Author Topic: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race  (Read 190244 times)

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #180 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.

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7155
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #181 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.
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

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

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #182 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'.

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #183 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.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #184 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.

Smegish

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 445
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #185 on: 14 June 2018, 14:51:22 »
I also added the Free-SI armour

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #186 on: 14 June 2018, 14:52:15 »
Make my life easy, why don't you? Monsters  ;)

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7155
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #187 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


« Last Edit: 14 June 2018, 17:53:06 by Maingunnery »
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

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

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #188 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.
« Last Edit: 14 June 2018, 16:11:57 by Alsadius »

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7155
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #189 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.
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

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

truetanker

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9901
  • Clan Hells Horses 666th Mech. Assualt Cluster
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #190 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?
« Last Edit: 14 June 2018, 20:00:11 by truetanker »
Khan, Clan Iron Dolphin
Azeroth Pocketverse
That is, if true tanker doesn't beat me to it. He makes truly evil units.Col.Hengist on 31 May 2013
TT, we know you are the master of nasty  O0 ~ Fletch on 22 June 2013
If I'm attacking you, conventional wisom says to bring 3x your force.  I want extra insurance, so I'll bring 4 for every 1 of what you have :D ~ Tai Dai Cultist on 21 April 2016
Me: Would you rather fight my Epithymía Thanátou from the Whispers of Blake?
Nav_Alpha: That THING... that is horrid
~ Nav_Alpha on 10 October 2016

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #191 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.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #192 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?
« Last Edit: 14 June 2018, 19:50:09 by marcussmythe »

truetanker

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9901
  • Clan Hells Horses 666th Mech. Assualt Cluster
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #193 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
Khan, Clan Iron Dolphin
Azeroth Pocketverse
That is, if true tanker doesn't beat me to it. He makes truly evil units.Col.Hengist on 31 May 2013
TT, we know you are the master of nasty  O0 ~ Fletch on 22 June 2013
If I'm attacking you, conventional wisom says to bring 3x your force.  I want extra insurance, so I'll bring 4 for every 1 of what you have :D ~ Tai Dai Cultist on 21 April 2016
Me: Would you rather fight my Epithymía Thanátou from the Whispers of Blake?
Nav_Alpha: That THING... that is horrid
~ Nav_Alpha on 10 October 2016

Smegish

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 445
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #194 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.

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #195 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.
« Last Edit: 15 June 2018, 11:48:20 by Alsadius »

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #196 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?

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #197 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.
« Last Edit: 15 June 2018, 12:29:00 by Alsadius »

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #198 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.

Starfox1701

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 521
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #199 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.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #200 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.

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #201 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.

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, 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.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #202 on: 15 June 2018, 13:50:37 »
Ooh, excellent article. I found it online.

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, 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.

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7155
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #203 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:
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

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

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #204 on: 15 June 2018, 14:41:26 »
That failure was one of the motivations for this post, 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.

truetanker

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9901
  • Clan Hells Horses 666th Mech. Assualt Cluster
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #205 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
Khan, Clan Iron Dolphin
Azeroth Pocketverse
That is, if true tanker doesn't beat me to it. He makes truly evil units.Col.Hengist on 31 May 2013
TT, we know you are the master of nasty  O0 ~ Fletch on 22 June 2013
If I'm attacking you, conventional wisom says to bring 3x your force.  I want extra insurance, so I'll bring 4 for every 1 of what you have :D ~ Tai Dai Cultist on 21 April 2016
Me: Would you rather fight my Epithymía Thanátou from the Whispers of Blake?
Nav_Alpha: That THING... that is horrid
~ Nav_Alpha on 10 October 2016

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #206 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.

truetanker

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9901
  • Clan Hells Horses 666th Mech. Assualt Cluster
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #207 on: 15 June 2018, 15:00:09 »
So no to Macross Missile Spams?

 :'(

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

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #208 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. :)

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #209 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

 

Register