Fixing the fleets, or why having real fleets would not hurt the game

[Cannonshop]

And have been able to do so since at least the Battlespace rule set.  Not sure about any older rule sets. So it's not like it is a recent rule change but it does seem to be easily forgotten in these discussions.

The trouble is this paradigm makes me feel like Warships are even more paper tigers/white elephants than they are now.  Add in as mentioned it doesn't remove the possibility of orbital bombardment and it just needs a lot more work to me.

you've got to balance needs here.  It doesn't eliminate the usage of Orbom, whether by dropships or warships, it just means that it's a tactic that you hold in reserve for missions that really NEED Orbom, or (if you're Smoke Jaguar, Mongolly Malvina, or completely insane) places where you're going to stay that need lots of terrain renovation to get that hi-rad glow.

IOW, what I described is how a WISE commander would use them, there's plenty of room for commanders that are Stupid, wasteful, or insane (or desperate to the point of becoming one of those three.)

essentially it still gives you the space superiority role, and a hell of a threat to brandish, but with reasonable drawbacks that prevent it from becoming THE go-to solution to all problems.  a Warship is still damned dangerous, but moves like bringing it in close to a gravity well are marks of significance-the target is too valuable, or too important, or the battle is too desperate, large, or critical to NOT use the biggest gun you have.

and it's a viable gun.  just that...if you happen to lose and need to leave, your naval unit's not going to be defending a territory or a point, it's going to be trying to defend itself while making repairs.

Unless, of course, the commander is clinically insane, desperate, or ignorant (hello Lyran Commonwealth Naval) enough to try to jump with a bad controller.  (LCS Invincible anyone?) in which case he can try a jump after close bombardment with a de-calibrated drive controller.  (Who knows, he might survive?)

The limit also explains why commercial traffic went with a tractor-trailer layout rather than the box vans they started with...and a warship blockade of stable points isn't something to sneeze at in terms of commercial impact to an interstellar civilization, and warships can DO the stable points while having enough thrust to actually make a play at controlling them.

[The_Caveman]

All this Warship chatter does not alter the fact that Dropships can mount Capital Missile launchers and some of the SubCapital guns are also capable of orbital bombardment.

But a lot, LOT less of it. Only the puniest subcapital weapons can penetrate an atmosphere and their numbers are inherently limited by the space limits and more compact firing arcs of DropShips, while capital missiles are just too heavy for all but the biggest DropShips to mount en masse. Not to mention missiles can be shot down. When it comes to ground attack, a Titan is scarier than a Castrum because of all the bombs its fighters can haul.

And of course, the biggest, scariest DropShip is only as tough as the fragile JumpShip that hauls it around.

[Alexander Knight]

But a lot, LOT less of it. Only the puniest subcapital weapons can penetrate an atmosphere and their numbers are inherently limited by the space limits and more compact firing arcs of DropShips, while capital missiles are just too heavy for all but the biggest DropShips to mount en masse. Not to mention missiles can be shot down. When it comes to ground attack, a Titan is scarier than a Castrum because of all the bombs its fighters can haul.

And of course, the biggest, scariest DropShip is only as tough as the fragile JumpShip that hauls it around.

But there are inevitably a LOT MORE Dropships than there are Warships.  If the choice is between 1 Warship with 10 missile tubes and 10 dropships each with 1 tube (for example)....I don't think the ground forces are going to care which is which.

[truetanker]

We can still have Warship fleets, even with PWS...

It's not hard, I've even wrote to Herb way long time ago, about Omni-Warships.

He said " Hell No's! " many times... then he was dropped as Lead and well... kinda fell off as he was passed by... said same thing to Randall... never got a proper answer... last few years went to Brent... still waiting for his answer since last year. He might have forgotten, busy man and all...

Ray? Please check your PM's from last year from me... pretty sure a quick search would find my proposal...

In conclusion, an Omni-Warship is just like the Aurora Dropship, but on a Jumper using Sub-Class weapons...

Keeps Warships around, not a true conversion, but it's MY IDEA...

Simple Jumper frame, add armor and the Sub-Class weapons, some cargo and a few collars to carry party poppers...

TT

[The_Caveman]

But there are inevitably a LOT MORE Dropships than there are Warships.  If the choice is between 1 Warship with 10 missile tubes and 10 dropships each with 1 tube (for example)....I don't think the ground forces are going to care which is which.

True, but if DropShips start being used this way, it just invites JumpShips becoming targets again. And if STO weaponry is a problem for WarShips, it's a straight-up death sentence for DropShips, which have to get closer to the surface and can't withstand nearly as much damage. A heavy NGauss will punch a hole straight through a Union.

[monbvol]

True, but if DropShips start being used this way, it just invites JumpShips becoming targets again. And if STO weaponry is a problem for WarShips, it's a straight-up death sentence for DropShips, which have to get closer to the surface and can't withstand nearly as much damage. A heavy NGauss will punch a hole straight through a Union.

So set a delay on the Capital Missile's engine ignition and kick it out from outside threat range.  There's already rules support for such a tactic.

[The_Caveman]

So set a delay on the Capital Missile's engine ignition and kick it out from outside threat range.  There's already rules support for such a tactic.

Can't be used that way for orbital bombardment. Bearings-only launches can only target large spacecraft.

[monbvol]

Can't be used that way for orbital bombardment. Bearings-only launches can only target large spacecraft.

I see no actual prohibition about using bearings only for orbital bombardment in the rules.  Even if I lose accuracy I can make up for it.

[The_Caveman]

The rules only mention Large Craft and (I missed it on my first read) Small Craft as valid targets. Unless a clarification is issued, I see no reason to assume any other targets are permissible.

[dgorsman]

Seems reasonable enough for house rule.  And it's not really breaking anything, it's only 4 capital points at most for the KW.  Not like 10s of points for most WarShip bays.

[Liam's Ghost]

I feel like if a ship can bearing-only launch missiles at a planet, the planet should also be able to bearing-only launch missiles at a ship.

And a planet has a lot more room for missiles.

[Maingunnery]

Asset Management Weapon (IO, p176)

[monbvol]

The rules only mention Large Craft and (I missed it on my first read) Small Craft as valid targets. Unless a clarification is issued, I see no reason to assume any other targets are permissible.

Possible that it is prohibited by not being mentioned as a valid target option but that'd be weird.

Physics does not bode well for the planet in this equation since it moves in an entirely predictable path while a ship can alter it's path.

So I can't see how you can set a delay and still have a viable chance to hit a ship that can radically change it's vectors but not do the same with a planet.

I can accept that any pretense of accuracy on the ground map goes out the window though.

I feel like if a ship can bearing-only launch missiles at a planet, the planet should also be able to bearing-only launch missiles at a ship.

And a planet has a lot more room for missiles.

I suppose if you strapped boosters to a Capital Missile that could work.  Otherwise the gravity and size of a planet would cause problems when setting a delay on the engine as that'd be a really good way to cause the missile to crash back down into the ground without doing anything otherwise.

Asset Management Weapon (IO, p176)

A really good way to compensate for the lack of accuracy that such a tactic as I'm suggesting would have.

[Robroy]

Wasn't there a deep Periphery realm/planet that had capital missiles set up planet side as an SDS?

[Liam's Ghost]

I suppose if you strapped boosters to a Capital Missile that could work.  Otherwise the gravity and size of a planet would cause problems when setting a delay on the engine as that'd be a really good way to cause the missile to crash back down into the ground without doing anything otherwise.

I tend to assume boosters by default for ground based missile systems (mostly because tele-operated missiles start with full fuel tanks when they make it to the space map), however a small missile equipped station is also surprisingly cheap to produce.

EDIT: On a related note, Tele-operated missiles start with full fuel tanks and aren't limited to the normal range limits, so there you go.

Wasn't there a deep Periphery realm/planet that had capital missiles set up planet side as an SDS?

Canonically, the Alexandrian Covenant is able to maintain ground based missile batteries despite their general technological decline. The planet of New Sierra (I think) was also surrounded by automated, nuclear equipped orbital defense satellites, though no rules were published for those that I know of.

As another defense option that exists in fluff but not in rules, the old Star League book mentions "sleeper missiles" used to mine a jump point. They appeared to just be capital missiles on standby. While parking them at a jump point wouldn't work long term, you could presumably have clouds of them set up in orbit of a planet waiting to be activated.

But again, there's no canon rules for it.

[monbvol]

I tend to assume boosters by default for ground based missile systems (mostly because tele-operated missiles start with full fuel tanks when they make it to the space map), however a small missile equipped station is also surprisingly cheap to produce.

EDIT: On a related note, Tele-operated missiles start with full fuel tanks and aren't limited to the normal range limits, so there you go.

Canonically, the Alexandrian Covenant is able to maintain ground based missile batteries despite their general technological decline. The planet of New Sierra (I think) was also surrounded by automated, nuclear equipped orbital defense satellites, though no rules were published for those that I know of.

As another defense option that exists in fluff but not in rules, the old Star League book mentions "sleeper missiles" used to mine a jump point. They appeared to just be capital missiles on standby. While parking them at a jump point wouldn't work long term, you could presumably have clouds of them set up in orbit of a planet waiting to be activated.

But again, there's no canon rules for it.

Fair enough that seems to be the case at least for tele-operated missiles.  Regular versions though I'm not sure why you couldn't get more range by attaching boosters.  Or what is stopping a ship from using a version that attaches boosters.

Using low-close enough to no gravity asteroids, moons, and what not could certainly help too but again the physics of the situation will still realistically favor the attacker.

As for canon space defenses in the Periphery while I'm not aware of anything being explicitly stated about what the SASF bases around Taurus were actually equipped with it does seem likely some of them were armed with Capital Missile Launchers.

[Robroy]

The Alexandrian Covenant was the one I was thinking about. Seems that could be a  defence that would become a pain for an attacker. Half a dozen concealed silos in a battery that no one sees till they launch. By the time an attacker targets them the tubes are empty and another battery opens fire.

[idea weenie]

Pity changing the speed of WarShips would completely invalidate the construction rules. There's really no reason for them to be as fast as DropShips and it would solve some problems if it were possible to outrun them.

Warships have 45.25% of their hull mass taken up by the KF core.  Dropships don't have that problem, so they can be much faster.  This is in spite of Dropships needing 6.5% hull mass per thrust point, while Warships only need 6% hull mass per Thrust point.


For giving missiles greater range, you could just have the planet launch swarms of small craft or ASF, whose only purpose is to have enough cargo space for a single Capital Missile.  This would give the planet a strategic missile range greater than a  Warship's, at the cost of extra tonnage.  Warships have to measure tonnage carefully, but are nimble.  Planets aren't nimble, but have plenty of tonnage for storing stuff.  Capital Missiles would have to be expensive enough that using them on Dropships would be expensive overkill.

[The_Caveman]

Warships have 45.25% of their hull mass taken up by the KF core.  Dropships don't have that problem, so they can be much faster.  This is in spite of Dropships needing 6.5% hull mass per thrust point, while Warships only need 6% hull mass per Thrust point.

But anything other than an assault DropShip, which is a waste of a precious docking hardpoint, is mostly cargo by weight in canon and only a couple designs are signifcantly faster than typical WarShips. I'm not interested in min/max custom designs to exploit rule edge cases.