Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race

[marcussmythe]

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.

[Smegish]

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.

[marcussmythe]

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.

[UnLimiTeD]

What, you can't refit ships? One would assume replacing the armour plating isn't the most difficult task.

[Lagrange]

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. 

[truetanker]

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

[UnLimiTeD]

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...

[Lagrange]

Alsadius, any update on turn completion?  Anything I can help with?

[Alsadius]

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.

[Lagrange]

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...

[marcussmythe]

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.

[Jester Motley]

"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.

[Alsadius]

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?

[marcussmythe]

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!

[truetanker]

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...

[truetanker]

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

[Smegish]

Any chance of an update? even just a Box score of what casualties we suffered...

[Lagrange]

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).

[Alsadius]

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.

[UnLimiTeD]

Maybe do that for a future turn, then?
No point to fret now.  8)

[Alsadius]

Okay, I've written up the first battle. It's been added to the post above. 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).

[marcussmythe]

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.

[truetanker]

I wonder if I could pay for " Exploration " or do I have to run the gauntlet of micro invasions?

TT

[Alsadius]

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?".

[UnLimiTeD]

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?

[marcussmythe]

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. 

[Lagrange]

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)?

[Smegish]

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.

[marcussmythe]

-deleted-

[Lagrange]

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.