tail. It's also likely to be a bit better than this, as "command lances", artillery batteries, etc. start breaking the force away from the neat 3:1 at each level, and increasing the likely "tooth" count beyond simply 27 infantry platoons.

I don't have a good sense of the numbers on "combat" vs "support" in a mech regiment, so I can't do similar math there.

Ok, I am back from my trip in London.
I'll read up on what happened in the meantime soon; I'm a bit sleep-deprived now.

Regarding the Heracles Block IIs docking collars: I felt having 2 would be a bit cheesy, so I limited the repair bay to only one door. 

Hope you liked it. I really enjoyed London when I was there a few months ago.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 20 November 2018, 11:00:08
That kind of max-minning on ground unit designs is the sort of thing I'm trying very hard to avoid by keeping a lot of this stuff abstract ;)

And thats fine.  I dont expect my min-maxing of ground units (or Aerofighters!) to have an effect at the operational/strategic scale.

I do, however, intend to continue designing the heck out of them, and expect to have an improved pair of ASFs and a couple of ground vehicles up soon.  Even if they dont have an impact at the strategic layer, I've got fairly firmly held ideas on what constitutes 'A Good Idea' in BT Verse procurement, and I'd be remiss if I didnt inject that into the LAF at every level.  :)

Code: [Select]
Shu-3 Heavy Fighter
By the early 2400s, advances in weapon and armor technology, along with a growing understanding of the
realities of combat, lead to a reassessment of the Lyran Commonwealth’s premier heavy fighter.

Though the SH-2 had served well, its autocannon had limited success in piercing the heavy armor of enemy ships,
and with the rise in resilience of aerospace fighters more generally, were often insufficient to wear down enemy
craft before ammunition was exhausted.  Further, the internal structure of the craft was not quite capable of
handling the full output of the 340 VOX engine without instability, defeating much of the purpose behind the heavy
design.

Increased reinforcement drove the overall mass of the craft higher, requiring the 340 Rated Engine to be modified
to achieve design performance – resulting in very slightly less mass available for armor.  Even so, the switch to
improved armor compounds slightly increased the crafts resilience, and the replacement of the triple 40mm
cannon with an array of energy weapons allows the Shu slightly improved performance at longer engagement
ranges, with a slight loss of range compensated for by the removal of ammunition dependence.
 
Once the enemy is brought into a dogfight the six Arcturan Arm’s “Rassal Blue Beam” Medium Lasers, backed
up by four mounts of the longer wavelength “Red Beam” light lasers produces fire sufficient to chew
through the ablative armor structure of most enemy craft very, very quickly indeed.  While lacking some of the
penetrating weight of the larger Autocannon and Particle Cannon recently deployed by their neighbors, CBM
argued that the extra penetration mattered less than weight of fire.

The fact that CBM could not build, buy, borrow, sub-contract, or steal particle cannons in 2413 was not mentioned.

Code: [Select]
Type: SH-3 Shu
Technology Base: Inner Sphere
Tonnage: 90
YIS: 2413


Equipment: Mass
Engine: 360 VOX         33
Safe Thrust: 6
Maximum Thrust:         9
Structural Integrity 9
Heat Sinks 19 9
Fuel 400 5
Cockpit 3
Armor Factor: 394 (Ferro-Aluminum) 22
Armor
Value
Nose 130
Wings 102
Aft 60

Weapons and Ammo Location
Large Laser x2 Nose 10
Medium Laser x 2 Nose 2
Medium Laser x 2                 R. Wing         2
Small Laser x 2                         R. Wing                         1
Medium Laser x 2 L. Wing         2
Small Laser x 2                         L. Wing                         1


Quirks:
Easy to Pilot, Easy to Maintain, Atmospheric Flyer, Poor Cooling Jacket (Large Lasers)

Code: [Select]
Linamin at Barat Bomber
The Linamin at Barat is a heavily modified and reinforced Shu hull.  A downrated engine, somewhat lightened
armor, and the removal of most weaponry allows for heavy internal and external missile storage.  Though the
Barat suffers from somewhat reduced acceleration, compared to the Shu, it can carry single Killer Whale missile
internally with no reduction in performance or range.  External storage, used for capital missiles on normal
aerospace fighters, is then repurposed for either additional fuel stores (greatly increasing operational range), a
second Killer Whale, or a pair of Barracuda anti-fighter missiles.

In a typical engagement profile, the two Barracuda are salvoed early, leaving the Linamin at Barat free to
maneuver at full thrust to deliver its anti-shipping payload, while enemy fighters are busy maneuvering to avoid
the incoming missiles.  Though her defenses are not so thick as her smaller sister, the nose and wings of the
Linamin at Barat (frequently referred to as the “Lady Bat” by pilots tired of pronouncing the name of a Philippine
Goddess of Monsoons) are sufficiently tough to absorb a small incoming capital missile themselves while leaving
the spacecraft operational.

One variant, the LB-4A Assault Craft, exchanges the bomb bay and lighter armament for a quartet of Arcturus
Arms “Rassal Voidbeam” Gamma-Ray Heavy Lasers.  Intended to offer at least some armor penetration capability
against enemy light spacecraft, such as dropships, the Assault variant carries a staggering 30 tons of armor
plating to ensure that this Monsoon survives to bring the rain.  So far only a few squadrons have been brought
into service.

Code: [Select]
Type: LB-2A Linamin at Barat Bomber
Technology Base: Inner Sphere
Tonnage: 100
YIS: 2414
Cost:

Equipment: Mass
Engine: 300 GM 19
Safe Thrust: 5
Maximum Thrust:         8
Structural Integrity 10
Heat Sinks 10 0
Fuel 400 5
Cockpit 3
Armor Factor: 340 (Ferro-Aluminim) 19
Armor
Value
Nose 100
Wings 90
Aft 60

Weapons and Ammo Location
Cargo Bay Body 50
Medium Laser x 2 Nose 2
Small Laser x 2 R Wing 1
Small Laser x 2 L Wing 1

Quirks:  Internal Bomb Bay, Hard to Pilot

Code: [Select]
Type: LB-4A Linamin at Barat Attack Fighter
Technology Base: Inner Sphere
Tonnage: 100
YIS: 2414
Cost:

Equipment: Mass
Engine: 300 GM 19
Safe Thrust: 5
Maximum Thrust:         8
Structural Integrity 10
Heat Sinks 33 23
Fuel 400 5
Cockpit 3
Armor Factor: 537 (Ferro-Aluminim) 30
Armor
Value
Nose 156
Wings 138
Aft 105

Weapons and Ammo Location
Large Laser x 4         Nose 20

Quirks:  None
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 20 November 2018, 12:59:38
It's a bare minimum, for sure. 1400 and 840 aren't too ugly as numbers go, though, so if you want to give them quarters then by all means do so.
If the default is infantry bays then the excessive supply makes more sense as after 20 days you'll burn through 1400 tons of supplies en route.  20 days aboard a crowded airplane seems likely to result in some significant personnel problems though...
Fair. I'm embedding a lot of the theater-level tail in the regiment stats, FWIW, because when the corps HQ is on another planet you need to be pretty self-sufficient. The Korean numbers ex-Japan(i.e., 58% tail, page 25) might be the best model here, because some of the admin will still be taking place back home.
If we want theater level tail in the regiment stats, then the high tail of the infantry regiment makes more sense.  Perhaps having theater level tail spread somewhat more uniformly across different regiments types makes sense though?
I don't have a good sense of the numbers on "combat" vs "support" in a mech regiment, so I can't do similar math there.
The best present-day model might be the air force as "single pilot expensive machines".   The US Air force has 5K planes and about a half million full time people (https://web.archive.org/web/20120914034846/http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Magazine%20Documents/2012/May%202012/0512facts_figs.pdf ) of which 1/3 are civilian and a single digit fraction are pilots.  Basically, it's all tail. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 20 November 2018, 14:17:48
...
Added links.  Shu-3 has a bug: FA armor -> only 4 weapons/wing. 

The internal bomb bay is interesting, but it's a shame it doesn't work with a 6/9 profile.  As is, a 6/9 90 tonner with a Barracuda can close on a 4/6 warship.  This allows you to close on a 4/6 with a heavier missile, but 5/8 warships remain capable of consistent escape. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 20 November 2018, 14:20:41
The US Air force has 5K planes and about a half million full time people (https://web.archive.org/web/20120914034846/http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Magazine%20Documents/2012/May%202012/0512facts_figs.pdf ) of which 1/3 are civilian and a single digit fraction are pilots.  Basically, it's all tail.

True.  But at the same time, given that those people are maintaning airbases, etc. which while not weapon systems themselves are a living, breathing part of the weapon system... isnt calling all of that tail somewhat like calling a CVN the 'tail' for its aircraft, or a BB, all the way down to the turret mechanisms and magazines, 'tail' for the gunner and the naval rifle?

More broadly - the modern fighter aircraft is an over-engineered thoroughbred, temperamental, delicate, and requiring constant TLC.  Ive always had the impression in setting that most battlemechs (at least the ones still operational in 3025!) are rather more like British Centurion tanks, or even AK-47s - nigh indestructable even in the face of the most obscene abuse and neglect.

Now, its not 3025, and our mech forces (for those of us that have them, ya basterds! :) ) may be a lot more like F-22s, or perhaps like WWI British MkI - fragile, tempermental, etc.  Its certainly worth nothing that the subset 'Battlemechs in service in 3025 Classic Battletech' is not a perfect match for the set 'Battlemechs', inasmuch as they are by definition the self-selected surviviors.

Still, the fluff of the universe - from small pirate (and mercenary, though mercs may lean on the employers tail), it just doesnt seem like BT verse conflict has the same logistical demands as IRL conflict.  Whether this reflects war machines built from supermaterials and focused on rugged sustainability and modularity, a ruthless winnowing and self-selection process that has left all hard to maintain and repair machines and technology extinct by 3025 (where most of our feel for the universe originates), or a simple lack of interest in such matters on the part of writers and players... IDK?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 20 November 2018, 14:38:47
Added links.  Shu-3 has a bug: FA armor -> only 4 weapons/wing. 

The internal bomb bay is interesting, but it's a shame it doesn't work with a 6/9 profile.  As is, a 6/9 90 tonner with a Barracuda can close on a 4/6 warship.  This allows you to close on a 4/6 with a heavier missile, but 5/8 warships remain capable of consistent escape.

I'll juggle weapons and clean that up, good catch.

Yeah, it obviously wont matter in play - but I cant see a way to build a 6/9 with an internal KW (maaaaybe with XL engines?), and I dont think an internal 'Cuda is worth what you give up.

The flexible loadouts on the bomber are more interesting, what with mixing missiles carried... 2KW, 2Cuda + 1 KW, 2 WS +1 Cuda, or dropping missiles out of any of the above to (radically!) extend fuel endurance.

The real pity is the fact that somehow once it stops being a 'Fighter' and becomes a 'Small Craft', bomb bays go away.  Small Craft, given their long range/endurance and greater internal carriage, would make ideal stand-ins for things like Backfires.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 20 November 2018, 16:03:28
True.  But at the same time, given that those people are maintaning airbases, etc. which while not weapon systems themselves are a living, breathing part of the weapon system... isnt calling all of that tail somewhat like calling a CVN the 'tail' for its aircraft, or a BB, all the way down to the turret mechanisms and magazines, 'tail' for the gunner and the naval rifle?
Yes.  For a deployed army ASF regiment maybe it's only 1:10 between ASF and headcount?  The "standard" of having a full tech crew per ASF puts you at 1:8 including the pilot.   Filling in a little bit more for leadership & organization tasks would leave you at 1:10.   On the other hand, I'm fine with 1:7.78 and spreading the tech crews around a bit more. 

BTW, a thought w.r.t. mass use of infantry bays: I hope no one amongst the 1400 is sick when you board :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 20 November 2018, 19:43:34
Those numbers aren't especially easy to reconcile with standard regiments. I'd say 4x legion = 5x infantry regiment, 1x vee regiment, and 1x aero regiment for gameplay purposes, more or less? It's not quite right, but it's pretty close.

So four Legio's equals 5 Infantry, 1 Armor and 1 Aero Regiment?

Cool, I'll use this...

Thanks,
TT

PS: We're cool about not having me expend any cash other than what Army gets? Just assume I'm still in Turn 6/7 mode and am currently attempting to pacify Illyria.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 20 November 2018, 23:14:28
One last way to judge the tail is by looking at the rules. 

The maintenance rules are pretty harsh.  A regular technical team on a quality F(best case) tech level D(typical now) mech has a target number of 6 and will inevitably destroy the mech over time as the quality rating steadily declines through failed rolls.  The only way to avoid this is through the use of multiple technical teams and/or veteran/elite technical teams.  Generally speaking, you want 3 regular technical teams, 2 veteran technical teams, or 1 elite technical team on maintenance to avoid inevitable destruction.  The other common penalties are tech level E(+1 penalty), tech level F(+2 penalty), and era modifiers.  If we use Age of War era modifiers than the TH gets a -1, the TC, LC, FWL, FS, and DC have a +0, and everyone else has a +1 penalty.  Altogether, pretty much every military should use triple technical teams except for the TH which might get by with double tech teams and the CC/MH/RWR which should use triple veteran. 

The maintenance time for a heavy mech is 75 minutes, so a triple technical team can maintain ~6 mechs in an 8 hour day implying a minimum of 1 technical team / 2 mechs in a training role.  This leaves no slack for battle repairs.  Having 1 tech team/mech allows ~4 team-hours/mech for repairs without decaying the mech maintenance-wise which is to low. 2 technical teams/mech would give 12 team-hours/mech for repairs which is reasonable.  Altogether:
8 people/mech (1 pilot, 1 tech, 6 as-techs) implies minimal repairs (= maybe able to replace armor damage) or deferring maintenance and doing more extensive repairs.
15 people/mech (1 pilot, 2 techs, 12 as-techs) implies reasonably robust repairs (= able to repair serious damage) with full maintenance.

Other kinds of support personnel: 
Medical (5 people take care of 25 wounded but 1 free per dropship, multiple free per jumpship/warship/space station) is basically free.
Field kitchen (3 per 150) adds 2% overhead.
Search-and-rescue might add 2% overhead for 2 units. 
Logistics is a nonproblem if basing off a well-packed dropship/warship/space station.
Battle salvage requires tech teams and other units (not SAR, not combat).  This is relatively optional and probably varies by era.  In scavenging eras this might be 25%, but something more like 10% seems about right here.
There don't seem to be any rules for command/planning overhead.  I'd expect 10% of combat personnel, but that's pretty negligible given the overhead of tech teams. 

Using these numbers, you get something like 1865 people with a double tech team mech regiment and 1000 people for a single tech team mech regiment. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 21 November 2018, 06:28:36
So, the 1400 men quoted for a Inf Regiment rounds out to about 50 platoons worth, how they are actually organised is irrelevant for this discussion, just need to know how much space they take up. Of those 50 platoons 30 of them are combat troops (3 platoons x 3 Companies x 3 Battalions + 3 platoons for various command staff units) leaving 20 for various non-combat roles, including crew of the 24 light vehicles. Roughly 40% tail which according to earlier posts is about right.

Can we assume a similar 20 platoons of non-combat troops for non-infantry units? Mech units don't need so many cooks, medical staff or other positions that need x staff per y combat troops, but they mech/vee/aero units need more maintenance crews of course, so it kinda balances out.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 21 November 2018, 07:46:54
After this discussion of tooth-tail ratios, I think my original numbers were actually pretty good. Let's keep them as-is.

Infantry: 1400 head count, 24 light vee(or 1000 tons), 2000 tons supplies. (3k tons total)
All Other: 840 head count, 108 combat units(or 7000 tons), 48 light vee(or 2000 tons), 6000 tons supplies. (15k tons total)

Also, I've cleaned up the master sheet a bunch, and picked the generic units.
Light Fighter: Tanto-2 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1448813#msg1448813) - 30t, 9/14, 125 armor, SRM-6, 4x MG
Medium Fighter: Wakizashi-2 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1448814#msg1448814) - 50t, 7/11, 170 armor, AC/5, 2x SRM-6, 4x MG
Heavy Fighter: Cyclone (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1445709#msg1445709) - 80t, 6/9, 241 armor, 2x AC/5, 2x SRM-6, SRM-4, 6x MG

Shuttle: Centauro-150 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1449033#msg1449033) - 150t, 6/9, 516 armor, 6x MG, 3x Inf, 9t cargo
Screen SC: Fireshield (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1449388#msg1449388) - 200t, 5/8, 952 armor, 36x MG, 2t cargo
Tank Transport SC: Skyfall (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1443669#msg1443669) - 200t, 3/5, 300 armor, 6x MG, 1x heavy tank, 10t cargo
Tanker SC: (none yet)
Cargo SC: (none yet)

Infantry Small DS: (none yet)
Tank Small DS: Battalion (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1449218#msg1449218) - 5000t, 3/5, 1015 armor, 6x LRM-20, 42x MG, 18x heavy tank, 305t cargo
Carrier Small DS: Carrier (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1449218#msg1449218) - 5000t, 3/5, 1015 armor, 6x LRM-20, 42x MG, 12x ASF, 1263t cargo
Cargo Small DS: Cargo (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1449218#msg1449218) - 5000t, 3/5, 684 armor, 3x LRM-20, 18x MG, 3383t cargo
Small Pocket WarShip: Rainbow (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1445709#msg1445709) - 5000t, 4/6, 1370 armor, 4x Barracuda, 18x AC/5, 46x MG, 6x ASF, 365t cargo
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 21 November 2018, 07:55:01
What game difference between paying for vehicle bays, mech bays, etc vs. having large amounts of generic cargo?

I assume things in bays are ‘ready to go’ and things in cargo are shrink-wrapped in boxes?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 21 November 2018, 09:09:47
What game difference between paying for vehicle bays, mech bays, etc vs. having large amounts of generic cargo?
I assume things in bays are ‘ready to go’ and things in cargo are shrink-wrapped in boxes?
Basically.
Bays were relatively uncommon until around the 2600s. The main benefit of a bay is that it takes a combat round for a unit to emerge from a bay, given sufficient doors, while it could easily take an hour to unpack a tank lance from cargo.
Which is really part of my irritation on the lack of shuttle bays, which are really just quick-launch cargo bays: We could still carry dropships in cargo.
As such, I reckon vehicle bays are something you put on a dropship. Then again, a mech bay probably contains maintenance and tools to keep its cargo in working condition.
Infantry bays, on the other hand, allow you to actually store more infantry, though I've read somewhere that that should best not exceed 90 days of transport.
I'll probably design a troopship with at least a part of the troops in regular quarters.
I might also slightly modify the block IIs to have a pressurized repair bay.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 21 November 2018, 09:44:47
What game difference between paying for vehicle bays, mech bays, etc vs. having large amounts of generic cargo?

I assume things in bays are ‘ready to go’ and things in cargo are shrink-wrapped in boxes?

Correct. Bays are also used in making repairs - a proper bay gives something like a +2 on repair rolls compared to an empty room(like a generic cargo bay), though both are still better than open-field repairs. Given that vehicular drop chutes are a known tech, even WarShip-mounted vehicle bays are useful, as they can be used to drop combat forces from orbit. (This is why the Potemkin has so many)

TBH, vehicle and small craft bays are grossly overpowered, because they hold their own weight in craft and offer those bonuses. Paying 150 tons for a Mech/ASF bay that can hold 100 tons is much fairer. But it doesn't matter much in practice, it merely offends my sense of game design.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 21 November 2018, 10:14:24
In the alternate, 100 tons of cargo can carry 100 tons of general cargo.  While one might be able to fit 100 tons of armor plating or fusion engines in a 100 ton vehicle bay, one would expect little success fitting a bay designed to hold a 100 ton tank with 100 tons of clothing, rations, or livestock (though the last conjures an amusing mental image).

Given my feelings about Dropships, my intent was to outfit a ship with vehicle bays and infnatry bays, and field vehicles that carried infantry.  Such combat arms would be delivered to surface either via drop chutes (on bad days!) or via small craft transports. 

Sending your troops to the surface in their own independently manuvering, armed, and armored combat shuttles seems to have some strengths when compared to putting a company or batallion in a single transport, one crit roll away from exciting lithobraking. 

This would not fully replace the army’s dropships, but seems a useful supplement, and against hard targets allows the battle-force to ride entirely inside a warship rather than a relatively fragile dropship from jump to orbit, without leaving vulnerable jump assets behind, and resulting in a swarm of armed dropshuttles, backed up by fighters and capital ship fires.  In addition, Small Craft Bays can be retasked as Fighter bays, ansent an invasion use; and invasion cargo space retasked as ‘carrier ops cargo’ space.

Im all about the multirole when I can be.

I claim as my inspiration Aliens, and I know what my small craft droppers would look like.  :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 21 November 2018, 15:22:24
As per Alsadius in a PM to me,

Turn 7 is Turn 7.... Turn 8, mistaken for last TO&E posting of Turn 7, is not valid yet.

I'll most likely will be reposting it again...

So I'll chip i the chatline where needed.

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 21 November 2018, 15:33:35
.. via small craft transports. 
There are two downsides to the smallcraft approach that I'm aware of:
(1) Maintenance of a fleet of smallcraft is a more significant headcount issue than maintenance of dropships.
(2) Evacuating (or relocating) Battlemechs from a planetary surface is slow as you can only carry them as cargo.

The advantages seem quite significant---much more total armor protection, landing location flexibility, and lower odds of a catastrophic fail. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 21 November 2018, 15:50:54
There are two downsides to the smallcraft approach that I'm aware of:
(1) Maintenance of a fleet of smallcraft is a more significant headcount issue than maintenance of dropships.
(2) Evacuating (or relocating) Battlemechs from a planetary surface is slow as you can only carry them as cargo.

The advantages seem quite significant---much more total armor protection, landing location flexibility, and lower odds of a catastrophic fail.

True.  This would only apply to vehicles and could not be extended to battle mechs, due to issues of bay size, cargo rules, etc. 

While the LAF does not have Battlemechs and wont be getting them next turn, its certainly possible that they'll have them before I have breathing room to go making Warship Transports.

Hmm.  Maybe I just need to wait for Quadvees and stick those in Vehicle Bays?  :)  Or LAMS, and stick those in Fighter bays?  :):):):):)

The LCN probably SHOULD, no matter how much fun I find designing transports, focus on winning the space battle, until such a time comes that the LCN has spare slipways, budget, and naval superiority that it can afford to help the army win the land battle.

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 21 November 2018, 17:25:54
Its a pity one cant design with non-standard sized bays.  Few mechs are 100 tons, and a small craft could probably handle a bay for a smaller mech, if sizes were proportional.

For that matter, the inability of a dropship to fly into a -large- hole on the side of a ship and land baffles me.  Id happily carry my Unions internally if the rules allowed it.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 21 November 2018, 19:07:58
The rules do allow carrying dropships up to 5000 tons as cargo, and jump with them. You all just agreed to not allow drop shuttle bays.
You probably couldn't fill the dropship with anything while you store it as actual cargo, though.
That said, one could design a dropship with significant armour. The universe just didn't have any until the Jihad, for the same reasons it didn't have reinforced repair bays or screen launchers.
The writers, for decades, just didn't think of something so obvious.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 21 November 2018, 19:28:55
Also, its funny how a game played at this layer changes how you look at things like perks.

*gazes longingly at compact battlemech quirk*
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 21 November 2018, 20:43:18
Question for future mech construction, as luch as we're going generic most of us like to build stuff for the hell of it.

So my question: Primitive Mechs? Are we bothering with them at all (as we didn't bother with primitive aero), will we have primitive mechs for 1-3 turns after gaining the Mech technology before going on to 'Modern' machines, or will modern mechs be a separate technology?

In the end it doesn't greatly matter, just a curiosity for us designers to think about
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 21 November 2018, 20:50:18
On a side note, wouldn't a 75 ton Mech be considered an Assault?

 ;D

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 21 November 2018, 22:12:39
On a side note, wouldn't a 75 ton Mech be considered an Assault?

 ;D

TT

I'm playing the Lyrans.  75 tons is for recon and skirmishing.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: DOC_Agren on 21 November 2018, 22:15:22
I'm playing the Lyrans.  75 tons is for recon and skirmishing.
that heavy recon
for light recon, use the longest produced BA the Commando  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 21 November 2018, 22:21:31
that heavy recon
for light recon, use the longest produced BA the Commando  :thumbsup:

Since I lost out on the PPC/AC lotto this turn, as well as the Battlemech Lotto, I may design a tank with a Sniper (the full up arty piece) as its direct-fire main gun.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 22 November 2018, 05:46:58
The rules do allow carrying dropships up to 5000 tons as cargo, and jump with them. You all just agreed to not allow drop shuttle bays.
You probably couldn't fill the dropship with anything while you store it as actual cargo, though.
That said, one could design a dropship with significant armour. The universe just didn't have any until the Jihad, for the same reasons it didn't have reinforced repair bays or screen launchers.
The writers, for decades, just didn't think of something so obvious.

DropShips are hard shells, and can store things inside no matter where they may be at the time. And yes, the armour values are kind of low in canon, but I think the generics I've picked have more than enough armour to justify their use in battle. (Though part of me thinks I should drop the Fireshield to a 150-ton or even 100-ton design, because that is some ridiculous armour for a shuttle...)

Also, its funny how a game played at this layer changes how you look at things like perks.

*gazes longingly at compact battlemech quirk*

Oh, for sure. This is why narrow focus in a wide-ranging game can be so devastating to gameplay. Look at D&D for a classic example - if you accept that the game is designed around murderhobos taking 10-minute adventuring days and then sleeping until spells recover, social classes like the bard and high-stamina classes like the fighter fade into obscurity, in favour of primary spellcasters smashing everything in sight with their three best spells. But if you play the game as an actual roleplay, or even as one where there's more challenges than merely direct combat on a player-controlled schedule, that perverse dynamic disappears.

BT is a pretty rich universe, even if I may sometimes whine about FASAnomics, and there's a lot going on. When you look at things from different levels, you begin to see reasons for(or even advantages from) things that previously looked silly. This is half the fun of trying to make the universe live and breathe, and a big part of why I sometimes digress down weird tangents.

Question for future mech construction, as luch as we're going generic most of us like to build stuff for the hell of it.

So my question: Primitive Mechs? Are we bothering with them at all (as we didn't bother with primitive aero), will we have primitive mechs for 1-3 turns after gaining the Mech technology before going on to 'Modern' machines, or will modern mechs be a separate technology?

In the end it doesn't greatly matter, just a curiosity for us designers to think about

Since it doesn't matter in gameplay, I'll set no hard-and-fast rules here. But I'd say that most designs for the next few turns should probably be primitive, at least from a roleplay point of view.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 22 November 2018, 11:03:40
Since I lost out on the PPC/AC lotto this turn, as well as the Battlemech Lotto, I may design a tank with a Sniper (the full up arty piece) as its direct-fire main gun.
Personally, I like the Thumper.  Mount it on a (primitive) ICE hovercraft going 7/11 and use direct fire artillery at long range to make a nasty harasser.  The to-hit number is 4(regular)+4(DF artillery)+1(cruise)=9 against anything in 17 hexes no matter how fast or stealthy.  Return fire with conventional weapons faces  4(regular)+4(long range)+3(TMM)=11.   Particularly interesting are cluster rounds which "only" do 10 damage, but have a 1-in-6 chance of hitting for 1 damage if they miss and resolve on the shot from above table.  It's also extra damaging vs. infantry, extra critting vs. vehicles, and offers flak vs. airborne.... and it's ammo light, offering 20 shots/ton. 

Upgrades of armor (Primitive armor -> stealth), engines (ICE->XL fusion), and to Arrow IV (double cluster damage, homing missiles) are all helpful, but even with none of this it remains a capable legal design over a millenium in the BT universe.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 22 November 2018, 11:13:15
Thank you!

The 50 ton hovers thumpers  go in the light bays, the 100 ton track-layer snipers go in heavy vehicle bays.  Put an infantry compartment on both, and run each vehicle regiment as a combined arms formation of two regiments - 1 vehicle, 1 infantry.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 22 November 2018, 12:19:39
Put an infantry compartment on both, and run each vehicle regiment as a combined arms formation of two regiments - 1 vehicle, 1 infantry.
It leaves the Thumpercraft with only 6 tons of armor---a bit light for my taste but perhaps still viable.

I'm somewhat skeptical about an all-artillery approach because they are ineffective within 6 ground hexes leaving a range hole that infantry can only partially cover.  Maybe mix in some SRM carriers? 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 22 November 2018, 12:59:40
Oh, on any -real- force I wouldnt use it, but its so ludicrously Lyran its fun to talk about here.

Put some smoke rounds in SRM launchers and use the onboard infantry to help prepare partial cover firing positions - use the SRMs with infernos (whenever we discover Napalm) to back up the Arty - use infantry with mission -loaded weapons based on op4 - I can see it.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 22 November 2018, 19:25:59
Finally got around to reading about the tech progression.
Looks like I'll get quite the burst of progress. It looks like a miscalculated, though; getting a bunch of everything, nice as that is, doesn't really help you much, does it?

Oh, and a question: The TH and FWL both spent 5B on "Strengthening", yet the TH got 5 rolls and the FWL 4?  I assume you just forgot one of the numbers? Going by those present, probably another 10.
Regarding the progression: Are AC/10s actually good for anything? It seems to me they are just weaker, heavier, shorter ranged LRMs. I suppose they have utility on the ground level, but I doubt our abstraction allows that to matter.
DropShips are hard shells, and can store things inside no matter where they may be at the time.
Sorry, I meant you can't load it while it's in cargo.

Edit: Just looked at it again. Damn, I was so close to LF Batteries.

Light NGauss have the longest range of any capital weapon.  Medium NGauss are the only extreme range kinetic weapon (useful for high speed engagements) and since they are comparable to HNPPC in damage efficiency they are a reasonable choice.  Maybe the Heavy NGauss needs something, but 1 lemon in a series isn't that bad.
Well, what is it? The light uses no brackets but the others do? 
Actually, that might be preferable, in the long run. Say, an extreme range cap that is the longer of the bracket and the actual range. That said, I don't think a 2 hex advantage on the LG compared to an nppc is that great. Speaking of which, there's also no real reason to mount smaller nppcs.

Edit2: As I now seem to have a larger budget than expected, I might need to reconsider a bit. Tech's already been rolled, so I can't add to that, though I probably wouldn't have, anyways.
I was planning to put pressurized bays on the Heracles, but now I wonder: It is a combat design first and foremost, and a pressurized bay sounds like a bulky affair. Meanwhile, the unpressurized version is just meant as a foldable scaffolding. It probably won't hold up to fighter attack, but it doesn't weaken the ship, either. What do you think is the more sensible choice here?
I do have the money to pay an extra 200m per ship on them.

May I suggest a fractional bonus modifier to combat performance for ground units fighting against other ground units with inferior technology? That would give meaning to those otherwise not very space-significant technologies.
Also, maybe introduce a "near miss" on research? Say, for every 4 rolled, raise the chance of the first tech in that line proliferating by 8%, for the next 2 turns or until it actually happens/is researched? Fluff being that it's sure easier to reverse engineer if you already spent 2B to get it.
We do need more gradual techs, though. Maybe a partial development, that allows you to buy it next turn for 1B. Generally more things to be discovered. While it works so far, chances are tech has two tactics. Ignore it and mostly rely on spread, or push large sums into it and fill out half the tree in 5 turns. After all, tech doesn't cost maintenance.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 22 November 2018, 21:04:14
Tech will be advancing faster from now on, for sure. It seemed too slow to be much fun before, tbh, and wasn't generating much player engagement.

Re FWL rolls, you're right that I didn't post one. I think I rolled it, though I can't really be sure at this point. If you hadn't gotten a tech I'd give you the extra roll to be safe. But you did, and it's one of the more interesting ones, so I'll just assume it stands as-is. Good catch, though, and my apologies.

AC/10s are mostly useful on fighters. They're the biggest single-hit weapon around(well, tied with PPCs), which means they'll give fighters a bit more punch when attacking things like DropShips. LRMs are fairly good at shooting down fighters, but they bounce off medium-thickness armour, while an AC/10 can penetrate a bit better. They also let you unlock AC/20s, which are the best fighter-sized can openers until the advent of the heavy Gauss.

Fractional mods on tech rolls seem unappealing to me. The system will get more complex as we start factoring in spread next turn, and I don't want to add extra complications. That said, the strategy seems a bit different to me than to other people. It's diminishing returns, and each billion is worth less than the previous. There's no reason to choose between $0 and $5B in a category - if those are the two you're thinking of (assuming there's not some roleplay reason), then $1-2B seems like a better compromise.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 22 November 2018, 21:35:55
Question for you Alsadius~

In regarding to the " Standard " 4 Legio's to Regiment ( 5 Inf, 1 Armor, 1 Aero )...  Is it fair enough to swap 2 Infantry for 1 Armor? Still allowing me 3 Inf, ( 2) Armor and 1 Aero... per 4 Legio. Since most of my Infantry are former slaves working to become citizens. They'll most likely not be much in the help other than cannon fodder and such. I'll " look " great with overkill of PBI, but am much the " paper tiger " that I am...

You could " Double " the amount of Infantry used as combined force multiplier.

Where
Infantry regiment: $100m, combat power 1.

these could be 2 Regiments for combat power of 1.

So my initial 5 becomes like 6 -> par 3, 2 Armor and 1 Aero Regiments to 4 Legio. I'll have 2,800 per force average, but only less than optimal striking combat power.

Does this bode well with you and the peanut gallery? It'll explain how I got all these troopers, my ' Service guarantees Citizenship ' propaganda and how I colonized so quickly with a " beefed " up Army!

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 22 November 2018, 21:48:41
Well, I'm mostly thinking that players will either try to leech off their neighbors, or try to push ahead to get a significant bonus. Just getting a little bit of tech, on average, means spending a small warship a turn to be one turn behind instead of two. Which, now that I think about it, could actually be worth it. I certainly could have reached the same results with 2/2/2.
A less chance-heavy system could have been to just add rolls, maybe with a bonus on a 12 for a breakthrough, and grant a tech once a threshold is reached. Well, the current system certainly works for me.  8)

Regarding guns, I'm not worried about dropships. They are not useful against warships, and them being better against fighters with lrms, whose only job seems to be critseeking and missile delivery anyways, is of no consequence in combat. I'm assuming you're calculating with some sort of standard fighter, so if it does something in your system, yay, but to me it looks like filler that I can ignore at my leisure. Which I will. Honestly, a dropship that can be thresholded on any facing by an AC 20 is not worth the metal it is made of, to say nothing of whatever else goes in there. I'm not playing the RWR, I guess I actually have to value my crews.

As I just took a look at the tech progression, two observations:
A) Miniaturization is the only area that offers significant gains on the last 5 or so techs, regarding the naval scale.
B) Why are mass drivers that late? I mean, no one will use them, but on a theoretical level.
Actually, if the Army gets the same budget we get, but half our research results are small arms, does that mean the states are using their navy budget to do research for the army?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 22 November 2018, 23:20:15
Infantry: 1400 head count, 24 light vee(or 1000 tons), 2000 tons supplies. (3k tons total)
All Other: 840 head count, 108 combat units(or 7000 tons), 48 light vee(or 2000 tons), 6000 tons supplies. (15k tons total)
...
I'm going to treat a TDF infantry regiment as equivalent to a standard infantry regiment by assuming that 2 of the 3 troopers in a platoon do tail tasks.  Given this, there are 3 Taurus I loads that can be used.   

Navy Only: 12 Crestbreakers (nerfed to Fireshield implicitly), 2 Marine regiments, 12 David (nerfed to Centauro-150 implicitly), 7 navy ASF divisions (168 ASF) + 23.1K tons of supplies (mostly capital missiles) + Tick.  Life support lasts a year and there are 2 full loads of capital missiles/ASF.  Since the David is nerfed to Centauro, not all the Marines will be able to participate in combat, so they form a reserve and/or second wave.

Counterinvasion: 12 Crestbreakers (nerfed to Fireshield implicitly), 12 David (nerfed to Centauro-150 implicitly), 2 infantry regiments, 5.75 Navy ASF divisions (138 ASF), 30 Skyfall dropshuttles loaded with 45 vehicles, 117 combat vehicles stored as cargo (7.6K tons), 120=72+24+24 light support vees (5K tons), 13K=9K+2K+2K tons of supplies + additional supplies (2.5K tons).  Here, we use cross load from a Siesta to top off supplies after unpacking the Tick.  This is the 'max carry' load, featuring an army combat vehicle regiment (=1.5 standard regiments) and 2 army infantry regiments with full tails. 

Long invasion: 12 Crestbreakers (nerfed to Fireshield implicitly), 1 army combat vehicle regiment carried with 30 Skyfall dropshuttles + cargo as above, 2 Army ASF divisions (48ASF = .44 Regiment) with 2 capital missile loads, 4 Navy ASF divisions (96 ASF = .89 Regiment) with no capital missile loads, 6 David (nerfed to Centauro) as extra transports.   This configuration places everyone in quarters so it has much greater range than the counterinvasion load.

Adding things up:
7x Taurus I(counterinvasion) brings 10.5 standard combat vehicle regiments + 14 standard infantry regiments + ~9 standard navy ASF regiments.
7x Taurus I(long) brings 10.5 standard combat vehicle regiments + ~3 standard army ASF regiments + ~6 standard navy ASF regiments.
Either way, these significantly augment the 13=6.5(army transport regiments)+6.5(civilian transport regiments) that would otherwise be available.   

This does bring up one question: Can Navy ASF contribute significantly in ground combat?

Edit: Also, does the presence or not of ortillery matter in ground combat?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 23 November 2018, 07:29:26
Happy Yanksgiving to all my American players! I hope you all enjoyed the feast of gluttony and your crazy uncle's politics in your own preferred way :)

In regarding to the " Standard " 4 Legio's to Regiment ( 5 Inf, 1 Armor, 1 Aero )...  Is it fair enough to swap 2 Infantry for 1 Armor? Still allowing me 3 Inf, ( 2) Armor and 1 Aero... per 4 Legio. Since most of my Infantry are former slaves working to become citizens. They'll most likely not be much in the help other than cannon fodder and such. I'll " look " great with overkill of PBI, but am much the " paper tiger " that I am...

You could " Double " the amount of Infantry used as combined force multiplier. Where these could be 2 Regiments for combat power of 1.

So my initial 5 becomes like 6 -> par 3, 2 Armor and 1 Aero Regiments to 4 Legio. I'll have 2,800 per force average, but only less than optimal striking combat power.

Does this bode well with you and the peanut gallery? It'll explain how I got all these troopers, my ' Service guarantees Citizenship ' propaganda and how I colonized so quickly with a " beefed " up Army!

You can structure your forces any way you want. I'll be tracking standard regiments, and doing combat based on standard regiments, but I don't want to limit your options for how you design force structures. I'll just round it off as closely as I plausibly can. That said, if you actually want your forces to be sub-par, I can work with that.

Well, I'm mostly thinking that players will either try to leech off their neighbors, or try to push ahead to get a significant bonus. Just getting a little bit of tech, on average, means spending a small warship a turn to be one turn behind instead of two. Which, now that I think about it, could actually be worth it. I certainly could have reached the same results with 2/2/2.
A less chance-heavy system could have been to just add rolls, maybe with a bonus on a 12 for a breakthrough, and grant a tech once a threshold is reached. Well, the current system certainly works for me.  8)

Regarding guns, I'm not worried about dropships. They are not useful against warships, and them being better against fighters with lrms, whose only job seems to be critseeking and missile delivery anyways, is of no consequence in combat. I'm assuming you're calculating with some sort of standard fighter, so if it does something in your system, yay, but to me it looks like filler that I can ignore at my leisure. Which I will. Honestly, a dropship that can be thresholded on any facing by an AC 20 is not worth the metal it is made of, to say nothing of whatever else goes in there. I'm not playing the RWR, I guess I actually have to value my crews.

As I just took a look at the tech progression, two observations:
A) Miniaturization is the only area that offers significant gains on the last 5 or so techs, regarding the naval scale.
B) Why are mass drivers that late? I mean, no one will use them, but on a theoretical level.
Actually, if the Army gets the same budget we get, but half our research results are small arms, does that mean the states are using their navy budget to do research for the army?

DropShips aren't a huge offensive factor in combat, especially not in this era. But they do act as screening units and transports, and a lot of battle tactics will involve trying to destroy screening units and/or transports. An aero regiment defending a planet will be trying to kill invading DropShips, and if there's no WarShips around to help, the ability to do so more effectively might play an important role in the fighting. Also, if nothing else, they have a high $/HP ratio, so if you're trying to cause pain you can do a lot worse than massacring DropShips.

It's important to note that I'm not referring to threshold crits when I discuss weapons being ineffective. A weapon that does massive damage compared to the target's armor(10%, typically) will blow right through and get a threshold crit roll. But there's another limit below that, where the weapon is totally ineffective and doesn't even do meaningful damage to the armour. Hitting a DropShip with 10x AC/2 will not do nearly as much damage as hitting it with 1x AC/20, despite the damage being nominally equal. It's not actually this black-and-white, but imagine if every slab of armour had damage reduction equal to 1% of its HP.

Most techs were put into the schedule based on their canon introduction date. I juggled a few, but not many. And yes, you're doing the heavy lifting on research compared to those slackers in the Army. Clearly your point defence people are just geeking out terribly, but what can you do?

I'm going to treat a TDF infantry regiment as equivalent to a standard infantry regiment by assuming that 2 of the 3 troopers in a platoon do tail tasks.  Given this, there are 3 Taurus I loads that can be used.   

Navy Only: 12 Crestbreakers (nerfed to Fireshield implicitly), 2 Marine regiments, 12 David (nerfed to Centauro-150 implicitly), 7 navy ASF divisions (168 ASF) + 23.1K tons of supplies (mostly capital missiles) + Tick.  Life support lasts a year and there are 2 full loads of capital missiles/ASF.  Since the David is nerfed to Centauro, not all the Marines will be able to participate in combat, so they form a reserve and/or second wave.

Counterinvasion: 12 Crestbreakers (nerfed to Fireshield implicitly), 12 David (nerfed to Centauro-150 implicitly), 2 infantry regiments, 5.75 Navy ASF divisions (138 ASF), 30 Skyfall dropshuttles loaded with 45 vehicles, 117 combat vehicles stored as cargo (7.6K tons), 120=72+24+24 light support vees (5K tons), 13K=9K+2K+2K tons of supplies + additional supplies (2.5K tons).  Here, we use cross load from a Siesta to top off supplies after unpacking the Tick.  This is the 'max carry' load, featuring an army combat vehicle regiment (=1.5 standard regiments) and 2 army infantry regiments with full tails. 

Long invasion: 12 Crestbreakers (nerfed to Fireshield implicitly), 1 army combat vehicle regiment carried with 30 Skyfall dropshuttles + cargo as above, 2 Army ASF divisions (48ASF = .44 Regiment) with 2 capital missile loads, 4 Navy ASF divisions (96 ASF = .89 Regiment) with no capital missile loads, 6 David (nerfed to Centauro) as extra transports.   This configuration places everyone in quarters so it has much greater range than the counterinvasion load.

Adding things up:
7x Taurus I(counterinvasion) brings 10.5 standard combat vehicle regiments + 14 standard infantry regiments + ~9 standard navy ASF regiments.
7x Taurus I(long) brings 10.5 standard combat vehicle regiments + ~3 standard army ASF regiments + ~6 standard navy ASF regiments.
Either way, these significantly augment the 13=6.5(army transport regiments)+6.5(civilian transport regiments) that would otherwise be available.   

This does bring up one question: Can Navy ASF contribute significantly in ground combat?

Edit: Also, does the presence or not of ortillery matter in ground combat?

You're referring to navy ASF divisions and navy ASF regiments. I'm not sure what you mean there - doing the math, a "navy ASF division" seems to be 24x ASF, but is a Navy ASF regiment just an Army-regiment-sized formation of Navy ASFs?

Navy ASF can contribute in ground combat, and have done so a bit in past. That's not their primary role, but if there's nothing else to fight and they're in the area while a serious ground fight is going on, they'll weigh in.

Orbital bombardment makes a gigantic difference in ground combat. That's the biggest reason why planets get gobbled up in the first two weeks of an invasion and nothing happens thereafter - the first wave, before the defending fleet can concentrate, is the time when WarShips are bombarding unopposed. Ground forces do not have any meaningful ability to defend themselves from orbital bombardment, and the only useful anti-bombardment tactics(i.e., mostly spreading out a lot or going guerrilla) leave you pretty vulnerable on the ground. Castles Brian are expected to change this somewhat, and explicit counts of Army aero regiments will at least keep invaders honest more than I've done so far, but the best defence against it is still your own fleet.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 23 November 2018, 08:36:11
You're referring to navy ASF divisions and navy ASF regiments. I'm not sure what you mean there - doing the math, a "navy ASF division" seems to be 24x ASF, but is a Navy ASF regiment just an Army-regiment-sized formation of Navy ASFs?
Yes.  'Navy' and 'marine' vs. 'army', 'combat vehicle', and infantry is a descriptor of source.  'Standard' vs. 'TDF' or 'Division' is a descriptor of your standard organization  vs. Taurian organization.  For your purpose, ignore everything except for 'standard <source> regiment'.  The general upshot is that the TC navy's transport can augment the army and civilians for a maximum transport of 46.5=6.5(army)+6.5(civilian)+10.5(combat vehicles)+14(infantry)+9(navy ASF) regiments.  Obviously, there is variance due to civilian-or-not, navy losses, and long vs. short range configurations.

The general goal here is reaching the scale of the great houses in ground combat to avoid being an easy roll-over.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 23 November 2018, 08:43:47
Given the cost of space on a space ststion is basically ‘free’ and your doing your buisness by pushing space stations around, Id expect you can get a -lot- more spacelift per cbill than the people using dropships and warship.

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 23 November 2018, 08:49:42
How is the factor of capital weapons to standard weapons, btw?
And if you factor weapons as dealing less damage, probably down to 1 std per bay, against heavy armour, why do we need to modify the factor at all? Even middling std scale weapons would barely tickle a battleship.
I do fear that we'll progress through tech too fast now. Which is why I wonder if we can't have more techs, like improving mass drivers, partial bracketing, one-shot screen launchers...
Personally, I'd prefer to reduce spending in the next turn, as I got a lot of stuff that I don't need, and now others can leech it for free, but RP-wise, that was darn successful, so I'll have to go on.
Speaking of techs, I think 1B might actually be a bit low for Castles.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 23 November 2018, 09:24:28
Given the cost of space on a space ststion is basically ‘free’ and your doing your buisness by pushing space stations around, Id expect you can get a -lot- more spacelift per cbill than the people using dropships and warship.
Large warships can be pretty compelling for transport as well.  They only have an x2 cost multiplier rather than x5, they can jump into pirate points, and of course they can have much heavier armor.   The biggest drawback is probably not enough doors.  Of course large warships aren't really a possibility for the TC.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 23 November 2018, 10:28:16
How is the factor of capital weapons to standard weapons, btw?
And if you factor weapons as dealing less damage, probably down to 1 std per bay, against heavy armour, why do we need to modify the factor at all? Even middling std scale weapons would barely tickle a battleship.
I do fear that we'll progress through tech too fast now. Which is why I wonder if we can't have more techs, like improving mass drivers, partial bracketing, one-shot screen launchers...
Personally, I'd prefer to reduce spending in the next turn, as I got a lot of stuff that I don't need, and now others can leech it for free, but RP-wise, that was darn successful, so I'll have to go on.
Speaking of techs, I think 1B might actually be a bit low for Castles.

Not all ships are battleships. Fighters won't be able to meaningfully attack a Crucis even with AC/20s, but a Vincent? That might go down to standard-scale weapons, even unassisted. As for the factor between standard and capital, that was discussed here (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1457266#msg1457266).

I may add more techs at the end of the list, but I want to make sure I can keep going for that long. This is a major and long-term project for me, and a list that ends may be a good excuse to pull the plug. If it's still fun when we hit the end of that list I may keep it going, but we'll see. (This is another reason why speeding up tech is appealing to me, actually)

Re Castles, do you think you're going to buy a lot of them? It's not substantially more powerful than an Ancile (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1431399#msg1431399)(it's more survivable, but has a bit less firepower), and those only cost half a billion. The only real advantage of a CB is that it's hidden, so it can survive against an overwhelming fleet without revealing itself. (It's also better at protecting ground targets, but those haven't tended to matter much in gameplay). I don't imagine the Navy will pay for many even at that low cost, though perhaps the Army should buy a few more.

Large warships can be pretty compelling for transport as well.  They only have an x2 cost multiplier rather than x5, they can jump into pirate points, and of course they can have much heavier armor.   The biggest drawback is probably not enough doors.  Of course large warships aren't really a possibility for the TC.

The cost multiplier matters a lot less for transports than for warships, because bays are cheap. And FYI, JumpShips are also capable of using pirate points, though much like WarShips they often can't(because one doesn't exist) or won't.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 23 November 2018, 10:38:15
Well, I mainly read that it's a "bit fuzzy". :P
That said, at a projected ratio of 1:30, I'd reckon a dropship that I'd willingly send anywhere than to the nearest burger venue would have to have at least 305 armour on every facing.
Everything that can not survive at least an NAC/10 hit is not worth a slot on those expensive collars, let anone being built in the first place.
With medium dropships, I'll raise the requirement to surviving a 4-pack of NL/55s. Well, or as we're probably using standard designs, I'll ignore them. I'm sure the army will find them useful however. I will need to design a proper troopship, though.
Maingunnery had a sort of strategy of scattering fighters to compensate for a lack of ships. I suppose I'll send those that I don't need to staff new Battlecruisers to the army in the next turn, but I could also see the appeal of fitting every major border world that the army won't place at least 2 on with a castle.
The fact that they are hidden offers significant deterrent against angry lyrans trying to steal my annual income.  ;D
... Actually, could I build mine with Light N-Gauss instead? Shiny Toy syndrome and all that.
Not all ships are battleships.
Yet.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 23 November 2018, 10:38:49
I know I'll be buying some of both...if their still available.

RE the Legio... if it works, it works...

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 23 November 2018, 10:44:49
Ive seriously looked at large warship transports.  Several factors have prevented adoption:

1.)  Yard Upgrade costs preeety much stall yard upgrades at around 5 or 6, so the real economies of scale dont show.

2.)  Any transport is not a waller.  I cant justify throwing away wallers right now - its not called a warship race for nothing.

3.)  Any transport -warships- means less Army Dropships at the engagement - effectively a double taxation with #2 above.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 23 November 2018, 11:01:26
And FYI, JumpShips are also capable of using pirate points,
Right, I was inexact.  Jumping something like the Mother into a pirate jump point and then spending many hours unpacking is nearly suicidal if there are any forces on planet capable of reaching the pirate point.   The situation is significantly worse than even a normal jumpship arriving at a pirate point because a normal jumpship brings dropships that can immediately start defending it.
though much like WarShips they often can't(because one doesn't exist) or won't.
My understanding is that a pirate point essentially always exists between a planet and a star with additional transient points related to orbital mechanics creating local near-flatness of space.

Incidentally, I worked out an estimate on the size of a planet-star pirate point for Earth-Sol.  Assuming that the normal jump limit is driven by gravitational curvature, it seems a radius of 68 space hexes is about right on-axis.  This grows with planetary radius (~= gravities), orbital radius, and inverse star mass and shrinks vice-versa.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 23 November 2018, 11:16:16
1.)  Yard Upgrade costs preeety much stall yard upgrades at around 5 or 6, so the real economies of scale dont show.
Yeah, Yard costs are prohibitive beyond half your budget.  I've been trying to figure out how to get an L2 yard, and it's quite difficult. 
2.)  Any transport is not a waller.  I cant justify throwing away wallers right now - its not called a warship race for nothing.
Of course, you already have transports which are just a refit away from dual-use by the army...
3.)  Any transport -warships- means less Army Dropships at the engagement - effectively a double taxation with #2 above.
I'm not following.  My understanding is that we can pretty much freely load/transport/unload army regiments using navy resources.  Army dropships can be carried by army jumpships.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 23 November 2018, 11:16:47
Well, I mainly read that it's a "bit fuzzy". :P
That said, at a projected ratio of 1:30, I'd reckon a dropship that I'd willingly send anywhere than to the nearest burger venue would have to have at least 305 armour on every facing.
Everything that can not survive at least an NAC/10 hit is not worth a slot on those expensive collars, let anone being built in the first place.
With medium dropships, I'll raise the requirement to surviving a 4-pack of NL/55s. Well, or as we're probably using standard designs, I'll ignore them. I'm sure the army will find them useful however. I will need to design a proper troopship, though.
Maingunnery had a sort of strategy of scattering fighters to compensate for a lack of ships. I suppose I'll send those that I don't need to staff new Battlecruisers to the army in the next turn, but I could also see the appeal of fitting every major border world that the army won't place at least 2 on with a castle.
The fact that they are hidden offers significant deterrent against angry lyrans trying to steal my annual income.  ;D
... Actually, could I build mine with Light N-Gauss instead? Shiny Toy syndrome and all that.

This isn't tabletop, so simply putting 305 armor on is no guarantee of survival even at a 30:1 ratio. It's better than 295, of course, but things are not that binary. NAC/10 and paired NL-55 are fairly common anti-DS weapons right now, though I expect NAC/20 and quad NL-55 will be more common with mediums.

Re switching up CB weapons, fair request. I'll assume a loadout of roughly equivalent power to the 4x HNPPC, 24x AR-10 that I wrote down, but I may change the fluff on it a little bit depending.

Re CB construction, the Army will build about half a dozen in a typical turn(at least, until HPGs consume part of that budget), and more at first to catch up. It'll take a while until they're on all border worlds even as singletons, but most important border worlds will get one on turn 8.

Ive seriously looked at large warship transports.  Several factors have prevented adoption:

1.)  Yard Upgrade costs preeety much stall yard upgrades at around 5 or 6, so the real economies of scale dont show.

2.)  Any transport is not a waller.  I cant justify throwing away wallers right now - its not called a warship race for nothing.

3.)  Any transport -warships- means less Army Dropships at the engagement - effectively a double taxation with #2 above.

1/2) Fair. That said, don't expect "right now" to really change. I don't expect anyone will ever get a durable advantage over their opponents, other than the TH - if it's ever easy for you, it's despair for your neighbours, and that's no fun. Advantage is possible, but I don't think it'll be the sort of advantage you're waiting for here.

3) Why would you assume that? If there's an invasion happening, the Army will use what they have. You bringing more forces to the battlefield simply increases the total force available. The Lyran Army can currently carry 31.5 regiments to battle in their 379 DropShips. If you bring WarShips to carry another 20, they'll be up to 51.5 regiments carried(of the 1437 total, so it's not like they'll run out of available forces), but all of their JS/DS will still be involved.

Right, I was inexact.  Jumping something like the Mother into a pirate jump point and then spending many hours unpacking is nearly suicidal if there are any forces on planet capable of reaching the pirate point.   The situation is significantly worse than even a normal jumpship arriving at a pirate point because a normal jumpship brings dropships that can immediately start defending it. My understanding is that a pirate point essentially always exists between a planet and a star with additional transient points related to orbital mechanics creating local near-flatness of space.

Incidentally, I worked out an estimate on the size of a planet-star pirate point for Earth-Sol.  Assuming that the normal jump limit is driven by gravitational curvature, it seems a radius of 68 space hexes is about right on-axis.  This grows with planetary radius (~= gravities), orbital radius, and inverse star mass and shrinks vice-versa.

I've been assuming it's more complex than that. Pirate points(or lack thereof) have been one of the main ways that luck dice have been making their way into battles. If they were always available and easy, then the setting would look very different(both in canon and in this game). So while a point of some sort may always exist, it could be obviously suicidal, too small to accurately hit, or otherwise unusable. But still, that's a fair point - your doctrine requires a cold LZ, which is hardly safe to assume anywhere other than outside the limit.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 23 November 2018, 11:42:11
I've been assuming it's more complex than that. Pirate points(or lack thereof) have been one of the main ways that luck dice have been making their way into battles. If they were always available and easy, then the setting would look very different(both in canon and in this game). So while a point of some sort may always exist, it could be obviously suicidal, too small to accurately hit, or otherwise unusable. But still, that's a fair point - your doctrine requires a cold LZ, which is hardly safe to assume anywhere other than outside the limit.
My intuition is coming from SO 134-135 and SO 88 which (roughly) say that:
1) The L1 pirate point always exist.
2) Transients are highly system dependent.
3) Detailed systems knowledge is required to use either of the above
4) Pirate->Standard is a hard calculation (<50% chance, requires computer, 3 hours).
5) Standard->Pirate is a very hard calculation (<20% chance)
6) Pirate<->Pirate is a crazy hard calculation (<3% chance)
7) You need a particularly good calculation (MoS +2 or +3) to consistently avoid KF-drive damage (which is super bad).   Given this, pirate points are non-viable for routine commercial travel but they are an acceptable risk for many military operations.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 23 November 2018, 12:19:14
1/2) Fair. That said, don't expect "right now" to really change. I don't expect anyone will ever get a durable advantage over their opponents, other than the TH - if it's ever easy for you, it's despair for your neighbours, and that's no fun. Advantage is possible, but I don't think it'll be the sort of advantage you're waiting for here.

3) Why would you assume that? If there's an invasion happening, the Army will use what they have. You bringing more forces to the battlefield simply increases the total force available. The Lyran Army can currently carry 31.5 regiments to battle in their 379 DropShips. If you bring WarShips to carry another 20, they'll be up to 51.5 regiments carried(of the 1437 total, so it's not like they'll run out of available forces), but all of their JS/DS will still be involved.


Truth, but right now my ‘wall’ is 10 hulls.  Another turn or two of Buri production, and a possible Walkurie refit into BCV, may change that.

As alluded to, BCVT may actually be a thing for Walkurie - but I have to figure out how much tail I want on her.  Ill see how much fleet Ive got after this weekends turn.

As for why I feared Naval transport would replace Army - my assumption was the Army figured out how much force they needed, and assigned transport to fit.  If your saying that transport is the only limit on force application, then that changes the approach to building troop carriage.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 23 November 2018, 13:09:04
In light of the past recalculation of how much money I actually have, and given the fact I'm actually here now, I'll redo my turn this evening to do those facts justice, preferably before the turn actually concludes.
It'll stay largely the same, though.
I think I'll do less new hulls and/or refits, however, as my remaining budget is high enough I might as well get another yard upgrade in.

Edit:
Like this:
Code: [Select]
Budget:                                   107
Repairs                                    -4
Maintenance (100%)                     -23.76
R&D, Heracles Block II Class BC         -4.16
Refit, 17 Heracles-> Heracles Block II     -0
Production, Heracles Block II x 4      -33.28
Research, 2/5/3                           -10
Irian Upgrade, 1->2                       -10
Atreus Upgrade, 3->4                       -20
Jumpship x 2                               -1
Remainder:                              0.8
While I planned to not refit all ships, the longer I look at it the more they don't get any younger.  Additional Strategy:
These directives, wherever they might diverge from existing doctrine, may come into play sometime during the turn, so any actions or happenings already written won't have been influenced by them.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 23 November 2018, 19:11:27
Not sure if I'm going to need to start a WSAR thread in the Mechs section of this forum for this or not, but here it is anyway.

And here we have the brand new weapon for the DCMS: The Wyrm-01!

Based on a 90-ton frame, wrapped in 18.5 tons of the finest armour available, the Wyrm is able to keep pace with the heavy armour used in the DCMS while battering its foes with its newly developed Binary Laser Cannon and large missile rack. Twin medium lasers provide backup at close range and the flamer on the left arm will keep those pesky PBIs at bay. While the heat sinks are sufficient to handle the main gun, care should be given to not overload the cooling system with too much fire too quickly. Design work on a smaller, faster mech to support the lighter armoured units is under development.

Code: [Select]
Wyrm WY-01

Mass: 90 tons
Tech Base: Inner Sphere (Primitive)
Chassis Config: Biped
Rules Level: Era Specific
Era: Clan Invasion
Tech Rating/Era Availability: D/X-X-F-A
Production Year: 2420
Cost: 8,657,730 C-Bills
Battle Value: 1,413

Chassis: Unknown Primitive Structure
Power Plant: Unknown 325 Primitive Fusion Engine
Walking Speed: 32.4 km/h
Maximum Speed: 54.0 km/h
Jump Jets: None
    Jump Capacity: 0 meters
Armor: Unknown Primitive
Armament:
    1  Binary Laser Cannon
    1  LRM-15
    2  Medium Lasers
    1  Flamer
Manufacturer: Unknown
    Primary Factory: Unknown
Communications System: Unknown
Targeting and Tracking System: Unknown

================================================================================
Equipment           Type                         Rating                   Mass 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Structure: Primitive Structure          138 points                9.00
Engine:             Primitive Fusion Engine      325                      23.50
    Walking MP: 3
    Running MP: 5
    Jumping MP: 0
Heat Sinks:         Single Heat Sink             18                        8.00
    Heat Sink Locations: 3 RT, 1 LL, 1 RL
Gyro:               Standard                                               4.00
Cockpit:            Primitive                                              5.00
    Actuators:      L: SH+UA+LA+H    R: SH+UA+LA
Armor:              Primitive                    AV - 198                 18.50

                                                      Internal       Armor     
                                                      Structure      Factor     
                                                Head     3            9         
                                        Center Torso     29           29       
                                 Center Torso (rear)                  8         
                                           L/R Torso     19           26       
                                    L/R Torso (rear)                  7         
                                             L/R Arm     15           19       
                                             L/R Leg     19           24       

================================================================================
Equipment                                 Location    Heat    Critical    Mass 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Medium Lasers                              CT        6         2         2.00
LRM-15                                       LT        5         3         7.00
Binary Laser Cannon                          RA        16        4         9.00
Flamer                                       LA        3         1         1.00
@LRM-15 (24)                                 LT        -         3         3.00
                                            Free Critical Slots: 30

BattleForce Statistics
MV      S (+0)  M (+2)  L (+4)  E (+6)   Wt.   Ov   Armor:      7    Points: 14
3          2       2       1       0      4     2   Structure:  7
Special Abilities: SRCH, ES, SEAL, SOA, IF 1

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 24 November 2018, 21:33:15
An update: The turn is flowing out of my brain and onto the page very well, but I started fairly recently because of all the auxiliary stuff I was fixing up(and my house being chaotic with a broken dryer for the last week), so right now I only have 4/10 events written. Tomorrow is also quite busy for me, so it'll be tough to finish even with my current good pace. A full turn being done this weekend is unlikely, but a half-turn is fairly likely.

Ironically, I'm stepping away from ridiculous epic sci-fi space combat because of more ridiculous epic sci-fi space combat - I'm hosting a Twilight Imperium game.

My intuition is coming from SO 134-135 and SO 88 which (roughly) say that:
(snip)
pirate points are non-viable for routine commercial travel but they are an acceptable risk for many military operations.

Seems reasonable. I think I've made it a touch harder than that in practice, but it still happens sometimes.

As for why I feared Naval transport would replace Army - my assumption was the Army figured out how much force they needed, and assigned transport to fit.  If your saying that transport is the only limit on force application, then that changes the approach to building troop carriage.

Depends on the task, I suppose. If they're just hitting one planet, then they won't bring 50 regiments just for the heck of it. But if there's 50 regiments of transport capacity available, then they're a lot more likely to come up with an ops plan that requires 50 regiments than an ops plan that only needs 5. There's always something for more force to do, and transportation imposes a very tight limit on ops, especially in this era.

In light of the past recalculation of how much money I actually have, and given the fact I'm actually here now, I'll redo my turn this evening to do those facts justice, preferably before the turn actually concludes.
It'll stay largely the same, though.
I think I'll do less new hulls and/or refits, however, as my remaining budget is high enough I might as well get another yard upgrade in.

Edit:
Like this:
Code: [Select]
Budget:                                   107
Repairs                                    -4
Maintenance (100%)                     -23.76
R&D, Heracles Block II Class BC         -4.16
Refit, 17 Heracles-> Heracles Block II     -0
Production, Heracles Block II x 4      -33.28
Research, 2/5/3                           -10
Irian Upgrade, 1->2                       -10
Atreus Upgrade, 3->4                       -20
Jumpship x 2                               -1
Remainder:                              0.8
While I planned to not refit all ships, the longer I look at it the more they don't get any younger.  Additional Strategy:
  • As a directive, the yards involved in the refits should at least have the next and previous ship on standby. I expect 2 combat ready warships in service in every yard system, so as to provide at least a modicum of defense in case of a surprise attack. While I see the appeal of keeping a fleet together, I feel it is sufficient to split it into 4 battlegroups, with 2 on the borders and the rest on the yard worlds until sufficient ships have been build (which won't happen this turn) to move further ships outwards.
  • Outside of defending yard systems or region capitals, the fleets are meant to utilize defence in depth to minimize losses wherever possible. Due to the current reconfiguration, incursions into enemy territory will be limited to 30 LY, unless ordered otherwise by high command, and offensive operations on the new or refit ships will carry only one dropship.
  • In case of invasions, Warships are intended to establish space superiority first, then jump back with 1-2 ships or a jumpship to call in ground troops. When jumping into pacified or controlled territory, Block II ships are cleared for carrying an additional supply- or troopship in the repair bay.
These directives, wherever they might diverge from existing doctrine, may come into play sometime during the turn, so any actions or happenings already written won't have been influenced by them.

Noted. I'll change things accordingly.

Not sure if I'm going to need to start a WSAR thread in the Mechs section of this forum for this or not, but here it is anyway.

And here we have the brand new weapon for the DCMS: The Wyrm-01!

Based on a 90-ton frame, wrapped in 18.5 tons of the finest armour available, the Wyrm is able to keep pace with the heavy armour used in the DCMS while battering its foes with its newly developed Binary Laser Cannon and large missile rack. Twin medium lasers provide backup at close range and the flamer on the left arm will keep those pesky PBIs at bay. While the heat sinks are sufficient to handle the main gun, care should be given to not overload the cooling system with too much fire too quickly. Design work on a smaller, faster mech to support the lighter armoured units is under development.

Code: [Select]
Wyrm WY-01

Mass: 90 tons
Tech Base: Inner Sphere (Primitive)
Chassis Config: Biped
Rules Level: Era Specific
Era: Clan Invasion
Tech Rating/Era Availability: D/X-X-F-A
Production Year: 2420
Cost: 8,657,730 C-Bills
Battle Value: 1,413

Chassis: Unknown Primitive Structure
Power Plant: Unknown 325 Primitive Fusion Engine
Walking Speed: 32.4 km/h
Maximum Speed: 54.0 km/h
Jump Jets: None
    Jump Capacity: 0 meters
Armor: Unknown Primitive
Armament:
    1  Binary Laser Cannon
    1  LRM-15
    2  Medium Lasers
    1  Flamer
Manufacturer: Unknown
    Primary Factory: Unknown
Communications System: Unknown
Targeting and Tracking System: Unknown

================================================================================
Equipment           Type                         Rating                   Mass 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Structure: Primitive Structure          138 points                9.00
Engine:             Primitive Fusion Engine      325                      23.50
    Walking MP: 3
    Running MP: 5
    Jumping MP: 0
Heat Sinks:         Single Heat Sink             18                        8.00
    Heat Sink Locations: 3 RT, 1 LL, 1 RL
Gyro:               Standard                                               4.00
Cockpit:            Primitive                                              5.00
    Actuators:      L: SH+UA+LA+H    R: SH+UA+LA
Armor:              Primitive                    AV - 198                 18.50

                                                      Internal       Armor     
                                                      Structure      Factor     
                                                Head     3            9         
                                        Center Torso     29           29       
                                 Center Torso (rear)                  8         
                                           L/R Torso     19           26       
                                    L/R Torso (rear)                  7         
                                             L/R Arm     15           19       
                                             L/R Leg     19           24       

================================================================================
Equipment                                 Location    Heat    Critical    Mass 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Medium Lasers                              CT        6         2         2.00
LRM-15                                       LT        5         3         7.00
Binary Laser Cannon                          RA        16        4         9.00
Flamer                                       LA        3         1         1.00
@LRM-15 (24)                                 LT        -         3         3.00
                                            Free Critical Slots: 30

BattleForce Statistics
MV      S (+0)  M (+2)  L (+4)  E (+6)   Wt.   Ov   Armor:      7    Points: 14
3          2       2       1       0      4     2   Structure:  7
Special Abilities: SRCH, ES, SEAL, SOA, IF 1


Very cool. Seems fitting in many ways, too - I love what you did with the Blazer.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 25 November 2018, 07:23:09
You know, it occurs to me that, had the Blazer been developed and utilized early and in that way, it could have indeed been one of the premier weapons for a time.
It is  a light weight headcapper that offers bracket firing with a lot of smaller energy weapons close in.
A lot of weapons are really not used because.... they are not used. Those would actually make good warship weapons, right? Decent damage, acceptable range, and we aren't any short on heat sinks.
... Though isn't it kinda odd we have primitive armour on the ground, yet FA in space?^^ 

Speaking of tech progression, why not just nominally make turns longer, as fits the story? Between 10 and 20 years?
Then the faster tech progression makes more sense.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 25 November 2018, 10:58:34
A half turn, with 5/10 events, would still be appreciated.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 26 November 2018, 09:03:33
I'm considering some reallocation of transport space given now-specified army overheads and standardized units and realized I have a couple refit questions.

I've been assuming that refits require yardspace even with units (such as space stations) which do not require yardspace to build.  Is that correct?

What about particularly minor refits?  Does a change in the allocation of transport bays require yardspace and full price?  At least in fluff it's common and easy to do conversions amongst transport bays (cargo -> steerage quarters, 2 light vehicles -> heavy vehicle, infantry -> battle armor).
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 26 November 2018, 09:32:19
My understanding is only warships require yards for refit.  This follows, as stations do not require a shipyard to build, and are usually built in place, far from shipyards.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 26 November 2018, 10:30:11
My understanding is only warships require yards for refit.  This follows, as stations do not require a shipyard to build, and are usually built in place, far from shipyards.
I can see this going either way myself.  On the "refit without yardspace" side, you are paying an exorbitant x5 for space stations rather than x2 or x1.25 for units needing a yard.  Against, a refit is more intricate than "insert tong A into groove B" for final assembly.

Related to this, it would make some sense if we could build space stations in a yard with an x2 multiplier, but I'm not expecting that.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 26 November 2018, 18:07:08
Given that refits are free if the new unit is cheaper than the old (see Heracles Block II xp), changing around cargo bays will probably not incur any significant costs, either.
Actually, we should probably have the option of scrapping ships for a minor gain.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 26 November 2018, 18:13:39
Given that refits are free if the new unit is cheaper than the old (see Heracles Block II xp), changing around cargo bays will probably not incur any significant costs, either.
Actually, we should probably have the option of scrapping ships for a minor gain.
Some of us lack a nigh-unlimited number of yards and a nigh-unlimited budget for prototypes...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 26 November 2018, 20:53:04
 ;D
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 26 November 2018, 21:02:26
I'm working on a mapping solution, because I couldn't find one pre-made. I've taken canon maps that were on Sarna and stitched them together into a full Inner Sphere map. I haven't modded this at all to track what happened in game, and the era on this is wrong as well(this is a 2596 map, which is after the UHC-FS merger and the Reunification War). I'm posting it now as a reference, but after finishing the turn I'm going to go update and annotate it for our game. Because of forum file size limits I can't post it here, but I'll probably make an Imgur thread for posting it once I'm done the modifications.

You know, it occurs to me that, had the Blazer been developed and utilized early and in that way, it could have indeed been one of the premier weapons for a time.
It is  a light weight headcapper that offers bracket firing with a lot of smaller energy weapons close in.
A lot of weapons are really not used because.... they are not used. Those would actually make good warship weapons, right? Decent damage, acceptable range, and we aren't any short on heat sinks.
... Though isn't it kinda odd we have primitive armour on the ground, yet FA in space?^^ 

Speaking of tech progression, why not just nominally make turns longer, as fits the story? Between 10 and 20 years?
Then the faster tech progression makes more sense.

The Blazer is a victim of the fact that BT started in 3025. In that era, it's pretty bad. But if you start from a lower tech level, a lot of primitive stuff starts looking good for some period of time. The fact that it's worthwhile on WarShips is exactly why I added it to the tech list - a Blazer with full HS is 25 tons, which does the same damage as a LRM-20 that's 16 tons with HS(but no ammo). 54 rounds per LRM-20 mount gives you the same damage and mass, and most people are using about that much. The LRM has better range, while the Blazer does better against heavy armour and doesn't have ammo dependance. Plus, the HS can be used to fire more capital weapons if there's no fighters around. It's actually viable, I think.

Re primitive armor and ferro-aluminum, well...yeah, you're right. But it's a naval game, so I'll accept fighters being a bit too good. The names just bugged me too much.

Re turn length, nope. Handwave handwave "golden age" handwave. Writing 10 things a turn is already a ton of work.

A half turn, with 5/10 events, would still be appreciated.

Clearly this didn't happen on the original schedule, but I'm working on it.

I'm considering some reallocation of transport space given now-specified army overheads and standardized units and realized I have a couple refit questions.

I've been assuming that refits require yardspace even with units (such as space stations) which do not require yardspace to build.  Is that correct?

What about particularly minor refits?  Does a change in the allocation of transport bays require yardspace and full price?  At least in fluff it's common and easy to do conversions amongst transport bays (cargo -> steerage quarters, 2 light vehicles -> heavy vehicle, infantry -> battle armor).

The TH did this with the Lola II, more or less. That was a refit, but of course it was a pretty cheap one. (The grav decks cost a bit, but the rest was pretty cheap)

And yes, stations can be refit without yard space.
I can see this going either way myself.  On the "refit without yardspace" side, you are paying an exorbitant x5 for space stations rather than x2 or x1.25 for units needing a yard.  Against, a refit is more intricate than "insert tong A into groove B" for final assembly.

Related to this, it would make some sense if we could build space stations in a yard with an x2 multiplier, but I'm not expecting that.

I like the idea, but it seems annoying to track. I'll give it some thought, though, see if there's an approach I like.

Given that refits are free if the new unit is cheaper than the old (see Heracles Block II xp), changing around cargo bays will probably not incur any significant costs, either.
Actually, we should probably have the option of scrapping ships for a minor gain.

Scrapping...maybe? Likewise, I'll think about that.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 26 November 2018, 21:05:47
Some of us lack a nigh-unlimited number of yards and a nigh-unlimited budget for prototypes...

Actually again, and amusingly, we see I think tiered behavior based on budget.

The THN can build anything that amuses it, moment to moment.  Theyve got no demands for competing with any other power, and the budget for utterly profligate expenditures - so they do.  As it is, the biggest threat to the THN is the THN... and amusingly, the biggest threat to the Hegemony Government is -also- the THN.  Which is probably why the government chooses to continue to fund them so profligately - but in time a rich, bored Praetorian Guard starts choosing the Emperor...

The Houses tend to build much more conservatively than the THN.  Each Houses production seems rational (based on its individual enviornment and pressures).  They prototype and refit and build yards, but still focus heavily on weight of metal.  With the yard races settling down and the shooting heating up, I dont expect to see anything bigger than the Class Vs, barring Marik’s Class VI - I anticipate theyll build up another Class VI, maybe 2, since they've already sunk the high cost of the first one.

The Periphery powers are all doing various minor navy things.  The RWR is emulating a major power, writ small (Im treating the Great Houses as competing major powers here - the THN really acts like the USN only dreams it could!).  The MH is buying second hand and focusing on territorial aspirations.  The TC is acting like a small power, largely unsupported, with a large, hostile neighbor - and has gone very experimental.

Emergent Behavior and parallel evolution!  Gotta love it.  :D

Edit:  As for turns - just as you can, no pressure - just keep us in the loop!
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 27 November 2018, 05:49:47
I didn't mean to write 20 events.
Just to have the occasional year where really nothing happens. ^^

@marcus That is a nice observation. I wonder if the house doctrines will eventually consolidate, or if we'll keep having different strategies going forward.
I know I'll prioritise fluff over raw efficiency, or I'll probably do something too similar to your battleship, only slightly faster and with slightly more ballistics. ^^
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 27 November 2018, 07:21:10
I didn't mean to write 20 events.
Just to have the occasional year where really nothing happens. ^^

@marcus That is a nice observation. I wonder if the house doctrines will eventually consolidate, or if we'll keep having different strategies going forward.
I know I'll prioritise fluff over raw efficiency, or I'll probably do something too similar to your battleship, only slightly faster and with slightly more ballistics. ^^

I think they'll likely get closer, as we get more feedback on what works.  Most everything under the sun goes through a wild and wolley experimental phase in its early days before consolidating towards whats found to work.  Consider cars, movies, videogames, aircraft, tanks, big-gun battleships...

That said, I also dont think theyll merge completely - even if we had 5 clones driving the decisions of the 5 houses, each has a slightly different environment, different legacy fleets, different budgets and yards - this alone would be enough to maintain some variation - and it may be larger than that.  Id design a -very- different navy for the CC than for their neighbors!
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 27 November 2018, 09:10:13
It might also diverge due to tech differences. Now, we don't have an elaborate tech tree where someone can research to be just better at something, but one house might have slightly different tech than another at a given time, and new technologies will present new challenges.
In the same way that the RWN reacted to your fighter spam, which you now try to turn down a bit, everyone will have to react to their neighbours.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 27 November 2018, 09:52:13
It might also diverge due to tech differences. Now, we don't have an elaborate tech tree where someone can research to be just better at something, but one house might have slightly different tech than another at a given time, and new technologies will present new challenges.
In the same way that the RWN reacted to your fighter spam, which you now try to turn down a bit, everyone will have to react to their neighbours.

Also, look at impact of early decisions and their knock on effects.  My 2/3 speed goes back to turn 2, when I was trying to build something that could fight more than its weight in enemy CAs, while still carrying a lot of cargo - this was Tyr, meant to try to fight while outnumbered by Heracles.

Once your wall is 2/3, building 3/5 or 4/6 wallers means you divide your fleet elements (generally a bad idea), or your paying tonnage for drives you cant use (generally a bad idea), or you replace one fleet with a later more advanced one, operating separately during the transition (would be nice!).  However, 2/3 had its merits - it gives me A LOT of space to play with, moreso since at the time 2/3 meant 90 SI, which is terrible.. but leaves you a lot of spare tonnage.  Thus Walkurie was born.

Disappointments at Vega and doctrine changes, as well as a tech change allowing higher SI on lower thrust ships, create a need for, and allow the existence of, Buri.  Buri is pure big gun combat and AAA/PDS, and shes very low on supplies - BUT Walkurie is lying around, and those fighter bays arent carrying their weight - so now they double as colliers.  Similarly, Tyr gets refit and loses her missiles (also a disappointment) and all but a box of biscuits. 

The LCN is rarely on the offensive, never on the deep offensive, has a massive logistics network in its own space, and can rely on the Walkurie for collier duty on long range deployments.

Going forward, Walkurie probably gets converted into something not unlike an imperial star destroyer - troop transport, fighter transport, guns, and cargo.  Shes aging, but can still provide those services to the fleet while the main heft of battle falls more and more on Buri, supported by the long in the tooth Tyrs.  Still, she will get significant firepower - the LCN just doesnt have the hull counts to 'mission kill' its own ships due to uselessness before the fight even starts.

Heimdaller will probably stay as she is.  Yes, fighters are a bad investment, but the flexibility of a fast (by my fleets standards) CVE, with good sensors, is handy.  And if the game goes nuclear, shes an insurance policy - fast with some fighters, small enough to be lost, designed to operate independently - its perfect for a nuclear environment.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 27 November 2018, 16:13:14
On the TC side:

The starting state was a strategic mess. 
Coping with this situation required creating strategically mobile forces for the lowest possible cost, leading to strategically-mobile yet tactically-slow stations.  Initially, this was via ASF + NLs since that was the cheapest way to generate a potentially credible force.  The very heavy emphasis on point defense is due to the CC and the heavy emphasis on extreme range weapons is due to the NAC boats of the FS.  There is  substantial lock-in to .5g movement for the main force and to 100K ton designs.  There are several advanced technologies which will substantially disturb the TC admirals...

At this point, I think the TC has moved from a horrible to a poor strategic situation.  I'm not sure how much better it can get given budget disparities but I have a few more ideas...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 27 November 2018, 16:57:29
Well, and you suffer from having the Fed Suns for a neighbor.  Given that theyve had shooting wars with every bordering power but the UHC, theve only lost 2 class 4 and 2 class 2 hulls - less than the DC suffered in a single turn.

If they start taking the sort of losses other navies have, the lack of yard space may come to bite them - but as the man said - “If.”
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 27 November 2018, 18:29:17
The Periphery powers are all doing various minor navy things.  *snip* The MH is buying second hand and focusing on territorial aspirations.

What Second hand vessels? We call that Effectively Reclaimed and Proven designs!

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 27 November 2018, 21:55:25
Hmmm...so will I be able to pawn off my outdated designs to victims of bad circumstance come a few turns? Thinking about it, that might be more profitable than scrapping, which I don't think would bring in much.
That said, for scrapping, I'd recommend ~20* C-Bills per ton (ignoring that there is no such thing as a C-Bill yet), for the raw material value, + maybe 5% of the ships cost.
I started with 10, but that's really low. I think it could easily go up to 40 without being unbalancing. This feels somewhat realistic and gives players an option to retire aging ships.
On the other hand, it is low enough that players don't get undue advantages from losing very few ships, in the long run.
Speaking of which, maybe have designs suffer increased maintenance after a century?  ;)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 28 November 2018, 09:28:07
Hmmm...so will I be able to pawn off my outdated designs to victims of bad circumstance come a few turns? Thinking about it, that might be more profitable than scrapping, which I don't think would bring in much.
That said, for scrapping, I'd recommend ~20* C-Bills per ton (ignoring that there is no such thing as a C-Bill yet), for the raw material value, + maybe 5% of the ships cost.
I started with 10, but that's really low. I think it could easily go up to 40 without being unbalancing. This feels somewhat realistic and gives players an option to retire aging ships.
On the other hand, it is low enough that players don't get undue advantages from losing very few ships, in the long run.
Speaking of which, maybe have designs suffer increased maintenance after a century?  ;)

In order:
1.)  You MAY be able to sell old hulls - but the ability to see value in this is limited.  Even the most minor powers can build full up warships (given yard space), and are not far behind on tech.  The one opportunity I see is to sell off large hulls, that a minor power cannot reproduce due to limits in yard space.  Those large hulls, however, are your wall of battle hull-count, the ones we tend to be less eager to sell - and even if imperfect, its likely still a large, powerful unit.

2.)  Scrapping may be an option, as well - I dont know for sure how to value it.  I dont know what 'too high' would be - my gut guesses a 50% return.  This is ahistorically high, but may be necessary to make scrapping a choice, for reason 3.) below...

3.)  Compared to IRL navies, life-span costs here are DRAMATICALLY low.  My (vague) recollection is that a Wet Navy ship that costs $X to build will probably cost something like $X again over a 20 year service life, in terms of crew, maintenance, consumables, weapons, etc - here we bundle this all into maintenance, and if my recollection is correct, and we matched it, maintenance would be 50% per decade.. at which point we would be throwing away ships with gleeful abandon to buy the newest thing coming off our enlarged slipways.  Instead, as ships are cheap to keep in service, effectively free if mothballed against future need, with limited sales opportunities and scrap value - things are going to tend to stay in service exactly forever.

This is not inappropriate, however, given the BTU.  The BTU has a history of ships with may centuries in service, and not only are the maintenance costs sustainable, they don't seem to escalate over time - Note the clans ability to maintain and operate large tonnages of ships on a population count a great house could lose on one backwater planet without noticing (that said, the Clans are a strong example of the BTU being written by people professionally and profoundly disinterested in economics, logistics, or military history, or at least who have no truck with those things interfering with whatever story sounds fun at the time. 

This may be a strength in a franchise based on beer & pretzels, giant stompy robots, lady luck, and admiral awesome.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 28 November 2018, 09:51:01
Naval Strength and Losses (most current, pre turn 7)

Terran Hegemony:  834 Size Class in Service, 98 Size Class Lost. (924 Total)
Effective Yard Space:  87.5
Lost: 
6 Black Lion
1 Dreadnought
1 Bonnaventure
2 Monsoon*
6 Quixote*
3 Aegis*
1 Dart*
7 Cruiser*
3 Lola*
1 Bonaventure*
3 Vigilant*
* - denotes self-inflicted losses

Unsurprisingly, given roughly 10x the budget of any neighbor, the THN has roughly 10x the fleet.  It has lost more ships than the Federated Suns have built, most of them to internal conflict, and this has had and will have no impact on their fleet size.
Under current political and budgetary conditions, the THN can simultaneously declare war on all of its neighbors with a 2:1 force advantage, allowing it to not only conquer all of human space (in naval terms), but to do so at relatively light naval casualties.  If nothing else, the THN probably has the resources to wipe out all space based infrastructure in human space, choke all commerce in human space, and demand abject surrender and offer whatever terms it wants.
Barring a massive change in internal priorities resulting in a 50-80% reduction in naval budgets, or a truely divisive civil war that is both incredibly destructive and serves to shatter the TH into multiple pieces, all action in human space exists as mice conducting their little wars in the shadow of colossus.

Federated Suns: 78 Size Class in service, 12 Size Class Lost (90 total)
Effective Yard Space: 9
Lost:
2 Albion
2 Galahad

A long history of conflict with limited losses at the expensive of its neighbors puts the FS in a solid position.  Yard losses may or may not prove meaningful, depending on future hull losses.  Early expansion to large yards has fueled a large total production schedule, in terms of mass.

Lyran Commonwealth:  69 Size Class in service, 14 Size Class Lost (83 total)
Effective Yard Space:  13
Lost:
3 Tyr
2 Heimdaller
1 Walkurie

Lots of peace with one very bad turn.  Despite this, the second largest fleet in space by total size classes.  Mix of designs - some unrefitted, some refitted, and some very modern and very powerful - makes it hard to guess how the fleet will perform going forward.

Free Worlds League:  66 Size Class in service, 15 Size Class Lost (81 total)
Effective Yard Space:  20
Lost:
4 Heracles
3 Phalanx

Lots of peace, some small wars.  FWL focus on picking a design and mass producing it helps - makes it easier to absorb losses.  Similarly large numbers of class 3 yards will make almost any losses trivial to replace - the Heracles is kinda the T-34 of space, and the FWL could build a dozen next turn if it chose.  On the flip, the failure to build anything larger than a Class 3 hull hurts overall production tonnage efficiency.

Draconis Combine:  66 Size Class in Service, 20 Size Class Lost (86 total)
Effective Yard Space:  11
Lost:
4 Atago
3 Minikaze
2 Tate

Fleet may be less strong than 66 size in service reflects - lots of unrefitted, short production run, older designs.  Modern wall is on the other hand VERY modern, and very polished.  Budget advantage over both neighbors, with large yards, may put DC back on top overall if they are given breathing room.

Capellan Confederation:  54 Size Class in service, 18 Size Class Lost (72 total)
Effective Yard Space: 11
Lost:
6 Quinru Zhe
2 Quizuhan
1 Wifes Wrath

Small power, strong neighbors, lots of wars early.  Coupled with a weak economy and bad starting yards, the CC has prospered from the last few decades of peace, to the point where they approach at least the FWL in combat strength, though not the FSN.

Marian Hegemony: 10 Size Class in service
Effective Yard Space:2

The Marian Hegemony can no more threaten the FWL than the FWL can threaten the TH.  However, the periphery power is relatively better off than a great house - inasmuch as a great house crushing a periphery power would weaken itself, and it has dangerous peers.  For all of that, the Hegemony Navy exists primarily in pursuit of local territorial objectives, given its splendid isolation from the inner sphere.

Taurian Concordat: ~20 Size Class in service

The TCN is hard to weigh.  I have here treated 100KT stations as size class 1/2, and limited the count to battlestations and the like - even though I omit battlestations from other navies counts.  By choosing stations and tugs over warships, the TCN gets greater weight of fire for its cost, but must accept certain drawbacks in tactical, operational, and strategic agility.  It will likely serve them well on the defense, and poorly on the offense - but with only Federated Suns for neighbors, their posture is essentially defensive, anyway.

Rim World Republic   ~18 Size Class in service
Effective Yard Space: 5

By far the largest and richest of the periphery realms, and with a navy to show for it, the RWR is strong enough that the LC cannot casually dictate terms to it - yet not strong enough to represent the clear threat that it has no intention of being.

United Hindu Collective  ~16 Size Class in Service

The UHC is again odd - massive arrays of battlestations, but no ability to project naval power.  Its numbers are actually much higher, but recharge stations (by their nature scattered, and of non-military purpose) are not counted.  In terms of impact on Naval History, it is anticipated that the UHC will trouble no one, not be worth troubling, and at some point merge with its neighbor to give The Forces of Freedom, Goodness, and Light the Federated Suns an Entirely Unnecessary Leg Up and Advantage over its Neighbors its just rewards for its just nature.   :)


Effective Yard Space is the sum of all yards Class 3 or greater, with a half-value given to class 2 yards (class 2 yards are efficient enough to build primary combatants, but inefficient enough that there are real costs to doing so.  Class 1 yards are omitted due to inefficiency.  Note that Class 2 and 1 yards are given full value for P powers, as they are going to have difficulty production class 3 and larger ships.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 28 November 2018, 12:15:33
At a high level, it appears no significant combat has yet occurred with everyone suffering minor losses around the edges.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 28 November 2018, 12:44:27
At a high level, it appears no significant combat has yet occurred with everyone suffering minor losses around the edges.

Its a matter of how they come in.  CC got hit hard -early-, when fleets were quite small - this forced them to mass build the class 2 hulls they could to try to get ANY weight of metal.  It worked, but the CC maintenance budget is relatively high because of it.

DC got hit hard all in one turn, as did the LC.  This came much later, and isnt crippling - but it is painful.  LC and DC relied heavily on Tyr and Atago respectively for line of battle hulls, and both lost a lot of those hulls all at once. 

FWL and FS had their losses spread out over most of the game - bit here, bit there, and they haven’t really done bad things to fleet strength or forced hard decisions.

We dont really see (often) in Naval History a power losing its whole navy, espc all at once.  But its a game of weight and percentages... a small starting advantage gets multiplied, so any relative loss hurts.  This is also why I dont bother to quantify the THN.  Even if they were restricted to OTL designs - their just too strong for meaningful conflict
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 28 November 2018, 13:15:17
We dont really see (often) in Naval History a power losing its whole navy, espc all at once.  But its a game of weight and percentages... a small starting advantage gets multiplied, so any relative loss hurts.  This is also why I dont bother to quantify the THN.  Even if they were restricted to OTL designs - their just too strong for meaningful conflict
I'm not discussing individual battles here. 

In the history of warfare, it's common for the losing side of a war to end up with only 0-50% of it's starting forces over the course of multiple battles (and years).  We haven't seen this yet---in terms of loss quantities it looks like minor border wars.   In real life, those losses are small because neither side is willing to risk a large force.  In combat here, we see border-war scale casualties although fought with the majority of forces.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 28 November 2018, 14:01:05
I think another factor is that we effectively fight with the navy, yet it is the army that has to conquer and then hold that ground.
I'm assuming a major world would take about 20% of the transports used to get the troops there just for logistics support, to make occupation feasible.
As there's no point in taking more than one at once, and minor worlds, while nice to have, barely register in the budget and are mostly used to show success to the public or some beancounter, there is no point in going all in.
The TH is the only power that could feasibly make 2 successive jumps on a 100 LY front and just keep that territory. So reasonably, everyone avoids the risk due to a lack of rewards.
Well, that and this isn't a game of Civ, you need to have an actual reason for a full war.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 28 November 2018, 14:11:45
I think another factor is that we effectively fight with the navy, yet it is the army that has to conquer and then hold that ground.
I'm assuming a major world would take about 20% of the transports used to get the troops there just for logistics support, to make occupation feasible.
As there's no point in taking more than one at once, and minor worlds, while nice to have, barely register in the budget and are mostly used to show success to the public or some beancounter, there is no point in going all in.
The TH is the only power that could feasibly make 2 successive jumps on a 100 LY front and just keep that territory. So reasonably, everyone avoids the risk due to a lack of rewards.
Well, that and this isn't a game of Civ, you need to have an actual reason for a full war.

Historically, the Hegemony bled and struggled for years to conquer the periphery realms, despite the vast difference in their resource potential.  Conquest is hard, conquest across multi-month supply lines is harder, and conquest relying on space transport is monstrously difficult.

Its really only the willingness of 'conquered' planets in the BTU to bow head to forces who (in terms of total size) would have been a footnote in the Fulda Gap (much less the Eastern Front) that allows it to work.

If space lift improves, somewhat more decisive engagement becomes possible - carving slices out of enemy territory, or driving a wedge in to claim a high value world - but currently none of us are budgeting for it.  It is possible that such spacelift could raise the overall tempo of conflict to the point that we see the sort of losses Lagrange would be looking for.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 28 November 2018, 14:47:16
As ever, RL has gotten in my way. Progress is being made, but I haven't gotten a really good uninterrupted block of time since Saturday. I'll have that post up by this weekend, though.

I didn't mean to write 20 events.
Just to have the occasional year where really nothing happens. ^^

@marcus That is a nice observation. I wonder if the house doctrines will eventually consolidate, or if we'll keep having different strategies going forward.
I know I'll prioritise fluff over raw efficiency, or I'll probably do something too similar to your battleship, only slightly faster and with slightly more ballistics. ^^

I feel like the action-reaction loops are already too long. People are going out and demanding blood for things that happened 15 years prior. Skipping years probably won't help.

And yes, seconding your thumbs-up to Marcus' assorted doctrine posts here. Won't quote them at length, but they're quality.

Hmmm...so will I be able to pawn off my outdated designs to victims of bad circumstance come a few turns? Thinking about it, that might be more profitable than scrapping, which I don't think would bring in much.
That said, for scrapping, I'd recommend ~20* C-Bills per ton (ignoring that there is no such thing as a C-Bill yet), for the raw material value, + maybe 5% of the ships cost.
I started with 10, but that's really low. I think it could easily go up to 40 without being unbalancing. This feels somewhat realistic and gives players an option to retire aging ships.
On the other hand, it is low enough that players don't get undue advantages from losing very few ships, in the long run.
Speaking of which, maybe have designs suffer increased maintenance after a century?  ;)

In order:
1.)  You MAY be able to sell old hulls - but the ability to see value in this is limited.  Even the most minor powers can build full up warships (given yard space), and are not far behind on tech.  The one opportunity I see is to sell off large hulls, that a minor power cannot reproduce due to limits in yard space.  Those large hulls, however, are your wall of battle hull-count, the ones we tend to be less eager to sell - and even if imperfect, its likely still a large, powerful unit.

2.)  Scrapping may be an option, as well - I dont know for sure how to value it.  I dont know what 'too high' would be - my gut guesses a 50% return.  This is ahistorically high, but may be necessary to make scrapping a choice, for reason 3.) below...

3.)  Compared to IRL navies, life-span costs here are DRAMATICALLY low.  My (vague) recollection is that a Wet Navy ship that costs $X to build will probably cost something like $X again over a 20 year service life, in terms of crew, maintenance, consumables, weapons, etc - here we bundle this all into maintenance, and if my recollection is correct, and we matched it, maintenance would be 50% per decade.. at which point we would be throwing away ships with gleeful abandon to buy the newest thing coming off our enlarged slipways.  Instead, as ships are cheap to keep in service, effectively free if mothballed against future need, with limited sales opportunities and scrap value - things are going to tend to stay in service exactly forever.

This is not inappropriate, however, given the BTU.  The BTU has a history of ships with may centuries in service, and not only are the maintenance costs sustainable, they don't seem to escalate over time - Note the clans ability to maintain and operate large tonnages of ships on a population count a great house could lose on one backwater planet without noticing (that said, the Clans are a strong example of the BTU being written by people professionally and profoundly disinterested in economics, logistics, or military history, or at least who have no truck with those things interfering with whatever story sounds fun at the time. 

This may be a strength in a franchise based on beer & pretzels, giant stompy robots, lady luck, and admiral awesome.

Scrapping might make sense as an option, though the way BT works it also might not. A lot of ships are still in service centuries after their construction. I'll think about adding that as a rule for next turn. For the same reason, increased maintenance over time won't be a thing. Navies will sometimes retire old ships, or put them on 50% maintenance as training vessels (thinking of doing that with the TH Dreadnoughts, instead of updating them), but if you want to keep it going, you can. You'll pay your $X in upkeep, but it'll be over a 100-year "service life", not a 20-year. Vacuum is a lot less corrosive than water, for one.

Naval Strength and Losses (most current, pre turn 7)
(snip)
I should expand this to the periphery and THN, but in both cases total fleet strength matters little compared to the question of political will on the part of the larger power

Actually, please do expand it. It's useful for getting a sense of where the ratios are - a disparity of 3:1 is very different from 30:1. Political will is a function of cost, in many cases. Also, the THN is getting even more overwhelming because of its lack of losses, and I want to see if there's any way to cut it down somewhat. I may try to see if a coalition battle can happen in a turn or two.

I'm not discussing individual battles here. 

In the history of warfare, it's common for the losing side of a war to end up with only 0-50% of it's starting forces over the course of multiple battles (and years).  We haven't seen this yet---in terms of loss quantities it looks like minor border wars.   In real life, those losses are small because neither side is willing to risk a large force.  In combat here, we see border-war scale casualties although fought with the majority of forces.

I've been shying away from that. By the nature of the game, the loss of most of your fleet would be crippling. Also, there are real-world parallels here - Jutland had lower loss ratios than Vega, and even a lot of decisive battles weren't as much higher as you might think. Heck, even at the high end, Trafalgar was one of the most crippling losses in history, and half the Franco-Spanish fleet survived it.

Historically, the Hegemony bled and struggled for years to conquer the periphery realms, despite the vast difference in their resource potential.  Conquest is hard, conquest across multi-month supply lines is harder, and conquest relying on space transport is monstrously difficult.

Its really only the willingness of 'conquered' planets in the BTU to bow head to forces who (in terms of total size) would have been a footnote in the Fulda Gap (much less the Eastern Front) that allows it to work.

If space lift improves, somewhat more decisive engagement becomes possible - carving slices out of enemy territory, or driving a wedge in to claim a high value world - but currently none of us are budgeting for it.  It is possible that such spacelift could raise the overall tempo of conflict to the point that we see the sort of losses Lagrange would be looking for.

This is true, though it'll change some when medium DS come online. And I'm trying to fix the "Fulda gap" problem by upping army sizes, though not too insanely. It can't be realistic, but it can get closer.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 28 November 2018, 15:09:06
...the sort of losses Lagrange would be looking for.
I'm not exactly "looking for", more "fearing", as the most obvious way for this to happen is via an attack on periphery powers.  Amongst the easily digestible periphery powers:
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 28 November 2018, 15:47:03
I'm not exactly "looking for", more "fearing", as the most obvious way for this to happen is via an attack on periphery powers.  Amongst the easily digestible periphery powers:
  • The MH has the highest value/planet.  The FWL navy could digest the MH navy on a whim and then the army can digesting the few planets easily.
  • The UHC has the second highest value/planet.  With zero strategically mobile forces the Fed Suns could easily pick them off at will. 
  • The RWR is 3rd with ~75 planets on the 2571 map.  It would be troublesome to digest as the Vittoria cannot be caught by anything except the Heimdaller II.  Still, the LC could easily capture the most valuable planets.
  • The TC has the lowest value/planet (>200 planets) which is looking like an asset in these calculations.  The lack of fast elements however means that the TC navy cannot easily maneuver to escape if the FS or CC drop by.

Here I meant looking as in anticpating.  And at the same time, youve got to be hoping the Houses pound each other into dust the same way the Houses pray for a massive civil war in the Terran Hegemony (in wargame terms, at least - obviously in a real universe NONE of our leaders/admirals, if worthwhile human beings, want that).

In order:
The Marian Hegemony is somewhat beyond the borders of the FWL.  The FWL could probably amuse itself conquering minor planets along the way, just as easily.  That said, a dedicated expedition would be feasible, effective, and moderately profitable.

The UHC has a lot of battlestations, and is pretty public about its willingness to go nuclear.  Id leave them alone.  Besides, history says that the Fed Suns gets all that money and space for free in the future, so why worry?  ((For the record,I loved the FedSuns until I played ANY OTHER POWER in the game.  Once your outside that circle of glory looking in from the cold?  Not so much))

The RWR would be a tough bite, but probably the over-all most profitable, in the long run.  Still, LC policy isnt very aggressive, and asking the GM if you can kick over his favourite NPC faction and strip-mine it for budget is probably not a winning plan.

The TC is probably just too bloody big to be worth taking unless it could be done cheaply, and its love affair with cheap battlestations ensures it couldn't be done quickly and cheaply.  So its likley the safest outside the UHC.

Beyond that, they are likely all pretty much safe.  I don't think the GM is interested in KOing players.  Setbacks, yes, but not knock-outs.  Also, the history is not long on permanent knockouts, though they do occur from time to time.

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 28 November 2018, 15:55:22
Actually, please do expand it. It's useful for getting a sense of where the ratios are - a disparity of 3:1 is very different from 30:1. Political will is a function of cost, in many cases. Also, the THN is getting even more overwhelming because of its lack of losses, and I want to see if there's any way to cut it down somewhat. I may try to see if a coalition battle can happen in a turn or two.

1.)  Done.
2.)  The THN is getting even more overwhelming despite its losses, not because it has avoided them - its lost more tonnage than the #2 power, the Fed Suns, have BUILT.  And it dented their martial dominance not one whit.

Basically, the THN budget is such that if the Genie of the Lamp granted a wish to Prince Davion eliminating the -entire- THN down to the last fighter on New Years Eve 2510, by 2520 the THN would have the ships to visit New Avalon and discuss the Prince's wishing habits with him.  If the Genie was very thorough and got all the yards as well, it might take 2 turns. 

Edit:  It wouldnt take 2 turns.
Budget 770B. 
50x Class I Yards over Terra:  ~255B. 
100xClass I DDs: ~505B. 
Going from 'No Navy' to 'Best Navy in Space' in a turn with 10B left over to throw a party?  Priceless.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 28 November 2018, 16:12:36
Thanks. I'm surprised that the THN is >10x the total production run of their nearest competitor, given the budget has been ~7x as high. They got a bit of a leg up by starting with a fleet in 2350, but not that much of one. Does that count non-combat ships? And I thought I was spending pretty profligately on their designs, too - the 2x Newgrange build last turn cost more than any other nation's budget, for zero immediate combat power.  Ditto the Potemkins, whose drop collars are basically a fancy way to light budget on fire at this point in the game. Even their yard construction is a massive money sink all told - they're not using a lot of it, and it's still pricey even by their standards.

I wonder how much of this is improved efficiency from large ship sizes? A Newgrange, for all that it's crazy, only costs about as much as a Kutai per ton. I wouldn't think it'd be that big an effect, since their biggest combat ship is only ~30% larger than typical Great House designs of the current day(and most are much smaller), and the designs I've focused most of their recent combat ship construction on(Vincent/Protector) have been small.

I may need them to have a brutal and destructive civil war soon, the sort that drops their budget markedly and for a long time. They're getting a bit wanky at this point - it's kind of fun making my own designs instead of just copying TRO 3057, but there's nothing to test them against.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 28 November 2018, 16:35:22
Thanks. I'm surprised that the THN is >10x the total production run of their nearest competitor, given the budget has been ~7x as high. They got a bit of a leg up by starting with a fleet in 2350, but not that much of one. Does that count non-combat ships? And I thought I was spending pretty profligately on their designs, too - the 2x Newgrange build last turn cost more than any other nation's budget, for zero immediate combat power.  Ditto the Potemkins, whose drop collars are basically a fancy way to light budget on fire at this point in the game. Even their yard construction is a massive money sink all told - they're not using a lot of it, and it's still pricey even by their standards.

I wonder how much of this is improved efficiency from large ship sizes? A Newgrange, for all that it's crazy, only costs about as much as a Kutai per ton. I wouldn't think it'd be that big an effect, since their biggest combat ship is only ~30% larger than typical Great House designs of the current day(and most are much smaller), and the designs I've focused most of their recent combat ship construction on(Vincent/Protector) have been small.

I may need them to have a brutal and destructive civil war soon, the sort that drops their budget markedly and for a long time. They're getting a bit wanky at this point - it's kind of fun making my own designs instead of just copying TRO 3057, but there's nothing to test them against.

Civil war works.  A nasty internal pop-the-nuke-cork civil war would fit the setting, beat back their yards, fleets, and industrial base, and also serve as a REAL AND SOLID example of why we dont do that.

In the alternate - shifting budget priorities and a focus inward would do it just as easily, if you don't want to write a huge civil war.  History is rife with great powers, militarily and economically situated to claim the role of absolute hegemon, that for cultural, political, or for other reasons set down the baton.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 28 November 2018, 16:52:30
The TC is probably just too bloody big to be worth taking unless it could be done cheaply, and its love affair with cheap battlestations ensures it couldn't be done quickly and cheaply.  So its likley the safest outside the UHC.
"Make self hard to swallow" is the baseline strategic plan here  :) 

Judging the TC at 1/3 to 1/4 of a house power seems about right, with perhaps half of that projectable at standard strategic speeds. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 28 November 2018, 18:43:58
Hey, even I set the directive "Defense in Depth".
One of the best defensive strategies against any sane opponent is to make offense too costly for the potential gains to equate to visible profit. No shame in that.
That said, I'm kind of spending on fluff as well.
Btw., is there some tool for actual space battles around? I wonder if we could take the occasional build and throw it against an other to see how they work in the very unlikely case of a small engagement.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 29 November 2018, 07:08:18
Edit:  It wouldnt take 2 turns.
Budget 770B. 
50x Class I Yards over Terra:  ~255B. 
100xClass I DDs: ~505B. 
Going from 'No Navy' to 'Best Navy in Space' in a turn with 10B left over to throw a party?  Priceless.

I statted up the ship in question, albeit built to player-level quality standards.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Emergency DD
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $4,730,768,004.00
Magazine Cost: $42,032,000.00
BV2: 37,383

Mass: 250,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 3.0
Maximum Thrust: 4.5
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
64 Machine Gun (IS)
64 LRM 20 (IS)
16 Naval Laser 55
8 Naval AC 25

Class/Model/Name: Emergency DD
Mass: 250,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 45,000
Thrust
Safe: 3.0
Maximum: 4.5
Controls: 625
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (7 Integrity) 113,125
Jump Sail: (4 Integrity) 43
Structural Integrity: 90 22,500
Total Heat Sinks: 1212 Single 867
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 6250 points 2,550
Fire Control Computers: 0
Armor: 234 pts Standard 450
Fore: 40
Fore-Left/Right: 40/40
Aft-Left/Right: 40/40
Aft: 34

Dropship Capacity: 0
Grav Decks:
Small: 1 50
Medium: 0
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 20 140
Life Boats: 20 140

Crew And Passengers:
24 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 240
71 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 497
46 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 322
86 Bay Personnel in 2nd Class Quarters 602

# 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
8 Machine Gun (IS) LBS 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
8 Machine Gun (IS) RBS 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
8 LRM 20 (IS) Nose 48 96 (9.6-C) Long 80
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
8 LRM 20 (IS) LBS 48 96 (9.6-C) Long 80
8 LRM 20 (IS) RBS 48 96 (9.6-C) Long 80
4 Naval Laser 55 Nose 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
4 Naval Laser 55 Aft 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
4 Naval Laser 55 LBS 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
4 Naval Laser 55 RBS 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
2 Naval AC 25 FR 170 500 (50-C) Long-C 6,000
2 Naval AC 25 FL 170 500 (50-C) Long-C 6,000
2 Naval AC 25 AR 170 500 (50-C) Long-C 6,000
2 Naval AC 25 AL 170 500 (50-C) Long-C 6,000

Ammo Rounds Mass
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 6400 32
LRM 20 (IS) Ammo 4800 800
Naval AC 25 Ammo 400 240

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
15,500 Cargo, Standard 15,500 2
24 Bay Fighter 3,600 6
2 Bay Small Craft 400 1
1 Bay Conventional Infantry (IS), Foot 5 0

$4,871m with the fighters and shuttles included. 288 throw weight, 414 HP, 24 ASF, and it can store 125 tons/fighter of missiles and still meet my 5% cargo mass standard on top of that. (Scheisse.)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 29 November 2018, 10:43:05
So I wondered, maybe fake-factor in bureaucracy overhead, and give powers with larger budgets progressively larger maintenance fees?

Was supposed to be a way larger post here, alas, I'm short on time.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 29 November 2018, 14:59:08
Marian Hegemony: 10 Size Class in service
Effective Yard Space:2

The Marian Hegemony can no more threaten the FWL than the FWL can threaten the TH.  However, the periphery power is relatively better off than a great house - inasmuch as a great house crushing a periphery power would weaken itself, and it has dangerous peers.  For all of that, the Hegemony Navy exists primarily in pursuit of local territorial objectives, given its splendid isolation from the inner sphere.

I agree that we're small, but as to FWL ( Stoopid Purple Byrd! Don't eat ME! ), they'll slowly choke if they attempt to look our way!

Code: [Select]
/Class/Model/Name: Emergency DD
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $4,730,768,004.00
Magazine Cost: $42,032,000.00
BV2: 37,383

Mass: 250,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 3.0
Maximum Thrust: 4.5
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
64 Machine Gun (IS)
64 LRM 20 (IS)
16 Naval Laser 55
8 Naval AC 25

Class/Model/Name: Emergency DD
Mass: 250,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 45,000
Thrust
Safe: 3.0
Maximum: 4.5
Controls: 625
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (7 Integrity) 113,125
Jump Sail: (4 Integrity) 43
Structural Integrity: 90 22,500
Total Heat Sinks: 1212 Single 867
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 6250 points 2,550
Fire Control Computers: 0
Armor: 234 pts Standard 450
Fore: 40
Fore-Left/Right: 40/40
Aft-Left/Right: 40/40
Aft: 34

Dropship Capacity: 0
Grav Decks:
Small: 1 50
Medium: 0
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 20 140
Life Boats: 20 140

Crew And Passengers:
24 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 240
71 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 497
46 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 322
86 Bay Personnel in 2nd Class Quarters 602

# 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
8 Machine Gun (IS) LBS 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
8 Machine Gun (IS) RBS 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
8 LRM 20 (IS) Nose 48 96 (9.6-C) Long 80
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
8 LRM 20 (IS) LBS 48 96 (9.6-C) Long 80
8 LRM 20 (IS) RBS 48 96 (9.6-C) Long 80
4 Naval Laser 55 Nose 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
4 Naval Laser 55 Aft 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
4 Naval Laser 55 LBS 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
4 Naval Laser 55 RBS 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
2 Naval AC 25 FR 170 500 (50-C) Long-C 6,000
2 Naval AC 25 FL 170 500 (50-C) Long-C 6,000
2 Naval AC 25 AR 170 500 (50-C) Long-C 6,000
2 Naval AC 25 AL 170 500 (50-C) Long-C 6,000

Ammo Rounds Mass
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 6400 32
LRM 20 (IS) Ammo 4800 800
Naval AC 25 Ammo 400 240

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
15,500 Cargo, Standard 15,500 2
24 Bay Fighter 3,600 6
2 Bay Small Craft 400 1
1 Bay Conventional Infantry (IS), Foot 5 0

Gonna steal this as soon as I can!
TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 01 December 2018, 23:41:46
I wanted to work out a theory of naval battles, partly to understand what is possible and partly to guide some decision making.  To do this, various approximations need to be made.
Conversely, I'm going to consider other more continous rules like variable thresholds and individual weapon ranges.  With variable thresholds, ~4 critical hit chances occur before armor is stripped from a location.  Against the side arc, this usually does nothing significant to elements not in the side arc, but against the nose arc CIC, Sensors, or Crew critical hits typically make further weapons fire infeasible once armor is stripped.

Missiles, ASF, and other parasite ships are a special case that I'm not handling here (maybe at a later date).

Given the above, I see 4 primary situations that a unit can be in.  Any individual battle may involve a mixture of these situations, but it's helpful to understand the situations and the strengths of units in these situations.

Execution: One side can attack when another cannot.  An execution is a possibility when one side has a speed advantage, a range advantage, sufficiently good gunnery skill, and room to maneuver.  Examples are of the form Warship+HNPPC vs. Jumpship or Warship+HNPPC vs. slower dropships.  It's important to note that range+speed is necessary but not sufficient for an execution.  For example, if a warship is deployed to protect a yard even a slow opponent can force it into a battle of another type.  The duration of an execution is highly variable dependent on the scope of the range advantage.  For example if the range advantage is only at extreme (+6) and the target evades (+2) while presenting a side aspect (+2) only elite naval gunners (base 2) would be able to hit, and even then only once every half hour factoring in uncertainty due to position (~= initiative) and this could easily double to an hour.  On the other hand, a warship could pass near or through a constellation of jumpships and destroy them all in a minute.  We haven't seen any battles of this sort yet.

Execution designs favor high speed and range above all else and marginally prefer to place weapons in the aft side arcs so they can maneuver and fire through the side arcs while keeping the range.

Low Intensity: A low intensity battle allows warships to take advantage of rolling sides.  A low intensity battle is possible when there is range parity but the faster side maintains sufficient range so incoming damage/minute is low enough to respond with damage-mitigation strategies.  Low intensity battles are either at long or extreme range since incoming damage is by definition occurring at a low rate.  An asymmetry in gunnery skill can make a large difference in a low intensity battle.  Low intensity battles eventually become infeasible as fleet sizes grow since ships can focus fire.  This threshold is high though---essentially the question is: if you divide firepower by a factor of 36 can you outright kill an opposing fleet's ship?  The divisor here may be even more extreme if a side has mixed gunnery skills.

A warship essentially has 3 combat sides: Left, Right, and Nose.  The Left/Right sides include Fore/Aft armor and Fore/Aft/Broad weapons.  The Nose side include Fore-side and Nose armor and weapons arcs, but only one fore-side weapon arc can be used in conjunction with the nose weapon arc against a single target.  In a low intensity battle you always want to use the Left and Right sides before the Nose since Nose critical hits make further targeting impossible.  The side aspect actually biases damage aft so effective use of low intensity typically results in the loss of all armor on the aft sides before rolling to the Nose side where nose armor and the remaining fore side armor is stripped.  After that, the ship is incapable of battle but able to flee further combat if it is the faster ship.  Low intensity designs favor a balance of weapons across side and nose arcs with sufficient speed to control the range and long or extreme range weapons.

High Intensity: High intensity occurs when a combatant is capable of controlling the side presented to the enemy but the enemy can destroy ships through focused fire before damage mitigation measures can be used.  Most warships can control their facing in most situations while space stations and jumpships often cannot.  Side choice is easier to control as the range increases.  The parity point is at range/2=attacker_thrust/defender_thrust so at range 49 thrust 5 suffices to exceed the attitude control of a space station while at range 51 it does not.  Ships can decide to present either the Right, Left, or Nose side as per low intensity combat, but they cannot use unpresented sides---instead they either survive fine or are destroyed outright.  Most of the battles we've seen so far are examples of high intensity combat.

High intensity combat could be done with either a broadside approach or a nose approach.  A nose approach creates concentration of fire and armor but cannot really benefit from structure due to nose critical hits creating a mission kill about when nose armor is removed.  A broadside approach can effectively use structure to substantially improve damage capacity as broadside critical hits are rarely destabilizing.  A broadside approach also imposes a to-hit penalty over a nose approach.

Backstab: An opponent can choose the side to attack against.  This usually occurs with Jumpships and Space Stations although it could occur for a surprised warship in a high speed engagement.  Fleet level tactics can partially mitigate the downside of a backstab.  For example, 3 space stations which only fire in one arc can arrange themselves to effectively return fire in any arc.  Hence, the worst case backstab fire is effectively the average of all facings while the weakest armor facing (typically aft) is presented to the enemy.  Backstab avoidance designs favors uniform fire control and armor and are typically used on slow units.

Measurement: We would like a single number which allow us to estimate the outcome of any of the above forms of combat for a naval unit.

The measurement in an execution situation is based on range and speed with dominance in both being required.  Together with situational tactical concerns this determines feasibility and time requirements.

The measurement in a high intensity situation assumes damage sufficient to strip fore side and aft side + 2*structure is inflicted on the sides resulting in destruction.  Alternatively, damage sufficient to strip the nose armor results in a mission kill as the naval vessel will no longer be able to fire with accuracy.  We use the max(sqrt(E side damage * side capital damage), sqrt(E nose damage * nose capital damage)).  The square root here produces the "right" scaling so that double firepower+double armor = double value.

The measurement in a low intensity situation treats the vessel as (nearly) 3 different vessels, computing sqrt(expected {nose,side} armor * long or more {nose,side} capital damage) and then adding them up.  In practice, we expect damage to hit the structure before rolling sides, but using "no armor left on aft side" as the signal to switch sides leaves a reasonable margin for avoiding accidental early destruction and a reasonable chance that fore-side weapons will remain intact for use in a nose attack.

A backstab situation is similar to high intensity but uses sqrt(average(aft,nose,side) fire * aft armor) since in a fleet situation you can disperse facings to overcome lack of facing control.  Aft critical hits are debilitating through engine and thruster damage which rapidly leave a unit unable to move.

Anyways, I calculated these numbers for units in the local neighborhood of the TC just to see what the result is:
Rapid Ventilation Wind Spirit Wife's Wrath Albion Galahad Robinson Crucis Kentares IV Northumberland Barghest Padfoot Pratham Raksha Nova Taurus I Matador Siesta Marathon
Max Range 525252424242425252525252445252525252
Max Speed 67.54.57.5664.57.50.20.20.20.20.21190.20.2
Low 4114135553175041818511954673672278333195807868175
High 539184325154474188601941733774104124203846726181
Backstab 27413113584256842977413313258810692382822   127
The executioner designs {Wind Spirit, Kentares IV, Matador} have range 52 and speed either 7.5 or 9.

The low intensity designs {Wife's Wrath, Albion, Galahad, Crucis} favor carefully metered out trading of damage.

The high intensity designs (Rapid Ventilation, Robinson, Nova} favor super destructive combat.

The Crucis in particular scores well in both low and high intensity combat although range suffers as a NAC boat.

Obviously there are limitations due to neglecting missiles and parasite ships, but other than that I'm curious if anyone sees serious flaws or gaps?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 02 December 2018, 06:14:50
Impressive work!

Concerns:

1.)  I believe the ST would indiciate we are seeing low intensity combat.  5 and even 15 round missile launchers run dry before the fight ends.

2.)  Be careful of mixed armament ships.  IRL the ‘All Big Gun’ battleship was a thing for good reason.  Under your calculus, the ideal armament is a single HNPPC and a large pile of NAC/40 - this preserves high range while presenting large numbers.

3.)  I believe Galahad has a maximum thrust of 6?

4.)  Would be curious to see this expanded to remaining powers.

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 02 December 2018, 08:36:53
1.)  I believe the ST would indiciate we are seeing low intensity combat.  5 and even 15 round missile launchers run dry before the fight ends.
ST?  One of the reasons I left off missiles is because they seem inappropriate for execution or low intensity combat.
Edit: ah, storytelling.   Yes, I think we've seen both low and high intensity.
2.)  Be careful of mixed armament ships.  IRL the ‘All Big Gun’ battleship was a thing for good reason.  Under your calculus, the ideal armament is a single HNPPC and a large pile of NAC/40 - this preserves high range while presenting large numbers.
This is like Rapid Ventilation.  It scores well on high intensity combat but not on low intensity because the NAC/40 has only medium range.  The range would help with execution, but you need dominance in speed as well which may or may not exist.
3.)  I believe Galahad has a maximum thrust of 6?
Fixed.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 02 December 2018, 10:06:28
Impressive, though it's worth noting that you're embedding a lot of tabletop assumptions that don't get implemented in quite the same way here.
1) Side-aspect targeting penalties seem like they're mostly designed to describe crossing motion, not simply sitting there with your broadside hanging out - the broadside aspect is physically larger than the nose aspect, so all else being equal it should be easier to hit. I haven't worked any aspect penalties into my combat math thus far.

2) The range discussion was talking about if it's "only at extreme", which assumes the standard aero range brackets. I'm using advanced aero ranges, because it adds texture to the combat(and allows things like NAC/25s to be used reasonably - given the small number of weapon options, I want them all to have a place). That means that big to-hit differentials can persist to fairly short ranges - to take an extreme case, at 19-20 hexes, a Barracuda is at short range while a NAC/40 is at extreme range.

3) While "aft hits can disable engines" is an obvious "crit table" effect, I've fuzzed out a lot of the others a bit. You can hit the CIC or the ammo magazines from the front or the side, it mostly just depends on how hard you hit and how lucky you are. There's important systems all throughout the hull, and there's no particular aspect that'll be immune from very serious crits.

Regarding combat intensity, this is one where I'm torn between following the BattleTech rules or following plausible battle dynamics. I've gone more for the former, but I try to stretch things out a little bit. Eight rounds is fairly long to produce a clear result if we resolved the battle with tabletop rules, especially with standard armour, but eight minutes to kill the Hood was considered astonishingly short at Denmark Strait. Battles lasting hours or even days, sometimes without decisive results, are more typical in RL. I've mostly gone with "as long as plausible under tabletop rules" as my rule of thumb, but that'll vary depending on rolls and what sort of plot ideas I come up with.

The theory I've come up with is basically that the more agile combatant can generally choose engagement type and range unless they botch things badly. Fighters will basically always get the drop on WarShips, and faster ships will be able to control range against slower ones most of the time(depending on how big the speed/agility differential is, of course). This agility will generally let you choose what range to fight at, and if circumstances are right, what facing to target. Highly agile ships should thus generally choose a range and aspect that suits them best, while less agile ships will often prefer to hedgehog, or sometimes rely on formations to cover their weak spots. Because fighters will always be more agile than any plausible WarShip, and because there's always the chance of being surrounded, WarShips and stations will always want at least some amount of defence in all directions. The amount you'll want will depend on doctrine and details, but the extreme cases here are probably the Caesar and the Ancile/Scutum stations - much more of a single-facing focus than that is hard to envision.

To assist with your efforts to put this into math, I'd say a backstab scenario should measure the ship's worst single aspect, a high-intensity scenario should measure its best single aspect, and a low-intensity battle should measure the combined value of all relevant aspects.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 02 December 2018, 10:43:11
Alsadius:  This raises a couple of concerns to me:

1.)  Shipboard missile launchers are, in the utter absence of PDS, still very poor weapon systems past about 10 rounds per launcher.  If you see fights as lasting hours before decision, shipboard missile launchers have no role.

2.)  Ship manuvering speeds and weapon ranges, in tabletop, allow at least the idea of decisive long range engagement.  If fights last hours, any advantage of long range fire is rendered trivial, as the range will certainly be closed in the first 10 minutes of the 6 hour fight.  Assuming of course a range advantage is not coupled with sufficient thrust advantage to hold the range for all six hours.

Given the above, and knowing now your underlying assumptions, the reason behind  some of my perceptions about combat thus far (shipboard launchers are a bad use of tonnage, NACs are the decisive weapon, the bigger the better) is now made clear.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 02 December 2018, 10:54:54
Impressive, though it's worth noting that you're embedding a lot of tabletop assumptions that don't get implemented in quite the same way here.
1) Side-aspect targeting penalties seem like they're mostly designed to describe crossing motion, not simply sitting there with your broadside hanging out - the broadside aspect is physically larger than the nose aspect, so all else being equal it should be easier to hit. I haven't worked any aspect penalties into my combat math thus far.
I am actually thinking about transverse velocity as generating the to-hit penalty.  Not using aspect penalties makes it a bit easier to have combat at extreme range.
2) The range discussion was talking about if it's "only at extreme", which assumes the standard aero range brackets. I'm using advanced aero ranges, because it adds texture to the combat(and allows things like NAC/25s to be used reasonably - given the small number of weapon options, I want them all to have a place). That means that big to-hit differentials can persist to fairly short ranges - to take an extreme case, at 19-20 hexes, a Barracuda is at short range while a NAC/40 is at extreme range.
That's a good point not fully captured in the above.  It means that NAC/40 boats like Rapid Ventilation are not quite as effective as high intensity combat would suggest.
3) While "aft hits can disable engines" is an obvious "crit table" effect, I've fuzzed out a lot of the others a bit. You can hit the CIC or the ammo magazines from the front or the side, it mostly just depends on how hard you hit and how lucky you are. There's important systems all throughout the hull, and there's no particular aspect that'll be immune from very serious crits.
Even the game rules have this---it's just much rarer to have a systemically disabling critical hit from a side aspect.

For the purpose of this game, are systemically disabling crits equally likely from every aspect?
To assist with your efforts to put this into math, I'd say a backstab scenario should measure the ship's worst single aspect,
'Single worst aspect' is different from the above because it mostly should not happen---a fleet should do a 'circle the wagons' (or 3-d variant) if they are faced with an opponent able to backstab. 
a high-intensity scenario should measure its best single aspect,
That's done.  However, it's important to note that I'm including structure for a side aspect (consistent with rare systemically disabling critical hits) and not for the nose aspect (consistent with common systemically disabling critical hits).  Should that change?
and a low-intensity battle should measure the combined value of all relevant aspects.
I'm presently not including an aft aspect in low-intensity battle.  In terms of Battletech, the aft-side armor will already be gone by the time you get to it with gun bays typically critted out and aft armor significantly depleted. 

Thinking further, perhaps I've missed a battle type: the chase.  Force A is chasing force B out of the system.  Force A must have a speed higher than force B and force B can only really use their aft aspect unless they decide to give up on fleeing.   We haven't seen any chases, but it's easy enough to imagine them happening if (say) a fleet of NAC boats is threatened by a faster fleet of HNPPCs.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 02 December 2018, 11:02:08
Regarding combat intensity, this is one where I'm torn between following the BattleTech rules or following plausible battle dynamics. I've gone more for the former, but I try to stretch things out a little bit. Eight rounds is fairly long to produce a clear result if we resolved the battle with tabletop rules, especially with standard armour, but eight minutes to kill the Hood was considered astonishingly short at Denmark Strait. Battles lasting hours or even days, sometimes without decisive results, are more typical in RL. I've mostly gone with "as long as plausible under tabletop rules" as my rule of thumb, but that'll vary depending on rolls and what sort of plot ideas I come up with.
W.r.t. duration, it seems important to distinguish tabletop rules vs. tabletop play.   Tabletop play favors fast resolution as otherwise it becomes boring.  But the tabletop rules at least allow for the possibility of relatively long fights.   If the faster unit has only a very slight range advantage, then they would be dipping in and out of range in a pilot's battle, with each shot having high odds of missing.   Even with fleet scale engagements it could take a long time to resolve combat.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 02 December 2018, 11:09:19
If there isnt an increased vulerability to the fore and aft aspects, logically would not a concentration of capital firepower on a single aspect (fore or aft) with a matching armor concentration, be the ideal result?

I ask because this looks like almost nothing in cannon, but the 10% fire control tax from putting, say, 40xNAC 40 on the nose, rather than 20 on each side aspect, coupled with sufficent speed to close, would be trivial compared to the massive advantage reaped in firepower and effective armor.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 02 December 2018, 11:13:22
If there isnt an increased vulerability to the fore and aft aspects, logically would not a concentration of capital firepower on a single aspect (fore or aft) with a matching armor concentration, be the ideal result?
Yes.   Equal crit vulnerability from all aspects implies the optimal design places heavy armor + weapons in the nose.  The battletech crit & aspect rules seem to have been engineered to allow for that to not be the optimal strategy, at least not always.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 02 December 2018, 12:09:50
Even with the increased vulerability, Ive had a 4/6 Nac Nose, deep fuel tank, ‘high speed engagement’ specialist on the drawing board for a long time now.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 02 December 2018, 15:01:39
Battles lasting hours or even days, sometimes without decisive results, are more typical in RL.
You gotta show me those reports of recent space battles.
I think a battle between warships is more akin to a duel between Helicopters or jet fighters, dependng on the size and speed.
Those ships are relatively fragile, and relatively fast.
I really don't see long battles happening that ofte unless both fleets jump in near the edge of their range, or the engaging faction spends a few hours on heavy deceleration, because they require speed to meet in the first place, and they might as well use some of that speed to quickly close the range. So if one faction has shorter range weapons, in the usual scenario it will be able to make at least a single pass on the enemy bring those weapons to bear before flying out again (think of it as a very slow high speed engagement). In fact, a fleeing fleet with lower range weapons, of equal or even slightly slower speed to their pursuers and at the edge of the pursuing fleets range envelope, could probably turn it into a slugging match by just one clever maneuver - turning the fleet a half turn ahead of the enemy reacting would result in sufficient thrust to close into what in brackets might be lower long range.
I believe a sea battle doesn't normally have this dynamic.

Regarding individual weapon ranges: That's nice now, but has a few issues in the future - say, subcaps, where some of them will have plain worse range than standard weapons for no gain - and I'd like to raise the point of what is the niche of smaller sized PPCs? They have the same tonnage/damage ratio, same with heat, if memory serves right, and they are shorter ranged.
I wonder if very large capital weapons should maybe have a bigger difficulty to hit relatively small targets, say, small dropships?
Ballistics do that by range, but energy weapons Invert that dynamic.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 02 December 2018, 21:39:24
One subproblem is: How well can a faster fleet control separation from a slower fleet?

In thinking about this, it's important to realize that fleet needs to voluntarily lose initiative in order to maintain cohesion as a fleet.  Given that you have voluntarily lost initiative, the opposing fleet (minus perhaps one member) is allowed to effectively act second. 

If both fleets start some distance apart at rest, how much position variaton can be created?  The slower fleet can thrust in one direction by max_thrust and in the other direction by max_thrust-3 implying a velocity variation of 2*max_thrust-3.  The faster fleet could therefore minimize this by employing thrust +1.5 to make the relative velocity variation be in the interval [-max_thrust+1.5, max_thrust-1.5].  In further rounds, the velocity variation can be reduced by the overtake (=max_thrust_1 - max_thrust_2) of the faster fleet each round.    The velocity variation creates a position variation by summing the velocity variations over rounds.   The general relationship has a formula, but the number of possibilities is low so we can just make a table:

max_thrust \ overtake1.5       3         4.5       
3 1.51.51.5
4.5 4.533
6 96
7.5 15

So, an overtake of 1.5 (the most common case) on a 3/4.5 fleet (also common) implies a separation distance variation of +/- 4.5 space hexes.   

Max_thrust 3 (or less) implies that the faster force can essentially hold the range fixed while a max_thrust 7.5 creates a quite large variation for a max_thrust 9 warship trying to keep the range fixed.

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 03 December 2018, 07:34:46
Alsadius, could we get an update on where we are on the turn?  Thanks!
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 03 December 2018, 09:54:46
One subproblem is: How well can a faster fleet control separation from a slower fleet?

In thinking about this, it's important to realize that fleet needs to voluntarily lose initiative in order to maintain cohesion as a fleet.  Given that you have voluntarily lost initiative, the opposing fleet (minus perhaps one member) is allowed to effectively act second. 

If both fleets start some distance apart at rest, how much position variaton can be created?  The slower fleet can thrust in one direction by max_thrust and in the other direction by max_thrust-3 implying a velocity variation of 2*max_thrust-3.  The faster fleet could therefore minimize this by employing thrust +1.5 to make the relative velocity variation be in the interval [-max_thrust+1.5, max_thrust-1.5].  In further rounds, the velocity variation can be reduced by the overtake (=max_thrust_1 - max_thrust_2) of the faster fleet each round.    The velocity variation creates a position variation by summing the velocity variations over rounds.   The general relationship has a formula, but the number of possibilities is low so we can just make a table:

max_thrust \ overtake1.5       3         4.5       
3 1.51.51.5
4.5 4.533
6 96
7.5 15

So, an overtake of 1.5 (the most common case) on a 3/4.5 fleet (also common) implies a separation distance variation of +/- 4.5 space hexes.   

Max_thrust 3 (or less) implies that the faster force can essentially hold the range fixed while a max_thrust 7.5 creates a quite large variation for a max_thrust 9 warship trying to keep the range fixed.

This is one place where the very artificial "I Go U Go" nature of the tabletop game really shows itself, IMHO.

Now, there is some potential, I believe, for a fleet to 'surprise' an opponent by suddenly turning and applying thrust in an unexpected direction - but I believe the surprise is more likely to be of the 'Hmm, why do they want to close the range, oh god, those arent Naval Laser Mounts, their NACs!  Theyve been modified!' and less of the 'Wait, weve been outmanuvered and suddenly lost/they have gained the range gague'.

Thes things are big and slowwww on the helm.  If ships are well coordinated at helm by computers and light-speed links, then one force can respond as quickly as the other, and its trival to tell your computer 'maneuver us as best possible to maintain range between X and Y and facing Z'.

If ships are not so coordinated, then battle fleets get so unwieldy that keeping the fleet together and not allowing units to wander off due to a lost order or oversite would seem such a priority that your unlikely to see really clever fleet manuvering/range jumping.

Given the constant threat of the "order, counter-order, counter-counter-order, disorder" cycle, I imagine each fleet will know what engagement profile they are going for, maneuver as best as possible to get it, and focus on maintaining cohesion to the exclusion of tactical complexity. 

Historically, cute tactical fillips are the province of small unit actions, espc. solo operators, and tactical complexity is a peacetime hobby - quickly abandoned in war to 'have a good enough plan to win thats simple enough to execute'.  Fleets tend to live and die on math, the effect of coiled combat power waiting to be unsprung, a handful of manuver choices, and a small number of crucial decisions as to when exactly to pull trigger, whether to deploy port or starboard, whether to load torpedos or bombs, etc.  One of the things that I enjoy about naval strategy and tactics is the way an Empire can rise or fall on things like 'Do I turn left or right in the fog'.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 03 December 2018, 11:56:29
Thes things are big and slowwww on the helm.  If ships are well coordinated at helm by computers and light-speed links, then one force can respond as quickly as the other, and its trival to tell your computer 'maneuver us as best possible to maintain range between X and Y and facing Z'.
The range of an engagement is up to 1008km (=56 space hexes), so I guess the question is: Can one force determine another force's attitude and thrust in near real time to sufficient precision so as to match course?  This is 1/10th the range of battlefield radar so it does seem likely that you can collect an opposing fleet's facing, orientation, and velocity and input that to a computer so that it operates according to a range-maintaining vector. 

One caution though: you can't generally control facing and range against a maneuvering target.  if they thrust towards you, you must thrust away while if they thrust away, you must thrust towards them.  This implies that designs focused on maintaining range must split firepower across multiple arcs.  This also seems to be something not modeled in my first attempt.

Edit: A screen launcher might materially impact the ability to control range since it explicitly blocks LOS.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 03 December 2018, 12:15:31
The range of an engagement is up to 1008km (=56 space hexes), so I guess the question is: Can one force determine another force's attitude and thrust in near real time to sufficient precision so as to match course?  This is 1/10th the range of battlefield radar so it does seem likely that you can collect an opposing fleet's facing, orientation, and velocity and input that to a computer so that it operates according to a range-maintaining vector. 

One caution though: you can't generally control facing and range against a maneuvering target.  if they thrust towards you, you must thrust away while if they thrust away, you must thrust towards them.  This implies that designs focused on maintaining range must split firepower across multiple arcs.  This also seems to be something not modeled in my first attempt.

True.  The tabletop rules permit such extravagances as continually thrusting in one direction, turning to face another, then thrusting again - but the cost in thrust is prohibitive, and of course, while the rules have discreet time slices, the universe does not.  The above of course presumes Newtonian motion, which is an optional rather than default rule - but I cannot imagine we play under the classic 'all velocity is in the direction the nose is pointing' default rule.

In a laser tail design, I would think one would use thrust to set up an intended closest point of approach, and then point the tail to the opponent, using thrust as needed to avoid the closest point being too close - for a lasertail design, the only concern is a too close approach.. if you do not get close enough, try again!

For a NACNose, the problem is mostly simpler - acceleration with nose on target should be sufficient, once you are within tactical ranges - especially if youve gone to a higher thrust design as the NAC-Nose permits.

I will admit some of the impetus behind Buri was to simplify these matters.  Have sufficient range that you do not worry about being out-ranged, and sufficient armor and weight of fire to address even a close ranged focused, aggressively closing opponent.  Maneuver is and should of course be used to delay that closing, but such maneuver would be outside the tactical space, intending to ensure as low an engagement speed and relative velocity as possible.  A true 'high speed engagement' profile would disadvantage Buri as against a NACNose force, but that is why she operates in consort with carriers - a wall of Fighter-borne Killer Whales, fired with the velocity modifiers of high speed engagement, seem to discourage such overruns - and may be the best use case for missiles more generally.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 03 December 2018, 13:33:15
In a laser tail design, I would think one would use thrust to set up an intended closest point of approach, and then point the tail to the opponent, using thrust as needed to avoid the closest point being too close - for a lasertail design, the only concern is a too close approach.. if you do not get close enough, try again!
This is the Matador design.  it could work, but it seems like you need a margin of 3-4 overtake so you can have a closing velocity of 1, turn (using 3 thrust) and cancel your closing velocity.  This would also be extra slow between extreme range shots and the constant yoyo in and out of range.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 03 December 2018, 15:39:14
This is the Matador design.  it could work, but it seems like you need a margin of 3-4 overtake so you can have a closing velocity of 1, turn (using 3 thrust) and cancel your closing velocity.  This would also be extra slow between extreme range shots and the constant yoyo in and out of range.

Matador makes a lot of sense when you consider a larger neighbor with heavy NAC based armament.  Unless they start installing some NL/55s or NPPCs, in theory Matador could wear down  Crucis or Galahad, despite the vast weight disparity, assuming the Matador did not have something she needed to defend. (and assuming she wasnt badly damaged or lamed by the missiles on the big Davion ships)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 03 December 2018, 16:03:26
We'll have to live with the fact (probably for the better) that the space combat we engage in is in no way realistic.
Just take a look at the fuel consumption. Within the rules corset we have, fleets that rely on range will probably require superior training even before the advent of ECM, as you need to both have good gunners and be able to consistently win initiative.
So as much as we might all like to, skirting the range envelope and plinking away is unlikely to work, barring designs so optimized for the task they can do absolutely nothing else. .. I'm starting the get aggravated by my tablets keyboard.

Of course, if we do have newtonian movement, which I hope we do, there might still be some interesting tactics available.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 03 December 2018, 16:56:37
We'll have to live with the fact (probably for the better) that the space combat we engage in is in no way realistic.
Just take a look at the fuel consumption. Within the rules corset we have, fleets that rely on range will probably require superior training even before the advent of ECM, as you need to both have good gunners and be able to consistently win initiative.
So as much as we might all like to, skirting the range envelope and plinking away is unlikely to work, barring designs so optimized for the task they can do absolutely nothing else. .. I'm starting the get aggravated by my tablets keyboard.

Of course, if we do have newtonian movement, which I hope we do, there might still be some interesting tactics available.

Alsadius has said hes mentally bumping up accuracy at long range.  Ranges need to be usable.

Even with that aside, long range weapons are more accurate at medium ranges than medium range weapons, so even if you draw the accuracy threshold 'in' some, they still present the opportunity for first, effective, attack - and will be more accurate than the NACs until the range is quite close indeed!

The real question is going to be whether or not a fast opponent can 'run under the guns' of a longer ranged opponent before the longer ranged opponent can get a decisive advantage with longer range fire.

In the real world, before certain advances in fire control, the answer was 'always', and smaller, lighter, faster firing guns dominated.

After those advances, the answer was 'never', and large naval rifles were decisive at previously unimaginable.

Here, I think the answer will likely be 'it depends'.  Alsadius wants very much for there to not be any 'right' or 'wrong' answers.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 03 December 2018, 17:12:06
Yet there are.
Like Naval Gauss, or lighter NPPCs, or Whiteshark Launchers. We'll have to live with some of those. And unless he goes completely by what 'feels right', and doesn't play this out in any way, there will be superior approaches. And while range and other concerns might make NACs not the obvious and only choice, which I actually believe they aren't, I still think that focussing purely on sniping is a foolish endeavour before the advent of bracketing.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 03 December 2018, 18:10:06
Yet there are.
I agree with the thesis that there are good and bad designs, but not the examples.
Like Naval Gauss,
Light Naval Gauss is actually of high interest to the TC.  Having more range than anyone else has significant value.  Medium Naval Gauss cost more than an HNPPC but has the same range and damage efficiency while doing wicked damage in a high speed engagement.   Granted, Heavy Naval Gauss is a lemon---it should really do 35 damage.
or lighter NPPCs,
Granted.
or Whiteshark Launchers.
A 29% chance of a critical hit per missile is actually quite good against heavily armored opponents.  So far, it seems like critical hits have not won the day, but in real battletech game massed use of Whitesharks could be effective.
We'll have to live with some of those. And unless he goes completely by what 'feels right', and doesn't play this out in any way, there will be superior approaches. And while range and other concerns might make NACs not the obvious and only choice, which I actually believe they aren't, I still think that focussing purely on sniping is a foolish endeavour before the advent of bracketing.
Base gunnery 4+6(extreme)+2(evasion) means that an opponent running away can be hit even if they try to evade.  On other aspects forcing the opponent to evade drains 2 from their thrust every round even if you can't hit... and Alsadius says he's not taking aspects into account.  Overall, focusing purely on sniping seems foolish as you say, but some focus seems reasonable given the duration of a system transit.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 03 December 2018, 18:44:53
The medium N-Gauss is the best of the bunch, and it has 2 less range than a heavy NPPC with worse tonnage efficiency and higher cost. It certainly has it's niche.
The light is only useful if you want to focus on sniping, but those 2 hexes of range don't fillme with confidence, and the heavy... oh well.
I wasn't even aware that whitesharks have better crits than a killerwhale - I thought their only point is as T-Missiles.
Regarding the running away thingy, I doubt that'll happen much, because that would require a match wherein the opposition decides to turn tail.
Luckily for long range fire, no one will think of throwing random junk out the ship for another century or so.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 03 December 2018, 20:03:07
The medium N-Gauss is the best of the bunch, and it has 2 less range than a heavy NPPC with worse tonnage efficiency and higher cost. It certainly has it's niche.
The light is only useful if you want to focus on sniping, but those 2 hexes of range don't fillme with confidence, and the heavy... oh well.
I wasn't even aware that whitesharks have better crits than a killerwhale - I thought their only point is as T-Missiles.
Regarding the running away thingy, I doubt that'll happen much, because that would require a match wherein the opposition decides to turn tail.
Luckily for long range fire, no one will think of throwing random junk out the ship for another century or so.

RAW Screen Launchers are -way- too good.  Like ‘why not have 10 on every facing, fire control permitting’ good.  Thats before we get to the ‘lets make fighters extinct’ angle (mind you, RAW Fighters are way, way, way too good...)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 03 December 2018, 21:52:48
Turn update: Still going, but this weekend was vastly busier than anticipated, so I didn't get much done. No ETA yet. Sorry. I'll keep you posted as I make more progress.

Alsadius:  This raises a couple of concerns to me:

1.)  Shipboard missile launchers are, in the utter absence of PDS, still very poor weapon systems past about 10 rounds per launcher.  If you see fights as lasting hours before decision, shipboard missile launchers have no role.

2.)  Ship manuvering speeds and weapon ranges, in tabletop, allow at least the idea of decisive long range engagement.  If fights last hours, any advantage of long range fire is rendered trivial, as the range will certainly be closed in the first 10 minutes of the 6 hour fight.  Assuming of course a range advantage is not coupled with sufficient thrust advantage to hold the range for all six hours.

Given the above, and knowing now your underlying assumptions, the reason behind  some of my perceptions about combat thus far (shipboard launchers are a bad use of tonnage, NACs are the decisive weapon, the bigger the better) is now made clear.

1) I see a few roles for missiles. Alpha strike possibilities(for high-speed engagements or thickening up a fighter strike) are a natural role, albeit one that implies a small weapon load. Barracudas are still fairly effective anti-fighter weapons. The different constraints on station designs(mass is cheap, weapon cost is expensive) also give missiles a natural role there. But things like the canon Monsoon's 3x White Shark with 20 missiles each have no place in this setting. I kind of wish they did, but I think the missile system works much better here than under canon rules, so I'll accept that as a loss to make it happen.

2) On tabletop, how long can you really hold open a range advantage? A 4/6 chasing a 3/5 with the goal of overhauling ASAP will go from 57 hexes away(beyond range of any weapon) to 2 hexes away in the space of 10 rounds. And that's basically the worst-case scenario - no initial closing velocity, they do nothing but run away, you have the smallest possible thrust advantage, and you're using nothing but Mech-scale short-range weapons to hit them with(since anything else would be in range before then).

And to be fair, NACs are the decisive weapon in most fights. NPPCs and NGauss can fit that role sometime, but those make the most sense when you want long-range fights, and most people haven't built around that. If we ever got a fight between a Caesar and an old-style Tyr we might think differently, but the ships to make a fight like that happen aren't easy to come by. The closest we've come was the Ancile group in the Echohawk coup, and that did pack an impressive punch, but they were badly outnumbered and lost despite it.

I am actually thinking about transverse velocity as generating the to-hit penalty.  Not using aspect penalties makes it a bit easier to have combat at extreme range.

That's fair, and I'd agree. But it's the motion that matters, not the facing. If you're moving on an oblique path with respect to a ship, it'll be harder for that ship to shoot you no matter which side of your ship is showing. (If I'm not mistaken, the canon rules here were mostly built around atmospheric combat, and this is one effect of that. Vacuum is different, and I don't think that translates well).

That's a good point not fully captured in the above.  It means that NAC/40 boats like Rapid Ventilation are not quite as effective as high intensity combat would suggest.

They are, but the range restrictions to get them into that situation are harder to accomplish. A NAC/40 is like an AC/20 in Mech combat - it packs a wallop, but you need to be knife fighting.

Even the game rules have this---it's just much rarer to have a systemically disabling critical hit from a side aspect.

For the purpose of this game, are systemically disabling crits equally likely from every aspect?
...
However, it's important to note that I'm including structure for a side aspect (consistent with rare systemically disabling critical hits) and not for the nose aspect (consistent with common systemically disabling critical hits).  Should that change?

I don't get to that level of granularity, so I have to give the somewhat frustrating answer of "I don't know". But let me look through the canon lists(ignoring ones that are mostly just nuisances or long-term headaches):
Nose: CIC is very bad, and Sensors and Weapon are both moderately bad. CIC and Sensors are 5/36 each, and Weapon is 11/36.
Aft: Fuel is an instant kill, Engine is pretty bad, and the rest is the same. Fuel is 1/36, Engine is 10/36, and Weapon is 11/36.
Side: As above. 2/36 Sensors, 1/36 Engine, and 11/36 Weapon.

Weapon is the same all around, which seems fair. But the others are 10/36 nose, 11/36 aft, and 3/36 side. That seems too lopsided. Sensors should be spread all around, since you need to see in all directions, and stuff like CIC should be central enough that it's not easy to hit from any angle. If anything, because of the depth of the ship, it'll be easier to get deep enough to hit the core from the sides, not the ends. Conversely, something punching deep into the hull (once it's past armor) can do more damage as a raking shot than a side-on shot, because there's more stuff in its path.

The system is kind of abstract, and armor weights are so ludicrously low that it can't possibly be taken literally. But my gut feeling is that the big advantage to side fighting is offensive(the ability to mount more weapons), not defensive. And the biggest defensive advantage would probably be the ability to generate cross vectors when moving evasively, not damage control. I'd count SI for both, though for low-intensity I'd drop it some to count crits in. Maybe SI*1, instead of the SI*2 of actual hit points? (That is not a statement, to be clear. I'm just musing) For high-intensity, it's of course the full HP value of SI*2, because crits don't matter.

I'm presently not including an aft aspect in low-intensity battle.  In terms of Battletech, the aft-side armor will already be gone by the time you get to it with gun bays typically critted out and aft armor significantly depleted. 

Thinking further, perhaps I've missed a battle type: the chase.  Force A is chasing force B out of the system.  Force A must have a speed higher than force B and force B can only really use their aft aspect unless they decide to give up on fleeing.   We haven't seen any chases, but it's easy enough to imagine them happening if (say) a fleet of NAC boats is threatened by a faster fleet of HNPPCs.[/quote]

Aft was why I specified "relevant aspects". And chases are tough to keep up for long, because an acceleration advantage opens up the range much faster than a speed advantage(like wet-navy ships have).

If there isnt an increased vulerability to the fore and aft aspects, logically would not a concentration of capital firepower on a single aspect (fore or aft) with a matching armor concentration, be the ideal result?

I ask because this looks like almost nothing in cannon, but the 10% fire control tax from putting, say, 40xNAC 40 on the nose, rather than 20 on each side aspect, coupled with sufficent speed to close, would be trivial compared to the massive advantage reaped in firepower and effective armor.

Yes.   Equal crit vulnerability from all aspects implies the optimal design places heavy armor + weapons in the nose.  The battletech crit & aspect rules seem to have been engineered to allow for that to not be the optimal strategy, at least not always.

How much armor can you put fore before one squadron of fighters will rip apart your ship from aft? I sort of see where you guys are coming from here, but I'm not convinced it's so simple as that.

I think a battle between warships is more akin to a duel between Helicopters or jet fighters, dependng on the size and speed. Those ships are relatively fragile, and relatively fast.

Using rules as written, yes, but that's insane in any plausible setting. Why would you spend so much tonnage on armor(well, SI) in that case? I'd rather these be battleships that can handle a bit of a slugging match.

I really don't see long battles happening that ofte unless both fleets jump in near the edge of their range, or the engaging faction spends a few hours on heavy deceleration, because they require speed to meet in the first place, and they might as well use some of that speed to quickly close the range (snip) I believe a sea battle doesn't normally have this dynamic.

Sea battles don't, and there's some truth to what you say, but crossing engagements have drawbacks. You can't protect a fixed point(like a planet) that way, and if you're the more maneuverable side, you also give up the ability to chase defeated enemies. Crossing engagements allow fairly easy retreat, which is hardly the goal.

Regarding individual weapon ranges: That's nice now, but has a few issues in the future - say, subcaps, where some of them will have plain worse range than standard weapons for no gain - and I'd like to raise the point of what is the niche of smaller sized PPCs? They have the same tonnage/damage ratio, same with heat, if memory serves right, and they are shorter ranged.
I wonder if very large capital weapons should maybe have a bigger difficulty to hit relatively small targets, say, small dropships?
Ballistics do that by range, but energy weapons Invert that dynamic.

Subcaps are so efficient that their range being nerfed seems fair to me. Small NPPCs are harder to justify, admittedly. They do anti-DropShip work okay, but they're nothing special. No solution comes immediately to mind.

One subproblem is: How well can a faster fleet control separation from a slower fleet?
(snip)
So, an overtake of 1.5 (the most common case) on a 3/4.5 fleet (also common) implies a separation distance variation of +/- 4.5 space hexes.   

Remember that this isn't tabletop - it happens in continuous time, not discrete time. As such, calculations like this are more affected by reaction time etc., not by the turn-by-tun nature of the board game.

We'll have to live with the fact (probably for the better) that the space combat we engage in is in no way realistic.
Just take a look at the fuel consumption. Within the rules corset we have, fleets that rely on range will probably require superior training even before the advent of ECM, as you need to both have good gunners and be able to consistently win initiative.
So as much as we might all like to, skirting the range envelope and plinking away is unlikely to work, barring designs so optimized for the task they can do absolutely nothing else. .. I'm starting the get aggravated by my tablets keyboard.

Of course, if we do have newtonian movement, which I hope we do, there might still be some interesting tactics available.

Movement is Newtonian for sure. This was a big part of Marcus' problem at Vega - his fighters were agile enough, but delta-V limited by their small fuel tanks, so they needed to do a high-speed engagement and do a slow deceleration in order to have enough fuel to return to their carriers safely. That's why it was such a long delay. And "fast plinker" designs are like most hyper-specialized designs in history - if they get the engagement they want, they work shockingly well. If they get any other kind of engagement, they give a real shot in the arm to the local scrap metal industry.

Yet there are.
Like Naval Gauss, or lighter NPPCs, or Whiteshark Launchers. We'll have to live with some of those. And unless he goes completely by what 'feels right', and doesn't play this out in any way, there will be superior approaches. And while range and other concerns might make NACs not the obvious and only choice, which I actually believe they aren't, I still think that focussing purely on sniping is a foolish endeavour before the advent of bracketing.

NGauss have reduced range penalties - my mental math is that they get half the range penalties of other weapons, so they're only +3 at extreme. (This is a rule adjustment I also advocate on tabletop, FWIW). Small NPPCs, no answer to them yet(as stated above). White Shark(and Killer Whale) launchers, I'm thinking of adding "minelayer" rules to the game, which was originally thought of as a fixced defence option for planets. But there's no reason that we can't use existing missile launchers as the deployment tool for these mines. I'll mull over that.

RAW Screen Launchers are -way- too good.  Like ‘why not have 10 on every facing, fire control permitting’ good.  Thats before we get to the ‘lets make fighters extinct’ angle (mind you, RAW Fighters are way, way, way too good...)

How so? The screening aspect is good, but that's not much reason to use them in great bulk. If we get rid of the quirk of them being the only AOE weapon in a game with fighter squadrons, they don't seem that good after the first few.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 03 December 2018, 22:30:56
1.)  You cant hold the range open all that long in tabletop.  What you can do, in fleet engagements, on the table top,  is start wrecking ships very very fast even at extreme range..  Lets take a trained gunnery fleet (3 gunnery), extreme range (+6), closing aspect (+1).  Thats 10s... which is high, Ill grant.  But thats still 1 shot in 6 hitting.  If you have 6, say, Buri in a line - thats 600 damage to someones nose aspect.  Even if it survives, it isnt showig its nose again.  *

So its now 5v6.  Another salvo at the HNPPC extreme (out of nac range) and its 4v6.  Once the NAC boats get extreme, the HNPPCs are at long... the NAC boats are firing at 10s, now, but hull losses means that both sides have about the same firepower... and the HNPPCs are firing at 8s now...  40% of fire hits...  and the NAC fleet is down to 2 ships, maybe 3.  The HNPPC fleet may lose one.

The rest is math.**

Now, get your closing velocity up past 10, and you might close quicker, but your still gonna take unreturned volleys, and still have worse THNs most of the time... and your blowing through the engagement range pretty quick.

*Evasive action is a trap, here.  Assuming Buri is the target, a 3/4.5 cant creat an advantageous delta-v after going evasive.  A 4/6 can, but not much - and its paid a huge price in armor, warload, or both to get that .5G of delta-v after evasive (consider that  2/3 is ~36% SI and Guns, while a 4/6 is ~24%.  A 4/6 NAC boat is about even to slightly disadvantaged against a 2/3 NPPC boat if it starts off at range 1.  Everything else is worse.  Speed has value - but that value is in forcing or declining engagements (which is incredibly valuable!) but not so much in winning them.  It must be so - because if the same speed that lets you choose or decline engagement also let you win them, then we have no trade-offs, and the design space collapses again.

**Above Analysis takes place in bed on Iphone.  Ill try for something more detailed if people care.  But I maintain that barring a closing speed that starts us i to the realm of high speed engagement, long range, decisive, energy weapon fire is possible.  McKenna was built for a reason.  Note that the above fleet is 3 gunner - chosen to make point more decisively, but so long as fleets have equal gunners, poorer gunners just move the decisive range closer, and the longer ranged fleet will still hit theirs first.

Finally note that in duels and squadrons, all bets are off - NACs are in their element, as decisive fire outside medium range is less likely.

2.)  Nose Only Armament
Oh, yould want to tile your off-arcs in AAA/PDS.  But since your putting your anti-ship load on your nose, your flanks are free to carry massive AAA/PDS fits to ward off fighters and missiles, along with a respectable killer whale battery to fire off-bore at ships and a barracuda battery to further help solve fighters.  Frankly, what I fear most on a high speed NacNose is not fighters behind me, its fighter missiles on my nose when i burn in under high speed engagement rules.

What I fear most on an NPPC nose is that I cant fight to hold range open - but looking at 1.) above, Im wondering if the efficiencies of the ‘spinal mount ship’ arent still worthwhile - at least until size/mass climbs beyond a certain point.

‘You can put more firepower on the side’ doesnt hold true under the rules we have.  Maybe if we were limited to NL/35s... but HNPPCs and NACs are individually heavy enough that the firecontrol penalty for putting then all in the nose is far less than the waste of putting half your guns on an unengaged side.

Wile abstract, and maybe unrealistic, I think the developers got it ‘right’ here.  The hideous vulnerability of the aft aspect to crits killing speed (or the ship!) serves as a deterrent to the degenerate ‘Lasertail’ - the runaway boat risks losing the ability to run.  Similarly, the ‘Nacnose’ or ‘Lasernose’ crusher/artillery pice gets a firepower advantage, but accepts a great risk of losing the use of that firepower in a couple of sensor/cic crits - possibly through armor if missiles get their crit value!

3.)  NGauss Range Penalties - This changes the above equation radically.  The NPPC is, I believe I display above, a potentially decisive weapon at squadron size and becomes more so as the engagement size increases.  If its half range penalty, then the extreme range engagement, closing aspect, trained gunner... the NGauss fleet needs 7s instead of 10s.  The move from NPPC to LNGauss costs you 1/3 of your fire, but your hitting with half of your weapons (and then some!) rather than 1/6 of them.  That would take the first salvo in the above example from 600 damage to 1200.

4.)  Screen Launchers - given that I dont know your movement  a if screen launchers exist, I want enough to ensure I’m as covered as possible all the way in until I unmask my NAC/40s at point bank and wreck your navy in one round.

The mass efficiency of the NAC/40 might let me do some strange things here... like a 4/6 ship with 180 SI - sure, its weapons are a tiny mass fraction, but if their all NAC/40s in a nose arc (which I didnt event ake fire on on the way in cause screen launchers) then I can get by with a tiny mass fraction in guns.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 04 December 2018, 03:26:56
I kind of wish they did, but I think the missile system works much better here than under canon rules, so I'll accept that as a loss to make it happen.
I'm actually not sure of this.  The possibility of massed fighter strikes has rendered shipboard missiles relatively obsolete.   Also, it seems like we keep rebalancing the effectiveness of point defense.
That's fair, and I'd agree. But it's the motion that matters, not the facing. If you're moving on an oblique path with respect to a ship, it'll be harder for that ship to shoot you no matter which side of your ship is showing. 
I thought about this a bit more and there is an important bit of finesse.   Radial unpredictability seems like the key thing in not being hit, rather than velocity.  Velocity, particularly velocity through a vacuum, has very predictable consequences which a computer could easily adjust for.  Radial unpredictability is generated through thrust, and significant thrust is only generated aft.  If radial unpredictability is the key, then you can best generate it by presenting your side and using thrust.
Fuel is an instant kill
It's only a 1-in-6 instant kill, so a 1-in-216 chance.
armor weights are so ludicrously low that it can't possibly be taken literally.
Yeah, it's so bad that swapping the definition of armor and structure helps.
And the biggest defensive advantage would probably be the ability to generate cross vectors when moving evasively, not damage control. I'd count SI for both, though for low-intensity I'd drop it some to count crits in. Maybe SI*1, instead of the SI*2 of actual hit points? (That is not a statement, to be clear. I'm just musing) For high-intensity, it's of course the full HP value of SI*2, because crits don't matter.
I'm still mulling on things here myself.   The fact that low intensity => holding a long range with superior thrust => you lose control of facing wasn't calculated originally. 

I'm also somewhat hesitant to depart from the rules overly much, as it would (a) be more interesting if it applies to battletech in general and (b) I'm hesitant to give even more preference for nose-only warships.
And chases are tough to keep up for long, because an acceleration advantage opens up the range much faster than a speed advantage(like wet-navy ships have).
A long run chase could happen if:
(a) the chased have some hope of getting somewhere safe (able to jump?  other forces in system?)
(b) the chaser has superior long range weapons or gunnery.
(c) the chaser has superior thrust.
How much armor can you put fore before one squadron of fighters will rip apart your ship from aft? I sort of see where you guys are coming from here, but I'm not convinced it's so simple as that.
Judging from the Kutai vs. 200 fighters fight, quite a large portion of armor could be invested forwards on heavier warship designs.
Remember that this isn't tabletop - it happens in continuous time, not discrete time. As such, calculations like this are more affected by reaction time etc., not by the turn-by-tun nature of the board game.
That makes sense.
NGauss have reduced range penalties - my mental math is that they get half the range penalties of other weapons, so they're only +3 at extreme.
This moves NGauss from situationally useful to required on many designs other than a knife fighter... I'd advise against it.  Light NGauss is already good with the longest range and Medium NGauss is already reasonable in comparison to HNPPC (lose 7% damage / ton, cost x2, but gain damage in high speed engagements). 
White Shark(and Killer Whale) launchers, I'm thinking of adding "minelayer" rules to the game, which was originally thought of as a fixced defence option for planets. But there's no reason that we can't use existing missile launchers as the deployment tool for these mines. I'll mull over that.
This can be designed with satellites as per TO.
How so? The screening aspect is good, but that's not much reason to use them in great bulk. If we get rid of the quirk of them being the only AOE weapon in a game with fighter squadrons, they don't seem that good after the first few.
The move from NPPC to LNGauss costs you 1/3 of your fire, but your hitting with half of your weapons (and then some!) rather than 1/6 of them.  That would take the first salvo in the above example from 600 damage to 1200.
The MNGauss is the more direct competitor to HNPPC as it has the same range.  Rerunning with the exact odds for 7+ the 600 damage HNPPC changes to 1900+ damage with the MNGauss.   And if you rearrange for nose only as is being encouraged...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 04 December 2018, 03:37:54
Using rules as written, yes, but that's insane in any plausible setting. Why would you spend so much tonnage on armor(well, SI) in that case? I'd rather these be battleships that can handle a bit of a slugging match.
We're not. We're not allowed to by the rules. If we could, I'd cover a Heracles in 50000 tons of the stuff. Warships in BT are eggshells, in a startling and completely unfitting fallback to what a real space battleship would look like.

NGauss have reduced range penalties - my mental math is that they get half the range penalties of other weapons, so they're only +3 at extreme. (This is a rule adjustment I also advocate on tabletop, FWIW). Small NPPCs, no answer to them yet(as stated above). White Shark(and Killer Whale) launchers, I'm thinking of adding "minelayer" rules to the game, which was originally thought of as a fixced defence option for planets. But there's no reason that we can't use existing missile launchers as the deployment tool for these mines. I'll mull over that.
Or we could just use actual minelayers. They are in the game, and work somewhat similar to screen launchers, without any of their defensive qualities.
I intended to put them on the Heracles Engineer that I didn't build because of the cost of repair bays.
In fact, I have them on nearly every design that I considered putting into service in this scenario - they just happened to not be part of the design that I ended up adopting.

The range brackets would indeed make for a very juicy weapon. Almost a bit too good, but as the early adopter o those things I suppose I should just shut up and take em.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 04 December 2018, 07:23:11
As for how long battles are/arent:

Sure, Jutland was a day, a night, and the following day.  But the vast majority of this time is manuvering outside engagement ranges - not on a tactical map or in combat turns.

The Run to the South is about an hour of firing, and in the Battleship engagement, only about an hour passes between the Jellicoe deploying for battle and the second time the Germans turn away and are lost.

Oddly, the third battle I checked times on - Surigao - also looks like about an hour under big gun fire.

So, despite our perception of these ships as monstrously tough - these things are decided very quickly indeed in the real world.  That does not mean, in fact, that such ships were not monstrously tough - they had to be as tough as they were to survive as long as they did, rather than being lost in the first shell hit.  But for all efforts, naval battle consumes men and machines at a -terrible- rate.  The whole output of cities and years of the cream of a nations crop, men and material, gone in hours.

The point of armor is not to let you sail around for hours, impervious to fire.  It is to buy your guns enough time to win.

Amusingly, I cant find the offical duration of a ‘Warship’ turn in Battletech.  If its 10 minutes (which sounds right, but so many years and so many editions), then the whole run to the South is 6 turns, complete with there being something wrong with our bloody ships today!

EDIT:  Looks like space turns are 1 minute.  RAW, space combat is even more terribly fast once engagement range is reached - similar to Honorverse Energy Range.  Perhaps 10 Minutes (with ranges and speeds modified to match) would be better.

RE LNgauss vs MNGauss - I chose the light for my example because of the extra range.  Once the light is in service, the decision making for a long range fleet designer gets interesting.  Mediums are far more damage efficient, but in continuous time, Lights not only have more range (and thus more accuracy) but will fire -first-.  Similarly, the 4 range lost between the Medium and Heavy mounts means a fleet mounting mediums is at at least some risk from a very high speed light NGauss ‘Executioner’ design - though such a design strategy is extremely fragile - Id still be sorely tempted to mount either a mix of LNGauss and MNGauss, or go all light and do honors to attacking, effectively, first.

-1 range penalties might be better for NGauss, TBH - I think we see above why ‘half’ would cause them to start obsoleting all other weapon systems (we encountered this problem early with the hyper-accurate Barracuda, but reduction in barracuda damage against capital vessels, coupled with high PDS efficacy, has addressed this)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 04 December 2018, 10:36:42
2.)  Nose Only Armament
Oh, yould want to tile your off-arcs in AAA/PDS.  But since your putting your anti-ship load on your nose, your flanks are free to carry massive AAA/PDS fits to ward off fighters and missiles, along with a respectable killer whale battery to fire off-bore at ships and a barracuda battery to further help solve fighters.  Frankly, what I fear most on a high speed NacNose is not fighters behind me, its fighter missiles on my nose when i burn in under high speed engagement rules.

What I fear most on an NPPC nose is that I cant fight to hold range open - but looking at 1.) above, Im wondering if the efficiencies of the ‘spinal mount ship’ arent still worthwhile - at least until size/mass climbs beyond a certain point.

‘You can put more firepower on the side’ doesnt hold true under the rules we have.  Maybe if we were limited to NL/35s... but HNPPCs and NACs are individually heavy enough that the firecontrol penalty for putting then all in the nose is far less than the waste of putting half your guns on an unengaged side.

Wile abstract, and maybe unrealistic, I think the developers got it ‘right’ here.  The hideous vulnerability of the aft aspect to crits killing speed (or the ship!) serves as a deterrent to the degenerate ‘Lasertail’ - the runaway boat risks losing the ability to run.  Similarly, the ‘Nacnose’ or ‘Lasernose’ crusher/artillery pice gets a firepower advantage, but accepts a great risk of losing the use of that firepower in a couple of sensor/cic crits - possibly through armor if missiles get their crit value!

I can see your point. It's still much worse if you're surrounded, but if you can control the engagement it's promising.

Out of curiousity, what would your max-minning brain do if I said that asymmetrical ship loads were allowed, but that(aside from engines) aspect didn't affect crits to any meaningful extent?

3.)  NGauss Range Penalties - This changes the above equation radically.  The NPPC is, I believe I display above, a potentially decisive weapon at squadron size and becomes more so as the engagement size increases.  If its half range penalty, then the extreme range engagement, closing aspect, trained gunner... the NGauss fleet needs 7s instead of 10s.  The move from NPPC to LNGauss costs you 1/3 of your fire, but your hitting with half of your weapons (and then some!) rather than 1/6 of them.  That would take the first salvo in the above example from 600 damage to 1200.

Depends on which class of NGauss, IMO. A LNGauss is so inefficient that it's probably not overpowered even with that rule - it'd be much better than a HNPPC at extreme range, but at long range it's almost a tossup, and at medium or short the PPC wins easily. MNGauss and HNGauss are much more efficient, and while they lose a bit of range it's not much. (Max range is 56 for LNGauss, 54 for HNPPC, 52 for MNGauss, and 48 for HNGauss).

I think my rule is fair for LNGauss, but mediums and heavies might need a weaker version of it.

4.)  Screen Launchers - given that I dont know your movement  a if screen launchers exist, I want enough to ensure I’m as covered as possible all the way in until I unmask my NAC/40s at point bank and wreck your navy in one round.

The mass efficiency of the NAC/40 might let me do some strange things here... like a 4/6 ship with 180 SI - sure, its weapons are a tiny mass fraction, but if their all NAC/40s in a nose arc (which I didnt event ake fire on on the way in cause screen launchers) then I can get by with a tiny mass fraction in guns.

The obvious fix here is that screen launchers mess with things, but (imperfect) countermeasures exist. Anything that amounts to a perfect defence is going to be OP, of course.

I'm also somewhat hesitant to depart from the rules overly much, as it would (a) be more interesting if it applies to battletech in general and (b) I'm hesitant to give even more preference for nose-only warships.

Fair point. I don't think there's a preference for them now, but it's a valid worry, and I'll tread carefully.

Judging from the Kutai vs. 200 fighters fight, quite a large portion of armor could be invested forwards on heavier warship designs.

That fight seems to have been badly misunderstood. The reason the Kutai survived was that a lot of those missiles weren't aimed at it in the first place. A lot of the firepower went against DropShips, and even then the ship nearly died. In battles since then, ~200 fighters has been shown to kill a Black Lion.

This moves NGauss from situationally useful to required on many designs other than a knife fighter... I'd advise against it.  Light NGauss is already good with the longest range and Medium NGauss is already reasonable in comparison to HNPPC (lose 7% damage / ton, cost x2, but gain damage in high speed engagements).

I think you're really overstating the value of the LNGauss' range advantage. The extreme is 56, vs 54 on HNPPC and NL55. That is not worth losing a third of your damage/kton. They're functionally identical on range - it's like talking about the range advantage of an IS Pulse LL over an IS ML. 3/7/10 is better than 3/6/9, yes, but it doesn't really affect your tactics much.

FWIW, I ran some numbers. Under canon rules, assuming THN of 4+range mod, the only ranges where any Gauss beats a HNPPC is the LNGauss at ranges 27-28, 40, and 55-56(where it's a bracket up on the PPC). Using a proposed rule set of LNGauss getting halved range penalties, MNGauss getting -1 penalty at long/extreme, and HNGauss getting no range mod but 35 damage, the layout looked way better. HNGauss wins at 1-12 and 14-24, HNPPC at 13 and 25-26, MNGauss at 29-39, and LNGauss at 27-28 and 40-56. Adding up their damage/kton at each range:
HNPPC: 140.83
LNGauss: 141.65
MNGauss: 147.42
HNGauss: 133.07

The HNPPC and MNGauss are all-arounders, the LNGauss is a sniper, and the HNGauss has slightly better range and efficiency than a NAC-10, with a giant single-point impact to get crits. This seems pretty good to me. My original rules, with flat halved penalties, gives totals for the medium and heavy north of 180, which is clearly too good.

We're not. We're not allowed to by the rules. If we could, I'd cover a Heracles in 50000 tons of the stuff. Warships in BT are eggshells, in a startling and completely unfitting fallback to what a real space battleship would look like.
Or we could just use actual minelayers. They are in the game, and work somewhat similar to screen launchers, without any of their defensive qualities.
I intended to put them on the Heracles Engineer that I didn't build because of the cost of repair bays.
In fact, I have them on nearly every design that I considered putting into service in this scenario - they just happened to not be part of the design that I ended up adopting.

The range brackets would indeed make for a very juicy weapon. Almost a bit too good, but as the early adopter o those things I suppose I should just shut up and take em.

I regard SI tonnage as being armor tonnage, they just call it something else to keep their math more in line with their stated damage and tonnage ratios. 

Re minelayers, also an option, but frankly those rules seem less interesting (and less in line with existing design practice) than our missiles.

As for how long battles are/arent:

Sure, Jutland was a day, a night, and the following day.  But the vast majority of this time is manuvering outside engagement ranges - not on a tactical map or in combat turns.

The Run to the South is about an hour of firing, and in the Battleship engagement, only about an hour passes between the Jellicoe deploying for battle and the second time the Germans turn away and are lost.

Oddly, the third battle I checked times on - Surigao - also looks like about an hour under big gun fire.

So, despite our perception of these ships as monstrously tough - these things are decided very quickly indeed in the real world.  That does not mean, in fact, that such ships were not monstrously tough - they had to be as tough as they were to survive as long as they did, rather than being lost in the first shell hit.  But for all efforts, naval battle consumes men and machines at a -terrible- rate.  The whole output of cities and years of the cream of a nations crop, men and material, gone in hours.

The point of armor is not to let you sail around for hours, impervious to fire.  It is to buy your guns enough time to win.

Sure. But as you said below, the battles in BT are less than ten minutes long, which is still far too short even with that info. And the maneuvers should be able to take some time as well.

EDIT:  Looks like space turns are 1 minute.  RAW, space combat is even more terribly fast once engagement range is reached - similar to Honorverse Energy Range.  Perhaps 10 Minutes (with ranges and speeds modified to match) would be better.

RE LNgauss vs MNGauss - I chose the light for my example because of the extra range.  Once the light is in service, the decision making for a long range fleet designer gets interesting.  Mediums are far more damage efficient, but in continuous time, Lights not only have more range (and thus more accuracy) but will fire -first-.  Similarly, the 4 range lost between the Medium and Heavy mounts means a fleet mounting mediums is at at least some risk from a very high speed light NGauss ‘Executioner’ design - though such a design strategy is extremely fragile - Id still be sorely tempted to mount either a mix of LNGauss and MNGauss, or go all light and do honors to attacking, effectively, first.

-1 range penalties might be better for NGauss, TBH - I think we see above why ‘half’ would cause them to start obsoleting all other weapon systems (we encountered this problem early with the hyper-accurate Barracuda, but reduction in barracuda damage against capital vessels, coupled with high PDS efficacy, has addressed this)

Modifying turn time sounded good for a second, but the problem is you need to change a lot of other things to match. 1g for 1 minute is ~18km moved and a total speed of 36km/min. BT simplified that to just adding the speed at the beginning (Kiv and I have been known to make "Dirac Delta Drive" jokes about this"), so 2 thrust = 2 hexes = 18km hexes. With 10 minute turns, the distance would be 100x as long, so you're up to 1800km hexes. That means you can hit things from ~100,000km away at standard weapon ranges, so a fleet in geostationary orbit is well inside bombardment range. That makes defensive stations over fixed points on the surface possible, which totally changes planetary defense considerations. It also makes screen launchers something of a joke - no way they could fill that much space. And launching a missile salvo within a 10-minute period will hardly saturate someone's defences. There's a lot of problems that crop up, which are easy to address with a blank sheet of paper, but hard to fix here.

Re Gauss rules, check out my numbers above.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 04 December 2018, 10:52:35
Quote
Warships in BT are eggshells, in a startling and completely unfitting fallback to what a real space battleship would look like.

Depends on your source material.  Enterprise and Reliant exchanged very few salvos.  The warships of the Honorverse are vast multi-mega tonne assemblages, with meters of unobtanium armor - energy range engagement is decisive in seconds to minutes.

Were I designing the game from the ground up, Id have done 10 minute turns, with the concomitant increase in ranges, etc - but I was not consulted.  Then again, I liked the old Aerotech ranges...

I can see your point. It's still much worse if you're surrounded, but if you can control the engagement it's promising.

Out of curiousity, what would your max-minning brain do if I said that asymmetrical ship loads were allowed, but that(aside from engines) aspect didn't affect crits to any meaningful extent?

Im not sure its much worse if your surrounded.  Sure, you dont have guns on the sides, but youve got them all on your front.  You blow up the guy in front of you with a concentrated punch, while he and his friends chop small pieces off all your armor facings.  Then you turn, or ECHO, and blow up the next guy with a concentrated punch...

As for what Id design?  Depends.  If we are hand-waving accuracy down to allow ships to line up and pound each other for 60 turns, then I go 4/6, I put BIG NACs on my nose, and I engage in high speed combat every time I can.  If I cant, I still point my nose at the enemy and close - because Ive got so much armor slathered on my nose, and such a concentrated punch, no balanced fleet, no long range fleet, and no broadside fleet stands a chance.  My only possible opponent is an equally concentrated opponent, with less thrust.  But from him, I can disengage today, and come back tomorrow when Ive ended up with a numerical advantage - I choose when to fight, and I choose only fights I win.

If we play by the tabletop rules for time and engagement ranges, with meaningful hit %s per 1 minute turn, I may still use the above design, or I may put NPPCs on the nose of a slow design - or spread across just the 'port' of a slow design, depending on fire control penalties.  Consider a Buri with all 80 NPPCs on one side. 

Or I put LNGauss on the port aft of a 5/8 or 6/9 hull.

I really feel, here, that having increased nose vulnerability as a counter to the firepower, armor concentration, and increased ability to close the range of the all-nose design is a positive, and leaves us with ships that look kinda like the source material.  Nose-focused designs may still happen, but they will be a much smaller part of the universe, for special applications - also fitting the source material, as a handful of ships in the source DO favor heavy forward batteries (though not so specialized as here suggested).

Quote
That fight seems to have been badly misunderstood. The reason the Kutai survived was that a lot of those missiles weren't aimed at it in the first place. A lot of the firepower went against DropShips, and even then the ship nearly died. In battles since then, ~200 fighters has been shown to kill a Black Lion.

An NPC Black Lion that eschewed meaningful point defense.  We've seen fighters engage at best moderate point defense.  We've never seen fighters and missiles try to fight through 'I spent a few % of my ships mass on PDS and now Im really serious' AAA/PDS belts.  Current battle results do not make me sanguine as to their efficacy when faced with such, though I've hope that the doctrine change of combining the fighter/missile strike in the same battlespace as the gun-duel will rescue the fighter/missile load as a worthwhile investment.

Quote
Using a proposed rule set of LNGauss getting halved range penalties, MNGauss getting -1 penalty at long/extreme, and HNGauss getting no range mod but 35 damage, the layout looked way better. HNGauss wins at 1-12 and 14-24, HNPPC at 13 and 25-26, MNGauss at 29-39, and LNGauss at 27-28 and 40-56. Adding up their damage/kton at each range:
HNPPC: 140.83
LNGauss: 141.65
MNGauss: 147.42
HNGauss: 133.07

The HNPPC and MNGauss are all-arounders, the LNGauss is a sniper, and the HNGauss has slightly better range and efficiency than a NAC-10, with a giant single-point impact to get crits. This seems pretty good to me. My original rules, with flat halved penalties, gives totals for the medium and heavy north of 180, which is clearly too good.

This seems reasonable and to create choices.  Ill note that Ive viewed HNGauss and NAC/40 with some interest, given your statements about the greater critical ability of very large weapons vs. massed smaller ones.

Quote
I regard SI tonnage as being armor tonnage, they just call it something else to keep their math more in line with their stated damage and tonnage ratios. 

In my head, SI is all the normal metal in the ship, and the 'Armor' is the thin layers of unobtanium face-hardening that require structural bracing behind them. 

Quote
Sure. But as you said below, the battles in BT are less than ten minutes long, which is still far too short even with that info. And the maneuvers should be able to take some time as well.

Modifying turn time sounded good for a second, but the problem is you need to change a lot of other things to match. 1g for 1 minute is ~18km moved and a total speed of 36km/min. BT simplified that to just adding the speed at the beginning (Kiv and I have been known to make "Dirac Delta Drive" jokes about this"), so 2 thrust = 2 hexes = 18km hexes. With 10 minute turns, the distance would be 100x as long, so you're up to 1800km hexes. That means you can hit things from ~100,000km away at standard weapon ranges, so a fleet in geostationary orbit is well inside bombardment range. That makes defensive stations over fixed points on the surface possible, which totally changes planetary defense considerations. It also makes screen launchers something of a joke - no way they could fill that much space. And launching a missile salvo within a 10-minute period will hardly saturate someone's defences. There's a lot of problems that crop up, which are easy to address with a blank sheet of paper, but hard to fix here.

Re Gauss rules, check out my numbers above.

You are probably right, here.  I think we may have to accept that mechanically things play out in 1-minute turns, and get decided in 5 or 10 minutes tops - because otherwise we have arbitrarily multiplied the power of maneuver, and left the table top rules so far behind that they are no longer even guidelines.

Closing Question, because this is very, very important:

1.)  You have stated that turns are 1 minute, cause attempting to get away from that 1 minute has a lot of follow on effects that are too large to change at this point.

2.)  You have stated that you dont like 6-10 minute battles - you like hour long fights.

3.)  Are we thereby reducing hit probabilities from tabletop to roughly 1/10th their tabletop value, for direct fire weapons, to allow those hour fights?  If so, this has... large implications for armament choices and maneuver profiles.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 04 December 2018, 12:02:50
Depends on your source material.  Enterprise and Reliant exchanged very few salvos.  The warships of the Honorverse are vast multi-mega tonne assemblages, with meters of unobtanium armor - energy range engagement is decisive in seconds to minutes.

Were I designing the game from the ground up, Id have done 10 minute turns, with the concomitant increase in ranges, etc - but I was not consulted.  Then again, I liked the old Aerotech ranges...

I'm in agreement, but it's not a practical change to make for this game.

Im not sure its much worse if your surrounded.  Sure, you dont have guns on the sides, but youve got them all on your front.  You blow up the guy in front of you with a concentrated punch, while he and his friends chop small pieces off all your armor facings.  Then you turn, or ECHO, and blow up the next guy with a concentrated punch...

It's not the damage concentration I'm thinking of, it's the armor concentration. Any surrounded ship can fire as many shots as it has heat sinks, regardless of positioning. But there's a lot more vulnerable bits to hit if half your armor is on the nose than if it's spread evenly.

I really feel, here, that having increased nose vulnerability as a counter to the firepower, armor concentration, and increased ability to close the range of the all-nose design is a positive, and leaves us with ships that look kinda like the source material.  Nose-focused designs may still happen, but they will be a much smaller part of the universe, for special applications - also fitting the source material, as a handful of ships in the source DO favor heavy forward batteries (though not so specialized as here suggested).

This discussion is bringing me around to your viewpoint somewhat.

This seems reasonable and to create choices.  Ill note that Ive viewed HNGauss and NAC/40 with some interest, given your statements about the greater critical ability of very large weapons vs. massed smaller ones.

Yeah, running the numbers I decided that my initial proposal was clearly too aggressive a buff. But the tweaks suggested in various comments came together into something pretty clean.

In my head, SI is all the normal metal in the ship, and the 'Armor' is the thin layers of unobtanium face-hardening that require structural bracing behind them. 

That's how it should work, in principle. In practice, it's obviously a hack they've brought in in order to keep consistency with the mech scale and a simple 10:1 damage ratio.

You are probably right, here.  I think we may have to accept that mechanically things play out in 1-minute turns, and get decided in 5 or 10 minutes tops - because otherwise we have arbitrarily multiplied the power of maneuver, and left the table top rules so far behind that they are no longer even guidelines.

Closing Question, because this is very, very important:

1.)  You have stated that turns are 1 minute, cause attempting to get away from that 1 minute has a lot of follow on effects that are too large to change at this point.

2.)  You have stated that you dont like 6-10 minute battles - you like hour long fights.

3.)  Are we thereby reducing hit probabilities from tabletop to roughly 1/10th their tabletop value, for direct fire weapons, to allow those hour fights?  If so, this has... large implications for armament choices and maneuver profiles.

tl;dr, no. I'm grumbling, and stretching things a little bit, but we're talking maybe a 50% stretch, not a 10:1 stretch. I can't do it in any way that makes sense and keeps consistency with past results.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 04 December 2018, 12:30:56
RE: Stretching -

A 50% stretch still, IMNAAHO, really tilts the board towards NACs, but Id have to math a Buri v Buri NAC clone to find where the inflection point is, in terms of number of engaged units.

Its also possible that the greater accuracy at all ranges outside ‘close’ will keep the NPPC fleet competitive - and that any speed built to create a close engagement will have been built at the cost nose armor and fire control - fire control youll miss once you get to close range, and nose armor youll miss once you go flying past due to the overtake velocity and have to point towards enemy AGAIN if you do want to slow down and continue the engagement.

Funny thought - in SFC, Hydrans had less range than the federation, but more firepower.  At an early point, they doubled the hull strength - which should result in the Hydrans performing better, as they could better survive to close range.

In theory.

Before the change, the Hydrans took it hard on the nose on the way in, but often had sufficient remaining firepower to close the deal at point blank.

After the change, the Hydran took less on the way in, but still lost some firepower.  It then dealt some damage, but the Federation ship survived to open up the range and reingage - usually hurting the Hydran badly enough on its second pass to finish it off, before the Hydran could take its point blank shot...  especially because the Hydran, needing to close, has to offer its front shields (here, armor) leaving it exposed if it tries to close again.

Its possible that relatively higher armor values over time, and decreased accuracy, will have unanticipated results when rubber hits road.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 04 December 2018, 12:51:34
It's not the damage concentration I'm thinking of, it's the armor concentration. Any surrounded ship can fire as many shots as it has heat sinks, regardless of positioning. But there's a lot more vulnerable bits to hit if half your armor is on the nose than if it's spread evenly.

In theory, the nose armor, nose guns design was exploiting that firepower and armor advantage before it was surrounded, by losing nose armor while its opponent was losing ships.  Then, once surrounded, its taking parital fire on multiple weaker armored sides, while putting full fire onto one, somewhat thicker, side - and the opponent is down hulls to get here.

I can think of few instances when you are better off surrounding your opponent.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 04 December 2018, 15:05:39
Depends on which class of NGauss, IMO. A LNGauss is so inefficient that it's probably not overpowered even with that rule
This rule would make Light N Gauss have a greater weight of fire and greater range than an HNPPC at extreme and long range.   A mixture of NAC-20 and Light N Gauss seems like it would beat HNPPCs in terms of weight of fire at every range.
(Max range is 56 for LNGauss, 54 for HNPPC, 52 for MNGauss, and 48 for HNGauss).
Where do these numbers come from?  My SO says 52 for the HNPPC and I don't see an errata?  (Is the Errata incomplete?)
That fight seems to have been badly misunderstood. The reason the Kutai survived was that a lot of those missiles weren't aimed at it in the first place. A lot of the firepower went against DropShips, and even then the ship nearly died. In battles since then, ~200 fighters has been shown to kill a Black Lion.
The assumption that the Kutai was the primary target is pretty reasonable when only 4 dropships were killed.  In the Kutai battle, the fighters also focused on exposed structure rather than plowing through armor the hard way.  And the fighters lost.  I'm not sure which is the Black Lion battle (Kentares IV?).
They're functionally identical on range - it's like talking about the range advantage of an IS Pulse LL over an IS ML. 3/7/10 is better than 3/6/9, yes, but it doesn't really affect your tactics much.
If your opponent only has range 9, it has a quite significant effect on your tactics. 

LNGauss is the bane of stations everywhere without any modification to rules.  An opponent can move to extreme range and sniper a nigh-unlimited number of stations.   And, you can't easily respond by giving the stations LNGauss since the x5 price multiplier bites extra hard.
THN of 4+range mod
Your numbers agree with my intuition but the assumption that the only THN modifier is range seems wrong on a battlefield.   Aspect and evasion can easily come into play and later ECM.   When they do a bonus to hit has a much more significant effect on weight of fire than your calculations. 

Overall, I see no pressing need to modify the rules for NGauss as they are already an interesting option that will certainly be used. 
1) Giving the HNGauss 35 capital damage makes it not a lemon but it's ok to have a lemon or two (mass drivers!).
2) The MNGauss does impressive ballistic damage at impressive range.  Remember that long+ ballistic weapons already get a bonus to hit and damage in high speed engagements. 
3) The LNGauss needs no help at all---that range advantage means it always has a niche.    Halving range penalties reminds me of clan LPLs.  Long range + bonus to hit is a devastating combo so there is a well-earned reputation for it being a munchkin weapon.  The LNGauss rules change seems like it's doing approximately that (more range, more bonus to hit at extreme range, less bonus to hit at short range).
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 04 December 2018, 15:56:55
I ran a discreet salvo model of the Buri vs. a NAC armed opponent, closing range/overtake scenario, assuming overtake speeds of 5, 10, 15, and 20, once with 3 gunners, no EM, no ECM, once with 4 gunners, ECM, EM.  10 units per fleet, ships are assumed to have a combat life of average armor facing plus 2xSI.

The NAC Opponent was a Buri Clone, with engines uprated to 3 Safe Thrust, and SI and armament tonnages reduced to cover this (150 SI vs. 180, armament slightly cut).

Trials with various NAC sizes removed NACs other than 20 from my consideration - larger than 20 loses range faster than it gains firepower, and smaller than 20 loses firepower faster than it gains range.  Larger NACs MAY have a place in the point blank overrun style trial, but I have not tested them.

Assumptions were that ships begin firing as soon as in range, and again as soon as they can reload, though where appropriate fire might be held a few seconds to allow a better bracket.  As time IRL is continuous, not discreet, one cannot use high speeds to 'teleport' into range.

For the 'high accuracy' condition (No ECM, No Evasive, Gunner-3) a 20 speed closing engagement has salvoes at R53 (PPC), 41 (NAC), 33 (NPPC), 21 (NAC), and 13 (NPPC).  Damage at all ranges is high, but firing first at short allows the PPC boats to wipe out the NAC boats, while retaining just over half their force.

A 5 closing speed, unsurprisingly, is far worse for the NAC Boats - 3 unreturned volleys wipe out more than half the NAC fleet before it even gets to fire.  The remainder cripple one PPC boat in their only salvo, before the 9 remaining PPC boats take their first shot at mere 'long' range, and reduce the NAC boat force to a cripple.

So far, so good - we expect a shooting gallery when a longer ranged force meets a shorter ranged one with great shooting conditions.  So what about the 'low accuracy' condition?

In low accuracy conditions, the ONLY range band that matters is short.  Fire at E and L brackets are impossible, and fire at M range requires 12's - it cannot generate meaningful damage.

Again, the 'attack effectively first' maxim came into play.  Though the NAC boats are advantaged in firepower by 33%, while only disadvantaged in resilience by 20%, the fact that the NPPC will fire effectively first was in all conditions decisive.  High speed overruns resulted in light losses to both sides, (formally losing 1.75 NAC ships, while 1.4 NPPC ships are lost) - at those THNs, noone can accomplish anything in a single exchange.  Lower speed allowed more and more exchanges of fire, but when I ran a speed 5 exchange, with a total of 6 volleys, NPPC first, starting fleets of 10 on each side were reduced to respectively 4.8 PPC vessels and 2.4 NAC vessels as the ruined remainder slid, likely out of control, out of range of each other.

Lessons learned:
1.)  Attack Effectively First.  The ability to be the first one to deliver ship-killing fire turned out to matter more than a 33% disadvantage in raw firepower - because each kill is less return fire.

2.)  Speed is expensive.  A 2/3 NAC boat would handily defeat the 2/3 NPPC boat, within its ideal range - but it will have trouble getting there.  Something between 2 and 3 safe thrust MIGHT be able to both control the range AND bring a killer fire advantage into close range - but that is a dangerous set of assumptions.  It should be unsurprising that a ship with more tonnage devoted to armor and guns is better in a fight than one with less - it must be so, or the faster ship would be the only ship, as speed also gives advantages off the board.

3.)  The shorter ranged opponent should close as quickly as possible, but will need ever advantage to do so and still win, given equal tonnage.

4.)  This does not address high speed engagement rules, which a more agile ship can potentially force (depending on detection ranges), nor does it address the ability of a more agile ship to force or decline engagement.

Ive put the homework in quotes below - I dont promise that its very clearly presented.

ERROR CORRECTION/EDIT:  Realized I over-armored the 2/3 Buri, giving it about 100 armor it didnt have, and thus extending its combat life by about 15% over what it should have been.  This changes the 'high speed, point blank, max ECM, EM' condition to an effective mutual destruction draw, and lowers (but does not remove) the 2/3 vessels advantage on the other conditions.

Counting only one armor facing (when damage is is usually split evenly between both broadsides) artifically reduces ship lifespans, but also helps capture the effect of critical damage/mission kills.

Quote
A simple closing-engagement salvo model:
1.)   We assume that as between two forces, at least one will generally want to close.
2.)   If the faster force does not wish to close, it will not be closed, and may engage from whatever range it desires.
3.)   If the faster force wishes to close, it may set whatever closing speed it desires.
4.)   We assume no significant change in speed within the engagement envelope.  The closed force will not go erratic – it wishes to fire at long range.  The closing force, if it goes erratic, allows the closed force to use velocity for flight.  Designs are assumed to be broadside for simplicity.
5.)   We assume weapons fire as soon as within range, and fire again one minute later.
6.)   Weapons will therefore fire at their maximum range, and again every (closing Velocity) units closer.
7.)   For purposes of this example, ships are run with ‘3’ Skill Gunners, closing aspect (+1)
8.)   Model ships are Buri (for the HNPPC Condition) and a 3/5 Buri Clone (150 SI, similarly reduced weapons fit) for the ‘NAC - Closing’ Conditions.  The generic ships have respectively 318 Armor and 265 Armor per facing.  NACs Smaller or larger than 20 are omitted, as the NAC/20 is the ideal NAC for this exercise.   We assume 10 ships per side (fleet engagement), and that respectively 780 and 565 Damage will result in a kill.
To Hits:
E:     10 (16.67%)
L:    8 (41.67%)
M:   6 (72.22%)
S:    4 (91.67)


HNPPC Firing Cycle: 40 HNPPC, 600 Damage                  
Closing          20      15      10      5      SalvoDam
E:           53      54      54, 44      54,49,44   100
L:          33       39      34      39,34,29   250
M:                24      24, 14      24,19,14   433
S:          13      9      4      9,4      550
Total Damage:      900      1,333      1,866      3,449
UnansweredDamage:   100      100      200      300      


NAC/20 Firing Cycle: 40 NAC 20s. 800 Dam
E:          41            42, 32      42, 37, 32   133
L:                31      22      27, 22      333
M:          21      16      12      17, 12      577
S:          1      1      2      7, 5      733
Total Damage:      1,443      1,643      1,909      3,685




At a 20 closing speed, 10 Buri-P fire at R53, dealing 1000 damage, killing 1.75 Buri-N
At R41, the remaining 8.25 Buri-N fire, dealing 1100 Damage, killing 1.4 Buri-P
At R33, 8.6 Buri-P fire, dealing 2,150 damage, killing 3.8 Buri-N
At R 21, 4.45 Buri-N fire, dealing 2,570 damage, killing 3.3 Buri-P
At R 13, 5.3 Buri-P fire, dealing 2, 915 damage, overkilling the remaining Buri-N

At a 5 closing speed, 10 Buri-P fire at R54, 49, and 44, dealing 3000 damage, and killing 5.25 Buri-N before they return fire.
At 42, 4.75 Buri-N return fire, dealing 631 damage and forcing a retreat from one Buri-P, crippled.
At 39, the 9 remaining Buri-P fire, dealing 2,250 damage, killing 4 Buri-N, and leaving the ‘.75’ to likely strike its colors.

Lesson:  Unreturned volleys kill.



9.)    For purposes of this example, ships are modeled with 4 skill gunners, ECM (+3) and Evasive Action (+2) on a closing aspect (+1)

To Hits:
E:     -
L:    -
M:   12 (2.7%)
S:    10 (16.67%)


HNPPC Firing Cycle: 40 HNPPC, 600 Damage                  
Closing          20      15      10      5      SalvoDam
M:          26      26      23      23,18      16
S:          6      11      13, 3      13, 8, 3      100
Total Damage:      116      116      216      332



NAC/20 Firing Cycle: 40 NAC 20s. 800 Dam
M:          21      21      21      21,16      21
S:          1      6      11,1      11,6,1      133
Total Damage:      151      151      287      440

The Speed 20 and 15 closing conditions are simple – there is an exchange of medium range fire which at most force a ship to roll, followed by a point-blank exchange that results in a volley first from Buri-P, killing 1.75 Buri-N, and a return volley from the 8.25 Buri-N, killing 1.4 Buri-P.

A second volley (the speed 10 condition) has 8.6 Buri-P firing, killing 1.5 Buri-N, while the remaining 6.75 Buri-N return fire, killing 1.15 Buri-P.

The third volley (speed 5 condition) has 7.45 Buri-P firing, killing 1.3 Buri-N.  5.45 Buri-N return fire, killing .93 Buri-N.
This process will continue as the fleets, having overrun one another, diverge. 

Volley 4 has 6.52 Buri-P killing 1.15 Buri-N, then the remaining 4.3 Buri-N kill .73 Buri-P.

Volley 5 has 5.79 Buri-P killing 1 Buri-N, and 3.3 Buri-N kills .56 Buri-P

Volley 6 sees 5.23 Buri-P killing .9 Buri-N, and the 2.4 Buri-N take out .4 of a Buri-P, leaving 4.8

Thus formally, even in highest ECM/EW situation, the relative value of greater armor and (in a discreet volleys situation, where range matters drastically) the ability to fire effectively first, the close range armament vessels are unable to decisively close and destroy an opponent without taking more than commensurate losses.  In a fast pass scenario, the NAC Boats make it in-and-out and take losses little worse than they deal…  but as the engagement continues, the situation worsens.

This ignores the actual ‘High Speed Engagement’ rules (though the overtake 20 condition comes close!).  Inflating the damage of NACs on the first pass may give victory to the NAC boats – but the NPPC boats will still fire first, and then fire again after the NAC boats pass.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 04 December 2018, 19:06:25
Depends on your source material. 
My source material for that statement ("realistic")is mostly an elaborate discussion involving lots of math on the forums of a 4X game called Aurora, which was planed to receive a spinoff with newtonian physics.
In short, and vastly simplified, the result was that the speeds required for combat to actually happen would require weapons, and result in projectiles, that would missionkill just about everything; Armour is useless. Energy shields could even be counter-productive because they would shatter a projectile, and a cloud of kinetic dust would pulverize a ship while a slug would just cause a large hole traversing it's chassis.
And the only defense is not being hit, meaning being large is a death sentence and humans have no business in the actual combat as they can not survive the sustained acceleration required for reliable evasion.
While you could find it and look at the math, this has really no connection with battletech at all, and isn't even relevant due to us having jump drives based on points. That newtonian spinoff didn't happen in the end.
To something completely different:
I think LGauss would even be worth it if they just had -1 starting on medium, or maybe also -2 at extreme. They do offer the utility of firing at a long distance, and if they can do so effectively, that is an advantage worth sacrificing raw combat power for.
Btw, did you factor in heatsinks and ammo? If so, at what numbers?

And do you have similar plans for increasing the utility of smaller NPPCs?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 December 2018, 09:27:20
Capital Missiles on Fighters, Capital Armor Scaling, and Alternate Solutions

A Worked Example

Ive been thinking that, despite my early endorsement of the idea, capital ship immunity to standard weapons, coupled with fighter carriage of capital missiles, has lead to a deleterious series of knock on effects.

1.)  Fighters carrying capital missiles generate truly monstrous missile waves.

2.)  In response to those waves, ships end up mounting insane PDS belts, and we start adjudicating PDS as so effective that it bears no resemblance to the base game.

3.)  PDS belts then extend onto off-board fighters and small craft, which require their OWN special rule, lowering the effect of off-board PDS.

What if we just expand on the 'Warship Scale != Fighter Scale' issue, enough to dent fighter firepower, while at the same time removing the 50 ton missile on the 50 ton fighter?

Lets consider these assumptions:
1.)  Fighter Damage is 30 damage (about right for a 50 ton fighter)
2.)  Fighter lifespan is 60 damage before its combat ineffective/going home (again, in my play experience, about right for a 50 ton fighter).
3.)  Capital Damage to Standard Damage is 1:100 - but there is no immunity.
4.)  An attacking fighter 'flock', moving second, can always choose its target facing and relative aspect.  The Warship cannot, but benefits from ECM bubbles baked into the warship rules.  Call it 50% accuracy each way.
5.)  The attacking fighters will always draw fire from their 'target hexside' and the two adjacent ones.  This has an advantage of making 4-corners designs worse (recieving 1/4 of their AAA firepower, vs an all facings design which would get 3/8)
6.)  Missiles, firing off-bore, may defend all aspects.
7.)  NLs kill fighters in one hit, and hit about 1/3 of the time (AAA mode).  The same is true of Killer Whale and White Shark Missiles.
8.)  Barracudas kill fighters in one hit, and hit about 1/2 the time (accuracy bonus)
9.)  All other capital weapons kill fighters in one hit, and hit about 1/4 the time.

Hypothetical Walkurie deckload:  700 fighters, ~ 210 capital damage possible, average of 105.  60 Standard Scale Lifespan each.  Firepower is lost as fighters die.

Target:  Hypothetical PDS-Improved Buri:  200 LRM 20 per corner, 180 PPC per corner, 40 Barracuda per corner. (Other corners remain NPPC heavy) ~680 Capital Scale Lifespan.  Firepower is preserved until ship loss.

Salvo 1:  105 Capital Damage to Buri. 20 Fighters lost to LRMs, 15 to PPCs, 80 to barracudas.  585 Fighters remain.
Salvo 2:  88 Capital Damage to Buri.  Same 115 fighters lost - 470 remain
Salvo 3:  70 Capital Damage to Buri.  355 Fighters remain.
Salvo 5:  53 Capital Damage to Buri, 240 Fighers remain. (Armor fails during this salvo - criticals now possible)
Salvo 6:  36 Capital Damage to Buri, 125 Fighters remain
Salvo 7:  19 Capital Damage to Buri, 10 Fighters remain

Fighters destroyed, Buri loses all armor on one facing, takes significant SI damage and likley resulting critical effects.

Complications: 
1.)  The 40 HNPPCs would kill an additional 10 fighters per turn.  This is likely trivial.
2.)  In fleet engagement, warships would be lost as fighters focus on first one ship, and then another.  This would degrade defending firepower.  However, the focused warship could perform evasive manuvers, reducing its damage sustained, while all other warships are free to make a turkey shoot of the fighters focusing on a difficult target.
3.)  Rules allow an ECHO turn, for 2 thrust, AFTER other movement (I believe after fighter movement).  This could allow the warship to turn a better aspect, or preserve armor, in the face of 'all fighters stacked in one hex at range 1'.
4.)  Incoming damage would actually hit not just one armor side, but several, depending on engaged side.  However, this also helps capture the impact of criticals by artificially foreshortening ship lifespan.

Impacts: 
1.)  Lacking massive fighter-borne capital missile salvos, 'Tabletop' PDS efficacy (20 MGs knock down 1 Barracuda per turn, 30 for a White Shark, 40 for a Killer Whale) is sufficient, and sane numbers of PDS are sufficient, because as noted, capital missiles are of limited value in an anti-ship role after about 5-7 salvos loaded.

2.)  Barracuda Tubes become the weapon of choice for an anti-fighter role, against massive strikes.  AAA standard scale weaponry and dual purpose NLs will support this effort, but the real 'Anti-Fighter' choice will be Barracudas, due to accuracy, capital scale damage creating instant kills, off-bearing fire, and long range fire (degrading inbound strike before arrival).  Ease of support of nearby warships is a bonus.  I hear an Aegis cruiser in the distance.

3.)  In the worked example, ~9.5B of VERY PURE Carrier+Fighters loses 3.5B of fighters while badly injuring, but not killing, an 11B BB which carries an extensive, but not prohibitive, AAA array.  This seems 'about right'.  A Heavy 'AAA' Escort, notionally a Tyr Refit, carrying 640 Barracuda Missile Tubes, would cost less than either the carrier or the BB, and would quickly destroy a Walkurie strike.  It would also be crippled or killed doing so, and would exhaust ~60% of its missile supplies in doing so.  This seems reasonable. 

If the same Tyr-CG tried to engage 'normal' warships, its huge long range throw weight (1280 potential damage, more than twice what Buri is capable of) would be potentially powerful - but soon exhausted (5 rounds per launcher), with all the problems of having a known limited endurance - enemies would use EW, EM, and long range to draw fire and empty magazines, or the ship would have to accept unanswered volleys.

Rather than a stand alone system, missiles would serve a role as anti-fighter (of course), and as additional short-duration punch in support of some other strategy, due to low reloads, but would have problems if relied on as a primary weapon system.

This looks like tabletop.

4.)  Reigned in PDS efficacy (as it is no longer necessary to inflate MG Anti-Missile prowess, as there will be no more Vega Strikes) allows for meaningful shipboard carriage of missile launchers - shipboard missile launchers are special case rather than general case anti-ship weapons (due to ammunition restrictions, etc), but this would allow them at least some use.

5.)  Fighters would likely work better as part of a fleet, rather than the all-or-nothing approach of Walkurie.  Some fleets might carry more or less, and the best defense against a fighter would likely remain another fighter - but fighters in conjunction with shipboard arms would seem to work better in this model than fighters attacking alone in massive missile waves.  The author considers this a net good.

Retconning, or 'But they definitely carried missiles 20 years ago...'

A concern can be raised that such reversion to the original rules breaks continuity with what has been observed in universe.

I see a few easy options to deal with this:

I.)  Technological Advancement:  Perhaps newer missiles are coming into service.  These missiles coordinate via light-speed links with their fellows, and with their mothership, to engage in evasive action, counter-electronic warfare, etc.  Such missiles much more effectively penetrate PDS arrays (thus requiring 20MGs to kill a Barracuda, as in tabletop, rather than the current much much lower total), but active links to the launching ship are required, and the control computers, links, EW, etc. are a part of the launcher tonnage.  Fighter carried missiles lack this support, and such missiles are slaughtered in such job lots by  improving PDS that they are no longer worth firing and wasting the missile, or tasking the fighter to carry them.

II.)  Doctrine/Tactics Changes:  Perhaps AAA Fire and Fighter on Fighter tactical doctrine has evolved to the point where a fighter, burdened with a 30-50 ton external missile, is simply too cumbersome to survive in the tactical environment.

Such changes in technology and doctrine might also explain why standard scale weapons are suddenly able to threaten capital armor, which they could not, before... either computer linkages focusing fire on single points, or training and tactics to do the same, might represent a successful effort to improve fighter performance against warships, as the fighter-borne missile is rendered obsolete.

Advances in both technology, AND doctrine, seem a reasonable thing to happen in the decades after Vega, as the missile users go 'How do we make missiles kill more of their things', and the missile targets go 'how do we make missiles kill less of our things'
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 05 December 2018, 12:10:41
...
I'd support this as it reduces the number of house rules, simplifying the game from the perspective of Battletech.   

I'm a bit cautious about the analysis though since if heavy striker fighters (i.e. Cyclone/Rager/Shu/Yari) were substantially more effective they would simply be substantially more used, and if you plug in their stats, they seem substantially more effective.

Another concern is that you generally want the defense against a particular offense to be notably easier than the offense because there are multiple dimensions to offense. 

Both of these concerns can be addressed simply with damage reduction at the 1/1000th level.  The Kutai (20 capital armor = 2000 standard armor) would be immune to machine gun fire.  A warship with 50 capital armor would be immune to AC/5s and take half damage from AC/10s.   A warship with 200 capital armor would be immune to AC/20s.  The largest warships will be flat out immune to ASF, but most warships will have some vulnerability and variable damage threshold can leave even large warships vulnerable to ASF damage.   This also makes large-damage standard scale weapons be clearly desirable and makes massive batteries of standard scale weapons by warships be ineffective.  Theoretically, a warship with 1000 capital armor on a facing would be immune to an SCL1, but I don't expect that to come into play.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 December 2018, 12:21:53
I'm a bit cautious about the analysis though since if heavy striker fighters (i.e. Cyclone/Rager/Shu/Yari) were substantially more effective they would simply be substantially more used, and if you plug in their stats, they seem substantially more effective.

Another concern is that you generally want the defense against a particular offense to be notably easier than the offense because there are multiple dimensions to offense. 

Both of these concerns can be addressed simply with damage reduction at the 1/1000th level.  The Kutai (20 capital armor = 2000 standard armor) would be immune to machine gun fire.  A warship with 50 capital armor would be immune to AC/5s and take half damage from AC/10s.   A warship with 200 capital armor would be immune to AC/20s.  The largest warships will be flat out immune to ASF, but most warships will have some vulnerability and variable damage threshold can leave even large warships vulnerable to ASF damage.   This also makes large-damage standard scale weapons be clearly desirable and makes massive batteries of standard scale weapons by warships be ineffective.  Theoretically, a warship with 1000 capital armor on a facing would be immune to an SCL1, but I don't expect that to come into play.

Weve said were going with a generic medium fighter, to avoid the GM having to track designs across time and 10 nations.  Heavier strike fighters might be better, but this is close enough.

Im agnostic on damage reduction.  If it helps you reconcile larger, better strike fighters down to smaller damage, I get that - but it means were tracking floating point decreasing armor values, or at least having to worry about them.  Idk if juice is worth squeeze, could be convinced either way, though.

At 100 Normal to 1 Capital, standard scale weapons are a poor anti-warship choice.

As for defense v offense - 10 tons of machine guns kills a 30 ton missile (and only has to shoot at the ones that were going to hit, IIRC.  So call it 60).  That missile also has a heavy launcher.

Then again, that launcher and its missiles kill more than their cost in fighters and fighter bays.

So again, specific defense cheaper than offense.

*EDIT*  On reconsideration, regarding damage reduction.

Soon enough 200 armor will be considered low.  At such time, fighters would stop existing - barring external ordinance - which is how we got here.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 05 December 2018, 17:20:21
I'm somewhat confused.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 December 2018, 17:46:14
I'm somewhat confused.

In the beginning, we said 'Fighters are too powerful, because at 10 Standard Damage to 1 Capital Damage, Fighters murder everything.

We then said 'well, machine guns dont hurt battleships.  Wouldnt it be cool if standard scale weapons couldnt hurt capital armor, just like machine guns on fighters bounce off real-world battleships, but instead we let fighters carry capital missiles!

And we did this.. and we discovered that fighter carried capital missiles do crazy things to the game.  Weve had to deviate from tabletop not only in letting fighters carry missiles, and in making fighter weapons not hurt battleships, but then we made Machine Guns be MUCH BETTER at killing missiles than they were in tabletop... but we cant ever seem to get a good grip on HOW much better, and then some people wanted to put huge clusters of machine guns on small craft (cause fire control rules are terrible), so then we had to say machine guns on fighters and small craft are LESS good than machine guns on ships, and then we looked at putting 100s and 100s of machine guns on ships, and we had to say 'machine guns are super better in our game than in table top, but they have diminishing returns'...

Along the way, we got so many machine guns on ships, and they were soooo good (cause they had to be, or otherwise the missile wave from a swarm of fighters destroys everything) that we basically had to give up on ships that carry missile launchers (because any PDS array that will save you from 5000 fighters launching missiles will make the 10 or 100 missiles a ship can launch look like a joke). 

This left us with fighter launched missile swarms that we as players have really no idea how good they are or how to project their peformance, and defenders having no idea whether they need 10MGs, or 100, or 1000, or 10000...

So I suggested above 'what if instead of having capital ship armor be immune to standard scale weapons, and then letting fighters carry missiles so fighters can still do something, and then let Machine Guns work suuuper better than they do in tabletop so those missiles dont kill everything, we instead take a step closer to the table-top fighter rules, just having it be 100 standard damage to match 1 capital damage, rather than 10'.

I then did a test case, showing how such a fight looked, and it seems (to me) good.

Now, Alsadius is doing the work, and I'll go with whatever, I just wanted to throw this out there.

Does that help?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 05 December 2018, 19:15:12
Yes, that helps.
But let me throw this in here:
What about dropships?

How on earth you decided that fighters would be OP at a time when the worst they could mount was an AC/5 is one for the history books :P
That said, you could have just used the rules for anti-ship missiles. Though I suppose those are balanced for an environment with screen launchers and AMS.

At the risk of sounding like a knowitall, in light of your explanation, I feel like this is exactly what was bound to happen. It's kind of satisfying, in an odd way.  ^-^
Just having a 20/1 cap/std dmg ratio would have really been sufficient to balance things - and if not, wouldn't the easier avenue be to increase the armour a ship can mount?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 December 2018, 19:51:09
Yes, that helps.
But let me throw this in here:
What about dropships?

How on earth you decided that fighters would be OP at a time when the worst they could mount was an AC/5 is one for the history books :P
That said, you could have just used the rules for anti-ship missiles. Though I suppose those are balanced for an environment with screen launchers and AMS.

At the risk of sounding like a knowitall, in light of your explanation, I feel like this is exactly what was bound to happen. It's kind of satisfying, in an odd way.  ^-^
Just having a 20/1 cap/std dmg ratio would have really been sufficient to balance things - and if not, wouldn't the easier avenue be to increase the armour a ship can mount?

1.)  What about dropships?  Id leave them where they are - their atmosphere capable craft like fighters, leave them on the fighter scale.

2.)  Fighters dont stay at AC/5 long, and its not hard to read the writing on the wall.  At 10:1, a single, 2 AC/5 Medium fighter does 1 capital damage.  That means a CV Deckload does ~700~ capital damage.  This is bad.

3.)  A 20:1 Ratio is insufficient - as I think my example above illustrates, a 100:1 ratio still results in fighters being very, very dangerous to far more than their cost in warships.  Ship-Mounted ASMs, below Capital Missiles, might well be usable at that 100:1 ratio - but I think they are best swept up into 'general armaments, 30 average damage, .3 capital damage per fighter'.  The GM has enough stuff to juggle when he runs a fleet engagement.

4.)  Eh, theres always gonna be second order effects when you change things.  They cant be predicted, may be good, may be bad.  Here, while they create some problems, they arent deal-breakers for me, and Im hardly stamping my foot and screaming 'change it back'.  Im just suggesting 'hey, maybe this would work better'.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 05 December 2018, 20:11:31
At 100 Normal to 1 Capital, standard scale weapons are a poor anti-warship choice.
I think you are right, although maybe not entirely on the low end.  I can make a 250K ton warship with banks of 900 MLs in all side arcs generating generating 135(=45+45+45) capital damage at a 100:1 ratio in the broadside arc.  That's modestly better than what you can do with NLs but the tradeoff in range seems unlikely to make this worthwhile.  And of course at larger warship sizes standard scale weapons only get worse.  It would be a very mean antifighter ship.
As for defense v offense - 10 tons of machine guns kills a 30 ton missile (and only has to shoot at the ones that were going to hit, IIRC.  So call it 60).  That missile also has a heavy launcher.
Remember that the MGs require ammo (a ton) and 4 quarters making that really 31-39 tons.  MGs are effective in conventional rules against missiles, but that's a factor of 3-4 higher than you are imagining.
Soon enough 200 armor will be considered low.  At such time, fighters would stop existing - barring external ordinance - which is how we got here.
a) Improved warship armor will help the warships, but improved fighter weapons also steadily improve the the fighters.  What happens if you rerun your simulation with clan weapons and LFC?
b) I kind of like having a design paradigm which does not require we avoid the heavy strike fighters we design. 
c) I'm skeptical that fighters go away.  They are always useful in a (counter)invasion paradigm.  Fighters with active probes can plow a hole through ECM fields making it much easier for naval weapons to hit.   Fighters can finish off wounded warships, even if their armor hasn't been fully penetrated, allowing the big guns to focus on fresh targets.  These are each extremely useful ancillary roles for which not filling them results in potential lose situations.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 December 2018, 20:21:22
I think you are right, although maybe not entirely on the low end.  I can make a 250K ton warship with banks of 900 MLs in all side arcs generating generating 135(=45+45+45) capital damage at a 100:1 ratio in the broadside arc.  That's modestly better than what you can do with NLs but the tradeoff in range seems unlikely to make this worthwhile.  And of course at larger warship sizes standard scale weapons only get worse.  It would be a very mean antifighter ship.Remember that the MGs require ammo (a ton) and 4 quarters making that really 31-39 tons.  MGs are effective in conventional rules against missiles, but that's a factor of 3-4 higher than you are imagining.a) Improved warship armor will help the warships, but improved fighter weapons also steadily improve the the fighters.  What happens if you rerun your simulation with clan weapons and LFC?
b) I kind of like having a design paradigm which does not require we avoid the heavy strike fighters we design. 
c) I'm skeptical that fighters go away.  They are always useful in a (counter)invasion paradigm.  Fighters with active probes can plow a hole through ECM fields making it much easier for naval weapons to hit.   Fighters can finish off wounded warships, even if their armor hasn't been fully penetrated, allowing the big guns to focus on fresh targets.  These are each extremely useful ancillary roles for which not filling them results in potential lose situations.

I was responding presuming your ‘200 Naval Armor is immunity to AC/20’ paradigm.  Few clan weapons do more than 20 damage.

You have a point on machine guns - but Ill note again that you could strip PDS out entirely and the shipborne missile launcher is still not a superweapon.  The anmo is just too heavy.

In my head, the nice, sexy, 10M C-Bill strike fighters are used - but for this shared game, I think generic is better.  If we want to peg that generic at a 90-100 ton superfighter, with more damage and costing more, I can live with that.

Clan Fighters with Clan Tech probably double the damage of a fighter, and gives it likely a bit more agility and armor.  (Thats a ballpark)  Standard Armor to Lammelor Ferro-Carbide triples the resilience of ships.  I think, though it will see-saw, ending fighter performance looks not radically different than current.

Nite also that the XL engined superfighter costs 3x as much.  The fighters alone on a Walkurie would cost more than a Buri.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 05 December 2018, 21:56:59
If we want to peg that generic at a 90-100 ton superfighter, with more damage and costing more, I can live with that.
This seems to be the plausible default for direct warship combat.  The Rager was 5.4M and the Rager II was 5.9M.  The Yari is 5.1M.  The Cyclone/Cyclonas is 4.8M.  The Shu is 5M, and the Shu-3 is unclear.  Overall this is reasonably close to the 5M.  The cost of the more expensive fighter seems well-justified in the context of warship-based transport and the additional robustness/weapon load created. 

Another issue with the simulation is that the Barracudas could be shot down by the ASF.  We can houserule that ASF point defense can't shoot at missiles, but the defensive use of ASF has been important in several engagements and seems likely to be important in that role if we remove house rules towards the standard rules (which I generally approve of). 

W.r.t. clan-scale weapons I'm not sure that XL engines justify themselves cost-wise, but double heat sinks + clan weapons surely do.  You are right about LFC armor----the x2.5 multiplier makes up for fighter weapon improvements pretty well. 

Taking into account heavy strike fighters what works to leave an interesting game? 
1) Capital = Standard/100 alone probably does not.  ASF win consistently.
2) Capital = Standard/100 + damage reduction at the 1/1000th scale seems like it would.  Some warships are invulnerable to direct fire, but ASF are left with the important roles listed previously.
3) Capital = Standard/100 + ASF can't do point defense might be viable?  It's borderline.  I'm hesitant to go with this, because several navies have been using ASF defensively as their primary role and it seems somewhat brittle.  What happens to smallcraft point defense?
4) ?other?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 December 2018, 22:07:50
1.)  I know weve done it, but I just cant, in my head, make an F-18’s 20mm cannon do the same job as a CIWS. 

2.)  Switching to heavy strike fighters, with no damage reduction, at 100:1, moves the mean fighter damage and health to about 50 and 100.  This will put more emphasis on barracuda and fighters as fighter defense, and less AAA - but I think were looking at a slighty different ideal weapons mix, not an unstoppable advantage for the fighters.  Consider also that -noone- else builds anything as insane as my CVs - and Im planning on refitting half that fighter carriage away ASAP.

3.)  I think weve probably taken this as far as it can go, without Alsadius weighing in.  He may be happy with the fighter-capship-missile paradigm, or simply not interested in more radical changes, all while hes trying to develop a map tool, add army forces to the mix, and write turns.  That said, I do think this has been fertile territory, and good fuel for a starting slate of house rules, either for use at home, or in something like this if another one ever happens.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 05 December 2018, 23:19:51
Consider also that -noone- else builds anything as insane as my CVs - and Im planning on refitting half that fighter carriage away ASAP.
The Walkure is 9.6M/fighter bay.  The Taurus I v2+Tick+Mother is 9.0M/fighter bay :)  With the standard 24 smallcraft complement (12 point defense, 12 for marines) however, it ends up being a bit worse.
3.)  I think weve probably taken this as far as it can go, without Alsadius weighing in. 
You're probably right, and thanks. 

I think my set of houserules for home play is now:
I'm not quite sure how to handle the absurd critical every time you roll a 12 rule.  Maybe just ignore unless the attack inflicts 1% or more damage?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 06 December 2018, 06:03:40
1.)  What about dropships?  Id leave them where they are - their atmosphere capable craft like fighters, leave them on the fighter scale.

2.)  Fighters dont stay at AC/5 long, and its not hard to read the writing on the wall.  At 10:1, a single, 2 AC/5 Medium fighter does 1 capital damage.  That means a CV Deckload does ~700~ capital damage.  This is bad.
1.) Dropships are useless for everything but troop transportation already, and you want them to die to a single NL/35? I disagree.

2./3.) I honestly don't see the problem. A Fighter strike of that size, dealing 350 Capital, seems fine to me in practice.
Someone calculated in the past, in detail, how subcaps would usually be better weapons than conventionals against nearly everything despite their far worse dmg/weight ratio. Effective range is everything.
They made a McKenna copy with higher speed, armed exclusively with clan Lasers, and faced it off against a standard. The standard won, even though it nominally did far lower damage.

Yes, carriers have a high damage potential - but they should. If the carrier dies, all those fighters go down the drain. It's also a force that's guaranteed to not go without losses.
And they need a lot of fuel, while Warships run on fairy dust.
And similar to how MLs have far better damage output for their weight and size than an AC/20, that AC/20 has it's use.
A large NAC will tear huge, bloody chunks out of a warships hide. A large fighter strike, by standard rules, will at best scatter their damage evenly over as many as three different facings.

In short, I think fighters are usually too effective against Warships, but not on that scale. Besides, as they will be dwindling away during combat, they could just be countered by allowing warships to mount, say, 50% more armour.
Most capital weapons have more than enough endurance for that, fighters do not.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 06 December 2018, 07:10:31
The problem is when he fields 5000+ fighters in one fight, they either work as per TT rules, wipe the floor with everything they encounter and are the #1 right answer, may as well end the game now.

Or they get nerfed to make their opponent competitive, which makes fielding them in any number under 5000+ pointless
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 06 December 2018, 09:13:30
1.) Dropships are useless for everything but troop transportation already, and you want them to die to a single NL/35? I disagree.

2./3.) I honestly don't see the problem. A Fighter strike of that size, dealing 350 Capital, seems fine to me in practice.
Someone calculated in the past, in detail, how subcaps would usually be better weapons than conventionals against nearly everything despite their far worse dmg/weight ratio. Effective range is everything.
They made a McKenna copy with higher speed, armed exclusively with clan Lasers, and faced it off against a standard. The standard won, even though it nominally did far lower damage.

Yes, carriers have a high damage potential - but they should. If the carrier dies, all those fighters go down the drain. It's also a force that's guaranteed to not go without losses.
And they need a lot of fuel, while Warships run on fairy dust.
And similar to how MLs have far better damage output for their weight and size than an AC/20, that AC/20 has it's use.
A large NAC will tear huge, bloody chunks out of a warships hide. A large fighter strike, by standard rules, will at best scatter their damage evenly over as many as three different facings.

In short, I think fighters are usually too effective against Warships, but not on that scale. Besides, as they will be dwindling away during combat, they could just be countered by allowing warships to mount, say, 50% more armour.
Most capital weapons have more than enough endurance for that, fighters do not.

I.)  A hypothetical Union-V carries 12 fighters and 300 armor on a facing.  If we make that 3000, those 12 fighters will need~15 turns to kill their carrier, unopposed.  This seems a bit much.

~thoughtful~  Maybe Dropships act like fighters against fighters, but like warships against warships?  Fighters can get in and exploit vulnerabilities on droppers, but capital weapons just arent super-effective against the smaller, more agile dropships?  This lets dropships perform like we are accustom against both fighters and warships, without leaving us at the situation where carriers sweep all other warships from the skies.

II.)  Supcaps are what they are.  Id be tempted to handle them like I suggested with droppers... fighter scale against fighters, capital scale against warships.  Where the breakpoint between standard:subcap:capital is, in terms of preference, depends on available tonnage, fire control penalties, and desired engagement ranges.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 06 December 2018, 10:29:24
Smegish, do you have an opinion here about good rules?   Do others?

~thoughtful~  Maybe Dropships act like fighters against fighters, but like warships against warships?  Fighters can get in and exploit vulnerabilities on droppers, but capital weapons just arent super-effective against the smaller, more agile dropships?  This lets dropships perform like we are expecting against fighters (and against warships!)
This seems ok.  Dropships would basically have a capital armor rating and a standard armor rating with a 1:10 ratio.
II.)  Supcaps are what they are.  Id be tempted to handle them like I suggested with droppers... fighter scale against fighters, capital scale against warships.  Where the breakpoint between standard:subcap:capital is, in terms of preference, depends on available tonnage, fire control penalties, and desired engagement ranges.
The subcaps don't break anything treating them as 100:1 so I see little value.   Suppose we have double heat sinks.  SCL1 (6.17/kton) is worse than NAC-20 at worse range.  SCL2 (9.34/kton) and SCL3 (11.27/kton) is a bit better than a NAC40 at the same range, but the disparity in fire control is huge.  Also, a clan ERPPC (11.11/kton using 1:100) is similar with substantially more range.    Looking at the SCCs they deliver a consistent 9.7/Kton which is a marginally better than a NAC/35 or NAC 40 at similar or worse ranges and marginally worse than standard weapons at worse ranges.

Given the fire control penalty, subcaps seem particularly useful on light warships or dropships in an anti-ASF role where they would not overkill as much as an NL35 and provide one-shot-kill firepower for dropships vs. ASF.  They are also excellent in ground combat---a subcap dropship can provide highly accurate ortillery compared to a warship.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 06 December 2018, 20:34:51
As a quick update, I'm kind of sick right now, so I haven't done much. I haven't even had time to go through those posts above, just skimming them.

My first reaction from skimming the above is that it wouldn't help much. A fighter bay and WS missile is 190 tons, while a WS launcher with missile is 160 tons. You start getting fire control weight issues after some point, but a few hundred missiles on a WarShip is quite practical(load up the six broadside arcs, keep NACs in the nose, and fly straight in). The Lyran fleet at Vega had 18 ships, and 18*300 = 5400. And that'd get you salvos every minute (until ammo runs dry), instead of every few hours. Your own ship is in gun range with that plan, so you'll take more losses, but the salvo density could happen if someone wants it to. So if someone wants it to, we're back to needing to come up with a decently balanced set of PD rules that can handle thousands of missiles flying.

A ground-up rework could fix a lot of these issues, but that's outside my scope here. I think patches are much more likely in practice, both here and in any set of tabletop house rules. It's not ideal, and if there is a good idea in the full posts above that I can steal then I will. But I suspect it's going to keep looking like this.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 06 December 2018, 21:13:14
As a quick update, I'm kind of sick right now, so I haven't done much. I haven't even had time to go through those posts above, just skimming them.

My first reaction from skimming the above is that it wouldn't help much. A fighter bay and WS missile is 190 tons, while a WS launcher with missile is 160 tons. You start getting fire control weight issues after some point, but a few hundred missiles on a WarShip is quite practical(load up the six broadside arcs, keep NACs in the nose, and fly straight in). The Lyran fleet at Vega had 18 ships, and 18*300 = 5400. And that'd get you salvos every minute (until ammo runs dry), instead of every few hours. Your own ship is in gun range with that plan, so you'll take more losses, but the salvo density could happen if someone wants it to. So if someone wants it to, we're back to needing to come up with a decently balanced set of PD rules that can handle thousands of missiles flying.

A ground-up rework could fix a lot of these issues, but that's outside my scope here. I think patches are much more likely in practice, both here and in any set of tabletop house rules. It's not ideal, and if there is a good idea in the full posts above that I can steal then I will. But I suspect it's going to keep looking like this.

Ive fiddled with missile-pure ships.  TLDR: They sound good in my head, but you really want a speed advantage, which eats into warload.  Without a speed advantage (though a small one is likely enough cause all aspect fire), you shoot yourself dry at extreme - or you dont fire back.  And, again, once youve got ~10 rounds of fire on board, you might as well have brought lasers/ppcs.

Also?  Get better.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 07 December 2018, 08:30:11
I second that. Best wishes.
That aside, do we necessarily need to intercept all missiles?
We can't intercept PPCs, either.
I believe the only reason fighter strikes are seen as so dangerous is that they can offer massive strikes at extreme distances.
If the oppositon uses shipboard launchers, they'll usually be within range of return fire within a turn or two, while lacking either the endurance or weight of fire to win that engagement once the range has been closed. Or both, in case they are faster.
The only way I see missiles be a significant threat by quantity alone is on defensive stations.
Of course, a missile based fleet would be a hard counter to a carrier fleet, so there's that.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 07 December 2018, 08:43:17
I second that. Best wishes.
That aside, do we necessarily need to intercept all missiles?
We can't intercept PPCs, either.
I believe the only reason fighter strikes are seen as so dangerous is that they can offer massive strikes at extreme distances.
If the oppositon uses shipboard launchers, they'll usually be within range of return fire within a turn or two, while lacking either the endurance or weight of fire to win that engagement once the range has been closed. Or both, in case they are faster.
The only way I see missiles be a significant threat by quantity alone is on defensive stations.
Of course, a missile based fleet would be a hard counter to a carrier fleet, so there's that.

I'm exploring Alsadius's contention that shipboard missiles can, if we focus heavily on them, get us right back into the same places as fighter strikes, leaving us with the need for either an increase in PDS effectiveness for MGs, from what is written in the rules.  The number crunching is sloppily in code tags below.

TLDR:
Unopposed, a pure missile ship is terrifying.  A Buri takes 10 turns to kill itself with PPC fire at extreme range.  If you replace the PPCs with 600 Killer Whale Tubes, 5 rounds each, and allow off bore fire, it kills itself in 3 turns.  Rising numbers of MGs on the defender raise this total... at 2K MG, the missile ship shoots itself dry in killing itself.  At 3K MG, it takes the full load of 2 missile ships to kill one gunship, and the gunships killing speed is the same.  4K MGs gives immunity.

If you switch the Missile Battleship for a Missile Arsenal ship, with no other armament, no defenses, and only 90 SI - the arsenal ships do better, hitting 'shoot itself dry' somewhere between around 3.2K MGs on the defender.  However, they are also more fragile, because 90 SI - the 3.2K MG condition looks like it makes a 0-0 draw, with both sides running out of hulls and missiles at the same time. 4K MGs is enough to let the gunfleet win handily, thought its not immune.

Once we upgrade to full Lamellor Ferro-Carbide, it gets much, MUCH worse for the missile boats.  The 'standard' missile ship shoots itself dry killing itself, even in the absence of defenses, and even the arsenal ship can barely handle a standard gunboat, once it has a mere 1000 MGs.  Once you have 2000MGs, neither the missile battleship nor the arsenal ship have enough missiles to kill the gunships.  4000MGs will make it a slaughter in favor of the gunships - it takes the full missile loads of nearly 3 arsenal ships to kill ONE gunship, and the gunships are killing arsenal ships FASTER than they are dying.

((On further examination, a 'reasonable' load for a Buri-G is closer to 500 tubes than 600, so downgrade fleet missile results from above example to fit.  At 600 tubes, your nudging into arsenal ship already))

Concerns:
Q:  What about a faster ship, able to close the range?
A:  This is basically the NAC vs NPPC fight above.  But a faster ship means less total tubes - a 'fast' Buri-G (4/6, ~120 SI, ~400 tubes) might get in closer, but its going to throw less missiles per salvo, is going to lose launching tubes while trying to close, and wont necessarily face much better THNs as it closes, as an opponent will give up its own fire to create crossing aspect and to take evasive maneuver, once the missile fleet is in its killing range.  The THN 10 example could actually apply at any range outside of short - even at medium, crossing aspect plus evasive creates a THN around 10, all of this before ECM.

Q:  500MG?  1000?!!!  Are you insane, man?
A:  1000 MG on a facing is not actually a huge investment ~about 3000 tons - save inasmuch as you abandon using that facing for capital weapons.  Even 2000 is fairly manageable, at 10KT.  The missile boat has made the same choice - its missile facings will carry neither 'standard' capital weapons, nor will they carry point defense.  The Arsenal ship described eschews even point defense and AAA in the name of massive anti-ship firepower.  That said, weight climbs fast past 2K of anything - might want to spread your PDS out onto multiple facing arcs.

Q:  Sure, but I dont have NEARLY that many MGs on anything, nor does anyone else.
A:  Yup, and noone has that many missile tubes either.  Given fire control limitations, the proper response to such designs might be a small, cheap as possible escort to carry those machine guns, so they arent interfering with the fire control on your capital ships.

Q:  So what sort of missile fleet would you build, if you were going to cheddar this?
A:  It depends on whats on my border.  If I rebuilt my whole fleet (for free), and decided to go with missile variants, Id probably build something between my arsenal ship and the 'standard' BBG, likely reducing missile throw weight to get some guns or fighters, likely at 2/3.
Frankly, my most likely response is to keep my current designs, and if someone else starts building arsenal ships, to put about 1200MGs per size class on everything I build.

Q:  But cant a missile fleet kill your ships and go home and you dont get to fight back? 
A: 4/6 missile strikefleet is tempting - empty tubes at extreme range, get some kills, go home.  Unfortunately, while its good at killing (A FEW) ships, it would be bad at defending territory - sure, I might be happy to trade a meaningless world for a few enemy hulls, and then repeat it - but if the enemy decides to show up over the capital or a major shipyard, I'm going to feel really dumb if all I get to do is kill some ships in exchange for losing the capital.

Q:  What if you go with more reloads and less tubes?
A:  Outcomes get more complex.  To go from 5 to 10 rounds of fire per tube, you have to cut from 500 launchers and 2500 missiles carried to  tubes to 380 Launchers (3800 ready rounds).  This is going to cut you from 83 hits per salvo to 63 hits.  Against a foe with heavy PDS, you may actually get less total hits, as well as taking longer to get them - giving them more time to engage your ships and kill your magazines while they still have missiles in them.  I really thing 5 rounds is about the right balance between weight and endurance of fire, under the RAW.

Q:  Why are you allowing off-bore fire?
A:  Cause Alsadius said you can kind-of off-bore right now, its eventually a formal technology, and we will get it sooner or later.  Since Alsadius is worried about missiles, Im testing them at their best.

Q:  What About Bearings Only Launches?  Cant you use them to make everything 'Short' Range?
A:  Bearings Only will be where the rubber hits the road.  Under a Bearings-Only system, you want to shoot from JUST outside extreme, so as to only have a 1 turn delay... id bet you can basket anyone within short or medium range gate if your only 1 turn delayed.  If you can short-basket, your probably firing on 8s or so (cross bearing, evasive, short range).  Thats going to increase your hits by about 2.5x

IF Bearings Only comes out around the time Lamellor Ferro-Carbide does, we end up in about the same place as the current condition, though the missile ships are a bit better, and can empty their bays without taking return fire against any slower fleets.  If it comes out significantly after LFC, missile use may have withered.  If it comes out before LFC (or god help us, before IFA!) then life gets INTERESTING - the capital missile launcher might eclipse the NAC as the primary weapon for a while, until armor and point defense catch up.

Q:  What about PDS?
A:  Actual PDS is better at shooting down missiles than MGs, I believe 50% better.  This will help the defense, but mostly by lowering required numbers and thus the massive fire control weight.  Its a 'lean this way or that' change, not a 'radical paradigm shift' change.

(Edit - turns out AMS is twice as good, and Small Lasers are 1.5x as good)



Quote
Assumptions:
1.)  Missiles can fire off bore.
2.)  40MGs kill 1 Killer Whale missile that would otherwise have hit.
3.)  Fire is calculated at THN-10*

*10 is selected because at higher than 10, decisive fire becomes nigh impossible, and because in this example, both ships have the same thrust, giving typical THNs at Extreme range of around 10-12.  If one ship goes evasive, the other fleet can manuver to try to close the range.  Close-range engagement by missile ships will be addressed in a following example that will be edited in.

Our combatants:
1.)  Buri, PPC model, with various levels of MG carriage concentrated on sides.  It will hit with 6.33 PPCs, 100 damage.
2.)  Buri-G, carrying 125 KW tubes on each corner, with 5 rounds per launcher.  It will hit with 83 missiles, 333 damage.
3.)  Buri-AS, an Arsenal ship with a total of 800 tubes, 90 SI, and no other armament. 

In each case, the Buri-G falls to the PPCs of the Buri-P in 10 salvos.

If Buri-P has no PDS, it takes a mere 3 salvos to kill.
Every 1000 MGs added removes 25 missiles.  At 1000 MGs, Buri-P dies on turn 5, and Buri-G goes home, empty but happy.
At 3000 MGs, Buri-G runs out of missiles with half the armor on Buri-P gone.
4000 MGs creates immunity.

Against the arsenal ship, 4000 MGs is not immunity, but it is superiority - arsenal ships run out of missiles before the targets run out of armor.

If we upgrade ships to Lamellor Ferro-Carbide, killing speed evaporates as a concern, and we are only left worrying about 'did you bring enough missiles'

With LFC armor, it takes the entire, unopposed missile load of Buri-G to kill Buri-P, 5 rounds of fire.

As soon as the defender starts applying MGs, this gets worse... at 2000 MGs, it takes 10 salvos to kill, and the 'G' ships only have 5...

4000 is still immunity.  Against the arsenal ship, 4000 is not quite immunity, but it will take ~3~ arsneal ships firing themselves drive to kill ~1~ Buri-P

Buri-G Modeling
THN: 10 (however we get there), 1 in 6 hits
Armor/SI: 1000 (Whole side)   OR 1900 (LFC)
500 missiles per salvo, 83 hits   
400 damage per salvo (missiles), 100 damage per salvo (PPC)

3 STK OR 5 STK (10 and 19 for the PPC ships)
1000 MG – 25 Missiles killed, 300 DPS, 4 and 7 STK   (10 and 19 for the PPC ships)      

2000 MG – 50 Missiles killed, 200 DPS, 5 and 10 STK

3000 MG – 75 missiles killed, 100DPS, 10 and 19 STK       (10 and 19 for the PPC ships)

4000 MG – 100 missiles killed, Immunity

Buri – Max G Modeling (2/3, 90 SI, Arsenal Ship)      
Same THN
Armor/SI is 1000, and 500, or 1900 (and 950) if LFC
800  missles per salvo, 135 hits

~533 damage per salvo. 2 STK      4STK      (5 and 10 for the PPC ships)         
1000 MG, 433 DPS, 3 STK      5 STK         (5 and 10 for the PPC ships)            
2000 MG, 333 DPS, 3 STK      6 STK
3000 MG, 233 DPS, 4 STK      9 STK      (5 and 10 for the PPC ships)
4000 MG, 133 DPS, 8  STK      14 STK  (5 and 10 for the PPC ships)   


Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 07 December 2018, 14:24:38
Q:  500MG?  1000?!!!  Are you insane, man?
The tonnage costs are reasonable, and the need to blunt missile attacks seems clear as they are otherwise much more damaging than anything else.   I think the biggest missing element in making such designs accepted is the lack of canon designs that provide something like the battlestar galactica point defense system.
Q:  Sure, but I dont have NEARLY that many MGs on anything, nor does anyone else.
Note the Matador here :-) 
A:  Yup, and noone has that many missile tubes either.  Given fire control limitations, the proper response to such designs might be a small, cheap as possible escort to carry those machine guns, so they arent interfering with the fire control on your capital ships.
Smallcraft are pretty good here.  The Fireshield design can take out a Killer Whale under standard Battletech rules.
Q:  What if you go with more reloads and less tubes?
A:  Outcomes get more complex.  To go from 5 to 10 rounds of fire per tube, you have to cut from 500 launchers and 2500 missiles carried to  tubes to 380 Launchers (3800 ready rounds).  This is going to cut you from 83 hits per salvo to 63 hits.  Against a foe with heavy PDS, you may actually get less total hits, as well as taking longer to get them - giving them more time to engage your ships and kill your magazines while they still have missiles in them.  I really thing 5 rounds is about the right balance between weight and endurance of fire, under the RAW.
It seems worth noting that the battletech rules (minimum 10 missiles/tube) do slightly nerf the missile boat inline with the above. 
Q:  Why are you allowing off-bore fire?
A:  Cause Alsadius said you can kind-of off-bore right now, its eventually a formal technology, and we will get it sooner or later.  Since Alsadius is worried about missiles, Im testing them at their best.
Off-bore fire for all but one arc are allowed by SO page 102 under "Preprogrammed Waypoint Launches".  I don't see that in the tech progression?  So maybe it's just available now?
If it comes out before LFC (or god help us, before IFA!) then life gets INTERESTING
Technology advances creating transitory imbalances seem good. 
Q:  What about PDS?
A:  Actual PDS is better at shooting down missiles than MGs, I believe 50% better.  This will help the defense, but mostly by lowering required numbers and thus the massive fire control weight.  Its a 'lean this way or that' change, not a 'radical paradigm shift' change.
What do you mean by PDS here?  Small Lasers are 50% better if you can use someone else's heatsinks.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 07 December 2018, 14:53:17
Arrgh.  By ‘PDS’ I mean ‘AMS’, which I recall doing 3 damage against capital missiles.

RE:  Small Lasers:
Given the massively escalating fire control tonnage, small lasers are better at anti-missile duty than machine guns - even if you have to use your own heat sinks.

2000MGs - 11,000 Tons

1,333SLas - 6,300 Tons, with heat sinks.

For the record, I'm an ass for overlooking the ability of the small laser to replace the Machine gun as a PDS weapon - that starts tilting the board quite heavily back towards the gunships.

Of course, a facing with 1000+ Machine Guns or Small lasers cannot afford even ‘normal’ AAA - and you want at least 2 PDS arrays.  My thought at that point is to put your PDS on broadsides, Capital Guns on flanks, and use nose and tail mounted ‘cuda as your AAA.


Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 07 December 2018, 16:55:46
Arrgh.  By ‘PDS’ I mean ‘AMS’, which I recall doing 3 damage against capital missiles.
AMS does 3 damage, MG in point defense mode 1, and SL in point defense mode 1.5 with 20/30/40 to kill BC/WS/KW.
Given the massively escalating fire control tonnage, small lasers are better at anti-missile duty than machine guns - even if you have to use your own heat sinks.
Interesting.
2000MGs - 11,000 Tons
Call it 13438 tons with 2nd class quarters and 10 rounds of ammo.   The cost is 8M before the multiplier.   Note also that you typically need multiple arcs. 
1,333SLas - 6,300 Tons, with heat sinks.
Or, 7960 tons with quarters.  The cost is 17.7M before the multiplier.

And to finish off, 667 AMS would be 2657 tons with heat sinks and 10 rounds of ammo each.   The cost is however 271M before the multiplier.

Edit: And, if AMS were allowed to fire unlimited times, it would be 14 AMS weighing 1230 tons including heat sinks and ammo.  The cost is 2.7M before the multiplier.
For the record, I'm an ass for overlooking the ability of the small laser to replace the Machine gun as a PDS weapon - that starts tilting the board quite heavily back towards the gunships.

Of course, a facing with 1000+ Machine Guns or Small lasers cannot afford even ‘normal’ AAA - and you want at least 2 PDS arrays.  My thought at that point is to put your PDS on broadsides, Capital Guns on flanks, and use nose and tail mounted ‘cuda as your AAA.
You could also use your doors to carry ASF as a more direct counter.   Also, enemy ASF that wander into the PDS kill zone are going to evaporate.   That's particularly significant against ASF that are short range focused (i.e. Rager II).
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 07 December 2018, 17:24:26
AMS does 3 damage, MG in point defense mode 1, and SL in point defense mode 1.5 with 20/30/40 to kill BC/WS/KW.Interesting.Call it 13438 tons with 2nd class quarters and 10 rounds of ammo.   The cost is 8M before the multiplier.   Note also that you typically need multiple arcs.  Or, 7960 tons with quarters.  The cost is 17.7M before the multiplier.

And to finish off, 667 AMS would be 2657 tons with heat sinks and 10 rounds of ammo each.   The cost is however 271M before the multiplier.

Edit: And, if AMS were allowed to fire unlimited times, it would be 14 AMS weighing 1230 tons including heat sinks and ammo.  The cost is 2.7M before the multiplier.You could also use your doors to carry ASF as a more direct counter.   Also, enemy ASF that wander into the PDS kill zone are going to evaporate.   That's particularly significant against ASF that are short range focused (i.e. Rager II).

Defending fighters might be your best choice for anti-fighter work, to be honest.  After crunching the numbers, the most fighters I expect to see per hull class, on a carrier is ~200 (Tyr is an extreme).  While handing 200 inbound on a Class I vessel is doable with standard scale weapons, handling 1000 inbound on a Class V BB really calls for barracuda swarms - and the 2000 barracuda missiles and 200 launchers you want to deal with 1000 fighters before they totally wreck your BB ends up massing nearly as much as your broadside!

May also re-figure BURI with NL/55s, and accept the fire control penalty, just to get the dual purpose.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 07 December 2018, 20:17:12
Page 49 folks... let's start think II soon...

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 07 December 2018, 21:06:30
This will be my last post until we hear from Alsadius.  We probably want him to do the first post on the II thread, and let him set up links to this thread where he needs them.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: DOC_Agren on 08 December 2018, 11:47:55
I second that. Best wishes.
That aside, do we necessarily need to intercept all missiles?
We can't intercept PPCs, either.
I believe the only reason fighter strikes are seen as so dangerous is that they can offer massive strikes at extreme distances.
If the oppositon uses shipboard launchers, they'll usually be within range of return fire within a turn or two, while lacking either the endurance or weight of fire to win that engagement once the range has been closed. Or both, in case they are faster.
The only way I see missiles be a significant threat by quantity alone is on defensive stations.
Of course, a missile based fleet would be a hard counter to a carrier fleet, so there's that.
As a observer here, can I add my own $0.02
I've played other games where, "fighters and missiles" can be claimed to game winner.
Yep Massive PDS can work, but it then becomes a design choice.
Because if my fleet loads up on massive PDS, and the attaching fleet not carrying missile or fighters but heavy, that "wasted" space my ship that could carry guns.
Second not much is done here that the other players don't see the designs before conflict, not like TT is going sneaky all missile fleet and take on the Purple Bird in an naval ambush   >:D
Once you start changing "defensive" system you are going to effecting how designs are and what it takes to kill them, as it is here you have removed SI limits.

What the next step a Sandcaster (http://wiki.travellerrpg.com/Sandcaster) so those PPC and Laser stop being so effective
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 27 December 2018, 16:30:04
I've gotten a couple PMs asking about me, so I'll put this here to keep everyone in the loop. I haven't been working on the next turn, but I'm not dead, just taking a break. I don't think I realized how much I needed it, plus there's the usual Christmas social calendar and a lot of fun household stuff to work on(a sewage backup, accidentally mixing ammonia and bleach while cleaning up a sewage backup, and other such festivities). 

I have a few more things that need doing IRL before I want to come back to this, but I've promised my wife that all of those will be done by New Year's Day. My intention is to start writing again after that.

Hope everyone has had a good holiday season.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 28 December 2018, 08:54:28
Merry Christmas!  Welcome back!  Avoid making chlorine gas!
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 31 January 2019, 14:47:05
I've been writing a bit, but my heart hasn't really been in it. So I'll put a marker down at this point - if I haven't finished the current turn by next weekend, the game is officially dead. I'll post what I have - currently about 60% of a turn - make some follow-up comments, and pack it in. (If someone else wants to be GM I'll play, but I suspect that won't happen.)

Thanks to everyone.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 31 January 2019, 17:48:48
It was fun while it lasted
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 01 February 2019, 05:24:13
Aye - it was certainly entertaining for the one turn I was in it. ;)
You did sure set up a monumental task for yourself.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 01 February 2019, 08:40:15
I certainly ended up understanding the ins and outs of rules quite a bit more.

Alsadius's effort here seems like the key limiting factor.  Word count is the least of this.  The major things I see are:
For (1), we'd probably need to switch to a distributed neutral 3rd party mechanism and standardize rules for setting up conflicts.  A narrative based conclusion seems required given the scale.
For (2), Smegish has been helping quite a bit, but maps have become increasingly necessary as time goes on.  I expect attempts to draw things by hand to fail because the effort is just to great (I did it last round for the TC).  What we need is something like this (http://battletech.rpg.hu/dynmech/planets/ismap_standalone.php?era_id=0&id=1943), except with dynamically controlled content.  This really requires a program---not to hard, but it would require some doing to setup.
For (3), I think we'd primarily need to set rules (houserules, tech advances, economy, etc...) at the beginning and just cope with the requisite warts.  Allowing consensus changes mid-stream and majority resolution of ambiguities also seems required.
For (4), the TH is the elephant, since they could plausibly take out everyone without breaking a sweat.   A lesser concern is periphery powers being easily wiped out.  Some limiting factor not yet stated in the rules must exist.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 01 February 2019, 09:12:22
I certainly ended up understanding the ins and outs of rules quite a bit more.

Alsadius's effort here seems like the key limiting factor.  Word count is the least of this.  The major things I see are:
  • The creativity behind creating outcomes.
  • Tracking everything that is going on.
  • Settling rules changes / disputes.
  • Limiting imbalances.
For (1), we'd probably need to switch to a distributed neutral 3rd party mechanism and standardize rules for setting up conflicts.  A narrative based conclusion seems required given the scale.
For (2), Smegish has been helping quite a bit, but maps have become increasingly necessary as time goes on.  I expect attempts to draw things by hand to fail because the effort is just to great (I did it last round for the TC).  What we need is something like this (http://battletech.rpg.hu/dynmech/planets/ismap_standalone.php?era_id=0&id=1943), except with dynamically controlled content.  This really requires a program---not to hard, but it would require some doing to setup.
For (3), I think we'd primarily need to set rules (houserules, tech advances, economy, etc...) at the beginning and just cope with the requisite warts.  Allowing consensus changes mid-stream and majority resolution of ambiguities also seems required.
For (4), the TH is the elephant, since they could plausibly take out everyone without breaking a sweat.   A lesser concern is periphery powers being easily wiped out.  Some limiting factor not yet stated in the rules must exist.

These are good points.  That said, I very much have enjoyed what we have, and seeing Alsadius continue it would be a preferred solution.

If he is unable to do so (and this is understandable, no criticism implied), the next best solution would be to see if someone was willing to take over.  I cannot.

Barring either solution, Id be down to take another run up at this, with a new setup reflecting lessons learned, under a new GM.  Its exactly my catnip.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 01 February 2019, 17:13:12
Must pirate somebody to expand Empire!!!

I too wish to continue, if possible... or a rehash.

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 01 February 2019, 17:28:40
I would also like to continue this thought experiment, whether we continue this under new management or restart doesn't greatly bother me though I lack the time or fluff writing experience to run it myself beyond the spreadsheet work I was already doing.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 02 February 2019, 19:32:35
Now, I don't exactly want us to reach the page limit just yet, but:
Given a break of a month or so, I'd be willing to try myself at a program for mapping.
Also, it's not for me to say, maybe, but I'd generally also be ok with a few month breaks - creativity sometimes wants to focus on other things.
If we end this, and want to ever continue it in the future, I suggest we'd sit down to look at the rules create something that is close to the existing rules for modified for us, and then actually create things like a shipbuilder incorporating all of those from what tools we have. A lot of very complex calculations wouldn't be a problem if no one has to actually make them.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 11 February 2019, 09:31:29
Yeah, this isn't happening. Here's the partially written turn. Un-finished stuff and notes to myself are in italics

Turn 7: 2410-2419
Previous Turn: 2400-2409 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1452784#msg1452784)

Player Turns:
Draconis Combine: Budget $117B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1456358#msg1456358)
Federated Suns: Budget $103B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1460144#msg1460144)
Capellan Confederation: Budget $98B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1454384#msg1454384)
Free Worlds League: Budget $107B. (Design and Doctrine (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1458960#msg1458960), Budget (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1459509#msg1459509))
Lyran Commonwealth: Budget $112B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1455549#msg1455549)
Marian Hegemony: Budget $24B. (Turn (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1452807#msg1452807), Design Errata (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1454602#msg1454602))
Taurian Concordat: Budget $23B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1458431#msg1458431)

NPC Turns:
Terran Hegemony: Budget $775B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1458134#msg1458134)
United Hindu Collective: Budget $26B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1457808#msg1457808)
Rim Worlds Republic: Budget $38B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1460033#msg1460033)

Armies and Technology
This was discussed at length in a previous comment. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1460324#msg1460324)
TH gains PPCs, Improved Ferro-Aluminum, and Naval Gauss.
DC gains Blazer and Mechs.
FS gains AC/10.
FWL gains AC/10, Castles Brian, and Naval Gauss.
UHC gets AC/10.

Armies are now defined and tracked independently. No new builds yet this turn - that will begin on turn 8.

2410:
The negotiations over the Ares treaty were lengthy and acrimonious, with many pious sentiments repeated, but little agreement on what it would mean in practice. The use of weapons of mass destruction against civilian targets was agreed to in principle almost immediately, but discussions over what exactly constituted a civilian target took far longer. Likewise, discussions of "no first use" vs "no use" vs "no use on civil targets", and a hundred variants thereof, occupied months of time for the negotiators.

In the end, the treaty didn't live up to Aleisha Liao's dreams, but it would serve. The old Geneva conventions on treatment of wounded soldiers, prisoners of war, and the protection of civilians in war zones, were formally incorporated into interstellar law almost unchanged. Assorted updates were made to deal with new technological considerations and the nature of interstellar warfare, but few were of any significance.

After the official treaty had been negotiated, the Terran negotiator announced that in addition to the bilateral, binding treaty, the Terran Hegemony would make a unilateral declaration that any use of weapons of mass destruction would be deemed to be a war crime by the Hegemony, and that the Hegemony would take action against any perpetrators. That much had been suggested in the negotiations(and in fact, was counted on to be a backstop to the slightly anemic text of the treaty), so that was no surprise. The surprise came a moment later, when the Lyran representative took to the podium and made the same declaration, word-for-word, of the Lyran commitment to do the same. While the Lyrans had taken the hardest line on WMD usage in the negotiations, that had not been foreshadowed, and even a couple of the experienced diplomats looked momentarily shocked. The Lyran government refused to clarify whether this was a publicity stunt, an effort to shame the other nations into doing something similar, or if it had another purpose entirely, but in any case the declaration was not repeated by any other power.

While the initial negotiations had merely involved the six major powers, the treaty was intended to allow expansion, and the outer regions participated to some extent. The Rim Words Republic had delegates at the conference area, despite not being officially invited to take part in the process, and signed the treaty on the same day as the major powers. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the United Hindu Collective refused to sign, fearing that it would legitimize offensive warfare and remove the stigma from attacking other humans. The Taurian Concordat was especially passionate on the topic of how prisoners were treated, and while they denounced the hypocrisy of powers that started unprovoked wars trying to reduce the impact of warfare, they felt a limited treaty of this nature would be beneficial to all. The Marian Hegemony also signed on quickly, as did the puppet government of Rasalhague.

2411: Lopsided battle(TH vs CC) - if fight happens, TH 3 crew, 2 command, 6 luck, CC 9 crew, 10 command, 7 luck (TH 9 aggro, CC 2 aggro)

2412:
In July 2412, Robert Kurita was on a tour of the first BattleMech factory, watching the first of the mass-produced new war machines come off the line. Unfortunately, the factory had been constructed at high speed and with tremendous secrecy between different branches of the design team due to the bleeding-edge technology of the Mech design. In the confusion, it seems that insufficient tolerances were built into the design, and the shaking caused by the giant 90-ton war machine walking off the line caused major issues. As Kurita walked through the open doorway ahead of the Mech, the gigantic door snapped loose, and fell directly on Kurita, who was crushed instantly.

A few engineers were known to express skepticism about this sequence of events, suggesting that the forces involved could not plausibly break a brand-new door motor. However, ties were quickly made between them and some low-credibility conspiracy theories, and the fact that they generally pinned the blame on Robert's own sister (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Marika_Kurita), proved that these were not people to be taken seriously.

Robert's younger brother Parker took over, and was known to lament the size of the shoes he needed to fill. However, he sought out to fill them as he imagined Robert would have done in his place, and spent months trying to interview everyone who was close to Robert to see if he could assemble as much knowledge of his older brother's methods as he could manage.

2413:
Langdon Echohawk had not been a young man when he launched his coup, and the twenty years since had taken a toll on his body. Even with an average life expectancy on Terra of nearly a century, age 88 was still old. Old enough to be concerning for many, especially when Echohawk had no children of his own to form a traditional dynastic line of succession. His mind was still as sharp as ever, though, and he knew this was an issue he would need to face.

Echohawk's solution was a new constitution, explicitly designed for an era of dynasts. Drawing on historical as varied as the careful balancing of powers in the United States, the failure of Bismarck's constitutional design to survive his own fall from power, the adoptive succession of the Roman emperors, and the chaotic battles of the Second Soviet Civil War, he designed a new system not entirely like any other in existence to pass along his powers to capable heirs for as long as possible.

The basic secession principle would be of chosen heirs for each leader, but an era of nuclear and even relativistic attacks requires significant fallback plans. The focus of the fallback system was a group of 21 Ministers of State. Each Minister would be a direct appointee of the Director-General, save that a Director-General in their first year could appoint no new Ministers without the approval of two-thirds of the existing Ministers(to ensure that they can be removed if they prove unsuitable). A new heir must be approved by at least one-third of the Ministers, and two-thirds of Ministers can impose a new heir over a Captain-General's objections, or impeach a Captain-General outright. No more than three Ministers may ever be in the same ten-mile radius, and no more than 15 may ever be in the same solar system. Other checks and balances added up to a mildly complex system, but one where people of good judgement were likely to be able to preserve that trait over time.

Echohawk's initial Ministers of State included two generals, three admirals, seven planetary governors, two CEOs, two of his chief advisors, his wife, his youngest brother, the Chief Justice, a famed political science professor, and(to the surprise of many) a mildly successful and generally well-regarded author of historical fiction that Echohawk had never expressed any public praise for. Named as Heir was Josefine Vernon, a retired THN Commodore who had entered the Terran Congress in 2405, impressed many by her passionate speeches, declined to run again due to her party's failure to pass a bill funding veteran's hospitals as promised, then started a defence contracting company with reasonable success. Not all were pleased with this choice - Vernon was 68 years old, and her fiery ways had earned her enemies - but the Ministers of State approved her by a 20-1 vote. Interestingly, it was Echohawk's wife Larissa who cast the solitary Nay vote, explaining that it was the job of Ministers to act as a check on the succession, not merely a rubber stamp, and that it was important to set the proper precedents for the sake of history.

2414:
After taking some time to refit their fleet to an updated design, the Free Worlds League was out to protect themselves from being victims of Lyran aggression yet again. Admiral Ernest Starek, operational commander of the FWLN fleet, noted that most previous attacks had been wildly successful in the initial phases, but that they tended to peter out as the fleets began to clash - the ground forces lost their orbital bombardment support, the logistics got bogged down, and the need to consolidate gains reduced advances to a crawl. Lyran naval discussions, both publicly and those reported by Marik intelligence agents, were focusing heavily on concentration of force, and

To deal with this, he came up with an unusual plan of attack. Instead of taking planets to court a fleet battle, in hopes of driving his enemy away and allowing the advance to continue, he decided to prolong the opening phases for as long as possible in order to capture territory. The first wave was launched in the far west, to liberate Promised Land and several other nearby worlds. Four worlds were targeted in the first wave of attacks, with ten regiments earmarked for the symbolically important planet of Promised Land and five for the other nearby worlds. Each of these forces had exactly one Heracles in support - the location of the other 13 battlecruisers, plus the three Phalanx-class commerce raiders, was not immediately apparent.

The region was somewhat remote from Lyran reinforcements - Tharkad was 15 jumps away from Promised Land, and even the primary forward base at New Kyoto was 8 jumps away. Griffith, Timbiqui, and Epsilon fell fairly quickly. The Free Worlds League had received reports that the planetary garrison at Promised Land had been strongly reinforced, as it was an obvious target of attack, and expected a more serious fight there. In this, they were initially disappointed - the capital fell quickly, with only a few battalions providing any resistance, and the commanding general began to suspect that the reports were in error.

In fact, the defending forces were nearly as strong as his own - a full combined-arms division was stationed on Promised Land, in addition to the typical garrison, and it had merely been waiting for its moment to strike. That moment came when the attackers fanned out to capture secondary towns in the planet's temperate zones - one of the regiments was proceeding without cover from the Heracles II-class FWLN Orpheus, and with only a fighter battalion providing cover. With this report in hand, the whole fighter strength of the defending forces - a full brigade, over 300 fighters - came out of hiding to ambush the Mariks. The attack was not a perfect ambush, and the Mariks got a few minutes' warning, but the slaughter was still brutal. Despite the light missile loads the Lyrans carried to preserve their agility, half the FWL fighters died to Barracuda missiles without firing a shot, and the Lyran fighters killed three DropShips outright with their initial missile barrage, and opened wounds in seven others. The swarming fighters rapidly dispatched the remaining fighters, and three DropShips fell from the sky before the rest offered to surrender.

However, the surrender was short-lived. The Marik fighter forces were a third again as numerous as the Lyrans, and they sortied quickly to catch the defenders before they could flee. With an attack inbound, the Lyrans could not pause to secure their captives, and they "escaped" by simply flying back to base in the ensuing dogfight. The Lyrans were outraged at this breach of their surrender terms, while the Free Worlders felt that the duty of a prisoner was to escape, and that the Lyrans were hardly in any position to judge how surrenders were supposed to work. The fighting took a marked turn for the brutal after this, with guerrilla tactics being used readily in regions that had mostly Lyran settlers, aggressive bombardment of anything even suspected to be a fighter base, and several reports of prisoners being mistreated on both sides. Promised Land eventually fell to the invaders, with major combat operations ceasing after a bit less than a month, but the Lyran areas continued to cause difficulty for years afterwards.


LC-FWL combat
FWL does "bite and hold" tactics, heavily using pirate points for communication between dispersed forces - fleet all has giant fuel bays, so non-sail recharge is quite reasonable. Poor crew skill, though, so a mis-jump? Or just bad in fighting?
LC uses high-speed engagements, slashing fighter attacks, and disengages from fights well. Bad luck, though - one high-speed attack features the enemy ship jumping out right as fighters fly by, so the energy bleed from the jump kills a bunch of fighters for absolutely no damage
LC: 9 crew, 9 command, 1 luck (150% on gunships and fighters = 10/10/4, 100% otherwise)
FWL: 3 crew 10 command, 9 luck (100%)



2415:
Aleisha Liao and her husband Arden Baxter were expecting their first child in late 2415, but a routine medical check-up early in her pregnancy revealed that she had an aggressive form of cancer, and found herself with only a few months to live. Heroic efforts were made to preserve the life of her unborn heir, including a deathbed C-section, but young Caroline was simply too premature to survive, and died less than a day later. Aleisha's nephew Stephen was the next heir in line, but he was only 15 years old. As such, Stephen was named Chancellor, but his powers were vested in a regency council led by Arden Baxter. Baxter promised to continue with his late wife's dream of peace, and committed to working on more complete Ares protocols which might allow for widespread disarmament in the future.

Twins Edmund and Edward Davion had been tightening their grip on the Federated Suns for years, spurred on by the memory of their manipulative mother, worry about popularity of other Davions, and the fears of Edmund's aggressive and paranoid husband Jason. The most likely successor, their cousin Simon, had acquitted himself well in the Ares Convention negotiations, and seemed free of the vices that had plagued the Davion family in recent decades. After a posting as Ambassador to the Terran Hegemony, Simon was recalled to New Avalon for re-assignment. With rumours having reached him that his life was in danger from his cousins, many urged Simon not to return, but Simon took a different approach.

Working with a friendly naval commodore who was sending ships back to Delevan for refit, Simon took a somewhat roundabout path through the inner systems on the way home, speaking to large audiences in every system he passed through and trying to drum up public support(and private offers of assistance). By the time he and the escorting Crucis-class battleship reached New Avalon, he was a celebrated figure in the public's eye, far too prominent to be squelched quietly by Edmund's security forces. An assassination attempt took place as he exited his DropShip, but he survived the attack with minimal injuries due to a sharp-eyed assistant, and made his way to a scheduled meeting of the High Council, with his brothers in attendance. After he took his seat next to his cousins, he reached under his chair, grabbed the hidden pistol, and shot Edmund and Edward dead in the High Council chambers, then dropped his weapon and demanded a trial for his crimes.

Both the Presidential Guard and the High Council were shocked by these actions, and he only narrowly escaped being killed on the spot. However, his supporters had laid the groundwork well, and they eventually declared that he had only done what was necessary. However, the thought of placing a regicide in charge of the realm, even so, was too hard a sell to make it through the Council. The lack of other viable heirs led to a rather awkward negotiation, which was eventually settled by placing the position of President into commission, to be shared between five Princes, one for each region of the realm. Simon would be the "First Prince", but other than the power to set the agenda of formal meetings and oversee the process of naming Princes and heirs, he would have no official powers that the other Princes did not share.

A bunch of changes to canon here. In canon, Arden Baxter was a vengeful fool who fast-talked his way into power and tried to sabotage the realm, but that seemed overly harsh. In canon, Edmund Davion's homosexuality was a secret and shame, which seemed plausible in 80s writings but kind of unlikely today, so I juggled that a bunch.

2416: FS-DC running battle - long campaign, lasts more than one advance (FS 3 crew, 7 command, 5 luck, DC 1 crew, 8 command, 7 luck)
2417: (continued from 2416)


Kiviar ops plan:
Quote
So, about the btech campaign
thinking the navy's plan to deal with the combine would probably be a 3 stage operation
phase 1 would be a disinformation/espionage phase, where attempts are made to convince the combine that a massive strike on New Samarkand is being planned.
this would use both media leaks, and counter-counter espionage in the combine
ie agents with false information being intentionally compromised
but also the high-space fleet would be assembled in, lets say, Robinson combining the crucis, terran, and draconis fleets. so basically 3/4 of the navy in one place
and the capellan fleet is pulled back for the best coverage of the capellan and crucis march
actually maybe fairfax would be a better staging point
either way, some major-ish spinwards world
phase 2 would be the ground assault on the galedon military district
while the commonwealth assaults the Rashalague worlds
if their government goes with the plan obviously
and honestly if their government doesn't go with it, i doubt the suns would be successful, but, space prussia does crazy shit so maybe they would do it alone
anyway, the high-space fleet jumps out at the start of phase 2 together, but targeting tifferent areas, the combine march fleet goes to support the invasion forces, and the terran/crucis fleets to uninabited systems in the draconis march to wait for phase 3
hopefully the combine is fooled by the counterintelligence and believes that we're going for new samarkand.
and once it is evident if the combine decides to sortie its fleet against the assault in Galedon or turtle up in its important worlds the reserve fleet will act, either jumping to support a naval counter-action against the draconis fleet or embarking on a long-range raid to support the lyran fleet in rashalague and benjamin
if the combine counter-attacks in Galedon, the army will fall back and draw them, hopefully in to the jaws of the rest of the high-space fleet
if they don't and they sit tight protecting their yard there, that is a win, and the high-space fleet not assigned to that theater will hit luthien with the commonwealth and burn its orbital-industry to the ground and then turn around and help secure Galedon
if they bypass the fleet altogether and assault the Draconis march, the capellan fleet will move to reinforce
if the capellans try to take advantage of it, they'll obviously stay in place
if someone jumps in to layover, new syrtis or delevarn, defense stations will be authorized to nuke the shit out of them, because we're the federated suns and therefore the good guys, and we can use nukes if we want
which is, actually how the suns basically worked
anyway
that is the navy's plan with contingencies
the government probably wont' like it
but so long as the commonwealth is on board, I think it will be doable
if the cappelans assault before this goes off, it is called and we beat the shit out of them
if the lc doesn't get on board we just probably beat the shit out of capella anyway
if the terrans invade
we just die

2418: UHC internal event

2419:
Popular Science of Terra, December 2419 Edition
"The 2410s: The Decade of Science!"

The 2410s have been an impressive decade for science and technology, especially in applied engineering. Here are a few of the new inventions we're most impressed by.

Advanced Energy Weapons
The theft of detailed plans for advanced laser technologies from an Alshain Weapons research team, and subsequent leak to the whole Inner Sphere by a group of Rasalhague separatists, led to an explosion in applied energy weaponry. Aside from merely copying the existing designs, Krupp Armament Works here on Terra took the principles of compact energy weaponry and combined it with the existing PPC designs it produced for Potemkin-class transports, to produce a new and innovative micro-PPC design, which is expected to provide the effective striking power of a large missile battery at similar ranges, without the need for bulky ammunition.

The new leadership of Alshain Weapons has worked hard to wipe out the stain of their previous security breach by offering an interesting new extra-large laser design. Using two laser cores, the "Binary Laser Cannon" still has a few beam interference issues to resolve, but Alshain's CEO promises that they'll be resolved within a few years.

P5 Computer Chips
Defying yet another era of naysayers, Moore's Law continues its inexplicable record of accuracy, with petapetapetapetapeta-core(P5) computer chips. Featuring an astonishing 10^75 transistors on a single computer chip, these chips may soon provide the computer power necessary to make rudimentary artificial intelligence a reality.

Strongest Armour Ever
Armouring compounds are sometimes hard to compare, as the available weapons to attack them diverge more every year. However, the ferro-aluminum compound recently announced by Ceres Metals seems to offer an impressive mixture of protection. The alloy is extremely strong against high-speed impact, the layered construction of the design is effective at spreading out shockwaves from explosive impacts, and the bright sheen of the alloy has proven to dissipate energy impacts better than any previous design as well. However, the most impressive part of the design is that these features together allow the armour an unprecedented degree of protection against nuclear attack for any practical mobile armouring. While no plausible ship will be able to withstand a direct impact by a typical nuclear warhead, the test in orbit around Io(where a megaton-range warhead was detonated less than a hundred metres from a plate of armour no heavier than that mounted on an Aegis-class cruiser, which survived with only minimal warping - see our March 2419 issue for details) proves that the terrifying weapons used around Ford may soon be something that our proud sailors might be able to survive.

Big, Beautiful Bullets
Energy weapons have advanced substantially in the last ten years, but ballistic weaponry wasn't far behind. Improved gun-forging was a focus of research in many outlying realms, with no less than three nations announcing guns twice the size of their previous production models. Even more impressive was the new railgun designs created by Di Tron Heavy Industries. With neither the long flight time of a traditional naval gun shell, nor the beam collimation issues of lasers and PPCs, these "Gauss Cannon"-brand railguns have shown vastly superior performance when fighting against maneuvering enemies at long ranges.

Self-Cleaning Shower Breakfast Gel
It's rare to see so many useful properties performed by a single substance, but when it all comes together, the result can be expected to take the world by storm. SC Johnson & Johnson & Johnson has managed it with their new product that acts as soap, shower cleaner, and nutritious breakfast all in one. Just dump it on, and everything becomes the way it should be. It's even available caffeinated for people in slightly more of a hurry.

Mechs
The newly created "mechs" developed on New Samarkand are an impressive combination of new technologies. Myomer muscle strands, better known for prosthetic use, have been expanded to unprecedented size and used to drive artificial limbs much larger than Echohawk's right leg. A fusion engine like an aerospace fighter's, weapons and armour similar to that of a tank, and improved mobility in difficult terrain are all expected to be big advantages for the first Mech-equipped units to see combat. Some are skeptical, with General Gavin(ret.) remarking that "it seems like a poor gimmick on the part of the Snakes, investing a fusion plant in something more likely to fall over than fight". However, the potential to this technology cannot be overlooked, even if it may turn into a dead end.

Budgets
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 11 February 2019, 15:57:15
Thank you very much for your time and effort..

I have no idea if the Commonwealth would have gone along with the plan, but would have been interesting either way!

In retrospect - Id love to have Alsadius's thoughts on what worked, what didnt, and what would be done differently if it were ever done again.

Still, a massive project, and I had a good deal of fun with it!
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 11 February 2019, 16:54:12
Two main things come to mind.

1) I never really figured out how serious I wanted the game to be. There was a part of me that wanted a super- detailed simulation, which led to all the maps and spreadsheets and long battle reports. But that was at odds with the part that wanted to keep the rules hidden for fear of max-minning, the bare-bones methods of resolving battles based on whatever would make a good story, as well as my lack of support tools and my relative lack of time that I could dedicate.

I didn't really realize that tension in broad strokes until now, though it cropped up in things like battle report lengths long ago. I started this to get a detailed sim, but didn't have the tools, the rules, or the time to make it happen (at least, without imposing an unacceptable long-run burden on the rest of my life). That made it really tough to meet my own expectations, never mind everyone else's.

2) My writing setup was horrible in many ways. I was on three different machines(work, home, and occasionally cell), and my notes and drafts were a pain to pass around between them. A lot of tools(particularly Google Sheets) couldn't be opened on one or two of them, and I eventually wound up using PMs to myself on this forum to store my drafts. That's really unwieldy.

My best writing times were when I took an hour or two at lunch while I was at work, when I'm only supposed to get half an hour, so I stopped that quickly due to guilt and low productivity at my day job. And for a lot of the run of the game, the discussions were more interesting than writing new turns, so game progress stalled there a couple times too.

I'm a pretty good writer, I know the system fairly well, and I'm crazy enough to try it in the first place. That counts for a lot. But both of those problems hurt, and I didn't find good solutions to either one. This feels like something I'd be better off trying after retirement, but that's decades away.

What did you guys think? What worked well and what didn't? Can you think of anything that the next poor bastard to try this might want to do differently?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 11 February 2019, 17:45:39
I enjoyed the game even though I started late.  Thank you Alsadius.

As far as things for future attempts: I felt like the rules changed somewhat to often and the dice rolls were a little to strong compared to the designs in determining outcomes.

I'm going to include the naval doctrine PM I sent to Alsadius earlier below in case it's of interest.  (It's out of date---I'd change several things :-) )
This is a doctrine guide for TCN forces.  It's quite long, so save and read at your leisure.  TCN doctrine is built around different threat levels, with each threat level provoking a different kind of response.  The exact definition of what is threat level A-F depends on both invading forces and existent TCN forces so threat levels can go up or down mid-invasion as a result of combat.

The Matador: The Matador stays constantly (and unpredictably) mobile in systems with hostile forces, using it's extreme maneuverability to avoid contact.  The Matador plays three roles in combat: intelligence gathering, complicating/slowing the enemy's plans, and harrying the enemy.  Intelligence gathering is straightforward with the LNCSS. Intelligence is typically broadcast throughout the system for other naval forces in system.  Complicating/slowing the enemy's plans comes about naturally, because enemy forces will be forced to convoy all forces with sufficient firepower to hold off the Matador.

Harrying is active harassment of enemy forces from beyond their effective response range using Naval Lasers.  The most dangerous form of harrying is attacking enemies who can use capital missiles at extreme range.  This is only done on a zero expected incoming damage basis. The TCN knows nothing about diminishing returns, so their calculation is based on around 1/6th of missiles achieving lock at extreme range and 500 MGs achieving sufficient overkill to plausibly halt every missile.  Based on this, exposure to a missile wave of 1000 missiles at extreme range or 500 at long range is considered an acceptable risk.  The value here is that the NAC navy of the Fed Suns can potentially be forced out in a running battle with one or two Matadors.  Although the Fed Suns can launch dropships and fighters to force the Matador out of extreme range, these forces can be steadily pared down through Naval Laser fire that they cannot effectively respond to.  Harrying in battle situations can also occur during stand-off launches of ASF, either before missile launch (if they have <1K missiles), after missile launch, or against warship forces that no longer have sufficient ASF support to keep the Matador away.

In harrying situations, the Naval Lasers and armor are both placed to support running circles around slower opponents keeping them under constant Naval Laser fire while presenting a mobile broadside. The only forces capable of consistently closing with it are light scout ASF (10/15+), assault smallcraft (7/11+, finally, a use for them!) and assault dropships (7/11+).  Massed light scout ASF are rare, massed assault smallcraft are rare, and assault dropships are easy targets for Naval Lasers.  The closing velocity is relatively low so they will be savaged by NL 55s all the way making attacking the Matador quite difficult. 

In general, a successful harrying strategy requires knowledge of the common designs and weaponry that may be faced so a database will be built and maintained to support this strategy.

Threat level A: Threat level A is a police++ situation such as a smuggler disobeying naval traffic control.

Local naval forces, primarily marines or ASF, cooperate with the local gendarmerie to handle the situation in near-space.  Care must be taken to exert minimal sufficient force to successfully resolve the situation.

Every colony (approaching 214) and every Siesta station has forces on site to deal with threat level A situations with response times varying between a minute and an hour.  All threat level A incidents should be reported ASAP to central command so that patterns can be discerned.

Threat level B: Threat level B is a threat to a colony's survival with a minimal Concordat response.  Pirates are a typical example.

In this situation, forces coordinate with local military (if any) to delay, degrade, and destroy incoming forces.  Typically, ASF forces remain in hidden locations until dropships breach the atmosphere and then attack with capital missiles attempting to destroy both the invading dropship and their occupants.  Dropships that land and smallcraft transports are second priority targets while ASF are tertiary and enemy land forces are the lowest priority.  Note that this is not a
blind attack order: sometimes ASF must be attacked or distracted to open the way for a run against enemy dropships.  In terms of communication, the local government, the local navy, and the gendarmerie are all trained to broadcast overviews to any merchants who happen by with encrypted payloads containing details.  In addition, various 'black boxes' are setup that operate as hidden data sinks in the event the colony is overrun.

Threat level B is the first level meriting central response.  The TCN offers large bonuses to all merchant jumpships on the custody path to fleet command of the transmission of a threat level B or greater events.

The standard level B response is with a Matador, often arriving via a pirate point to minimize transit time.  For a pirate scale dropship/jumpship invasion fleet, the Matador itself should be adequate as it can outrun almost anything and strafe them from beyond their response range with Naval Lasers.  A requirement of additional forces whether ASF, army transport, or Nova implies a level C+ response is required.  Up to two simultaneous level B responses can be handled.

Threat level C: A level C threat is a single system scale invasion from a hostile power that can be met with a measured response.  It includes a Matador as well as use of the Mothers.

Additional forces are dispatched based on the nature of the threat.  To make this precise, let's quantify CC/FS designs as:

Albion:      1.1 Nova
Galahad:     2.4 Nova
Crucis:      2.4 Nova
Robinson:    1.4 Nova
Kentares IV: 2 Taurus I's

Wife's Wrath:      1.3 Nova + 1/3 Taurus I's
Bringer of Shots:  1.3 Taurus I's
Wind Spirit:       1 Nova
Rapid Ventilation: 2.3 Nova

Ground forces: by regiment count.

Forces with a land invasion component will add at least 2 Taurus I's loaded for a land invasion (4 regiments of armor + Skyfall assault shuttles).  If additional forces are required, then a Siesta + multiple Taurus Is are brought in. All land force transports are escorted by 1 or more Novas as well.

Forces with a warship component are countered with Novas.  The admiralty generally plans to respond with approximately a factor of 2 overforce to achieve decisive victory and allow for the uncertainties of war, including the capacity to react against a multipronged force.  The admiralty also will not send Nova's alone without at least a Taurus I in support.

These calculations could result in sending all forces, but that implies this is threat level D+.  Typical threat level C responses include:
Nova + Taurus I(ASF) + Siesta.  //minimal response, no land invasion.
Nova + 2x Taurus I(Land) + Taurus I(ASF) + Siesta //minimal counter-invasion.
3x Nova + 2x Taurus I(Land) + 2xTaurus I(ASF) + Siesta //maximal level C response.

1-2 threat level C responses can be made simultaneously. 

In a typical response scenario, the Matador jumps in-system first via a pirate point and surveys the setting with it's large sensor array.

The typical next (or simultaneous) jump-in comes from Mothers carrying Taurus I (ASF), Taurus I(Land), Novas, and a Siesta.  The Mothers jump into a random point 15+ AU from the Zenith, Nadir, and primary locations so they are always beyond detection range of even large naval comm scanner suites.  After unpacking (6-12 hours to unpack and then another 6 hours to unload the Ticks and configure for use), the Taurus I ASFs head in-bound lining up a ghost fighter strike next to the primary.  The Matador guides the ghost fighter strike with a typical time on-target of 11-12 days post jump.  As comparators, it's 9.1 days for a 0/0 intercept from the hyperlimit to Earth using 1g acceleration at Sol and invading forces wishing to use a 15+ AU insertion requre ~11 days for a 0/0 intercept at 1g.

A properly executed ghost fighter strike is guided by the Matador, on a target that has been under constant harassment from the Matador for days, with a minute or less of warning, and at a high velocity (4600 kilometers/second ~= 15K hexes/minute), potentially yielding very high damage through both surprised defenses and extra KE damage.  Of course things can go wrong.  Often, the exact location in orbit of an invading fleet may require some last-minute adjustments to the vector, particularly for colonies that have multiple significant locations spread across the globe.  Earth is about 352 space hexes in radius, so mistargeting by an earth radius requires an 11 minute late correction with the warning that implies.  Terminal burn times scale with the sqrt of the distance.

The Siesta meanwhile stays with the Mothers in deep space providing the fuel necessary to charge them for a jump out of the disputed system. 

The Taurus I(Land) and Novas will accelerate for a minimal time 0/0 intercept at the primary, taking about 16-17 days and arriving 5 days after the ghost fighter strike.  If the ghost fighter strike is insufficiently effective, this leaves plenty of time to abort and try again.

When approaching residual enemy forces, the Novas will form the primary wall of battle with the Taurus Is just behind in a position to provide interlocking point defense.  The Matador will not be part of the wall of battle.  Assuming a maximal level C response, 144 ASF, 42 Crestbreaker, and 3 David Marine transports will be arrayed around the Novas providing joint fleet point defense.  216 Skyfall shuttles will be deployed near the Taurus Is until they have a chance to land their 2 regiments.  In total, this provides 5928 MGs for point defense against a single incoming vector.  For missiles striking towards the second tier, more MGs become relevant.

If/when a battle is joined the Novas are an unignorable fighting force and the likely primary target.  The first priority targets are jump capable targets with the most range working down through all jump capable targets and then to parasitic forces (dropships/smallcraft/ASF) if they refuse to surrender.  The wall of battle will typically function on a tactical defensive during combat, trying to keep the range extreme for as long as possible. 

The ASF will defend against missile strikes and seek an opportune moment to release their own missiles, followed up with strikes on exposed structure when they are no longer needed for point defense. The David marine transports will board and secure vessels which surrender while the Matador will harry survivors that flee.

The Skyfall shuttles will land their regiments, possibly via dropchutes as the army dictates, and then return to the Taurus Is to load a second regiment each.  After reloading the Skyfalls from cargo, two more regiments of armor (4 in total) will be landed with the Skyfalls typically staying grounded thereafter to suport rearm and repair of the armor.  Ortillery may be employed in open areas.  For city fighting, a siege and eventual negotiated surrender is a preferred strategy.  Surviving ASF can support ground forces.

The outbound Taurus I (ASF) will add a random component to their vector so it is not easy to predict where they will slow down.  After slowing down, they may return for a 0/0 intercept arriving at jump+38 days (if needed), or return to Diefenbaker if not.

Threat level D: Threat level D corresponds to a determined invasion from a great power that can plausibly be defeated through a maximal response by naval forces as determined by the scoring rubric.

As always a Matador leads the way.  In a threat level D condition, the highest priority is breaking the strategic maneuverability of enemy forces.  This makes enemy jumpships delivering dropships a primary target if they are sighted.  A Matador might for example discover them through it's powerful sensor suite and then make an intrasystem jump to attack an undefendend enemy jumpship fleet.  Because this possibility is preferred to spotting near a planet, both Matadors respond to threat level D events so one can spot and one can hunt jumpships.

The Mothers will first bring in 5 Taurus I(ASF), 2 Taurus I(Land), and a Siesta.  All the Taurus Is will participate in a particularly strong (1014 ASF) ghost fighter strike.

After recharging, the Mothers will jump out and bring in a second wave of Novas for close combat while the Siesta stays in system using it's station keeping drive (.1 g) to travel to another randomly chosen (but pre-arranged) position 15+ AU from the primary, Zenith, and Nadir.

The Taurus Is will slow down while adding a random transverse vector so their turnaround point cannot be plotted effectively.  After slowing down, they'll either:
  • Make another pass 22 days later (33-34 days after initial jump) to soften up an invasion fleet further with another ghostfighter strike.  On the outbound vector, they'll correct to rejoin the Siesta and the incoming Novas.
  • be transported by intrasystem jump to join the Siesta and Novas.

The exact choice depends on the efficacy of the first ghost fighter strike and the timing of the Nova arrival.  Either way, the complete fleet will be assembled.  The Siesta reloads the Taurus I(ASF)s with 5 regiments of armor (54000 tons) and supplies (9000 more tons) stored in cargo. 

The combined fleet (Sans Mothers and Siesta) will move towards a 0/0 solution arriving ~15 days later.  The wall of battle is designed as per threat level C, but much stronger.  8 Novas face the enemy while 7 Taurus Is reinforce to provide interlocking point defense.  All 1014 ASFs (less losses), 132 Crestbreakers point defense shuttles, and 38 David marine transports will be deployed with the Novas.  216 Skyfall shuttles will be deployed near the Taurus Is until they have a chance to land their 2 regiments.  The Matadors will again not join the wall of battle.  Altogether, this is potentially 22018 machine guns capable
of defending against a single incoming missile attack vector.  (OOC: this calculation uses Rager ASFs with 11 MGs/Rager).

Tactics for the fleet elements are similar to the level C scenario with one variation: The David Marine shuttles will attempt to aggressively board enemy warships under the cover of ASF swarming them.

After the battle, the Skyfalls will land an additional 5 regiments of armor (9 in total) in waves of 2 and ASF will begin supporting armor elements.

Some things may go wrong with the plan.  Possibly, enemy warships do not stay put long enough to execute the plan, in which case a counter-invasion is easy.  Possibly enemy forces move on to another TC world, implying a need to transport to another system (likely nearby) and start over. 

Threat level E: Threat level E is an overwhelming threat from a great power, beyond the capability of the Taurian Concordat to hope to counter even with a level D response.

The strategy at level E is to delay and degrade invasion forces buying time for a deep penetration offense to force the invader to sue for peace.
  • The nuclear stockpile will be unlocked and dispersed for active use against military targets.  Civilian targets are still considered illegitimate under threat level E.  Naval Yards are military targets.
  • For a multifront invasion, this implies dispersing the Taurus Is so every front has at least one Taurus I(ASF) executing ghost fighter strikes against invading forces.  ASF losses will be replaced by drawing down (as uniformly as possible) the ASF reserve from hinterland worlds.  Sierra stations will be co-opted to bring spare ASF and missile reserves for ghost fighter strikes.  The Novas will avoid engagement until a time or location where they have a fair chance of success or they are driven back to Taurus itself.
  • Naval yards of opposing forces will be attacked on deep penetration strikes.  4 Mothers (with 3 Taurus I(ASF) and 1 Siesta loaded with capital missiles) and a Matador will be dedicated to this.  The general strategy is to use deep space jumps to position for a modified (nuclear tipped) ghost fighter strike.  The modification is that the Matador will use a stealth approach.  Starting from 15AU away, this implies accelerating inbound for 5.4 days at 1g then accelerating outbound for slightly less time at 1g leaving a closing velocity of 360 hexes/minute.  Then, the Matador runs silent for ~7 days (6.966 to be precise) as it approaches.  A terminal burn of 40 minutes at 4.5g leaves it on a 0/0 solution with only the terminal burn being visible (even with an LNCSS).  Everything here is timed so the fighter arrive at the same time as the 0/0 solution allowing for any requisite terminal burns.  After the ghost fighter strike hits, the Matador will finish off any undefended portions of the naval yard.

    For the Fed Suns, the New Syrtis yard is regarded as insufficiently sized to make the point implying that Delavan is the target, 12 deep space jumps away from Deifenbaker, implying it takes ~198 days to execute and return.  Resistance is expected to be quite heavy given the DC's successful attack on Layover.  Nevertheless, with a heavy attack on the TC as implied by this scenario, presumably few mobile forces will be present.  If sufficient forces survive, they will resupply from the Sierra and try again.

    For the CC, both the Capella and Sarna yards are 8 deep space jumps from Deifenbaker implying about 139 days to approach, execute, and return.  Capella is obviously the more attractive target but the choice will be left up to the commander as will the option of hitting both yards or hitting the same yard again in a second pass.

    Given the long lead times for these attacks, a prearranged code word on a prearranged frequency will abort the attack.  This code word is top secret, known only to the commander and the Protector prior to the departure.  At the Protector's discretion, the code word/frequency will be released to invading forces so the strike can be called off.  Naturally, there are two code words, one of which indicates the deep space raid should be aborted and another which indicates a state of total war.

To assist with threat level E (and F) situations, merchant-based intelligence of potential target yards and sites of economic value will be collected so as to piece together a solid database of potential targets.

Threat level F: Threat level F is total war.  This threat level is only reached if an invading party uses mass casualty weapons, and even then only if the Protector authorizes it.

In a threat level F situation, half of the forces will be used to degrade/delay enemy forces as per threat level E.  The other half will work to inflict maximum economic destruction so as to make the enemy unable to sustain the war.  Possible tactics include:

  • Dispersing the Taurus Is to multiple enemy systems for simultaneous ghostfighter strikes against surface targets.  Since they are at completely predictable locations, no Matador is needed for success.  With reassembly and resupply from the Siesta, 14 economically valuable worlds could each be hit with 174 nuclear capital missiles before running out of supplies.
  • The Matador could go raiding.  Jumping in from a pirate point, it can start using indiscriminate ortillery to wreck the industrial infrastructure on a planet with a couple hours warning, then accelerate outbound doing a high-V jump to repeat the process about once a week.  Catching a Matador is quite difficult so this process could repeat many times.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Trace Coburn on 11 February 2019, 23:41:41
  Honestly, after following this entire game with great interest from the very first, I’m seriously, seriously tempted to take the work I’ve done towards Renegade Tech 2.0 and its WarShip combat systems and use that as the basis for a game similar to this.  I even have tech-tree progressions worked out for the advancement of multiple weapon-types, armour, etc.  I just worry that I’ll run into the same issues that did in Alsadius: time, energy/focus, and striking a balance between fluff and crunch....
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 12 February 2019, 00:44:03
I really enjoyed the ship building exercise this was, with the banter back and forth between us, and plotting with Admiral Steiner to leave each other alone and stomp our other neighbours (though Alsadius screwed that up quite well) while I offloaded my older ships to Maid Marian.
The multiple month wait on the last few turns was painful though.

Would like to know how the davions planned on getting their fleet to Luthien and back with the rather small cargo holds they had, cargo DS help and all but it is a LONG way to Luthien from their border.

Trace Coburn: I would be interested in that, but have nfi how Renegade Tech works
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Trace Coburn on 12 February 2019, 02:30:24
Trace Coburn: I would be interested in that, but have nfi how Renegade Tech works
  Basically you design a ’Ship as normal, then convert it to an RT2 record sheet (I have a procedure for that, with a certain degree of fudge factor, so I can handle that part for anyone who plays).  Manoeuvring is the same as in BT aerospace.  The main change is in attacks: each weapon has a damage ‘template’, and armour and internal structure/SI are represented as blocks of boxes; you roll to attack as normal, but when you roll damage locations, you also roll a centre-point and apply the appropriate template.  Systems are knocked out if a template overlaps their hit-box; in my take on aerospace, you also have threshold crits from hitting armour (hit damage > threshold means a crit roll) or by the template hitting the SI over that system (automatic roll for hitting the SI).

  I’ve attached my converted record-sheet for an Essex-II light cruiser as an example.  G is an NGR mount (triple-NGR20 for the Essex); L is naval lasers (triple Large Laser Cannons); P is an NPPC mount (twin Medium PCs); M is a missile launcher (triple-tube AR10s).  The circles mark the fire-arcs of the turret (matching the hex-sides it can fire through).  Critical hits to weapons mounts knock them out of action for the rest of the battle.
  S is a sensor mount; crits or direct hits knock them out for the rest of the fight.  If you have no sensors left that can see into a given arc, you can’t fire direct-fire weapons into that arc, and missiles would only be able to fire in waypoint/bearing-only mode.
  Damage to a Fusion Room costs you a quarter of your WarShip’s Safe Thrust; destroying the FR cuts Safe Thrust to half; damaging half or more of an FR’s boxes in one hit holds the potential for a Stackpolean Kersplosion that kills the ship outright.
  There are thrusters marked on the sheet as well; hitting one of those increases the Thrust cost of turning the other way by 1.  So does a hit to Avionics.

  Now, I’ve done a bit to simplify the game, borrowing a bit from second-edition Full Thrust.  Turns are now 2 minutes and hexes 72km across.  Direct-fire weapons now attack with a single d6; you need 4+ to hit at Short range, 5+ at Medium, and 6 at Long.
  Point Defence: Gen-1 point defence rolls 1d6 against fighters or missile passing within 1 hex of the parent ship: each PD dice kills 1 missile/fighter on a 5, 1 + reroll on a 6
  Lasers: lose damage-done over range, penetrate poorly, but can shoot down missiles or fighters within Short range (5 = 1 kill, 6 = kill + reroll)
— Terran Space Navy cap-lasers as of 2300: Gen-2 light laser cannon ranges 4/6/8, damage 3/1/1*, Gen-2 medium laser cannon ranges 6/8/10, damage 4/3/1
  Particle Weapons: also lose damage at range; penetrate well at close range, but lose some at longer distances; can’t target missiles or fighters
— (will develop in play) example Gen-1 light particle cannon ranges 4/7/10, damage 8/6/4
  KEWs: don’t lose energy over range and have devastating penetration on their templates, but projectile flight-times make effective ranges horribly short
Gen-1 railguns: ranges 1/2/3 (game start), come in Class 2, 5, 10, 15, 20
— Gen 2: ranges 1/3/5 (will develop in play; canon NACs)
— Gen 3: ranges 3/6/9 (will develop in play; canon NGRs)
— Gen 4: ranges 6/12/18 (will develop in play; canon Mass Drivers)
  Missiles: carry nukes, can make waypoint turns 1 hexside past their base arcs before continuing their attacks, each missile attacks individually with its base Intelligence at all ranges, but missiles can be shot down by lasers or point-defence
— Terran Space Navy cap-missiles as of 2300: Gen-4 capital missile, range 6, Intelligence 5, carries 100kT nuke (8 damage)
  Fighters: mount internal point-defence weapons that can attack other fighters, DropShips, or passing cap-missiles, and can carry short-ranged nuclear torpedoes as external ordnance; any hit from any capital weapon kills a fighter outright
— Terran Space Navy fighters as of 2300: Gen-1 light aerospace fighter (canonical S-2 Star Dagger): 6-ship flight has Thrust 6/9 (8/12 without XO), carries 6 XO missiles (range 3, Intelligence 5, 50kT nuke (4 damage)), has 3 PD dice for anti-missile/anti-fighter work

  I’d give each navy a mix of technologies that I’d like to think would be mostly-fair, yet flavourful.  There would also be ‘hidden’ technologies that I’d unveil during play — for instance, the aerospace fighter and the particle cannon would be as much shocks to the established naval balance as the introduction of Dreadnought herself (with possible exceptions), and represents a new tech-tree of its own.  I’d also try to keep the pace of technological advance fairly brisk; I aim for WarShips to last about 100-120 years (with two or three major refits in that time) before being scrapped as obsolete or worn-out.

  Note for would-be designers: there would be six broad categories of WarShip: small escort (think 100-300 kT), large escort (310-500 kT), light cruiser (510-700 kT), large cruiser (710-1,000 kT), small battleship (1,010-1,400 kT), and large battleship (1,410-2,000 kT).  When designing ships, bear in mind that I’d give escorts a free +1 bonus to their Safe Thrust, while battleships would suffer a -1 penalty.  (Actual class designations in service would be purely political, as they are IRL.)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 12 February 2019, 08:06:30
My god... its the bastard love child of Leviathan, Battletech, and Full Thrust....

(Play all three, love all three, not sure if those streams should be crossed!  But interesting)


Back to Alsadius’ question:

1.)  I think we suffered badly from mission creep.  The simple early turns grew longer and longer.  I loved the writing, but this increased the load on the GM.  It also distanced me and my choices from the outcomes.

2.)  I feel dice mattered too much, and rules changed too freely.  I understand that there is an impetus to avoid min-maxing, and to keep everyone in the game - but by game end I was amusing myself by designing the wackiest of things, secure in the knowledge that most of what mattered was dice, and after that armor and NAC counts.

3.)  I think the inability to force political action or choose battles was a strength.  Sure, the Archon is an idiot - but its fun being ‘just’ the CNO, not an all seeing God-Emperor
M
So, if we do again:
1.)  Limit mission.  And enforce that limit on everyone.
2.)  If it is a design exercise, design should be the most important factor
3.)  Rules need to be consistent.  Fiction amusingly requires more consistency than real life does.
4.)  Side Thought - Maintenance needs to be cataclysimicly higher.  On the order of 50% build cost per turn.  This allows losses and recovery from losses (a Navy takes a long time to build - but not 50 years to rebuild!).  It also encourages turnover. 
It also matches something I read which suggested the life cycle cost of a naval vessel over 20 years is about the same as its build cost
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 12 February 2019, 09:18:44
3.)  I think the inability to force political action or choose battles was a strength.  Sure, the Archon is an idiot - but its fun being ‘just’ the CNO, not an all seeing God-Emperor
M
I'd second this.

I also think that 'narrative' was a fine means (plausibly the only good means) of resolution at this scale. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 12 February 2019, 12:09:19
Trace's post reminds me a bit of Aurora.
That said, it's far enough removed it may as well be an entirely new system. Not sure I like simplification, because it actually changes a lot more.

Regarding the now sadly deceased game:
It was a blast for the little time I was in.
As to the rules, I'd be in favour of establishing a firm framework that everyone can look up and know, because it just doesn't have any loopholes to be exploited by min-maxing.
This would require some minor changes to the base rules of the game, but probably for the better. If, then, half the outcome is roll of the dice and artistic freedom of the Gamemaster, maybe with stratified randomness where a faction that got hit bad the last turns "has learned from past mistakes" and gets limited protection from very bad rolls, the game can still stay balanced.
Of course, this wasn't possible. Only after having this experience have we gathered enough data points to worry about that effectively.

Feedback on how it was done:
I actually thought it great that we didn't have all the choices in hand. We were Naval High Command, and if the Head of State orders an All-Out Assault, we do it. We were also just most of the people in there, and we couldn't simply control all the forces as we saw fit.
I think something that would have helped, long term, is to get a secondary writer to fill out minor events, so that the Game Master, in this case Alsadius, can concentrate on the broad strokes, of how he wants to universe to go on.

Lastly, let me give a flaming plea for complexity: 

... ok, maybe not really. But I'll argue for it.
Basically, I believe that, in a game like this, that is mostly between highly interested parties that are already willing to spend multiple hours a week filling spreadsheets and many more hours debating over it with strangers on the internet, complexity is ok.
And it could be higher than it is now.
Point defense could be a mathematically challenging system of diminishing returns tailor-fit to the game we're having (see the thread about that, and how what we sort of agreed on in the end was focused on making it playable on a real table).
Maintenance could factor in design complexity, logistics, and the bureaucracy of the faction.
Individual weapons could have strengths and weaknesses against specific types of enemies, and every faction could very well have their own fighers, dropships, and favourite grub on board.

"But", I hear you ask, ", ..but why?".
Simple. (No pun intended)
"Complexity" does not mean "complicated". We work with digital tools, and f.Ex. maintenance could very well be calculated for a single ship based on everything that ship is comprised of, then multiplied with the factor for that faction. Indeed, a player could play around with that and see what he/she gets out of their spending, without even grasping the intricate underlying rules.
The base game is a board game, and we run with that, but the background we've built could go deeper. And if well designed, it wouldn't overwhelm the game master.
Of course, this might indeed require additional tools that someone would have to create.
I still intend to try myself at something like that, but it may well be a year until that happens. I plan on spending the next autumn in Asia.

All in all, thank you for both the idea and the organization, Alsadius.

Lastly, a little bit of faction background:
The original FWL plan (not mine) was to boost a yard up to 2 Megatonnes, then create a massive battlecruiser armed largely with NACs and build as many as possibly. Those pesky neighbors wouldn't leave him alone, though.
My idea was, over the course of the next 2 turns, to get IFA and LF-Batteries asap, and then build a new, 1 megaton battlecruiser that would basically be a better heracles - I planned for 3.3 base speed with a mixed armament of N-Gauss, NPPCs, and NLs. They would serve as a highly mobile, highly trained cavalry fleet to be employed where needed, with the base fleet staying the way they are, but uparmoured and augmented by 1.5 mt ships used as anchors in battle.
I even had plans on how to survive the numberless fighters.
I also believe strongly in fluff, and would have ordered a few Heracles to just generally patrol border worlds, including towards the periphery, and I would not have just created massive balls of structure - that little bit of fragility, by now, was actually part of the factions character.
Had I taken over the RWN, as originally planned, I would have for minefields and massive boarding parties.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 12 February 2019, 13:14:52
As to the rules, I'd be in favour of establishing a firm framework that everyone can look up and know, because it just doesn't have any loopholes to be exploited by min-maxing.

In principle I'd want to do that, but the fact that I chose to limit it to canon BT designs made that really hard. You simply cannot come up with a good way to balance the canonical rules without making major changes somewhere. Canon ships are balanced enough when fighting each other, but if you're allowed to customize them, the construction rules are just insanely unbalanced. Missiles cease to exist, capital-scale weapons are a joke compared to standard-scale, NPPCs are trash at anything but extreme ranges, NGauss are trash even at extreme ranges, ASF are grossly overpowered, DS are hilariously overpowered on a tonnage-based system and hilariously underpowered on a cost-based system, and so on, and so forth.

I tried to patch that. But the need to keep patching it, and to make the patches work within both BT and the way people max-minned their designs, was just too much to make it work. This needs a new ground-up combat system, I think, because the existing one just doesn't allow for the 'firm framework" that you're asking for. Or if it is possible, it'd take a better designer than I to make it happen.

That said, I do kind of regret using canon costs. That's more fixable than most, and the C-bill costs were just crazy. I could have balanced that better, if I'd done it up front.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Lagrange on 12 February 2019, 14:00:38
In principle I'd want to do that, but the fact that I chose to limit it to canon BT designs made that really hard. You simply cannot come up with a good way to balance the canonical rules without making major changes somewhere. Canon ships are balanced enough when fighting each other, but if you're allowed to customize them, the construction rules are just insanely unbalanced. Missiles cease to exist, capital-scale weapons are a joke compared to standard-scale, NPPCs are trash at anything but extreme ranges, NGauss are trash even at extreme ranges, ASF are grossly overpowered, DS are hilariously overpowered on a tonnage-based system and hilariously underpowered on a cost-based system, and so on, and so forth.
Patching broken rules is certainly hard. 

This (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=63746.0) was the thread where we tried to figure out a small set of house rules addressing balance issues, partly based on experience here.  Under those rules:


I somewhat disagree w.r.t. Naval Gauss.  The Light Naval Gauss has more range than any weapon except missiles which meant that I thought it would be required on several designs despite the cost and inefficiency.   The Medium N Gauss offers similar damage efficiency to an HNPPC in a high speed engagement friendly package so it has a niche as well.  The Heavy N Gauss is a lemon.   

I also somewhat disagree w.r.t. HNPPCs.  Particularly in a narrative game like this where actual space tactics can be used, you can make a pretty mean fast battleship which keeps the range open and pours in fire from extreme range that cannot be effectively answered.  Note also the Buri, which was the output of an optimization process by marcussmythe.

In any case, having a few lemon weapon lines doesn't really cause a balance issue. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 12 February 2019, 19:05:38
Note also the Buri, which was the output of an optimization process by marcussmythe.

Operational theory behind Buri is that what matters is effective fire (misses do no damage!) and that massed fires and first effective attack is what is decisive.  3/5 NAC can close 2/3 HNPPC, but will take unreturned fire on the way in, and will take accurate fire before it can reply with the same.  Further, 2/3 HNPPC has greater mass fraction for resilience and firepower - between having 20% more mass in weapons and 20% more mass in defenses, the loss in mass efficiency is outweighed by the combination of greater weapons mass, armor mass, and weaopns accuracy (and thus EFFECTIVE damage).

2/3 NAC cannot close 2/3 HNPPC, and 3/5 HNPPC flat loses to 2/3 HNPCC.  4/6 and higher NAC boats give up too much firepower or armor for their speed, and cannot win if teleporting to range 0 (in fact, my calculations had 3/5 NAC having trouble if teleported to range 0, if I recall correctly)

NGauss cannot play the same game (damage efficiency is too poor to save it from the NACboat), but after its invention, a 2/3 HNPPC will have to mount at least enough NGauss to keep another NGauss boat honest.

This is paid for by an ABSOLUTE inability to force or decline engagement, and poorer performance in high speed engagement rules.  Nothing is perfect.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Tyler Jorgensson on 13 February 2019, 05:22:55
As a spectator I want to say bravo to everyone: you guys did an excellent job and I enjoyed both the fluff and the designs you put out for the RP. I wish I had the time/energy/Warship software (aka a pen, paper, and calculator lol) to join.

I don't necessarily think the Ground portion was needed, only maybe a couple of random events based on canon or your method of building that added to your turn. I think the idea of you being Archon/Cordinator/etc would actually make it run smoother: the DM giving the players the total amount for their turn for the entire realm and they deciding what percentage goes into their Naval Budget, and the realm having 'events' according to said budget.

I also think is said scenario one might consider two DM's: to sort of streamline the process to crank out turns faster by splitting the workload. Alsadius you pulled off quite a lot and well done.

Finally I do think that only the five major powers should be contenders with the DM taking control of a TH with maybe a reduced role in overall galaxy wide events: maybe sway the Fiction towards a sixth house instead of the Star Leavue.

Just my two cents: again nicely done everyone.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 13 February 2019, 22:30:50
I would have been the ultimate winner here, sure I played a lemon faction, but I controlled vast more territory than you guys did... I didn't have that many sides to defend either... well I did, they were just on one side...

In other words, I controlled a sweet beauty of a realm that could have been...

TT

(By vast more, I meant planets conquered and controlled... Most of you absorbed yours... ;))
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 15 February 2019, 11:47:25
So, closing question:

Is anyone interested in taking over the GM position?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Trace Coburn on 15 February 2019, 19:52:11
  I’m muddling my way through starting a similar game with a 2300 start-date, but it’s over on SpaceBattles.com.  :-\
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 15 February 2019, 23:20:45
As I said before, I can continue to assist with the spreadsheet and occasional fluff pieces, but lack the time to run the game entirely.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 17 February 2019, 08:02:33
Trace: Mind posting a link? I've definitely got both time and inclination to continue as a player, just not to GM.
EDIT: Found it. https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/rule-the-stars-a-battletech-naval-race.726259/

Also, you PM'd me asking for my notes. I didn't have much that you can use, aside from what's on the master spreadsheet. But the two I did standardize might be of interest to people here, so I'll post them instead of PMing.

Maintenance:
- At 100%, use the dice as rolled.
- From 50-99%, subtract one from the dice for every 10% (or part thereof) below 100% maintenance. Subtract from the higher of crew or command first, then alternate. If both reach 1, subtract from luck. Below 75%, consider mutiny rolls if things go badly.
- From 0-49%, the unit is in reserve. 49% can easily be restored, 10% will take a couple years, and anything lower is likely useful only for parts.
- From 101-150%, add one to the dice for every full 10% above 100%. Add to the lower of crew or command first, then alternate. Add to luck if both reach 10.
- From 151-200%, same as above, except add one for each additional 25% over 150%.
- Over 200%, same as above, except add one for each additional 50% over 200%.

AMS:
Each unit gets a certain number of full-effect AMS. 160 for a WarShip or station, 20 for a DropShip, 4 for a small craft, and 0.5 for an ASF. Divide the total AMS count into a number of groups, each of the given size. Each group is 20% less effective than the previous group.
100% of base value = 100% effective. (E.g., a WarShip with 160 MG has 160 effective MG)
200% of base value = 180% effective.
300% of base value = 244% effective.
500% of base value = 336% effective.
1000% of base value = 446% effective.
Infinite MGs = 500% effective.

As a few examples:
- The Tanto-2(light fighter) and Wakizashi-2(medium fighter) have 4 MG each, which is 2.08 effective MGs. The Cyclone (heavy fighter) has 6 MGs, which is 2.33 effective MGs, so a 50% increase in MG count gave a 12% increase in efective defensive firepower.
- The Fireshield (screen small craft) has 36 MG, which is 17.3 effective MGs.
- The Nova (TC station) has 1000 MG, which is 600.8 effective MGs.

Surprisingly, that's all of my notes, other than keeping a list of which leaders die when in canon, and the stitched-together map which I didn't get a chance to do much with (https://imgur.com/a/21D07ho). (Not sure if you can get the full high-res version off Imgur - PM me if you want an emailed copy)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 17 February 2019, 09:34:11
Looks intriguing, trace, but darn that also looks like work.
I feel like this might die even faster unless there's less happening in total.
I would recommend taking some of the wisdom attained from this game, however. Like higher maintenance and modified construction costs.
F.Ex. heatsinks and fuel might as well be abstracted away, so little do they matter on the larger ships. There's also no real incentive to have reasonable cargo fractions for the most part. Increasing their weight or cost would help make that an actual decision.

As for shipyard upgrades:
I've attached a spreadsheets of suggestions that I would have eventually proposed here. While I don't know your current system well, the second page is basically a re-imagination of the shipyard upgrading process.
While the formula is more complex, every spreadsheet can do it, and such a spreadsheet can be provided.
This essentially allows upgrading the yards in steps of 50k tons, potentially giving people a reason to not only build cookie cutter sized ships.

I might be interested in partaking in that game, and looking at the factions available, I'd probably go for the RWN*. However, I am rather busy until about 10th of March.
*edit: As it's a fun, fluffy faction with little influence on the game come the next 20 turns.

Edit2: @Trace Coburn Guess your roster's full anyways, but a question: If I understood that right, you'd basically need multiple tools now to create a ship? One for the base rules, then another one to set the placement?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Trace Coburn on 19 February 2019, 00:58:24
  Players can submit detailed designs like the spreadsheets deliver, or even HM:A if anyone still runs it (I think I have my install-disc around here somewhere), but honestly, I’m converting these ships by hand and going for ‘best fit/that looks about right/spirit over detail’, so counting every last kilogram is wasted effort.   :-\  Hitting me with a summarised stat-line like “total tonnage, jump-drive, thrust profile, SI, armour type and profile, weapons layout, parasite complement, special notes about intended role and ‘character features’” is a lot easier on everyone involved.  :D
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: UnLimiTeD on 19 February 2019, 05:53:22
Alright.
Just figured, if there was a system involved that would give you even less work. Especially on a theoretical level.
Anyways, let me know if at some point a spot opens.  :)