Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race

[marcussmythe]

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.

[Alsadius]

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.

[Lagrange]

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.

[marcussmythe]

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.

[Smegish]

How about standard bays to sleep in, with a shedload of grav decks to train/exercise in?

[truetanker]

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

[Lagrange]

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.

[marcussmythe]

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.

[Lagrange]

Also, I found this 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.

[UnLimiTeD]

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. 

[Alsadius]

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.

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 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.

[marcussmythe]

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


[Lagrange]

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. 

[Lagrange]

...

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. 

[marcussmythe]

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?

[marcussmythe]

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.

[Lagrange]

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 :)

[truetanker]

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.

[Lagrange]

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. 

[Smegish]

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.

[Alsadius]

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 - 30t, 9/14, 125 armor, SRM-6, 4x MG
Medium Fighter: Wakizashi-2 - 50t, 7/11, 170 armor, AC/5, 2x SRM-6, 4x MG
Heavy Fighter: Cyclone - 80t, 6/9, 241 armor, 2x AC/5, 2x SRM-6, SRM-4, 6x MG

Shuttle: Centauro-150 - 150t, 6/9, 516 armor, 6x MG, 3x Inf, 9t cargo
Screen SC: Fireshield - 200t, 5/8, 952 armor, 36x MG, 2t cargo
Tank Transport SC: Skyfall - 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 - 5000t, 3/5, 1015 armor, 6x LRM-20, 42x MG, 18x heavy tank, 305t cargo
Carrier Small DS: Carrier - 5000t, 3/5, 1015 armor, 6x LRM-20, 42x MG, 12x ASF, 1263t cargo
Cargo Small DS: Cargo - 5000t, 3/5, 684 armor, 3x LRM-20, 18x MG, 3383t cargo
Small Pocket WarShip: Rainbow - 5000t, 4/6, 1370 armor, 4x Barracuda, 18x AC/5, 46x MG, 6x ASF, 365t cargo

[marcussmythe]

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?

[UnLimiTeD]

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.

[Alsadius]

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.

[marcussmythe]

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.  :)

[truetanker]

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

[Lagrange]

.. 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. 

[marcussmythe]

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.

[marcussmythe]

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.

[UnLimiTeD]

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.