Author Topic: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race  (Read 195647 times)

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1350 on: 23 November 2018, 13:09:04 »
In light of the past recalculation of how much money I actually have, and given the fact I'm actually here now, I'll redo my turn this evening to do those facts justice, preferably before the turn actually concludes.
It'll stay largely the same, though.
I think I'll do less new hulls and/or refits, however, as my remaining budget is high enough I might as well get another yard upgrade in.

Edit:
Like this:
Code: [Select]
Budget:                                   107
Repairs                                    -4
Maintenance (100%)                     -23.76
R&D, Heracles Block II Class BC         -4.16
Refit, 17 Heracles-> Heracles Block II     -0
Production, Heracles Block II x 4      -33.28
Research, 2/5/3                           -10
Irian Upgrade, 1->2                       -10
Atreus Upgrade, 3->4                       -20
Jumpship x 2                               -1
Remainder:                              0.8
While I planned to not refit all ships, the longer I look at it the more they don't get any younger.  Additional Strategy:
  • As a directive, the yards involved in the refits should at least have the next and previous ship on standby. I expect 2 combat ready warships in service in every yard system, so as to provide at least a modicum of defense in case of a surprise attack. While I see the appeal of keeping a fleet together, I feel it is sufficient to split it into 4 battlegroups, with 2 on the borders and the rest on the yard worlds until sufficient ships have been build (which won't happen this turn) to move further ships outwards.
  • Outside of defending yard systems or region capitals, the fleets are meant to utilize defence in depth to minimize losses wherever possible. Due to the current reconfiguration, incursions into enemy territory will be limited to 30 LY, unless ordered otherwise by high command, and offensive operations on the new or refit ships will carry only one dropship.
  • In case of invasions, Warships are intended to establish space superiority first, then jump back with 1-2 ships or a jumpship to call in ground troops. When jumping into pacified or controlled territory, Block II ships are cleared for carrying an additional supply- or troopship in the repair bay.
These directives, wherever they might diverge from existing doctrine, may come into play sometime during the turn, so any actions or happenings already written won't have been influenced by them.
« Last Edit: 23 November 2018, 17:57:07 by UnLimiTeD »
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

Smegish

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 447
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1351 on: 23 November 2018, 19:11:27 »
Not sure if I'm going to need to start a WSAR thread in the Mechs section of this forum for this or not, but here it is anyway.

And here we have the brand new weapon for the DCMS: The Wyrm-01!

Based on a 90-ton frame, wrapped in 18.5 tons of the finest armour available, the Wyrm is able to keep pace with the heavy armour used in the DCMS while battering its foes with its newly developed Binary Laser Cannon and large missile rack. Twin medium lasers provide backup at close range and the flamer on the left arm will keep those pesky PBIs at bay. While the heat sinks are sufficient to handle the main gun, care should be given to not overload the cooling system with too much fire too quickly. Design work on a smaller, faster mech to support the lighter armoured units is under development.

Code: [Select]
Wyrm WY-01

Mass: 90 tons
Tech Base: Inner Sphere (Primitive)
Chassis Config: Biped
Rules Level: Era Specific
Era: Clan Invasion
Tech Rating/Era Availability: D/X-X-F-A
Production Year: 2420
Cost: 8,657,730 C-Bills
Battle Value: 1,413

Chassis: Unknown Primitive Structure
Power Plant: Unknown 325 Primitive Fusion Engine
Walking Speed: 32.4 km/h
Maximum Speed: 54.0 km/h
Jump Jets: None
    Jump Capacity: 0 meters
Armor: Unknown Primitive
Armament:
    1  Binary Laser Cannon
    1  LRM-15
    2  Medium Lasers
    1  Flamer
Manufacturer: Unknown
    Primary Factory: Unknown
Communications System: Unknown
Targeting and Tracking System: Unknown

================================================================================
Equipment           Type                         Rating                   Mass 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Structure: Primitive Structure          138 points                9.00
Engine:             Primitive Fusion Engine      325                      23.50
    Walking MP: 3
    Running MP: 5
    Jumping MP: 0
Heat Sinks:         Single Heat Sink             18                        8.00
    Heat Sink Locations: 3 RT, 1 LL, 1 RL
Gyro:               Standard                                               4.00
Cockpit:            Primitive                                              5.00
    Actuators:      L: SH+UA+LA+H    R: SH+UA+LA
Armor:              Primitive                    AV - 198                 18.50

                                                      Internal       Armor     
                                                      Structure      Factor     
                                                Head     3            9         
                                        Center Torso     29           29       
                                 Center Torso (rear)                  8         
                                           L/R Torso     19           26       
                                    L/R Torso (rear)                  7         
                                             L/R Arm     15           19       
                                             L/R Leg     19           24       

================================================================================
Equipment                                 Location    Heat    Critical    Mass 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Medium Lasers                              CT        6         2         2.00
LRM-15                                       LT        5         3         7.00
Binary Laser Cannon                          RA        16        4         9.00
Flamer                                       LA        3         1         1.00
@LRM-15 (24)                                 LT        -         3         3.00
                                            Free Critical Slots: 30

BattleForce Statistics
MV      S (+0)  M (+2)  L (+4)  E (+6)   Wt.   Ov   Armor:      7    Points: 14
3          2       2       1       0      4     2   Structure:  7
Special Abilities: SRCH, ES, SEAL, SOA, IF 1


Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1352 on: 24 November 2018, 21:33:15 »
An update: The turn is flowing out of my brain and onto the page very well, but I started fairly recently because of all the auxiliary stuff I was fixing up(and my house being chaotic with a broken dryer for the last week), so right now I only have 4/10 events written. Tomorrow is also quite busy for me, so it'll be tough to finish even with my current good pace. A full turn being done this weekend is unlikely, but a half-turn is fairly likely.

Ironically, I'm stepping away from ridiculous epic sci-fi space combat because of more ridiculous epic sci-fi space combat - I'm hosting a Twilight Imperium game.

My intuition is coming from SO 134-135 and SO 88 which (roughly) say that:
(snip)
pirate points are non-viable for routine commercial travel but they are an acceptable risk for many military operations.

Seems reasonable. I think I've made it a touch harder than that in practice, but it still happens sometimes.

As for why I feared Naval transport would replace Army - my assumption was the Army figured out how much force they needed, and assigned transport to fit.  If your saying that transport is the only limit on force application, then that changes the approach to building troop carriage.

Depends on the task, I suppose. If they're just hitting one planet, then they won't bring 50 regiments just for the heck of it. But if there's 50 regiments of transport capacity available, then they're a lot more likely to come up with an ops plan that requires 50 regiments than an ops plan that only needs 5. There's always something for more force to do, and transportation imposes a very tight limit on ops, especially in this era.

In light of the past recalculation of how much money I actually have, and given the fact I'm actually here now, I'll redo my turn this evening to do those facts justice, preferably before the turn actually concludes.
It'll stay largely the same, though.
I think I'll do less new hulls and/or refits, however, as my remaining budget is high enough I might as well get another yard upgrade in.

Edit:
Like this:
Code: [Select]
Budget:                                   107
Repairs                                    -4
Maintenance (100%)                     -23.76
R&D, Heracles Block II Class BC         -4.16
Refit, 17 Heracles-> Heracles Block II     -0
Production, Heracles Block II x 4      -33.28
Research, 2/5/3                           -10
Irian Upgrade, 1->2                       -10
Atreus Upgrade, 3->4                       -20
Jumpship x 2                               -1
Remainder:                              0.8
While I planned to not refit all ships, the longer I look at it the more they don't get any younger.  Additional Strategy:
  • As a directive, the yards involved in the refits should at least have the next and previous ship on standby. I expect 2 combat ready warships in service in every yard system, so as to provide at least a modicum of defense in case of a surprise attack. While I see the appeal of keeping a fleet together, I feel it is sufficient to split it into 4 battlegroups, with 2 on the borders and the rest on the yard worlds until sufficient ships have been build (which won't happen this turn) to move further ships outwards.
  • Outside of defending yard systems or region capitals, the fleets are meant to utilize defence in depth to minimize losses wherever possible. Due to the current reconfiguration, incursions into enemy territory will be limited to 30 LY, unless ordered otherwise by high command, and offensive operations on the new or refit ships will carry only one dropship.
  • In case of invasions, Warships are intended to establish space superiority first, then jump back with 1-2 ships or a jumpship to call in ground troops. When jumping into pacified or controlled territory, Block II ships are cleared for carrying an additional supply- or troopship in the repair bay.
These directives, wherever they might diverge from existing doctrine, may come into play sometime during the turn, so any actions or happenings already written won't have been influenced by them.

Noted. I'll change things accordingly.

Not sure if I'm going to need to start a WSAR thread in the Mechs section of this forum for this or not, but here it is anyway.

And here we have the brand new weapon for the DCMS: The Wyrm-01!

Based on a 90-ton frame, wrapped in 18.5 tons of the finest armour available, the Wyrm is able to keep pace with the heavy armour used in the DCMS while battering its foes with its newly developed Binary Laser Cannon and large missile rack. Twin medium lasers provide backup at close range and the flamer on the left arm will keep those pesky PBIs at bay. While the heat sinks are sufficient to handle the main gun, care should be given to not overload the cooling system with too much fire too quickly. Design work on a smaller, faster mech to support the lighter armoured units is under development.

Code: [Select]
Wyrm WY-01

Mass: 90 tons
Tech Base: Inner Sphere (Primitive)
Chassis Config: Biped
Rules Level: Era Specific
Era: Clan Invasion
Tech Rating/Era Availability: D/X-X-F-A
Production Year: 2420
Cost: 8,657,730 C-Bills
Battle Value: 1,413

Chassis: Unknown Primitive Structure
Power Plant: Unknown 325 Primitive Fusion Engine
Walking Speed: 32.4 km/h
Maximum Speed: 54.0 km/h
Jump Jets: None
    Jump Capacity: 0 meters
Armor: Unknown Primitive
Armament:
    1  Binary Laser Cannon
    1  LRM-15
    2  Medium Lasers
    1  Flamer
Manufacturer: Unknown
    Primary Factory: Unknown
Communications System: Unknown
Targeting and Tracking System: Unknown

================================================================================
Equipment           Type                         Rating                   Mass 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Structure: Primitive Structure          138 points                9.00
Engine:             Primitive Fusion Engine      325                      23.50
    Walking MP: 3
    Running MP: 5
    Jumping MP: 0
Heat Sinks:         Single Heat Sink             18                        8.00
    Heat Sink Locations: 3 RT, 1 LL, 1 RL
Gyro:               Standard                                               4.00
Cockpit:            Primitive                                              5.00
    Actuators:      L: SH+UA+LA+H    R: SH+UA+LA
Armor:              Primitive                    AV - 198                 18.50

                                                      Internal       Armor     
                                                      Structure      Factor     
                                                Head     3            9         
                                        Center Torso     29           29       
                                 Center Torso (rear)                  8         
                                           L/R Torso     19           26       
                                    L/R Torso (rear)                  7         
                                             L/R Arm     15           19       
                                             L/R Leg     19           24       

================================================================================
Equipment                                 Location    Heat    Critical    Mass 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Medium Lasers                              CT        6         2         2.00
LRM-15                                       LT        5         3         7.00
Binary Laser Cannon                          RA        16        4         9.00
Flamer                                       LA        3         1         1.00
@LRM-15 (24)                                 LT        -         3         3.00
                                            Free Critical Slots: 30

BattleForce Statistics
MV      S (+0)  M (+2)  L (+4)  E (+6)   Wt.   Ov   Armor:      7    Points: 14
3          2       2       1       0      4     2   Structure:  7
Special Abilities: SRCH, ES, SEAL, SOA, IF 1


Very cool. Seems fitting in many ways, too - I love what you did with the Blazer.
« Last Edit: 25 November 2018, 06:40:56 by Alsadius »

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1353 on: 25 November 2018, 07:23:09 »
You know, it occurs to me that, had the Blazer been developed and utilized early and in that way, it could have indeed been one of the premier weapons for a time.
It is  a light weight headcapper that offers bracket firing with a lot of smaller energy weapons close in.
A lot of weapons are really not used because.... they are not used. Those would actually make good warship weapons, right? Decent damage, acceptable range, and we aren't any short on heat sinks.
... Though isn't it kinda odd we have primitive armour on the ground, yet FA in space?^^ 

Speaking of tech progression, why not just nominally make turns longer, as fits the story? Between 10 and 20 years?
Then the faster tech progression makes more sense.
« Last Edit: 25 November 2018, 09:43:31 by UnLimiTeD »
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1354 on: 25 November 2018, 10:58:34 »
A half turn, with 5/10 events, would still be appreciated.

Lagrange

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1419
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1355 on: 26 November 2018, 09:03:33 »
I'm considering some reallocation of transport space given now-specified army overheads and standardized units and realized I have a couple refit questions.

I've been assuming that refits require yardspace even with units (such as space stations) which do not require yardspace to build.  Is that correct?

What about particularly minor refits?  Does a change in the allocation of transport bays require yardspace and full price?  At least in fluff it's common and easy to do conversions amongst transport bays (cargo -> steerage quarters, 2 light vehicles -> heavy vehicle, infantry -> battle armor).

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1356 on: 26 November 2018, 09:32:19 »
My understanding is only warships require yards for refit.  This follows, as stations do not require a shipyard to build, and are usually built in place, far from shipyards.

Lagrange

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1419
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1357 on: 26 November 2018, 10:30:11 »
My understanding is only warships require yards for refit.  This follows, as stations do not require a shipyard to build, and are usually built in place, far from shipyards.
I can see this going either way myself.  On the "refit without yardspace" side, you are paying an exorbitant x5 for space stations rather than x2 or x1.25 for units needing a yard.  Against, a refit is more intricate than "insert tong A into groove B" for final assembly.

Related to this, it would make some sense if we could build space stations in a yard with an x2 multiplier, but I'm not expecting that.

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1358 on: 26 November 2018, 18:07:08 »
Given that refits are free if the new unit is cheaper than the old (see Heracles Block II xp), changing around cargo bays will probably not incur any significant costs, either.
Actually, we should probably have the option of scrapping ships for a minor gain.
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

Lagrange

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1419
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1359 on: 26 November 2018, 18:13:39 »
Given that refits are free if the new unit is cheaper than the old (see Heracles Block II xp), changing around cargo bays will probably not incur any significant costs, either.
Actually, we should probably have the option of scrapping ships for a minor gain.
Some of us lack a nigh-unlimited number of yards and a nigh-unlimited budget for prototypes...

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1360 on: 26 November 2018, 20:53:04 »
 ;D
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1361 on: 26 November 2018, 21:02:26 »
I'm working on a mapping solution, because I couldn't find one pre-made. I've taken canon maps that were on Sarna and stitched them together into a full Inner Sphere map. I haven't modded this at all to track what happened in game, and the era on this is wrong as well(this is a 2596 map, which is after the UHC-FS merger and the Reunification War). I'm posting it now as a reference, but after finishing the turn I'm going to go update and annotate it for our game. Because of forum file size limits I can't post it here, but I'll probably make an Imgur thread for posting it once I'm done the modifications.

You know, it occurs to me that, had the Blazer been developed and utilized early and in that way, it could have indeed been one of the premier weapons for a time.
It is  a light weight headcapper that offers bracket firing with a lot of smaller energy weapons close in.
A lot of weapons are really not used because.... they are not used. Those would actually make good warship weapons, right? Decent damage, acceptable range, and we aren't any short on heat sinks.
... Though isn't it kinda odd we have primitive armour on the ground, yet FA in space?^^ 

Speaking of tech progression, why not just nominally make turns longer, as fits the story? Between 10 and 20 years?
Then the faster tech progression makes more sense.

The Blazer is a victim of the fact that BT started in 3025. In that era, it's pretty bad. But if you start from a lower tech level, a lot of primitive stuff starts looking good for some period of time. The fact that it's worthwhile on WarShips is exactly why I added it to the tech list - a Blazer with full HS is 25 tons, which does the same damage as a LRM-20 that's 16 tons with HS(but no ammo). 54 rounds per LRM-20 mount gives you the same damage and mass, and most people are using about that much. The LRM has better range, while the Blazer does better against heavy armour and doesn't have ammo dependance. Plus, the HS can be used to fire more capital weapons if there's no fighters around. It's actually viable, I think.

Re primitive armor and ferro-aluminum, well...yeah, you're right. But it's a naval game, so I'll accept fighters being a bit too good. The names just bugged me too much.

Re turn length, nope. Handwave handwave "golden age" handwave. Writing 10 things a turn is already a ton of work.

A half turn, with 5/10 events, would still be appreciated.

Clearly this didn't happen on the original schedule, but I'm working on it.

I'm considering some reallocation of transport space given now-specified army overheads and standardized units and realized I have a couple refit questions.

I've been assuming that refits require yardspace even with units (such as space stations) which do not require yardspace to build.  Is that correct?

What about particularly minor refits?  Does a change in the allocation of transport bays require yardspace and full price?  At least in fluff it's common and easy to do conversions amongst transport bays (cargo -> steerage quarters, 2 light vehicles -> heavy vehicle, infantry -> battle armor).

The TH did this with the Lola II, more or less. That was a refit, but of course it was a pretty cheap one. (The grav decks cost a bit, but the rest was pretty cheap)

And yes, stations can be refit without yard space.
I can see this going either way myself.  On the "refit without yardspace" side, you are paying an exorbitant x5 for space stations rather than x2 or x1.25 for units needing a yard.  Against, a refit is more intricate than "insert tong A into groove B" for final assembly.

Related to this, it would make some sense if we could build space stations in a yard with an x2 multiplier, but I'm not expecting that.

I like the idea, but it seems annoying to track. I'll give it some thought, though, see if there's an approach I like.

Given that refits are free if the new unit is cheaper than the old (see Heracles Block II xp), changing around cargo bays will probably not incur any significant costs, either.
Actually, we should probably have the option of scrapping ships for a minor gain.

Scrapping...maybe? Likewise, I'll think about that.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1362 on: 26 November 2018, 21:05:47 »
Some of us lack a nigh-unlimited number of yards and a nigh-unlimited budget for prototypes...

Actually again, and amusingly, we see I think tiered behavior based on budget.

The THN can build anything that amuses it, moment to moment.  Theyve got no demands for competing with any other power, and the budget for utterly profligate expenditures - so they do.  As it is, the biggest threat to the THN is the THN... and amusingly, the biggest threat to the Hegemony Government is -also- the THN.  Which is probably why the government chooses to continue to fund them so profligately - but in time a rich, bored Praetorian Guard starts choosing the Emperor...

The Houses tend to build much more conservatively than the THN.  Each Houses production seems rational (based on its individual enviornment and pressures).  They prototype and refit and build yards, but still focus heavily on weight of metal.  With the yard races settling down and the shooting heating up, I dont expect to see anything bigger than the Class Vs, barring Marik’s Class VI - I anticipate theyll build up another Class VI, maybe 2, since they've already sunk the high cost of the first one.

The Periphery powers are all doing various minor navy things.  The RWR is emulating a major power, writ small (Im treating the Great Houses as competing major powers here - the THN really acts like the USN only dreams it could!).  The MH is buying second hand and focusing on territorial aspirations.  The TC is acting like a small power, largely unsupported, with a large, hostile neighbor - and has gone very experimental.

Emergent Behavior and parallel evolution!  Gotta love it.  :D

Edit:  As for turns - just as you can, no pressure - just keep us in the loop!
« Last Edit: 26 November 2018, 21:09:05 by marcussmythe »

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1363 on: 27 November 2018, 05:49:47 »
I didn't mean to write 20 events.
Just to have the occasional year where really nothing happens. ^^

@marcus That is a nice observation. I wonder if the house doctrines will eventually consolidate, or if we'll keep having different strategies going forward.
I know I'll prioritise fluff over raw efficiency, or I'll probably do something too similar to your battleship, only slightly faster and with slightly more ballistics. ^^
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1364 on: 27 November 2018, 07:21:10 »
I didn't mean to write 20 events.
Just to have the occasional year where really nothing happens. ^^

@marcus That is a nice observation. I wonder if the house doctrines will eventually consolidate, or if we'll keep having different strategies going forward.
I know I'll prioritise fluff over raw efficiency, or I'll probably do something too similar to your battleship, only slightly faster and with slightly more ballistics. ^^

I think they'll likely get closer, as we get more feedback on what works.  Most everything under the sun goes through a wild and wolley experimental phase in its early days before consolidating towards whats found to work.  Consider cars, movies, videogames, aircraft, tanks, big-gun battleships...

That said, I also dont think theyll merge completely - even if we had 5 clones driving the decisions of the 5 houses, each has a slightly different environment, different legacy fleets, different budgets and yards - this alone would be enough to maintain some variation - and it may be larger than that.  Id design a -very- different navy for the CC than for their neighbors!

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1365 on: 27 November 2018, 09:10:13 »
It might also diverge due to tech differences. Now, we don't have an elaborate tech tree where someone can research to be just better at something, but one house might have slightly different tech than another at a given time, and new technologies will present new challenges.
In the same way that the RWN reacted to your fighter spam, which you now try to turn down a bit, everyone will have to react to their neighbours.
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1366 on: 27 November 2018, 09:52:13 »
It might also diverge due to tech differences. Now, we don't have an elaborate tech tree where someone can research to be just better at something, but one house might have slightly different tech than another at a given time, and new technologies will present new challenges.
In the same way that the RWN reacted to your fighter spam, which you now try to turn down a bit, everyone will have to react to their neighbours.

Also, look at impact of early decisions and their knock on effects.  My 2/3 speed goes back to turn 2, when I was trying to build something that could fight more than its weight in enemy CAs, while still carrying a lot of cargo - this was Tyr, meant to try to fight while outnumbered by Heracles.

Once your wall is 2/3, building 3/5 or 4/6 wallers means you divide your fleet elements (generally a bad idea), or your paying tonnage for drives you cant use (generally a bad idea), or you replace one fleet with a later more advanced one, operating separately during the transition (would be nice!).  However, 2/3 had its merits - it gives me A LOT of space to play with, moreso since at the time 2/3 meant 90 SI, which is terrible.. but leaves you a lot of spare tonnage.  Thus Walkurie was born.

Disappointments at Vega and doctrine changes, as well as a tech change allowing higher SI on lower thrust ships, create a need for, and allow the existence of, Buri.  Buri is pure big gun combat and AAA/PDS, and shes very low on supplies - BUT Walkurie is lying around, and those fighter bays arent carrying their weight - so now they double as colliers.  Similarly, Tyr gets refit and loses her missiles (also a disappointment) and all but a box of biscuits. 

The LCN is rarely on the offensive, never on the deep offensive, has a massive logistics network in its own space, and can rely on the Walkurie for collier duty on long range deployments.

Going forward, Walkurie probably gets converted into something not unlike an imperial star destroyer - troop transport, fighter transport, guns, and cargo.  Shes aging, but can still provide those services to the fleet while the main heft of battle falls more and more on Buri, supported by the long in the tooth Tyrs.  Still, she will get significant firepower - the LCN just doesnt have the hull counts to 'mission kill' its own ships due to uselessness before the fight even starts.

Heimdaller will probably stay as she is.  Yes, fighters are a bad investment, but the flexibility of a fast (by my fleets standards) CVE, with good sensors, is handy.  And if the game goes nuclear, shes an insurance policy - fast with some fighters, small enough to be lost, designed to operate independently - its perfect for a nuclear environment.
« Last Edit: 27 November 2018, 10:14:27 by marcussmythe »

Lagrange

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1419
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1367 on: 27 November 2018, 16:13:14 »
On the TC side:

The starting state was a strategic mess. 
  • The Marathon stations are solid but had zero strategic speed.
  • The Independence, with a jump range of 15 light years had barely any strategic mobility---much worse than a factor of 2 when you take into account the sparsity of systems.
  • The 6 Kutai on an installment plan are quite decent for anti-pirate duty, but inadequate for even a minor incursion (like Galahad + 2 Albions) from a greater power.  And, the installments + maintenance consumed the entire budget.
Coping with this situation required creating strategically mobile forces for the lowest possible cost, leading to strategically-mobile yet tactically-slow stations.  Initially, this was via ASF + NLs since that was the cheapest way to generate a potentially credible force.  The very heavy emphasis on point defense is due to the CC and the heavy emphasis on extreme range weapons is due to the NAC boats of the FS.  There is  substantial lock-in to .5g movement for the main force and to 100K ton designs.  There are several advanced technologies which will substantially disturb the TC admirals...

At this point, I think the TC has moved from a horrible to a poor strategic situation.  I'm not sure how much better it can get given budget disparities but I have a few more ideas...

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1368 on: 27 November 2018, 16:57:29 »
Well, and you suffer from having the Fed Suns for a neighbor.  Given that theyve had shooting wars with every bordering power but the UHC, theve only lost 2 class 4 and 2 class 2 hulls - less than the DC suffered in a single turn.

If they start taking the sort of losses other navies have, the lack of yard space may come to bite them - but as the man said - “If.”
« Last Edit: 27 November 2018, 16:59:52 by marcussmythe »

truetanker

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9952
  • Clan Hells Horses 666th Mech. Assualt Cluster
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1369 on: 27 November 2018, 18:29:17 »
The Periphery powers are all doing various minor navy things.  *snip* The MH is buying second hand and focusing on territorial aspirations.

What Second hand vessels? We call that Effectively Reclaimed and Proven designs!

TT
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

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1370 on: 27 November 2018, 21:55:25 »
Hmmm...so will I be able to pawn off my outdated designs to victims of bad circumstance come a few turns? Thinking about it, that might be more profitable than scrapping, which I don't think would bring in much.
That said, for scrapping, I'd recommend ~20* C-Bills per ton (ignoring that there is no such thing as a C-Bill yet), for the raw material value, + maybe 5% of the ships cost.
I started with 10, but that's really low. I think it could easily go up to 40 without being unbalancing. This feels somewhat realistic and gives players an option to retire aging ships.
On the other hand, it is low enough that players don't get undue advantages from losing very few ships, in the long run.
Speaking of which, maybe have designs suffer increased maintenance after a century?  ;)
« Last Edit: 28 November 2018, 06:56:57 by UnLimiTeD »
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1371 on: 28 November 2018, 09:28:07 »
Hmmm...so will I be able to pawn off my outdated designs to victims of bad circumstance come a few turns? Thinking about it, that might be more profitable than scrapping, which I don't think would bring in much.
That said, for scrapping, I'd recommend ~20* C-Bills per ton (ignoring that there is no such thing as a C-Bill yet), for the raw material value, + maybe 5% of the ships cost.
I started with 10, but that's really low. I think it could easily go up to 40 without being unbalancing. This feels somewhat realistic and gives players an option to retire aging ships.
On the other hand, it is low enough that players don't get undue advantages from losing very few ships, in the long run.
Speaking of which, maybe have designs suffer increased maintenance after a century?  ;)

In order:
1.)  You MAY be able to sell old hulls - but the ability to see value in this is limited.  Even the most minor powers can build full up warships (given yard space), and are not far behind on tech.  The one opportunity I see is to sell off large hulls, that a minor power cannot reproduce due to limits in yard space.  Those large hulls, however, are your wall of battle hull-count, the ones we tend to be less eager to sell - and even if imperfect, its likely still a large, powerful unit.

2.)  Scrapping may be an option, as well - I dont know for sure how to value it.  I dont know what 'too high' would be - my gut guesses a 50% return.  This is ahistorically high, but may be necessary to make scrapping a choice, for reason 3.) below...

3.)  Compared to IRL navies, life-span costs here are DRAMATICALLY low.  My (vague) recollection is that a Wet Navy ship that costs $X to build will probably cost something like $X again over a 20 year service life, in terms of crew, maintenance, consumables, weapons, etc - here we bundle this all into maintenance, and if my recollection is correct, and we matched it, maintenance would be 50% per decade.. at which point we would be throwing away ships with gleeful abandon to buy the newest thing coming off our enlarged slipways.  Instead, as ships are cheap to keep in service, effectively free if mothballed against future need, with limited sales opportunities and scrap value - things are going to tend to stay in service exactly forever.

This is not inappropriate, however, given the BTU.  The BTU has a history of ships with may centuries in service, and not only are the maintenance costs sustainable, they don't seem to escalate over time - Note the clans ability to maintain and operate large tonnages of ships on a population count a great house could lose on one backwater planet without noticing (that said, the Clans are a strong example of the BTU being written by people professionally and profoundly disinterested in economics, logistics, or military history, or at least who have no truck with those things interfering with whatever story sounds fun at the time. 

This may be a strength in a franchise based on beer & pretzels, giant stompy robots, lady luck, and admiral awesome.
« Last Edit: 28 November 2018, 09:35:17 by marcussmythe »

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1372 on: 28 November 2018, 09:51:01 »
Naval Strength and Losses (most current, pre turn 7)

Terran Hegemony:  834 Size Class in Service, 98 Size Class Lost. (924 Total)
Effective Yard Space:  87.5
Lost: 
6 Black Lion
1 Dreadnought
1 Bonnaventure
2 Monsoon*
6 Quixote*
3 Aegis*
1 Dart*
7 Cruiser*
3 Lola*
1 Bonaventure*
3 Vigilant*
* - denotes self-inflicted losses

Unsurprisingly, given roughly 10x the budget of any neighbor, the THN has roughly 10x the fleet.  It has lost more ships than the Federated Suns have built, most of them to internal conflict, and this has had and will have no impact on their fleet size.
Under current political and budgetary conditions, the THN can simultaneously declare war on all of its neighbors with a 2:1 force advantage, allowing it to not only conquer all of human space (in naval terms), but to do so at relatively light naval casualties.  If nothing else, the THN probably has the resources to wipe out all space based infrastructure in human space, choke all commerce in human space, and demand abject surrender and offer whatever terms it wants.
Barring a massive change in internal priorities resulting in a 50-80% reduction in naval budgets, or a truely divisive civil war that is both incredibly destructive and serves to shatter the TH into multiple pieces, all action in human space exists as mice conducting their little wars in the shadow of colossus.

Federated Suns: 78 Size Class in service, 12 Size Class Lost (90 total)
Effective Yard Space: 9
Lost:
2 Albion
2 Galahad

A long history of conflict with limited losses at the expensive of its neighbors puts the FS in a solid position.  Yard losses may or may not prove meaningful, depending on future hull losses.  Early expansion to large yards has fueled a large total production schedule, in terms of mass.

Lyran Commonwealth:  69 Size Class in service, 14 Size Class Lost (83 total)
Effective Yard Space:  13
Lost:
3 Tyr
2 Heimdaller
1 Walkurie

Lots of peace with one very bad turn.  Despite this, the second largest fleet in space by total size classes.  Mix of designs - some unrefitted, some refitted, and some very modern and very powerful - makes it hard to guess how the fleet will perform going forward.

Free Worlds League:  66 Size Class in service, 15 Size Class Lost (81 total)
Effective Yard Space:  20
Lost:
4 Heracles
3 Phalanx

Lots of peace, some small wars.  FWL focus on picking a design and mass producing it helps - makes it easier to absorb losses.  Similarly large numbers of class 3 yards will make almost any losses trivial to replace - the Heracles is kinda the T-34 of space, and the FWL could build a dozen next turn if it chose.  On the flip, the failure to build anything larger than a Class 3 hull hurts overall production tonnage efficiency.

Draconis Combine:  66 Size Class in Service, 20 Size Class Lost (86 total)
Effective Yard Space:  11
Lost:
4 Atago
3 Minikaze
2 Tate

Fleet may be less strong than 66 size in service reflects - lots of unrefitted, short production run, older designs.  Modern wall is on the other hand VERY modern, and very polished.  Budget advantage over both neighbors, with large yards, may put DC back on top overall if they are given breathing room.

Capellan Confederation:  54 Size Class in service, 18 Size Class Lost (72 total)
Effective Yard Space: 11
Lost:
6 Quinru Zhe
2 Quizuhan
1 Wifes Wrath

Small power, strong neighbors, lots of wars early.  Coupled with a weak economy and bad starting yards, the CC has prospered from the last few decades of peace, to the point where they approach at least the FWL in combat strength, though not the FSN.

Marian Hegemony: 10 Size Class in service
Effective Yard Space:2

The Marian Hegemony can no more threaten the FWL than the FWL can threaten the TH.  However, the periphery power is relatively better off than a great house - inasmuch as a great house crushing a periphery power would weaken itself, and it has dangerous peers.  For all of that, the Hegemony Navy exists primarily in pursuit of local territorial objectives, given its splendid isolation from the inner sphere.

Taurian Concordat: ~20 Size Class in service

The TCN is hard to weigh.  I have here treated 100KT stations as size class 1/2, and limited the count to battlestations and the like - even though I omit battlestations from other navies counts.  By choosing stations and tugs over warships, the TCN gets greater weight of fire for its cost, but must accept certain drawbacks in tactical, operational, and strategic agility.  It will likely serve them well on the defense, and poorly on the offense - but with only Federated Suns for neighbors, their posture is essentially defensive, anyway.

Rim World Republic   ~18 Size Class in service
Effective Yard Space: 5

By far the largest and richest of the periphery realms, and with a navy to show for it, the RWR is strong enough that the LC cannot casually dictate terms to it - yet not strong enough to represent the clear threat that it has no intention of being.

United Hindu Collective  ~16 Size Class in Service

The UHC is again odd - massive arrays of battlestations, but no ability to project naval power.  Its numbers are actually much higher, but recharge stations (by their nature scattered, and of non-military purpose) are not counted.  In terms of impact on Naval History, it is anticipated that the UHC will trouble no one, not be worth troubling, and at some point merge with its neighbor to give The Forces of Freedom, Goodness, and Light the Federated Suns an Entirely Unnecessary Leg Up and Advantage over its Neighbors its just rewards for its just nature.   :)


Effective Yard Space is the sum of all yards Class 3 or greater, with a half-value given to class 2 yards (class 2 yards are efficient enough to build primary combatants, but inefficient enough that there are real costs to doing so.  Class 1 yards are omitted due to inefficiency.  Note that Class 2 and 1 yards are given full value for P powers, as they are going to have difficulty production class 3 and larger ships.
« Last Edit: 28 November 2018, 15:40:04 by marcussmythe »

Lagrange

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1419
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1373 on: 28 November 2018, 12:15:33 »
At a high level, it appears no significant combat has yet occurred with everyone suffering minor losses around the edges.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1374 on: 28 November 2018, 12:44:27 »
At a high level, it appears no significant combat has yet occurred with everyone suffering minor losses around the edges.

Its a matter of how they come in.  CC got hit hard -early-, when fleets were quite small - this forced them to mass build the class 2 hulls they could to try to get ANY weight of metal.  It worked, but the CC maintenance budget is relatively high because of it.

DC got hit hard all in one turn, as did the LC.  This came much later, and isnt crippling - but it is painful.  LC and DC relied heavily on Tyr and Atago respectively for line of battle hulls, and both lost a lot of those hulls all at once. 

FWL and FS had their losses spread out over most of the game - bit here, bit there, and they haven’t really done bad things to fleet strength or forced hard decisions.

We dont really see (often) in Naval History a power losing its whole navy, espc all at once.  But its a game of weight and percentages... a small starting advantage gets multiplied, so any relative loss hurts.  This is also why I dont bother to quantify the THN.  Even if they were restricted to OTL designs - their just too strong for meaningful conflict
« Last Edit: 28 November 2018, 12:48:34 by marcussmythe »

Lagrange

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1419
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1375 on: 28 November 2018, 13:15:17 »
We dont really see (often) in Naval History a power losing its whole navy, espc all at once.  But its a game of weight and percentages... a small starting advantage gets multiplied, so any relative loss hurts.  This is also why I dont bother to quantify the THN.  Even if they were restricted to OTL designs - their just too strong for meaningful conflict
I'm not discussing individual battles here. 

In the history of warfare, it's common for the losing side of a war to end up with only 0-50% of it's starting forces over the course of multiple battles (and years).  We haven't seen this yet---in terms of loss quantities it looks like minor border wars.   In real life, those losses are small because neither side is willing to risk a large force.  In combat here, we see border-war scale casualties although fought with the majority of forces.

UnLimiTeD

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1376 on: 28 November 2018, 14:01:05 »
I think another factor is that we effectively fight with the navy, yet it is the army that has to conquer and then hold that ground.
I'm assuming a major world would take about 20% of the transports used to get the troops there just for logistics support, to make occupation feasible.
As there's no point in taking more than one at once, and minor worlds, while nice to have, barely register in the budget and are mostly used to show success to the public or some beancounter, there is no point in going all in.
The TH is the only power that could feasibly make 2 successive jumps on a 100 LY front and just keep that territory. So reasonably, everyone avoids the risk due to a lack of rewards.
Well, that and this isn't a game of Civ, you need to have an actual reason for a full war.
Savannah Masters are the Pringles of Battletech.
Ooo! OOOOOOO! That was a bad one!...and I liked it.

marcussmythe

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1377 on: 28 November 2018, 14:11:45 »
I think another factor is that we effectively fight with the navy, yet it is the army that has to conquer and then hold that ground.
I'm assuming a major world would take about 20% of the transports used to get the troops there just for logistics support, to make occupation feasible.
As there's no point in taking more than one at once, and minor worlds, while nice to have, barely register in the budget and are mostly used to show success to the public or some beancounter, there is no point in going all in.
The TH is the only power that could feasibly make 2 successive jumps on a 100 LY front and just keep that territory. So reasonably, everyone avoids the risk due to a lack of rewards.
Well, that and this isn't a game of Civ, you need to have an actual reason for a full war.

Historically, the Hegemony bled and struggled for years to conquer the periphery realms, despite the vast difference in their resource potential.  Conquest is hard, conquest across multi-month supply lines is harder, and conquest relying on space transport is monstrously difficult.

Its really only the willingness of 'conquered' planets in the BTU to bow head to forces who (in terms of total size) would have been a footnote in the Fulda Gap (much less the Eastern Front) that allows it to work.

If space lift improves, somewhat more decisive engagement becomes possible - carving slices out of enemy territory, or driving a wedge in to claim a high value world - but currently none of us are budgeting for it.  It is possible that such spacelift could raise the overall tempo of conflict to the point that we see the sort of losses Lagrange would be looking for.
« Last Edit: 28 November 2018, 14:15:28 by marcussmythe »

Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 926
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1378 on: 28 November 2018, 14:47:16 »
As ever, RL has gotten in my way. Progress is being made, but I haven't gotten a really good uninterrupted block of time since Saturday. I'll have that post up by this weekend, though.

I didn't mean to write 20 events.
Just to have the occasional year where really nothing happens. ^^

@marcus That is a nice observation. I wonder if the house doctrines will eventually consolidate, or if we'll keep having different strategies going forward.
I know I'll prioritise fluff over raw efficiency, or I'll probably do something too similar to your battleship, only slightly faster and with slightly more ballistics. ^^

I feel like the action-reaction loops are already too long. People are going out and demanding blood for things that happened 15 years prior. Skipping years probably won't help.

And yes, seconding your thumbs-up to Marcus' assorted doctrine posts here. Won't quote them at length, but they're quality.

Hmmm...so will I be able to pawn off my outdated designs to victims of bad circumstance come a few turns? Thinking about it, that might be more profitable than scrapping, which I don't think would bring in much.
That said, for scrapping, I'd recommend ~20* C-Bills per ton (ignoring that there is no such thing as a C-Bill yet), for the raw material value, + maybe 5% of the ships cost.
I started with 10, but that's really low. I think it could easily go up to 40 without being unbalancing. This feels somewhat realistic and gives players an option to retire aging ships.
On the other hand, it is low enough that players don't get undue advantages from losing very few ships, in the long run.
Speaking of which, maybe have designs suffer increased maintenance after a century?  ;)

In order:
1.)  You MAY be able to sell old hulls - but the ability to see value in this is limited.  Even the most minor powers can build full up warships (given yard space), and are not far behind on tech.  The one opportunity I see is to sell off large hulls, that a minor power cannot reproduce due to limits in yard space.  Those large hulls, however, are your wall of battle hull-count, the ones we tend to be less eager to sell - and even if imperfect, its likely still a large, powerful unit.

2.)  Scrapping may be an option, as well - I dont know for sure how to value it.  I dont know what 'too high' would be - my gut guesses a 50% return.  This is ahistorically high, but may be necessary to make scrapping a choice, for reason 3.) below...

3.)  Compared to IRL navies, life-span costs here are DRAMATICALLY low.  My (vague) recollection is that a Wet Navy ship that costs $X to build will probably cost something like $X again over a 20 year service life, in terms of crew, maintenance, consumables, weapons, etc - here we bundle this all into maintenance, and if my recollection is correct, and we matched it, maintenance would be 50% per decade.. at which point we would be throwing away ships with gleeful abandon to buy the newest thing coming off our enlarged slipways.  Instead, as ships are cheap to keep in service, effectively free if mothballed against future need, with limited sales opportunities and scrap value - things are going to tend to stay in service exactly forever.

This is not inappropriate, however, given the BTU.  The BTU has a history of ships with may centuries in service, and not only are the maintenance costs sustainable, they don't seem to escalate over time - Note the clans ability to maintain and operate large tonnages of ships on a population count a great house could lose on one backwater planet without noticing (that said, the Clans are a strong example of the BTU being written by people professionally and profoundly disinterested in economics, logistics, or military history, or at least who have no truck with those things interfering with whatever story sounds fun at the time. 

This may be a strength in a franchise based on beer & pretzels, giant stompy robots, lady luck, and admiral awesome.

Scrapping might make sense as an option, though the way BT works it also might not. A lot of ships are still in service centuries after their construction. I'll think about adding that as a rule for next turn. For the same reason, increased maintenance over time won't be a thing. Navies will sometimes retire old ships, or put them on 50% maintenance as training vessels (thinking of doing that with the TH Dreadnoughts, instead of updating them), but if you want to keep it going, you can. You'll pay your $X in upkeep, but it'll be over a 100-year "service life", not a 20-year. Vacuum is a lot less corrosive than water, for one.

Naval Strength and Losses (most current, pre turn 7)
(snip)
I should expand this to the periphery and THN, but in both cases total fleet strength matters little compared to the question of political will on the part of the larger power

Actually, please do expand it. It's useful for getting a sense of where the ratios are - a disparity of 3:1 is very different from 30:1. Political will is a function of cost, in many cases. Also, the THN is getting even more overwhelming because of its lack of losses, and I want to see if there's any way to cut it down somewhat. I may try to see if a coalition battle can happen in a turn or two.

I'm not discussing individual battles here. 

In the history of warfare, it's common for the losing side of a war to end up with only 0-50% of it's starting forces over the course of multiple battles (and years).  We haven't seen this yet---in terms of loss quantities it looks like minor border wars.   In real life, those losses are small because neither side is willing to risk a large force.  In combat here, we see border-war scale casualties although fought with the majority of forces.

I've been shying away from that. By the nature of the game, the loss of most of your fleet would be crippling. Also, there are real-world parallels here - Jutland had lower loss ratios than Vega, and even a lot of decisive battles weren't as much higher as you might think. Heck, even at the high end, Trafalgar was one of the most crippling losses in history, and half the Franco-Spanish fleet survived it.

Historically, the Hegemony bled and struggled for years to conquer the periphery realms, despite the vast difference in their resource potential.  Conquest is hard, conquest across multi-month supply lines is harder, and conquest relying on space transport is monstrously difficult.

Its really only the willingness of 'conquered' planets in the BTU to bow head to forces who (in terms of total size) would have been a footnote in the Fulda Gap (much less the Eastern Front) that allows it to work.

If space lift improves, somewhat more decisive engagement becomes possible - carving slices out of enemy territory, or driving a wedge in to claim a high value world - but currently none of us are budgeting for it.  It is possible that such spacelift could raise the overall tempo of conflict to the point that we see the sort of losses Lagrange would be looking for.

This is true, though it'll change some when medium DS come online. And I'm trying to fix the "Fulda gap" problem by upping army sizes, though not too insanely. It can't be realistic, but it can get closer.

Lagrange

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1419
Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
« Reply #1379 on: 28 November 2018, 15:09:06 »
...the sort of losses Lagrange would be looking for.
I'm not exactly "looking for", more "fearing", as the most obvious way for this to happen is via an attack on periphery powers.  Amongst the easily digestible periphery powers:
  • The MH has the highest value/planet.  The FWL navy could digest the MH navy on a whim and then the army can digesting the few planets easily.
  • The UHC has the second highest value/planet.  With zero strategically mobile forces the Fed Suns could easily pick them off at will. 
  • The RWR is 3rd with ~75 planets on the 2571 map.  It would be troublesome to digest as the Vittoria cannot be caught by anything except the Heimdaller II.  Still, the LC could easily capture the most valuable planets.
  • The TC has the lowest value/planet (>200 planets) which is looking like an asset in these calculations.  The lack of fast elements however means that the TC navy cannot easily maneuver to escape if the FS or CC drop by.