BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat

BattleTech Player Boards => Fan Designs and Rules => Aerospace => Topic started by: Alsadius on 03 June 2018, 19:21:39

Title: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 03 June 2018, 19:21:39
I have an experiment in mind, and I'd like to get some other interested folks to help make it happen. We see a lot of WarShip designs posted here, but they're almost all standalones, not part of a complete, unified force. I'm a bit of a stickler for complete, unified forces (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=57949.0), so I want to try something different. Inspired by Jellico's classic essay on SLDF doctrine (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Essay:_SLDF_Naval_Doctrine) and an (https://navalgazing.obormot.net/So-You-Want-to-Build-a-Modern-Navy-Part-1) ongoing (https://navalgazing.obormot.net/So-You-Want-to-Build-a-Modern-Navy-Part-2) series (https://navalgazing.obormot.net/So-You-Want-to-Build-a-Modern-Navy-Coast-Guard-Part-1) on a wet-navy blog I like, I want to do a group challenge where everyone plays a nation and tries to build a fleet from the ground up.

We'll start at the dawn of the WarShip, in the 2300s, and then follow the various fleets through the Age of War, and ideally go as late as the early Succession Wars when the WarShip fleets were effectively eliminated. One person will be GM, adjudicating how the in-universe combat turns out and giving a sense of the economic limitations that everyone is operating under. Everyone else takes one of the great houses, and tries to guide them into having the best navy around. I expect we'd move fairly slowly, perhaps one new design a week per person, with a new design being introduced every 10-20 years in-universe. I assume I'll probably be GM, but if someone's really keen I can step back.

So, who's game?

GAME STATUS - Last Updated: February 11th
Turn 1(2350-2359) (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421728#msg1421728)
Turn 2(2360-2369) (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1424612#msg1424612)
Turn 3(2370-2379) (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1429848#msg1429848)
Turn 4(2380-2389) (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1434030#msg1434030)
Turn 5(2390-2399) (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1440488#msg1440488)
Turn 6(2400-2409) (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1452784#msg1452784)
Turn 7(2410-2419) (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1481240#msg1481240) - Incomplete

This game is now finished. Thanks to all who played.

Start date is the year 2350, and we'll proceed at a rate of ten years per turn, with turns happening about once every two weeks when all goes well. The master construction tool will be CryHavoc's spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-CDKf4BJghLS2B52_9O5q4deG8h5G2A9W-hDcBHGcUY/edit#gid=0). Save a copy to your own Google Drive to use it. There's a spreadsheet tracking technology, rules, ship designs, and fleets available here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rzh-GEbKmiqNfPPj-zQj-9ZqiWKz11MmtqM73815wOo/edit?usp=sharing). A set of links to all full ship designs posted thus far is available here (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1455413#msg1455413).
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 03 June 2018, 20:35:19
Might I recommend 2400 as the start date. There's really no one who can challenge the Hegemony in 2300 and the historical texts say it took roughly 70 years for everyone else to catch up on the warship front. There's also the huge economic limitations placed on everyone maintaining the communication command circuits before HPGs.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 03 June 2018, 21:06:13
Might I recommend 2400 as the start date. There's really no one who can challenge the Hegemony in 2300 and the historical texts say it took roughly 70 years for everyone else to catch up on the warship front. There's also the huge economic limitations placed on everyone maintaining the communication command circuits before HPGs.

I'm flexible on details. I was thinking mid-2300s, so everyone would have at least the start of a navy, but I didn't have an exact start year in mind.

And to be clear, this isn't intended as a game where "catching up" in raw weight of metal is the goal, per se - this isn't a wargame where the TH player can just kill everyone, it's a forum game where the process of figuring out how to catch up may be interesting in its own right. The German fleet in 1900 would be an interesting design challenge, even if the process of actually fighting it out with the Brits would be horribly lopsided (as, indeed, it was IRL). What would you do as Reynard Davion or Robert Marsden if you know the Terrans have a gigantic lead in naval forces and you want to try to close the gap to make your empire less vulnerable?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Sharpnel on 04 June 2018, 04:47:10
Nevermind
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 04 June 2018, 05:14:26
Hmm...initially my thought would be making carriers and lots of them.  ASF's can provide all the punch needed and if you're shipping nukes with your fighter strikes then you could bathe the terran battle line in nuclear fire.  Basically its the Junne Ecole idea the French had.

 Several younger officers had the idea that the way to counter the British fleet in the late 1800s was to spam torpedo boats and use them to swarm and sink the RN battleships.  They were cheaper, quicker and easier to build and put less strain on France's ship building industry which simply could not keep up with the UK at that point.  At this point the RN was pumping out the 9 strong Majestic class which the French simply couldn't even come close to matching.  So the idea won support of various Admirals and eventually became the corner stone of French naval doctrine for a good few years. 

The torpedo boat swarms were accompanied by large numbers of long range cruisers who's job was to go commerce hunting either in the Med or Atlantic and sever the UK's trade lifelines (as submarines were barely a thing and were basically a barely mobile minefield rather than the weapons they would become). 

So basically you can't match the Terran's for tonnage or firepower, so go at them a different way and that way would be carriers i'd say.

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 04 June 2018, 07:20:24
That is certainly an option. Just to give an example of what I had in mind, let's play that one out. I'll assume you're FedSuns for the sake of this, and I put together a quick and dirty design that'd work in the mid-2300s(350 kton, 3/5, 100 SI, 700 tons=280 points of standard armor, 144 fighters, 12x NAC/20, 20x NL/45, and the usual various sundries, total cost $6.77 billion, BV 77,784).

Quote
The newly-designed Marauder-class light carriers got their first workout against a surprisingly organized band of pirates on the rimward stretches of the Federated Suns. Calling themselves the "Taurians", they were originally thought to be Capellan colonists until further contact was established. The only large-scale battle was fought at the zenith jump point in Rollis in 2368, when an AFFS task force advanced on the planet and was surprised by Taurian forces jumping into their midst. Despite the element of surprise, the decision by Rear Admiral Markwardt to keep an active fighter patrol in space while her ships were recharging proved to be a wise one. Her gunnery crews proved ill-prepared and displayed very poor marksmanship in the fight, but the fighters proved sufficient to harry the light Taurian corvettes and prevent them from driving home any serious attacks. The FSS Marauder was significantly damaged in the fight, and spent nine months in dock after returning to Federated Suns space repairing its damage, but recordings suggest that a lucky fighter strike on the largest Taurian ship convinced their forces to break away before they could finish the Marauder off. However, an unarmoured JumpShip was destroyed with a fully loaded DropShip still attached, and 31 fighters were lost in the fighting.

I rolled for skill and luck on each side, and then took into account descriptions of the ships on each side, to determine a plausible path for the battle to take. In this case, the Taurians got a better skill roll(so they got the drop on your forces), but the FedSuns got the better luck roll. The fight was based on a fight in the fluff, where the Taurians killed two WS and captured a third, because the Davion vessels were too heavy and slow to maneuver, so the carrier design definitely turned out to be an improvement.

I want to use battle reports like this, instead of raw stat comparisons, because it's how real navies learn about their strengths and weaknesses. In eras where fighting is light, the wrong lessons can very easily be learned purely by chance - e.g., how the battle of Lissa convinced 19th century naval engineers that rams were useful weapons, because it happened in a brief period where armour technology had advanced faster than gun technology (https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Lissa).
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 04 June 2018, 08:26:26
In the Davion and Davion (Deceased) novel the FedSuns has the same basic issue, and adopt a fighter heavy doctrine for their fleet with a new carrier that was based on the older New Syrtis Class (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/New_Syrtis_(WarShip_class) ) with the argument being that Carriers offered more flexibility and were more suvivable than a Battleship, and even if a BB or BC was damaged but victorious, she could spend months in a yard getting repaired. A CV can lob its fighters at long range and try and run if something goes wrong.  There was also a lighter carrier based on the Robinson class transport and in the story these proved to be quite decisive in several critical engagements.

And yeah the Battle of Lissa was a bit of an oddity and it did lead to the construction of some truly mostrous guns 100+ ton breech loaded ones being the upper end of the armour/weapon debate at that time which was countered by 41-inches of armour on HMS Inflexible. 

Fighters offer a cheap and relatively expendable way of dealing with WarShips, the other houses have to think outside the box if they want to challenge the Hegemony, or at least make themselves enough of a threat to do so. 
You could even make a 'MTB' on dropships and swarm with them, a dropper with a few missile launch tubes in the nose and away you go.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 04 June 2018, 09:59:05
Here's a dinky little carrier based on the Vincent, I stripped out the NAC-10's and added a lot of barracuda's with decent ammo, some large lasers and MG's as the AMS
But her main punch comes from 48 fighters carried onboard, as well as the flexibility of 12 small craft which I'd see as being tankers or a kind of SAR, and maybe some kind of AWACS to help coordinate them.  There's also a small NCSS as she's basically a flying airbase and that would improve her sensors and control for fighter direction, last thing you want is someone sneaking up on you.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Kalamazoo Class Light Carrier
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $5,492,278,000.00
Magazine Cost: $3,220,000.00
BV2: 12,968

Mass: 420,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive

Safe Thrust: 4
Maximum Thrust: 6

Armor Type: Ferro-Carbide

Armament:
20 Capital Launcher Barracuda
20 Laser Large
20 Machine Gun (IS)

Class/Model/Name: Kalamazoo Class Light Carrier
Mass: 420,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 100,800.00
Thrust
Safe: 4
Maximum: 6
Controls: 1,050.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (10 Integrity) 190,050.00
Jump Sail: (4 Integrity) 51.00
Structural Integrity: 40 16,800.00
Total Heat Sinks: 668(1336) Double 175.00
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 10000 points 4,080.00
Fire Control Computers: 0.00
Armor: 216 pts Ferro-Carbide 270.00

Fore: 38
Fore-Left/Right: 35/35
Aft-Left/Right: 35/35
Aft: 38

Dropship Capacity: 0
Grav Decks:
Small: 1 (100 meter) 50.00

Escape Pods: 28 196.00
Life Boats: 28 196.00

Crew And Passengers:

28 Officers in Steerage Quarters 140.00
101 Crew in Steerage Quarters 505.00
33 Gunners and Others in Steerage Quarters 165.00
156 Bay Personnel

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass

4 Capital Launcher Barracuda Nose 40 80 (8-C) Extreme-C 360.00
4 Laser Large Nose 32 32 (3.2-C) 20.00
4 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 8 (0.8-C) 2.00

4 Capital Launcher Barracuda FL 40 80 (8-C) 360.00
4 Laser Large FL 32 32 (3.2-C) 20.00
4 Machine Gun (IS) FL 8 (0.8-C) 2.00

4 Capital Launcher Barracuda FR 40 80 (8-C) 360.00
4 Laser Large FR 32 32 (3.2-C) 20.00
4 Machine Gun (IS) FR 8 (0.8-C) 2.00

4 Capital Launcher Barracuda LBS 40 80 (8-C) 360.00
4 Laser Large LBS 32 32 (3.2-C) 20.00
4 Machine Gun (IS) LBS 8 (0.8-C) 2.00

4 Capital Launcher Barracuda RBS 40 80 (8-C) 360.00
4 Laser Large RBS 32 32 (3.2-C) 20.00
4 Machine Gun (IS) RBS 8 (0.8-C) 2.00


Ammo Rounds

Capital Launcher Barracuda Ammo 500
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 4000

Aerospace Group

48 x Fighters
12 x Small Craft

Cargo - 81,842 tons

6,120,202


'Cheap' at 6,120,202 credits too.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 04 June 2018, 12:59:14

Would it be an idea to have really old ships use only SC bays (for SC and ASF)?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 04 June 2018, 17:06:32
How come no on builds battlestars? I find it odd that everyone try to enforce this blue water separation of roles between battleships and carriers. I mean its totally unessicary in the game. Aerospace fighters can't project power. Over the same comparable ranges in space that real world fights can. You don't get the long range over the horizon type fighter strikes that you have in the real. A carrier/battleship combo could very effectively anchor a battle line and later form the core of a good defenses in depth
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Sharpnel on 04 June 2018, 17:13:53
Well that didn't work
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 04 June 2018, 17:15:33
They do and did, the McKenna and Texas could easily be called a 'battlestar' like ship, they carry 60 fighters and 6 DropShips which can and probably will include a carrier DropShip in there for yet more fighter spam  (seriously, slap two Lee CV's on a McKenna and you'd be laughing with 140 fighters).   They also have lots of armour and guns and really are only able to be supported by a near post scarcity society like the Hegemony was. 

I'm sure they could carry more fighters but because the way the original ship rules were done, which seems to be this;

1 - Load numbers into a smoothbore breech loaded cannon.
2 - Fire at a large white peice of cloth 50 feet from the cannon muzzle.
3 - Look at where the numbers landed and what they total, go with those.

Repeat steps 1 - 3 for EVERY ship.

Which is the only way I can explain some ships having utterly bonkers designs, stats and numbers, usually in the cargo department or the Texas having NO frontal or rear firing guns. Why? Because! And so on.  So yeah you could probably fit a few dozen more fighters into a McKenna if you was willing to sacrifice some of the cargo space that allows you to loose a super-liner in, but really you'd have to basically re-do the whole line of ships.  I did that with Matt Plog and Shimmering sword to make the art look decent instead of the god aweful refits of 3057 (although I did insist that some ships look a bit like them because some of the designs were nice, but the artwork wasnt), but you'd still have to re-do all the numbers and the like, to try bring them a bit more up to date instead of being..well...'quirky' if I was being polite.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 04 June 2018, 17:29:30
How come no on builds battlestars? I find it odd that everyone try to enforce this blue water separation of roles between battleships and carriers. I mean its totally unessicary in the game. Aerospace fighters can't project power. Over the same comparable ranges in space that real world fights can. You don't get the long range over the horizon type fighter strikes that you have in the real. A carrier/battleship combo could very effectively anchor a battle line and later form the core of a good defenses in depth

BT is more battlestar-friendly than most settings, IMO. As Marauder said, there's a lot of them in canon. It's just a shame that the canon WarShip designs suffer so badly from rulebook obsolescence - the original Atlas and Marauder hold up fine, but the old WS are just confounding under modern rules. And even then, I think there needs to be a new rule set to deal with certain things(AMS are horrifyingly broken right now, for one).

Also, I see a lot of people discussing this idea - is anyone interested in joining?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 04 June 2018, 18:01:00
How come no on builds battlestars? I find it odd that everyone try to enforce this blue water separation of roles between battleships and carriers. I mean its totally unessicary in the game. Aerospace fighters can't project power. Over the same comparable ranges in space that real world fights can. You don't get the long range over the horizon type fighter strikes that you have in the real. A carrier/battleship combo could very effectively anchor a battle line and later form the core of a good defenses in depth

Many warships carry fighter screens in battletech. They don't call them battlestars, because that's a unique designation to a specific universe. You'll find the term battlecarrier a lot more common.

However, there are three major factors on why everything isn't a full-on carrier in addition to it's other roles:

1-After the death of the star league and the succession wars, the only major powers with full warship fleets was the clans... and their rules of engagement encouraged dueling, which made the fighter screen much less useful. They also heavily encouraged mech supremacy over aerospace supremacy, so most found a mech battle preferable over air/space strikes, further reducing the desire for balanced, or even in some cases balanced, aerospace forces.
2-Dropships. Dropships can be used to customize the role of a warship. Need a carrier, toss on several titan dropships and you have one. This also means that everything with a jumpdrive is potentially a carrier. It's why warships with 6+ dropship collars are so valuable as well.
3-Putting all your eggs in one basket is not always a good idea. Between jump mishaps, ambushes, and the like, focusing that much force in one location makes it vulnerable. It can all be lost in an instant if the wrong thing happens. By diversifying such loads among the dropships that can be detached and often fend for themselves, they payload of deadly and dangerous fighters is far less vulnerable to catastrophe.

Bonus reason-Almost none of the canon designs are made efficiently. They are often designed purposely with horrible flaws in them. This is largely due to rules and system changes over time.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 04 June 2018, 18:47:45
I guess considering the era that these ships fly in I don't consider 60 fighters even close to an adequate strike group core. At minimum I'd consider 144 to 168 fighters a good core for a fleet in that era.

The 3057 clan ships are a real problem. Since the visuals are considered cannon then in my mind the stats and write-ups have got to be retconed. They just don't work and those ships represent a huge missed opportunity for naval tech advancement. The jihad source books show us that they don't represent late block variants of the ships since all the WOB SL ships were exodus vintage but are marked specifically as 2750 version. The writeup need to reflect the new art and if you are making such huge changes why wouldn't you altar the weapons to better suit the new combat style the clans use in naval battles?

BT is more battlestar-friendly than most settings, IMO. As Marauder said, there's a lot of them in canon. It's just a shame that the canon WarShip designs suffer so badly from rulebook obsolescence - the original Atlas and Marauder hold up fine, but the old WS are just confounding under modern rules. And even then, I think there needs to be a new rule set to deal with certain things(AMS are horrifyingly broken right now, for one).

Also, I see a lot of people discussing this idea - is anyone interested in joining?

That's something I'm looking into however its not as easy as it sounds while preserving and reconciling all the existing cannon. The AMS issue is emblematic of the overall problem of how mech scale guns are treated in a capital scale game. They are just way to powerful however anything that nurfs them back to were they belong is tantamount to a death sentence for the modern spheriod fleets and the usefulness of combat dropers. There's no easy fix that's for sure.

Many warships carry fighter screens in battletech. They don't call them battlestars, because that's a unique designation to a specific universe. You'll find the term battlecarrier a lot more common.

However, there are three major factors on why everything isn't a full-on carrier in addition to it's other roles:

1-After the death of the star league and the succession wars, the only major powers with full warship fleets was the clans... and their rules of engagement encouraged dueling, which made the fighter screen much less useful. They also heavily encouraged mech supremacy over aerospace supremacy, so most found a mech battle preferable over air/space strikes, further reducing the desire for balanced, or even in some cases balanced, aerospace forces.
2-Dropships. Dropships can be used to customize the role of a warship. Need a carrier, toss on several titan dropships and you have one. This also means that everything with a jumpdrive is potentially a carrier. It's why warships with 6+ dropship collars are so valuable as well.
3-Putting all your eggs in one basket is not always a good idea. Between jump mishaps, ambushes, and the like, focusing that much force in one location makes it vulnerable. It can all be lost in an instant if the wrong thing happens. By diversifying such loads among the dropships that can be detached and often fend for themselves, they payload of deadly and dangerous fighters is far less vulnerable to catastrophe.

Bonus reason-Almost none of the canon designs are made efficiently. They are often designed purposely with horrible flaws in them. This is largely due to rules and system changes over time.

I sat battlestar because everyone instantly knows what kind of warship I mean no explanation need. Of course BT is going to call it something else just like they call bolters gyro jets.

Reason 1 I agree 100%

Reason 2 I concede that this is how the system currently works but personally consider this horribly inefficient waste of the strike package fleet concept for fleets large enough to actually use it. Not the tiny anemic battles fleet in the current cannon.

Reason 3 again I'm thinking big fleets. 250 battlestars vs the 250 McKennas the SL built is hardly an all in 1 basket strategy. Granted losing a battlestar hurts more then a McKenna but that extra versatility and combat power means fewer battlestars come under close range attack in the first place.

Bonus Reason. Well yea this is kind of necessary as a narrative tool. Besides if everything was uber optimized there would never be any need to fight a battle. You would just look at the orders of battle and you would see from the start who's going to win.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 04 June 2018, 19:03:39
I sat battlestar because everyone instantly knows what kind of warship I mean no explanation need. Of course BT is going to call it something else just like they call bolters gyro jets.

No worries, I only mentioned it in case you missed stuff while searching the forums :thumbsup: What term you use is largely irrelevant as long as people understand you.

Reason 2 I concede that this is how the system currently works but personally consider this horribly inefficient waste of the strike package fleet concept for fleets large enough to actually use it. Not the tiny anemic battles fleet in the current cannon.

Reason 3 again I'm thinking big fleets. 250 battlestars vs the 250 McKennas the SL built is hardly an all in 1 basket strategy. Granted losing a battlestar hurts more then a McKenna but that extra versatility and combat power means fewer battlestars come under close range attack in the first place.
Yeah, I was only really talking about the current canon universe with that. Design wise, absent of fluff, there is almost no reason for every design to not max out their armor for their current SI, and to have enough AMS to be immune to missile fire for as long as ammo holds out. 150 fighters does take up 22,500 tons, which a lot of cruiser sized and bigger ships have available in cargo easily, but some smaller ships might balk at. Also, ton for ton, there are some capital weapons that are basically worthless and should never be taken, and others that should always be the primary armament of basically everything.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 04 June 2018, 21:42:57
Yeah, I was only really talking about the current canon universe with that. Design wise, absent of fluff, there is almost no reason for every design to not max out their armor for their current SI, and to have enough AMS to be immune to missile fire for as long as ammo holds out. 150 fighters does take up 22,500 tons, which a lot of cruiser sized and bigger ships have available in cargo easily, but some smaller ships might balk at. Also, ton for ton, there are some capital weapons that are basically worthless and should never be taken, and others that should always be the primary armament of basically everything.

I absolutely hate how the game uses an AMS designed to shoot down what amounts to big model rockets to shoot down 1 ton cap missiles. It's absolutely loudacriss.

150 fighters is about right for a cruiser. 300 for a battlestar. 60 to 100 for a destroyer or frigate.

The damage curve on cap weapons doesn't match the one for mech scale weapons. Quite a few cap weapons have what I consider uselessly low amounts of damage. I'm not a fan of the whole damage bays thing either. I would have done something different. Of course I'm a big turret fan.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 05 June 2018, 01:19:15
AMS works fine in space in my head, its a small lump of metal moving exceptionally fast hitting something thats also moving at absurd speed coming the other way, and that other thing is full of fuel etc.  The kinetic energy from a colission at the speeds we're probalby looking at here would be enough to wreck or detonate a missile.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Tyler Jorgensson on 05 June 2018, 03:17:34
A couple of random thoughts although I haven't touched anything in BT aerospace related (short of testing the construction rules and not posting the designs)

First: See Leviathan II and Leviathan III. Huge naval contingent (on top of a massive Dreadnought of course). Having an entire Galaxy of fighters on three ships and dozens of dropships to back them up... enough said.

Second: Dropships. Their was a thread I'll have to find about Castrums versus modern Warships. An interesting topic but I still favor the idea that heavy dropships might be a way to try and expand an army's race: similar to the torpedo boat idea brought up by Marauder.

Third: Finally there is the idea of death by a thousand cuts. How many Mako or Foxes could theoretically take on a McKenna? What about a design built small but packing a punch to work in groups. Slap a couple NL/45s, a missile or two, a dozen fighters and a pair of dropships or two and click copy and paste. A proto-SDS style fleet without the SDS.

Just random thoughts
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 05 June 2018, 09:35:45
AMS works fine in space in my head, its a small lump of metal moving exceptionally fast hitting something thats also moving at absurd speed coming the other way, and that other thing is full of fuel etc.  The kinetic energy from a colission at the speeds we're probalby looking at here would be enough to wreck or detonate a missile.

That part is fine, the part I have a problem with is it's unlimited activations per turn on large spaceships
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Vehrec on 05 June 2018, 09:41:17
I think that a 2300 start year means that you probably have a lot of people starting not with warships, but with Dropshuttles, heavily armed ones, acting as either escorts or attack ships against merchant shipping.  Those are the leaves of the great tree of a black-navy, and when the seed sprouts it gives first a green shoot and leaves to gather strength for establishing it's trunk and so on.  Especially in a pre-HPG era, commerce raiding is gonna be a primary activity for most fleets, especially against the Terran Hegemony which you can't face in a straight fight.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 05 June 2018, 10:06:58
A couple of random thoughts although I haven't touched anything in BT aerospace related (short of testing the construction rules and not posting the designs)

First: See Leviathan II and Leviathan III. Huge naval contingent (on top of a massive Dreadnought of course). Having an entire Galaxy of fighters on three ships and dozens of dropships to back them up... enough said.

Second: Dropships. Their was a thread I'll have to find about Castrums versus modern Warships. An interesting topic but I still favor the idea that heavy dropships might be a way to try and expand an army's race: similar to the torpedo boat idea brought up by Marauder.

Third: Finally there is the idea of death by a thousand cuts. How many Mako or Foxes could theoretically take on a McKenna? What about a design built small but packing a punch to work in groups. Slap a couple NL/45s, a missile or two, a dozen fighters and a pair of dropships or two and click copy and paste. A proto-SDS style fleet without the SDS.

Just random thoughts

Agreed on all counts, except one. The Leviathan 3 is a gigantic investment, and while it's individually quite scary, it's balanced somewhat by the extreme cost. You can get 3 McKennas for the cost of two Lev3's, and if you up-armoured the McKenna to the value allowed under the new rules I think that'd be a pretty fair fight - the McKennas would be on the back foot as regards fighter escorts, but their long-range firepower is superior, and they'll get a lot more threshold crits with those big batteries. Or if you're worried about fighters, use a pair of McKennas and a pair of Volgas.

I think that a 2300 start year means that you probably have a lot of people starting not with warships, but with Dropshuttles, heavily armed ones, acting as either escorts or attack ships against merchant shipping.  Those are the leaves of the great tree of a black-navy, and when the seed sprouts it gives first a green shoot and leaves to gather strength for establishing it's trunk and so on.  Especially in a pre-HPG era, commerce raiding is gonna be a primary activity for most fleets, especially against the Terran Hegemony which you can't face in a straight fight.

Yup, that'd probably be how some fleets would start. Players will have access to compact KF drives from the start(and to be clear, it will start in the 2300s, not exactly the year 2300 - a couple people raising this point make me think some time around 2350 or so would be better). But you can structure this a few different ways, and I'd be curious to see what'd come out of it.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Retry on 05 June 2018, 10:34:25
Agreed on all counts, except one. The Leviathan 3 is a gigantic investment, and while it's individually quite scary, it's balanced somewhat by the extreme cost. You can get 3 McKennas for the cost of two Lev3's, and if you up-armoured the McKenna to the value allowed under the new rules I think that'd be a pretty fair fight - the McKennas would be on the back foot as regards fighter escorts, but their long-range firepower is superior, and they'll get a lot more threshold crits with those big batteries. Or if you're worried about fighters, use a pair of McKennas and a pair of Volgas.
Since the Lev III has 1000 capital-scale points per arc, and the max capital-scale damage any arc can do in one hit is 70 because of bay hits, the McKennas aren't getting any threshold crits on a Lev.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 05 June 2018, 11:00:21
You can threshold a Levi but you have to charge it at full speed and it has to charge you and you have to have either a large cluster of NACs or paried heavy gausses, the closing speed damage boost should in theory put you up above the 100 point damage threshold. JUST.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 05 June 2018, 12:12:46
You can threshold a Levi but you have to charge it at full speed and it has to charge you and you have to have either a large cluster of NACs or paried heavy gausses, the closing speed damage boost should in theory put you up above the 100 point damage threshold. JUST.

Or you can somehow manage to hit it with a heavy mass driver, that'll also do the job.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 05 June 2018, 12:33:49
Since the Lev III has 1000 capital-scale points per arc, and the max capital-scale damage any arc can do in one hit is 70 because of bay hits, the McKennas aren't getting any threshold crits on a Lev.

I think this is one of those cases where I'm thinking of an optional rule as the default - thresholds going down with battle damage will probably allow the McKenna to get thresholds first, but that's not vanilla rules. (Same as how I'm so used to 20+ damage PSRs increasing in difficulty with the amount of damage done and standing still being -1 to hit, because that's how it works in my MegaMek games.)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 June 2018, 13:04:31
This sounds like my sort of catnip.  Im totally down.

Some questions:
1.)  Where are you looking at on a scale of Fluff-----Munchkin in designs?  Real world designers try to build the best thing they can within their constraints.  Battletech designs are often intentionally suboptimal.  Something like the '4 corners' layout would, once put into practice, revolutionize in-universe warship building the way AON armor and all-big-gun armament did real world warships.

2.)  What optional rules, if any, are you considering?  I know theres been discussion of 'how to fix the warship rules' relating to warship armor vs. standard scale weaponry and how anti-missile systems work.  This is particularly salient in light of question #1, given the phenomenal firepower of standard scale weaponry per ton when compared to capital weaponry.  Replacing big guns with small ones costs you some range, but you can easily get enough firepower to simply erase ANYTHING that does come within your range - and you also immunize yourself against fighters.  It is too good.

3.)  We need to know what resources are.  How many slipways?  How big?  Whats the procurement budget in general terms?  Do we care about listed costs as a hard reality thing, or is it more fluff?  Whats our air arm look like?  Can we afford to grow it if we want to go CV heavy?  Do we need to restrict fighter usage because the Government says air assets are for ground support?  Whats our existing force like, or are we designing from an initial clean sheet?  ((Compact Cores are Discovered!  The Hegemony is building a Navy, and now YOU SHOULD TOO!))  We build very differently if we have infinite budget and limited slipways than we do with infinite slipways and limited budget.  We build very differently depending on how maintenance costs compare to construction costs, and how attrition units cost in production vs. maintenance.  We build very differently if a ship is expected to last 5 years or 250 years.

4.)  What is our threat environment?  What are our opponents like?  Who do we expect them to be?  Do we expect nukes to figure in every engagement, or do we believe (truly or falsely) that We Just Dont Do That?  Designs for a "Davion and Davion-Deceased" universe are going to look very different from a "Ares Accords Control" universe?

5.)  Whats our strategic posture/anticipated mission?  A 'defensive' force intended to stop enemy planetary landings looks different than an offensive force intended to support an invasion looks different from a commerce raiding force from a commerce protection force from a blah blah blah.

I'm not saying you have to set out all of this!  But more information is good, and I look forward to seeing the different solutions various players propose to various problems.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 05 June 2018, 13:28:51
This sounds like my sort of catnip.  Im totally down.

 :D

Some questions:
1.)  Where are you looking at on a scale of Fluff-----Munchkin in designs?  Real world designers try to build the best thing they can within their constraints.  Battletech designs are often intentionally suboptimal.  Something like the '4 corners' layout would, once put into practice, revolutionize in-universe warship building the way AON armor and all-big-gun armament did real world warships.

70/30? I want to use BT construction rules, but I don't intend to adjudicate battles with BT combat rules. A "4 corners" layout would be legal, but I'd be much more likely to have a battle wind up with someone getting into your blind spot, or to have half your anti-fighter weapons blown apart by one PPC barrage, if you try to munchkin like that. This is part of the appeal of using battle reports as the means to communicate back to you guys what works and what doesn't - I can avoid the official AMS rules(and thus make sure we don't obsolete a whole weapon class) without needing to specify exactly what I'm using in its place. Real military designers don't get to design around a given set of dice roll statistics.

2.)  What optional rules, if any, are you considering?  I know theres been discussion of 'how to fix the warship rules' relating to warship armor vs. standard scale weaponry and how anti-missile systems work.  This is particularly salient in light of question #1, given the phenomenal firepower of standard scale weaponry per ton when compared to capital weaponry.  Replacing big guns with small ones costs you some range, but you can easily get enough firepower to simply erase ANYTHING that does come within your range - and you also immunize yourself against fighters.  It is too good.

I don't have a formal rule set you could use to play tabletop written up, but I'll be going with common sense. AMS knocks down missiles, and more is better, but you don't get immunity. Fighters can threaten warships, but not using Mech-scale small lasers - I'll probably fluff it that armour resists small weapons, but that capital missiles are fitted to bomb hardpoints on fighters as an anti-shipping weapon. Using Mech-scale weapons to attack WarShips will work once you've already breached their armour and you just want to trash the guts of the ship, or if you want to attack systems on the surface of the ship(blinding sensors, attacking light AA mounts, etc.), but it'll do very little to intact armour plates.

3.)  We need to know what resources are.  How many slipways?  How big?  Whats the procurement budget in general terms?  Do we care about listed costs as a hard reality thing, or is it more fluff?  Whats our air arm look like?  Can we afford to grow it if we want to go CV heavy?  Do we need to restrict fighter usage because the Government says air assets are for ground support?  Whats our existing force like, or are we designing from an initial clean sheet?  ((Compact Cores are Discovered!  The Hegemony is building a Navy, and now YOU SHOULD TOO!))  We build very differently if we have infinite budget and limited slipways than we do with infinite slipways and limited budget.  We build very differently depending on how maintenance costs compare to construction costs, and how attrition units cost in production vs. maintenance.  We build very differently if a ship is expected to last 5 years or 250 years.

It'll probably vary by faction and over time. As of 2350, probably one or two yards that can each build a single-digit number of ships, a few supporting factories to make the specialty equipment(naval guns, etc.), and a budget in the range of perhaps a hundred billion a year. That will increase over time, and then decrease rapidly when the nukes start flying post-Amaris. I'm not sure if I'll add an economic simulation aspect to this or not - I like the idea, but it could be complicated, and the tradeoffs(i.e., a lower budget for ground forces) would need to be included for it to be fair.

Re ship durability, in canon they routinely lasted centuries. (Helps that there's no water to corrode them and tech progress is rather slow, of course). I assume a typical design can be operated for a couple centuries as long as it gets proper maintenance throughout.

4.)  What is our threat environment?  What are our opponents like?  Who do we expect them to be?  Do we expect nukes to figure in every engagement, or do we believe (truly or falsely) that We Just Dont Do That?  Designs for a "Davion and Davion-Deceased" universe are going to look very different from a "Ares Accords Control" universe?

Your opponents are each other, so I leave that to your twisted imaginations  >:D

I will say that I'll definitely read the fluff and follow through on your stated doctrine whenever plausible. If you say you're operating your empire on a no-first-nuke rule and trying to use your L-F batteries solely to disengage from fights going badly, then I'll have your admirals work to follow through on that doctrine in practice. A force designed around high strategic mobility and nodal defence will play differently than one designed around offensive pirate point invasions, or one designed around massed fighter strikes in set-piece battles.

5.)  Whats our strategic posture/anticipated mission?  A 'defensive' force intended to stop enemy planetary landings looks different than an offensive force intended to support an invasion looks different from a commerce raiding force from a commerce protection force from a blah blah blah.

I'm not saying you have to set out all of this!  But more information is good, and I look forward to seeing the different solutions various players propose to various problems.

As above, you're different empires that have a tendancy to fight each other. It's still the standard BT universe, so ground forces are primary, and naval vessels are used in a supporting role more often than not. You still want to conquer planets, gain factories, and the like. This won't be a railroaded RPG campaign - I'm pretty much willing to roll with any ideas you might have. Just be aware that (much like IRL) some ideas are very bad.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 June 2018, 13:47:15
:D

70/30? I want to use BT construction rules, but I don't intend to adjudicate battles with BT combat rules. A "4 corners" layout would be legal, but I'd be much more likely to have a battle wind up with someone getting into your blind spot, or to have half your anti-fighter weapons blown apart by one PPC barrage, if you try to munchkin like that. This is part of the appeal of using battle reports as the means to communicate back to you guys what works and what doesn't - I can avoid the official AMS rules(and thus make sure we don't obsolete a whole weapon class) without needing to specify exactly what I'm using in its place. Real military designers don't get to design around a given set of dice roll statistics.

I don't have a formal rule set you could use to play tabletop written up, but I'll be going with common sense. AMS knocks down missiles, and more is better, but you don't get immunity. Fighters can threaten warships, but not using Mech-scale small lasers - I'll probably fluff it that armour resists small weapons, but that capital missiles are fitted to bomb hardpoints on fighters as an anti-shipping weapon. Using Mech-scale weapons to attack WarShips will work once you've already breached their armour and you just want to trash the guts of the ship, or if you want to attack systems on the surface of the ship(blinding sensors, attacking light AA mounts, etc.), but it'll do very little to intact armour plates.

It'll probably vary by faction and over time. As of 2350, probably one or two yards that can each build a single-digit number of ships, a few supporting factories to make the specialty equipment(naval guns, etc.), and a budget in the range of perhaps a hundred billion a year. That will increase over time, and then decrease rapidly when the nukes start flying post-Amaris. I'm not sure if I'll add an economic simulation aspect to this or not - I like the idea, but it could be complicated, and the tradeoffs(i.e., a lower budget for ground forces) would need to be included for it to be fair.

Re ship durability, in canon they routinely lasted centuries. (Helps that there's no water to corrode them and tech progress is rather slow, of course). I assume a typical design can be operated for a couple centuries as long as it gets proper maintenance throughout.

Your opponents are each other, so I leave that to your twisted imaginations  >:D

I will say that I'll definitely read the fluff and follow through on your stated doctrine whenever plausible. If you say you're operating your empire on a no-first-nuke rule and trying to use your L-F batteries solely to disengage from fights going badly, then I'll have your admirals work to follow through on that doctrine in practice. A force designed around high strategic mobility and nodal defence will play differently than one designed around offensive pirate point invasions, or one designed around massed fighter strikes in set-piece battles.

As above, you're different empires that have a tendancy to fight each other. It's still the standard BT universe, so ground forces are primary, and naval vessels are used in a supporting role more often than not. You still want to conquer planets, gain factories, and the like. This won't be a railroaded RPG campaign - I'm pretty much willing to roll with any ideas you might have. Just be aware that (much like IRL) some ideas are very bad.

Think about what level of control you want from your players.  Are they in charge of naval procurement? In charge of naval strategy? In charge of the whole house, and were just focused here on the naval side of things?

I do ask that you hold up an 'are you sure' sign when a player starts to do some things that are Very Bad Ideas.  Some ideas are very bad, but its not always possible for the player to see into the GM's head - things that would be medium reasonable in front of one GM are insanely stupid in front of a second and the Best.  Idea.  Evar. in front of a third, because each GM has their own picture of the universe in their head.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 05 June 2018, 14:07:23
Think about what level of control you want from your players.  Are they in charge of naval procurement? In charge of naval strategy? In charge of the whole house, and were just focused here on the naval side of things?

I do ask that you hold up an 'are you sure' sign when a player starts to do some things that are Very Bad Ideas.  Some ideas are very bad, but its not always possible for the player to see into the GM's head - things that would be medium reasonable in front of one GM are insanely stupid in front of a second and the Best.  Idea.  Evar. in front of a third, because each GM has their own picture of the universe in their head.

Both reasonable requests. I was thinking that players would be in charge of naval design and procurement at a minimum, and if they're like me then they'll almost instantly use that to take control of strategy and support infrastructure as well. If players are somewhat less enthusiastic, then it can be filled in fairly easily. And yes, you're all running large organizations, so there'll be advisors who have things to say about decisions if need be. That said, some decisions may be perfectly reasonable, and merely unlucky - deploying a generation of cargo-heavy ships when you happen to spend the next 30 years fighting all your battles on the defensive will make you feel a bit dumb, and getting bad luck rolls in the battle where your tactics are first tried out might lead you to think that a perfectly reasonable tactic is actually a dog.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 June 2018, 14:38:07
I was thinking more ‘very bad ideas’ as in my prior ‘rules say that 700 PPCs are 700 capital damage I want that for my broadside’ point, which you clarified as ‘sure the strict rules say that but its silly and doesnt work that way’.  Obviously if I build a 5/8 force of Commerce Raider light cruisers and the opponent throws his whole 2/3 Battleship Wall of Battle at my capital, Im going to have a Very Bad Day.

Dont stop me from being Jackie Fisher.  He was often wrong, but those were reasonable wrong for the information he had. Just give me a heads up if its clear my mental picture of how things work is utterly off base, like ‘Hey, youve got 1000 fighters on this thing.  Your House cant possibly build enough fighters to fill those’
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 05 June 2018, 14:46:14
I was thinking more ‘very bad ideas’ as in my prior ‘rules say that 700 PPCs are 700 capital damage I want that for my broadside’ point, which you clarified as ‘sure the strict rules say that but its silly and doesnt work that way’.  Obviously if I build a 5/8 force of Commerce Raider light cruisers and the opponent throws his whole 2/3 Battleship Wall of Battle at my capital, Im going to have a Very Bad Day.

Dont stop me from being Jackie Fisher.  He was often wrong, but those were reasonable wrong for the information he had. Just give me a heads up if its clear my mental picture of how things work is utterly off base, like ‘Hey, youve got 1000 fighters on this thing.  Your House cant possibly build enough fighters to fill those’

Yeah, we're very much on the same page here.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 June 2018, 15:29:38
Also, I see a lot of people discussing this idea - is anyone interested in joining?

In case I was unclear - I look forward to processing my first turn.  When can I expect it and do you need my email?

 ;)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 05 June 2018, 15:41:28
In case I was unclear - I look forward to processing my first turn.  When can I expect it and do you need my email?

 ;)

I figured as much from "I'm totally down" ;)

I'd like to get 5 players, if we can. If we're lacking that in a reasonable period of time(let's say a week from now?), I'll proceed with fewer and people can jump in down the line. Feel free to work on your planning for the first turn, or to make suggestions for how you'd like to see this run.

I don't expect email will be needed - I was figuring forum posts and PM's would be sufficient. Were you thinking of a particular need for email? I've run face-to-face RPGs before, but never via forum, so I'm not sure if I'm overlooking something.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 05 June 2018, 15:48:25

I am getting ideas, however I am bit short on time lately, but I would like to try.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 05 June 2018, 16:04:37
I am getting ideas, however I am bit short on time lately, but I would like to try.

Great, we're up to two.

Remember also that you won't need to produce three new ships every round or anything. Sarna shows 39 Terran Hegemony designs (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Category:Terran_Hegemony_WarShip_classes), and that covered 480 years(and includes some re-makes, like the three Lolas, as well as stuff like the Bug-Eye that I doubt anyone here will bother making). Even if a round is a decade, you'll probably wind up making no new submissions in many of your rounds. Also, if we get more than five interested parties, I'm cool with people forming teams.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 05 June 2018, 17:10:17
I figured as much from "I'm totally down" ;)

I'd like to get 5 players, if we can. If we're lacking that in a reasonable period of time(let's say a week from now?), I'll proceed with fewer and people can jump in down the line. Feel free to work on your planning for the first turn, or to make suggestions for how you'd like to see this run.

I don't expect email will be needed - I was figuring forum posts and PM's would be sufficient. Were you thinking of a particular need for email? I've run face-to-face RPGs before, but never via forum, so I'm not sure if I'm overlooking something.

Forum posts and PMs would probably be enough.
Maybe something like:

Turn 1, 2350-2360
The Terran Hegemony has been building Warships - heavily armed Jumpships - using compact core technology.  This technology has reached the hands of our designers, and we must decide how to secure the future of the $StarNation in this dangerous era.

Your total budget for Naval Construction is $300 Billion CBills

CAPITAL PRODUCTION:
As this is the first turn, your fledgling design bureaus may only design, prototype, and enter into production one new capital vessel.  Warship prices vary based on size and dropship carriage, and larger warships tend to be cheaper relative to their combat power than smaller vessels.  A Typical 500,000 Ton Warship likely costs around ~10 Billion C-Bills.

Capital Production Assets:
Yard Space:  4 Million Tons Total Construction
Maximum Slipway Size:  400,000 Tons


DROPSHIP PRODUCTION:
As this is the first turn, your fledgling design bureaus may only design, prototype, and enter into production one new combat dropship.  Transport and Cargo Dropships are outside the scope of this simulation.  If you do not choose to design combat dropships, your level of investment will be taken into account by the GM to indicate the priority your navy places on combat dropship production and operation.  Combat Dropships are very expensive relative to their mass and tend to suffer heavier casualties in combat, but may be produced very quickly compared to warships.  A 10,000 Ton Combat Dropship costs ~2.5 B C-Bills

Dropship Production Assets:
Yard Space:  Unlimited
Maximum Dropship Size:  Any


FIGHTER PRODUCTION:
As this is the first turn, your fledgling design bureaus may only design, prototype, and enter into production one new aerospace fighter.  If you do not choose to design fighters your level of investment will be taken into account by the GM to indicate the priority your navy places on fighter production and operation.  Aerospace fighters are relatively inexpensive and may be produced in vast quantities, but require carriers to operate and suffer from higher operational costs, operational losses, and fuel restrictions that make make them difficult to employ.  A typical 50 Ton Fighter costs ~ 2.5 Million CBills

INVESTMENT:
Any C-Bills left unspent may be allocated to other uses you believe beneficial to the future of your star nation.  The GM will adjudicate what impact this has, if any.

OPERATIONS AND DOCTRINE:
Please indicate here what sort of naval operations you want your navy to prioritize.  Are they clearing the way for invasion fleets?  Are they engaged in commerce raiding? Are they defending the borders?
How aggressively will your fleet operate?  Will it seek out engagement?  Will it accept only on the most favourable of terms?  Is it strictly limited to a suvival/fleet in being doctrine, where you are willing to risk the loss of all but the most important of worlds to retain the strength of your fleet?
What is your policy towards Nuclear Weapons?  Nuclear munitions are a major advantage, but may anger other powers, and the Terran Hegemony is still the largest fish in space...

((Etc - just an initial thought))

((Also, if we get more than 5 interest parties, Im all for playing one of the major periphery powers.  Long live the RWR!))

((Also, Also - we will need to all be using the same design software, because I believe 0 of us are interested in building warships by hand, but we need to be getting the same answers.  Whatever everyone chooses is fine, although I haven't budgeted for Heavy Metal this quarter.))
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Tyler Jorgensson on 05 June 2018, 19:43:22
I have no were enough time so count me out.... however I would LOVE to read the results and watch. If it's not going to be in this thread please link it.

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 05 June 2018, 22:39:13
Haven't had much experience with 'Ship buildin but I'll have a go, even have a few ships built that could exist alongside the TAS Dreadnought to start me off

My main issue is going to be the fluff side of things, see how it goes
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 06 June 2018, 08:13:46
Haven't had much experience with 'Ship buildin but I'll have a go, even have a few ships built that could exist alongside the TAS Dreadnought to start me off

My main issue is going to be the fluff side of things, see how it goes

And then there were three.

I have no were enough time so count me out.... however I would LOVE to read the results and watch. If it's not going to be in this thread please link it.

It'll be in this thread.

(snip)

Not a bad starting point - I'll fiddle with it a bit, but you've given me some things to think about.

As for construction tools, I think the only one worth a damn that's up to date is Cryhavoc's Google Sheet. HM Aero is outdated, and MML's WarShip construction won't go public until after we're underway.

As for things you can buy, I've got the following list for right now. Thoughts?

* WarShips/Space Stations (as calculated cost, though lead ship of a new class costs double, and lead ship of a new variant costs +50%. Round all costs to the nearest million C-bills)
* JumpShips (500M, not differentiated)
* DropShips (small = 300M, medium = 500M, large = 1,000M. Cargo/ground unit transports are not differentiated beyond that, carriers store 12/36/108 fighters, PWS rules TBD)
* Small Craft (combat = 20M, shuttle = 10M)
* Fighters (light = 2M, medium = 4M, heavy = 6M, or once XL engines come online you can buy advanced versions for 3x the cost)
* Yard space (rules TBD)
* Training (rules TBD)
* Maintenance (rules TBD)
* Research (one tech will be released every round, each million spent is a ballot. Winner can use the tech for a round before everyone else gets access)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 06 June 2018, 08:27:20
I'd like to point out to anyone who needs it that my warship construction spreadsheet calculated C-bill costs as well, and handles primitive jumpship design too.

However my dropship sheet doesn't do c-bills. Use them each however you like. Links in my signature.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 06 June 2018, 08:27:36
Are we intentionally lowering the cost of droppers?  I can live with that (because their costs are -crazy-, due to the modifier) but its a significant change.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 06 June 2018, 08:47:18
I'd like to point out to anyone who needs it that my warship construction spreadsheet calculated C-bill costs as well, and handles primitive jumpship design too.

However my dropship sheet doesn't do c-bills. Use them each however you like. Links in my signature.

Yeah, the fact that the WS sheet calculates cost is also a big part of its appeal here. It also does stations, right?

And I was planning to abstract away DropShip design, so I doubt I'll ask players to use that construction tool.

Are we intentionally lowering the cost of droppers?  I can live with that (because their costs are -crazy-, due to the modifier) but its a significant change.

The DropShips themselves aren't all that expensive. I'll double-check those numbers, but I think that was what I wrote down when going through my books last night. (I'm at the office now, so I can't confirm). The collars to attach them, OTOH, can easily run a couple bil if they're on a WarShip, especially one with a L-F battery. My impression was always that the DS itself was the cheaper part of the system.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 06 June 2018, 08:54:24
Also consider that drop ships and jumpships as we know them today haven't been invited yet which severely limits DS size since its still got to be carried internally
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 06 June 2018, 09:03:51
Yeah, the fact that the WS sheet calculates cost is also a big part of its appeal here. It also does stations, right?

And I was planning to abstract away DropShip design, so I doubt I'll ask players to use that construction tool.

The DropShips themselves aren't all that expensive. I'll double-check those numbers, but I think that was what I wrote down when going through my books last night. (I'm at the office now, so I can't confirm). The collars to attach them, OTOH, can easily run a couple bil if they're on a WarShip, especially one with a L-F battery. My impression was always that the DS itself was the cheaper part of the system.

I was getting my numbers from a spreadsheet I didnt write.  Ill hand math a quick dropper by the current rules and see what I get.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 06 June 2018, 09:04:35
Also consider that drop ships and jumpships as we know them today haven't been invited yet which severely limits DS size since its still got to be carried internally

I've seen mixed information on that - there's some suggestions that DS don't exist until 2470, but then I see designs like the Saturn (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Saturn_(DropShip)) from the 2200s. The Jumbo (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Jumbo) from the early 2400s was almost certainly too big to carry internally. Where can I get a definite answer here? I feel like I'm looking in the wrong place(s).
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 06 June 2018, 09:57:44
Yeah, the fact that the WS sheet calculates cost is also a big part of its appeal here. It also does stations, right?

Yes it does. It does Warships, Jumpships, Stations, and Primitive Jumpships.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 06 June 2018, 11:13:54
I'm using the spreadsheet done by Amaris Fan Club - I encountered it before yours, and its working for me.
Mostly its that I can use it at work - my work hates google docs. :)

http://www.mediafire.com/view/lgg3098a6a73ur7/Warship%20Design%20Spreadsheet%20-%20Dec%202013.xlsx


Its discussed in this thread:
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,35566.new.html#new

Unfortunately, Amaris Fan Club hasnt posted in a year, and that thread is from 2013, so I cant say where we are in terms of currency - but shes worked well for me, and I like the extra fluffy fiddly bits. :)

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 06 June 2018, 11:50:36
I've seen mixed information on that - there's some suggestions that DS don't exist until 2470, but then I see designs like the Saturn (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Saturn_(DropShip)) from the 2200s. The Jumbo (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Jumbo) from the early 2400s was almost certainly too big to carry internally. Where can I get a definite answer here? I feel like I'm looking in the wrong place(s).
Before 2470 you have dropshuttles, but they could either be mobile (fit in DS bays) or exceed 5000 tons and be stuck in system.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 06 June 2018, 11:57:55
* Small Craft (combat = 20M, shuttle = 10M)
The combat option is a bit expensive, why not both 10M or calculated. See examples:
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=58804.0
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=30150.0
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 06 June 2018, 12:26:29
Suggested rules for shipyard space:

Shipyards have 10 levels. Each yard can produce an average of two ships a turn(i.e., one every 5 years), with maximum size equal to level*250,000 tons. Shipyards can be created at level 1 or upgraded by one level per turn, at a cost of 10 billion times the new level. If the system where the shipyard is located already has a yard of equal or larger size, this cost is halved. There is no limit to the number of yards that can be located in a single system, though be aware that over-concentration leaves you more vulnerable to attack. To simplify bookkeeping, repairing ships will not generally consume yard space, and there is no production speed bonus for producing smaller ships in a bigger yard.

Station/JS/DS/small craft/fighter space is limited only by funds, to keep bookkeeping simple.

Suggested rules for maintenance and training:

A typical ship or station design costs 1% of its original cost per year in maintenance, crew training, and upkeep. This is doubled if it has been out of production for at least 20 years, due to scarcity of parts. (To prevent excessive munchkining, re-starting a stopped line is treated as a new variant of the ship, with the +50% cost associated with that). A ship can be put into mothballs to reduce its maintenance cost by 80%, but re-activating it will cost the equivalent of a decade's standard maintenance.

Players can under-fund or over-fund maintenance on their ships if desired, which will have some effects on their performance in combat. No firm rules here, but tl;dr occasional maintenance holidays have fairly small impacts, especially if you catch up by over-funding later, but persistent under-funding will have serious effects. Over-funding won't have a huge effect, but a player who wants to focus on high-quality units may gain some benefit from doing so.

JS/DS/small craft/fighter maintenance is ignored. However, regular attrition of these units is to be expected, so replacement costs will be relevant.

Suggested rules for randomization:

Each turn, I'll make a roll on a random event table for each faction. Each new ship design will get a roll on a random quirk table. Both of these tables will be of my devising. Don't expect huge effects, but a ship might be a hangar queen(2x maintenance costs), or easy to modify(no cost to creating new variants), and a player might get a brilliant admiral(+1 to command skill rolls) or a terrible recession (-10% to budget next turn).

Suggested rules for finance:

Players get income based on how large and successful their empire is. Successful conquests will increase your budget, and losing territory(either permanently, or having it temporarily devastated in attacks) will reduce it. I'll mostly play this one by ear.

Surpluses can be saved, but no interest will accrue. Deficits can be run, but each million C-bills of overspending reduces your income for the next round by two million. No deficit can be run that would reduce the next turn's income below zero.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 06 June 2018, 12:26:51
Before 2470 you have dropshuttles, but they could either be mobile (fit in DS bays) or exceed 5000 tons and be stuck in system.

Ah, okay. Where are the rules for DS bays?

The combat option is a bit expensive, why not both 10M or calculated. See examples:
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=58804.0
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=30150.0

I was thinking of units that were quite a bit more capable than that in combat. I confess, I haven't played with SC much, so maybe I'm overvaluing them.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 06 June 2018, 13:03:42
Ah, okay. Where are the rules for DS bays?
See IO page 119, 126-127


Quote
I was thinking of units that were quite a bit more capable than that in combat. I confess, I haven't played with SC much, so maybe I'm overvaluing them.
The Pleiades examples is actually relatively decent, the rare combat SCs are about as effective as medium ASFs. SC only become dangerous with advanced technology such as DHS and Gauss Rifles.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 06 June 2018, 13:25:54
Consider starting with JS/DS/ASFs in use.  Cuts down on the total new unit types people have to remember.

Rules sound good, but you know how much time you have.  Unless it adds something you find particularly important,, recommend that simpler is usually better.

Then again, Ive already designed my fleet standard ASF, and dont know what nation i have.  So who knows?


Player Count:
Looks like me, Maingunnery, and Smegish so far.  Anyone else chimed in?  How do we want to pass out great houses?  Do we know what the situation of the various houses was in 2550?

Im looking at the maps on Sarna, for 2570, which should be close...

By comparison to the modern era:
1.)  Everyone loses space to the Hegemony.  Unsuprising.
2.)  DC has about the same border with the FedSuns, but has lost a lot of space to the LC compared to 3025
3.)  Fedsuns control somewhat less Capellan Space than they do in 3025
4.)  Cap Con picks up a lot of FWL Space
5.)  FWL looses space to the CapCon, and the Commonwealth, compared to 3025.
6.)  Strong LC in this era - it controls sections of FWL space and large sections of DC space, comapred to 3025.

Looks like the LC is the winner in this era.  Maybe 10% larger than the Fed Suns.
FS is a bit reduced, compared to 3025., but a solid #2
DC is quite weak compared to 3025.. about 2/3 the size of the FS or LC.
Cap Con and FWL are of similar size - but even between them, no larger than the FS or LC.
The whole of the FWL/DC/CC Axis (if it exists!) is similar in size to the FS/LC, if not a bit smaller.

Hmm.  Hopefully the great powers are somewhat more equal 'under the hood'.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 06 June 2018, 14:54:49
See IO page 119, 126-127

The Pleiades examples is actually relatively decent, the rare combat SCs are about as effective as medium ASFs. SC only become dangerous with advanced technology such as DHS and Gauss Rifles.

I'm going to need to buy IO and CO for this, aren't I?

And if that's the case, then we can just drop the "combat SC" entry. Call them all 10 mil per, don't worry about dividing them up.

Consider starting with JS/DS/ASFs in use.  Cuts down on the total new unit types people have to remember.

Rules sound good, but you know how much time you have.  Unless it adds something you find particularly important,, recommend that simpler is usually better.

Then again, Ive already designed my fleet standard ASF, and dont know what nation i have.  So who knows?


Player Count:
Looks like me, Maingunnery, and Smegish so far.  Anyone else chimed in?  How do we want to pass out great houses?  Do we know what the situation of the various houses was in 2550?

Yeah, I'm trying to strip out a lot of the record-keeping. I know I have to run this thing, so I'm trying not to multiply needlessly. It'll be complex enough as-is. And that's the same player count I have, though a RL buddy of mine might be interested as well. Passing out houses I figured we'd do by a preference list, and randomization insofar as they differ. (I thought of giving priority to people who join first, but that might push latecomers away, and it prevents things like your offer to play the RWR if we have a lot of people.) As for the situations of the houses, I'll need to do some research. Note that some of the secondary houses had not yet been folded in by this point - the RWR, the United Hindu Collective (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/United_Hindu_Collective), etc. - but I doubt players will want to play factions with an expiry date.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 06 June 2018, 15:57:58
I'm using the spreadsheet done by Amaris Fan Club - I encountered it before yours, and its working for me.
Mostly its that I can use it at work - my work hates google docs. :)

Hey as long as you have something that works, that's what matters. I only made mine because I couldn't find one that worked for me. I actually chose google docs for mine for similar reasons.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 06 June 2018, 16:48:54
I'm going to need to buy IO and CO for this, aren't I?

 - but I doubt players will want to play factions with an expiry date.

1.)  RE:  IO and CO... "I NEED FIVE VOLUNTEERS!"  "... what for, Drill Seargeant?"  "I NEED FOUR VOLUNTEERS...."

2.)  Well, as soon as you hand it to players and let them make decisions, its not just a design exercise, its an AU.  Who says that the RWR has an expiration date? :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Tyler Jorgensson on 06 June 2018, 17:31:59
Finmark Republic is a go!
2.)  Well, as soon as you hand it to players and let them make decisions, its not just a design exercise, its an AU.  Who says that the RWR has an expiration date? :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 06 June 2018, 20:57:06
Looking for year in service dates for the various Warship Armors - Cannot locate in Tech Manual or Strat Ops.  Should I be looking elsewhere?

Edit:

Per Sarna:
Ferro-Carbide:  Aegis, 2372
Lamellor Ferro-Carbide:  Black Lion, 2691

Will update as I find earlier dates.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 06 June 2018, 21:46:56
Well, as soon as you hand it to players and let them make decisions, its not just a design exercise, its an AU.  Who says that the RWR has an expiration date? :)

I like the way you think, but players are effectively Cabinet-level, not national leaders. Things like the Amaris coup(and the SLDF response) are out of player control.

Looking for year in service dates for the various Warship Armors - Cannot locate in Tech Manual or Strat Ops.  Should I be looking elsewhere?

Edit:

Per Sarna:
Ferro-Carbide:  Aegis, 2372
Lamellor Ferro-Carbide:  Black Lion, 2691

Will update as I find earlier dates.

I was working on the tech list - SO page 158 shows improved ferro-aluminum 2350, ferro-carbide 2370, and lamellor ferro-carbide 2615. Weirdly, regular ferro-aluminum is 2571, 200+ years after the improved version, so I may juggle those around a bit. (I'm using historical tech dates as inspiration, not a hard-and-fast list - there's too many short bursts of growth and long droughts for a game like this. Also I want to keep the exact order of tech development a secret to avoid metagaming.)

Edit: Here's the list of canonical invention dates I've pulled from my sourcebooks for any even-somewhat-relevant technologies I could find. If you think I'm missing something, let me know.
Tech   Canon Introduction
Improved Ferro-Aluminum   2350
Vehicular Drop Chute   2351
NPPC   2356
SRM   2370
Ferro-Carbide   2370
Castle Brian   2391
Small Laser   2400
LRM   2400
Medium Laser   2400
Large Laser   2430
Mechs   2443
AC/10   2460
PPC   2460
Mech Cubicle   2470
Spheroid DropShip   2470
CASE   2476
Aerodyne DropShip   2480
Endo Steel   2487
AC/20   2500
L-F Battery   2529
Double HS   2567
Ferro-Aluminum   2571
Ferro Fibre   2571
Active Probe   2576
XL Engine   2579
Narc   2587
Gauss Rifle   2590
LB-10X   2595
ECM   2597
Artemis IV   2598
TAG   2600
Pulse Lasers   2609
Lamellor Ferro-Carbide   2615
AMS   2617
ER Large Laser   2620
HyperPulse Generators   2629
UAC/5   2640
Streak SRM-2   2647
Mobile HPG   2655
LAMs   2688
Caspar Drones   2690
Light Power Armor   2710
Mass Driver   2715
ER PPC   2760
Bearings-Only Launches   (Not specified - assumed to be fairly early)
Bracket Fire   (Not specified - assumed to be late Star League)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 06 June 2018, 21:56:14
I like the way you think, but players are effectively Cabinet-level, not national leaders. Things like the Amaris coup(and the SLDF response) are out of player control.

I was working on the tech list - SO page 158 shows improved ferro-aluminum 2350, ferro-carbide 2370, and lamellor ferro-carbide 2615. Weirdly, regular ferro-aluminum is 2571, 200+ years after the improved version, so I may juggle those around a bit. (I'm using historical tech dates as inspiration, not a hard-and-fast list - there's too many short bursts of growth and long droughts for a game like this. Also I want to keep the exact order of tech development a secret to avoid metagaming.)

1.)  Cabinet Level Officers:  Aff.  But things are going to butterly rapidly, unless you want to use the decisions of Our Inscrutable Masters to nudge things back onto the default track.  That might be something to consider now - how far are we willing to wander into AU territory?  If EVERY fleet officer says ‘no first use’ and makes it stick, the Succession Wars look very different...

2.)  Armor and Tech Advance:  IF Ferro-Carbide is already in play, (timeline says yes) then we lose some interesting upteching - because theres only Lamellor Ferro Carbide for an upgrade to go from there.  Depending on how you feel about AUs - you might say that only standard Plate exists at game on.  More tech steps.

3.)  Strat Ops - 158.  I missed that each way several times.  Thank you.

4.)  Hunh.  Tech Advance speeds are crazy fast.  Only 100 years between PPCs and DHS?  I assume anything not listed (AC/5?) are older.
Do we want to make sure the basics (3025 gear) are in play at game on?  Or go strict progression?  Or something else?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 06 June 2018, 22:02:32
Canon says IFA is brand-new at our start date, and FC doesn't exist for a couple decades yet. I may juggle that a bit, depending. There'll be upgrades to be had, don't worry. (Note, for example, that your best small guns at the game start are AC/5s - LRMs, PPCs, LLs, and AC/10s don't yet exist. NPPCs don't exist, naval missiles are lacking for fancy firing options, and as previously discussed we don't have DropShips yet. Heck, mechs are almost a century away.)

Also, note my edit to my previous post - I have a full tech list there(or at least, nearly-full).
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 06 June 2018, 22:13:48
Yeah.  AC/5 as anti fighter defense.  At least the -fighters- are no better armed.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 06 June 2018, 22:23:02
4.)  Hunh.  Tech Advance speeds are crazy fast.  Only 100 years between PPCs and DHS?  I assume anything not listed (AC/5?) are older.
Do we want to make sure the basics (3025 gear) are in play at game on?  Or go strict progression?  Or something else?

At game start, the only available mech-scale weapons are AC/2, AC/5 and MG, I think. WarShips have a wider selection, weirdly - all NACs, all NLs, and all standard missiles are available. And TBH, I'm okay with that. It gives us places to go, and because we're not fighting the battles out, the light weapon shortage isn't a huge problem. MGs are your point defence, light ACs for anti-fighter work, and capital missiles on fighter hardpoints for anti-shipping strikes. It's enough to start.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 06 June 2018, 22:28:07
I can jam with it.

Question:  if I buy say 1000 Generic Fighters in 2550... and never lose them....  do they remain AC/5 armed sad sacks forever?  I suppose since we dont play it out and that scale is generic, it doesnt -matter-
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 07 June 2018, 03:27:22
Few points/questions:

1) Just because some piece of tech has been invented by the dirty Terrans, quite likely to be anything between 10-50 years before the rest of us get access to enough of it to do anything with it. The TH (and SLDF) kept a few things to themselves for a LONG time in OTL after all.

2) A thought occurred to me that we aren't necessarily limited to 5 players, we could just keep the Hegemony, and split the rest of the IS evenly between however many players we have, who cook up their own little factions. Would be extra work though of course.

3) Techmanual or TO (forget which one its in) doesn't say anything about it, but were all calibres of NAC available at once, or where they build in bigger sizes slowly over time, like regular ACs? Book just says released this date, same with NLs and the Cap Missiles.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 07 June 2018, 09:53:50
I can jam with it.

Question:  if I buy say 1000 Generic Fighters in 2550... and never lose them....  do they remain AC/5 armed sad sacks forever?  I suppose since we dont play it out and that scale is generic, it doesnt -matter-

That was basically my thinking. I'm seriously considering not offering different fighter sizes at all, and simply treating them as an undifferentiated mass(or maybe offering basic/advanced when XLFE come on line). Tracking which ones are of which vintage is too much bookkeeping, IMO. We'll just pretend that fighter upgrades come out of the Army's budget ;) .

Few points/questions:

1) Just because some piece of tech has been invented by the dirty Terrans, quite likely to be anything between 10-50 years before the rest of us get access to enough of it to do anything with it. The TH (and SLDF) kept a few things to themselves for a LONG time in OTL after all.

2) A thought occurred to me that we aren't necessarily limited to 5 players, we could just keep the Hegemony, and split the rest of the IS evenly between however many players we have, who cook up their own little factions. Would be extra work though of course.

3) Techmanual or TO (forget which one its in) doesn't say anything about it, but were all calibres of NAC available at once, or where they build in bigger sizes slowly over time, like regular ACs? Book just says released this date, same with NLs and the Cap Missiles.

1) I've factored that in, to some extent. Whoever invents a tech gets to use it for a full decade before anyone else can. That's one turn, but a lot can happen in one of these turns. (It seemed the best and most realistic way to incentivize research)

2) That sounds really painful. I was planning to lean on canon pretty hard to come up with battle scenarios and political developments, and of course most players are more attached to the canon empires than any homebrew ones. Also, we're still at 3 players, so I'm not feeling the pinch yet.

3) I don't have my TO in front of me, but I think they all came out at basically the same time. There may have been a few years in between, but not many, and it was something like 150 years before our start date. Which makes sense, really - historical battleship guns were in a similar size class if you consider their mountings (the triple turret of a Yamato weighed over 3000 tons all-in), and if they were ever considered viable weapons again, they'd be built without too much delay. The slow introduction of ACs on land is probably less realistic, but because that's a part of the universe that we're not focusing on, it doesn't matter so much.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 07 June 2018, 10:18:09
That was basically my thinking. I'm seriously considering not offering different fighter sizes at all, and simply treating them as an undifferentiated mass(or maybe offering basic/advanced when XLFE come on line). Tracking which ones are of which vintage is too much bookkeeping, IMO. We'll just pretend that fighter upgrades come out of the Army's budget ;) .

Im fine with that.  I'm still going to design the fleet fighters I'm using, all the way down to quirks (will probably budget extra to allow an imbalance of positive quirks).  I'm not asking that anyone else care or do so, but the completest in me compels it. :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 07 June 2018, 10:57:15
I think that Ferro aluminum is actually back developed from improved Ferro aluminum in the way ppcs come from nppcs because only fighters and drop ships really use ferro aluminum. Warships and jumpships don't use it
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 07 June 2018, 12:20:43
RE:  Start Date:

Free Worlds League:  2271
Terran Hegemony:  2315
Federated Suns:  2317
Draconis Combine:  2319
Lyran Commonwealth: 2341
Capellan Confederation Founded:  2367

In 2350, all the great powers are fledglings, barring the FWL.  The Capellan Confederation does not yet exist!  :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 07 June 2018, 12:31:11
Im fine with that.  I'm still going to design the fleet fighters I'm using, all the way down to quirks (will probably budget extra to allow an imbalance of positive quirks).  I'm not asking that anyone else care or do so, but the completest in me compels it. :)

Heh. I understand the sentiment, but others should not feel any need to follow in your footsteps.

I think that Ferro aluminum is actually back developed from improved Ferro aluminum in the way ppcs come from nppcs because only fighters and drop ships really use ferro aluminum. Warships and jumpships don't use it

True, but then the names are really strange. Why is it called "improved"?

RE:  Start Date:

Free Worlds League:  2271
Terran Hegemony:  2315
Federated Suns:  2317
Draconis Combine:  2319
Lyran Commonwealth: 2341
Capellan Confederation Founded:  2367

In 2350, all the great powers are fledglings, barring the FWL.  The Capellan Confederation does not yet exist!  :)

True, but they all derive from earlier powers. The Capellan Commonality started in 2310, which itself derives from the Capellan Hegemony in 2270. The Liao player would probably start as the Commonality, and grow rapidly through merger.

Still, it's an interesting point. I didn't realize that the great houses started so late as that - it's easy enough to integrate, but I didn't think of it. I guess this will be part of why your navies are all so new - the nations themselves are quite new.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 07 June 2018, 13:16:25
Okay, so here's what the powers of the era seem to be like as of 2350:

Terran Hegemony: Powerful, expansionist, fairly stable after McKenna's coup in 2314. Easily the top dog.

Lyran Commonwealth: Newly formed in a three-nation merger. Government still isn't terribly functional, and won't be for a while.

Free Worlds League: Best-established of the big five, fairly stable and well-run.

Capellan Commonality: Fairly small, has corruption problems, not well-regarded by its populace.

Sarna Supremacy: Not much info. Seems generally competent, if small.

Tikonov Grand Union: Falling apart, generally in horrible shape.

Chesterton Trade Federation: Almost no info available, may already be defunct.

Federated Suns: Not much info, seems generally competent.

United Hindu Collective: Small, big believers in armed neutrality.

Draconis Combine: Large, expansionist, currently tied up pacifying Rasalhague.

Principality of Rasalhague: Currently being turned into a puppet state by the Dracs - effectively a guerrilla force, not a nation.

Rim Worlds Republic: Politically shady, but fairly functional as a nation. Busy throwing off their pirate roots and building up educational infrastructure.

Taurian Concordat: Small, fairly effective for its size, not yet known to the universe at large.

(The Outworlds Alliance, Magistracy of Canopus, and Marian Hegemony don't yet exist. I don't know of any other obscure powers not listed here.)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 07 June 2018, 13:34:21

Alsadius, do you want us to send faction preference lists by PM?


Also, I think that the UNIVERSAL TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT TABLE in IO will be quite vital, example:
Primitive Armor  ~2300 (TH) ~2315 (All)
Aerospace Armor  ~2470 (TH) 2470 (All)
Improved Ferro-Aluminum Armor  ~2520 (TH)  3052 (FS/LC)*
Ferro-Carbide Armor  ~2570 (TH)  3055 (LC/DC)*
Lamellor Ferro-Carbide Armor  ~2615 (TH)  3055 (FS/FW/CC)*

So we start with primitive armor and slowly go to standard, but the old houses will have to import the good stuff from the hegemony. The situation was likely a bargaining chip for the formation of the Star League.....
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 07 June 2018, 13:51:03
I don't think anyone should play the Hegemony. Their production capacity is so far above everyone else that they will quickly just crush anyone they choose.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 07 June 2018, 13:56:25
I don't think anyone should play the Hegemony. Their production capacity is so far above everyone else that they will quickly just crush anyone they choose.

My understanding is we are setting Naval Production and Policy, not national Policy/Warmaking.  So if a player was 'playing' the Terran Hegemony, later Star League, they wouldnt get to go steamroll people, just define how they are using their navy. 

That said, my understanding was that the focus was on the Great Houses, not the superpower or minor powers.  And though RP ripples and the willingness of our soon-to-be-long-suffering staff might let 'extinct' powers survive in this reality, I think the creators intent was aimed at having players play the Five Great Houses.

My thought is to worry about the Hegemony, etc. if we go past 5 people interested. Were at 3.  Are you wanting in, Fox?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 07 June 2018, 14:01:07
Alsadius, do you want us to send faction preference lists by PM?

Yes, but not until we have a final player count.

Also, I think that the UNIVERSAL TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT TABLE in IO will be quite vital

Yup, that's good stuff. I'll buy IO for sure. (I've been meaning to do that for a while anyway, tbh)

I don't think anyone should play the Hegemony. Their production capacity is so far above everyone else that they will quickly just crush anyone they choose.

Agreed. They don't span the whole time period if we go post-Amaris, they're far too strong for balance, and they seem better as a GM tool than a player. Marcus' commentary is correct here - I'll think about maybe including the TH if we get a bunch more people, but for now it's not something I have planned.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 07 June 2018, 14:07:11
Good because they had 8 to 10 times the fleet power of everyone else in cannon. If hate to see what a competent player could do with that.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 07 June 2018, 14:09:23
Good because they had 8 to 10 times the fleet power of everyone else in cannon. If hate to see what a competent player could do with that.

Convince everyone else to invest heavily in border fortifications around the TH and bury their grievances against each other?  >:D
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 07 June 2018, 17:59:41
At the start of the star league you could add all the ships in the 5 houses and they would still be out numbered. Earth had a 70 year head start I'm not sure fortifications would be enough.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 07 June 2018, 18:08:34
At the start of the star league you could add all the ships in the 5 houses and they would still be out numbered. Earth had a 70 year head start I'm not sure fortifications would be enough.

1.)  Historically, we know that the Hegemony/League was the 500LB Gorilla.  So did everyone at the time.  If the Houses are dancing to your Star League Tune, already (and they did), what need to spend blood and treasure conquering them?  They are keeping one another nicely amused bickering among themselves, anyway.

2.)  Even if a player controlled Terra it would not matter.  For this exercise that player controls naval procurement (What to buy), policy, and doctrine.  The player is Lord of the Admiralty, not Lord of the Star League.  He cannot declare war.  He merely designs, prioritizes, cares for, builds, supports, and rebuilds the Navy.  The 1st Lord/1st Prince/Chancellor/Etc., all NPCs, decide if and how and when it is used.  Ergo, no player is taking the Terran Hegemony on a Conquering Spree.


3.)  There is no 3.


Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 07 June 2018, 19:45:20
Would you allow the Marian Hegemony to assemble a navy?

Then I'll nibble abit...

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 07 June 2018, 21:15:57
What do we want the starting yards sized at?  250?  500?  750?

Looking at Big Ships and their YIS.. focusing on non-Terran (we presume the Hegemony will have more advanced yards)

Winchester - 740kt CA, Taurian Corncordat, 2364
Du Shi Wang - 900kt BB, Duchy of Liao, 2380
Defender - 960kt BC, FedSuns, 2360. 1st Fed Sun Warship

Suggest:  1 Yard handling 1MT.  More smaller.  Some variation based on power - but note the size of vessels being produced by DUCHY of Liao and Taurian Concordiat.

Number of smaller yards TBD by your intended budget and your feel for fleet sizes.  Anticipate that fleets will burgeon early due to cheaper construction, and production will likely slow with the introduction of collars and batteries.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 07 June 2018, 21:55:42
Would you allow the Marian Hegemony to assemble a navy?

Then I'll nibble abit...

TT

I have no particular objection to someone playing Periphery if they want, but the Hegemony doesn't exist until 2920. Would you take the Taurians in their place? If not, I can give it some thought.

Edit: Actually, if you want the Marians, I can roll with it. I'll just steal plot points from the other Periphery nations to give you content.

What do we want the starting yards sized at?  250?  500?  750?

Looking at Big Ships and their YIS.. focusing on non-Terran (we presume the Hegemony will have more advanced yards)

Winchester - 740kt CA, Taurian Corncordat, 2364
Du Shi Wang - 900kt BB, Duchy of Liao, 2380
Defender - 960kt BC, FedSuns, 2360. 1st Fed Sun Warship

Suggest:  1 Yard handling 1MT.  More smaller.  Some variation based on power - but note the size of vessels being produced by DUCHY of Liao and Taurian Concordiat.

Number of smaller yards TBD by your intended budget and your feel for fleet sizes.  Anticipate that fleets will burgeon early due to cheaper construction, and production will likely slow with the introduction of collars and batteries.

I was thinking that players would get a few, sized in the 250-750 range. If we take the DC as the empire that most has its stuff together right now, perhaps a couple size-3 and three or four size-1, spread across maybe three systems(size 3/1/1 in Luthien, size 3/1 in New Samarkand, and size 1 in Midway, perhaps). You can upgrade to level 4 and build a few million-ton ships if you want to jump right into it, or start a bit slower with a cruiser and an escort design. (We'll say, for simplicity, that upgrades are instant)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 08 June 2018, 03:29:41
1.)  Historically, we know that the Hegemony/League was the 500LB Gorilla.  So did everyone at the time.  If the Houses are dancing to your Star League Tune, already (and they did), what need to spend blood and treasure conquering them?  They are keeping one another nicely amused bickering among themselves, anyway.

2.)  Even if a player controlled Terra it would not matter.  For this exercise that player controls naval procurement (What to buy), policy, and doctrine.  The player is Lord of the Admiralty, not Lord of the Star League.  He cannot declare war.  He merely designs, prioritizes, cares for, builds, supports, and rebuilds the Navy.  The 1st Lord/1st Prince/Chancellor/Etc., all NPCs, decide if and how and when it is used.  Ergo, no player is taking the Terran Hegemony on a Conquering Spree.


3.)  There is no 3.

The point is what every one else spends every 10 years Terra does that every 6 months. They aren't a 500lb gorrila they care a damned lyploradon and everyone else is just a bottle nosed dolphin.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 08 June 2018, 04:39:21
I'd say it's best if the Hegemony stays a GM-controlled tech developer and occasional Act of Herb, to drive plot elements and maybe knock down a player that got a bit too big for his britches, just to show who is still top dog.

"Whats that? You built a 1.5MT monster of a battleship before anyone else has anything half that size, and bankrupted your country doing it? Be a shame if something were to... happen to it..." >:D

Not to be nasty, just for the TH to maintain their supremacy, noone gets to 'Kills it with my Battleships' better than they do after all :P
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 08 June 2018, 07:42:56
Side topic - Robot units, based on reading too many Bolo/Ship Who X/etc. stories over the years...


Is it just me, or do they spend a -lot- of text in IO for something that boils down to ‘these systems are bad, don’t bother’?

Oh, well.  Back to the future of the past....  :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 08 June 2018, 11:41:03
What do we want the starting yards sized at?  250?  500?  750?
IO has guidelines for that.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 08 June 2018, 13:42:51
Side topic - Robot units, based on reading too many Bolo/Ship Who X/etc. stories over the years...


Is it just me, or do they spend a -lot- of text in IO for something that boils down to ‘these systems are bad, don’t bother’?

Oh, well.  Back to the future of the past....  :)

Its not that bad the automated bay systems seam pretty useful and the "Casper 2"system looks achievable maybe but not sure what the prerequisite would be since WoB had access the the SDS Casper info.

IO has guidelines for that.

I would have thought that would be in Campain Operations
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 08 June 2018, 13:46:49
Its not that bad the automated bay systems seam pretty useful and the "Casper 2"system looks achievable maybe but not sure what the prerequisite would be since WoB had access the the SDS Casper info.

I would have thought that would be in Campain Operations

Theres just this part of my sci-fi fan soul that wants supertech warships to have a ships AI - either in cooperation with a human crew, or CASPAR style - but fully awake/self aware. 

Of course, down that road lies the Dazzling Culture, which is awesome, but not Battletech.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 08 June 2018, 14:06:00
The SDS Casper system is damn close. The Star league was probably 50 years away. From something like that.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 08 June 2018, 15:10:45
So with our GM allowing the Marian Hegemony, which True Tanker requested, I see us at 4...

marcussmythe
Smegish
Maingunnery
True Tanker


Cryhavok?  Starfox?  Marauder?  Yall all seemed to have an interest...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 08 June 2018, 18:07:39
I'd love too but I have no pc, I'm working from a cell. I can parooze pdfs but any design work I do is long form and I don't have the free time for that. Sorry
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 08 June 2018, 23:42:00
So I've given a few more thoughts to the tech progression and available stuff for purchase.

- I'm going to swap around armour types as discussed earlier. The sequence will be Ferro-Aluminum(on fighters/DropShips) > Improved Ferro-Aluminum (on WarShips) > Ferro-Carbide > Lamellor Ferro-Carbide.

- I have a full tech list now. With the exception of the juggled armours and the fire-control techs that have no date I can find, everything is introduced within 60 years of its canon introduction date. (As stated previously, I won't be giving details here to avoid metagaming, but if you pull out TM/TO you can figure out most of it).

- Drop Shuttles are a tech that's a little too weird to include from the get-go. Instead, I'll fluff it that they're small DropShips. Medium and large DropShips will be tech unlocks, with timing based on the invention of spheroid and aerodyne DropShips. As such, docking collars are available at game start.

- I think my previous list was tracking too many small units. Fighters will be reduced to standard and advanced(i.e., XLFE designs), small craft are merged, and the different DropShip roles are merged - there'll be enough of them that you can use carrier or ground-attack models as needed for any given operation, so we'll assume that they swap as needed. (Feel free to give me doctrine on which ones your admirals like to use, however - I will definitely keep that in mind)

- Here's the full list of purchasable items that I've come up with thus far. Items requiring an unlock are in italics:

For Castles Brian and stations, I'll only track them system-by-system in shipyard systems - when you build new ones, tell me if they're going to a shipyard system or into the general supply. Ones not allocated to shipyard systems will simply be kept as a general count for your nation as a whole, and I'll assume that they're allocated sensibly(border worlds, large commercial hubs, major factory complexes, etc.)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 09 June 2018, 01:28:34
I am more interested in spectating than playing.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 09 June 2018, 13:05:45
Suggestion Ferro Aluminum is Ferro Fiberous for fighters. Considering having advanced armor for asf available to early could be somewhat disruptive make it available for Dropships first then unlock it for fighters some time after ifa comes online.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 09 June 2018, 14:35:23
So I've given a few more thoughts to the tech progression and available stuff for purchase.

- I'm going to swap around armour types as discussed earlier. The sequence will be Ferro-Aluminum(on fighters/DropShips) > Improved Ferro-Aluminum (on WarShips) > Ferro-Carbide > Lamellor Ferro-Carbide.

- I have a full tech list now. With the exception of the juggled armours and the fire-control techs that have no date I can find, everything is introduced within 60 years of its canon introduction date. (As stated previously, I won't be giving details here to avoid metagaming, but if you pull out TM/TO you can figure out most of it).

- Drop Shuttles are a tech that's a little too weird to include from the get-go. Instead, I'll fluff it that they're small DropShips. Medium and large DropShips will be tech unlocks, with timing based on the invention of spheroid and aerodyne DropShips. As such, docking collars are available at game start.

- I think my previous list was tracking too many small units. Fighters will be reduced to standard and advanced(i.e., XLFE designs), small craft are merged, and the different DropShip roles are merged - there'll be enough of them that you can use carrier or ground-attack models as needed for any given operation, so we'll assume that they swap as needed. (Feel free to give me doctrine on which ones your admirals like to use, however - I will definitely keep that in mind)

- Here's the full list of purchasable items that I've come up with thus far. Items requiring an unlock are in italics:
  • Fighters: Standard $5M, Improved $15M (requires XL Fusion Engines)
  • Small Craft: $10M
  • DropShips: Light(12 fighters) $300M, Medium(36 fighters) $500M (requires Spheroid DropShip), Large(108 fighters) $1,000M (requires Aerodyne DropShip)
  • JumpShips: $500M
  • WarShips/Stations: As StratOps costs, rounded to nearest $1M. Double for lead unit of a class, +50% for lead unit of a variant sub-class.
  • Castle Brian: $5,000M (requires Castles Brian)
  • Shipyards: $10,000M times the new level to upgrade a shipyard one level. Halve this cost if a yard of equal or larger size already exists in the same system.
  • Maintenance: Baseline expense is 1% of each active WarShip's base cost per year (=10% per turn). Players can pay more or less as desired. (Note that the out-of-production penalty has been removed)
  • Research: Each $1M is one ballot. The winner gets the new tech 10 years before everyone else.
  • Anything else you can think of: Talk to me, and we'll see what we can do.

For Castles Brian and stations, I'll only track them system-by-system in shipyard systems - when you build new ones, tell me if they're going to a shipyard system or into the general supply. Ones not allocated to shipyard systems will simply be kept as a general count for your nation as a whole, and I'll assume that they're allocated sensibly(border worlds, large commercial hubs, major factory complexes, etc.)

1.)  Costs still look low to me on carrier/combat droppers, but as discussed Im not losing sleep over it - the ‘offical’ price for dropships is scary high.

2.)  Im curious to see what everyone does with the design space.

3.)  Id love a 5th player.  Dont know anyone active on these forums, not already involved in the thread, who would be interested, though.  :(

4.)  Logistics.  Obviously, we dont want to play Ledgertech.  That said, may i assume that having cargo space, drop collars for cargo droppers, and/or fleet colliers is a thing that will be felt, in its presence or absence?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 09 June 2018, 17:59:25
Will that Light/Med/Large Dropship definition have a weight restriction, or just a limit on how many Aero it can hold?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 09 June 2018, 20:22:01
Suggestion Ferro Aluminum is Ferro Fiberous for fighters. Considering having advanced armor for asf available to early could be somewhat disruptive make it available for Dropships first then unlock it for fighters some time after ifa comes online.

I'm less worried here, because players don't need to make fighter or DropShip designs. I can treat it as a mild performance boost, and not worry much about details.

1.)  Costs still look low to me on carrier/combat droppers, but as discussed Im not losing sleep over it - the ‘offical’ price for dropships is scary high.

2.)  Im curious to see what everyone does with the design space.

3.)  Id love a 5th player.  Dont know anyone active on these forums, not already involved in the thread, who would be interested, though.  :(

4.)  Logistics.  Obviously, we dont want to play Ledgertech.  That said, may i assume that having cargo space, drop collars for cargo droppers, and/or fleet colliers is a thing that will be felt, in its presence or absence?

1) In context, a small DS being $300M when a full 3-collar JS is $500M seems reasonable to me. If anything, I always thought of the DS as being cheaper relative to JS than that.

2) Agreed.

3) Given one of the players is playing Periphery, we'd need 6 to fill all the houses. I think we should just go ahead once I get everything ready, and leave the other empires free for players to jump in if desired.

4) I won't explicitly track cargo, but it is definitely a number I'll pay attention to in designs. Cargo actually matters more in this setting than it would in vanilla, because of how I'm fluffing the fighter strike rules - when a single fighter can carry close to its own weight in capital missiles for anti-WS attacks, you really need to have a lot of cargo if you want to launch a lot of fighter strikes. A ship with minimal cargo can defend a system well enough, or launch a quick attack across a border, but it'll be a disaster if you try to take one on a deep strike without a proper fleet train.

Will that Light/Med/Large Dropship definition have a weight restriction, or just a limit on how many Aero it can hold?

I simplified it, because I don't expect players to construct anything besides WarShips. If you never build a DS and never move ground units explicitly, the only number that matters is the fighter capacity of a carrier-fit DS. If you actually want to build the designs, we'll say 5,000 tons and 20,000 tons - as with most other things in this game aside from WS, feel free to get ambitious if you really want to.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 09 June 2018, 20:54:31
Also, given that I'm planning to just go ahead with the players we have, please post your nation preferences below. Here (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1418814#msg1418814) is a list of nations in the era.

Easy difficulty: Terran Hegemony(off-limits)

Normal difficulty: Federated Suns, Free Worlds League, Draconis Combine

Hard difficulty: Lyran Commonwealth, Capellan Commonality, Sarna Supremacy

Very Hard difficulty: Rim Worlds Republic, United Hindu Collective, Taurian Concordat, Tikonov Grand Union, Marian Hegemony(anachronistic)

Insane difficulty: Principality of Rasalhague, any single-system pirate kingdom you care to name

Note that any nations which wind up merging(most notably the CC/SS/TGU and the FS/UHC) should probably only have a single human player between them. If two players really want to play two nations in a single set out, one of you will need to bounce to an NPC nation when the merger happens.

Any late-coming players can also take over NPC nations if they want to, but be aware that those NPC nations will perhaps develop in ways you're not a big fan of. We won't start for a few days yet, while I finalize the starting setup in detail, so there's still a bit of time to jump in.

I'm also about to update the top post in this thread with info on everything.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 09 June 2018, 21:54:00
To make sure that everyone knows what's available, here's a master technology list. I'll update this every turn, as new technologies come out.

Game Start
Unit Types: WarShip, Space Station, JumpShip, DropShip(small only), Small Craft, Aerospace Fighter, Atmospheric Fighter, Combat Vehicle

Mech-scale weapons: AC/5, AC/2, Machine Gun

WarShip-scale weapons: All NAC sizes, all NL sizes, and Barracuda/White Shark/Killer Whale/AR-10.

Relevant Support Equipment: Standard Armor, Single Heat Sinks, Standard/Compact/Sub-Compact K-F Drives, Docking Collars, Naval Comm-Scanner Suite, Grav Decks, Cargo(all types), Crew Quarters(all types), Unit Bays(for all existent unit types), Escape Pods/Lifeboats, Naval Repair Facilities, Naval Tug Adaptor, Energy Storage Battery

Notes:
- Standard-scale weapons attacking WarShips are much less effective than in standard rules. Instead, fighters can mount capital missiles to their bomb hardpoints to conduct anti-shipping strikes.
- AMS systems(and things used for similar roles, like Machine Guns in the pre-AMS era) are much less effective than in canon rules.
- Bearings-only capital missile launches, tele-operated missiles, and bracket fire are not yet available.
- Drop shuttles are not used(we'll pretend they're the same thing a small DropShips).

Future Technologies
Here is a list of future technologies that will be introduced. These are sorted by canon introduction date(except as noted here (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1419323#msg1419323), but I've modified the start dates to make it so that you get one new tech per turn. All game introduction dates are within 60 years of canon. Note that some of these techs are technically for Mech-sized equipment, but have been assumed to also allow upgrades to equivalent WarShip-scale equipment as well(Active Probe, CASE, etc.).

Code: [Select]
Ferro-Aluminum 2350
Vehicular Drop Chute 2351
NPPC 2356
SRM 2370
Improved Ferro-Aluminum 2370
Castles Brian 2391
Small/Medium Laser 2400
LRM 2400
Large Laser 2430
Mechs 2443
Naval Gauss 2448
AC/10 2460
PPC 2460
Medium DropShip 2470
CASE 2476
Large DropShip 2480
AC/20 2500
L-F Battery 2529
Double Heat Sink 2567
Ferro-Carbide 2571
Active Probe 2576
XL Fusion Engine 2579
Narc 2587
Gauss Rifle 2590
LB-10X 2595
ECM 2597
Artemis IV 2598
Pulse Lasers 2609
Lamellor Ferro-Carbide 2615
AMS 2617
ER Large Laser 2620
HyperPulse Generators 2629
Chameleon/Null-Sig 2630
UAC/5 2640
Streak SRM 2647
Mobile HPG 2655
LAMs 2688
Caspar Drones 2690
Light Power Armor 2710
Mass Driver 2715
Reinforced Repair Bay 2750
ER PPC 2760
Bearings-Only Launches (not specified)
Bracket Fire (not specified)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 09 June 2018, 23:20:34
Okay, in light of information presented:
1.)  Lyran Commonwealth.  I know they are just starting out, bt historically they are an evonimic powerhouse and I like the flavor.  Im willing to have a rougher time of it in the early turns.
2.)  Fed Suns.  Davionista, since back in the day.
3.)  Free Wolds League; cause purple and eagles and and Rome and Greece.
4.)  DC or Cap Com or whatever, if other people really want the first three.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 10 June 2018, 03:26:41
Guess my order of preference is:

1) Draconis Combine
2) Lyran Commonwealth
3) Free Worlds League
4) Cappellan Commonality
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 10 June 2018, 03:53:10
1) Free Worlds League
2) Lyran Commonwealth
3) single-system pirate kingdom



ps. If I understand the tech list properly, then we don't have to bother with primitive technology? Just design our units as intro and add extra tech if necessary?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 10 June 2018, 05:12:45
Sorry i've been a bit quiet, been busy! So whats the idea and stuff? Been out of town and unable to access net properly.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 10 June 2018, 06:29:00
Sorry i've been a bit quiet, been busy! So whats the idea and stuff? Been out of town and unable to access net properly.

Long story short, you get to play fleet commander to one of the nations, starting in 2350. You'll design the nation's WarShip fleet as well as buying your supporting infrastructure and small units. I'll run the nations through the political and military events of the era, giving you battle reports to show you how your ships are performing in combat against each other and against NPC nations like the Terran Hegemony. You'll take that info and use it to design newer and better units as the timeline progresses and you get access to new technology.

It's more about the design than it is a wargame, as you don't have control over your nation's foreign policy and can't treat it like a 4X game where you gobble up everyone who opposes you. You do control naval doctrine etc., which gives you a lot of operational control, but it's up to the civilian leadership NPCs who the target of your attentions will be. But if you want an excuse to design a whole lot of WarShips with a single overarching purpose, doctrine, and style, this is for you.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 10 June 2018, 06:47:48
Sure why not, i'll take over the Taurians if no one else wants them.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 10 June 2018, 09:48:08
Thats an interesting map.  North East,North West, South-West Inner Sphere Players, and South West and South East Periphery Players.

I hope the NPC empires are active...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 10 June 2018, 11:54:09
The NPC empires will be around, though I'll be keeping them as close to canon as practical.

Assuming nobody jumps in to take them over, here's the historical production order for each NPC empire, as derived from Sarna:
Terran Hegemony
In Service:
Dreadnought (960 kt, 3/5, battleship) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Dreadnought_(WarShip_class))
Dart (680kt, 2/3, cruiser) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Dart_(WarShip_class))
Black Lion I (720kt, 3/5, battlecruiser) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Black_Lion_I)
Bonaventure (240kt, 4/6, corvette) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Bonaventure)
Cruiser (500kt, 4/6, cruiser[obviously]) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Cruiser)
Lola I (680kt, 4/6, destroyer) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Lola_I)
Vigilant (140kt, 3/5, scout) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Vigilant)

New Construction:
2350: Quixote (780kt, 2/3, frigate) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Quixote)
2351: Essex I (560kt, 3/5, destroyer) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Essex_I)
2368: Monsoon (1.31MT, 2/3, battleship) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Monsoon)
2372: Aegis (745kt, 2/3, cruiser) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Aegis)
2407: Tracker (120kt, 4/6, scout) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Tracker)
2432: Vincent (412kt, 4/6, corvette) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Vincent)
2440: Riga (750kt, 3/5, frigate) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Riga_(WarShip_class))
2447: Nightwing (100kt, 3/5, scout) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Nightwing)
2448: Farragut (1.68MT, 3/5, battleship) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Farragut)
2520: Baron (480kt, 2/3, destroyer) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Baron)
2531: Avatar (830kt, 3/5, cruiser) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Avatar_(WarShip_class))
2542: Congress (760kt, 3/5, escort) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Congress)
2582: Kimagure (780kt, 5/8, cruiser) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Kimagure)
2600: Newgrange (2.3MT, 2/3, yardship) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Newgrange)
2603: Carrack (300kt, 3/5, transport (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Carrack)
2606: Whirlwind (520kt, 4/6, destroyer) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Whirlwind)
2611: Potemkin (1.51MT, 2/3, transport) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Potemkin)
2618: Texas (1.56MT, 3/5, battleship) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Texas)
2620: Bug-Eye (6100 tons, 5/8, scout) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Bug-Eye)
2622: Lola II (680kt, 4/6, destroyer) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Lola_II)
2632: Carson (510kt, 2/3, destroyer) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Carson_(WarShip_class))
2645: Naga (540kt, 2/3, destroyer) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Naga_(WarShip_class))
2652: McKenna (1.93MT, 3/5, battleship) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/McKenna_(WarShip_class))
2662: Lola III (678kt, 4/6, destroyer) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Lola_III)
2668: Cameron (859kt, 2/3, cruiser) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Cameron_(WarShip_class))
2691: Black Lion II (802kt, 3/5, battlecruiser) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Black_Lion)
2709: Volga (780kt, 2/3, transport) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Volga)
2711: Essex II (620kt, 3/5, destroyer) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Essex)
2727: Luxor (890kt, 3/5, cruiser) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Luxor)
2735: Sovetskii Soyuz (823kt, 2/3, cruiser) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Sovetskii_Soyuz)
2749: Enterprise (1.6MT, 4/6, carrier) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Enterprise_(WarShip_class)) - boondoggle, never used

The SLDF also purchased some Davion I (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Davion_I_(WarShip_class)), and possibly other ships.

As a side note, looking at the tech timelines makes me impressed at just how many of these ships are obvious anachronisms - lots of them use things like AC/10 or AMS or DropShip collars decades before they actually existed. We'll just pretend that's not the case in this setting, I guess - if I have enough time to introduce customized versions of these, they'll be fixed up in the process. Also, only one ship seems to actually use drop shuttles, so I feel justified ignoring them.

Federated Suns
2360: Defender (960kt, 5/8, battlecruiser) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Defender_(WarShip_class))
2510: Davion I (520kt, 4/6, destroyer) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Davion_I_(WarShip_class))
2542: Congress (760kt, 3/5, frigate) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Congress)
2552: Davion II (580kt, 4/6, destroyer) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Davion_II_(WarShip_class))
2557: New Syrtis (920kt, 4/6, carrier) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/New_Syrtis_(WarShip_class))
2560: Robinson (400kt, 3/5, transport) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Robinson_(WarShip_class))
"Pre-2600": Kitty Hawk (unknown stats, carrier) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Kitty_Hawk_(WarShip_class)) - probably apocryphal

Capellan Confederation
2380: Du Shi Wang (900kt, 3/5, battleship) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Du_Shi_Wang)
2731: Soyal (1.5MT, 6/9, Mass Driver cruiser) (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Soyal) - Sarna says 6/10 speed. I don't have the source book, but 6/9 bring rounded up seems more plausible.
Some Essex I (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Essex_I) and Aegis (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Aegis) seem to have been imported from the SLDF when they were obsolete. There's also mention of light escorts, but no stats.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 10 June 2018, 14:30:03
Well looks like Aquillas for me!  >:D

Darn Taurians and stupid Terrans! Getting all the best tech... grumble grumble.  :(

TT
 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 11 June 2018, 09:07:56
A few minor notes from PM conversations and general reading I've been doing:

- While the shipyard space you have is intended for WarShips, it can also be used for JumpShips if desired. Don't bother building civilian designs(it's a waste of yard space, and I don't want to be bothered tracking them), but if you want an armed JS like the Comitatus (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Comitatus), it's perfectly legal.

- There's a rule in canon that you need 10 rounds per launcher, but canon ships don't seem to follow it. I won't require you to either. However, be aware that 10 rounds per launcher is not a whole lot of ammo, and going ammo-light may affect you in combat - e.g., if enemy ships manage to stay at extreme range, your captain will be left with several very unappealing choices about what to do with his firepower. I don't mean to say it's always stupid, but like most ways of compromising on "soft stats", there are ways that it could potentially bite you.

- Feel free to suggest alternate uses for your cash beyond what I've outlined. For example, hiring mercenaries is common and respected in this era, and while there are no WarShip-owning mercenaries, you might want to bulk out your fighter ranks. Also, ships were bought and sold between friendly powers in canon and IRL, so if the Lyran player wants to cause headaches for the FWL player, you might decide to sell some old ships to the Marians. The NPC leadership will get a veto, depending on how friendly your nations actually are and how much of your fleet you're trying to sell, but it is an option. I'm sure you'll come up with a couple more - if you're in doubt, run it by me. I'll try to accommodate you whenever I can manage it and it makes sense.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 11 June 2018, 09:40:14
Reposting from a PM I set, at Alsadius' request.  Note that some of the questions presented below are already answered above:

Quote
Learned something:

If you double the mass of a ship, you much less than double its cost.  Bigger is (much) cheaper per mass.

This has some interesting knock on effects, but the one that strikes me:

The Star League designs are actually much, much better than I thought.

Its cheaper (as an example) to build 4 ‘roomy hulls’ with 10% or so mass as cargo, than it is to build 4 smaller hulls and a 5th collier to support them on long deployments.

Similarly, its much less expensive than you might think to go from 3/5 to the -exact- same capability on a 5/8.  Its still not cheap... in general each point of thrust coats you 20% of your force - but it might be a cost you can live with.

Final thoughts - Missiles and Rules and Ammo.  Rules say minimum 10 rounds per gun.  Am considering large missile broadsides with 5 ready rounds per launcher.  Math siggests this is more than enough to be decisive.  Lots of ships shot themselvs dry in one engagement, historically.

Final thoughts:  Fighters and Bay doors.  Theres some funny rules that limit launch rates by the number of doors assigned to your fighter bays.  If enforced, there really wont ever be ‘true’ carriers, because it takes hours to launch a strike...since were not playing tactical battles, how do you see that working out?  Could one pay extra for -more- launch doors than the default rules allow?  Certainly ‘cut holes in side of ship’ cannot be lostech...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 11 June 2018, 09:50:27
My reply, as posted to PM:

Cost efficiency is an interesting question. You increase the risk of a "golden BB" blowing up your mega-ship, but you also probably get more bang for your buck. Historically, it was mostly the big gun arms race that drove ship sizes up, as they needed more ability to armor their critical sections and carry bigger guns. Once armor stopped being a factor after WW2, ship sizes have stayed basically constant - carriers are big enough to mount a flight deck, frigates and cruisers and destroyers are big enough to mount a helipad, a radar, and some missiles, and subs are big enough to mount their engine and weapon systems. There's also the problem of one big ship being in one place at a time - one McKenna might beat two Lolas in a fight, but if you send two Lolas after two different systems, one is going to get through. In a raid-heavy environment like 1SW, that might mean your big ships come out badly.

Re fleet supply concerns, you can also use civilian JumpShips and DropShips for that, which are probably cheaper per ton carried than a Soyuz. More vulnerable, of course, but it's a trade-off that poorer nations might be happy to make. It also means they can act as trade ships in peacetime, which helps your economy. I suspect most houses use a mix - a few cargo-heavy ships for deep strikes, some armed merchants as a fleet train, cargo DropShips to give the fleet extra legs, and vacuuming up every merchantman you can find when a war starts.

Re ammo loads, the rules do say minimum 10 rounds per gun, but I won't enforce that - canonical ship designs don't(e.g., look at the missile loads on the AR-10s on the McKenna), and ships that want to shoot themselves dry are fine by me.

Re bay doors, it's less of a concern than you might think, unless you do something truly insane like the Enterprise that mounts almost a thousand fighters. IIRC, the rules are two fighters per door per turn, and a WS can mount a couple dozen doors pretty easily. You only need one or two for the cargo bay, so you can have the ability to launch a few squadrons a turn. RL carriers only have four or so catapults, and they can't all be used at once - they still get good-sized strike forces into the air when needed, because you spend the necessary time getting your forces into the sky and then start the attack.

Given we're not playing tactical battles, I doubt it'll come up much in practice. if someone designs a ship with 100+ fighters and one door they run the risk of losing a fight from fighter traffic jams, but I doubt anyone will ever do that given that doors are free and fairly numerous.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 11 June 2018, 10:24:21
Posting designs:

Where are you people getting your lovely, formatted layouts that you can post smoothly to the forums?  No matter how much time I spend fiddling, I cant make it work right - to the point that I'm considering doing TRO entries in a word document and posting that, but thats hard for people to read, here.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 11 June 2018, 10:58:07
On Cryhavoc's sheet, there's a tab labelled "TRO Workup". Copy each of the blocks from that into the forum thread, with a couple line breaks between each, and put it inside {code}{/code} tags so that it's not two pages long.

(I used to hand-format mine to look better and have everything line up neatly, but that's a pain and doesn't add much, so I stopped bothering)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 11 June 2018, 11:02:16
On Cryhavoc's sheet, there's a tab labelled "TRO Workup". Copy each of the blocks from that into the forum thread, with a couple line breaks between each, and put it inside {code}{/code} tags so that it's not two pages long.

(I used to hand-format mine to look better and have everything line up neatly, but that's a pain and doesn't add much, so I stopped bothering)

As an additional note, on the TRO work-up section, you'll need to add in cargo bays/doors by hand.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 11 June 2018, 11:11:05
As an additional note, on the TRO work-up section, you'll need to add in cargo bays/doors by hand.

Or add the following formula to cell V2 on the TRO Workup tab:
Code: [Select]
=IFERROR(FILTER(EquipedName,(EquipedType="Equipment")+(EquipedType="Bay")),"None")
This doesn't give the number of doors per bay, however - you'll need to add that by hand. It also assumes no mixed-type bays, no shared doors, etc., so it's a bit less flexible than the actual rules are.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 11 June 2018, 11:21:53
Yet Another Stupid Question:

How are we handling Refits?  Because given the tech improvements, I foresee a lot of desire to refit, but on the gripping hand, figuring out how to price refits seems difficult to me.  Ripping out AC/5s for PPC emplacements should be a trivial cost on a warship scale.  Stripping the hull plating would be a step up from that.  Replacing Naval Missile Launchers with Naval PPCs is getting expensive, and then there is replacing engines - which (I would think) starts turning into 'not worth it'.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 11 June 2018, 11:36:21
Yet Another Stupid Question:

How are we handling Refits?  Because given the tech improvements, I foresee a lot of desire to refit, but on the gripping hand, figuring out how to price refits seems difficult to me.  Ripping out AC/5s for PPC emplacements should be a trivial cost on a warship scale.  Stripping the hull plating would be a step up from that.  Replacing Naval Missile Launchers with Naval PPCs is getting expensive, and then there is replacing engines - which (I would think) starts turning into 'not worth it'.

Ooh, good one. I hadn't thought of that. I have a couple ideas off the top of my head:

1) Add up the costs of all the new gear and multiply it by something to represent the refit - triple it, perhaps. Each refit takes one year in a shipyard of appropriate size(so you can do five refits in the same time as one new build)

2) Create a variant model(complete with the 50% of the ship's unit cost being spent on miscellaneous design expenses), and then refit ships to the new model for only the price difference. Again, refits take one year.

I think I like #2 better(having it as an explicit variant will make it easier to track, and the big up-front cost discourages doing it lightly) but it seems like it could be a bit punitive. That said, given that the most common refit will probably involve using new armor types, perhaps this is cheaper than it ought to be - I don't think any RL ships ever replaced their armour like that, even in the era of rapid advance in the late 19th century, so it's got to be tough. IDK.

Any suggestions?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 11 June 2018, 11:53:00
Ooh, good one. I hadn't thought of that. I have a couple ideas off the top of my head:

1) Add up the costs of all the new gear and multiply it by something to represent the refit - triple it, perhaps. Each refit takes one year in a shipyard of appropriate size(so you can do five refits in the same time as one new build)

2) Create a variant model(complete with the 50% of the ship's unit cost being spent on miscellaneous design expenses), and then refit ships to the new model for only the price difference. Again, refits take one year.

I think I like #2 better(having it as an explicit variant will make it easier to track, and the big up-front cost discourages doing it lightly) but it seems like it could be a bit punitive. That said, given that the most common refit will probably involve using new armor types, perhaps this is cheaper than it ought to be - I don't think any RL ships ever replaced their armour like that, even in the era of rapid advance in the late 19th century, so it's got to be tough. IDK.

Any suggestions?

I like #2.  I almost said we should charge a multiplier for the new equipment, but then I considered the fact that people refitted ships into carrying L-F Batteries.  If you MULTIPLY the cost of a L-F Battery Refit by even 2 or 3 times, especially on a ship with multiple docking collars, it will quickly become cheaper to build new ships and straight up scrap the old ones.

What other questions/thoughts do people have, and what do we lack of being ready to start?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 11 June 2018, 11:58:53
I need to create the starting situations for each player - beginning shipyards and beginning income. Other than that, I think I can do everything else as we go.

If someone is feeling really ambitious, a list of plausible shipyard locations for each power (including CC and FS) would be really appreciated. I'm already happy with the DC yards, so no need to work on those.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 11 June 2018, 13:18:16
How many are you looking for?
Ive got 2-3 each for FWL, LC, and CC.

 FedSuns is hard - all their listed yards are tied to modern production, and the famous McKenna yards arent built yet.

Ill see if I can find anything for the Taurians and Marians as well.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 11 June 2018, 13:25:51
How many are you looking for?
Ive got 2-3 each for FWL, LC, and CC.

 FedSuns is hard - all their listed yards are tied to modern production, and the famous McKenna yards arent built yet.

Ill see if I can find anything for the Taurians and Marians as well.

2-3 is fine, as long as each of the two still-functional predecessor states to the CC(i.e., the Capellan Commonality and the Sarna Supremacy) has at least one. See this map (http://cfw.sarna.net/wiki/images/9/98/CC2366.jpg?timestamp=20120111170823).

Re the FedSuns, I'll work on that. I'll go for era-appropriate shipyards if I can find them, but if the data isn't available, I'll just pick important planets to use instead. Probably New Avalon, Robinson, and New Syrtis, since they're the regional capitals.

Also, don't worry about the Taurians and the Marians - they're each basically single-system polities at this point, it's obvious where their yards will be.

Edit: Researching the FS shipyards, there's no mention of when most of them started, but Kathil/Delevan/Layover/Panpour were producing >90% of the heavy naval assets of the FedSuns before Galax opened up, so I'll assume that small seeds of those manufacturing lines exist right now. Panpour is part of the UHC for the time being, and Kathil is described as being unimportant until the Reunification War, so I'll say that Delevan(near the capital) and Layover(close to the DC/TH borders) are the major yards. New Syrtis(near the CC/Taurian borders) produces JumpShips and is remarked to be a major mining world, so we'll give it a small yard. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 11 June 2018, 13:27:47
Amusingly, the LC has no yards over either Tharkad or Hesperus...

Maybe Ill build up superyards over Hesperus.  Might as well put all the eggs in the universes largest basket, right?  What could -possibly- go wrong... right?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 11 June 2018, 14:17:14
Possibilities Below:

Lyran Commonwealth Shipyards

Tamar:  Bolson-Tamar Shipyards.  Tharkad Class of 900Kt Built in 2690
New Kyoto:  Bolson Shipyards.  Mako Class of 200Kt built in 2375.
Alarion:  Port Sydney Naval Yards (Ioto Galactic Enterpirses/Bowie Industries).  Commonwealth Class of 700K built in 2375.


Free Worlds League Shipyards

Loyalty:  SelaSys Yards.  League Class of 500Kt built in 2368
Atreus:  Imstar Yards:  Productive post clan invasion, but may have been in service in 2350.
Clipperton:  Irian Technologies.  Productive post clan invasion, may have been in service in 2350.  Irian Technologies is old and big.
Irian:  As Clipperton, above.  Also home of Irian Technologies.

Capellan Commonality

Capella:  Dehli Warships.  Soyal Class of 1.5Mt built in 2731

Sarna Supremacy

No listed worlds with yards.  Likely candidates for a yard include
Axton:  Home of Wangker Aerospace
Sarna:  Capital.  Future location of Tengo Aerospace (2750).  "Dense Population"  "Heavily Industrialzed Continents"

Duchy of Liao

The Du Shi Wang (2380, 900kt) lists as being built in the Duchy of Liao.  No worlds of the Duchy are listed as major manufacturers.  Candidates below:

Aldebaran:  "Jumpship Drydock" in system.
Genoa:  "Minor Economic Powerhouse"
Liao:  Likely ruled out.  Despite being the capital, Liao is primarily agricultural - as is most of the Duchy.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 11 June 2018, 21:25:10
Im not sure there are any real yards anywhere in the inner sphere other than maybe the FWL. Remember. There historically there where no major naval engagements before the Reunifacation Wars and no one even had a warship besides the Terrans for another 20 years. The real golden age of naval battles ran from the Aramis coup to the end of the 1st Succession War.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 11 June 2018, 21:56:20
Given that I see at least two yards above with known production in 2375 (and this list is complied in a brief Sarna search), I do not think it does meaningful violence to our knowledge of IS history to allow production starting for a ‘game turn’ of 2350-2360.  While houses may have waited another decade or two historically, I dont find it necessary to believe that they had no choice - and as soon as you give players any agency in a historical setting, you are off into AU territory in any event.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 12 June 2018, 00:46:39
Thanks for that research, Marcus. So, here's our starting shipyards and incomes.

Player Nations

Lyran Commonwealth: Budget $80B. Shipyards 3/3 Alarion, 3/1 New Kyoto, 1 Tamar, 1 Gibbs

Free Worlds League: Budget $100B. Shipyards 3/1 Atreus, 3/1 Irian, 3/1 Loyalty

Draconis Combine: Budget $100B. Shipyards 3/1/1 Luthien, 3/1 New Samarkand, 1 Midway.

Taurian Concordat: Budget $10B. Shipyard 1 Taurus.

Marian Hegemony: Budget $10B. Shipyard 1 Alphard.

NPC Nations

Terran Hegemony: Budget $750B. Shipyards 6/44/333/2222/11111 Terra, 4/2/1/1 Keid, 3/1 Thorin, 3/1 Terra Firma, 3/1 New Earth, 3/1 Yorii, 3/1 Graham IV

Federated Suns: Budget $90B. Shipyards 3/1 Delevan, 3/1 Layover, 1 New Syrtis.
United Hindu Collective: Budget $20B. Shipyard 3/1 Panpour.

Capellan Commonality: Budget $25B. Shipyard 2/1 Capella.
Sarna Supremacy: Budget $25B. Shipyard 2/1 Sarna.
Duchy of Liao: Budget $15B. Shipyard 2/1 Aldebaran.
Sian Commonwealth: Budget $10B. No yards.
St. Ives Mercantile League: Budget $10B. No yards.
Tikonov Grand Union: Budget $5B. No yards.

Rim Worlds Republic: Budget $20B. Shipyard 2/1 Finmark, 1 Apollo.

Principality of Rasalhague: Budget $1B. No yards.


That should hopefully be enough for everyone to get started. I'll start working through this mass of NPC players over the next couple days.

Also, a couple small rule changes. First, if you choose to build ships with standard KF drives in your yards (i.e., armed merchantmen or primitive WarShips), your yards produce them twice as fast as compact KF drive ships(ie., true WarShips). You can produce four standard-drive ships per yard per turn. Second, we'll go with my option #2 for refit rules - if you want to refit ships or stations, create a new variant by spending 50% of the unit cost on R&D, and then upgrade them for the cost difference.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 12 June 2018, 01:44:40
One question, what about DropShips?  I would assume that these would be built at the same yard, but to what amount per turn or are we just concentrating on WarShip designs?  Same question for fighters/small craft.

And i'll assume you want fluff etc for the ships?  And is it a bad thing that i've already got two designs done and am working on the fluff :D
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 12 June 2018, 06:12:42
One question, what about DropShips?  I would assume that these would be built at the same yard, but to what amount per turn or are we just concentrating on WarShip designs?  Same question for fighters/small craft.

And i'll assume you want fluff etc for the ships?  And is it a bad thing that i've already got two designs done and am working on the fluff :D

DropShips are less cutting-edge than WarShips, and most of them can be civilian designs(even navies need a lot of cargo models). Also, they use different factory space in canon. We're assuming that the combination of the two leaves you with sufficient DropShip capacity to not worry very much about the details. Ditto fighters and small craft. The only things that are production-limited are WarShips and armed JumpShips, and even then the only reason AJS are on that list is because they'll probably use the same production lines. I'll admit that this may be somewhat unrealistic, especially for the Periphery powers, but it's a lot simpler this way. If you want to be realistic, just avoid buying thousands of them.

As for fluff, it's not strictly necessary, but it's appreciated.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 12 June 2018, 07:24:52
The TCN - Year One.

The year 2350 was one of great importance for the Taurian Concordat, it marked the completion of their first shipyard in orbit over Taurus and was seen as a major stepping point along the road to prosperity and security. 
The newly appointed Director of Naval Construction was empowered to begin immediate construction on ships that could be used to expand the Concordat and explore the outlying region around Detroit for suitable colonies and resources. 
Exploration would be undertaken by the older Aquilla class ships whilst the Taurus Naval Yard would work on construction of the first ships that would ensure the security of Taurus and the Concordat’s territories.
Its not surprising that the Concordat’s first designs were based on the Aquilla class that had brought the refugees to their new worlds.  Their first effort was  classed as a Destroyer called the Independence class.  At 75,000 tons the ship looked like a scaled down Aquilla and used many of the technologies present in the larger design.  The main visual differences were that the Independence was much more bulky and blocky thanks to its layers of armour and its weapon emplacements.

Designed to patrol Taurian space, the Independence lacked the large cargo capacity of the Aquilla class and had a shorter range, but still more than enough to reach the Taurian holdings.  The construction of the Independence also helped with the rapid industrialization of Taurus and brought in jobs and economic stability with a surge in asteroid mining and a large number of factories being constructed that could produce parts for ships and vehicles on the ground. 

The Independence was quite simply armed with a series of autocannons and missiles for anti-shipping work and the larger White Shark launchers (called the SS-M-500 ‘Rapier’ or just Rapier in Taurian service) could be fitted with nuclear warheads.
The ship also carried berths for a dozen fighters, four small craft and could dock one DropShip making her a quite flexible unit. 

Also at the TNY the Taurians first cruiser was taking shape, again, based on the Aquilla class and weighing the same at 100,000 tons the Bull Run class cruiser was in reality a scaled up Independence class ship, mirroring its armament choices and layout but with greater firepower including a pair of the newly developed SS-M-600 ‘Shipwreck’ missile launchers (Killer Whales).  Capable of carrying 24 fighters as well as 4 small craft and 1 DropShip the Bull Run was designed as a Flotilla leader and command ship.  Six Independence class ships were authorized as were a pair of Bull Run class vessels and these would form the First and Second Naval Squadrons of the Taurian Navy.

Although the construction of these eight ships was considerable, it was still well under the naval budget limits, with the excess being spent on R&D as well as overhauls and refits.  The TNC or Taurian Naval College also began construction during this period and it would admit its first class in 2358 to further assist in the growth of the TCN.

Independence Class Destroyer

At over 300 meters and massing 75,000 tons the Independence class would be considered small by later JumpShip standards but for her time she was quite large.  Heavily influenced by the Aquilla design the Independence copied many systems from the larger vessel and would feature a scaled down reactor system that was almost identical save being two thirds the size.  Armed well enough to be considered a threat to other WarShips the Independence could engage at long and shorter ranges with its mix of autocannons and missiles.  The hanger for a dozen fighters was quite prominent, even if it did make the design more cramped to serve upon and set a standard for the TCN and their marrage of fighters with WarShips.  Unfortunately weight constraints limited the rear firepower and because of the bulk of the transit drives there was less protection on the ships aft quarters. 

Despite these failings the Independence was an object of immense pride when the first ships left the yards over Taurus and the class would remain in service until eventually displaced by more modern ships.  But despite this, the Independence class was not scrapped but put into reserve or assigned to training flotillas, and because the class was cheap to produce, many ships were held in Mothballs, waiting for reactivation should the Concordat be threatened.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Independence Class Destroyer

Tech: Inner Sphere

Ship Cost: $4,566,634,000.00
Magazine Cost: $1,843,360.00
BV2: 12,476

Mass: 75,000
K-F Drive System: Primitive

Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive

Safe Thrust: 2
Maximum Thrust: 3

Armor Type: Standard

Armament:

6 Naval AC 10
2 Capital Launcher White Shark
5 Capital Launcher Barracuda
32 AC 2

Class/Model/Name: Independence Class Destroyer

Mass: 75,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 9,000.00
Thrust
Safe: 2
Maximum: 3
Controls: 188.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Primitive (4 Integrity) 37,500.00
Jump Sail: (3 Integrity) 34.00
Structural Integrity: 30 2,250.00
Total Heat Sinks: 419 Single 280.00
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 12000 points 1,224.00
Fire Control Computers: 0.00

Armor: 200 pts Standard 250.00

Fore: 40
Fore-Left/Right: 35/35
Aft-Left/Right: 30/30
Aft: 30

Dropship Capacity: 1 1,000.00
Grav Decks:
Small: 1 (100 meter) 50.00

Escape Pods: 10 70.00
Life Boats: 9 63.00

Crew And Passengers:
14 Officers in Steerage Quarters 70.00
46 Crew in Steerage Quarters 230.00
19 Gunners and Others in Steerage Quarters 95.00
44 Bay Personnel 0.00
20 Marines 100.00

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass

2 Naval AC 10 Nose 60 200 (20-C) Long-C 4,000.00
2 Capital Launcher White Shark Nose 30 60 (6-C) 240.00
4 AC 2 Nose 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00

1 Naval AC 10 FL 30 100 (10-C) 2,000.00
2 Capital Launcher Barracuda FL 20 40 (4-C) 180.00
4 AC 2 FL 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00

1 Naval AC 10 FR 30 100 (10-C) 2,000.00
2 Capital Launcher Barracuda FR 20 40 (4-C) 180.00
4 AC 2 FR 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00

1 Naval AC 10 LBS 30 100 (10-C) 2,000.00
4 AC 2 LBS 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00

1 Naval AC 10 RBS 30 100 (10-C) 2,000.00
4 AC 2 RBS 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00

4 AC 2 AL 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00

4 AC 2 AR 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00

1 Capital Launcher Barracuda Aft 10 20 (2-C) 90.00
4 AC 2 Aft 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00


Ammo Rounds
Naval AC 10 Ammo 120
Capital Launcher White Shark Ammo 30
Capital Launcher Barracuda Ammo 80
AC 2 Ammo 2,880

Aerospace group

12 x Fighters
4 x Small Craft
1 x DropShip Docking collar

Total cost including ammo - $6,409,514

Producing eight of the class would cost $51,276,112 including magazine costs

Bull Run Class Cruiser

The Aquilla TCS Onondaga would be the base frame for the TCN’s first ‘cruiser’ and at 100,000 tons the ship was large for the time.  Sharing many parts with the Aquilla and Independence class ships the Bull Run class was built to be a squadron and flotilla leader, acting as a command ship for the groups of Independence class ships that would patrol Taurian space. 
In essence ‘the same but more’ the Bull Run increased the armament and fighter capacity of the Independence at a cost in endurance.  Despite their lack of range the class still had enough firepower to make a potential attacker sit up and take notice and was felt to be well protected against the fighters and attack shuttles of the time.
Unfortunately the Bull Runs were horribly cramped thanks to their rather large crews and this made them unpopular to serve on.  Like the Independence class the Bull Runs were phased out as more modern ships came online but of the sixteen built, a dozen were held in mothballs although most would eventually be stripped for parts and eventually scrapped.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Bull Run Class Cruiser

Tech: Inner Sphere

Ship Cost: $4,691,926,000.00
Magazine Cost: $1,979,360.00
BV2: 16,137

Mass: 100,000
K-F Drive System: Primitive
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 2
Maximum Thrust: 3
Armor Type: Standard

Armament:

9 Naval AC 10
2 Capital Launcher White Shark
5 Capital Launcher Barracuda
32 AC 2
16 Machine Gun (IS)


Class/Model/Name: Bull Run Class Cruiser
Mass: 100,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 12,000.00

Thrust
Safe: 2
Maximum: 3

Controls: 250.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Primitive (4 Integrity) 50,000.00
Jump Sail: (3 Integrity) 35.00
Structural Integrity: 40 4,000.00
Total Heat Sinks: 374 Single 220.00
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 18000 points 1,836.00
Fire Control Computers: 0.00

Armor: 264 pts Standard 330.00

Fore: 52
Fore-Left/Right: 40/40
Aft-Left/Right: 40/40
Aft: 52

Dropship Capacity: 1 1,000.00
Grav Decks:
Small: 1 (100 meter) 50.00

Escape Pods: 10 70.00
Life Boats: 10 70.00

Crew And Passengers:
16 Officers in Steerage Quarters 80.00
49 Crew in Steerage Quarters 245.00
25 Gunners and Others in Steerage Quarters 125.00
68 Bay Personnel 0.00
20 Marines 100.00

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass

3 Naval AC 10 Nose 90 300 (30-C) Long-C 6,000.00
2 Capital Launcher White Shark Nose 30 60 (6-C) 240.00
4 AC 2 Nose 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00
4 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 8 (0.8-C) 2.00

1 Naval AC 10 FL 30 100 (10-C) 2,000.00
2 Capital Launcher Barracuda FL 20 40 (4-C) 180.00
4 AC 2 FL 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00

1 Naval AC 10 FR 30 100 (10-C) 2,000.00
2 Capital Launcher Barracuda FR 20 40 (4-C) 180.00
4 AC 2 FR 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00

2 Naval AC 10 LBS 60 200 (20-C) 4,000.00
4 AC 2 LBS 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00
4 Machine Gun (IS) LBS 8 (0.8-C) 2.00

2 Naval AC 10 RBS 60 200 (20-C) 4,000.00
4 AC 2 RBS 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00
4 Machine Gun (IS) RBS 8 (0.8-C) 2.00

4 AC 2 AL 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00

4 AC 2 AR 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00

1 Capital Launcher Barracuda Aft 10 20 (2-C) 90.00
4 AC 2 Aft 4 8 (0.8-C) 24.00
4 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 8 (0.8-C) 2.00


Ammo Rounds
Naval AC 10 Ammo 330
Capital Launcher White Shark Ammo 30
Capital Launcher Barracuda Ammo 80
AC 2 Ammo 2880
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 3200

Aerospace Group

24 x Fighters
4 x Small Craft
1 x DropShip Collar

Cargo 2570 tons

Total cost including ammunition - $7,271,286


6 x Independence - 38,457,084
2 x Bull Run - 14,542,572


Total - 52,999,656.00

Marathon Class IPS

The Marathon class of Interstellar Patrol Ship was the TCN’s equivalent of a corvette and was designed to be cheap to build and operate, requiring minimal crew whilst having enough of a punch to threaten larger ships or deal with any Pirate craft it might encounter.  At 50,000 tons the ship would be outmassed by later DropShips and it was very cramped, lacking in many basic amenities and even a grav-deck.  But the stripped-down hull and its powerful reactors did have one advantage, it was fast.  Capable of pulling up to 3g of sustained thrust. 
But with all the yards occupied it was not able to build the Marathon class until the Independence and Bull Run class were completed and construction of the class was not authorized at first although there was the budget to build them and they were seen as a useful screening element to any future formation.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Marathon Class IPS
Mass: 50,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 12,000.00
Thrust
Safe: 4
Maximum: 6
Controls: 125.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Primitive (3 Integrity) 25,000.00
Jump Sail: (3 Integrity) 33.00
Structural Integrity: 25 1,250.00
Total Heat Sinks: 154 Single
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 20000 points 2,040.00
Fire Control Computers: 0.00

Armor: 157 pts Standard 196.00

Fore: 18
Fore-Left/Right: 16/16
Aft-Left/Right: 14/14
Aft: 15

Dropship Capacity: 0
Grav Decks:
None
Escape Pods: 5 35.00
Life Boats: 5 35.00

Crew And Passengers:

12 Officers in Steerage Quarters 60.00
43 Crew in Steerage Quarters 215.00
8 Gunners and Others in Steerage Quarters 40.00
5 Bay Personnel

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass

1 Capital Launcher White Shark Nose 15 30 (3-C) Extreme-C 120.00
2 AC 2 Nose 2 4 (0.4-C) 12.00

1 Capital Launcher Barracuda FL 10 20 (2-C) 90.00
2 AC 2 FL 2 4 (0.4-C) 12.00

1 Capital Launcher Barracuda FR 10 20 (2-C) 90.00
2 AC 2 FR 2 4 (0.4-C) 12.00

1 Naval AC 10 LBS 30 100 (10-C) 2,000.00

1 Naval AC 10 RBS 30 100 (10-C) 2,000.00

3 AC 5 AL 3 15 (1.5-C) 24.00

3 AC 5 AR 3 15 (1.5-C) 24.00

1 Capital Launcher Barracuda Aft 10 20 (2-C) 90.00

Ammo Rounds

Capital Launcher Killer Whale Ammo 25
Capital Launcher Barracuda Ammo 40
Naval AC 10 Ammo 50
AC 5 Ammo 360
AC 2 Ammo 810

Aerospace group

1 x Small craft

Cargo capacity - 1,200 tons

(http://www.smikesworld.dk/smworld/b5wallpapers/7tango7_skylark.jpg)

A digital rendering of the Marathon class ship shows its small size and stripped down nature as well as its forwards launch bay for its shuttle.


Any thoughts and comments are most welcome!








Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 12 June 2018, 07:37:51
Let's knock off some of the easy nations on the NPC side.

The Principality of Rasalhague is buying 200 fighters(200*5 = 1,000), and nothing else. They're trying to smuggle them in with hopes of ambushing a major Draconis convoy, if they can.

The Tikonov Grand Union is being wracked by riots right now, along with economic chaos and recent invasions, even though it's technically at peace right now. They've decided to invest in a rapid-reaction force for their army. They're buying a JumpShip(500), three DropShips to fill its collars(3*300 = 900), and a dozen fighters(12*5=60) for the carrier-fit DS to allow forces to be moved between planets. To assist planetary forces, they're buying two hundred shuttles (200=10 = 2,000) to be loaned out to police and army forces on major planets as a rapid-reaction force against cities that are particularly restive, and three hundred planet-based fighters(300*5 = 1,500) for use in extreme cases. A small research program(40) is initiated with a focus on fighter-equippable nonlethal weaponry for riot control.

(Out of character note - the research goal is just fluff. They have no control over what gets researched.)

The Rim Worlds Republic is in the middle of going Meiji, trying to build up educational infrastructure while not freaking out their neighbours too badly. As such, WarShips are on their back burner. They're buying a dozen civilian JumpShips (12*500 = 6,000) and the DropShips to match (36*300 = 10,800), in hopes of building up a merchant marine that can discover Inner Sphere technology faster, and perhaps spur colonists to consider RWR planets. Not wanting to neglect home defence entirely, they're also investing in twenty wings of fighters(18 per wing, 360*5 = 1,800) for planetary defence, and starting a broad-based research effort to catch up with Inner Sphere technology levels(1,400).

I was going to have the SIML and UHC buy a lot of stations, but the spreadsheet doesn't do station cost calculations correctly. I'll release an updated version of the spreadsheet soon-ish, and run those nations once I've done that. Besides, I have to head to work. I should at least be able to figure out Terran shipyards at that point.

I've also started a Google Docs sheet to keep a master list of everything in a more usable format than the forum thread. It's not finished, but see here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rzh-GEbKmiqNfPPj-zQj-9ZqiWKz11MmtqM73815wOo/edit?usp=sharing) for what I do have.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 12 June 2018, 08:26:18
Marauder - I love it.   Very Taurian/Minor power.  Also, I am ashamed.  -takes my pile of munchkined murderdeathkill designs and scraps, starts over-

Questions: 
1.)  Are we limited to Primitive Drives?  I thought we had compact cores - or is Marauder being Periphery Appropriate?

2.)  A class I yard can build 2 Class 1 Ships (250k).  A class 3 yard 2 class 3 ships (750k).  Can a Class 3 yard build 6 Class 1 ships?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 12 June 2018, 08:33:14
Thank you :D

I'm being peripherpy appropriate, if we're building the navy from the ground up, i'd want to start with technology thats familiar and common at the time, so the primitive jumpship core is, in my mind common enough faire that even the Taurians with their limited industrial base can build them, mainly thanks to just throwing enough manpower at it and having abundant resources fairly available to hand.

Also i'm going, at first for quantity, and once yards, doctrine and training are established fully as well as the industry to support them, then we'll see a doctrinal shift and change.

And by habit I try not to make munchy designs, yeah its easy to do a 2.5MT ship with a cargo bay of 2000 tons and the rest going into weapons and armour, but its harder and more challenging and, I find it more enjoyable to make a ship that's at least close to canon and without reaching for the big wheel of edam cheese.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 12 June 2018, 08:59:04
Thank you :D

I'm being peripherpy appropriate, if we're building the navy from the ground up, i'd want to start with technology thats familiar and common at the time, so the primitive jumpship core is, in my mind common enough faire that even the Taurians with their limited industrial base can build them, mainly thanks to just throwing enough manpower at it and having abundant resources fairly available to hand.

Also i'm going, at first for quantity, and once yards, doctrine and training are established fully as well as the industry to support them, then we'll see a doctrinal shift and change.

And by habit I try not to make munchy designs, yeah its easy to do a 2.5MT ship with a cargo bay of 2000 tons and the rest going into weapons and armour, but its harder and more challenging and, I find it more enjoyable to make a ship that's at least close to canon and without reaching for the big wheel of edam cheese.

I think Im going to split the baby.  Optimize hard, but not for the usual things.  Balance  SI tonnage to throweight tonnage, mount enough cargo to not sweat fleet resupply (as unlike the Hegemony, -I- have no interest in projecting power across the entire inner sphere - so ‘a lot’ of cargo for me is way less than SL standard).

Basically a confortable, roomy, sustainable fleet, heavy on soft stats, that Mahan would approve of.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 12 June 2018, 09:00:42
That makes perfect sense :) Whilst the TCN at the start is very much a littorial navy and yeah the cargo space on the SLDF ships was absurd, but then again that's mostly due to the fluff for them being done before the rules were a thing, which left so many with great globs of cargo space.

I can also see the Taurians producing a fair few dropships, and I plan to make a Drost equivalent especially the assault dropship which came out and patrol ships like that would basically be the bread and butter of a Taurian worlds defences, with dropships and fighters being the main defence until the fleet gets there.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 12 June 2018, 09:04:59
Well, as I said above - the SLN isnt -that bad- once you look at their deployment areas and the fact that a 1.5 MT ship costs way, way less than 3x500kt ships.  Easy enough to just upgrade the carto space on a 700kt cruiser into a 1MT cruiser, and leave everything else the same.

Im waffling between my first hulls being maid-of-all-work corvettes or some serious batleline DDs.  I just hate building little guys on turn 1 that Im going to be buying over and over and over, in terms of maintenance - but no fleet ever complained that it had -too many- light, multipurpose hulls...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 12 June 2018, 09:10:43
Oh indeed with the SLN its not the one Essex II you've got to worry about, its her three other mates and the Sov Soy leading them that you also need to pay attention to :p
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 12 June 2018, 09:21:37
Marauder: That is way, way higher than your budget. Remember, lead ships cost double. The first Independence costs 9,134M and the first Bull Run costs 9,384M. You have a total budget of 10,000M, and while I'm allowing deficits, the rules are punitive and the deficit cap is too low for you to build both. From fluff, I'd suggest you build one Independence, buy the support craft to go along with it(12*5+4*10+1*300 = 400M), and spend the other 466M on research and/or system defence.

Marcus: You have compact cores, and even sub-compact(Bug-Eye) cores. You don't need to use them, though. And no, big yards can't pump out zillions of small ships. You in particular have far too much yard space for your budget(because I gave the Lyrans lots of yards to represent industrial muscle and comparatively little budget due to political chaos), and some of the yard space will probably sit idle. Once your politics get under control in a few turns, it'll be less pinched.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 12 June 2018, 09:30:28
I thought the budget was 10 billion, not 10 million hence my confusion.  Also where are the rules about costs and the like? I don't recall seeing them anywhere.

aurian Concordat: Budget $10B. Shipyard 1 Taurus.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 12 June 2018, 09:33:01
Im well aware of my oversized yards.  Wasnt planning on usig them to build a swarm, but was curious.

 Im not going to be building anything like a full production schedule.  I think a flight of committee-designed corvettes to represent different interests from 9 different archons.

Im also -painfully- aware of where a few of those yards are located!  Right on my borders...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 12 June 2018, 10:20:08
I thought the budget was 10 billion, not 10 million hence my confusion.  Also where are the rules about costs and the like? I don't recall seeing them anywhere.

Taurian Concordat: Budget $10B. Shipyard 1 Taurus.

Your budget is $10B = $10,000M. If you mean my cost list, it's here (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1419323#msg1419323). If you mean the official cost calculation process, it's described in StratOps, but the spreadsheet calculates them for you. It's wrong for stations(it assumes they have a K-F drive, which drives up the cost like crazy), but the ship numbers seem accurate. Your post had costs in it for your first two ships, which is what I used to come up with those numbers:
Quote
Class/Model/Name:   Independence Class Destroyer

Tech:    Inner Sphere

Ship Cost:   $4,566,634,000.00
Quote
Class/Model/Name:   Bull Run Class Cruiser

Tech:    Inner Sphere

Ship Cost:   $4,691,926,000.00

Double those values due to lead-ship costs, and you get the $9,134M and $9,384M I quoted. So you can afford one, but not both just yet. Save the other one for a turn or two down the line, perhaps. They're very reasonable Taurian starter designs, both in stats and in fluff, but you're a small nation. Doing R&D and production on two new WarShip designs at once is just too much for you to handle right now. (FYI, budgets will mostly go up over time as your empires develop, and of course you'll also build up a backlog of existing designs that can be built more cheaply)

Edit: I just realized number systems might be the issue here. I'm Canadian, and we use the American numbering system - commas are thousand separators, periods start the decimal, and a billion is 10^9. If any of you are from other parts of the world, some of these conventions may be different. To type it up in an unambiguous way, the Taurian budget is $10 000 000 000, or 10 000 million.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 12 June 2018, 10:25:51
OH!

I think I may know what went wrong here....

Is it possible that Alsadius is in the U.S., and marauder in Britain or thereabout?

In BRITIAN, 1000 Million is a MILLIARD.  A MILLION Millions is called a Billion.

In the UNITED STATES, 1000 Million is called a Billion, and a MILLION Millions is called a Trillion.

I think the design intent is that budgets are in U.S. Billions, 1x10 to the 9th CBill equivalents.

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 12 June 2018, 10:30:02
yep I'm a Brit, so when I saw 10B that meant 10 billion which is a hell of a lot more than 10 million :D  So basically the budget is 10 million Cbills.  Okay :p

Unfortunately, I'm probably gonna have to drop out, I was doing the ships and fluff as a distraction during breaks at work, but I don't really have the ability or time to take part in a full on campaign I am afraid.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 12 June 2018, 10:37:07
yep I'm a Brit, so when I saw 10B that meant 10 billion which is a hell of a lot more than 10 million :D  So basically the budget is 10 million Cbills.  Okay :p

Unfortunately, I'm probably gonna have to drop out, I was doing the ships and fluff as a distraction during breaks at work, but I don't really have the ability or time to take part in a full on campaign I am afraid.

10 American-billion is still quite a lot more than 10 million, but it's quite a bit less than 10 British-billion. You can afford one or two ships a round at that price, plus various sundries. And tbh, you've already done enough work to last the first several turns, so you can coast on that for the time being. I don't intend for this to be a killer pace - one new design and a bit of fluff every week is more than enough, especially for a Periphery player.

(Heck, even if you're sure about dropping out, I'll be using them for the first few turns regardless. Less work for me, and they really are good designs.)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 12 June 2018, 10:40:24
10 Milliard by your standards, I believe.  Your budget would be 10 Thousand Million.

And please dont drop out!  Your like one of the major warship guys.  I reckon a turn every week or two should be easy enough for your time schedule, and I really like your designs.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 12 June 2018, 10:47:13
okay okay, you twisted my arm :D

And speaking of Warships

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61530.0

Have a read of that if you want and if you feel like it, lemme know what you think :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 12 June 2018, 13:19:06
Lyran Commonwealth Turn 1, 2350-2360.

This one is a NOVEL, because it covers doctrine, deployment, design rationales, and the like clear.  Expect later turns to be much more cut and dried, unless those things change.

This post may be edited to include a fluff/RP post or two going into more detail on doctrine, and/or an RP piece set from the POV of the LCN First Lord of Admiralty 2350, Jacqueline Angler.

Code: [Select]
Lyran Commonwealth, Turn Beginning 2350
Starting Funds:  0
Income:  80,000,000,000
Starting Shipyards: Alarion: 3/3  New Kyoto: 3/1  Tamar 1  Gibbs 1
Starting Warships: None
Starting Jumpships:  None
Starting Dropships:  None
Starting Fighters:  None



Expenditure Cost
Maintenance 0
Prototype Production: 1 Heimdaller FF 10.234B
Standard Production:  5 Heimdaller FF 25.635B
Jumpship Production: 30         15B
Dropship Production: 0 0
Small Craft:  240 (4 Regiments) 2.4B
Fighter:  4,800 Fighters (80 Regiments) 24B
Research:  2.731 Billion 2.731B
Total: 80B



Lyran Commonwealth, Turn Ending 2360
Ending Funds:  0
Ending Shipyards: Alarion: 3/3  New Kyoto: 3/1  Tamar 1  Gibbs 1
Ending Warships:  Heimdaller FF x6 30.702B
Ending Jumpships:  30
Ending Dropships:  0
Ending Small Craft 240 (4 Regiments)
Ending Fighters: 4,800 (80 Regiments)


Rationale/Explanation:
The first flight of Heimdaller class 240Kt Frigates are intended as multi-purpose, maid-of-all-work ships, able to deploy
20 fighters, two brigades of troops, suppress enemy fighter strikes with their 150 Barracuda missile tubes, or stand off
and hopefully dissuade (or arrange to disengage from) larger enemy vessels with those same massed missile launches.

Jumpship production is intended to encourage trade and ties between the three realms of the new LC.  Any unused
warship yard space will also be made available to building unlisted jump ships for the civilian market at cost.  In
exchange for this, all interstellar carriers are subject to being nationalized in times of national crisis, as well as expected
to carry consumables (fuel, food, parts, etc) as required for any LCN ship operating in their area.

The lack of Dropship production is based on the lack of docking collars on LCN Warships.  Civilian shipping concerns are
considered to provide their own dropships when using LCN “Military Reserve” Jumpships.

Heavy Small Craft (and -massive- fighter) production is for utility and defensive purposes.  The LC is surrounded by
larger, not necessarily friendly, powers.  It further has two of its shipyards located almost on the border with those
powers.  Fighters represent an essentially defensive posture, as a few regiments of fighters, coupled with the heavy
ammunition and fuel loads carried by a planet, can far more effectively defend a world than the same C-Bills in Warship.
All fighters not carried on ships may be considered deployed to forward -Naval- fighter bases, where they will defend the
world and its assets against hostile landing, as well as operating in support of ground forces if the enemy is able to land.
Lyran fighters are designed and optimized for this purpose.

The remainder spent on research (equivalent to half of a 7th frigate!) may be misspent (I am still not certain R&D is a
worthwhile expenditure under these rules, given the fact that it gives only a 1 turn advantage), but it fits the fluff of the
nation and no navy has long prospered by ignoring the advance of technology, so the LCN will not.


Naval Doctrine:
1.) The Seat of Purpose is on the Land.  All Naval activities (including destruction of enemy naval assets) exist to
further territorial purposes.  Commerce Protection is still a territorial purpose.  The massive fighter regiments are
primarily defensive. 

2.) Calculated Risk.  Lyran ships will generally be tough for their class (14% mass to SI) and with extensive defensive
armaments.  Fighters are primarily a defensive and second-strike weapon.  They are expected to use this resilience to
take calculated risk.  Vessels are not to be risked without a reasonable chance for commensurate gain, with the
exception of the defense of civilian lives.  So long as the sacrifice has even a chance of making a meaningful difference,
Lyran ships are expected to fight to the last to allow civilians a chance for shelter, succor, or flight, and to risk
themselves in support of troops.  This is not entirely altruistic, as a Navy that the Army loves is a Navy that gets more
money, in a battlemech centric universe. :)

3.) Extended Deployment/Agile Posture:  Lyran ships are intentionally and heavily over-engineered and provisioned.
This is reflected in power systems (200% of required heatsinks), the lack of bay quarters (all personnel in full up
quarters – this improves morale on long deployments and reduces supply usage), quirks (easy to maintain), extensive
small craft loadouts, the presence of marines on every ship (useful for flag showing, customs, etc), largish cargo holds
(though smaller than Star League, the LCN does not need to deploy for years across the entire periphery), commonly
installed Large Comm-Sensor Suites, and the like.  Lyran ships do not operate Drop Ships or a Jump Ship/Drop Ship
Fleet Train, being provisioned to function without them.  Each ship has two crews, one relieving the other.

The intention is that Lyran ships should need little yard time or rest/replenishment time, and be ready to respond at all
times to any opportunity presented.  To this end, the large cargo holds are a reserve – on deployment in friendly or
neutral space, Lyran vessels will where possible take on supplies from civilian bases, so that their onboard cargo serves
as reserve if they are required to go forward for offensive action.

4.) WMD Policy:  Biological and Chemical Agents will not be used, developed, deployed, or carried.  Nuclear weapons
are carried.  Nuclear weapons are on a strict ‘no first use’ policy, but once an enemy has used them, they are weapons
free and will be used without restriction against naval targets.  Nuclear weapons will not be used against a planetary
surface.  Warship weaponry may be used as fire support, but only well outside civilian areas.  There is no justification
sufficient for mass civilian casualties, and even limited civilian casualties (such as are common in commerce warfare)
will be avoided when operationally possible.


Heimdaller (Frigate)

   The Heimdaller frigate was the first warship laid down by the nascent Lyran Commonwealth in 2350.  Originally envisioned as a fast, well armed heavy destroyer capable of 4G’s acceleration and carrying heavy broadside armament, the intent was for the Heimdaller to be able to stand as a military equal with anything being produced by the surrounding states, and even to if necessary stand-off forces from the nascent Terran Hegemony, if that giant should turn its attention to conquest.

   This was not to be.  First Lord Jaqueline Angler, 1st Baron Angler, TVR, FR, ACM, was to be disappointed as her budget, plans, and priorities were ‘nibbled to death by ducks’.  The 9 Archons of the Lyran Commonwealth did not speak with a single voice.  The Army wanted an armed transport.  The Naval Aviation advocates demanded vast flight decks and enough docking collars to support a virtual cloud of light, dropship hulled carriers.  Military Manufacturers wanted something carrying as many, and as large, a set of guns as possible – except for the ones that wanted as many Capital Missile Launchers as possible.  Leaders of border worlds wanted warship monitors and defense satellites stationed over their worlds.  The great trading cartels wanted armed jumpships, but would settle for ‘Warships’ that were essentially vast cargo holds with some notional weapons.

   It should have been a disaster.  Instead, Lord Angler engaged in a series of compromises with the vessel, and the naval procurement board, trading favors like horses from one concern to another.   The Army got transport for a heavy armored brigade and an infantry brigade, and a promise that the navy would look out for them.  The Naval Air arm got a flight of fighters shipboard, and an order for a massive fleet of new Aerospace Fighters – which were then parceled out to naval air bases along the threatened boarder worlds.  The Manufacturers got missile launchers, and a promise to buy more missiles.  The cartels got additional jumpship production on the condition that the navy have use of those jumpships when necessity demanded it.

   And Jane Angler, TVR, FR, ACM, got a warship.  What was left after the horse-trading finished was a capable, flexible ‘maid of all work’.  The over-large hullform originally designed is expensive to produce (Heimdaller costs nearly half as much as the originally planned warship – which would have been three times her size) but saves space for many items that normally are secondary priorities.  Her over-large engine spaces and downrated drives result in the GN-3 Ginny “Torchdrives” requiring little maintenance, and that easy to perform.  Crew berthing spaces are extensive for even the lowest rating or private, improving morale and efficiency on long deployments.  Spare space that once was intended to carry Naval Cannon ports is packed with advanced sensors and monitoring equipment, complete with redundant systems.  Extensive small boat bays and the presence of a company of marines allows the vessel to serve as relief, support, or customs duty – and those same boat bays allow it to deploy its carried armored brigade in just a handful of trips.

   All of this flexibility and sustainability does not come for free.  Capital armament is limited to an array of light capital missiles, license-built McRoss Industries knockoffs of the Hegemony Barracuda based on plans sourced from DiTron Industries.  The phenomenal number of tubes allows the Heimdaller to sweep the skies of enemy fighters, or threaten even larger ships from extreme ranges, but reloads are limited – the Heimdaller will have to roll ship to present fresh ammunition supplies after a mere five salvos.  Much debate was had over the -choice- of capital missile, with strong advocates existing for both the medium and heavy weight missiles - both outperform the Barracuda in firepower per ton, and the medium weight 'White Shark' clone was notable for its armor piercing qualities.  The light missile was ultimately chosen for its greater accuracy, both in having a built in anti-fighter guidance system, and because the missile itself is more accurate against all targets than almost any other naval weapon.* 

Further, the heavy internal bracing and structural members of the planned heavy destroyer were greatly reduced in the smaller frigate – leaving the Heimdaller far more fragile than Admiral Angler intended.

   For all her flaws, compromises, and drawbacks, the Heimdaller proved a generally useful light warship, as much at home transporting and supporting troops as she is doing customs work, anti-piracy patrols, showing the flag, or providing escort to ‘true’ capital ships.  Indeed, the LCN was much taken with the positive qualities that came from the original, unintentional downsizing, and in many ways the Heimdaller set the pattern for what would follow.

*Footnote:  The Humble Barracuda, while having slightly less absolute range than the NL/55 or HNPPC, actually has a longer 'Short' 'Medium' and 'Long' Bracket than -any- other naval weapon, due to having a double-sized 'short' range (Barracuda is 'Short' from 1-20, 'Medium' from 21-30, etc.  All other naval weapons have equally sized brackets).  As a result, the Barracuda is firing at 'Medium' at least as soon as the big energy naval weapons, and is actually at THN 6 Medium while the mighty NAC/30, king of Naval Weapons, is still in its THN 10 extreme bracket.  A small advantage, but potentially a telling one for one turn of nearly unreturned fire.

Code: [Select]
Heimdaller FF
Tech: Inner Sphere
Introduced: 2350
Mass: 240,000 tons
Length: 857 meters
Width:  133 meters
Height:  90 meters
Sail Diameter: 773 meters
Fuel: 2,000 tons (5,000)
Tons/Burn-day: 39.52
Safe Thrust: 3
Maximum Thrust: 5
Sail Integrity: 4
KF Drive Integrity: 7
Heat Sinks: 3,320 (200%)
Structural Integrity: 60
BV2: 104,620
Cost:  $5.127B

Armor
Fore: 20
Fore-Sides: 34
Aft-Sides: 40
Aft: 40

Cargo
Bay 1 (Nose): 20 Fighters (4 Doors)
Bay 2 (RBS):  9 Small Craft, 9 Light Vehicles, 9 Heavy Vehicles (3 Doors)
Bay 3 (LBS):  9 Small Craft, 9 Light Vehicles, 9 Heavy Vehicles (3 Doors)
Bay 3 (Aft):  84 Marines, 252 Infantry (0 Doors)
Bay 4 (Aft):  8190 Tons Cargo (1 Door)
(Typical Cargo is 1 Year of Food, 2,400 Tons Spare Parts/Supplies, and 4000 Tons mission tailored)

DropShip Capacity: 0
Grav Decks: 1 (80 meters diameter)
Escape Pods: 80
Life Boats: 80

Crew:  618 (Includes Vehicle Crews and 1 Tech per 2 Vehicles/Spacecraft)
Marines:    84
Troops: 252
All Crew, Marines, Troops in 1st/2nd Class Quarters

Ammunition: 750 Barracuda Missiles
16000 AC/5 Rounds
16000 MG Rounds

Notes:
Large NCSS
Mounts 288 tons of Standard armor. 
200% of required heat sinks
Quirks:  Easy to Maintain, Improved Communications, Poor Performance


Weapons:

Nose:
10 Barracuda (50 Rnds)
20 AC/5 (2000 Rnds)
20 MG (2000 Rnds)


Fore Left/Right:
20 Barracuda (100 Rnds)
20 AC/5 (2000 Rnds)
20 MG (2000 Rnds)

Broadside:
20 Barracuda (100 Rnds)
20 AC/5 (2000 Rnds)
20 MG (2000 Rnds)

Aft Left/Right:
20 Barracuda (100 Rnds)
20 AC/5 (2000 Rnds)
20 MG (2000 Rnds)

Rear:
20 Barracuda (100 Rnds)
20 AC/5 (2000 Rnds)
20 MG (2000 Rnds)


Shu Heavy Fighter

Named for the Egyptian Goddess of the wind that stood between the realms of Earth and Sky, the Shu Heavy Fighter was the result of a design competition announced in 2340 to build what would become the primary naval fighter of the budding LCN.

Two primary designs made it into the final phase.  The leading entry, from Bowie Industries, topped out the fighter weight class and practically dripped with firepower, its wide flying wings supporting a full 8 autocannon.  Firepower demonstrations never failed to impress the politicians, and it was looking as if Bowie had a lock on the contract as it entered the final phase.

CBM Corporation of Donegal’s lighter Shu class fighter, though still formally a ‘heavy’ unit, offered less than half of the firepower of the Bowie entry, in exchange for greater performance and much greater resilience.  Though the Naval Procurement office preferred the lighter craft, it was in the process of being overruled by those who held the purse strings, and CBM Corporation publicly challenged Bowie Industries to a fly off, with the contract on the line.  Unable to back out without losing face, Bowie agreed.

The initial stages of the competition involved testing handling, time-to-climb, endurance, and firepower tests.  Both designs performed well, but the Shu’s minor advantage in maneuverability was more than offset by the massive firepower of the Bowie’s 8 cannon as the test entered into its final phase.

The final round of testing was atmospheric combat maneuvering.  Here the Shu’s performance mattered more, but even with an advantage in hits scored, the Bowie entry looked too far ahead to catch.  In the closing minutes of the timed match, the Bowie fighter lost control in a close pass, driving itself headlong into the Shu.

The Shu’s reinforced structure and 23 tons of armor plate sheared through the Bowie’s wing as if the heavier fighter was made of tissue.  The heavier fighter had sacrificed almost all armor protection in the name of firepower, and its structure collapsed on impact.  The Shu was thrown out of control, but the pilot recovered in time to look over his shoulder and see the Bowie’s pilot floating to the ground under a canopy.

When asked about this surprising turn of events, the test pilot for CMB Corporation merely winked and said ‘Are you kidding?  It was a shoo-in.”

CBM Corporation of Donegal Licensed its winner to Lockheed of Gibbs, as it was unable to complete all orders itself.  This competition and purchase set the pattern for future aerospace procurement in the Lyran Commonwealth.  Even centuries later, it is stated as an important day for the Lyran Air Forces, with one historian reported as saying “Imagine if Bowie got the contract?  Centuries later our entire heavy air force would have consisted of flying wings with more guns than sense.”

Code: [Select]
Type: SH-2 Shu
Technology Base: Inner Sphere
Tonnage: 85
YIS: 2350
Cost: ~5,000,000

Equipment: Mass
Engine: 340 VOX         27
Safe Thrust: 6
Maximum Thrust         9
Structural Integrity 8
Heat Sinks 10 0
Fuel 400 5
Cockpit 3
Armor Factor: 368 23
Armor
Value
Nose 128
Wings 90
Aft 60

Weapons and Ammo Location
3xAC/5 Nose 24
Ammo, AC/5 (60)         Nose 3

Quirks:
Easy to Pilot, Easy to Maintain, Atmospheric Flyer, Poor Cooling Jacket (Autocannon)


SH-2B Shu
Bomber/Strike Variant.  Removes 2 Autocannon and 2 Tons of Ammo.  Replaces with 18 Tons Cargo.  Equipping the Shu
with a large internal bomb bay forced several adjustments to the reaction control system and internal linkages, so that
the SH-2B became a bit of a hanger queen compared to its fighter cousins and lost its gentle and forgiving nature in the
air.
Quirks:  Internal Bomb Bay, Difficult to Maintain, Hard to Pilot
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 12 June 2018, 18:15:59
Marian Hegemony: Budget $10M. Shipyard 1 Alphard

I'm restructuring the above to match American English. Better for me...

Marians are currently spending half their load on Mariany things...

Greasing the Patricians hands and working the systems that govern the Hegemony, while the Plebeians, middle-class, toil at making life easy for themselves with the various slaves doing the actual work!

Senate decreed the purchase of several Aquilla class Jumpships and Aerospace Fighter Squadrons. While these will take time to acquire, the Imperator has suggested that some of the fundings should go towards Foreign Intelligence gatherings.

The construction of a pair of Saturn Patrol Dropships should help with the incoming traffic, with a Squadron always on patrol. Currently a Friendly Envoy is on her way to the Taurian Concordat with hopes of a Reseach and Buying Technology survey.

(  >:D You all know me... I have something up my sleeve... )

Imperator Pi
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 12 June 2018, 19:10:42
Two late questions:
1) Is the Naval Laser AAA mode available right out of the gate, or is it a tech like bracketing to be discovered later?

2) Should we be posting our turn budgets openly, or PM'ing em to Mr GM? Would prevent all of us knowing exactly what everyone's fleet compositon is. Maybe the start of turn report includes the number of ships (but not specific #'s per class) and total tonnage of the fleet for each faction, with only that player and the GM knowing the real truth?

For the sake of keeping an even playing field, I'll post my budget openly -when its finished. Just a thought for the future.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 12 June 2018, 19:21:02
Nibbled to death by ducks? Londo would be so proud lol
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 12 June 2018, 19:29:01
The Lyran Commonwealth is an open society.  We encourage the free flow of goods, ideas, and information.  :)

My sense is that for management purposes, easier to keep everything public.  Also lets observers have something to observe.  I anticipate everyone will be pursuing their own doctrine, rather than trying to mirror/counter opponents moves - and if people juggle their builds turn to turn to counter one another, they risk ruining their own force’s coherence.

My unsolicited vote is to allow AA targeting for Naval Lasers - EVERY naval weapon exists in the shadow of the NAC, so Im down for helping the others any way I can.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 12 June 2018, 19:31:08
Nibbled to death by ducks? Londo would be so proud lol

Oh, the whole thing is just stuffed to sickness with references and nods.  If it were for any kind of offical publication, Id -have- to take 3/4ths of them out.  Here I indulge myself for my own and hopefully shared amusement.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 12 June 2018, 19:52:13
@ marcussmythe PM sent...

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: DOC_Agren on 12 June 2018, 22:17:41
I have not time to take part but this is going to be interesting to watch
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 13 June 2018, 07:48:00
We already have Barracudas with their to-hit bonus, so AAA targeting doesn't seem like anything new. Also, I don't have room for it on my tech list. So yeah, it's active now.

I'd prefer public posts for turns. It's a lot easier for me - I don't need a black ops rule set, I'm not the only one who has to double-check the calculations, and it's more fun for the observers. If you guys all feel differently I can work with PM turns, but I'll only switch this up if most of you feel strongly.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 13 June 2018, 07:52:43
Thought for the day - LNCSS's get EXPENSIVE... I think it may have cost me a big chunk of another ship.  :(
Oh, well.  What price initiative?

Other thoughts - upgrading crew quarters.  Steerage/Bay quarters are cheap as chips in tonnage compared to actual, and leaving your flight crews in them makes for better looking cargo hold sizes - but it may be a false economy.  When I ran the numbers on the Heimdaller, she actually had ~far~ longer legs with her infantry and flight crew in formal quarters than when they were in bay quarters, even if I devoted all of the tonnage saved into food stores!  I dont want to think about how well that recycling technology must work.

Of course, the downside is that if you arent carrying the troops and vehicles, you cant put something ELSE in that tonnage.  But everything is trade-offs.

*EDIT*
I know we cant direct our research.  But for whatever it is worth, I'd like to state that Lyran Naval Researchers are -fascinated- by computers, AI, and autonomous systems.  Better guidance systems for missiles, better targeting systems for guns, pilot aids, better autopilots, Strong General AI.  You know, stuff. :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 13 June 2018, 16:07:29
Rules Question: 

For purposes of this exercise, are we using Standard or Advanced Aerospace Ranges?

I know you arent gaming out the battles, but the rules still define the weapon characteristics of the universe - characteristics of which the naval designers would be aware.

My suggestion is that the the advanced, individual ranges give us a more interesting design space and a rationale for a greater spread of weapons.  As you noted in your capital weapon analysis, the NAC/30 is king.  It reaches to long, and is just as accurate to the edge of long as a HNPPC or NL/55 - with the result that those weapons are not good choices.  (Effective attack in the extreme band is basically impossible - base THN of 10, plus EM and ECM renders extreme range fire basically meaningless). Under advanced ranges, the HNPPC not only reaches further, but has better brackets even as the range closes - such that it may have better THNs than the NAC even if both ate in range, and allow something like McKenna to use that accuracy advantage within -effective- ranges to show strongly against a NAC heavy design.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 13 June 2018, 16:16:41
the NAC/30 is king

Not to derail, but the NAC/30 can only be king if you are not using weapon bays or bracketing fire. A mix of NAC/20's and /10's are better, since you can reach the 70 point max for weapon bays, and hit the full 4-weapon bonus for bracketing fire, neither of which can an NAC/30 do, making it less dangerous.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 13 June 2018, 16:26:57
Not to derail, but the NAC/30 can only be king if you are not using weapon bays or bracketing fire. A mix of NAC/20's and /10's are better, since you can reach the 70 point max for weapon bays, and hit the full 4-weapon bonus for bracketing fire, neither of which can an NAC/30 do, making it less dangerous.

Well, we certainly arent bracketing as Houses in 2350.  :)

Its a good point, and not a derail.  But under your conditions, Id just run 3 NAC20s and an NAC10, reach to long, bracket fully - and were still left with the NAC as king, just changed which one(s).  :)

I wanna scratch my head and go ‘hmm’, not have a clear winner choice - and I think the individual ranges (and espc accuracy based on them) helps with that.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 13 June 2018, 19:11:58
Personally I'm getting around the bracketing problem by using multiple 2-gun bays rather than making bays that do 70 damage.

One last question I swear: How would I cost additional training? Can't match the Hegemony in numbers or ship quality, but crew quality is doable. And I want my navigators to be able to nail those pirate points.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 13 June 2018, 19:17:21
Personally I'm getting around the bracketing problem by using multiple 2-gun bays rather than making bays that do 70 damage.

One last question I swear: How would I cost additional training? Can't match the Hegemony in numbers or ship quality, but crew quality is doable. And I want my navigators to be able to nail those pirate points.

My understanding is that better training is reflected in spending more on maintenance.  The default maintenance cost for a vessel is 1% per year (so 10% per turn).  You may choose to spend more, or less, with consequences to be determined by the GM.

I have -assumed- in my production schedule that you don't pay to maintain new builds, as they would be active for 5 of your ten years (if they were the first production out of a yard) or only leaving the slipways as the turn ends (if they were the last production out of the yard).  Rather than figure out which ship was finished when, I'm going to do maintenance each turn, for the whole turn, based on hulls in service at the beginning of the turn, unless the GM objects.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 13 June 2018, 22:21:06
Another thought occurred to me that I'll ask about before it's an issue: If we decide to stop building a certain ship class -probably due to cost of construction , but want to avoid the maintenance costs going through the roof could we dedicate a shipyard capable of building said class to making spare parts for it, during which time the yard can do nothing else?

Also, I'm assuming a yard that was built/upgraded this turn can't do anything else.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 13 June 2018, 22:54:56
If I wanted to be gamey with my autocannon bays, I'd use two 30s and a 10. Bracketing to -2 is almost always better than doing it to -3(-3 is only better at super-high THNs), and the bay is 9000 tons instead of 9500. As for ranges more generally, I'm cool with thinking of the advanced ranges. The NAC/25 suffers less that way, for one. It won't be modelled explicitly, but I'll keep it in mind. I'll also assume that Gauss weapons do well at longer ranges compared to anything else, to make up for their anemic damage per ton.

Training and crew skill is covered in maintenance costs, yes. For super-skilled crews, make a point of over-funding your maintenance budget. And to confirm, there are no maintenance costs during the turn you build a ship, only on subsequent turns. The bookkeeping is much simpler that way, for all of us.

I've made no assumptions about spare parts for out-of-production units. I gave some thought to it, but dismissed it for excess bookkeeping. Don't worry about that. Also, I've assumed that shipyard upgrades are instant - build with them right away, if you like. It's a bit less realistic, but I want players to be able to exploit an opportunity quickly if they see the need for it.

Also, I have an updated spreadsheet that I'm testing out, which seems to have proper prices for stations. I'll post it when I have a bit more time to confirm everything, but I've used it and can thus take the UHC's turn. The UHC is looking for options that will allow it to defend its own space effectively, without the high costs and temptation to foreign wars presented by a true WarShip fleet. As such, space stations have great appeal, particularly stations that can also support their merchant fleet. Thus was born the Pratham jump point station. Carrying an energy storage battery to allow faster K-F charging for merchant vessels, the Pratham also mounts a variety of long-range weaponry and a strong fighter wing to allow for significant firepower across the vast spaces of a recharge point. A small cargo hold to allow for transshipping, a few spare passenger bunks, and small craft to move goods round out the station facilities. The first Pratham was launched at the zenith point of Panpour in 2353, and by the end of the decade a total of six Prathams were in service.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Pratham Jump Point Station
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $504,500,000.00
Magazine Cost: $9,036,000.00
BV2: 26,113

Mass: 200,000
K-F Drive System: None
Power Plant: Station-Keeping Drive
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
36 Naval Laser 55
36 Capital Launcher Killer Whale
48 Machine Gun (IS)

Class/Model/Name: Pratham Jump Point Station
Mass: 200,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 2,400
Controls: 200
Structural Integrity: 1 2,000
Total Heat Sinks: 3114 Single 3,000
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 5000 points 1,020
Fire Control Computers: 0
Armor: 432 pts Standard 720
Fore: 72
Fore-Left/Right: 72/72
Aft-Left/Right: 72/72
Aft: 72

Grav Decks:
Medium: 2 200
Escape Pods: 32 224
Life Boats: 32 224

Crew And Passengers:
29 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 290
56 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 392
80 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 560
165 Bay Personnel (See 2nd Class Passengers)
12 1st Class Passengers 120
170 2nd Class Passengers 1,190
20 Steerage Passengers 100

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
6 Naval Laser 55 Nose 510 330 (33-C) Extreme-C 6,600
6 Naval Laser 55 Aft 510 330 (33-C) Extreme-C 6,600
6 Naval Laser 55 FR 510 330 (33-C) Extreme-C 6,600
6 Naval Laser 55 FL 510 330 (33-C) Extreme-C 6,600
6 Naval Laser 55 AR 510 330 (33-C) Extreme-C 6,600
6 Naval Laser 55 AL 510 330 (33-C) Extreme-C 6,600
6 Capital Launcher Killer Whale Nose 120 240 (24-C) Extreme-C 900
6 Capital Launcher Killer Whale Aft 120 240 (24-C) Extreme-C 900
6 Capital Launcher Killer Whale FR 120 240 (24-C) Extreme-C 900
6 Capital Launcher Killer Whale FL 120 240 (24-C) Extreme-C 900
6 Capital Launcher Killer Whale AR 120 240 (24-C) Extreme-C 900
6 Capital Launcher Killer Whale AL 120 240 (24-C) Extreme-C 900
8 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
8 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
8 Machine Gun (IS) FR 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
8 Machine Gun (IS) FL 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
8 Machine Gun (IS) AR 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
8 Machine Gun (IS) AL 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4

Ammo Rounds Mass
Capital Launcher Killer Whale Ammo 450 22,500.00
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 7200 36.00

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
1 Energy Storage Battery 100,000 N/A
60 Bay Fighter 9,000 6
9 Bay Small Craft 1,800 2
9,000 Cargo, Standard 9,000 3

To ensure the proper defense of the nation, large fighter wings have been established on each core planet, and a substantial investment has been made in DropShips that can be militarized at need.

UHC budget: $20B
Pratham prototype = $1.01B
plus 5x Pratham = $2.525B (2 in Panpour, 4 unspecified)
1,200 fighter = $6B
200 small craft = $2B
24 light DropShip = $7.2B
Research = $1.265B
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 14 June 2018, 05:42:21
See how this goes...

Draconis Combine Admiralty Doctrine

Design

The High Command in the DCA agreed quickly that matching the Hegemony in numbers or size of their ship in the short term was impossible, so instead they have focused on simplifying their designs by standardising on one type of each weapon as follows: The 35cm Naval Laser, the class 20 Naval Autocannon, the Killer Whale capital missiles, with the AC-5 and Machine guns for anti-fighter and point defense work. The admiralty also decided that using multiple twin turrets over single, multiple gun turrets gave the best balance of increasing the chances of a hit without sacrificing too much striking power with each volley. Using this standard across the fleet with aid mass production, logistics and training.

The pair of docking collars typically seen on DCA ships are generally used as an aid to resupply or to transport the first wave of an invasion force, while the subsequent waves arrive on 'convential' JumpShips after the jump point has been secured.

Crews

DCA crews are trained hard and often, but their reward is better than average crew quarters – for all but the marine contingent anyway – compared to the JumpShip fleet. The admiralty came to the conclusion that while the Combine cannot match the Terrans in ship size, crew quality is a very different story. Every effort is taken to improve the fleets performance, including special privileges for the best performing officers and crew, as well as transfers to the far less luxurious confines of the JumpShip fleet for those that are not up to scratch, where many volunteers can be found to fill their place of honour. Of special note are the navigators on board, who are rigorously trained, and are required to make 5 successful jumps into 'pirate points' in a conventional JumpShip before qualifying to be assigned to a WarShip.

Usage

Captains are trained to act like a stalking tiger, waiting for the proper moment to pounce, whilst using surprise as much as possible in the emptiness of space. One-on-one engagements with an equal opponent are to be avoided as a rule, although that rule is often waived in the defense of DCMS convoys, Prefecture or District capitals or express orders from a superior. It is better to wait for the advantage in size or numbers before striking.

Chemical weapons (beyond non-lethal agents like tear gas) are strictly banned, and orbital bombardment is performed only as a response to Ground-to-Orbit fire, or against forces deploying WMDs against DCMS ground troops. If the launch site of said WMDs (whether chemical, biological or nuclear) happens to be in a populated area, then they should not have tried to use civilians as a human shield. Such bombardment is to be conducted with the fleets Naval Lasers, to both save NAC ammunition and keep collateral damage to within acceptable limits.

Nuclear weapons are issued to the fleet – typically 3-4 warheads for each launcher- but their use to be used in large fleet engagements, or if outnumbered and unable to avoid action. Normal use would be mixing nuclear warheads amongst a volley of conventional missiles (typically two launchers per volley), to both conserve warheads, and to force a shell game of sorts onto the enemy point defense, improving the odds of one of the nuclear warheads getting through.

The current deployment of the fleet is in 3 pairs, with each Fubuki escorted by a Kutai patrolling the Lyran and Davion borders -the admiralty thought that tempting the Hegemony with their brand new fleet before it was up to strength was a foolish idea- while the remaining two Kutais assist in subjugating the Principality of Rasalhague. The future plan for the fleet involves building as many 6 ship squadrons (2 Kutais, 2 Fubukis, and 2 as yet unfinished, but larger ships) as the budget will allow, deploying them at District capitals -and as sufficient numbers enter service- Prefecture capitals as a rapid reaction force to foreign aggression.

Fighters

The current fleet includes two classes of warship, both containing a wing of 36 fighters, predominately used for self-defence against enemy strike fighters and capital missiles. While the fleets fighter corps is also trained in the anti-shipping role, keeping their carrier vessel safe from the enemy is deemed a more important role.

The rest of the DCA's fighter corps not assigned to WarShips is either in training, or deployed in garrison positions on the border, or guarding important worlds such as Prefecture/District capitals and worlds with shipyards in orbit, usually assigned in individual 36-fighter wings.

JumpShips

The DCAs small JumpShip fleet is used almost exclusively to supply the fleet and act as couriers, though transporting the DCMS in offensive operations is also in their perview. Internal movements of the DCMS within the Combine however is typically done with their own tiny Jumpship fleet, or by commandeering civilian craft unless the DCA is given specific orders otherwise.


And now for the budget:

Code: [Select]
(All Costs in Millions)
Money Available 100,000

Avaliable Shipyards
Luthien 3/1/1
New Samarkand 3/1
Midway 1

Maintanence None
Prototype Cost Kutai 6,092
Fubuki 7,241

Construction # Built Price per unit Total Cost
Shipyards Luthien (Both 1's > 2's) 10,000 20,000
Warships Kutai 4 6,092 24,368
Fubuki 2 7,241 14,482
Jumpships 20 500 10,000
Dropships 16 300 4,800
Fighters 50 x 36 Wing 1800 5 9000
Small Craft 144 10 1440
Research 2 1000 2000

Total Spent 99,423
Remaining 577

And finally, the Ships themselves, designed by the DCA's master of engineering, Kouzou Fuyutsuki:

Kutai (Corvette)
Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Kutai
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $6,091,888,000.00
Magazine Cost: $3,464,000.00
BV2: 15,629

Mass: 200,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 4
Maximum Thrust: 6
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
10 Capital Launcher Killer Whale
48 AC 5
32 Machine Gun (IS)
24 Naval Laser 35

Designed as the fleets first line of defence, able to act as a picket ship, escort larger vessels or patrolling the Combines long borders. With it's main firepower consisting of Naval Lasers, with a handful of Killer Whales and a hefty battery of autocannons for anti-fighter duties with deep ammunition bins, the Kutai can serve in the field for some time without resupply in the most part, keeping the Dragon and his people safe from piracy and the occaisonal raid from a great house. The small NCSS system installed gives the ship a great advantage as a picket or pirate hunting ship, with very little escaping the notice of its gaze.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Kutai
Mass:                    200,000

Equipment:                 Mass
Drive:                          48,000.00
Thrust
Safe: 4
Maximum: 6
Controls:                     500.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (6 Integrity) 90,500.00
Jump Sail: (3 Integrity)           40.00
Structural Integrity: 40         8,000.00
Total Heat Sinks: 1496 Single 1,142.00
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 40000 points 8,160.00
Fire Control Computers: 0.00
Armor: 120 pts Standard          160.00
Fore:         20
Fore-Left/Right:20/20
Aft-Left/Right: 20/20
Aft:           20
 
Dropship Capacity: 2 2,000.00
Grav Decks:
Small: 2 100.00
Medium: 0.00
Large: 0.00
Escape Pods: 0.00
Life Boats: 22 154.00

Crew And Passengers:
24 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 240.00
61 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 427.00
54 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 378.00
132 Bay Personnel 0.00
1st Class Passengers 0.00
2nd Class Passengers 0.00
50 Steerage Marines 250.00

Fighter Bay (36) 3 Doors     5,400.00
Small Craft (12) 2 Doors     2,400.00
Cargo             2 Doors     5,721.00
NCSS (Small)                     100.00

The luxurious quarters are fairly standard aboard DCA vessels, the admiralty having the belief that officers and crew that are given better living conditions then their JumpShip compatriots will fight harder to keep them. The engine is capable of a full 3Gs of thrust, allowing the ship to outrun most pirate vessels, and keep pace with friendly fleet elements, the 8,000 tons of fuel is sufficient to keep both the ship and its fighter complement in the field for an extended time. The armour is much thinner than the larger Fubuki-class, but there is a limit on how much can be fitted to a ship this size, so it was deemed acceptable.

As per DCA doctrine, the fighter wing is largely for self-defence, while the large contingent of small craft allow for quick resupply or aid in customs duties, along with the ships contingent of 50 Marines.

Code: [Select]
# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
2 Killer Whale Nose 40 80 (8-C) E-C 300.00
4 AC 5 Nose 4 20 (2-C) L 32.00
4 AC 5 Nose 4 20 (2-C) L 32.00
2 MG Nose 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00
2 MG Nose 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00
2 Naval Laser 35 FL 104 70 (7-C) L-C 1,400.00
2 Naval Laser 35 FL 104 70 (7-C) L-C 1,400.00
4 AC 5 FL 4 20 (2-C) L 32.00
4 AC 5 FL 4 20 (2-C) L 32.00
2 MG FL 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00
2 MG FL 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00
2 Naval Laser 35 FR 104 70 (7-C) L-C 1,400.00
2 Naval Laser 35 FR 104 70 (7-C) L-C 1,400.00
4 AC 5 FR 4 20 (2-C) L 32.00
4 AC 5 FR 4 20 (2-C) L 32.00
2 MG FR 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00
2 MG FR 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00
2 Killer Whale LBS 40 80 (8-C) E-C 300.00
2 Killer Whale LBS 40 80 (8-C) E-C 300.00
2 Naval Laser 35 LBS 104 70 (7-C) L-C 1,400.00
2 Naval Laser 35 LBS 104 70 (7-C) L-C 1,400.00
2 MG LBS 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00
2 MG LBS 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00
2 Killer Whale RBS 40 80 (8-C) E-C 300.00
2 Killer Whale RBS 40 80 (8-C) E-C 300.00
2 Naval Laser 35 RBS 104 70 (7-C) L-C 1,400.00
2 Naval Laser 35 RBS 104 70 (7-C) L-C 1,400.00
2 MG RBS 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00
2 MG RBS 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00
2 Naval Laser 35 AL 104 70 (7-C) L-C 1,400.00
2 Naval Laser 35 AL 104 70 (7-C) L-C 1,400.00
4 AC 5 AL 4 20 (2-C) L 32.00
4 AC 5 AL 4 20 (2-C) L 32.00
2 MG AL 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00
2 MG AL 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00
2 Naval Laser 35 AR 104 70 (7-C) L-C 1,400.00
2 Naval Laser 35 AR 104 70 (7-C) L-C 1,400.00
4 AC 5 AR 4 20 (2-C) L 32.00
4 AC 5 AR 4 20 (2-C) L 32.00
2 MG AR 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00
2 MG AR 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00
4 AC 5 Aft 4 20 (2-C) L 32.00
4 AC 5 Aft 4 20 (2-C) L 32.00
2 MG Aft 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00
2 MG Aft 4 (0.4-C) PD 1.00

Killer Whale Missiles  150 (15 per tube)         7,500.00
AC/5 Ammo            1920 (160 Rds/bay) 96.00
MG Ammo               6400 (400 Rds/Bay) 32.00

Having all sorts of problems with formatting from that spreadsheet...

EDIT: Along with a slight adjustment/addition to the Kutai's fluff, I give you the Fubuki:

Fubuki (Destroyer)
Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Fubuki
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $7,240,978,000.00
Magazine Cost: $21,728,000.00
BV2: 57,421

Mass: 420,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 3
Maximum Thrust: 5
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
22 Naval Laser 35
26 Naval AC 20
64 AC 5
32 Machine Gun (IS)
8 Capital Launcher Killer Whale

Whilst the Kutai is designed as an escort or patrol vessel, the Fubuki is intended to be a ship killer, first and foremost. It keeps the bulk of the weapons of the smaller vessel, losing only a pair of missile tubes off the nose and a handful of NL 35s, whilst also packing 13 turrets mounting twin Naval AC 20s to pound the enemy into submission. Only capable of 2.5Gs at full thrust, outrunning the enemy is unlikely to be an option, but the speed was seen as acceptable for it's assigned role in the nascent DCA. A more than solid internal structure allowed the designers to fit the Fubuki with armour equal to almost any ship of equivalent size, allowing the ship to close to effective weapon range. The standard 2 drop collars, 36-fighter wing and dozen small craft allow the ship to defend itself, perform boarding actions for customs duties if needed, or lead the opening wave of an invasion, whichever role is needed.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Fubuki
Mass: 420,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 75,600.00
Thrust
Safe: 3
Maximum: 5
Controls: 1,050.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (10 Integrity) 190,050.00
Jump Sail: (4 Integrity) 51.00
Structural Integrity: 80 33,600.00
Total Heat Sinks: 2928 Single 2,495.00
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 20000 points 8,160.00
Fire Control Computers: 0.00
Armor: 317 pts Standard 672.00
Fore: 53
Fore-Left/Right: 53/53
Aft-Left/Right: 53/53
Aft: 52

Dropship Capacity: 2 2,000.00
Grav Decks:
Small: 2 100.00
Medium: 0.00
Large: 0.00
Escape Pods: 0.00
Life Boats: 42 294.00

Crew And Passengers:
34 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 340.00
95 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 665.00
72 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 504.00
132 Bay Personnel 0.00
1st Class Passengers 0.00
2nd Class Passengers 0.00
50 Steerage Marines 250.00

Fighter Bay (36) 3 Doors   5,400.00
Small Craft (12) 2 Doors   2,400.00
Cargo   2 Doors      7769.00

Code: [Select]
# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Mass
2 Naval Laser 35 Nose 104 70 (7-C) 1,400.00
2 Naval Laser 35 Nose 104 70 (7-C) 1,400.00
2 Naval AC 20 Nose 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
4 AC 5 Nose 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
4 AC 5 Nose 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
2 MGs Nose 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
2 MGs Nose 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
2 Naval Laser 35 FR 104 70 (7-C) 1,400.00
2 Naval Laser 35 FR 104 70 (7-C) 1,400.00
2 Naval AC 20 FR 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
2 Naval AC 20 FR 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
4 AC 5 FR 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
4 AC 5 FR 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
2 MG FR 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
2 MG FR 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
2 Naval Laser 35 FL 104 70 (7-C) 1,400.00
2 Naval Laser 35 FL 104 70 (7-C) 1,400.00
2 Naval AC 20 FL 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
2 Naval AC 20 FL 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
4 AC 5 FL 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
4 AC 5 FL 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
2 MG FL 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
2 MG FL 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
2 Killer Whale LBS 40 80 (8-C) 300.00
2 Killer Whale LBS 40 80 (8-C) 300.00
2 Naval AC 20 LBS 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
2 Naval AC 20 LBS 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
4 AC 5 LBS 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
4 AC 5 LBS 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
2 MG LBS 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
2 MG LBS 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
2 Killer Whale RBS 40 80 (8-C) 300.00
2 Killer Whale RBS 40 80 (8-C) 300.00
2 Naval AC 20 RBS 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
2 Naval AC 20 RBS 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
4 AC 5 RBS 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
4 AC 5 RBS 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
2 MG RBS 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
2 MG RBS 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
2 Naval Laser 35 AR 104 70 (7-C) 1,400.00
2 Naval Laser 35 AR 104 70 (7-C) 1,400.00
2 Naval AC 20 AR 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
2 Naval AC 20 AR 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
4 AC 5 AR 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
4 AC 5 AR 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
2 MG AR 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
2 MG AR 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
2 Naval Laser 35 AL 104 70 (7-C) 1,400.00
2 Naval Laser 35 AL 104 70 (7-C) 1,400.00
2 Naval AC 20 AL 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
2 Naval AC 20 AL 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
4 AC 5 AL 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
4 AC 5 AL 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
2 MG AL 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
2 MG AL 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
2 Naval Laser 35 Aft 104 70 (7-C) 1,400.00
4 AC 5 Aft 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
4 AC 5 Aft 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
2 MG Aft 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
2 MG Aft 4 (0.4-C) 1.00
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 14 June 2018, 07:37:10
Smegish: For formatting the sheet's output, just copy each block of text from the spreadsheet into a single set of Code tags, and hit Enter twice after each block. It leaves them split up and fairly easy to read, and means it's more compact on our screens.


The St. Ives Mercantile League has recently decided that the wasteful duplication inherent within private industry is antithetical to the interests of the nation. To further national unity and efficient progress, the nation is taking the lead in guiding the industry of the nation. Economies of scale are being used to encourage faster and more efficient transport inside the nation's borders.

The most visible sign of the SIML's new approach to industrial operations is the Chongzhi Recharge Station. Unlike other stations designed as dual-purpose military installations, the SIML wished to keep this as a pure civilian design. Some compromises were eventually struck, giving the station batteries of light autocannons to allow self-defence, as well as armour to survive an attack from external enemies, but the focus of the station is the four gigantic energy storage batteries, which allow several JumpShips to recharge their drives at once. Large cargo-handling facilities round out the ship. Crew quarters are somewhat more spartan than other nations may be accustomed to, but the noble workers of St. Ives need no such luxuries to keep working for the good of the state.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Chongzhi Recharge Station
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $338,495,000.00
Magazine Cost: $123,750.00
BV2: 12,883

Mass: 500,000
K-F Drive System: None
Power Plant: Station-Keeping Drive
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
90 AC 2

Class/Model/Name: Chongzhi Recharge Station
Mass: 500,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 6,000
Controls: 500
Structural Integrity: 1 5,000
Total Heat Sinks: 154 Single 0
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 3000 points 1,224
Fire Control Computers: 0
Armor: 690 pts Standard 1,725
Fore: 115
Fore-Left/Right: 115/115
Aft-Left/Right: 115/115
Aft: 115

Grav Decks:
Medium: 2 200
Escape Pods: 40 280
Life Boats: 40 280

Crew And Passengers:
28 Officers in 2nd Class Quarters 196
117 Crew in Steerage Quarters 585
15 Gunners and Others in Steerage Quarters 75
160 Bay Personnel (See Steerage Passengers)
10 2nd Class Passengers 70
160 Steerage Passengers 800

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
15 AC 2 Nose 15 30 (3-C) Long 90
15 AC 2 Aft 15 30 (3-C) Long 90
15 AC 2 FR 15 30 (3-C) Long 90
15 AC 2 FL 15 30 (3-C) Long 90
15 AC 2 AR 15 30 (3-C) Long 90
15 AC 2 AL 15 30 (3-C) Long 90

Ammo Rounds Mass
AC 2 Ammo 5625 125.00

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
4 Energy Storage Battery 400,000
32 Bay Small Craft 6,400 8
76,000 Cargo, Standard 76,000 7

After constructing several Chongzhi stations, the leaders of the SIML realized that JumpShip traffic was lower than anticipated, so a new effort to expand the JumpShip fleet was initiated late in the decade.

Budget: $10,000M
Prototype Chongzhi: $677M
10x Chongzhi: $3,385M
400x small craft: $4,000M
JumpShip: $500M
3x light DropShip: $900M
Research: $538M
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 14 June 2018, 08:15:29
Smegish - I like her.  I also like how even on turn 1, we can see fleet doctrine heading out into different directions.  Will be interesting to see whst happens when thise doctrines clash.  Whats going to be -real- interesting is if someone starts nuking warships - thats going to collapse the design space metaposition into a ‘dont let one missile through and fire all zee missiles’. 

I may nudge the Archons into trying to get their heads together with the Terran Hegemony about making first use of nukes against any target a War Crime resulting in being at war with the Hegemony (and everyone else).  Given their absolute and unassailable numeric advantage, Id think the Hegemony would like ‘no nukes’ to be the rule of the day.  OTOH, if we start nuking each other (and they stay out of it), we’ll have to build for that environment, and it might end up with them being ill suited to fight a nuclear war between ships.  Well, ill suited for ten years.  Next turn they prototype and mass produce something thats better than all of us put together....

Alsasdius - I know it seems like make work, but all those stations/what nots/minor powers things are things that would exist in the universe and make it richer.  If its coolsies, could one of those recharge station designs be licensed from St. Ives or somewhere?  Would save me prototype costs and the design time, and Id reckon id pay some percentage of the prototype cost to buy the design. Something like that would go nicely with my civilian jumpship fleet and economic plans.

Similarly - as Ive more yards than money, could I build warships for other people?  I reckon build my own designs at say 10% markup, or prototype and build to suit at cost (including protitype cosr!), but in the latter case Id retain the right to build the design I prototyped for personal use.

Edit:  -whistles-  Fubuki is mean.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 14 June 2018, 08:39:41
Licensing designs was something I was going to do myself in the Capellan zone. That's partially metagaming, as they're merging in a couple turns and it means I'll need to track fewer designs, but it's also perfectly logical.

Let's say that NPC nations will offer standard licensing terms, to keep it simple - any nation that doesn't share a border will sell a license for any design using established technology(i.e., nothing discovered in the last two turns) for half of the prototype cost. So for $169m, you can start building Chongzhi stations under license, for example. No approval required, just budget for it and write it up. If you want to license a design from a nation you do border (probably the Terrans, but others might come up), PM me - it might happen, but it'll depend on the political situation. The same goes for selling ships or design licenses to each other - your political masters won't mind as long as you're not equipping potential enemies, and if you are then PM me.

Also, I'm making a point of using different doctrines for different nations, but I'm glad to see you guys also following suit. This is pretty much exactly what I was hoping to see. :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 14 June 2018, 08:44:04

Edit:  -whistles-  Fubuki is mean.

Likely to run into problems of not being fast enough later, also will probably need to upgun the NL turrets sometime in the future, might be able to put that off until I can swap em for N/PPCs. For now, just don't let her get close.

Wanted to avoid having ships that suited every circumstance perfectly right out of the gate when we're supposed to be running a crash building program, and also didn't want to meta-game into building weird (to me anyway) mixed-gun bays that just happened to hit the 70 damage cap.

Also, for those smaller powers that don't share a border with the Combine; whether that's the Taurians; Canopians; Marians; or various parts of what will be the Confederation, the Combine may have a little something available for export in the coming decades. Just don't tell anyone where it came from or we stop doing business with you. ;)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 14 June 2018, 08:58:35
Likely to run into problems of not being fast enough later, also will probably need to upgun the NL turrets sometime in the future, might be able to put that off until I can swap em for N/PPCs. For now, just don't let her get close.

Wanted to avoid having ships that suited every circumstance perfectly right out of the gate when we're supposed to be running a crash building program, and also didn't want to meta-game into building weird (to me anyway) mixed-gun bays that just happened to hit the 70 damage cap.

Also, for those smaller powers that don't share a border with the Combine; whether that's the Taurians; Canopians; Marians; or various parts of what will be the Confederation, the Combine may have a little something available for export in the coming decades. Just don't tell anyone where it came from or we stop doing business with you. ;)

Well, the Star League Navy soldiered on at 3/5 as its main fleet speed for its entire existence... heck, look at Aegis, 2/3.

The thing about speed... think of speed not in terms of lost warload, but in cost. 
IN GENERAL... if a 3/5 ship has an arbitrary combat load of 100Kt split between SI and Guns, its 4/6 cousin has 80Kt, and a 5/8 version has 60Kt.  You can retain that 100Kt combat load by upping your total size... this has the knock on effects of making your ship larger, and as a result 25% more expensive.  You also eat it in SI, assuming your going for a balanced build.. youll have about the same armor points, maybe a bit more, but your more fragile under the shell.  This could get bad in big fleet engagements, where the real measure of ships lifespan is not total armor, but 'facing+2xSI', since in big fleet engagements, ships will die before they can roll ship.

Thus you get roughly 4x4/6 ships for the cost of 5x3/5 ships.  If your going for 5/8, the size goes much bigger, and your now getting about 3 ships instead of 5.  What price thrust, when thrust gives no operational or strategic mobility, purely tactical?  My gut feel is that a 4/6 fleet may have an advantage over a 3/5 fleet (can choose engagement range), but will have the same disadvantage against a 5/8 fleet.  Whereas the 5/8 fleet is basically helpless in front of the 3/5 fleet.. it can run freely, but if it stands, an 5v3 advantage in firepower and armor means that the fast fleet will die, and wont accomplish much along the way.

Another consideration is cargo space.  I've chosen to go for a 5-7% mass fraction in cargo.. amusingly, about as much as a point of thrust.  So my fleet 'costs' like a 4/6 fleet, only its a 3/5 with on board cargo.  I think its worth it to not fiddle fart with collars and droppers, but Your Mileage Will Vary.

PS:  Regarding Costs... just wait till LF Batteries come along.  It goes nuts fast.

PPS:  I notice we are all loving to build things that dont cost upkeep early.  Recharge stations, fighters, droppers, jumpers, whatever fits - and avoiding going into massive warship production until the battle reports start saying what works and what doesnt.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 14 June 2018, 10:33:17
A speed advantage only has tactical value if you use it to either force a beneficial engagement range, or to avoid poor fights entirely. So if you're loaded to the gills with NAC/40s and move at 5/8, that can have real value by letting you force a close-in knife fight. Ditto if you go with bearings-only missile launches from more-than-extreme range, later in our setting. But if you and your opponent are both using vanilla multi-range designs, then the ability to dictate engagement range doesn't matter much, because you don't have a useful range to dictate. Options are good in combat, of course, and it's not totally worthless(after all, maybe your opponent is going to bring some NAC/40 ships and you can keep him from closing with you), but speed by itself isn't all that decisive unless it lets you do something you couldn't otherwise do. This is not a Mech fight (or a Fisherian wet dream) where speed is actually a real form of armour.

I tend to think of WarShip fights in terms of the RL battleship era - not exclusively, but more than any other obvious comparison. The 3/5 fleet is basically the American "Standard Battleship" design - not terribly fast, because the assumption is that you don't need to be terribly fast if you can attack him at a point he needs to defend, and that if you can force such a decisive engagement you'll be the one carrying the most guns and armour to the fight. Conversely, the British battlecruiser designs(and to some extent the Queen Elizabeths) were designed to give the fleet a "fast wing" to allow for flanking maneuvers in a battle, and if Jutland had gone a bit differently it may have worked very well for them. The differences in cargo/fuel capacity that were needed(based on the expected distance between the fight and the nearest base) also map very closely to the relative cargo sizes for SLDF and House ships. And in that era, just consider the doctrinal differences implied between a Scharnhorst, a Yamato, an Iowa, and an un-modernized Royal Sovereign, or even between armoured carriers and unarmoured carriers.

Also, while I'm mostly cranking out light units and stations so far, remember that I haven't actually resolved any nations with shipyard space except the UHC, and the UHC never built any WarShips at all in canon. The Terran Hegemony is going to be building a lot of ships, I promise you, and all of you seem to be going for ships as well. We're going to get a couple fights this round(the Sarna Supremacy attack on the Tikonov Grand Union is coming up, and there's all the usual pirate suppression and general skirmishing to worry about as well), so you can see how that works out.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 14 June 2018, 10:59:52
One thing I don't think we should fall into is OTPing. At the moment, folks are designing missile boats and there's NOTHING to defend against them. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 14 June 2018, 11:11:29
One thing I don't think we should fall into is OTPing. At the moment, folks are designing missile boats and there's NOTHING to defend against them.

1) OTP?

2) In game rules, non-AMS weapons can be used for anti-missile work. I'm making them a bit better, so that missiles(and particularly, nuclear-armed missiles) aren't overwhelmingly powerful, but anti-missile work will still be tough until the AMS comes out. Right now in a naval context, the AC/5 is the primary anti-fighter weapon, the machine gun is generally used against missiles, and the AC/2 is something of a dual-purpose weapon - not great at either role, but it can at least try at both.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 14 June 2018, 11:19:30
What kind of weapons moding is going to be allowed? Can the players try and make their own guns?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 14 June 2018, 11:37:38
What kind of weapons moding is going to be allowed? Can the players try and make their own guns?

Nah, that just gets crazy for something like this. Either I try to keep them from getting too powerful, in which case they're boring, or they get too good and obsolete all the canon stuff(as well as making the spreadsheet we're all using for design useless). If you want to play with the fluff a bit, go for it, but no new stats blocks for weapons will be added aside from canon techs getting unlocked.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 14 June 2018, 11:42:59
One thing I don't think we should fall into is OTPing. At the moment, folks are designing missile boats and there's NOTHING to defend against them.

Weve seen ship designs from 2 major powers.    Out of 3 designs, there's one real missile boat in there (mine).

For defending against missiles?  I recommend Armor.  Seriously.  Missiles are terrible in damage per ton, and their extreme engagement range advantage evaporates once you look at the numbers.  Extreme is 10, plus ECM - automiss.  Long is 11 with ECM, 12 on a nose shot, 13 on a passing shot.  Maybe not quite automiss, but you cant afford to fire many missiles at those ranges.  (note that the NAC boat has the ammo to take any shot on a 12 or less, because NAC ammo is trivial.  Laser ammo is less than trivial).

So much for long and extended range.  Now, there is some interesting room for decisive engagement at medium.  Decisive engagement is possible at medium range because target numbers start allowing significant hits, though barely.
 (9 after ECM, so 10/11s).  You've got a window of advantage for a missile design vs. a NAC design - the missile design hits medium sooner (espec. the barracuda) but its a half-dozen hexes or less.  If the missile boat goes ammo light, it can try for an advantage against the NAC boat while its in medium and the NAC is still making showy useless fireworks at long, but thats a small window of space and time.  Once the NAC boat hits medium, a 'full ammo' Missile boat loses its firepower advantage, and a 'light ammo' missile boat better hope to win in a turn or two - because its going to be dry soon.

If point defense meaningfully reduces large missile launches, it will make large missile launches objectively worse than NLs or (as always) NACs.  And they will thus not be used.  Small launches will be eaten alive by any PDS that can threaten a large one.

A couple of things change this paradigm:
1.)  Waypoint and Bearing Only:  Lets the Missile boat engage effectively at range 50-plus-a-little.  Cryhavock suggests that any missile may perform as if it were at short using bearing only launches - my geometry suggests id rather set my missiles for medium against a canny opponent with even a 3/5 drive.  5/8 ships are going to make the missile users head hurt.. but still, weve got the -possiblity- of effective engagement out to range 50 plus a little.  That's not nothing, and Id consider a manticore style fleet once Waypoint and Bearing Only hits.  But Id be willing to fight against it, too.

2.)  Nukes.  Once the Nukes start getting used, the warship era ends in pyrotechnics.  Its all missiles and ASFs with nuke missiles.  Mostly ASFs with nukes, because they have more range, and everyone can kill anything they can get in range.  We can put our NACS and NPPCs and Armor away, because everything dies in nuclear fireballs long before those things matter.  Suggested force composition is warships that carry fighters and also dropships that carry fighters, so you can keep the enemy nukes as far away as possible.

Closing Thought:  Naval ECM really collapses the design space to 'medium range'.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 14 June 2018, 13:31:47
Crew Training:
If 10% of build value is default, whats the sense of where, budget wise, ships stat behaving like Veterans or Elites?  Is it unknowable?

Also, whats the upper limit if meaningful expenditure on such training?  Do we have a sense of where we hit ‘throwing away money’?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 14 June 2018, 13:50:53
Nah, that just gets crazy for something like this. Either I try to keep them from getting too powerful, in which case they're boring, or they get too good and obsolete all the canon stuff(as well as making the spreadsheet we're all using for design useless). If you want to play with the fluff a bit, go for it, but no new stats blocks for weapons will be added aside from canon techs getting unlocked.

That's ok based on sticking close to the fluff right now all I got are plasma cannons which are years away and a couple of ac tweeks but neither of those are complete yet. Long barrels/reinforced breach for longer range and enhanced autoloader double rof.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 14 June 2018, 13:54:37
Crew Training:
If 10% of build value is default, whats the sense of where, budget wise, ships stat behaving like Veterans or Elites?  Is it unknowable?

Also, whats the upper limit if meaningful expenditure on such training?  Do we have a sense of where we hit ‘throwing away money’?

Expect diminishing returns, but remember that a lot of those costs are on things like large-scale exercises, live-fire training for your troops, establishment of command schools, increased pay to attract better people, and so on. Those are big expenses, and much more than the "baseline" for maintenance, but you can spend quite a lot on them without being wasteful if crew skills are your goal. The big concern is starving your construction budget too far, because one ship commanded by Horatio Nelson and crewed by the best in the fleet probably still loses to ten equal ships commanded by a moderately competent midshipman.

As a rough guideline, a ship at 10% of baseline maintenance is in mothballs with a skeleton maintenance crew, a ship at 50% of baseline maintenance is good breeding grounds for a mutiny, the Terran Hegemony will always keep their units at 100% of baseline maintenance(seems like a good way to have it be a true baseline), and when you get much above 200% of baseline maintenance the admiral running the training programs starts to think that live-fire nuclear weapon exercises for every fighter pilot might be a good way to use up his annual budget.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 14 June 2018, 14:12:44
Thank you for the timely response!

I was looking at whether its worth spending dough trying to train gunnery, specifically, because of the terrible things EWar does to THNs in space between warships.

Im not even joking - I was running numbers and kept getting answers like 'this ship literally cannot kill itself at extreme or long range, and might well run out of ammo before it can kill itself at medium range'

And yeah, since maintenance is a % function, its a hard limit on fleet sizes.

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 14 June 2018, 14:27:41
Remember a few things.

- ECM is a tech on the tech list. There are EW systems in use right now, but they're not very good, and they'll get better when ECM tech comes out. As a result, it has less of an effect on long-range firepower in this era than you might expect from game rules.

We're using fluff rules, not exact combat rules - extreme-range engagements have low hit chances, but they aren't going to be literally zero within the weapon's effective envelope, even if the StratOps math says it's a 13+ to hit.

- Maintenance costs are a softer limit than you might be worried about. Economies grow over time, and over time old ships will go into mothballs or be retired entirely. It's still a real and important limit, and from a gameplay point of view it creates an incentive to either upgrade or trash your old ships, but it's not hard-and-fast - it's a soft cap.

- We're building up to something called "the Age of War" right now. What makes you think that long-term logistic growth functions are going to be the true limit on your fleet's size?  >:D
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 14 June 2018, 14:42:40
Remember a few things.

- ECM is a tech on the tech list. There are EW systems in use right now, but they're not very good, and they'll get better when ECM tech comes out. As a result, it has less of an effect on long-range firepower in this era than you might expect from game rules.

We're using fluff rules, not exact combat rules - extreme-range engagements have low hit chances, but they aren't going to be literally zero within the weapon's effective envelope, even if the StratOps math says it's a 13+ to hit.

- Maintenance costs are a softer limit than you might be worried about. Economies grow over time, and over time old ships will go into mothballs or be retired entirely. It's still a real and important limit, and from a gameplay point of view it creates an incentive to either upgrade or trash your old ships, but it's not hard-and-fast - it's a soft cap.

- We're building up to something called "the Age of War" right now. What makes you think that long-term logistic growth functions are going to be the true limit on your fleet's size?  >:D

Hmm.  Okay.  That helps some.  Ive got two heavy destroyers Im fiddling with - ones a NAC design, brick with guns, balanced SI to Weapons load,  and the other Something Completely Different.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 14 June 2018, 14:52:43

Can someone please double check the armor calculation in that google doc?
Heavy Metal Pro gets more armor points out of the same weight of armor.


Also the bays aren't properly given out.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 14 June 2018, 15:05:09
Can someone please double check the armor calculation in that google doc?
Heavy Metal Pro gets more armor points out of the same weight of armor.


Also the bays aren't properly given out.

I THINK the google doc doesn't show the 'Armor on each facing equal to 10% of SI'.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 14 June 2018, 15:42:47
Yeah, there's a few known bugs with the spreadsheet.

- Station cost calculations aren't working right - they are assumed to have K-F drives, which are pricey, and the cost multiplier is too low. This makes cheap stations too expensive and expensive stations too cheap. No quick fix here, unfortunately.

- The "free" armor per facing isn't added. Don't worry about this, I'll tack it onto your designs.

- In my experience, bays work well enough with the formula I gave up-thread. Alternately, just write them in by hand.

- I may also cut out all the Clantech and later weapons from the sheet, as we won't be using them for months, if ever. That should make it a bit less unwieldy to fit your ships out.

I'll get that version posted by this weekend.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 14 June 2018, 15:45:55
My designs have the armor in already, so no need to add.

I can migrate to the other sheet if required, but would mildly prefer not to - I cant google doc at work, and work downtime is my design time.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 14 June 2018, 15:51:22
I also added the Free-SI armour
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 14 June 2018, 15:52:15
Make my life easy, why don't you? Monsters  ;)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 14 June 2018, 16:28:48
Finally done, fixed everything I could find in google docs...


Free Worlds League
For decades the FWL had been preparing for a WarShip construction surge, however it was caught off guard as it found itself in an arms race with its neighbors. The original idea was that all the FWL capital shipyards would be brought to an equal level and then producing large amounts of general purpose Battlecruisers.
But with the active arms race, the FWL was forced to kickstart and adapt the old plan. Some of these changes include a rapid build-up of non-capital assets and the construction of an improvised corvette-class. These would hopefully help to keep the FWL save until the new fleet was online.

Code: [Select]
(All Costs in Millions)
Money Available 100,000

Avaliable Shipyards
Atreus 3/1
Irian 3/1
Loyalty 3/1

Maintenance None
Prototype Cost Phalanx 4,631
Heracles 8,874

Construction # Built Price per unit Total Cost
Shipyard Upgrades Atreus B (1->2) 10,000 10,000
Warships Phalanx 2 4,631 9,262
Heracles 6 8,874 53,244
Jumpships 5 500 2,500
Dropships 27 300 8,100
Fighters 8 x 36 Wing 288 5 1,440
Small Craft 90 10 900
Research 1049   1 1,049

Total Spent 100,000
Remaining 0
-

The first Battlecruiser of the FWL is the Herculas-class. Each ship of the class is named after a planet in the FWL, and all parts of the FWL will get representation. These ships are designed so that they can be deployed in groups or perform solo missions, such as convoy duty. It has enough cargo for average deployments, but won't be able to support any invasion or base construction by itself. This leaves the transport duties to DropShips and JumpShips.
The Herculas excels in broadside exchanges, as it mounts 8 Naval Autocannons on each side. In case it is outranged it can salvo Barracuda missiles at distant targets. This is enhanced by several wings of on-board Aerospace Fighters and Small Craft, which provide it with deeper defense and extended strike capacity.


Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Heracles Battlecruiser
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $8,873,716,000.00
Magazine Cost: $41,192,000.00
BV2: 76,290

Mass: 750,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 3
Maximum Thrust: 5
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
48 AC 5
48 Machine Gun (IS)
20 Naval AC 30
40 Capital Launcher Barracuda



Class/Model/Name: Heracles Battlecruiser
Mass: 750,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 135,000.00
Thrust
Safe: 3
Maximum: 5
Controls: 1,875.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (16 Integrity) 339,375.00
Jump Sail: (5 Integrity) 68.00
Structural Integrity: 90 67,500.00
Total Heat Sinks: 2448 Single 1,884.00
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 35000 points 14,280.00
Fire Control Computers: 0.00
Armor: 594 pts Standard 1,349.00
Fore: 100
Fore-Left/Right: 101/101
Aft-Left/Right: 101/101
Aft: 90

Dropship Capacity: 2 2,000.00
Grav Decks:
Small: 2 100.00
Medium: 0.00
Large: 0 0.00
Escape Pods: 50 350.00
Life Boats: 50 350.00

Crew And Passengers:
46 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 460.00
149 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 1,043.00
76 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 532.00
264 Bay Personnel 0.00
90 Steerage (Marines) 450.00


   Bay 1:  Fighters (36) with 6 doors                                5,400.00
   Bay 2:  Fighters (36) with 6 doors                                5,400.00
   Bay 3:  Small Craft (12) with 3 door                              2,400.00
           Cargo (1) with 1 door                                    83,628.00


# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
8 AC 5 Nose 8 40 (4-C) Medium 64.00
8 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 16 (1.6-C) 4.00
2 Naval AC 30 Nose 200 600 (60-C) 7,000.00
2 Naval AC 30 FR 200 600 (60-C) 7,000.00
2 Naval AC 30 FR 200 600 (60-C) 7,000.00
8 AC 5 FR 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
8 Machine Gun (IS) FR 16 (1.6-C) 4.00
2 Naval AC 30 FL 200 600 (60-C) 7,000.00
2 Naval AC 30 FL 200 600 (60-C) 7,000.00
8 AC 5 FL 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
8 Machine Gun (IS) FL 16 (1.6-C) 4.00
20 Capital Launcher Barracuda RBS 200 400 (40-C) 1,800.00
20 Capital Launcher Barracuda LBS 200 400 (40-C) 1,800.00
2 Naval AC 30 AR 200 600 (60-C) 7,000.00
2 Naval AC 30 AR 200 600 (60-C) 7,000.00
8 AC 5 AR 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
8 Machine Gun (IS) AR 16 (1.6-C) 4.00
2 Naval AC 30 AL 200 600 (60-C) 7,000.00
2 Naval AC 30 AL 200 600 (60-C) 7,000.00
8 AC 5 AL 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
8 Machine Gun (IS) AL 16 (1.6-C) 4.00
8 AC 5 Aft 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
8 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 16 (1.6-C) 4.00
2 Naval AC 30 Aft 200 600 (60-C) 7,000.00



Ammo Rounds Mass
AC 5 Ammo 2400 120.00
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 2400 12.00
Naval AC 30 Ammo 520 416.00
Capital Launcher Barracuda Ammo 400 12,000.00

 
-

The Phalanx Corvette can be described as a temporary solution. The class allows for construction at partly completed yards, while also using some of the same components as the larger Herculas-class Battlecruisers. Most notably it uses a lower amount of the same planetary engine assemblies as used by FWL Battlecruisers, this provides the phalanx with enough thrust to control most engagements. The excessive investment in thrust came at the expense of armor and firepower, but this is acceptable as its primary targets are enemy logistic units of any invading forces.
With most of its firepower on the aft-section it can easily harass at high speeds, but if enemies come too close, it will have to rely on its aerospace fighters and point defense small craft.


Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Phalanx
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $4,630,528,000.00
Magazine Cost: $2,457,640.00
BV2: 8,541

Mass: 250,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 6
Maximum Thrust: 9
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
60 AC 2
88 Machine Gun (IS)
12 Capital Launcher Killer Whale


Class/Model/Name: Phalanx
Mass: 250,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 90,000.00
Thrust
Safe: 6
Maximum: 9
Controls: 625.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (7 Integrity) 113,125.00
Jump Sail: (4 Integrity) 43.00
Structural Integrity: 35 8,750.00
Total Heat Sinks: 469 Single
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 30000 points 12,240.00
Fire Control Computers: 0.00
Armor: 70 pts Standard 174.00
Fore: 10
Fore-Left/Right: 16/16
Aft-Left/Right: 18/18
Aft: 16

Dropship Capacity: 0 0.00
Grav Decks:
Small: 0.00
Medium: 0.00
Large: 0.00
Escape Pods: 0.00
Life Boats: 0.00

Crew And Passengers:
23 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 230.00
72 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 504.00
37 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 259.00
54 Bay Personnel 0.00



Cargo:
   Bay 1:  Fighters (18) with 6 doors                                2,700.00
   Bay 2:  Cargo (1) with 1 door                                    11,888.00
           Small Craft (6) with 3 doors                              1,200.00


# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
20 AC 2 Nose 20 40 (4-C) Long 120.00
20 AC 2 RBS 20 40 (4-C) 120.00
20 AC 2 LBS 20 40 (4-C) 120.00
20 Machine Gun (IS) FR 40 (4-C) 10.00
20 Machine Gun (IS) FL 40 (4-C) 10.00
16 Machine Gun (IS) AR 32 (3.2-C) 8.00
16 Machine Gun (IS) AL 32 (3.2-C) 8.00
16 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 32 (3.2-C) 8.00
4 Capital Launcher Killer Whale AR 80 160 (16-C) 600.00
4 Capital Launcher Killer Whale AL 80 160 (16-C) 600.00
4 Capital Launcher Killer Whale Aft 80 160 (16-C) 600.00



Ammo Rounds Mass
AC 2 Ammo 1620 36.00
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 4400 22.00
Capital Launcher Killer Whale Ammo 120 6,000.00


-



Goalkeeper Point-Defense Small Craft (but with machine guns)
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=58802.0


Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 14 June 2018, 17:08:00
Thanks for your submission. Good stuff, but I've got a few minor notes:

- You said the Heracles has 16 AC on each side in the fluff, but the stats block only shows 10 per broadside. I'm assuming the stats block is correct, but I mention it in case you accidentally posted an old version.

- You seem to have intended the Heracles to have an "average" cargo hold, but 84k tons on a 750k ton ship is about the same mass fraction for cargo as a SLDF ship - that's only slightly smaller than a Black Lion's cargo hold. Cargo is useful in this setting, but I wanted to make sure that you were designing what you intended to be designing.

- A couple of you have now assumed that research needs to be bought by the billion(Or milliard, if you prefer. Maybe we should compromise on "billiard" :P ). I intended that it can be bought by the million, to soak up small amounts of money that you may have lying around. Keeping it to round billions isn't a problem, but don't feel obliged to do so - you can spend $1,049M on research if you want to. Each *million* is a ballot in the raffle, so the money is not wasted. It's the same amount of work for me, I just add up all of the spending and use a random number generator to pick the winner either way.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 14 June 2018, 17:22:33
Thanks for your submission. Good stuff, but I've got a few minor notes:

- You said the Heracles has 16 AC on each side in the fluff, but the stats block only shows 10 per broadside. I'm assuming the stats block is correct, but I mention it in case you accidentally posted an old version.
Old Fluff, fixed it.

Quote
- You seem to have intended the Heracles to have an "average" cargo hold, but 84k tons on a 750k ton ship is about the same mass fraction for cargo as a SLDF ship - that's only slightly smaller than a Black Lion's cargo hold. Cargo is useful in this setting, but I wanted to make sure that you were designing what you intended to be designing.
I aim for around 10%, with SLDF having 15-20%.

Quote
- A couple of you have now assumed that research needs to be bought by the billion(Or milliard, if you prefer. Maybe we should compromise on "billiard" :P ). I intended that it can be bought by the million, to soak up small amounts of money that you may have lying around. Keeping it to round billions isn't a problem, but don't feel obliged to do so - you can spend $1,049M on research if you want to. Each *million* is a ballot in the raffle, so the money is not wasted. It's the same amount of work for me, I just add up all of the spending and use a random number generator to pick the winner either way.
Sure lets spend 1,049.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 14 June 2018, 18:50:05
Marian Action News Network ( MANN )
Nova Roma, Alphard
Palace of Imperator Pi

" His lordship has announced his desire to increase the Hegemony thru trade and tribulations, beginning with encompassing the Lothian League and Illyrian Palatinate as soon as possible. He express's his order with conscripts of anyone seventeen years of age or older, women volunteers may apply at any recruitment location throughout the realm. Service will be for two tours of five years mandatory, further tours will increase payments and possible Legionnaire status. We need you all. Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to learn more, contact your local recruitment officer today. "

 ;D

There went another 100 Million well spent for a realm-wide recruitment drive!

TT

Update: Current budget, 498,999,500. Also how long is a Turn?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 14 June 2018, 20:34:20
It seems that in a recent windstorm, a tree decided to make friends with my phone line. Since I don't have internet at home, and my work internet blocks Google Sheets, that means I can't really do much design work. As such, I'm going to be slower about posting the other turns, and the promised spreadsheet update won't happen until it's fixed. I'll still poke away at what I can, though - the Terran ships are all designed for me(more or less), so I'll try to get their turn processed, and maybe some of the other small Capellan nations.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 14 June 2018, 20:44:50
It seems that in a recent windstorm, a tree decided to make friends with my phone line. Since I don't have internet at home, and my work internet blocks Google Sheets, that means I can't really do much design work. As such, I'm going to be slower about posting the other turns, and the promised spreadsheet update won't happen until it's fixed. I'll still poke away at what I can, though - the Terran ships are all designed for me(more or less), so I'll try to get their turn processed, and maybe some of the other small Capellan nations.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/lgg3098a6a73ur7/Warship+Design+Spreadsheet+-+Dec+2013.xlsx

There is a big section for cool, unofficial toys towards the bottom that you can just skip, but it gives numbers within a small percentage of the ones from the other spreadsheet, and gives you a bit more control of details/has some fun fluff sections that I enjoy.

As for minor nations - dont exhaust yourself doing them.  Make a design for each, if that, and then just put them on 'auto production' for a while.  Your ~real~ work lies in writing fluff and makign interactions between these fleets, dont spend all your energy before you get to doing that part.

If you can tell me what you want, I can put my hand to building a few designs for said minor powers?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 14 June 2018, 23:42:52
HPG: Lyran Commonwealth
From: Aedificium Navis, Legatus Cornius, aide to General Pomii, Commander of Naval Studies
Subject: Procurement of Jumpship request

Dear Sir or Madame,

We are requesting a small Class of Jump capable ship in the ancient Aquilla-class Primitive Jumper, but only more modern. If you'd be so kind to send us a quote. We would be happy to pay for several vessels in the following years to come. Please note our attached parameters. We hope for a friendly alliance with the Commonwealth for years to come.

With Regards,
Legatus Cornius
Imperial Hegemony Navy

Attached Parameters:
Quote
O:-)  ::) >:D

Current Budget: 10 Billion ( Millard )

Costs:
66x Fighters: Standard $330M
10x Ares Mark 1 ACC Small Craft: $100M
2x Saturn-class Drop Ships: $600M
1x Recruitment Drive: $100M

Ending turn: $8 Billion 887 Million and zero cents banked.

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 15 June 2018, 00:38:18
The DCA's design board have put together a schematic - though as yet no prototype exists - for a 100kt spy/Q-ship made to appear as an updated Aquila Jumpship, that with approval could be made available for export to minor powers who are no threat to the Combine and lack WarShip production facilities of their own.

If they choose to use such vessels to harass the Commonwealth or Fed Suns, that is their choice and is not stipulated anywhere in the contract for such vessels, thank you very much for asking.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 15 June 2018, 07:16:08
I like doing some amount of design, and it'll probably settle down after the first turn, so I'm not too worried about burnout just yet. Right now I've built most of the easy nations, though. I have a friend who I'm trying to convince to join, so I'm leaving the FedSuns for last in case he jumps in. That leaves the Terrans, whose designs are already built(though they may need to be adapted slightly to our tech base), and some Capellan nations.

Sarna is heading towards an attack on the TGU, so they're not building ships this turn, only light craft that will be ready in time. The Liaos canonically had a level 4 shipyard within a few turns, so I'm trying to see if building that up makes sense at all. The budget is extremely tight, but maybe I can make it fly. Sian and Capella are closest to being free agents - I'm thinking one of them might make a deal with Liao to offer capital for shipyard expansion in exchange for the right to buy ships. We know that deal will be made obsolete by a merger, but they don't. Sian in particular may find that to be a good deal, because they're the richest nation with no yard space of their own, and a cheap Du Shi Wang in future seems better than an expensive rushed corvette design right now in some ways. Capella will probably prefer the early build, because they actually have the yards for it - a light ship would suit them, perhaps an aggressive commerce raider, since they know they'll be fighting asymmetric wars against most possible opponents.

I think that's everyone? So there's not much actual design work to be done, really. I just need to get some uninterrupted time. And on your side, I think you've all submitted your turns except for getting a final budget from Taurus.

EDIT: An update regarding my flying tree attack - repair techs should be out tomorrow, so I ought to be able to get this sorted by the end of the weekend.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 15 June 2018, 13:03:03
Rules As Written, AR-10s are just plain bad.  The real cost of missiles is in ammo, not launchers, and the real value of missiles is in launch rate.  I note the advice in Alsadius's writeup.. "Dont mount an AR-10.  Mount two other launchers and fire twice as many missiles..."

Even the fact of reduced fire control space kinda goes poof, cause fire control weight isnt the killer on launchers... the killer is ammo weight.

So, in the name of fun gaming - may I assume AR-10s are for 'reasons' not a pants-on-head bad idea, and that similarly the advantages of Killer Whales in raw impact and White Sharks in penetration make up for their disadvantage in accuracy in ways the tabletop rules do not reflect?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 15 June 2018, 13:24:24
Fire control weight is no big deal if launchers are all you have in the arc, but not everyone builds ships like the Heimdaller with a pure missile load. If you load it like (e.g.) a McKenna and have HNPPC and NAC/40 floating around in large numbers, fire control weight starts to look more threatening. Also, the AR/10 does have the advantage that you can alter the ammo load in a way that you can't for the single-type launchers - if your fleet's escort arm got hammered in the last battle, you can swap to Barracuda ammo, whereas if you need to do raw DPS, you can switch to Killer Whale. You can't do that if you mounted the White Shark launchers to save 130 tons per.

Also, the rule change where you don't need to mount 10 rounds of every type really helps the AR-10. Five of each missile is 600 tons, or 850 once you include the launcher, and that is both enough ammo for a decent-duration battle and pretty good weight efficiency(compare it to a NL/45 at 900 tons, for example).

The versatility does come at a price, and you won't always want to pay that price. But tbh even if I was building a munchkin vanilla ship, I'd mount them on some designs. The weapon mix of NL/45, AR-10, and NAC/20 turns your ship into one hell of a Swiss army knife - I'd happily mount a load like that for a SLDF cruiser, especially once bracket fire comes on the scene. It can just do everything.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 15 June 2018, 13:37:39
Fair.  The sense and understanding of the LCN shipwrights is that they'd rather pay more tonnage and be more likely to HIT with a small, multipurpose missile than mount multiple launcher types (and risk some standing idle), or a single multiple use launcher (and reduce throwweight), but for other navies in other situations, that may well be correct.

Agreed on the NL/NAC/Missile mix ship.  Ive got a design a lot like that, and its tempting.  But for me...

"The Inherent Tactical Qualities of All-Big-Gun, One-Caliber Battleships of High Speed, Large Displacement and Gun-Power" - William Sims  (Though I may here disagree with Sims on the value of TACTICAL speed in this setting)

For the record, the first thing that happens when I'm the king who redoes the warship rules is that I'm taking the fire control tonnage rules out behind the woodshed and putting them out of our misery.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 15 June 2018, 13:45:01
I don't think the firecontrol tonnage rules are per say the problem. The problem is the fact that warships can mount huge amounts of mech scale guns which factually should be either completely useless or have ranges so short that relying on them for the bulk of your firepower should be tantamount to suicide. ASF complicate the situation and I have yet to find a workable solution that doesn't just turn ASFs not highly mobile nuke launchers.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 15 June 2018, 13:49:40
I don't think the firecontrol tonnage rules are per say the problem. The problem is the fact that warships can mount huge amounts of mech scale guns which factually should be either completely useless or have ranges so short that relying on them for the bulk of your firepower should be tantamount to suicide. ASF complicate the situation and I have yet to find a workable solution that doesn't just turn ASFs not highly mobile nuke launchers.

Fortunately, for purposes of this narrative exercise, the GM has stated that normal scale weapons are essentially ineffectual against capital scale armor.  ASFs carry capital missiles which they use if trying to harm warships - think not unlike a WW2 Torpedo-Bomber.  An ASF can probably lug a Killer Whale, at hideous impact on its agility and vulnerability.  This makes the need to escort those fighters A Thing - so we get interesting situations where a commander has to figure out how to configure his birds (though at our scale, played here, we do not address it, save perhaps to dictate general doctrine).

As for Nukes... I feel that nukes have the same impact on the warship scale game that they do on the 'mech scale game.  They flip the table, give everyone the bird, and storm off.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 15 June 2018, 14:21:03
Fair.  The sense and understanding of the LCN shipwrights is that they'd rather pay more tonnage and be more likely to HIT with a small, multipurpose missile than mount multiple launcher types (and risk some standing idle), or a single multiple use launcher (and reduce throwweight), but for other navies in other situations, that may well be correct.

Agreed on the NL/NAC/Missile mix ship.  Ive got a design a lot like that, and its tempting.  But for me...

"The Inherent Tactical Qualities of All-Big-Gun, One-Caliber Battleships of High Speed, Large Displacement and Gun-Power" - William Sims  (Though I may here disagree with Sims on the value of TACTICAL speed in this setting)

For the record, the first thing that happens when I'm the king who redoes the warship rules is that I'm taking the fire control tonnage rules out behind the woodshed and putting them out of our misery.

Ooh, excellent article. I found it online (https://books.google.ca/books?id=36EvBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=%22The+Inherent+Tactical+Qualities+of+All-Big-Gun,+One-Caliber+Battleships+of+High+Speed,+Large+Displacement+and+Gun-Power%22+-+William+Sims&source=bl&ots=U5_U1Pe8mo&sig=6NoVlnpsUKdD8pw4Y6UCtcef6Sw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivnILontbbAhVihq0KHZ6yB9oQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Inherent%20Tactical%20Qualities%20of%20All-Big-Gun%2C%20One-Caliber%20Battleships%20of%20High%20Speed%2C%20Large%20Displacement%20and%20Gun-Power%22%20-%20William%20Sims&f=false).

As for fire control rules, they're designed to prevent light weapon spam. They're bad at it, but they're better than nothing. That failure was one of the motivations for this post (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=60602.0), however.

Fortunately, for purposes of this narrative exercise, the GM has stated that normal scale weapons are essentially ineffectual against capital scale armor.  ASFs carry capital missiles which they use if trying to harm warships - think not unlike a WW2 Torpedo-Bomber.  An ASF can probably lug a Killer Whale, at hideous impact on its agility and vulnerability.  This makes the need to escort those fighters A Thing - so we get interesting situations where a commander has to figure out how to configure his birds (though at our scale, played here, we do not address it, save perhaps to dictate general doctrine).

As for Nukes... I feel that nukes have the same impact on the warship scale game that they do on the 'mech scale game.  They flip the table, give everyone the bird, and storm off.

Pretty much. I actually somewhat regret even mentioning nuke tactics, because they totally destroy the game in practice.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 15 June 2018, 14:50:37
Ooh, excellent article. I found it online (https://books.google.ca/books?id=36EvBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=%22The+Inherent+Tactical+Qualities+of+All-Big-Gun,+One-Caliber+Battleships+of+High+Speed,+Large+Displacement+and+Gun-Power%22+-+William+Sims&source=bl&ots=U5_U1Pe8mo&sig=6NoVlnpsUKdD8pw4Y6UCtcef6Sw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivnILontbbAhVihq0KHZ6yB9oQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Inherent%20Tactical%20Qualities%20of%20All-Big-Gun%2C%20One-Caliber%20Battleships%20of%20High%20Speed%2C%20Large%20Displacement%20and%20Gun-Power%22%20-%20William%20Sims&f=false).

As for fire control rules, they're designed to prevent light weapon spam. They're bad at it, but they're better than nothing. That failure was one of the motivations for this post (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=60602.0), however.

Pretty much. I actually somewhat regret even mentioning nuke tactics, because they totally destroy the game in practice.

Well, ruling that standard weapons dont hurt capships fixes standard weapon spam, too.   :)

I know Sims disagrees with Mahan in that article, but its worth noting that the US ended up with Sim’s armaments with Mahan’s speed and strategy.  Im adopting their ideas, leavened by Hughe’s thoughts on effective attack and the salvo model, as my guiding lights here.  Ill also note that I think US Battleship Doctrine was -right-, and Iowa was a mistake, or would have been, were it not for the need for that speed to match the speed carriers required.  Hughes raised an interesting point once that you might be better off with a slower carrier with more, VTOL, fighters than the 30 knot speedboats we have.  I dont think hes right, but its a question worth asking.

For nukes?  My headcannon is to ignore them entirely.  Or more to the point - to assume capital weapons already are nuclear, or nuclear in scale of energy transferred.  Thus theres no ‘nuclear option’ to upgrade to, and NACs and Naval Lasers still make sense.  Hell, for our game, that was part of my rationale for the Heimdall - adopt a no first use policy, and have so many tubes that its clear that doing so means everyone loses.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 15 June 2018, 14:55:30
For nukes?  My headcannon is to ignore them entirely.  Or more to the point - to assume capital weapons already are nuclear, or nuclear in scale of energy transferred.  Thus theres no ‘nuclear option’ to upgrade to, and NACs and Naval Lasers still make sense.  Hell, for our game, that was part of my rationale for the Heimdall - adopt a no first use policy, and have so many tubes that its clear that doing so means everyone loses.
Good idea.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 15 June 2018, 15:41:26
That failure was one of the motivations for this post (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=60602.0), however.

Cant see how I managed to miss that first time around.  If you can get a job rewriting the warship rules for Catalyst, please do so.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 15 June 2018, 15:53:06
Hey what about really low tech, like Rifled Cannons and Rocket Launchers? Their pre-starflight tech that's canon.

Just throwing you people off balance and not to look behind my tinfoiled curtains!

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 15 June 2018, 15:55:24
Hey what about really low tech, like Rifled Cannons and Rocket Launchers? Their pre-starflight tech that's canon.

Just throwing you people off balance and not to look behind my tinfoiled curtains!

TT

I believe I am safe in assuming that Rifled Cannon and Rocket Launchers, 'mech scale, do not have an appreciable impact on Warships.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 15 June 2018, 16:00:09
So no to Macross Missile Spams?

 :'(

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 15 June 2018, 16:05:05
So no to Macross Missile Spams?

 :'(

TT

Umm, have you SEEN my frigate design?  Im just not doing it with mech-scale rocket launchers. :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 15 June 2018, 16:05:59
Funny story - I have a much more thorough capital rules re-work that's half-finished, and MLRS systems feature as one of the options for anti-small-unit work. For example, what would you think of a LRM-600? It'd be 30x one-shot LRM-20s, all stapled together, weighing maybe 100 tons. Any or all of those LRM-20s can be fired at a time, so you can use it to thicken up anti-fighter defences for a while, or barf it all out at once if you think you're about to die. Sounds like a fun little installation for WarShip self-defence, no?  >:D
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 15 June 2018, 16:18:28
Well instigate it!

And yes I have... the Heimdaller. I'm thinking dirty here.

Cheap one shot Bays, on the fly.

Like 1 hex range so very, very short legs. Rocket Launcher -10 has same range as AC/5, weighs in @ .5 tons...say a minimum of 5 tons, or 100 rockets per bay to be useful. You ca go up to the 70 Cap limit if you want.

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 15 June 2018, 16:25:54
Funny story - I have a much more thorough capital rules re-work that's half-finished, and MLRS systems feature as one of the options for anti-small-unit work. For example, what would you think of a LRM-600? It'd be 30x one-shot LRM-20s, all stapled together, weighing maybe 100 tons. Any or all of those LRM-20s can be fired at a time, so you can use it to thicken up anti-fighter defences for a while, or barf it all out at once if you think you're about to die. Sounds like a fun little installation for WarShip self-defence, no?  >:D

Id be tempted to try it out, but I'm always leery of point defense that runs dry.  OTOH, if offense runs dry, you might be better off able to fire all your ponit defense at ONCE, rather than fire less bullets forever.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 15 June 2018, 16:30:56
Id be tempted to try it out, but I'm always leery of point defense that runs dry.  OTOH, if offense runs dry, you might be better off able to fire all your ponit defense at ONCE, rather than fire less bullets forever.

Traditional PD systems would also exist. But remember the rule about how fighters carry capital missiles as "torpedo bombers"? That idea came from this re-work, and it sure sounds like it'd encourage attacks to come in discrete waves, not in steady streams. An equal mass of PPCs is better against a steady stream of fighters, but having a PD system that can shoot back in waves is the sort of thing that could be pretty useful too. Despite the lower theoretical long-term damage potential, it can use it all at the moment when the fighters are actually nearby. (Or at least, that was my thinking)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 15 June 2018, 16:38:30
Right.  If incoming attacks come in crushing salvos of limited number, you just need to defeat enough of enough salvos to buy your own weapons time to win.  The purpose of defense is to buy time for offense to work, after all, not to allow you to cruise back and forth indefinitely, with impunity, in threatened space.  Nothing does that.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 15 June 2018, 18:45:09
I had thought about some changes I may have made if I was in charge of the Warship rule changes in the past.
My first thought was to dump the Fire Control tonnage and just limit of capital guns per arc from a fixed 20 to an amount that varied on ship tonnage, with say 5 standard guns counting as 1 capital, And also limiting how many guns could be in a bay based on that tonnage - a 1.5MT ship can mount bigger turrets then a 200kt one after all.

Just my $2,000ZWD
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 16 June 2018, 01:30:18
I'm a perponet of using turrets on capital ships personally. Yes I know it complicates construction and firing arcs but its the next logical evolution of capital weapons.

On point defense I think that AMS range and engagement ability needs to be hit by the need hammer hard. They can't realisticly engage beyond 1 or 2 km and any single mount engaging more than 6 or 7 missiles in a 60sec turn is ludicrous in the extreme.

I had a bit of an idea while at work. The solution to mech weapon spam is simple dropships and warships can't use them. Instead there needs to be specific capital and sub capital mounts like the quad boffors 40mm AA mounts from ww2. Your lrm 600 is a good example too. spaceships get their own guns that fighters can't use and vice versa. Now to read your article
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 16 June 2018, 09:37:45
Proposition:
Recommend tying maintenance fraction to ship mass, rather than ship cost. 
Suggest 1-3 Milliard per Megaton of hull.

Rationale(1):  Maintenance represents training and repairs at least as much as it does 'parts and labor'.  Hull size is a strong indicator of crew and training requirements.  KF Drives/Docking Collars/LF Batteries seem less intimately tied to those costs, despite large impact on ship costs.

Rationale(2):  Greater size flexibility.  Big ships are -cheap- compared to small ships, so we currently want to build them as large as possible.  If the big ship is cheaper to build, at least let it be proportionately expensive to maintain.  Encourages relevance of smaller hulls - I fear economic pressures are going to turn it into Nelsonian '3rd Rates and 5th Rates and nothing else' - which admitted fits what the SLN ended up building.

Rationale (3):  Justifies use of docking collars, and later LF-Batteries.  If the docking collar and batteries are (essentially) 1-time costs, rather than continual costs, they are a sensible investment for a fleet that expects to not be replacing ships often, such as the SLN.  (Fleets that expect continuous heavy losses will still want to build cheap ships).

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 16 June 2018, 10:02:37
But alot of that fancy, expensive electronics are also finicky and in need of constant, expensive maintenance. Regardless of the ship you put it in.

Perhaps split it down the middle, paying 5% of the ships cost plus some amount based purely on size? Bit of a headache to figure out though

Personally I'm good how it is
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 16 June 2018, 10:23:29
After reading twice I think it's an idea that sounds good to start but in execution quickly becomes very cumbersome. Personally I found B5 Wars to be one of the best pen and paper spaceship damage setups. Is simple yet robust. And pretty flexible. The systems record sheets aren't as construction friendly though.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 16 June 2018, 11:05:52
But alot of that fancy, expensive electronics are also finicky and in need of constant, expensive maintenance. Regardless of the ship you put it in.

Perhaps split it down the middle, paying 5% of the ships cost plus some amount based purely on size? Bit of a headache to figure out though

Personally I'm good how it is

No for splitting it.  Thats more complexity, which we dont need. 

Honestly, if your fine the way it is, so am I.  My long term plans are already based on the current rules.  Im just over here trying to upset my own applecart.  :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 16 June 2018, 20:28:40
I'd rather just keep it as-is, tbh. Yes, big ships are cheaper, but you need to factor in shipyard costs. The ability to build a Leviathan costs $550B in this system, and that gets you two a turn. Even if those two are each $10B cheaper than the equivalent power of smaller ships, you need 28 turns to break even on construction, or 16 turns to break even on construction+maintenance. The game only goes 33 turns before the Succession Wars start. A player who drops the money needed to produce large battleships will profit from it over the long run(especially if they're as big as the Terrans and can build and run multiple lines to get a discount), but you don't necessarily need to go big in order to be competitive.

Also, I have my internet back. Therefore, it's Super Happy Terran Hegemony Will Crush You All Fun Time!  ;D

It was more of a task than I expected to get the THN ships out into the spreadsheet. Not because there was a lot to enter, but because the numbers I had available simply do not match StratOps rules. Most of the time I could just modify the cargo bay a bit to match, but the Cruiser is a particular offender here - it claims to have a 10,000 ton DropShuttle bay and 94,000 tons of cargo, but the total mass available for those things is under 7,000 tons. I gave it 2 collars and a bit under 5k tons of cargo - if it'd been just a bit lighter, I'd have started stripping guns. I also gave the Bonaventure a LNCSS, because its sensors are praised and the ship would be utter trash without something like that to give it a role.

The THN is listed as having 7 Dreadnoughts as a total production run, and to simplify the rest of its standing fleet, I gave it 10 of every other ship except the Lola(which is only a few years old, and thus is assumed to have only 4). This gives a total base maintenance cost of $43.487B, and as previously stated the THN will always pay exactly 100%. I've also assumed that the existing ships have a full complement of support craft, so 80 DropShips, 416 small craft, and 144 fighters.

(ahem)

The Terran Hegemony has taken note of the increased militarization of the outer colonies. In accordance with its long-standing policy of maintaining military superiority over any plausible combination of opponents, the Director-General has approved a major new construction program for the Terran Hegemony Navy.

The major shipyard complexes at Terra and Keid have been upgraded significantly. All class-4 yards have been upgraded, as well as two class-3 yards at Terra and one class-2 yard at each planet. This initiative has been budgeted at $170B.

Two new ship classes are entering service - the Quixote missile frigate, and the Essex destroyer. Prototype costs for these ships are estimated at $17.749B.

The 2350 Naval Bill outlines a total of $441.284B in new construction. The following ships are projected to enter service within the decade planned:
- 12x Quixote missile frigate
- 4x Black Lion battlecruiser
- 6x Lola destroyer
- 4x Dart cruiser
- 6x Essex destroyer
- 6x Cruiser cruiser
- 8x Bonaventure scout
- 16x Vigilant corvette

Numerous support craft have also been ordered, both to stock the new ships and to provide system defences for major systems. A total of 150 DropShips, 600 small craft, and 3,000 fighters will be purchased, for a total of $66B.

The balance of the THN's budget, $11.48B, has been allocated to research and development efforts, to ensure that it remains the peer of any rival nation.


Seriously, it is simply ridiculous what you can do with the THN's budget. For my NPC minor nations, I'm trying to keep them in line with their canon personas and roles, but I'm trying to play them smart so that they'll be capable opponents. For the Hegemony, writing up this list makes me want to play them stupid. I won't make new designs, specifically so that they're stuck with their grossly suboptimal canon designs. If they were playing as smart as you guys or the CC/FS, you wouldn't be able to win even any tactical victories, let alone strategic ones.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 16 June 2018, 21:03:44
So gentlemen, I suggest we form the Star League early, with all of us ganging up on the Hegemony before they're COMPLETELY untouchable...

But you could slowly play them less stupid as time went on, but give us a hope by enforcing certain minimum %'s of ship tonnage spent on cargo, bigger engines than really needed and so on :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 16 June 2018, 21:13:47
If they were playing as smart as you guys or the CC/FS, you wouldn't be able to win even any tactical victories, let alone strategic ones.

Im not sure my first turn qualifies as smart.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 16 June 2018, 21:32:47
Most of the planets you guys own were unseen by human eyes 200 years ago, and a lot of them still have populations in the single-digit millions. The TH is comprised mostly of economically developed planets - note which planet has as much shipyard capacity as the rest of the known universe combined, for example. Your economies will grow a heck of a lot faster than the Terran economy will, because there's a lot fewer limits on your growth.

The Star League was a fairly stable force because it's united, but once that stability broke down, Kerensky felt the need to Brave Sir Robin his way out of there despite being noticeably stronger than any of the other houses. Once the Star League broke, there was no putting it back together, because the necessary dominance of the Terran Hegemony was lost. And that wasn't just battle damage, either - the 200 years of the Star League had been better for the successor states than the Terrans, and even on an economic basis they were not nearly so dominant as they'd previously been when it was formed. Compare the US in 1946 to the US today, for example - still the strongest nation around, but it has real economic competition in a way that it didn't previously.

Also, it helps that they were a very passive force, all things considered. The Star League was formed as part of a peace treaty between Marik and Liao, remember - the Terrans had been thinking of the idea, but they weren't really the ones who got the ball rolling. After James McKenna's reconquest of the inner worlds, the THN was almost entirely idle as far as I can tell. It's a Sword of Damocles hanging over everyone's heads, but it's not likely to swing much.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 16 June 2018, 22:11:37
does a 2350 map of the sphere exist? best I can find is the various faction maps at their creation, and then 2571 when the Reunification War kicks off. Nothing in between

I'm currently basing any future plans on the fact the 2571 map is more or less correct, minus the fact I don't own those dirty Norsemen yet ;)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 16 June 2018, 22:26:57
does a 2350 map of the sphere exist? best I can find is the various faction maps at their creation, and then 2571 when the Reunification War kicks off. Nothing in between

I'm currently basing any future plans on the fact the 2571 map is more or less correct, minus the fact I don't own those dirty Norsemen yet ;)

Well, we know out of character that thise maps are in large part correct.  The people in universe dont.  This has some knock on effects -

I -know- that those Heracles Class Battlecruisers are not going to show up over Tharkad on Turn 2 and annex the Commonwealth.  (And it would be silly if they did - my caljtal isnt there yet!). 

But in universe, my 1st Lord is dealing with Archons using words like ‘Battlecruiser Gap’ and ‘Existential Threat’.  Of course, shes also hearing words like ‘overpriced’ ‘useless’ ‘showboat’. While surrounded by stronger powers with much less head-up-ass than the current LC leadership.

So we split the baby, build something to appease the scared politicians who cant tell one warship from another, to show the army guys how useful an all in one multi-brigaide assault ship is arent they nice shouldnt the govt give us more money to build more for you guys did we mention every private gets his own bunk, and then we build a pile of jumpers and put them on long term loan to whichever megacartel is making us happiest.

We write doctrine to deal with larger/stronger enemy fleets and hope it works, we appease the competing government interests while laying down ships well aware thst -noone- knows what the conflict paradigm looks like in 20 years - or for that matter right now! 

So if the LC turns look wierd, thats why.

If a 2350 map exists, I have not found it, though it would please me to do so.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 16 June 2018, 22:31:02
And you suddenly producing a BC is likely to lead to the Coordinator forcing me to do the same... fortunately Fubukis big sister is already in the planning office.

She's rich(ly oppointed), she's beautiful, she's got huuuugggeee.... tracts of land...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 16 June 2018, 22:34:35
And you suddenly producing a BC is likely to lead to the Coordinator forcing me to do the same... fortunately Fubukis big sister is already in the planning office.

She's rich(ly oppointed), she's beautiful, she's got huuuugggeee.... tracts of land...

Honestly, if I already had Fubuki, Id have to wonder if its worth prototyping a 750, or serial producing more of her while upping my yard size to build something that can overmatch heracles, rather than merely fighting her.

It is a little wierd inasmuch as the DC will never -see- a Heracles.  But you -do- have to assume that I’ll build in response to her.  On the flip side... your current in universe problem is Rasalhaugian Patriots.  Does the Coordinator think that Battlecruisers will help with that problem?

Hmm.  Now that I think on it, a 750 KT version of Potemkin might be exactly what the doctor ordered.  Invade all the things, in safety and comfort.  Tweak collar load up or down depending on budget and how happy you want to make the army.  Make the coordinator happy.  Make the army happy.  Make your deep and burning love for Naval Autocannon happy.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 16 June 2018, 23:09:14
As you said, I know it can probably do the job if built in sufficient numbers, but Mr Kurita may very well want a Big Ship to equal the Big Ship you're building in response to Marik's Big Ship :P

And that's assuming he doesn't want the DCA to somehow match the Terrans within his lifetime   ::)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 16 June 2018, 23:15:29
does a 2350 map of the sphere exist? best I can find is the various faction maps at their creation, and then 2571 when the Reunification War kicks off. Nothing in between

I'm currently basing any future plans on the fact the 2571 map is more or less correct, minus the fact I don't own those dirty Norsemen yet ;)

I have no better map than those. If you want to confirm any particulars, load up the planet on Sarna - they seem to all have pretty good timelines of ownership, and that'll give you a sense of how any given border may have moved. But yes, that assumption matches what I've been using for general purposes.

---

The Capellan Commonality has, after a substantial analysis of their naval situation, decided to eschew the concept of building a true black-water navy as being beyond their means. Capella simply does not have the industrial muscle to build a true navy from scratch, nor can it easily change that fact. Instead, the Capellans have decided to fall back on a traditional technique for asymmetrical naval warfare - commerce raiding. The Qinru Zhe is one of the fastest ships in production, and while its armament is relatively light, it is more than sufficient to destroy any civilian craft or infrastructure that it may be sent against, or to challenge smaller WarShips. It also mounts a state-of-the-art sensor suite, designed to allow it to choose its battles as effectively as possible. The ship is designed for lengthy deployments, with a generous fuel reserve, a larger cargo bay than many of its peers, and eschewing capital missiles to ensure that its guns do not run dry before it can return to base. Two squads of marines and two shuttle bays also allow the ship to capture enemies intact and return them home under a prize crew, in some circumstances.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Qinru Zhe
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $7,946,314,000.00
Magazine Cost: $11,757,600.00
BV2: 54,753

Mass: 480,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 5
Maximum Thrust: 8
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
4 Naval AC 30
16 Naval Laser 55
120 AC 2

Class/Model/Name: Qinru Zhe
Mass: 480,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 144,000
Thrust
Safe: 5
Maximum: 8
Controls: 1,200
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (11 Integrity) 217,200
Jump Sail: (4 Integrity) 54
Structural Integrity: 80 38,400
Total Heat Sinks: 1021 Single 440
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 12500 points 5,100
Fire Control Computers: 0
Armor: 308 pts Standard 768
Fore: 70
Fore-Left/Right: 60/60
Aft-Left/Right: 60/60
Aft: 46

Dropship Capacity: 2 2,000
Grav Decks:
Small: 2 100
Medium: 0
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 20 140
Life Boats: 20 140

Crew And Passengers:
33 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 330
108 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 756
52 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 364
10 Bay Personnel 0
60 2nd Class Passengers 420

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
4 Naval AC 30 Nose 400 1200 (120-C) Long-C 14,000
4 Naval Laser 55 FL 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
4 Naval Laser 55 FR 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
4 Naval Laser 55 AL 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
4 Naval Laser 55 AR 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
15 AC 2 Nose 15 30 (3-C) Long 90
15 AC 2 Aft 15 30 (3-C) Long 90
15 AC 2 RBS 15 30 (3-C) Long 90
15 AC 2 LBS 15 30 (3-C) Long 90
15 AC 2 FR 15 30 (3-C) Long 90
15 AC 2 FL 15 30 (3-C) Long 90
15 AC 2 AR 15 30 (3-C) Long 90
15 AC 2 AL 15 30 (3-C) Long 90

Ammo Rounds Mass
Naval AC 30 Ammo 160 128.00
AC 2 Ammo 10800 240.00

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
35,000 Cargo, Standard 35,000 2
1 NCSS Large 500
2 Bay Small Craft 400 2

The Capellans have chosen to build two Qinru Zhe raiders, as well as publicizing them heavily in order to warn off other nations who might be interested in attacking. They have also invested in blueprints for a Chongzhi recharge station, with the intent of developing a network to allow faster redeployment of their raiders in wartime.

Prototype cost = $7.946B
2x Qinru Zhe = $15.893B
40x small craft = $400m
Chongzhi license = $169m (transferred to SIML)
Chongzhi = $338m
Research = $254m

---

The Sarna Supremacy has taken an interest in the chaos in Tikonov, and wishes to assist its neighbours...directly, shall we say. Since the campaign is planned for the near future, the long lead time needed for a new WarShip design is deemed to be uneconomical by the Premier. Instead, a large order of DropShips equipped to carry heavy vehicles is placed with various suppliers, as well as a small number equipped for fighter operations, and Sarna-flagged merchant ships are subject to many random inspections to ascertain their readiness for military operations(as required in an obscure provision of the Sarna Maritime Regulations).

72x DropShip = $21.6B
100x small craft = $1B
300x fighter = $1.5B
Research = $900m
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 16 June 2018, 23:32:59
I like Quinrue Zee.  Thats a classic response for a completely overmatched naval power.  Guerre de course.  Jejune Ecole.  She cant win a fight with a ‘real’ warship, hell, she’ll have problems with a beefy corvette.  But she should almost never have to be on a fight she didnt pick.

Hell, at the risk of Rule whatever it is, Im watching each of us do various different versions of IRL minor powers faced with the IRL Naval hegemon of their era.  Its really cool for a certain very narrow flavor of nerd.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 17 June 2018, 03:54:02
No fighters... no AMS unless AC/2s count... good thing it has alot of engine, its going to do alot of running away.

Reckon a Heimdallrr will take it apart (eventually), nevermind the Leagues little beastie.

And unless we're ignoring the 70 point Bay limit, I assume those NAC/30s are in twin turrets, and just listed as one big bay because it was easier?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 17 June 2018, 05:57:01
1.)  Bays are entirely artificial/management construct - id be aurprised if we are using them.l, other than as a handy counting tool.

2.)  She doesnt have to fight Heimdaller, or anyone, really.  Light that giant fusion torch and head for the hill.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 17 June 2018, 08:44:28
I counted all the worlds big enough to bother putting on the maps.

Lyran Commonwealth Predecessor States, 2330:  ~120
Lyran Commonwealth, 2571 ~330

Gives me a sense of scale, expected growth, and also tells me how many recharge stations to buy. :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 17 June 2018, 09:11:01
Hell, at the risk of Rule whatever it is, Im watching each of us do various different versions of IRL minor powers faced with the IRL Naval hegemon of their era. Its really cool for a certain very narrow flavor of nerd.

Which sums up this whole thread, really. And I'm not worried about rules of that sort. The game keeps us on topic over the long run, and a thread like this is pretty self-segregating, especially on a quiet board - I don't think we're polluting anyone else's feed, so I doubt the mods mind some amount of RL naval discussion on the side.

No fighters... no AMS unless AC/2s count... good thing it has alot of engine, its going to do alot of running away.

Reckon a Heimdallrr will take it apart (eventually), nevermind the Leagues little beastie.

And unless we're ignoring the 70 point Bay limit, I assume those NAC/30s are in twin turrets, and just listed as one big bay because it was easier?

Fighters eat up a lot of supply mass, and don't do much that this ship needs. It's designed to kill civilian ships or light combatants - one NAC/30 will scramble the eggs of a DropShip (given that they're all <5k tons at this point) or a JumpShip. They're actually four single turrets, just to increase your total chances of landing a hit - I don't bother breaking out the bays on my designs, because it's annoying with the spreadsheet, but that was how I thought of it. Even if you are facing real enemies, a single NAC/30 will be a threshold crit on any WarShip in this era, and the nose mount combined with the giant engines means she can do one heck of a high-speed closing engagement, so keeping them as singles is probably ideal(even if it'll be regretted in a century as defences get stronger).

So yeah, it'll lose badly to a ship designed for pitched battles, but what else would the Capellans do? They can't win those battles even if they optimize their designs for it, so they're just tossing the whole concept over one shoulder. You're seeing this in a lot of nations in the Capellan zone - they're all implementing strategies of desperation in one form or another, because they're small nations sandwiched together in a very dangerous part of the galaxy, and none of them have the resources to stand alone. They'll be merging in less than 20 years, because this is the sort of situation where merging with all your enemies just to make sure you can survive makes sense. The FWL attacked them recently, the FS is going to attack them this turn, and the TH is vomiting out more ships in a year than the whole zone is in a decade - this is full-on "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons" territory. And designs like this are part of the process of them consciously realizing it.

---

Marauder has re-considered his previous involvement in this due to personal commitments, and has told me that he's dropping out after all. He'll still be around, just not running a nation.

As such, I'll be drawing up the Taurian budget. It's basically in line with what I suggested to him before - one Independence($9.134B with prototype costs), the support craft to fill it out(one DropShip, 4 small craft, and 12 fighters for a total of $400m), 60 more fighters for system defence($300m), and $166m on research.

---

The Duchy of Liao believes that the only plausible solution to an inferior economic position is building the largest, most effective individual units possible, and accepting the resulting numerical inferiority in hopes of having a force that can defeat enemy detachments without suffering attritional losses. Unfortunately for the Duchy of Liao, they do not have shipyards suitable for the construction of such units, nor do they have the staggering sums needed to build such yards or the allies to borrow the yard space. As such their designs like the mighty Du Shi Wang will remain on the drawing board for the time being.

Instead, the Duchy has decided to invest in the most capable hull that they can build with current technology. The Quzhujian destroyer is short-legged, cramped, and contains few facilities for long-term occupation by its crew, and constructing it stretched the Duchy's finances and shipyards to their limits. However, it has six of the largest guns of any ship known, speed superior to most of its competitors, a powerful strike fighter force, and possibly the strongest set of active and passive defences of any ship in active service.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Quzhujian
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $5,997,876,000.00
Magazine Cost: $31,720,000.00
BV2: 54,012

Mass: 500,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 4
Maximum Thrust: 6
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
6 Naval AC 40
24 Capital Launcher AR-10
16 Naval Laser 55
80 Machine Gun (IS)
32 AC 5

Class/Model/Name: Quzhujian
Mass: 500,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 120,000
Thrust
Safe: 4
Maximum: 6
Controls: 1,250
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (12 Integrity) 226,250
Jump Sail: (4 Integrity) 55
Structural Integrity: 120 60,000
Total Heat Sinks: 1225 Single 691
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 5000 points 2,040
Fire Control Computers: 0
Armor: 480 pts Standard 1,200
Fore: 100
Fore-Left/Right: 100/100
Aft-Left/Right: 90/90
Aft: 72

Dropship Capacity: 0
Grav Decks:
Small: 0
Medium: 0
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 20 140
Life Boats: 20 140

Crew And Passengers:
36 Officers in 2nd Class Quarters 252
109 Crew in Steerage Quarters 545
65 Gunners and Others in Steerage Quarters 325
126 Bay Personnel 0

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
2 Naval AC 40 Nose 270 800 (80-C) Medium-C 9,000
2 Naval AC 40 LBS 270 800 (80-C) Medium-C 9,000
2 Naval AC 40 RBS 270 800 (80-C) Medium-C 9,000
6 Capital Launcher AR-10 FL Extreme-C 1,500
6 Capital Launcher AR-10 FR Extreme-C 1,500
6 Capital Launcher AR-10 AL Extreme-C 1,500
6 Capital Launcher AR-10 AR Extreme-C 1,500
4 Naval Laser 55 Nose 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
4 Naval Laser 55 LBS 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
4 Naval Laser 55 RBS 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
4 Naval Laser 55 Aft 340 220 (22-C) Extreme-C 4,400
10 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 20 (2-C) Short-PDS 5
10 Machine Gun (IS) LBS 20 (2-C) Short-PDS 5
10 Machine Gun (IS) RBS 20 (2-C) Short-PDS 5
10 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 20 (2-C) Short-PDS 5
10 Machine Gun (IS) FL 20 (2-C) Short-PDS 5
10 Machine Gun (IS) FR 20 (2-C) Short-PDS 5
10 Machine Gun (IS) AL 20 (2-C) Short-PDS 5
10 Machine Gun (IS) AR 20 (2-C) Short-PDS 5
4 AC 5 Nose 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
4 AC 5 LBS 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
4 AC 5 RBS 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
4 AC 5 Aft 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
4 AC 5 FL 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
4 AC 5 FR 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
4 AC 5 AL 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
4 AC 5 AR 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32

Ammo Rounds Mass
Naval AC 40 Ammo 180 216.00
Capital Launcher Barracuda Ammo 120 3,600.00
Capital Launcher Killer Whale Ammo 120 6,000.00
Capital Launcher White Shark Ammo 120 4,800.00
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 8000 40.00
AC 5 Ammo 3200 160.00

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
13,000 Cargo, Standard 13,000 2
48 Bay Fighter 7,200 8
6 Bay Small Craft 1,200 2

In order to defray the fearsome cost of these ships, and to ensure some funds may be available for shipyard expansion in future, the Duchy has also secured an export agreement with the Sian Commonwealth for the second Quzhujian off their lines at a total cost of $8 billion, payable during the development process. While this rather unusual arrangement has attracted notice, both for the lower price than is typical in the export market and the unusual level of trust that the Commonwealth is placing in Liao designers, spokesmen for both nations assure the public that it is merely a financial arrangement that better suited the needs of the two realms than a typical cash-on-delivery agreement would, and that nothing more should be read into it except a desire for shared peace and prosperity in the Capellan zone.

Budget: $15B
Prototype expense: $5.998B
2x Quzhujian: $11.996B
(Export proceeds: $8B gain)
300 fighter: $1.5B
50 small craft: $500m
Research: $306m

Remaining: $2.7B

---

The Sian Commonwealth was struggling with its desire for a navy to defend against the threat of new Heracles construction for over a year with no plausible solutions being found. Discussions of licensing Pratham defence stations, or even of trying to build a new shipyard industry from scratch, foundered upon the impracticality of actually producing a useful defence with the Commonwealth's limited budget. However, upon reading of the extremely ambitious Liao ship-building plans, an emissary was dispatched to discuss the possibility of purchasing a ship from Liao shipyards. The Commonwealth's navy was unhappy with the design in some particulars, as their larger astrographic size makes the cramped quarters distinctly unpleasant for the ship's crews. However, no other navy was willing to offer shipyard space for a price that the Commonwealth could afford, and so a deal was almost inevitable. As a compromise, they have decided to begin building a dedicated fleet supply train, commencing with a single JumpShip carrying a DropShip designed for crew recreation and storage of additional supplies.

Budget: $10B
Quzhujian import: $8B
12 fighter: $600m
30 small craft: $300m
1x JumpShip: $500m
1x DropShip: $300m
Research: $300m
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 17 June 2018, 10:47:53
Quote
Fighters eat up a lot of supply mass, and don't do much that this ship needs. It's designed to kill civilian ships or light combatants - one NAC/30 will scramble the eggs of a DropShip (given that they're all <5k tons at this point) or a JumpShip.

Most naval vessels don't have 'kill other naval vessels in a stand up fight' as their main job.  Ive the same concerns for her future that I do for any commerce raider - your one bad break from seeing her lost behind enemy lines - but she does the job shes intended to.  I might have gone smaller/cheaper, but thats horses for courses and all about what sort of defenses you expect to hit.

Quote
Marauder has re-considered his previous involvement in this due to personal commitments, and has told me that he's dropping out after all. He'll still be around, just not running a nation.

Damn.  *waves to Marauder*  Well, if your not playing, feel free to kibbutz publically or privately.  I may pick your brain.

Quote
The Duchy of Liao believes that the only plausible solution to an inferior economic position is building the largest, most effective individual units possible, and accepting the resulting numerical inferiority in hopes of having a force that can defeat enemy detachments without suffering attritional losses.
Hmm.  If the Duchy of Liao was Japanese rather than Chinese in extraction, they'd just about have to name her Yamato.

Quote
However, no other navy was willing to offer shipyard space for a price that the Commonwealth could afford, and so a deal was almost inevitable.

*sniff*  *sob*  They never even ASKED. 
~lol~  Srsly though, makes sense with the upcoming merger.


Side note:  I looked at what 1 Jumpship with 3x5000 ton dropships can haul.  Call it about 7.5KT of cargo, MSRP 1.4 Billion.  Im seriously considering setting aside yard space for full up freighters.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 17 June 2018, 10:50:55
~deleted~
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 17 June 2018, 11:02:36
Hmm.  If the Duchy of Liao was Japanese rather than Chinese in extraction, they'd just about have to name her Yamato.

*sniff*  *sob*  They never even ASKED. 
~lol~  Srsly though, makes sense with the upcoming merger.


Side note:  I looked at what 1 Jumpship with 3x5000 ton dropships can haul.  Call it about 7.5KT of cargo, MSRP 1.4 Billion.  Im seriously considering setting aside yard space for full up freighters.

Yeah, the Yamato is what they want, but they can't build it. As a result, the Quzhujian is a typical hard-stats-only ship for secondary powers that want to look scary but don't expect to fight much, because that's what they can actually make.

And yes, the choice of licensing partners in the Capellan zone is largely metagame-based. It's a plausible deal, but they aren't going to start shopping the other realms for the time being.

Freighters are a reasonable choice in this era, for sure. They can't swap DropShips at the jump point to allow goods to fly towards the planets while they're charging, so their strategic movement speed will be much lower, but the raw goods per C-Bill isn't bad at all until there's larger DropShips to compete with them.

---

I've finally gotten around to publishing the master spreadsheet with amendments. Stations costs are properly calculated(no K-F and x5 multiplier, instead of K-F and x2 multiplier like before), the free armour per facing is included in the total armor point cap, and all post-2780 weapons have been removed from the list of options. You can find it here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XW-l5w0nuEvtdhDpGjDDQICX2oPaJEEUwMI2xBSOlTA/edit#gid=0). I've never shared a Google Sheets doc like this before, so please make sure that the "Save a Copy" function works the same as it does on CryHavoc's sheet.

---

EDIT: This has been retconned away due to Kiviar taking over as Federated Suns player

The FedSuns pose a more interesting challenge than the other NPC realms. In-game because they have enough canon designs that I feel a need to work with what they have, but the designs are in some ways worse than the SLDF ships, and out-of-game because a couple people have mused about taking them over and so I was trying not to plan out too much of their turn until now. (You can still take over if you like, but you're stuck with this turn now. Muahaha, etc.)

In canon, the first FedSuns ship was the Defender, launched in 2360. Instead of filling that gap with a new ship, I've decided to move it up to 2350. (They only built six in canon, and had no new designs until 2510, so I'll be gap-filling down the line. But I'll start here.)

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Defender
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $11,661,986,000.00
Magazine Cost: $75,392,000.00
BV2: 102,348

Mass: 960,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 5
Maximum Thrust: 8
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
5 Naval AC 35
21 Naval AC 25
82 AC 5
47 Machine Gun (IS)

Class/Model/Name: Defender
Mass: 960,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 288,000
Thrust
Safe: 5
Maximum: 8
Controls: 2,400
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (20 Integrity) 434,400
Jump Sail: (5 Integrity) 78
Structural Integrity: 40 38,400
Total Heat Sinks: 1703 Single 900
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 7500 points 3,060
Fire Control Computers: 5
Armor: 330 pts Standard 765
Fore: 65
Fore-Left/Right: 60/60
Aft-Left/Right: 50/50
Aft: 45

Dropship Capacity: 4 4,000
Grav Decks:
Small: 0
Medium: 2 200
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 35 245
Life Boats: 35 245

Crew And Passengers:
48 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 480
189 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 1,323
48 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 336
100 Bay Personnel 0
12 1st Class Passengers 120
33 2nd Class Passengers 231

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
1 Naval AC 35 Nose 120 350 (35-C) Medium-C 4,000
2 Naval AC 35 RBS 240 700 (70-C) Medium-C 8,000
2 Naval AC 35 LBS 240 700 (70-C) Medium-C 8,000
9 Naval AC 25 Nose 765 2250 (225-C) Long-C 27,000
6 Naval AC 25 RBS 510 1500 (150-C) Long-C 18,000
6 Naval AC 25 LBS 510 1500 (150-C) Long-C 18,000
4 AC 5 Nose 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
4 AC 5 RBS 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
4 AC 5 LBS 4 20 (2-C) Medium 32
20 AC 5 Aft 20 100 (10-C) Medium 160
10 AC 5 FR 10 50 (5-C) Medium 80
10 AC 5 FL 10 50 (5-C) Medium 80
15 AC 5 AR 15 75 (7.5-C) Medium 120
15 AC 5 AL 15 75 (7.5-C) Medium 120
6 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 12 (1.2-C) Short-PDS 3
6 Machine Gun (IS) RBS 12 (1.2-C) Short-PDS 3
6 Machine Gun (IS) LBS 12 (1.2-C) Short-PDS 3
5 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 10 (1-C) Short-PDS 3
6 Machine Gun (IS) FR 12 (1.2-C) Short-PDS 3
6 Machine Gun (IS) FL 12 (1.2-C) Short-PDS 3
6 Machine Gun (IS) AR 12 (1.2-C) Short-PDS 3
6 Machine Gun (IS) AL 12 (1.2-C) Short-PDS 3

Ammo Rounds Mass
Naval AC 25 Ammo 1050 630.00
Naval AC 35 Ammo 250 250.00
AC 5 Ammo 8200 410.00
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 9400 47.00

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
20 Bay Small Craft 4,000 10
95,795 Cargo, Standard 95,795 6


Of course, this is a size 4 ship, and the FedSuns has no size 4 yards. As such, the yard at Delevan is being expanded to a size 4, which will allow two of these monsters to come off the lines.

Budget: $90B
Delevan upgrade (3>4): $40B
Defender R&D: $11.662B
2x Defender: $23.324B
12x DropShip: $3.6B
100x Small Craft: $1B
1800x fighter: $9B
Research: $1.414B

And that, finally, concludes design and budgeting for NPC nations. Next post: Actual combat results!
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 17 June 2018, 11:24:00
Freighters are a reasonable choice in this era, for sure. They can't swap DropShips at the jump point to allow goods to fly towards the planets while they're charging, so their strategic movement speed will be much lower, but the raw goods per C-Bill isn't bad at all until there's larger DropShips to compete with them.

Yes, but maybe I dont WANT my transport assets hanging around at the Jumppoint flapping in the breeze. :)

Beyond that.  May I assume that the Army is handling its OWN transport, just like the Merchants are handling THEIR OWN jumpships and dropships, and anything I build in that direction is essentially value added to those sectors of my nation.  And yes, the idea of a 'warfreighter' is done with malice aforethought.  It becomes a collier, or invasion transport, or fast fighter resupply, and all without leaving jumpships hanging lonely at the jumppoint.



Quote
I've finally gotten around to publishing the master spreadsheet with amendments. Stations costs are properly calculated(no K-F and x5 multiplier, instead of K-F and x2 multiplier like before), the free armour per facing is included in the total armor point cap, and all post-2780 weapons have been removed from the list of options. You can find it here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XW-l5w0nuEvtdhDpGjDDQICX2oPaJEEUwMI2xBSOlTA/edit#gid=0). I've never shared a Google Sheets doc like this before, so please make sure that the "Save a Copy" function works the same as it does on CryHavoc's sheet.
 

Is there any way to turn that into a shareable excel spreadsheet?  No Google Docs for this boy.  :(

Quote
....but the designs are in some ways worse than the SLDF ships.


And that, finally, concludes design and budgeting for NPC nations. Next post: Actual combat results!

Well, Defender is a hellva commerce raider/battle-cruiser.  Run things down, nothing can run away... shes basically a giant version of the Capellan commerce raider next door.  Maybe she is just 'same, only more and better, cause Fedsuns and Freedom!'

Lyran observers are looking forward to reports of what actually happens (probalby not much, turn 1)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 17 June 2018, 12:28:49
Next post: Actually not combat results!

The buddy of mine who was thinking of playing FedSuns has decided to jump in. So, the above FedSuns turn is retconned away, and I'll wait for his post to see what happens next. I'll get as much of the non-FS stuff as I can written up while he figures out his plans. There'll be a total of three battles to report, though mostly small ones.

Quote
Beyond that.  May I assume that the Army is handling its OWN transport, just like the Merchants are handling THEIR OWN jumpships and dropships, and anything I build in that direction is essentially value added to those sectors of my nation.

Merchants buy their own ships, and you do not need to help them(though you can, if desired). Army transport is part of your budget, though in practice most nations in this era just press civilian transports into service when needed. Wars are mostly short and sharp, so it hasn't cost anyone too much as of yet. Overly ambitious attempts to press civilian ships into service can have some consequences, but nobody's really been burned by them yet, and nobody has enough cash to replace it all with militarized ships yet.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 17 June 2018, 13:07:55
There in universe reason for the lack of house ships at this point was that at first no one had enough to make real naval battles an attractive thing considering the cost and second after the Aries convention everyone focused on ground battles to the exclusion of all else. This created an artificial political situation that I don't believe would actually persist in real life. Naval interdiction of attacking forces is just too useful.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 17 June 2018, 14:58:54
Hi, I'm the friend that Alsadius dragooned in to taking over the Federated Suns.

I've put together two warships for my first turn.

In the first half of the 24th century the ideal of maneuver warfare gripped the military planners of the fledgling Federated Suns. With larger and more industrially advanced neighbors it was understood that to survive any large-scale interstellar war the Federated Suns must be able to, 1) disrupt any hostile power's command and logistical infrastructure so that it becomes difficult for them to mount any consolidated action,  and 2) hit the enemy with pin-point strikes with maximal power without being drawn in to a protracted battle.

To enact this theory, the newly-formed AFFS commissioned the design of two classes of warship

First off the Albion-class frigate:
 
Built to be fast enough to outrun anything it can't kill, the Albion class of frigates were designed primarily as raiders. Its armament consisted of a powerful array of 6 class 20 naval autocannons mounted in the nose, as well as a pair on either side. The Albion was designed to win its fights as quickly as possible from outside the effective weapon range of most dropships. To protect against lighter threats the Albion also mounted an impressive array of anti-fighter weapons, as well as a single squadron of aerospace fighters.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Albion-class frigate
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $7,088,697,600.00
Magazine Cost: $38,635,000.00
BV2: 51,268

Mass: 400,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 5
Maximum Thrust: 8
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
10 Naval AC 20
64 AC 5
39 Machine Gun (IS)

Mass: 400,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 120,000.00
Thrust
Safe: 5
Maximum: 8
Controls: 1,000.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (10 Integrity) 181,000.00
Jump Sail: (4 Integrity) 50.00
Structural Integrity: 150 60,000.00
Total Heat Sinks: 534 Single
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 10372 points 4,231.98
Fire Control Computers: 0.00
Armor: 480 pts Standard 1,200.00
Fore: 120
Fore-Left/Right: 95/95
Aft-Left/Right: 90/90
Aft: 80

Dropship Capacity: 2 2,000.00
Grav Decks:
Small: 1 50.00
Medium: 0.00
Large: 0.00
Escape Pods: 25 175.00
Life Boats: 0.00

Crew And Passengers:
26 Officers in 2nd Class Quarters 182.00
99 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 693.00
28 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 196.00
12 Bay Personnel 0.00
2 1st Class Passengers 20.00
10 2nd Class Passengers 70.00
Steerage Passengers 0.00

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
6 Naval AC 20 Nose 360 1200 (120-C) Long-C 15,000.00
4 AC 5 Nose 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
4 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 8 (0.8-C) 2.00
10 AC 5 FR 10 50 (5-C) 80.00
5 Machine Gun (IS) FR 10 (1-C) 2.50
10 AC 5 FL 10 50 (5-C) 80.00
5 Machine Gun (IS) FL 10 (1-C) 2.50
2 Naval AC 20 LBS 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
5 AC 5 LBS 5 25 (2.5-C) 40.00
5 Machine Gun (IS) LBS 10 (1-C) 2.50
2 Naval AC 20 RBS 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
5 AC 5 RBS 5 25 (2.5-C) 40.00
5 Machine Gun (IS) RBS 10 (1-C) 2.50
10 AC 5 AR 10 50 (5-C) 80.00
5 Machine Gun (IS) AR 10 (1-C) 2.50
10 AC 5 AL 10 50 (5-C) 80.00
5 Machine Gun (IS) AL 10 (1-C) 2.50
10 AC 5 Aft 10 50 (5-C) 80.00
5 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 10 (1-C) 2.50

Ammo Rounds
Naval AC 20 Ammo 1600
AC 5 Ammo 1000
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 2000

And secondly the Galahad-class heavy cruiser

Designed as the 'hammer' of the new Federated Suns Navy, the Galahad-class, much like its smaller cousin the Albion, was designed around the concept of speed and applied firepower. Similarly to the Albion the Galahad's main firepower also comes primarily from a nose-mounted array of autocannons. 8 class 40 naval autocannons allow the Galahad to obliterate the armour on any contemporary warship in short order. However, should the ship find itself in a less ideal position, the ship's sides bristle with class 20 and class 35 naval autocannons as well. 2 squadrons of fighters, 12 capital-class missile launchers and a wide array of anti-fighter ballistic weapons round out the Galahad's armament allowing it to strike, and incapacitate threats at nearly any range.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Galahad-class heavy cruiser
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $10,787,586,000.00
Magazine Cost: $115,190,000.00
BV2: 115,920

Mass: 900,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 4
Maximum Thrust: 6
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
8 Naval AC 40
12 Capital Launcher Killer Whale
22 AC 5
48 Machine Gun (IS)
10 Naval AC 20
12 Naval AC 35


Class/Model/Name: Galahad-class heavy-cruiser
Mass: 900,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 216,000.00
Thrust
Safe: 4
Maximum: 6
Controls: 2,250.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (19 Integrity) 407,250.00
Jump Sail: (5 Integrity) 75.00
Structural Integrity: 140 126,000.00
Total Heat Sinks: 1990 Single 1,288.00
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 10000 points 4,080.00
Fire Control Computers: 0.00
Armor: 1008 pts Standard 2,520.00
Fore: 200
Fore-Left/Right: 192/192
Aft-Left/Right: 172/172
Aft: 164

Dropship Capacity: 3 3,000.00
Grav Decks:
Small: 0.00
Medium: 1 100.00
Large: 0.00
Escape Pods: 50 350.00
Life Boats: 0.00

Crew And Passengers:
47 Officers in 2nd Class Quarters 329.00
178 Crew in Steerage Quarters 890.00
54 Gunners and Others in Steerage Quarters 270.00
39 Bay Personnel 0.00
1 1st Class Passengers 10.00
10 2nd Class Passengers 70.00
10 Steerage Passengers 50.00

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
8 Naval AC 40 Nose 1080 3200 (320-C) Medium-C 36,000.00
4 Capital Launcher Killer Whale Nose 80 160 (16-C) 600.00
2 AC 5 Nose 2 10 (1-C) 16.00
6 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 12 (1.2-C) 3.00
3 Naval AC 20 FR 180 600 (60-C) 7,500.00
2 AC 5 FR 2 10 (1-C) 16.00
6 Machine Gun (IS) FR 12 (1.2-C) 3.00
3 Naval AC 20 FL 180 600 (60-C) 7,500.00
2 AC 5 FL 2 10 (1-C) 16.00
6 Machine Gun (IS) FL 12 (1.2-C) 3.00
6 Naval AC 35 RBS 720 2100 (210-C) 24,000.00
4 AC 5 RBS 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
6 Machine Gun (IS) RBS 12 (1.2-C) 3.00
6 Naval AC 35 LBS 720 2100 (210-C) 24,000.00
4 AC 5 LBS 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
6 Machine Gun (IS) LBS 12 (1.2-C) 3.00
2 Naval AC 20 AR 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
2 AC 5 AR 2 10 (1-C) 16.00
6 Machine Gun (IS) AR 12 (1.2-C) 3.00
2 Naval AC 20 AL 120 400 (40-C) 5,000.00
2 AC 5 AL 2 10 (1-C) 16.00
6 Machine Gun (IS) AL 12 (1.2-C) 3.00
8 Capital Launcher Killer Whale Aft 160 320 (32-C) 1,200.00
4 AC 5 Aft 4 20 (2-C) 32.00
6 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 12 (1.2-C) 3.00

Ammo Rounds Mass Equipment
Capital Launcher Killer Whale Ammo 144 7,200.00 None
Naval AC 40 Ammo 320 384.00
naval ac 20 ammo 640 256.00
AC 5 Ammo 2000 100.00
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 4000 20.00
Naval AC 35 Ammo 480 480.00


Budget: $90B
Upgrades:
Delevan upgrade (3>4): $40B

Design:
Galahad R&D: $10.787B
Albion R&D: $7.088B

Construction:
1x Galahad: $10.787B
2x Albion: 14.176
6x DropShip: $1.8B
50x Small Craft: $0.5B
800x fighter: $4B
Research: $862M
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 17 June 2018, 15:15:13
Turn 1: 2350-2359

Player Turns:
Lyran Commonwealth: Budget $80B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1420335#msg1420335)
Free Worlds League: Budget $100B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421006#msg1421006)
Draconis Combine: Budget $100B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1420809#msg1420809)
Marian Hegemony: Budget $10B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421102#msg1421102)
Federated Suns: Budget $90B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421719#msg1421719)

NPC Turns:
Terran Hegemony: Budget $750B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421565#msg1421565)
United Hindu Collective: Budget $20B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1420772#msg1420772)
Capellan Commonality: Budget $25B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421609#msg1421609)
Sarna Supremacy: Budget $25B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421609#msg1421609)
Duchy of Liao: Budget $15B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421660#msg1421660)
Sian Commonwealth: Budget $10B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421660#msg1421660)
St. Ives Mercantile League: Budget $10B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1420827#msg1420827)
Tikonov Grand Union: Budget $5B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1420223#msg1420223)
Rim Worlds Republic: Budget $20B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1420223#msg1420223)
Taurian Concordat: Budget $10B. (Designs (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1420220#msg1420220), Budget (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421660#msg1421660))
Principality of Rasalhague: Budget $1B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1420223#msg1420223)

Astropolitical Summary:
- The Draconis Combine's efforts to pacify the Rasalhague region continue. Significant counter-insurgency efforts are made within the region, but the conflict shows no signs of stopping yet.
- The Sarna Supremacy invades the Tikonov Grand Union in 2351, seeing to capitalize on chaos within the region by attacking Algol and Slocum. By the end of 2352, the Tikonov forces have largely stopped fighting, and a ceasefire is brokered by the Capellans. The Sarna Supremacy takes control New Aragon in the peace treaty.
- The Federated Suns also take note of the chaos in the Capellan regions, and in 2357 they invade the planet of Bell, demanding Chesterton and Highspire as well. A joint force from Capella, Sarna, and Tikonov counterattack in 2358 to recapture Bell, but the entire civilian population of 15,000 has mysteriously vanished by the time they arrive. In the end, the Federated Suns acquires Chesterton, but its other gains are lost in the peace settlement.
- In 2358, Seluk Tucas is elected Prime Minister of the Capellan Commonality. An aggressive opportunist, he begins attempting to unify the Capellan region under his own leadership, by using a combination of defence pacts and extortion to convince Tikonov to hand over the planet of Algot to his allies in Sarna.

Combat Results:
A note before we start. For each battle, I'll outline a plausible fight that happens this turn, and get a sense of what forces will be dedicated to it. For each side, I'll roll three dice - crew skill, command skill, and luck. Crew skill represents fighter pilot effectiveness, quality of gunnery, and so on. Command skill is about trying to make the battle happen in the way that best suits your forces - a great result might be an ambush, or a lengthy stern chase against a slower enemy with short-ranged weapons. Luck should be obvious. These rolls can be modified depending on maintenance levels, support infrastructure, notable canon personas having an impact, and so on. I'll take it all together, and write up a battle for each.

The only notable space battle during Sarna's invasion of Tikonov happened three days after the invasion fleet appeared at a pirate point Algol. A retired captain vacationing on Algol managed to, by sheer force of personality, scrounge up almost every ship that could fly on the entire planet, hastily converting the one DropShip on ground into an impromptu tanker for his fighters and shuttles, and sending his forces on a roundabout route after the Sarnish JumpShips. Barely escaping detection by the inbound DropShips, they sprang upon the JumpShips which had been left with an escort that didn't bother to scout due to overconfidence on the part of its commander. While the Sarnish forces fought well once they got over their initial surprise, they were badly mauled by the initial missile strike from the ragtag force, and lost two JumpShips and one DropShip outright before the fighters could mount an effective defence. Once the defenders rallied, the Tikonov forces realized they were doomed and attempted to surrender, but according to records from the Sarnish command ship, communication difficulties led to the surrender request not being noticed until nearly the end. Only one Tikonov pilot, a junior police shuttle pilot from the planet's capital, managed to survive the battle. 11 Sarnish fighters were lost, but 21 Tikonov fighters and 13 Tikonov shuttles were destroyed in the process.

---

The Draconis Combine's attempt to clamp down on the insurgency in Rasalhague was mostly fought on the ground, with one notable exception. Unbeknownst to the Dracs, the Rasalhague forces had managed to find a supplier for modern fighters, and had secreted over a dozen wings on Trondheim waiting for their chance to strike at a convoy. They got their chance in November of 2355. A major troop convoy of eight fully loaded JumpShips entered the system at the nadir point, and the Rasalhague fighter flotilla was ready to strike. They attempted to ambush the inbound DropShips about three hours away from the planet, and their navigation and preparation were both superb. Against any other convoy, their attack would have been a glowing success. However, this was not any other convoy. This convoy had the brand-new DCS Kutai escorting it, on its first-ever combat mission. The Kutai's new sensor system detected the inbound fighters, and while the result was actually dismissed as a probable glitch by the duty captain due to the unlikelihood of such a large force being in that place at that time, the warning was sufficient to ensure that their weapons were warming up when the fighters arrived. In the end, that may have been the difference between victory and defeat.

The Kutai's fire was occasionally interrupted by issues with the new equipment, and the point-defence machine guns performed somewhat worse than had been hoped. The DropShip weapons barely got online at all. Conversely the Rasalhague forces performed well for pilots with no combat experience, adjusting targeting solutions on the fly once they realized what the escort they faced was, and nearly managed to overwhelm the Kutai entirely. However, once the machine guns began firing properly, at least two potentially-fatal missiles were shot down in the nick of time. Fighters attempted to fire their on-board cannons into the gaping wounds in the Kutai's frontal armour, but their inexperience began to show here, as their lack of evasive maneuvers meant that many were shot down before their fire could cause significant damage. In the end, only 32 Rasalhague pilots out of 200 survived to surrender, but they destroyed four DropShips and 13 fighters in the process, and came within inches of destroying the Kutai itself.

---

After the Federated Suns moved into the Tikonov Grand Union in 2357, analysts were expecting no major response to the invasion, given how totally the Tikonov forces were routed by the end of 2352. However, an unlikely alliance of Sarna and Capella came to Tikonov's aid by the beginning of 2358. After marshaling their forces of over two dozen JumpShips led by theCCS Qinru Zhe, the combined fleet set out for the world of Highspire to commence the liberation of Tikonov space. However, on their way towards the planet, a Federated Suns JumpShip had snuck away and summoned reinforcements. The FSS Albion jumped to a pirate point some twelve hours ahead of the "Capellan Coalition" fleet, and proceeded to set an ambush. Knowing that no faster ship was in service anywhere, that the Qinru Zhe's primary weaponry was shorter-ranged than his autocannons, and that the raider carried no fighters, the captain of the Albion dictated a combat strategy of maintaining a range just outside effective range for the NAC/30, and trying to hammer the ship to scrap from afar.

Unfortunately, Federated Suns intelligence on the Qinru Zhe was grossly inadequate, and had neglected to understand either the extremely long range of its lasers, the fact that the Capellan ship was just as agile as their own, or the superiority of Capellan sensors. The Capellan captain embraced the long-range fight, and the gunnery of his crew was almost as accurate in combat conditions as it had been in excercises while they were working up. The Albion was hammered by over two dozen hits from naval lasers in the early part of the fight, landing only two hits in reply. The Albion's captain panicked, and sent his meager fighter force on a strike mission to try to allow his ship to escape, but despite valiant efforts by the pilots, the entire strike force was annihilated by defensive fire from the Qinru Zhe. The Albion's doom seemed certain, but at this point the Capellan force's commander broke off the fight due to a distress call from his transport ships(which were engaged in landing on the planet at the time). It was hoped that the Albion had been crippled enough to slow it down and allow for the Qinru Zhe to catch up, but that was not to be - one of the few systems that actually remained undamaged in the fight was the Albion's engines, and by the time that the Qinru Zhe had realized that the Albion was making its escape, it was too far away to overhaul before it could jump out of the system and limp back to base.

Research:
LC: $2,731m
FWL: $1,049m
DC: $2,000m
FS: $862m

TH: $11,480m
UHC: $1,265m
CC: $254m
SS: $900m
TC: $166m
DoL: $306m
SC: $300m
SIML: $538m
TGU: $40m
RWR: $1,400m

TOTAL = $23,291m

I'm not sure if I actually want to keep the winner a secret like I was saying, but I will for now(unless it's a human, of course - check your PMs to see if you won, I'll send out the notice before I post this).

What do you guys think?

Budgets for Turn 2:
Most budgets remain unchanged for the time being. The TGU drops from $5B to $2B due to its hideous losses and damage, while the Sarna Supremacy and Federated Suns each gain $1B to represent their gains in combat.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 17 June 2018, 16:49:59
Awesome stuff!  I can only imagine the amount of work that goes into this on your end - thank you in advance.

I would NOT have expected that outcome between the Green and Gold Navies!

Also - I see little in keeping it secret.  Itll be obvious when the turn is posted.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 17 June 2018, 17:06:28
What about my results in the attempted takeovers of the Lothian League and Illyrian Palatinate?

Post 190, two above my budget posting.

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 17 June 2018, 17:25:05
Awesome stuff!  I can only imagine the amount of work that goes into this on your end - thank you in advance.

I would NOT have expected that outcome between the Green and Gold Navies!

Also - I see little in keeping it secret.  Itll be obvious when the turn is posted.

That was a tough one to write. Both sides rolled badly, but the FS commander in particular had a pants-on-head result on the dice, which is why he took bad intel at face value, damn near got his ship shot out from under him before he realized it was wrong, and then panicked and basically murdered his own fighter wing. Still, it felt a bit cruel to kill a ship on turn 1 when we only have a few. The Kutai was saved by the Rasalhaguers simply not having much force(they actually rolled quite well to get as close as they did to killing it), but the Albion could really have gone either way, and I mulled over it for a while before deciding to be merciful.

What about my results in the attempted takeovers of the Lothian League and Illyrian Palatinate?

Post 190, two above my budget posting.

Perhaps I misread you, but that seemed like a statement of policy, not an actual military campaign. You don't have any force with which to conquer them, which I took to be the reason why you were trying to recruit new troops.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 17 June 2018, 17:57:50
but the FS commander in particular had a pants-on-head result on the dice,

I'll have to write something up for that when I do my turn, felt like I was reading about the Lyrans there.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 17 June 2018, 19:12:52
I am intentionally aiming to make the Lyran Admiralty as unlike the Lyran Ground Forces as possible.  Social Generals my ass.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 17 June 2018, 19:43:47
I'll have to write something up for that when I do my turn, felt like I was reading about the Lyrans there.

(insert obvious FedCom joke here)

---

Thinking this over and seeing your responses, it's pretty clear that secret techs are dumb in this system. The winner was the Terran Hegemony, getting Ferro-Aluminum armor for its support ships. (To be clear, FA armor doesn't help WarShips or stations. It's only usable on fighters, small craft, and DropShips. Improved Ferro-Aluminum is the one that'll affect your ships.)

Also, I know I was mulling over the concept of random effects for each player each turn, or on each design, some pages ago on this thread. I'm ditching that as well - it's a lot of work for a fairly small impact, and that's not really worth it.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 17 June 2018, 22:29:34
Kiviar - how much cargo volume does that big bruiser have?  Shes got great speed, armor, and firepower - Im trying to figure out where the corners were cut.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 17 June 2018, 22:30:41
What about my results in the attempted takeovers of the Lothian League and Illyrian Palatinate?

Post 190, two above my budget posting.

TT
Perhaps I misread you, but that seemed like a statement of policy, not an actual military campaign. You don't have any force with which to conquer them, which I took to be the reason why you were trying to recruit new troops.

Yeah I forgot to get a jumper... AM ratifying this.

---------------------------------------------

Marian Action News Network ( MANN )
Nova Roma, Alphard
Comitium Curia, Senate Grounds

Camera pans from right to left as sounds of loud talking in many languages is heard. A heavy gravel is heard silence pursues.

" Lordships, Ladies and Senators... " states a gravelly old voice. " It has come to the attention of the crown that our nearest threat is many jumps away, but not to worry. A call for recruitment has been made. It is the lordship's wish that our ground force to seize control over the various petty realms in our immediate midst and for that he has raised some minor taxes... " Loud grumblings and minor curses are heard. " How ever... " continues the voice, more loudly to be heard. " his lordship has deemed to expand the Navis ( Latin: Navy ) trough any acquisitions or other means. "

HPGs have been sent out via PMs. Alsadius I'm requesting Smegish and Marcussmythe to supply me with some goods.

Will record with official prices and update my budget later this week.

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 17 June 2018, 23:02:20
NVM.  I am an idiot.  Got Galahad and Albion mixed up and was trying to figure out what Quinru Zhe was able to do to threaten a Galahad.  QZ vs Albion is conflict of the commerce raiders.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Vition2 on 17 June 2018, 23:18:17
Kiviar - how much cargo volume does that big bruiser have?  Shes got great speed, armor, and firepower - Im trying to figure out where the corners were cut.

I'm calculating just under 10kt - but I could be missing something.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 18 June 2018, 00:10:11
I'm calculating just under 10kt - but I could be missing something.

Ahh.  That will do it.  Maybe a bit more?  I notice she saves tonnage by cramming crew into steerage.  Still, thats a lot of gun and a lot of armor and speed....  ‘Elan, Tojours  Elan...”
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 18 June 2018, 00:11:21
QZ vs Albion is conflict of the commerce raiders.

Yeah, Alsadius and I were basically on the same page re strategy and design from the moment he mentioned this to me, so it's no surprise that we ended up making the same basic ship.

As for the Galahad, its firepower and protection did indeed come at the cost of cargo and ammunition. It has a small (at least compared to canon designs) ~13k of cargo, and only 12 reloads per killer-whale tube. But, it's meant for hit-and-run attacks on hard targets and not for crusading across the Inner Sphere.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marauder648 on 18 June 2018, 01:56:35
Oh wow! You've put a hell of a lot of work into this :D
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 18 June 2018, 02:26:46
Question about maintenance: How much of this stuff are we paying maintenance on? All of it? Just the Warships?

Makes a big difference to budgets, especially tight ones.

EDIT: Also, is there an average loss rate on Fighters, Dropships and such? Normal losses due to training accidents, piracy losses and general wear and tear and such. Perhaps x amount lost per world controlled? Double/triple if in serious action?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 18 June 2018, 06:25:17
Just warships, IIRC.  The whole economy would grind to a halt, otherwise.

As for fighter losses, I think were skipping ‘training accident’ figter losses, for simplicity. I assume once fighter losses get significant, the ST will tell us about them.

In fact - Im assuming the ST will tell us about any changes to our OOB.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 18 June 2018, 10:50:51
I'm torn, tbh. It's probably simpler to just ignore losses of that sort, but they'll happen, and I don't especially want to be writing up loss lists for every faction every turn based on combat - the losses given in my battle reports above should be taken out of your stockpiles, of course, but there is also other combat happening that doesn't get reported. A flat 5-10% attrition rate might actually make sense.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 18 June 2018, 11:01:16
We can do flat fighter attrition if you want, but it might be easier paperwork wise to just ‘maintain’ fighers like you do warships, as they also eat food, fuel, training.  Or just assume that fighter replacement is covered in ‘budget dust - other’ much like fighter upgrades.

I’d do meaningful fighter losses (like what happened to Rasalhauge) as any other combat losses (like nearly happened to some ships)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Vition2 on 18 June 2018, 12:55:51
A flat 5-10% attrition rate might actually make sense.
A quick suggestion: use 5% (unless engaged in an actual full-scale war, in which case up the off-screen casualties to around 15%), I did a fairly comprehensive review of how much clans should expect to need to replace with their much higher levels of regular conflict, and came to a conclusion of about 12.66% losses - the Inner Sphere should normally be significantly less than this.

As for training accidents, a reminder that ASF are significantly more robust than current day fighters, to the point that lawn-darting during training is not likely to cause significant destroyed fighters - you'll suffer larger losses in personnel but the equipment will very often be either repairable or salvageable.

In case you want to take a look and pick it over, here's the link: https://www.ourbattletech.com/forum/index.php?topic=3530.msg44105#msg44105
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 18 June 2018, 13:47:43
As for training accidents, a reminder that ASF are significantly more robust than current day fighters, to the point that lawn-darting during training is not likely to cause significant destroyed fighters - you'll suffer larger losses in personnel but the equipment will very often be either repairable or salvageable.

A well armored medium or heavy fighter can use lithobreaking suprisingly safely.  LCF-R20 could probably kill mechs by ramming them, if the rules permitted.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 18 June 2018, 16:42:05
Someone-not-me should start and keep up a TRO for this thread.  Maybe an editable post, no replies, updated as new ships come out.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 18 June 2018, 17:09:24
Someone-not-me should start and keep up a TRO for this thread.  Maybe an editable post, no replies, updated as new ships come out.

That's what I intend the Google Docs spreadsheet to be, though it's not nearly there yet. Not proper TRO format, admittedly, but easy to see everything in one place.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 18 June 2018, 19:25:31
Request for Clarification:  Maintenance costs for Space Stations, yes/no?  Checked back through the thread and saw yes in some places and no in others.  Given that currently only things with K-F drives pay maintenance, ‘no’ makes sense to me- espc as some stations (recharge stations leap to mind, or repair) would likely pay their own way by charging civilians for use - but Im easy either way.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 18 June 2018, 20:46:56
Any jump-point station that mounts a recharge array will pay for itself in normal use through civilian fees, so no maintenance on those. (Within reasonable limits, of course - you can't post 473 stations at a single jump point and have them all be free. Let's cap it at two per system.). Non-charging stations will cost the same percentage as WarShips.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 18 June 2018, 22:11:15
How about repair costs for ships noted as taking heavy damage? Equal to maintenance, making that ship cost double for this turn?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 18 June 2018, 22:15:42
What about the use of Habitats? Smallest one is 120K while the larger one is closer to half million. Also I can't wait for the TH Gatekeeper Stations, the non-militarized Drake SDS version and later the Pavise M-9!

Also, as since I'm a small fishy in this here ocean of over bloated Megladonish Whales.... is there any way of " Researching: Mining Techniques " e.g. paying say 1B for a small percentage of increase by 25% higher per turn ( decade )? But put a cap on how much money one can use to get more.

TT

Current budget: $18 Billion 887 Million
Turn: 2
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 18 June 2018, 22:36:27
Any jump-point station that mounts a recharge array will pay for itself in normal use through civilian fees, so no maintenance on those. (Within reasonable limits, of course - you can't post 473 stations at a single jump point and have them all be free. Let's cap it at two per system.). Non-charging stations will cost the same percentage as WarShips.

Under this ruling, I will either be building deathstars with a recharge array to cover their maintenance, or I will not do so out of good taste and feel bad a little bad every turn when I pay maintenance.

The more I think about it, might be best to just charge maintenance for all stations, fighters, droppers, jumpers, all of it, (and if the GM thinks that repair or charging stations are economically beneficial, then bump budgets to reflect increased economic activity).

Or perhaps to only charge maintenance on warships.  I fear going down a rabbit hole of ‘maintain this thing, and maintain it harder if you got in a bad fight, but not that thing, and some of these things but not others depending on if they have a special battery, and no maintenance on fighters but we do have to Loss a certain percentage a turn to combat accidents....

(Ill also note that I bought fighters in large numbers on Turn 1 specifically because of the lack of maintenance.  Its NBD, cause its early days and not -that- much money - but lets be careful changing rules going forward)

I want a player considering joining us to have as few barriers to entry as possible.  Consider the confusion of billions vs. milliards.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 18 June 2018, 22:39:17
What about the use of Habitats? Smallest one is 120K while the larger one is closer to half million. Also I can't wait for the TH Gatekeeper Stations, the non-militarized Drake SDS version and later the Pavise M-9!

Also, as since I'm a small fishy in this here ocean of over bloated Megladonish Whales.... is there any way of " Researching: Mining Techniques " e.g. paying say 1B for a small percentage of increase by 25% higher per turn ( decade )? But put a cap on how much money one can use to get more.

TT

Investing in the economy in non-naval ways is I think maybe outside our wheelhouse as Cheifs of Naval Operations.  Even in naval ways (jumpship fleets, recharge stations, what you will) Im more comfortable with handling it in a narrative rather than mechanical fashion.  I fear we may get distracted from the point of the exercise - warship design - by our desire to play GalCiv/MOO.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 18 June 2018, 23:05:59
I fear we may get distracted from the point of the exercise - warship design - by our desire to play GalCiv/MOO.

Trying to get more military fundings, my economy is shot, hell I don't have much in the way of funds to begin with.

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 18 June 2018, 23:18:36
Well, then Id spend my budget on jumpships and dropships so your army can conquer stuff, jumpships also support trade, and maybe a recharge station or two.

Also?  Let time pass.  Its just now 2360.  Id aim for slow, long growth, and trying to dodge the reuinfication war (somehow) and the deveststion of the succession wars (somehow).  Your in for the very, very long game.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 19 June 2018, 04:42:01
Well, guess I'll start us off for this turn.

This is assuming maintenance on everything, 5% loss rate on fighters (rounded casualties up to nearest 36-fighter wing for own sanity and to represent losses in Rasalhague) and paying an extra 10% maintenance on DCS Kutai for repairs.

Code: [Select]
Year: 2360 Value in Millions
Money Available 100,000
Remaining from Last Turn 577
Income Trojan Lease 2 to Marians 1000 2000

Available Shipyards
Luthien 3/2/2
New Samarkand 3/1
Midway 1

Repairs DCS Kutai 609

Maintenance 62350 12% 7482

Prototype Cost Trojan 4,031
Atago 9,339

Construction Unit Price
Shipyards New Samarkand New Lvl 1 5000 5000
Warships Kutai 2 6,092 12,184
Fubuki 1 7,241 7,241
Trojan 2 4,031 8,062
Atago 3 9,339 33,012
Jumpships 10 500 5000
Dropships 22 300 6,600
Fighters 25 x 36 900 5 4,500
Small Craft 72 10 720
Research 3,792 1 3,792

Total Spent 102577


Remaining 0

Next Turn Maintenance 12% 15,193

Start Turn In Service NumberValue BV
Warships Atago 0 0 83558
Fubuki 2 14482 57421
Kutai 4 24368 15629
Trojan 0 0 15229

Jumpships 20 10000
Dropships 12 3600

Fighters 1692 8460 47 Wings
Small Craft 144 1440
Total 62350
Maintanence 12% 7482

End Turn In Service

Warships Atago 3 28017
Fubuki 3 21723
Kutai 6 36552
Trojan 0 0

Jumpships 30 15000
Dropships 34 10200

Fighters 2592 12960 72 Wings of 36
Small Craft 216 2160

And the new ships. First off the Trojan-class spy/Q-ship/corvette


Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Trojan
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $4,031,166,000.00
Magazine Cost: $3,560,000.00
BV2: 15,229

Mass: 100,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 3
Maximum Thrust: 5
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
1 Naval AC 40
72 AC 5
32 Machine Gun (IS)
16 Naval Laser 35

Designed as a covert operations ship at first, the Trojan is designed to look exactly like an Aquila-class to enable to to blend into civilian traffic as it spies on the Combines enemies. The ship even acts as a standard cargo hauler to maintain its cover, though crew are careful to never allow anyone else aboard. While they looks like copies of old rust buckets, the internals are entirely modern; with a compact core; upgraded defenses against small craft and missiles; and naval lasers hidden behind carefully designed retractable covers in each quarter. But the big surprise for this ship is the massive naval autocannon hidden in the nose of the ship in the centre of the now superfluous ram-scoop.


While stronger and better armoured than the old Aquila, this ship is not intended to see action against a true warship, though the BFG in the nose does give a cunning captain a chance if they can get close before striking. Crew quarters are relatively spartan for a DCA vessel, with the space saved used to add space for up to a 60-man group of special agents, to be delivered wherever they are needed.

DCA captains, as well as the rest of the senior officers on board are aware that they must remain undetected, and their true origin must be kept a secret at all costs. To that end there are scuttling charges positioned against both the fuel tank and NAC magazine, to ensure that if an enemy tries to seize the ship, they will gain nothing from the ship or crew.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Trojan
Mass: 100,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 18,000.00
Thrust
Safe: 3
Maximum: 5
Controls: 250.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (4 Integrity) 45,250.00
Jump Sail: (3 Integrity) 35.00
Structural Integrity: 30 3,000.00
Total Heat Sinks: 1039 Single 805.00
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 40000 points 4,080.00
Fire Control Computers: 0.00
Armor: 48 pts Standard 60.00
Fore: 12
Fore-Left/Right: 11/11
Aft-Left/Right: 11/11
Aft: 10

Dropship Capacity: 0 0.00
Grav Decks:
Small: 1 50.00
Life Boats: 22 154.00

Bay #1: Fighters (12) - 1 Door
Bay #2: Small Craft (12) - 1 Door
Bay #3: Cargo (6288 Tons) - 2 Doors

Crew And Passengers:
18 Officers in 2nd Class Quarters 126.00
47 Crew in Steerage Quarters 235.00
41 Gunners and Others in Steerage Quarters 205.00
84 Bay Personnel 0.00
1st Class Passengers 0.00
60 2nd Class Special Ops 420.00
50 Steerage Marines 250.00



Code: [Select]
# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
1 Naval AC 40 Nose 135 400 (40-C) Medium-C 4,500.00
8 AC 5 Nose 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
4 MGs Nose 8 (0.8-C) 2.00
4 Naval Laser 35 FR 208 140 (14-C) 2,800.00
8 AC 5 FR 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
4 MGs FR 8 (0.8-C) 2.00
4 Naval Laser 35 FL 208 140 (14-C) 2,800.00
8 AC 5 FL 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
4 MGs FL 8 (0.8-C) 2.00
12 AC 5 LBS 12 60 (6-C) 96.00
4 MGs LBS 8 (0.8-C) 2.00
12 AC 5 RBS 12 60 (6-C) 96.00
4 MGs RBS 8 (0.8-C) 2.00
4 Naval Laser 35 AR 208 140 (14-C) 2,800.00
8 AC 5 AR 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
4 MGs AR 8 (0.8-C) 2.00
4 Naval Laser 35 AL 208 140 (14-C) 2,800.00
8 AC 5 AL 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
4 MGs AL 8 (0.8-C) 2.00
8 AC 5 Aft 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
4 MGs Aft 8 (0.8-C) 2.00

Ammo Rounds Mass
Naval AC 40 Ammo 20 24.00
AC 5 Ammo 2880 144.00
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 6400 32.00

NCSS (Small) 100.00

Due to a deal reached with the Marian Hegemony, who were desperate for any ship they could get, both of the brand new Trojans have been leased to the Hegemony for 60 years.

And next, the Atago:

Atago-class (Cruiser)

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Atago
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $9,399,368,000.00
Magazine Cost: $27,816,000.00
BV2: 83,558

Mass: 750,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 3
Maximum Thrust: 5
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
38 Naval AC 20
48 AC 5
24 Machine Gun (IS)
28 Naval Laser 35

Designed as a cruiser and battlegroup command ship, the original plans called for the Atago to have a sizeable cargo bay to support ground assaults on foreign worlds, but the discovery of the Suns-built Galahad led to the Coordinator Gendo Kurita pushing for a redesign with heavier firepower to beat the Feddie design into submission should it be encountered. An impressive array of Naval Autocannon and Naval Lasers can unleash fire in all directions, while the thick armour and reinforced structure enable it to take a beating and remain fully operational. With a fully equipped suite for a fleet admiral and his staff and enhanced sensors to feed him all the information he needs to achieve victory. Two wings of fighters serve aboard, giving plenty of protection from the kind of trouble the Rasalhagians gave the DCS Kutai just a few years past.

The Coordinator was most pleased by the final design, even to the point of sending his son - Shinji - on a tour of the recently subjugated Rasalhague worlds abord the DCS Atago, to better show his more intellectually minded son the power he shall one day hold, and its costs and responsibilities.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Atago
Mass: 750,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 135,000.00
Thrust
Safe: 3
Maximum: 5
Controls: 1,875.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (16 Integrity) 339,375.00
Jump Sail: (5 Integrity) 68.00
Structural Integrity: 140 105,000.00
Total Heat Sinks: 3784 Single 3,220.00
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 20000 points 8,160.00
Fire Control Computers: 0.00
Armor: 840 pts Standard 2,100.00
Fore: 154
Fore-Left/Right: 165/165
Aft-Left/Right: 165/165
Aft: 110

Dropship Capacity: 2 2,000.00
Grav Decks:
Small: 2 100.00
Escape Pods: 30 210.00
Life Boats: 30 210.00

Bay #1: Fighters (72) – 6 Doors
Bay #2: Small Craft (12) – 2 Doors
Bay #3: Cargo (20151 Tons) – 2 Doors

Crew And Passengers:
48 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 480.00
147 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 1,029.00
90 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 630.00
204 Bay Personnel 0.00
20 1st Class Passengers 200.00
60 2nd Class Passengers 420.00
100 Steerage Marines 500.00



Code: [Select]
# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
6 Naval AC 20 Nose 360 1200 (120-C) Long-C 15,000.00
8 AC 5 Nose 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
4 Machine Gun (IS)Nose 8 (0.8-C) 2.00
4 Naval AC 20 FR 240 800 (80-C) 10,000.00
8 AC 5 FR 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
4 Naval Laser 35 FR 208 140 (14-C) 2,800.00
4 Machine Gun (IS)FR 8 (0.8-C) 2.00
4 Naval AC 20 FL 240 800 (80-C) 10,000.00
8 AC 5 FL 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
4 Naval Laser 35 FL 208 140 (14-C) 2,800.00
4 Machine Gun (IS)FL 8 (0.8-C) 2.00
8 Naval AC 20 LBS 480 1600 (160-C) 20,000.00
6 Naval Laser 35 LBS 312 210 (21-C) 4,200.00
8 Naval AC 20 RBS 480 1600 (160-C) 20,000.00
6 Naval Laser 35 RBS 312 210 (21-C) 4,200.00
4 Naval AC 20 AR 240 800 (80-C) 10,000.00
8 AC 5 AR 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
2 Naval Laser 35 AR 104 70 (7-C) 1,400.00
4 Machine Gun (IS)AR 8 (0.8-C) 2.00
4 Naval AC 20 AL 240 800 (80-C) 10,000.00
8 AC 5 AL 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
2 Naval Laser 35 AL 104 70 (7-C) 1,400.00
4 Machine Gun (IS)AL 8 (0.8-C) 2.00
4 Naval Laser 35 Aft 208 140 (14-C) 2,800.00
8 AC 5 Aft 8 40 (4-C) 64.00
4 Machine Gun (IS)Aft 8 (0.8-C) 2.00

Ammo Rounds Mass
Naval AC 20 Ammo 1140 456.00
AC 5 Ammo 1920 96.00
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 4800 24.00
NCSS (Large)   500.00

Code: [Select]
Fleet Deployment

Galedon Prefecture (Davion Front)
Atago-class Kashima
Fubuki-class Yudachi
Kutai-class Pesht, Arkab

Benjamin Prefecture (Steiner Front)
Atago-class Takao
Fubuki-class Fubuki
Kutai-class Galedon, Benjamin

Pesht Prefecture (Rasalhague Front)
Atago-class Atago
Fubuki-class Ibuki
Kutai-class Kutai, Luthien

Each of the Atago and Fubuki class are escorted by a Kutai at all times, after the near disaster in Trondheim, no ship travels alone.
If this slows the subjugation of the Rasalhague people, so be it.

*OOC: If you want to run the NAC/40 as a spinal mount -working like a mass driver- due to its location I am cool with that. Also, while I have bunched all the identical guns in one location into one listing to clean things up, assume all capital guns are in twin turrets, ACs and MGs in quad turrets. NAC/20s have 30 rounds per gun, AC/5s have 40 rounds/gun, MGs have 200 rounds/gun.

Yes, the Coordinators son is going to be on a ship in a warzone, feel free to have fun with that if you like Mr GM.

EDIT: Due to the exorbitant price, some last minute adjustments were made to Atago's design, removing two dropship collars in favour of more cargo space. Information above has been corrected to suit, including budget.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 20 June 2018, 08:48:34
You may take it as a complement that I have been trying, and have failed, to design something on the same displacement as Atago that could fight her 1:1.  NAC 20 may be my favourite gun for firepower to weight, solid armor, etc. 

As for cargo and deployment times - I think we may be assuming more supply requirement than makes sense.  You need gas... but at most 40tons/day.  So 8000 tons of fuel is 200 days at a 1 G burn.  Unless the warship is jumping in system and immediatley lighting off its drives, 200 burn days seem good for a year unrefueled - if ships casually and constantly made 1 g burns, we could save money on grav decks.  :)  And fuel is hydrogen, right?  As long as the ship is over a friendly world, just buy it.

Ditto food.  With the recycling characterstics of actual shipboard quarters, its pretty easy to put a year or more of food on these things.  Its easy to forget how insanely huge warships are, and how equally tiny their crews.

Whats left?  Spare parts?  Unless your rebuilding major structural elements, it seems that most of what you need is spares - and that most broken things would get recycled/repaired, not thrown out.  I dont know what % of her mass a modern warship deploys with in spare parts, but if the answer is more than 1 or 2, i would be quite surprised.

Now - Ammo and Fighters might get you there.  Ammo is hard to figure out how to budget.   Historically, ships often shot themselves dry in an engagement or two.  With NACs, this is not a concern.  Its trivial to load enough ammo that the ship will never run out in any reasonable scenario.  And hey, mount some lasers for when you really need to fire for free.  Missiles are a different story - a missile armed ship is going to need resupply after an engagement or two.  But how much of its life is a ship firing in anger?  And again, after a real engagement, your probably wanting to get back to the barn anyway to bang out the dents.

Fighters may be another story - espc if your usng them to drop bombs/capital missiles on targets that cant fight back.  You could blow through 5 tons of fuel and 20 tons of ammo or more for every strike bird every day.  That will empty even a McKenna’s cargo bays pretty quickly. 

To which it seems the answer is ‘dont use warships to move air-to-ground munitons across space.  Do your naval support of ground operations with orbital laser fire’.  Youll still need to suppress enemy fighters or engage in anti-shipping work, but thats gonna be less bad on supplies.

TLDR - I think that we are overestimating supply requirements.  Perhaps as an attempt to justify star league designs and disdain the ‘munchkin ships’ with 2000 tons of cargo with out brilliant understanding of logistics.  Now, Mijolnir and her ilk go too far the other way - but I think once you go past about maybe 4/5% ‘generic cargo’ after food and fuel, your probably building an invasion support ship, or some kind of generstion ship.  Which is fine, if that is your mission.  But if the mission of a warship is to go on patrol for say 6 months and win a fight against a peer if it happens and project force/control space where she is, I think that we are high-balling the supply required.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 20 June 2018, 10:39:20
A few thoughts:

1) You're right that recharge stations having free maintenance is too easy to max-min. They'll cost maintenance, but a good network of recharge stations will help your economy and thus your budget, so they'll generally pay for themselves indirectly. That should prevent munchkin-ing. (As a side note, I'll adjust the budgets for economic growth next turn. It was too much to worry about all at once when I needed to do all the first-turn setup stuff as well.)

2) The more I think about it, the more that I think a policy of free maintenance on the things we're supposed to be treating as secondary, and very expensive maintenance for things we're treating as primary, is leading to perverse incentives. I expect maintenance should exist for everything, in one form or another(whether it's attrition or a cost). No details yet - it's been a busy couple days.

3) Ammo is a huge investment in mass for any form of carrier(fighters can easily shoot off roughly their own mass in one strike if they want to, and you want the ability to launch at least a few strikes), and remember that strategic fuel use isn't the only fuel use - on a tactical level, it gets burned far faster. You also need spare parts, and on ships where some items weigh in the hundreds of thousands of tons, spare parts will be seriously heavy. You can also use the mass for crew amenities, support for ground troops, and so on. It's not essential, but it's useful, particularly for ships that'll be out and about for a very long time. If you're just sitting at your base all the time and only sortie defensively, then it'll be much less of a concern.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 20 June 2018, 10:52:08
A few thoughts:

1) You're right that recharge stations having free maintenance is too easy to max-min. They'll cost maintenance, but a good network of recharge stations will help your economy and thus your budget, so they'll generally pay for themselves indirectly. That should prevent munchkin-ing. (As a side note, I'll adjust the budgets for economic growth next turn. It was too much to worry about all at once when I needed to do all the first-turn setup stuff as well.)

2) The more I think about it, the more that I think a policy of free maintenance on the things we're supposed to be treating as secondary, and very expensive maintenance for things we're treating as primary, is leading to perverse incentives. I expect maintenance should exist for everything, in one form or another(whether it's attrition or a cost). No details yet - it's been a busy couple days.

3) Ammo is a huge investment in mass for any form of carrier(fighters can easily shoot off roughly their own mass in one strike if they want to, and you want the ability to launch at least a few strikes), and remember that strategic fuel use isn't the only fuel use - on a tactical level, it gets burned far faster. You also need spare parts, and on ships where some items weigh in the hundreds of thousands of tons, spare parts will be seriously heavy. You can also use the mass for crew amenities, support for ground troops, and so on. It's not essential, but it's useful, particularly for ships that'll be out and about for a very long time. If you're just sitting at your base all the time and only sortie defensively, then it'll be much less of a concern.

Until I hear otherwise from you, I will budget as if all things  which are not shipyards carry the same 10% maintenance as warships, and I will presume that 10% covers non-campaign-posting losses.  To this end I will keep a running total of the production cost of all eauipment in use at end of turn so next turns maintenance may be planned appropriately.

I think Im okay with shipyards not costing maintenance, due to the massive outlay.  Also, theres no real way to ‘game’ them.  I do not believe a perverse incentive to build shipyards exists - theres a very practical incentive (big ships gud!) and an OMG cost to doing so.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 20 June 2018, 11:33:08
Right - I was thinking "everything except yard space", but I guess I never actually mentioned that above. Your maintenance on the yards is the cost of constructing ships.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 20 June 2018, 12:01:34
Endurance:  Cause I care about these things.

Fuel and Food we know.  We can solve for that really simple.  I like 200 burn days and a year of food... thats a year without ever seeing a friend.

Ammo is easy.  Load what you think you need.  Figure out how many fights you want to have before you RTB.  Ammo is trivial for anything but missiles - I tend to budget about 5 rounds of max rate fire per tube, for 10 rounds of combat.  This may get me in trouble if my captains empty bays on bad shots - but once you start nearing 10 rounds per launcher, missiles start to become bad systems. 

Fighters:  If we assume 3 strikes in combat without any attriton, thats 150 tons per fighter.  Youll probably lose some so that goes further, but better safe.  Say another 50 tons per fighter to cover spares and randomly lost birds on deployment.  100 tons avgas for each?  The math here is nice because a fighter bay weighs 150 tons.  If you then budget twice your bay weight in cargo, is that enough to consider it good and go on?

After all of the above, and assuming our mission is NOT to transport or feed troops, just to sail and patrol and show flag and yadda, whats a reasonable mass fraction for cargo for 6 month deployment?  For a year?

Edit:  I know these are messy questions.  If my design enginners ‘guess wrong’, then we can always do things like sail ships with less than full fighter carriage, etc. for peacetime patrols, design colliers, etc. (Since most of ship cost is in KF drive, colliers are strange).  Dont feel pressures to give a perfect answer, just a ballpark gut guess.  I know IRL busy and has priority, and I think i speak for all in saying how much we appreciate the time your spending on this.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 20 June 2018, 12:35:57
I don't have a hard-and-fast number in mind - as with all things, there are diminishing returns. The SLDF builds their ships to be a jack-of-all-trades fleet that can go very long distances with minimal support, if needed, so consider that to be the high end. Canonical non-SLDF ships, particularly in the invasion era, have extremely small bays - the extreme of this is probably the Leviathan II, which has less than 25,000 tons of cargo for a 2,500,000 ton ship with 300 fighters and even a few capital missile tubes. That'd be a monster in the Clan homeworlds, because distances are so short, but in the Inner Sphere it's profoundly short-legged(doubly so when you're using up a lot of that cargo for anti-shipping fighter missiles, which canon doesn't do). Even the less roomy of the House ships tend to do 2-5% cargo.

TBH, I don't know what sort of mountain of spare parts would use up that much mass on a ship, if you're not transporting ground forces or acting as a collier. But based on maxims like "amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics", I assume there's something. You can optimize your WarShips by offloading that cargo need onto a fleet train, and using DS/JS to haul it for you instead of parking it inside your WS. That's far cheaper, and probably more effective in a vacuum. The risk you're running there is that your train could get blown up, but if you avoid that fate it leaves you with ships more powerful than those of someone who carries the cargo inside (very expensive) thick armour plate.

As a rule of thumb, I'd say that a ship that plans to stay fairly close to its bases will use perhaps 5% of its mass for spare parts and food, and a ship that plans to roam long distances(say, the length of a border, with some wandering along the way or sticking around for patrol duty) will need more like 10% of its mass for spare parts and food. Extra ammunition, ground troops, spare fighters, and so on will all be in addition to that. You can carry that in your hull, on your collars, or in your fleet train as you see fit.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 20 June 2018, 12:42:10
I don't have a hard-and-fast number in mind - as with all things, there are diminishing returns. The SLDF builds their ships to be a jack-of-all-trades fleet that can go very long distances with minimal support, if needed, so consider that to be the high end. Canonical non-SLDF ships, particularly in the invasion era, have extremely small bays - the extreme of this is probably the Leviathan II, which has less than 25,000 tons of cargo for a 2,500,000 ton ship with 300 fighters and even a few capital missile tubes. That'd be a monster in the Clan homeworlds, because distances are so short, but in the Inner Sphere it's profoundly short-legged(doubly so when you're using up a lot of that cargo for anti-shipping fighter missiles, which canon doesn't do). Even the less roomy of the House ships tend to do 2-5% cargo.

TBH, I don't know what sort of mountain of spare parts would use up that much mass on a ship, if you're not transporting ground forces or acting as a collier. But based on maxims like "amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics", I assume there's something. You can optimize your WarShips by offloading that cargo need onto a fleet train, and using DS/JS to haul it for you instead of parking it inside your WS. That's far cheaper, and probably more effective in a vacuum. The risk you're running there is that your train could get blown up, but if you avoid that fate it leaves you with ships more powerful than those of someone who carries the cargo inside (very expensive) thick armour plate.

As a rule of thumb, I'd say that a ship that plans to stay fairly close to its bases will use perhaps 5% of its mass for spare parts and food, and a ship that plans to roam long distances(say, the length of a border, with some wandering along the way or sticking around for patrol duty) will need more like 10% of its mass for spare parts and food. Extra ammunition, ground troops, spare fighters, and so on will all be in addition to that. You can carry that in your hull, on your collars, or in your fleet train as you see fit.

Okay! Thats a number we can work with. 

For the record its going to be almost ALL spare parts.  Food is a tiny mass fraction, espc if you budget space to put your bay crews into quarters rather than leaving them in the bays ('Quarters' apparently have really cool recycling that 'Bay' lacks.)

Ill have to look at what this does to the design space/spare cubage at various masses and thrusts.  Its not quite the Tyranny of the Rocket Equation, but between the size of the KF Drive and the size of main drives, things get cramped really, really quick.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 20 June 2018, 13:33:11
The Merc source books usually go very heavy into mantaince stuff. I would suggest that carriers not pay separate cost for the airing however. Ill look around and see how far back you want me to go?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 20 June 2018, 13:59:08

Switching to more fighter production and banking excess for the future.
Also I am assuming just 10% maintenance for all assets (even fighters), for sanity sake.

Code: [Select]
Turn 2350 2360

Available Shipyards
Atreus (3-1*) (3-2*)
Irian (3-1) (3-1)
Loyalty (3-1) (3-1)

Current Assets Qty Total Qty Total
Fighters 0 0 288 1.440
Small Craft 0 0 90 900
Dropships 0 0 27 8.100
Jumpships 0 0 5 2.500
Phalanx (4631) 0 0 2 9.262
Heracles (8874) 0 0 6 53.244
[Insert] (0) 0 0 0 0
[Insert] (0) 0 0 0 0

(All Costs in Millions)
Banked 0 0
Budget 100.000 100.000

Maintenance Costs 0 7.545
Prototype Costs 13.505 0
Shipyard Upgrades* 1 10.000 1 15.000
Research 1.049 0

Construction
Fighters 288 1.440 648 3.240
Small Craft 90 900 84 840
Dropships 27 8.100 12 3.600
Jumpships 5 2.500 0 0
Phalanx (4631) 2 9.262 2 9.262
Heracles (8874) 6 53.244 6 53.244

Total Spent 100.000 92.731
Remaining 0 7.269



Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 20 June 2018, 20:41:23
(As a side note, I'll adjust the budgets for economic growth next turn. It was too much to worry about all at once when I needed to do all the first-turn setup stuff as well.)

Thank you.  I was feeling rather stupid for buying a huge pile of jumpers on turn one, for economic reasons, and then maintaining them, instead of just building wallers.  :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 21 June 2018, 14:30:44
Lyran Commonwealth, Turn 2

First Lord Jaqueline Angler had had, she was certain, less enjoyable mornings.  Maybe sometime in her middy year, involving tequila.  But she could not remember those mornings clearly.  This one was going to be painfully clear for a long time.

"Could you give me the Hegemony numbers again?"

Earmon Dalinger took an unnecessary look down at his notes.  “4 Battlecruisers, 10 Cruisers, 12 Missile Frigates, 12 Destroyers, 16 Corvettes, and 8 Scouts, Mam…” 

 “Thank you, Earmon.  That’s what I thought you said.  And the other two?”

“Six Battlecruisers for the Free Worlds League.  Probably better than the Hegemony Version, though I won’t tell them that if you don’t.  I wouldn’t go near one of them without three of our Frigates under my command.  Lots of heavy cannon, good cruising range, serious fighter complement.  Ive forwarded the details to your noteputer.  Looks like they are expanding their heavy yards – expect that number to climb as soon as the secondary yards come online.  Also a few commerce raiders, but nothing that has any business sharing space with a real warship”

“The Sna… the Combine is being a bit less ambitious.  Kutai is a bit on the agile side, but shes only notionally armed.  8 Naval Lasers and 4 Heavy Capital Missiles on the broadside, and her armor is mainly made of hopes and prayers.  Fubuki is another story… Destroyer class, 12 Class 20 NACs on the broadside – a good choice, I think.  I want some of those guns… backed up by some more light naval lasers.  She would probably take a Heimdaller, though she wouldn’t like it.  Still, all told, with only 4 Kutai and 2 Fubuki, we could probably match them in a stand up fight.”

Angler shook her head.  “The Combine isn’t the problem.  They are busy subjugating Rasalhauge.  I doubt they will stop there, but I think it’ll be something for my sucessor to worry about.  I’m not going to lose sleep over the Hegemony any more than a dinosaur loses sleep over asteroids.  Cant change it.  Why worry.”

“The pressing naval problem is the League.  They know they can’t match the Hegemony any more than we can – than all of us can, together.  Their other neighbor is in a warring states period.. hnh... and if they wanted to bite off pieces of Sian or Sarna, they don’t need six Battlecruisers to do that – they need troop transports.  Jumpships.  Dropships.  Are they building those?”

“No Mam.”  Baron Dalinger watched his old friend with some concern.  She wasn’t a young woman when they first starting working together ten years ago, and the office was aging her fast.  She looked.. tired.  Still, part of his job was to be her sounding board – she was always at her best talking aloud, talking through, a problem in front of an audience – an audience she could trust to speak up if necessary, but which would mostly let her vocalize the problem.

“No, they are not.  So those BCs have to be pointed north.  DAMN the Office of Naval Intelligence for not telling us what they were doing.  We’re a full yard cycle behind and there is no catch-up… not unless the Archons suddenly decide that they want to start paying for parity.  Who was it that said there’s nothing more expensive than a second-best navy?  Nevermind.  It doesn’t matter.”

“And so?”

“We go with proposal 3.  One is off the table… I wanted Kvasir’s as much as the next woman, but she cant overmatch Heracles 1:1, and were going to have to.  We cant afford the time to build up the yards for 4, so the Buri design proposal will have to wait.”
“What about the Kvasir V?”  Dalinger had long been a leading advocate of naval aerospace power, and Angler had wanted to be convinced, but…

“I know the simulations look good.  But those poor brave stupid Rashalhauge patriots couldn’t kill ONE Kutai with TWO HUNDRED fighters, whatever the simulations say.  And Kutai is as you said protected by wishes and optimism.  Heracles actually has armor.”

“But the -drives-, Mam…”

“Again, I know.  But ‘Speed, firepower, armor, pick two’.  And if our girls and boys are fighting, their fighting over either our own civilians, or over some enemy real estate that Command says is worth dying for.  Give me half again our budget and a few decades to catch up, and we can have nice things.  But we don’t have the budget.  Or the decades.  Or, apparently, nice things.  So we build hammers.”

“And the other proposals?”

“Were going to need the recharge stations.  Strategic speed matters more than tactical speed anyway, and if we are outnumbered, we need an edge in strategic agility.  Start production.”

“What about Project Nauglamir?”

“Not yet.  If we build Nauglamir the era of squadrons and sparring is over.  Its all going to be entire navies and death rides and all or nothing.  I don’t want to go there unless we're forced to.”

“Very good, Mam.”

Code: [Select]
Lyran Commonwealth, Turn Beginning 2360
Starting Funds:  0
Starting Shipyards: Alarion: 3/3  New Kyoto: 3/1  Tamar 1  Gibbs 1
Starting Warships:  Heimdaller FF x6 30.438B
Starting Jumpships:  30 15B
Starting Dropships:  0
Starting Small Craft 240 (4 Regiments) 2.4B
Starting Fighters: 4,800 (80 Regiments) 24B
Assets: 71.838


Expenditure Cost (Billions)
Maintenance 7.183 (100%)   
Prototype CA Tyr 7.405
Prototype Station Ribe .175
ProductionTyr x 6 44.3
Production Station Ribe x60 10.5
Jumpship Production: 0
Dropship Production: 0
Small Craft: 0
Fighters: 0
Research:  0
Total: 69.562
Remainder: 10.437


Lyran Commonwealth, Turn Ending 2370
Ending Funds: (with 1B from Marian Hegemony)                                    11.437
Ending Shipyards: Alarion: 3/3  New Kyoto: 3/1  Tamar 1  Gibbs 1
Ending Warships:  Heimdaller FFx6 30.438
Tyr CAx 6 44.3
Ending Stations:                        Ribe Recharge Station x60 10.5
Ending Jumpships:  30 15
Ending Dropships:  0
Ending Small Craft: 240 2.4
Ending Fighters:         4800 24
Asset Value 126.638

Tyr (Heavy Cruiser)

“A good gun causes victory, armor only postpones defeat”
   -Vice Admiral Stephan Osipovic Makarov (Terran, 1849-1904)   

By as early as 2360, the Lyran Admiralty realized it had a problem.  While its general-purpose frigates were able to fill almost any role that could be required of them, one of the roles they were not well suited for was ‘heavy ship of the wall’.  And the Lyran’s neighbors were mass producing heavy warships.

   Long term plans were set aside in the name of immediate answers to a large, and growing, gap in heavy ships of the wall.  A long series of designs was proposed, and discarded.  Giant warships were proposed, a million tons or more.  But the yards to build them did not exist and would not exist for the foreseeable future – the Lyran Navy was charged with defending the Commonwealth with the budget it had, not given the budget it needed to defend the commonwealth.   Carriers were suggested and serious considered, but the inability of 200 Rasalhague fighters to finish off a single, ill-armed and armored light cruiser did not instill First Lord Angler with confidence.  Speed and extreme range firepower was considered – excellent for attritional battle, but useless if a larger navy came to a Lyran world willing to fight.

    This final point carried the day.  Drives only increase tactical mobility.  Operational mobility, throughout a system, is limited by the human body – no warship can burn at more than 1G for long without crippling its crew.   Strategic mobility is limited by the KF-Drive, by onboard supplies, and by the presence or absence of quick charging facilities.  Supplies can be laid on, and quick-charging stations can be built.

   This left tactical mobility.  It had been assumed that 2.5G’s emergency thrust was the minimum required for ‘comfortable’ tactical mobility for modern warships.  But was it?  Navies do not drive into black space looking for one another to fight for the honor of claiming that black space.  Navies fight over objectives.  Jumppoints.  Planets.  Shipyards.  An attacker need only make their way to the target, and the defender should already be there.  These are the product of operational and strategic mobility.  Tactical mobility was useful only for controlling the range of the engagement, and allow a weaker force to defer engagement.  And tactical mobility was exceptionally expensive.  Every half-G of standard thrust consumed about 6% of the raw mass of a vessel.  But after installing a KF Drive and sufficient bunkerage to be useful for more than hanging over a friendly jumppoint or on top of a vulnerable fleet train, that 6% of mass grew to represent a huge proportion of what was left for weapons.

   And the purpose of a warship is to deliver fire, and to protect that fire long enough to accomplish its goal.

   Unburdened from the need for advantageous tactical mobility, and backed up by recharge-resupply stations and significant onboard stowage, the Tyr focuses on  that firepower.   Mobility is poor by modern warship standards – capable of no more than 1.5Gs of sustained thrust.  Resilience is no better than average for a ship of her mass.  All of this is in service of weapons bays that stagger anything in production when she left the slipways.  80 point-defense machine gun mounts are scattered across the nose and side aspects of the ship.  Anti-fighter work is performed by 80 Barracuda missile tubes – chosen for the role for their ability to accurately destroy enemy fighters from the edge of those own fighters launch envelope (forcing enemy fighters to shoot at long range and poor accuracy, or weather an incoming missile storm while burdened with attack munitions.  When not used in that role, those same launchers serve to supplement the broadside fire that is the Tyr’s reason for existence.

   Each side mounts 16 Heavy Naval Lasers, chosen for their ability to match range with any other weapon in space, and to ensure that Tyr is not left unable to reply against a more agile foe.  Backing those lasers up in that role are 20 tubes each for Killer Whale and White Shark Missiles, supported by the Barracuda tubes.  This allows Tyr to match the extended-range firepower of any vessel in space, before its heavy guns come into play. 

   The main broadside weight comes from three triple NAC/20 mounts on each corner.  While slightly less weight efficient than the more commonly chosen NAC/30, the Tyr’s designers had mass to burn, and accuracy of fire is at least as important as its weight.  Any opponent attempting to duck ‘under’ the Tyr’s missile and laser firepower to deliver its own Naval Autocannon hammer blows will find itself facing 18-NAC broadsides, each likely with more range and accuracy than its own… and the missiles and lasers are still firing, and still hitting…

   She is not without her detractors.   Fighter and small craft carriage is light, sacrificed in honor of gunpower and long deployment times.  Armor could be heavier if the more robust 2.5G design had been chosen.  And more than one commander expressed a desire for far greater tactical agility.  But time had run out, and the Commonwealth needed something.

   Only time would tell if she got what she needed.

Code: [Select]
Tyr (CA)
Tech: Inner Sphere
Introduced: 2360
Mass: 750,000 tons
Length: 1243 meters
Width:  321 meters
Height:  220 meters
Sail Diameter: 1245 meters
Fuel: 4,000 tons (10,000)
Tons/Burn-day: 39.52
Safe Thrust: 2
Maximum Thrust: 3
Sail Integrity: 5
KF Drive Integrity: 16
Heat Sinks: 7,080 (100%)
Structural Integrity: 90
BV2: 274,103
Cost:  $7.405B  (Loaded)

Armor
Fore: 87
Fore-Sides: 105
Aft-Sides: 105
Aft: 87

Cargo
Bay 1 (Nose): 84 Marines
Bay 2 (RBS):  10 Fighters, 3 Small Craft (6 Doors)
Bay 3 (LBS):  10 Fighters, 3 Small Craft (6 Doors)
Bay 4 (Aft):  50,121 Tons Cargo (2 Doors)


DropShip Capacity: 0
Grav Decks: 2 (180 meters diameter)
Escape Pods: 50
Life Boats: 50

Crew:  488
Marines:    84

All Crew, Marines in 1st/2nd Class Quarters

Ammunition: 400 Barracuda Missiles
  200 White Shark Missiles
  200 Killer Whale Missiles
8000 MG Rounds

Notes:
Small NCSS
Mounts 1,350 tons of Standard armor. 
100% of required heat sinks
Quirks:  Easy to Maintain, Improved Communications, Poor Performance

Weapons:

Nose: Damage
20 Barracuda (100 Rnds)         40
20 MG (2000 Rnds)

Fore Left/Right:
8 NL/55 44
9 NAC/20 (900 Rnds) 180

Broadside:
20 Barracuda (100 Rnds)         40
20 White Shark (100 Rnds) 60
20 Killer Whale (100 Rnds) 80
20 MG (2000 Rnds)

Aft Left/Right:
8 NL/55 44
9 NAC/20 (900 Rnds) 180


Rear:
20 Barracuda (100 Rnds)         40
20 MG (2000 Rnds)

Ribe (Recharge Station)

“Amateurs study tactics.  Armchair generals study strategy.  Professionals study logistics”
   -Author Unknown

   The humble recharge station is likely well known to the modern reader, as is their near-ubqitous nature throughout Lyran space.  What may be less well known is why.

   The first recharge stations mass produced outside the Terran Hegemony were the Chongzhi stations developed by the St. Ives Mercantile League.  Billed as a ‘purely civilian station’, the Chongzhi was still admirably well armed, armored, and carried a number of small craft to aid in loading and unloading. 

   The Lyran Navy looked on the Chongzhi, and saw a solution to a burgeoning problem.  They were flanked on all sides by superior forces.  Building ships with enough stowage to cruise those long borders and still remain combat worthy was difficult, and needing to reshuffle limited vessels from one border to another demanded more speed than the K-F drive could deliver.  Also, trade was the lifeblood of the nation, and competition between various competing mercantile interstellar for the lucrative recharge business was serving no purpose but to drive further wedges between the three founding nations of our great commonwealth.

   The Ribe, named for a northern port on old Terra, adopts a slightly different approach than her parent Chongzhi.  More focused on commercial than military pursuits, she is more lightly armored, and trades the array of autocannon for bays for up to 60 fighters intended to deter and defeat raids on the station from a safe distance.  Such fighters are usually distributed based on local threat assessments, and on quieter worlds deep in friendly space only a squadron may be present.   These are supplemented by bays for an equal number of small craft, either cargo shuttles or in some cases heavy attack boats, intended to supplement the fighters. 

Like the small craft, the cargo storage is also dual purpose.  In protected space, it serves as support to mercantile efforts, and is available to merchants at well below cost, as are the recharging facilities themselves.  On hostile borders or over high military traffic worlds, the Ribe’s 60,000 tons of storage is reserved for military supplies, making each one a miniature resupply base to allow the vessels of the Lyran Navy to cruise at length without drawing down their own internal supplies, leaving them fully loaded and ‘agile’ in response to any developing situation.

As is typical of Lyran military projects, berthing for all crew is to a high standard, with the cost in space and weight associated being considered worth it to provide better long term efficiency and morale.  The extensive quarters set aside for combat pilots are often repurposed as hotel space, and the large grav deck as entertainment/recreation areas, on Ribe class stations far from hostile space.

Code: [Select]
Ribe (Recharge Station)
Tech: Inner Sphere
Introduced: 2360
Mass: 500,000 tons
Diameter:  410M (Sphere)
Fuel: 1,200 tons (300 points)
Tons/Burn-day: 3.95
Safe Thrust: .02
Heat Sinks: 154 (Unused)
Structural Integrity: 1
BV2: 2,199
Cost:  $175 Million

Armor
Fore: 20
Fore-Sides: 20
Aft-Sides: 20
Aft: 20

Cargo
Bay 1 (Nose): 60 Fighters, (4 Doors)
Bay 2 (Aft):  60 Small Craft, 61,213 Tons Cargo (6 Doors)

DropShip Capacity: 0
Grav Decks: 1 (250 meters diameter)
Escape Pods: 40
Life Boats: 40

Crew:  515
(All first or second class quarters)


Ammunition:  6000 MG Rounds

Notes:
4 Energy Storage Batteries

Weapons:
60 Machine Guns (10 per facing)


Notes on Deployment:
Ships will usually function in 3 squadrons of 4, 2 CA and 2 FF.  One FF may be detached from the squadron to address secondary objectives, but a minimum force of 2 Heavy Cruisers with one Frigate for support should remain concentrated at all times.  In general service, one squadron is associated with each of the border shipyards, patrolling from there. 

Recharge stations currently cover half of the Lyran flagged worlds, focused on high traffic/trade worlds, borders, and 'least time' bridges between areas of interest.  Forward recharge stations keep their fighter bays full, and if a war warning is issued, all will be brought up to full deployment.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 21 June 2018, 15:56:47
Okay, I seriously love that fluff. Very well written.

Also, how is the Ribe that cheap? It's a quarter the price of a Chongzi, and I didn't think AC/2s were that expensive(looks like about $33M for the full set on a Chongzi, even with the station cost multiplier).
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 21 June 2018, 16:17:51

Yes, indeed great fluff, it really sets the standard for my next turn.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 21 June 2018, 16:18:02
Deleted duplicate
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 21 June 2018, 16:30:38
Let me run Ribe and Chongzi through my spreadsheet again.  I think I found that stripping out things like guns and armor made all the difference, because the station cost mulitplier is painful, but I'll double check.  In the laternate, put Ribe through your spreadsheet?

I cant use your spreadsheet cause work.

PS:  Thanks on the fluff.  Its.. a bad imitation of several authors styles.

When I run Chongzhi through my spreadsheet, my cost is close to the same as yours.. w/in about 10%.

Its guns, and armor, that make up most of the difference.  As does the second grav deck.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 21 June 2018, 16:37:31
Amusingly, I also can't Google Sheets because work - I do all my designs at home. And yeah, it seems a bit Weber-ish, but unlike Weber I'm not sick of your style yet ;)

It seems like two things happened here. One, the actual difference in costs, but two, I changed how I wrote up turns halfway through. I saw $677M for the prototype Chongzi and forgot that I used to post the doubled cost, instead of breaking the R&D costs off to a separate line. So the unit cost is actually $338M, which is much closer to yours.

I must say, while the armour and defences make sense for a weird little group of communists, I didn't expect they were that expensive when I made the design. Even with it being cheaper than I thought, clearly I may need to pay more attention to the cost trade-offs.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 21 June 2018, 16:41:08

Should there be an unified style in which we track turns in excel?

This would make it far easier for you to track everything.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 21 June 2018, 16:55:09
Amusingly, I also can't Google Sheets because work - I do all my designs at home. And yeah, it seems a bit Weber-ish, but unlike Weber I'm not sick of your style yet ;)

It seems like two things happened here. One, the actual difference in costs, but two, I changed how I wrote up turns halfway through. I saw $677M for the prototype Chongzi and forgot that I used to post the doubled cost, instead of breaking the R&D costs off to a separate line. So the unit cost is actually $338M, which is much closer to yours.

I must say, while the armour and defences make sense for a weird little group of communists, I didn't expect they were that expensive when I made the design. Even with it being cheaper than I thought, clearly I may need to pay more attention to the cost trade-offs.

Well, it depends on how many you are building.  I have a a lot more worlds than the space commies, relative to my budget.  And I fully intend to drop a recharge station over the other 60 worlds next turn.  I just can't justify 60 or 120 very expensive, well defended stations.  The Chongzi may make perfect sense for the people who built them.

But I also have a lot more strategic depth than they do.  Most of my worlds are unlikely to ever even be raided - wandering 5 or 10 jumps from home port is a great way to lose commerce raiders.  So I build them to have ‘defenses if they need them’ - thus fighters that can deploy to stations in bad neighborhoods.  60 fighters wont stand off a real warship - but no station I can afford to mass produce will -anyway-, so I dont bother.  What 60 fighters will do is bloody murder a jumpship/carrier dropship raiding force, and present a lethal threat to any 'raider' style warship.

RE:  Weber - Its VERY hard to write 'space naval battle' without falling into a Weberesque voice.  Im hoping to aim for EARLY Weber rather than later.  (I say this while I write about a meeting - but I think an important meeting.  When the battle reports come in, I'll write space battles). 

Hopefully having an actual evolving universe with other players driving the action will help me avoid the cyclic escalation and 'suddenly, a new challenger appears!' of the Honorverse, as well as the semi-annual technical upgrades obviating everything that came before.

Actually, I am hoping to eventually develop my own voice, even if I am writing about similar things.  But some concepts (First Space Lord, I just love the title... 'Wall of Battle'.. again, fitting a 3D Line of Battle in Space) are going to stick.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 21 June 2018, 19:48:19
Marian Action News Network ( MANN )
Nova Roma, Alphard
Aerarium Marianes ( Marian Treasury )

" The Senate passed a late night bill last night, concerning the Marianes Navis. While the bill didn't mention much, it did define the actions of the Design Committee that oversees the construction of the Marian Fleet, currently considered anemic by some in the field.

In other news, the Marian Envoy that was sent to the Taurian Concordat to attempt a Technology Trade, who was rebutted and sent packing, is on her way back stopping by the  Lyran Commonwealth. Where she was wined and dined by the local " Social Generals ", who just wanted attention for themselves. Breaking a contract and gaining support with some liaisons from the Lyran Merchant Fleet, she wandered toward the Dragon. Before leaving she bartered some local technology with some " funsies " from home, to be shipped within the next decade, samples of tinned Alphard Mudskippers in Olive Oil* and a few hundred of Selkie pelts, a local seal that feels warmer than cashmere.

Entering the Draconis Combine to see if she could swing a hull or two, since the Coordinator was busy with his attempt of the Principality of Rasalhague assimilation, he sent his liaisons to meet and possible trade, as his realm was starved for metals, particularly the Terada Warship Yard. The Envoy convinced the Imperator that it was necessary to allow trade with such a powerful neighbor, Pi authorized the trade of three Billions-worth of precious Germanium to be transferred in exchanged for a lend-lease contract to the DCA.

Quoted earlier this month, the Imperator states that the Lothian League and Illyrian Palatinate needs to come ( air quotes ) under protections of the Hegemony. While the Naval Fleet is preforming shakedowns on their new vessels, the Imperator instigated the Aquilifer rank for his ground forces, though any naval personnel can carry it as well. "

                                                    ~ insert from Marian Fleet News

---------------------------------------------------
Current budget: $18 Billion 887 Million
Turn: 2

So I need to improve my fleet some...

Code: [Select]
Scapha I (Militarized Aquila Transport) has been retcon'd
Budget:
Donations : 4 Billion / Millard ( 3 to DCA, 1 to LC )
Building and Fitting costs : ( Including first design ) 2x Scapha ; 6 Billion and 958 Million
    - Includes 64 Fighters and 44 Small Craft needed to make each of the four ships operational.
School : 100 Million -Collegium Bellorum Imperium, Alphard Air Academy
Recruitment Drive : 100 Million


Ending Budget: $7 Billion and 729 Million
Imperator Pi

* Alphard Mudskipper : tastes just like oysters.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 22 June 2018, 00:36:02
Just gonna take a moment to congratulate our GM Alsadius for a great looking Master sheet, with tabs for each factions fleets and yard locations.

So far unfinished, but looks great :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 22 June 2018, 07:40:33
Just gonna take a moment to congratulate our GM Alsadius for a great looking Master sheet, with tabs for each factions fleets and yard locations.

So far unfinished, but looks great :)

Yup, I want to get that done - it'll be way easier to track everything when I have all the designs in one place and one format. Once it's updated, I'll probably give you all write access, and that'll hopefully make processing turns easier for everyone.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 22 June 2018, 12:43:16
Alsadius - can you like the spreadsheet in your first post on first page?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 22 June 2018, 13:14:47
Alsadius - can you like the spreadsheet in your first post on first page?

Whoops, thought I had. I will when I get home.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 22 June 2018, 13:43:03
Just saw its got design summaries and ship counts, at least a place for them.  Could be a handy ‘instant reference’ tool, in terms of ‘hunh whats that thing do again’ withiut having to dig back through various turns being posted to look for the details of this ship or that.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 22 June 2018, 16:24:00
Any room for another player?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 22 June 2018, 18:22:46
One thing missed in the Atago listing on the Master page, probably because I forgot to mention it in her writeup : A Large NCSS
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 22 June 2018, 18:35:26
The spreadsheet has been linked in the OP of this thread. I see a couple of you are on there right now. There's a few things missing - I don't have all nations up to date, and a few of the designs are incomplete, but it's close to finished. I'll try to post some NPC turns soon.

Any room for another player?

Yup! The Capellan Confederation isn't quite formed yet, but it will merge into a single unified power this turn, so if you want them then we can adjust that timeline to make it a bit easier. The Rim Worlds Republic and Taurian Concordat are also large enough nations to be interesting to play. Take a look at the spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rzh-GEbKmiqNfPPj-zQj-9ZqiWKz11MmtqM73815wOo/edit?usp=sharing) if you want to see what their setups look like right now.

(The Principality of Rasalhague and the United Hindu Collective are also available, but I don't recommend either - the Rasalahguers are busy being annihilated, and the UHC never actually engages in any combat before they merge into the FedSuns. The Terran Hegemony is disallowed, because it's too powerful to put in a player's hands.)

One thing missed in the Atago listing on the Master page, probably because I forgot to mention it in her writeup : A Large NCSS

Ah, thanks. Added.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 22 June 2018, 18:42:16
Does the Davion fleet admiral have exact numbers on Fighters, Small Craft and Cargo for his ships? Unfortunately they don't automatically appear on the TRO workup on the spreadsheet for some reason.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 22 June 2018, 18:45:25
RE:  Ammo Light on Tyr -
Note:  Missiles are ammo light (5 rounds fire, roll ship, 5 rounds fire).  But they are only a thrid of her broadside.  The Cannon will run out about never.  100 Rounds per Gun.  :) 

If you care about the exact use doctrine on the missiles, let me know.  Otherwise I wont bug you with them.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 22 June 2018, 18:51:16
The spreadsheet has been linked in the OP of this thread. I see a couple of you are on there right now. There's a few things missing - I don't have all nations up to date, and a few of the designs are incomplete, but it's close to finished. I'll try to post some NPC turns soon.

The spreadsheet is coming along awesomely.  I see you merged the CapCom on the spreadsheet.. looking forward to not doing a turn for 5 different minors?  :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 22 June 2018, 19:06:35
Will the entries for the various minor factions include ships they're using, but don't build?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 22 June 2018, 21:17:02
Refits:  Suggest in addition to difference in cost and a 50% of new final cost ‘design’ (current rules), refits also take yard space and time (maybe half new build time).

Rationale:  Removing all the HNPPCs for NACs on 100 McKennas should not happen instantly for a one time cost of 1/2 a McKenna.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 23 June 2018, 00:12:22
One other thing: Apparently the Marians are paying me 1.5Bil/turn for each Trojan, in an effort to pay it off more. Won't adjust my budget this turn, will just save the 1Bil left over for next turn.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 23 June 2018, 00:41:51
I can take Liao and the associated jigsaw pieces if you're okay with that.  The rest of this post assumes that's okay...

Not sure how you want to run the merge but I had some ideas.  Let me know what works, or doesn't work for you.  Most of this is "rough draft" and "thought experiment" level, I'll follow up with hard numbers if you approve of the concepts.

(Also, color me impressed how you've managed all these small nations without getting bogged down or confused.)

At the highest level-

I want to expand one of the yards to level 3.  I'd like the fluff level 4, but with the rules limits in place I'll have to wait a turn.

2 "New" designs will be produced. 
First, An extremely slow (2/3?) 'all guns and armor" ship design, with the major purpose of in system defense.  There will be absolutely minimal cargo, crew space, amenities, etc.  It's a hard knock life.  The motivation for the design is an "all defense" force.  They're designed purposefully to be defensive, to protect the current territory, and be supplied by the planet or station they're assigned to defend.  Crew service will be 1 week on, 2 weeks "off" with said "off" service being luxurious.  This is stickly "non-offensive" in nature, and designed to be non-threatening to our neighbors territories, while simultaniously being a "picking on us will cost you" warning.

The second design will be a "cruise ship" design.  With cargo and "luxurious" berthing and amenities (like casinos, bars, houses of ill repute, etc).  Out of character this is a fluff design for multiple purposes.  a la "killing 2 birds with one stone."  The first...  Building this will require a large investment in shipyards, but because its a "civilian" design and purpose, the various factions of the soon to be Capellan Confederation won't balk at investing in this as a purely "economic" and "non-militaristic" design.  OOC, this gives a good excuse to expand someone's yards using several minor faction's funds.  The design will be available (sellable) to corporations, giving an income resource to the shipyards in the "capellan agreement", and/or be available to outsource to yards outside the capellan's influence.  Further, the first few cruise liners will be owned and operated by a joint enterprise consisting of private firms from the Duchy of Liao, the Capellan Commonality, the Sian Commonwealth, and the St. Ives Mercantile League.  This will not only create a profitable luxury cruise line, but also build a large spy network for the (eventual) Capellan Confederation's navy.  This will give them great insight into what ships come and go from which port in various neighboring star nations.  Finally, these ships have been designed to provide a fleet collier ship...  With sufficient cargo space to carry 2 or more warship's worth of beans and bullets, and the troop quarters luxurious enough to make any "hardship" cruise a forgotten memory.

OOC-  Building slightly mobile defense platforms, for defense and diplomatically speaking not to "scare" our neighbors.  The "cruise ship" design is both fluff to help combine the star nations (if they're already in bed economically...), and to give a fleet collier design in the event Liao _must_ send ships beyond its borders and supply network.

I will type up much more fluffy and fun commentary for the above, assuming it's okay.

In addition, to reflect the serious corruption within the Capellan's sphere, I'm going to add to my costs for building and maintainiing things, and will likely add negative quirks...  But so that I don't handicap myself, if its okay, I'd like to "rules" offset this by saying capellan's get a negatives to their maintenance and ships (Blah-blah's NAC/20 has a tendancy to jam...  while naval reviews found this flaw, somehow the weapon system was green lit for use in the X ship design) kind of thing, but a postive somewhere else...  for "modern 3025" capellans, I'd say give them a "we work hard" bonus to compensate, but for this exercise, maybe a soft bonus in luck other places?  If nothing else, I want to fit the fleet engagements to the fluff.  And the fluff means "corruption" is a thing to deal with.  I could "pretend" my budget is much larger than it is, and fluff away the corruption that way, but that doesn't feel right to me.

By 3025, the Liao are known for thier machinations and espionage.  I'd like to establish that now (and theres so fluff that seems to point it for earlier times) and show that superious intelligence of an enemy is a tradition.  But there's no "spying" or "sabotatge" effects in your rules to date.  Is that worth tracking and dealing with?

Given sll this, I'm looking at 4 designs.  1 recharge station, 1 raider, 1 slow-assed system defense, and 1 collier that pretends to be the Royal Carribean of the stars.

Any issues with this?

Fleet doctrine would be-
Raider- 
Engage only at optimal ranges that refuse the opponent the opportunity to strike back.  If the opponent won't chase, attack a secondary target such as asteroid mining facilities when the primary is a planetary orbital system (shipyard/etc).  Prolonged engagements are ideal unless exceeding 50% fuel reserves, in which case its time to dance the bugout boogaloo.  By "ideal" engaging at maximum effective range, then turning and burning for a number of _turns_ until such a time as an optimal firing solution happens again is ideal.  (ie, fight at long range, sacrifice time (turns) to line up the optimal long range shot that _also_ ensures the ship/fleet can still move to keep the distance open.)

For encounters where the enemy has the maneuverability envelope on par or equal to ours, avoid conflict.
For encounters where we minimally hold an advantate (enemy is 4/6 vs. our 5/8), the goal is trifold-
  a.  Engage at range, and attempt to lure the enemy from position.
  b.  If the enemy will not budge, divert to secondary targets/lesser protected targets such as asteroid belt mining operations, jump station, other inhabited planets in system.
  c.  Where possible and the enemy allows, "draw" the enemy out of position, then circle around enemy and attack primary target.
  d.  in all matters, for raider or like vessels, retreat, with intelligence, is far perferable to destruction.

For "non-raider"
  a.  All units are required to defend and assist civilian vessels.  This includes all nations civilians.
  b.  Defense is key.  To defend an ally or defenseless one is holy and ensure's one's place in the next life.
  c.  Offense is key.  Sometimes to defend, one must attack.  If one must attack, one should do so knowing the will of the people is with him.

...

None of this is "official" yet, I want the GM's approval first, and then I'll fluff this (or whats approved) up proper.

Thanks,
Jester.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 23 June 2018, 01:20:57
Mr GM may have other ideas, but I think it may be best if he runs the various bits, does the unification this turn, and then hands it over to you for next turn.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 23 June 2018, 06:21:43
Jester: That seems reasonable as a general approach. It actually fits well with things that are already happening - you already have a raider design in production in Capella (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421609#msg1421609), and there's also a Duchy of Liao ship with heavy armament and very scant crew accommodations (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421660#msg1421660), albeit one that's 4/6 instead of 2/3. Likewise, there's a dedicated recharge station being built en masse in St. Ives (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1420827#msg1420827). I was trying to build up to a level 4 shipyard for the canonical Du Shi Wang in 2380, but I couldn't find a way to make a level 3 yard happen last turn. Also, if you're thinking of a cruise ship/scout ship design, you might want to take a look at this old thread (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=60800.0) for some inspiration(though don't feel obliged to do what I did).

When I was expecting the Capellans to stay NPC, the Capellan turn was going to be done separately. The events of note were going to be a FWL invasion starting in 2366, which rapidly pushes the various realms together into a merger in 2367, and the merged realm fights it out with the Mariks until 2369. Now that it's a PC nation, let's steal a bit of American history here - the Capellans unite in 2360 under an "Articles of Confederation"-style agreement, similar to the EU today. That gives you a fig leaf for treating the nation as a unified whole, so you only need to fuss with one budget and one set of designs, but it also looks weak and disorganized to outsiders. The Mariks invade on schedule, which gives you time to build a fleet that has a hope in hell against a dozen Heracles, and in the stress of the invasion the various realms truly unify, bring in a "Constitution"-style agreement, and become a real nation.

I suspect you'll be cool with that, so feel free to proceed on that basis. You're inheriting the following nations and budgets:
Capellan Commonality: Budget $25B.
Sarna Supremacy: Budget $26B.
Duchy of Liao: Budget $15B.
Sian Commonwealth: Budget $10B.
St. Ives Mercantile League: Budget $10B.
Tikonov Grand Union: Budget $2B.
TOTAL = $89B.

They're already set up as a unified whole on the master sheet. You have 2/1 shipyards in each of Capella, Sarna, and Aldebaran. Counting everyone's losses in combat(and treating lost civilian JumpShips as military ones, because you need to indemnify the merchants when you impress their ships), you currently have 640 fighters, 807 small craft, 78 DropShips, 1 JumpShip, 2 Qinru Zhe raiders, 2 Quzhujian destroyers, and 12 Chongzhi recharge stations. (As a side note, if you want to re-name those classes, feel free. I was trying to keep in flavour, but they're just bad Google Translate transliterations of "raider", "destroyer", and 'recharge", so there's no canon or clever design to worry about.)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 23 June 2018, 07:30:37
I'd like to also congratulate our GM for a fine spreadsheet.

Good job boss!

TT

Side note: Again... if I use Aquilla, which is a standard Jumper, primitive sure, but a standard Jumper, even though it was built as a Warship. Would you consider it that, a Jumper or a Warship?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 23 June 2018, 07:46:25
Below is OOC, and a serious offer, but also for amusement.

Yard Space for Sale:

For coming turn 3, I anticipate having some class 4 yard space open. Interested parties should PM me if they want things built in them.  Intent is to defray cost of yard builds by building stuff for people who dont have/dont have enough space in class 4 yards of their own and dont want to budget for the 40 Billion CBill upgrade right now.

Our crack Lyran Shipwrights will be happy to offer their services in designing the ships as well, at a small additional charge.

Some restrictions may apply.  All usual terms and conditions apply.  The Lyran Commonwealth does not guarantee the suitability for military purposes of anything that they did not design themselves, though workmanship to usual Lyran ‘Teutonic Overenginnered’ standards is a given.  Your mileage may vary.  Offer regretfully not open to representatives of the Draconis Combine, Free Worlds League, Rim Worlds Republic, or the Terran Hegemony (not like you need it - just go collect the damn ascension crystals already)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 23 June 2018, 07:48:31
I'd like to also congratulate our GM for a fine spreadsheet.

Good job boss!

TT

Side note: Again... if I use Aquilla, which is a standard Jumper, primitive sure, but a standard Jumper, even though it was built as a Warship. Would you consider it that, a Jumper or a Warship?

Aquila is formally a ‘Primitive Jumpship’.  People think of them as cargo boats and ‘Jumpships’.  Psychologically they are not warships, any more than a supertanker is.  Rules wise, they are exactly warships, save that they trade a cheaper KF core for reduced jump range (15 LY instead of 30) and a smaller limit on maximum size.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 23 June 2018, 09:40:52
Does anyone know if there are rules for "monitors"(i.e., system-defence ships with no KF drive, but that have WarShip-grade transit engines/structure/armour/weapons) in any of the books? Strategic Ops rules don't seem to cover them, and I don't own Interstellar Ops or Campaign Ops. If such rules exist, they may see some use for defending important planets like Terra. That won't happen this turn, but I'm planning ahead - if nothing else, it's a way to use up some of the TH's rather ludicrous budget on something that's less threatening, but it might also be a good choice for giving the Taurians and RWR a hope in hell when the Reunification War comes around.

Amusingly, the spreadsheet supports them perfectly well right now - the KF drive cost is based on the drive, and the engine/SI/armor costs and weights are based on the transit engine, so a ship with a maneuvering drive and no KF drive gets the x5 cost multiplier of a station with the SI and armour rules of a WarShip, which is actually exactly what I want. But I don't want to use spreadsheet quirks to allow new ship classes, so I'm leaving that off the table for now.

---

The Terran Hegemony remains confident in the current superiority of its overall fleet, but the individual strength of some units being placed in service by minor states has led to some concerns over the potential for attritional losses if combat were ever to occur. In response to these worries, the Terran Hegemony has introduced a new battleship designed to overawe any potential competition - the Monsoon. Weighing a third more than any other active ship, and mounting almost twice as much armour as any other Terran vessel, the Monsoon is truly a force to be reckoned with.

(OOC note: The canon Monsoon mounts 20x medium NPPC, which has been invented by this point in canon, but not in our tech. I've replaced each one with a pair of NL-45, which have the same total mass, damage, heat, and range. This makes it substantially more deadly against fighters than the canonical Monsoon, but it's a bit more of a sandblaster against WarShips.)

Due to the need for shipyard space to produce newer classes, the old Dart cruiser is being removed from active production. The existing fleet of 14 Darts will be maintained in active service. 

Budget: $750B
Monsoon R&D: $14.556B
Shipyard upgrades at Terra(2x level 6, 2x level 4, 2x level 3): $130B
Shipyard upgrades at Keid(level 4, 2x level 2, 2x level 1): $50B
Maintenance: $97.103B

6x Monsoon: $87.336B
10x Quixote: $117.660B
6x Essex: $35.898B
6x Lola: $39.792B
4x Black Lion: $28.172B
6x Cruiser: $45.138B
6x Vigilant: $24.282B
6x Bonaventure: $30.216B

576x Fighter: $2.88B
324x Small Craft: $3.24B
120x DropShip: $36B

Research: $7.727B
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 23 June 2018, 09:53:15
Monitor is not a legal tern or canon in BT. Hence it's an ilegal design by rights, but if your allowing them....

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 23 June 2018, 09:56:04
Does anyone know if there are rules for "monitors"(i.e., system-defence ships with no KF drive, but that have WarShip-grade transit engines/structure/armour/weapons) in any of the books? Strategic Ops rules don't seem to cover them, and I don't own Interstellar Ops or Campaign Ops. If such rules exist, they may see some use for defending important planets like Terra. That won't happen this turn, but I'm planning ahead - if nothing else, it's a way to use up some of the TH's rather ludicrous budget on something that's less threatening, but it might also be a good choice for giving the Taurians and RWR a hope in hell when the Reunification War comes around.

Amusingly, the spreadsheet supports them perfectly well right now - the KF drive cost is based on the drive, and the engine/SI/armor costs and weights are based on the transit engine, so a ship with a maneuvering drive and no KF drive gets the x5 cost multiplier of a station with the SI and armour rules of a WarShip, which is actually exactly what I want. But I don't want to use spreadsheet quirks to allow new ship classes, so I'm leaving that off the table for now.
See XTRO Boondoggles, page 19.
"The monitors possessed fifty percent more firepower than
vessels of the same mass. Unfortunately they had double the crew and their
maintenance costs were triple that of a similar size vessel."
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 23 June 2018, 09:57:22
Monitor is not a legal tern or canon in BT. Hence it's an ilegal design by rights, but if your allowing them....

TT

Not yet. I've seen references to them on the forums before, but I didn't know if that was fan rules or if it was in a book I didn't own. For now, it's just a question about the contents of other rulebooks.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 23 June 2018, 09:57:44
Does anyone know if there are rules for "monitors"(i.e., system-defence ships with no KF drive, but that have WarShip-grade transit engines/structure/armour/weapons) in any of the books? Strategic Ops rules don't seem to cover them, and I don't own Interstellar Ops or Campaign Ops. If such rules exist, they may see some use for defending important planets like Terra. That won't happen this turn, but I'm planning ahead - if nothing else, it's a way to use up some of the TH's rather ludicrous budget on something that's less threatening, but it might also be a good choice for giving the Taurians and RWR a hope in hell when the Reunification War comes around.

Amusingly, the spreadsheet supports them perfectly well right now - the KF drive cost is based on the drive, and the engine/SI/armor costs and weights are based on the transit engine, so a ship with a maneuvering drive and no KF drive gets the x5 cost multiplier of a station with the SI and armour rules of a WarShip, which is actually exactly what I want. But I don't want to use spreadsheet quirks to allow new ship classes, so I'm leaving that off the table for now.

I believe, in canon, there is no such animal, and that the topic was one that in the pat caused heated and nasty debate.

The concern I believe is that if you allow a warship without the vast mass fraction of a KF Core, it becomes hideously force multiplied - as an example...  you could take my Tyr, bump her to 6/9 thrust, triple her SI/Armor, and probably add 50 % to her wetiht if fire as well.  And her cost would plummet in the bargain. 

That said, if anyone can find rules, I am prepared to be corrected.

Edit:  If your concerned about the size of the THN... maybe rearrage their political priorities?  “Confident that their navy could esily handle the combined and forseeable fleets of every minor power at once, while leaving half its fleet home to take tea, Hegemony Politicans instead reprioritized spending to fund civilian priorities like terraforming venus, inventing and building an HPG network, and in a move triggered by watching ancient earth media, buying new personal vehicles for every man, woman, and child in the Sol system under the “Oprah Initiative.”
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 23 June 2018, 11:08:52
I believe, in canon, there is no such animal, and that the topic was one that in the pat caused heated and nasty debate.

The concern I believe is that if you allow a warship without the vast mass fraction of a KF Core, it becomes hideously force multiplied - as an example...  you could take my Tyr, bump her to 6/9 thrust, triple her SI/Armor, and probably add 50 % to her wetiht if fire as well.  And her cost would plummet in the bargain. 

That said, if anyone can find rules, I am prepared to be corrected.

Edit:  If your concerned about the size of the THN... maybe rearrage their political priorities?  “Confident that their navy could esily handle the combined and forseeable fleets of every minor power at once, while leaving half its fleet home to take tea, Hegemony Politicans instead reprioritized spending to fund civilian priorities like terraforming venus, inventing and building an HPG network, and in a move triggered by watching ancient earth media, buying new personal vehicles for every man, woman, and child in the Sol system under the “Oprah Initiative.”

Re monitors, it seems like the same trade-off as stations. A Pratham has about the same damage potential as a Heimdaller(and can keep it up much longer), with twice the armor, for 1/10 of the cost. But it can't leave the system, so it's vastly less flexible - a nation with 20 Heimdallers will obliterate one with 200 Prathams, because they can actually all be in the same place at the same time and defeat the enemy in detail(per Lanchester's laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester%27s_laws), the 20x Heimdaller fleet would be about twice as powerful as the 200x Pratham, as long as they can repair between engagements and the stations are in 200 different places).

Re the Oprah Initiative, perhaps I should. The TH fleet genuinely should be astonishingly powerful by your standards, but maybe I'm over-doing it a bit. They're not quite as crazy as they look - note how weak they are to fighters, and how much combat power they lose to their giant cargo bays - but they have 123 ships and are building 50 new ones this turn. The biggest fleet elsewhere is probably the FWL, with 8+8 - even if they're individually better(and every PC ship really is a lot better than its TH counterpart), they're still badly outnumbered.

I'll give it some thought.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Maingunnery on 23 June 2018, 11:23:23
Re monitors, it seems like the same trade-off as stations. A Pratham has about the same damage potential as a Heimdaller(and can keep it up much longer), with twice the armor, for 1/10 of the cost. But it can't leave the system, so it's vastly less flexible - a nation with 20 Heimdallers will obliterate one with 200 Prathams, because they can actually all be in the same place at the same time and defeat the enemy in detail(per Lanchester's laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester%27s_laws), the 20x Heimdaller fleet would be about twice as powerful as the 200x Pratham, as long as they can repair between engagements and the stations are in 200 different places).

Re the Oprah Initiative, perhaps I should. The TH fleet genuinely should be astonishingly powerful by your standards, but maybe I'm over-doing it a bit. They're not quite as crazy as they look - note how weak they are to fighters, and how much combat power they lose to their giant cargo bays - but they have 123 ships and are building 50 new ones this turn. The biggest fleet elsewhere is probably the FWL, with 8+8 - even if they're individually better(and every PC ship really is a lot better than its TH counterpart), they're still badly outnumbered.

I'll give it some thought.
There is a canon example of the monitor concept, the prototype (just without KF drive) nearly broke apart on the first test as the KF drive also functioned as the keel. The second set of prototypes added massive reinforcements, taking away most of the weight savings, but leaving enough to upgrade the weaponry by 50%. But with the downsides as describes by my earlier post.
 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 23 June 2018, 12:13:28
Re monitors, it seems like the same trade-off as stations. A Pratham has about the same damage potential as a Heimdaller(and can keep it up much longer), with twice the armor, for 1/10 of the cost. But it can't leave the system, so it's vastly less flexible - a nation with 20 Heimdallers will obliterate one with 200 Prathams, because they can actually all be in the same place at the same time and defeat the enemy in detail(per Lanchester's laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester%27s_laws), the 20x Heimdaller fleet would be about twice as powerful as the 200x Pratham, as long as they can repair between engagements and the stations are in 200 different places).

Re the Oprah Initiative, perhaps I should. The TH fleet genuinely should be astonishingly powerful by your standards, but maybe I'm over-doing it a bit. They're not quite as crazy as they look - note how weak they are to fighters, and how much combat power they lose to their giant cargo bays - but they have 123 ships and are building 50 new ones this turn. The biggest fleet elsewhere is probably the FWL, with 8+8 - even if they're individually better(and every PC ship really is a lot better than its TH counterpart), they're still badly outnumbered.

I'll give it some thought.

Well, FWIW, if you want to let people put drives on stations and call it a monitor (or whatever), I wont lose sleep.  Heck, if you want to let them put docking collars on stations so they can ride from system to system on docking collars, I'll try to find a way to use that to my advantage.

As for 8+8... Im hearing the Lyran people chant 'we want 8 and we wont wait'.. but of course they will have to.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Atarlost on 23 June 2018, 13:07:53
There's no more reason for monitors to have maintenance issues than for the Star League to be unable to build a working carrier.  Someone contracted incompetent morons to do the construction and used the failure to justify abandoning the concept, presumably in the name of graft. 

I'm not sure why nobody else built monitors, though.  Even with no weight savings at all they can't fail to be cheaper as long as the minerals used in jump cores are scarce.  The political advantages are also significant for many states.  They're a local force the central government can't be tempted to reallocate ever and they're a defense against warships that can't be construed as aggressive and can be argued to not count against any naval arms limitations treaties that might eventually exist.

I think the problem from the PtBs point of view is that they're hard to get rid of.  Every non-territorial shipyard would have had them when the Star League fell and any that didn't get attacked with warships or lots of Alamos in the first or second succession war would still have them until they were destroyed by Clanners or Blakists.  That means retconning some operations. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 23 June 2018, 13:12:46
Well, unless they are insanely cheaper, or insanely better, than a warship, they are kinda terrible.  Warships move, and move other things.  Dropships can be moved, and are handy to move things around in a system.  Take the KF drive out of a warship, and its just a giant glorified dropper that can never ever move strategically.

Maybe slap a few over capital and other super-special systems.  Ifififififif they are really good and cheap.  But even if they are 1/10 the cost of a warship...  if your a 100 planet empire and you build 10 over each planet and the other team just builds a hundred warships, hes goong to cruise around and crush them all with advantage of numbers.

Might be worthwhile, as I said, over a few places so important yould be permanently stationing warships -anyway-... but even for that Im more likely to go combat droppers or fighter squadrons.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 23 June 2018, 13:24:24
Well, unless they are insanely cheaper, or insanely better, than a warship, they are kinda terrible.  Warships move, and move other things.  Dropships can be moved, and are handy to move things around in a system.  Take the KF drive out of a warship, and its just a giant glorified dropper that can never ever move strategically.

Maybe slap a few over capital and other super-special systems.  Ifififififif they are really good and cheap.  But even if they are 1/10 the cost of a warship...  if your a 100 planet empire and you build 10 over each planet and the other team just builds a hundred warships, hes goong to cruise around and crush them all with advantage of numbers.

Might be worthwhile, as I said, over a few places so important yould be permanently stationing warships -anyway-... but even for that Im more likely to go combat droppers or fighter squadrons.

Of course. The use cases are all shipyard systems and capitals, IMO, with maybe a few scattered ones in the small empires like the Taurians. Trying to build a navy composed of monitors for a major power would be obvious idiocy, which is why even a game as layered with old rules cruft as BT doesn't have rules for them.

Actually, maybe that's the limitation to impose - they take shipyard space(at the same build rate as AMCs, 4/yard/turn), so it's not even possible to use them in non-yard systems.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 23 June 2018, 13:27:20
Better to just leave them out, IMHO.  I think stations get us there without needing a non-canon unit.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Vition2 on 23 June 2018, 14:30:51
When it comes to monitors the biggest issue is that we don't have official construction or cost rules.  We have some basic, fluff-based, guidelines for construction but nothing specific and zero reference for costs and maintenance issues.  And I'll note that the monitors were better in combat per ton than a warship

What we have is what was mentioned above by Maingunnery:
- 50% more firepower (this suggests to me that the "keel" is roughly 25% of the mass of the warship, rather than the 45.25% of K-F Drives)
- Double crew requirements
- Triple the maintenance cost of a similar sized vessel (suggests to me a 250kt monitor will have a similar maintenance cost as three 250kt warships)

So it's not as simple as just ripping out the K-F drive and saying that's good, there's more to it.  So Alsadius, this is your story, but if you want to use what little canon there is on these ship types, you are looking at a significant amount of house ruling the creation and upkeep of these vessels.

While I'm not participating in this exercise, I am following it with some amount of interest, but I know my vote counts for less than those actually participating.  I see adding these into the mix as being more trouble than they are worth - you'd have to balance their costs with other warships and dropships as well as basically create their construction and cost rules from the ground up.

Regardless, I'll still be watching this with interest to see what people come up with, particularly in how the actual fleets begin to take shape into proper fleet doctrines.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 23 June 2018, 14:42:55
Yeah, you guys have convinced me. I think they ought to exist, but if I'm modifying canon based on how I think things ought to work, monitors wouldn't be my starting point.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 23 June 2018, 16:10:50
Here is my turn for 2361-70. I hope you guys like reading.

Panic grips the Federated Suns!

The brief battle in the Highspire system in 2358, or the "Highspire Affair" as it later became known as, blindsided the Federated Suns. Both the Administration and Public could not believe that the upstart Capellans had not only managed to construct a warship which rivaled their own and used it so effectively, while their own navy looked amateurish and incompetent in comparison.

The media was swift to place the blame on the commander of the FSS Albion, Rear Admiral Charles Arthur. Accusations flew both from the public, and government that the admiral was incompetent, that he lacked drive and aggressiveness, that he had attained his station by the efforts of a secret society, that he was secretly a Draconis agent, and strangely, that he fancied Capellan tabbies.

In an attempt to put themselves in front of the situation as best as they could, the princes agreed that an investigation was needed to determine the cause of their near-cataclysmic failure. The following year an inquiry in to the Highspire incident was launched. While some wished to steer the investigation more towards deficiencies in procurement and intelligence, public, and ultimately political pressure quickly switched the focus again to Admiral Arthur and his handling of the battle. In his testimony the Admiral vehemently defended his actions, claiming that had he been given proper information about the Capellan ship's capabilities and sensible orders from the Admiralty he would have not engaged in such a risky operation, or that if the rest of the fleet hadn't been deployed "in the ass-end of nowhere" he would have had a chance. He further went on to claim that he was told, in person, by the head of the Federated Suns Navy Intelligence (FSNI) prior to embarking on his cruise, that the "Cappie tub only has half of what their propaganda claims".

The FSNI head subsequently denied any such conversation ever took place.

On August 20th 2364 Avalon City Police, acting on information leaked to them from the military, enacted a search of Admiral Arthur's residence. Upon conclusion of the search, the Admiral was arrested and charged with, possession of child pornography, possession of a controlled substance, racketeering, and unsafe storage of firearms. With such serious charges leveled against him it seemed certain that the now disgraced Admiral would spend the remainder of his life behind bars.

Mere hours after his release on bail on the night of September 3rd, officers of the Avalon City Police responded to calls of a disturbance at the Arthur residence. Upon entering the home, officers quickly found the Admiral dead of an apparent overdose. The next 48 hours on New Avalon were a wash with conflicting and contradictory reports either claiming that both the Admiral and his Lawyer, were both found dead at the residence, That the Admiral had been murdered by a prostitute, or that the Admiral had killed himself with a single point-blank shot to the back of his head.

In the end, it was established by the lead investigator Detective Andrew McMurray, that Admiral Arthur had indeed committed suicide by ingestion of some unknown narcotic which had caused an immediate and fatal cardiac arrest. The detective also established that, contrary to information circulating online, there was no evidence of any struggle at the residence, and that security camera footage showing several unknown individuals arriving at the home in an unmarked sedan was fabricated.

Soon after the police closed the investigation in to Admiral Arthur's suicide, the Highspire inquiry also reached its conclusion. After four years of investigation and deliberation it was decided that fault for the Higspire incident rested solely on Admiral Arthur's poor handling of the situation. His overconfidence and lack of tactical acumen were to blame for the deaths of the 6 AFFS pilots, 32 crewmen and near-loss of the FSS Albion. The inquiry also recommended that to combat the rise of any further officers of Arthur's "caliber" that a new and independent, and most importantly strictly naval academy be constructed on New Avalon, and that a through screening process be enacted for any officers selected for warship command.

While many decried the investigation as a sideshow, claiming the real fault lie with the bureau of ships for not equipping the Albion-class with effective sensors, and FSNI for for failing to execute their job with even the basic hint of competence, the public had seized on the spectacle, and any and all other AFFS deficiencies were quietly swept under the rug.

It is also interesting to note that, while generally ignored by the public, shortly after the conclusion of the Highspire inquiry a memo from the privy council to the head of Universal Ship Yards was leaked online on Delevan. The document, which was  swiftly denounced as a forgery, consisted of one line "Following OPCM investigation, any further bids must include NCSS."

Aftermath

With the Federated Suns Navy paralyzed by the Highspire Affair, there was no will or capacity to enact any risky new projects like in the decade prior. This lead to the unfortunate cancellation of several promising new projects, or alterations to the Galahad and Albion programs which would have filled serious gaps in FSN capability.

One silver lining however is that with a sizable hunk of funding available and construction of new warship classes career suicide at this point, an unassuming procurement program called the Recharge Initiative was able to gain serious traction.

Federation-class recharge Station

After the conflict in Tikonov, it was readily apparent that to properly enact their strategy of rapid deployment and maneuver warfare, in both offence and defense, the Federated Suns required the capability to quickly recharge both jumpships and warships. Command circuits proved too costly, and while they delivered troops rapidly it proved to be in too limited a capacity, and it was not feasible to have their limited stable of warships deployed evenly across the frontier, and be able to react en-masse while relying on their own jump-sails for recharge.

To solve this a group of planners and engineers, who called themselves the Recharge Initiative, put forth the plan to rapidly construct and deploy inexpensive charging stations across the Federated Suns. The stations would be primarily armed with fighters which would both keep production costs down, and allow the stations to project substantial power far outside of the range of even capital-class weapons.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Federation-class Recharge station
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $287,325,000.00
Magazine Cost: $92,240.00
BV2: 10,048

Mass: 400,000
K-F Drive System: None
Power Plant: Station-Keeping Drive
Safe Thrust:
Maximum Thrust: 0
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
24 AC 2
48 Machine Gun (IS)

Class/Model/Name: Federation-class Recharge station
Mass: 400,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 4,800
Thrust
Safe:
Maximum: 0
Controls: 400
K-F Hyperdrive: None (0 Integrity) 0
Jump Sail: (0 Integrity) 0
Structural Integrity: 1 4,000
Total Heat Sinks: 142 Single
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 10000 points 4,080
Fire Control Computers: 0
Armor: 558 pts Standard 1,393
Fore: 93
Fore-Left/Right: 93/93
Aft-Left/Right: 93/93
Aft: 93

Dropship Capacity: 0
Grav Decks:
Small: 0
Medium: 2 200
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 70 490
Life Boats: 0

Crew And Passengers:
23 Officers in 2nd Class Quarters 161
102 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 714
12 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 84
396 Bay Personnel 0
25 1st Class Passengers 250
50 2nd Class Passengers 350
Steerage Passengers 0

# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
4 AC 2 Nose 4 8 (0.8-C) Long 24
8 Machine Gun (IS) Nose 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
4 AC 2 FR 4 8 (0.8-C) Long 24
8 Machine Gun (IS) FR 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
4 AC 2 FL 4 8 (0.8-C) Long 24
8 Machine Gun (IS) FL 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
4 AC 2 AR 4 8 (0.8-C) Long 24
8 Machine Gun (IS) AR 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
4 AC 2 AL 4 8 (0.8-C) Long 24
8 Machine Gun (IS) AL 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4
4 AC 2 Aft 4 8 (0.8-C) Long 24
8 Machine Gun (IS) Aft 16 (1.6-C) Short-PDS 4

Ammo Rounds Mass
AC 2 Ammo 1920 42.67
Machine Gun (IS) Ammo 10000 50.00

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
36 Bay Small Craft 7,200 2
36 Bay Fighter 5,400 8
36 Bay Fighter 5,400 2
36 Bay Fighter 5,400
3 Energy Storage Battery 300,000
59,000 Cargo, Standard 59,000

Administration
Budget - 91
Upkeep - 3.126

Upgrades
Delevan shipyard (1->2) - 10

R&D
Federated-class Recharge Station - 0.287

Construction

Ships
2x Galahad-class Cruiser - 21.575
4x Albion-class Frigate - 28.354

Stations
20x Federation-class Recharge station - 5.746

Misc
10x Jumpship - 5
14x Lt Dropship - 4.2
2000x Fighter - 10

Research & Other
Research - 1.209
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Atarlost on 23 June 2018, 16:26:47
I would suggest that monitor rules can be so simple as to be practically trivial. 

Declare that the KF core is an integral part of the warship heat management system and is what makes warships not have the higher price multiplier of dropships. 

Monitors are built exactly like warships with a lump of inert something other than germanium taking the place of the KF core.  The only construction difference is a lower price multiplier.  Since it's a multiplier you just multiply the final value the spreadsheet gives by some 0<n<1. 

Monitors are diplomatically and politically treated as space stations. 

The only balance decision is what the new multiplier should be and since you're not actually simulating out combats you don't really need to worry about fine balance between monitors and stations and any number you pull out of your hat is as good as any other as long as it's less than than that for warships.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 23 June 2018, 21:02:54
Does the Davion fleet admiral have exact numbers on Fighters, Small Craft and Cargo for his ships? Unfortunately they don't automatically appear on the TRO workup on the spreadsheet for some reason.

I do, and Alsadius has read-access to all my master sheets as well. Unfortunately there were quite a few errors in the spreadsheet he originally provided me the link for. I'll get around to copying things over to the fixed sheet and modifying my turn 1 post tomorrow at some point.

As for sub-caps that is just down to Alsadius copying them from my turn spreadsheet over to the main one.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 24 June 2018, 02:43:02
I would suggest that monitor rules can be so simple as to be practically trivial. 

Declare that the KF core is an integral part of the warship heat management system and is what makes warships not have the higher price multiplier of dropships. 

Monitors are built exactly like warships with a lump of inert something other than germanium taking the place of the KF core.  The only construction difference is a lower price multiplier.  Since it's a multiplier you just multiply the final value the spreadsheet gives by some 0<n<1. 

Monitors are diplomatically and politically treated as space stations. 

The only balance decision is what the new multiplier should be and since you're not actually simulating out combats you don't really need to worry about fine balance between monitors and stations and any number you pull out of your hat is as good as any other as long as it's less than than that for warships.

I have a counter proposal. I have been researching advanced kf drive systems. In doing SI I have had several conversations with the writers and learned a few things. While there really isn't a valid rational from a technology point of view for lack of monitors there is a very real danger of them replacing true warships without serious limiting factors.

Because of the nature of warship keels and and kf drive subsystems like docking collars and kf booms constructing a monitor is far more that just replacing the kf drive with a more reinforced internal structure. Building a monitor requires fusing both warship and dropship construction methods and requires very high end shipyard facilities class 4 or better at least. While theoretically the limits on monitor size are the same s warships moving any craft larger than 300,000 tons becomes problematic because of the collar requierments. Such vessels are also ruinously expensive due to the size of their custom kf booms. Despite being significantly heavier than a equal tonnage warship spaceframe, a monitor spaceframe lack the same rigidity of their warship counterparts. This has the net effect of making the spaceframe more vulnerable to damage than that of a standard warship. Crew requirements are also higher though this was a foreseen consequence because of the increased numbers of weapons and the additional mantaince these ships required due too unique internal structure.

Warning these are experimental rules and are untested. They may not be balanced.

Constructing a monitor, alterations to warship construction rules.

1 Do not mount a kf drive
2 When determining SI follow the first steps as normal. When determining mass multiple SI × ship mass and ÷ by 200.
3 Monitors receive half as many SI points rounding up then a warship of the same SI and mass to reflect the less robust nature of the spaceframe.
4 Recommendation that tonnage be limited too 300k.

When calculating cost use dropship modifiers on SI as the KF boom is part of a ships actual spaceframe.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 24 June 2018, 05:54:08
Personally I vote against allowing Monitors. Can build some scary looking beasts without too much effort, and even if they couldn't leave the system they were built in, that system is now basically untouchable to anyone but the Hegemony.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 24 June 2018, 16:30:36
Here is my turn for 2361-70. I hope you guys like reading.

Kiviar, I love the writing/fluff, and watching it impact the nation.  I also love thst you bought fighters to make sure you had enough to put on your recharge stations!

Fun reading.  Is what makes the exercise worthwhile.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 24 June 2018, 18:11:58
Jester: Any word on your budget and designs this turn? I know I've been slow myself, but I think you're the last human player up, and the remaining NPC nations are fairly easy. (If you need a hand, just ask)

---

Terra Prime, Apollo
January 1, 2360

As part of the Rim Worlds Republic's "Twelfth Decade Initiative", First Consul Arabella Rowe is pleased to announce the plans for the Renaissance Initiative. In keeping with the Republic's known desire to increase commerce and peaceful colonization in its vicinity, a new series of stations and JumpShips will be installed over the next decade, promising single-day transportation between Apollo and Finmark, making stops at several Republic worlds en route. While so-called "command circuits" have previously been used by other realms on an ad-hoc basis, no other nation, fleet, or shipping line has yet created a regularly scheduled service of this nature.

According to First Consul Rowe, "This is an exciting development for the Republic. Our citizens and merchants can now get reliable, economical, and nearly instantaneous transit for themselves and their goods between a dozen of our planets, at guaranteed low prices. It's just one more way that our government is bringing you the Rim Worlds Advantage."

Minister of Trade Michael Durant added hopes for future expansion of the system: "Right now, this will be a weekly service across half the realm, which is already an amazing achievement. But if this is as popular as we expect it might be, we'll be looking to expand it to Timbuktu, or even beyond. We've also ensured that the system has sufficient capacity to increase to twice-weekly service with no need for additional station construction, so we're poised for some really amazing growth here. I'm very much looking forward to seeing what the future will bring."

For more information, please contact the Ministry of Trade's Galactic Commerce Office.

-30-

---

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: Renaissance
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $201,595,000.00
Magazine Cost: $0.00
BV2: 14

Mass: 500,000
K-F Drive System: None
Power Plant: Station-Keeping Drive
Safe Thrust: 0
Maximum Thrust: 0
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
None

Class/Model/Name: Renaissance
Mass: 500,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 6,000
Thrust
Safe: 0
Maximum: 0
Controls: 500
K-F Hyperdrive: None (0 Integrity) 0
Jump Sail: (0 Integrity) 0
Structural Integrity: 1 5,000
Total Heat Sinks: 154 Single
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 5000 points 2,040
Fire Control Computers: 0
Armor: 0 pts Standard 0
Fore: 115
Fore-Left/Right: 115/115
Aft-Left/Right: 115/115
Aft: 115

Dropship Capacity: 0
Grav Decks:
Small: 3 150
Medium: 0
Large: 0
Escape Pods: 35 245
Life Boats: 35 245

Crew And Passengers:
25 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 250
120 Crew in 2nd Class Quarters 840
0 Gunners and Others in 2nd Class Quarters 0
180 Bay Personnel 0
27 1st Class Passengers 270
180 2nd Class Passengers 1,260 (Bay personnel)

(no weapons/ammo)

Number Equipment and Bays Mass Doors
76,000 Cargo, Standard 76,000 6
36 Bay Small Craft 7,200 9
4 Energy Storage Battery 400,000

Renaissance station R&D: $202m
14x Renaissance station: $2.828B
26x JumpShip: $13B
360x Fighter: $1.8B
Maintenance(@100%): $1.86B
Research: $310m
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 24 June 2018, 20:09:39
Crap: Forgot fluff to this..

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1423161#msg1423161 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1423161#msg1423161)

The Scapha was the Marian Hegemony's first homebuilt warship ever, while taking clues from the Draconis Combine Admiraty  Trojan-class ship. On Alphard, the Marian Arms Incorporated, henceforth MAI, was contacted to see if they could handle any type of ship construction. Receiving the word that they could, the Imperator immediately threw open the Aerarium Marianes, or Marian Treasury, and continued to pour Talents, local currency, into the shipyard until a vessel was completed. Named Scapha, or Ear in ancient roman, the ship was to be the " ear " of the Hegemony.

Meant to be seen at every planet in the micro-realm of space, the Scapha and her sister, the Defensor Fortis, both went on a 5 year shakedown-show off. Both being used for a show of force in hopes of showing that they, the Hegemony can ruffle feathers too. Built using 2 broadsides of twin Navis Tormenta X-class Autocannons, they were considered experimental at the time of first installments. As the class was on the drawing boards at MAI, it was conceived as an Aero-Carrier to handle the newly developed Falco( Falcon ), a medium weight Aerospace Fighter and the Buteo( Buzzard / Hawk ), another medium weight Aerospace Fighter, but in this case a bomber, as both are built using the same frame.

When it was originally proposed, the Scapha class Aero-Carrier was deemed too valuable to lose and had their aero-bays exchanged for the more powerful punch of the Tormenta-class. Keeping only twenty of the 200 purposed fighter limit, she's outfitted with the best the Hegemony can produce. The Parva Tormentis, or small cannons as know as Autocannon-5 class, was from the original design specs, as was the Point Defense Jejunium Iaculis, the " Fast Archer " Machine Guns. Assigning most to the side arcs in hopes of catching any unwanted targets in multiple fields of fire. While slow in speed she should be able to provide support, only time will tell.

TT
( All Latin names are from a quick Google search. )
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 24 June 2018, 22:37:19
Sorry, this was one of those never-ending weekends for me.  Coupled with starting a bit late in the week already, its taken me some time to get here. But I have my turn.


Turn 2: 2360-2370

Crunchy, non-fluff bits:
Budget: $89B
Maintenance total:  $6.711B

Upgrades:
Aldebaran upgrade (2>3): $30B

Design:
пивной пиво (Bringer of Beer) R&D: $7.507B

Construction:
10x Chongzhi: $3.38B
1x Qinru Zhe: $7.946B
2x Quzhujian: $11.996B
1x пивной пиво: $7,507B
1200x Fighters: $6B
360 x Small Craft: $3.6B
10x Light Dropships: 3B
Research: $0.353B

One new design this turn, the Cruise Ship/Fleet Collier пивной пиво (Bringer of Beer). 

Code: [Select]

Class/Model/Name: пивной пиво (Bringer of Beer)
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $7,507,618,000.00
Magazine Cost: $176,000.00
BV2: 4,508

Mass: 247,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 2
Maximum Thrust: 3
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
80 AC 2


Class/Model/Name: пивной пиво (Bringer of Beer)
Mass: 247,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 29,640.00
Thrust
Safe: 2
Maximum: 3
Controls: 618.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (7 Integrity) 111,768.00
Jump Sail: (4 Integrity) 43.00
Structural Integrity: 65 16,055.00
Total Heat Sinks: 288 Single
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 6250 points 1,275.00
Fire Control Computers: 0.00
Armor: 120 pts Standard 200.00
Fore: 20
Fore-Left/Right: 20/20
Aft-Left/Right: 20/20
Aft: 20

Dropship Capacity: 2 2,000.00
Grav Decks:
Small: 0.00
Medium: 0.00
Large: 10 5,000.00
Escape Pods: 500 3,500.00
Life Boats: 125 875.00

Crew And Passengers:
21 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 210.00
74 Crew in 1st Class Quarters 740.00
26 Gunners and Others in 1st Class Quarters 260.00
50 Bay Personnel 0.00
1600 1st Class Passengers 16,000.00
2nd Class Passengers 0.00
Steerage Passengers 0.00


Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
AC 2 Nose 10 20 (2-C) Long 60.00
AC 2 FR 10 20 (2-C) 60.00
AC 2 RBS 10 20 (2-C) 60.00
AC 2 AR 10 20 (2-C) 60.00
AC 2 FL 10 20 (2-C) 60.00
AC 2 LBS 10 20 (2-C) 60.00
AC 2 AL 10 20 (2-C) 60.00
AC 2 Aft 10 20 (2-C) 60.00


Ammo Rounds Mass
AC 2 Ammo 8000 177.78


Equipment Mass
NCSS Large 500.00

Perks:
Fire Control software has "Personality."



Fluffy stuff:

Surprise Merger to Bring Prosperity and Growth to the Capellan Zone 
12/03/2359- New Petersberg, Aldebaran, Tikonov Grand Union
  Feng Shui Ships announced they have completed brokering a deal with the Duchy of Liao, St. Ives Mercantile League, and the Capellan Commonality to begin production on a new line of Luxury Cruise ships to ferry the rich and famous as they tour the known universe.  While cautioning everyone present at the grand announcement that nothing had been set in stone, the president of Feng Shui, The Venerable Hyung Li, mentioned that on the best and finest materials would be used.  Platinum sinks, Gold Furniture, the main stairwell to be ballroom would be carved from a sing tree from the singing forest, and kept alive for the live of the ship.
  This reporter remains skeptical in light of her previous award winning series of investigative articles that resulted in nearly half of the ministry of taxes and licenses being indicted for racketeering, bribery, and war-profiteering.  However, the Venerable Mr. Hyung's charism and enthusiasm are hard to resist.


---

"Li, you can't be serious!  The cost overruns are killing us, they're bankrupting us!  Why did you expand the yards, and at such expense, when what we had was already twice as big as we needed to build these boondoggles!"

"Mr. Jonathan, please calm yourself.  I've explained this before, I am an investor.  I invest.  We will need those bigger yards.  I see big things coming, I see mergers and new friendships where enemies once stood.  I see distant enemies coming closer, and I see war.  War the likes we've not seen in our lifetime, in anyone's lifetime.  And we will be ready to profit from it."

"Bu-" 

"Stop.  Breath."

Vasily Jonathan drew a deep breath.  He held it for a count of 10, the slowly released it.  Twice more before he had himself under control.

"Yes, Li, I know that.  But the Duchy of Liao's finance minster has been asking questions.  Very pointed questions.  We promised luxury accomondations for 10,000, and we'll be lucking if we can fit a tenth that.  And the weapons!  Who's bright idea was it to use those Semi-automatic Cannon things?  They've been nothing but problems after problems, the holographic sights require constant maintenace, and the firecontrol software is MOTHERING people!  My lead engineer told me it wouldn't open the door to the fire control room unless he promised to wear a coat, as the local temperature was 'a bit chilly.'"

"Hm, I'll speak with the Finance Minister myself.  He probably wants another 'gift.'  The price of doing business these days, I'm afraid.  And I see nothing wrong with a computer that cares for its crew."

"Sir!  Its in space.  -40C at that.  Not even a parka would help with that.  But the computer was dead serious and wouldn't even listen to my engineer's arguments.  He nearly quit over that.  Said he'd rather spend a year with his Mother-in-law again, than talk to that computer.  He swore if he had to go back to firecon, he was taking an axe with him, and would reprogram her personality with it."

"Hm, high strung individual is he?"

"Not particularly.  That reminds me of another issue.  My engineer says the 'asteroid detection and avoidance' sensors we received for installation?  They're military grade.  There's no way we can afford that, not with how much Singing wood costs!"

"Ah, yes, well only the best for these ships, only the best.  We've said these ships would be the safest ships in the universe.  We'd call them unsinkable if these were blue water ships.  We would surely go out of business if one of our ships hit some debris that we hadn't see."  Li took a deep breath, grimaced, and looked directly into Vasily's eyes.  "Look, Jonathan, I know its a lot to ask, but please make it work.  More than you know depends on this.  The coming together of so many people, it's a terrifying thing, a wonderous thing, and its rife for opportunity.  And opportunity means profit.  I will have that profit."

"Yes, Venerable Hyung Li, yes sir."

---


Somewhere, deep underground, secret and secure.  Mid summer, 2365

"Lon-Duk, your team will debark when the Bringer of Whiskey reaches Terra Firma.  Remember, we don't want to risk war with the Heghogs, so its passive surviellance only.  No active engagements, no hacking, and absolutely no sabotage.  I remember what you did on that mission on Kentares IV, and I don't want another building blown up.  And no, not even if the entire High Command really WAS in the building.  We can't risk provoking the Hegemony.  On the other hand.  Sasha, your team has carte blanche.  Go nuts.  Just.  Don't.  Get.  Caught.  Your primary drop point is Irian.  The so called Free Worlders have shipyards there.  Consider them a prime target.  There are several weapons manufactures, and at least 2 research think-tanks there.  Hack, Assassinate, Sabotage, whatever it takes.  We have credible intelligence that war is coming.  Anything we can do to slow it down, helps us.  We're badly behind, guns, tanks, ships, especially warships, our fellow Capellans need time.  And I aim to give it to them."

"Sarge?"

"Yeah Shin?"

"Its a cruise ship Sarge...  I know we're supposed to blend in, but...  are the usual low-profile rules in effect?  No sex, no drugs, no spacefunk?"

"Shin, your mother dropped you on your head, didn't she?  No, of course they're not in effect.  You could hardly "blend in" with the rich and wealthy if you didn't act like they do, the whoring high drunk inbred elitists!  But I'll have your head as my personal toilet if any of you misbegotten children crew up these missions cause you got talky-talky cause some bit of fluff did the spanky-my-wanky with you.  Got it!"

"SARGENT YES SARGENT!"

---

[excerpt from the 3012 Encyclopedia Brown's History of the Liao Dynasty, pgs 866-867]
In 2361, the first of a long line of trans-world interstellar cruise ships was launched.  Named "Bringer of Beer" the Victorian Royal Carnival Cruise line ran her, and 4 of her sister ships, for nearly a century of service to the rich and famous.  DeadHead Bob, Jamus Johnanson-Lee, even Buckaroo Banzai toured on one of the Bringer ships.  Less known about her class was that Duke Franco Liao directed the building of the ships, entrusting Hyung Li, a childhood friend and close confidant to see it through.  Envisioned as both an economic aid in boosting the Duchy and Capellan economy, it served several duties for the fledgling navy from providing an extensive covert operations and intelligence platform to service as a Fleet Collier and Recreation ship.  These last two services were truly critical to the Duke's needs.  The ships of the Capellan navy, especially the "Home Defense" fleet, were infamous for how bad serving on them was.  No kitchens on some vessels meant a month of MREs.  No grav decks, mandatory 4 and even 5 man hot-bunking, limited or no recreation areas.  This had caused a severe morale problem for the Navy, getting so bad that it lead to two mutinies, and causing recruitment to fall to all time lows.  The Duke hoped to conteract the morale problem by providing a differeance in extremes.  While service on ship was hot, miserable, and nasty, it was 1 or 2 week stints, and earned the men the minimum of equal time on a Bringer of Beer class ship.  With nothing but first class accomodations, single occupancy rooms, silver plated heads, even spas and "houses of relaxation," it was literally heaven and hell for the Navy.  Unfortunately for the Duke, the outbreak of war put a damper on non-essential construction, leaving a shortage of vessels to server the "1 week on, 1 week off" promised the sailers.  Worse, since the ships were built with plenty of cargo space to accomodate wealthy, they were pressed more and more into the Fleet Collier mode, and the occasional losses incurred caused more shortages.  Still, the sailers understood that war meant shortages, that for the greater good, they may have to suffer some, but knowing that eventually they'd get some time on a Bringer's decks made all the difference for the Capellans.

---

To: Duke Franco Liao, Chancellor of the Capellan Confederation
From: The Honorable Admiral, Marko Ramius

Franco,

I have grave news my friend.  I just got the latest intelligence reports from BNI about the Free Worlder's naval construction and its not good.  If they decide to invade, we don't have the hulls to stop them.  We need more ships of the line.  We need more hulls, and we need bigger hulls!  Despite how well the Qinru Zhe did, raiding is not going to save us.  I've attached the dispatches and analysis, but the summary is, if you don't get me more throw-weight, those raiders Horace is gangbusters over won't have any ports to come back to!

Your friend,
Marko.

---
To: Duke Franco Liao, Chancellor of the Capellan Confederation
From: The Venerable Admiral, Horace Shin-Hu

Chancellor Liao,
  In my humblest way, I do ask that you consider the words of our ancestors, Sun-Tzu, that when one is on dangerous groud, one must maneuver.  It is with the deepest apologies that I must say that The Honorable Admiral's turtle strategies will only serve to tempt our enemies more.  His slow ships will not let us manuever.  To hit our enemy where they do not expect it!  To raid their supplies, so that they may not build their ships.  To sieze their shipping, making the very will of their people to bend to us, to cry out against war.  We must strike them, force the initiative, keep them on their heels, and not let them take a breadth.  Let them spread thier ships far and wide, in penny-packets, demanded by their people who scream "protect us!"  That, in this humble servants eyes, is our own option.

Your humble eternal servent,
The Venerable Admiral, Horace Shin-Hu

---

[excerpt from the 3012 Encyclopedia Brown's History of the Liao Dynasty, pg 820]
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.  As the ancient proverb warns, It was interesting times.  The merger of so many people, polities, and societies was chaos.  That war followed so close on its heels only amplified things.  And like all times of great chaos, great things happened, some good, some bad.  Great men rose, great men fell.  Fortunes were made and lost, and lost and made.  With so much political chaos, the fledgling Capellan Navy had little cohesion, run and ruled by fiefdoms of bureaucracy, rife with corruption and greed.  And yet, there were individuals, Admirals and Captains, Sailors and Marines, who rose above the flotsam, and siezed the day.


(I'm not promising fluff like this again...  but I wanted to 'explain' some things while entertaining, and set the stage for my assuming the helm)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 24 June 2018, 22:45:56
Meant to put a fleet total in my crunchy bits:

At the end of turn 2, I show:
Fighters: 1840
Small Craft: 1167
Light DS: 88
Jumpship: 3
Chongzhi: 22
Qinru Zhe: 3
Quzhujian: 4
Bringer of Beer: 1  (6 built, 5 sold, no "profit" due to corruption, thus fluff only effects.)
Shipyards
3x Level 1
2x Level 2
1x Level 3


---

Fleet doctrine is... "mixed" due to the chaos.  Both "raid them" with the Qinru Zhe, and "Stand fast" with the Quzhujian are the competing doctrines of the day.  Feel free to use and abuse that and the "chaos."
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Atarlost on 24 June 2018, 23:24:07
I have a counter proposal. I have been researching advanced kf drive systems. In doing SI I have had several conversations with the writers and learned a few things. While there really isn't a valid rational from a technology point of view for lack of monitors there is a very real danger of them replacing true warships without serious limiting factors.

Only if you have no concept of what a monitor is.  An immobile unit can never replace a mobile unit. 

Because of the nature of warship keels and and kf drive subsystems like docking collars and kf booms constructing a monitor is far more that just replacing the kf drive with a more reinforced internal structure. Building a monitor requires fusing both warship and dropship construction methods and requires very high end shipyard facilities class 4 or better at least. While theoretically the limits on monitor size are the same s warships moving any craft larger than 300,000 tons becomes problematic because of the collar requierments. Such vessels are also ruinously expensive due to the size of their custom kf booms. Despite being significantly heavier than a equal tonnage warship spaceframe, a monitor spaceframe lack the same rigidity of their warship counterparts. This has the net effect of making the spaceframe more vulnerable to damage than that of a standard warship. Crew requirements are also higher though this was a foreseen consequence because of the increased numbers of weapons and the additional mantaince these ships required due too unique internal structure.

This is all absurd.  A monitor is not a dropship.  It needs none of this junk.  Lacking it is in fact the defining characteristic of a monitor.  Any function the KF core performs apart from FTL can be achieved more cheaply by substituting another metal.  Germanium's mechanical and thermal properties are actually rather poor.  As such it is impossible to justify any penalty to monitors built like warships without germanium. 

Your "counterproposal" is also a lot of work and monitor rules that require a lot of work have already been rejected by the GM. 

Personally I vote against allowing Monitors. Can build some scary looking beasts without too much effort, and even if they couldn't leave the system they were built in, that system is now basically untouchable to anyone but the Hegemony.

Alsadius has already shown the math for why this is false.  A small minority of systems might be defended to such a degree if the cost multiplier for monitors was low enough, but to do so would consume the naval budget required for mobile units to defend the rest of the nation and securing only those few shipyard systems while losing the rest of the nation and tax base would still represent defeat. 

The only reason the Terran Hegemony can afford to widely deploy CASPAR units is that they're hijacking the naval budget of the far larger and wealthier Star League.  The Taurian Concordat might be able to support a monitor defense at the Hyades Cluster chokepoint based on resources within the cluster.  Anyone else subjects themselves to defeat in detail by adopting a purely static defensive posture and even the Taurians would have to write off most of their worlds.  And winning the Reunification War would probably still take a miracle even with the munchiest monitor rules ever proposed.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 24 June 2018, 23:46:15
Can we split the monitor discussion, please?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 25 June 2018, 01:53:31
Only if you have no concept of what a monitor is.  An immobile unit can never replace a mobile unit. 

This is all absurd.  A monitor is not a dropship.  It needs none of this junk.  Lacking it is in fact the defining characteristic of a monitor.  Any function the KF core performs apart from FTL can be achieved more cheaply by substituting another metal.  Germanium's mechanical and thermal properties are actually rather poor.  As such it is impossible to justify any penalty to monitors built like warships without germanium. 

Your "counterproposal" is also a lot of work and monitor rules that require a lot of work have already been rejected by the GM. 

I clearly didn't make the information clear enough if you have misunderstood so greatly. I am not purposing an immobile vehicle. It has a transit drive like any warship. What it lacks is ftl.

Second there is far more to a kf drive than just the germanium/titanium core. There is also the hyperspace initiator and a field distribution network that runs throughout the spaceframe from the core to the surface of the ship ensuring that all of the ship transits during a jump. Dropship docking collars are tied directly into this network by special linkages making them a component of the drive as well. This entire system must be excluded during monitor construction. This necessitates structural reinforcement to the entire spaceframe, even with your pseudo-core in place.

Thirdly since monitors lack ftl there is a need of outside ftl transport if it is to be deployed anywhere other than in the system that it was constructed in. This means fitting a kf boom to the monitor.  Much to my surprise I was told that kf booms are not a separate peice of equipment but an integral part of the ships structural frame work. This means that if you intend to move your monitor anywhere outside the yard system then the spaceframe must be constructed in the same manner as a Dropships spaceframe in as much as you are including the kf boom components in it.

Fourth a pseudo core is dead weight that will account for a significant amount of your total available tonnage yet unlike the kf drive will serve no functional purpose. This negates any advantages of the monitor concept. With tonnage at a premium due to the smaller size of the hull any massive tonnage sinks that don't directly benefit the design won't get included.

Now at this point this is all fluff all be it well researched fluff still just fluff.  Given that you didn't actually quote the rules I posted I'm uncertain whether you simply didn't see them or if there's something in the simple alteration to basic warship construction rules you didn't understand and there for can't other any clarification. Any other questions?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 25 June 2018, 02:22:42
Believe the Bringer of Beer is a little off. Warships need to be in 10,000 ton increments.

Other than that, great work
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 25 June 2018, 11:27:52
Believe the Bringer of Beer is a little off. Warships need to be in 10,000 ton increments.

Other than that, great work

I didnt even notice that!

I cant imagine it having any impact on the performance of the 'sphere's largest cruise liner.  Particularly like the 'we need GREAT Meteor Detection' excuse for a LNCSS.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 25 June 2018, 12:45:46
I'm new to shipbuilding with the new rules.  Let's just say I still have an original first run 2750, and there's a ton of "notes" on "warship varients" penciled into it.  So I'm picking up a lot of the new and additional rules on the fly, and wasn't aware that warships had to be in 10kt increments.  Are the official ships just "special" or did they get retconned/rebuilt in a later supplement?  I'm asking cause a few of the canon ships don't follow that rule.  The Vincent, for instance, is 412kt, and the Bug-eye is 6.1kt.

I was just trying to be off on numbers to avoid "min/max" syndrome, which I may or may not have come down with on occasion.  (I once refit all the 3025 mechs equipped with lrm 20s, with lrm5s because they're more mass efficient...  I had to stop that, it annoyed everyone with all the dice rolls from a lance of LRM Carriers...  And I'm sure everyone at some point has tried the MG mech... All crits filled with nothing but MGs, a ton or two of ammo, big engine, tons of armor...  In my defense I was... 13?)

Rebuilt:
Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name: пивной пиво (Bringer of Beer)
Tech: Inner Sphere
Ship Cost: $7,523,462,000.00
Magazine Cost: $176,000.00
BV2: 3,708

Mass: 250,000
K-F Drive System: Compact
Power Plant: Maneuvering Drive
Safe Thrust: 2
Maximum Thrust: 3
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
80 AC 2


Class/Model/Name: пивной пиво (Bringer of Beer)
Mass: 250,000

Equipment: Mass
Drive: 30,000.00
Thrust
Safe: 2
Maximum: 3
Controls: 625.00
K-F Hyperdrive: Compact (7 Integrity) 113,125.00
Jump Sail: (4 Integrity) 43.00
Structural Integrity: 65 16,250.00
Total Heat Sinks: 289 Single
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 3125 points 1,275.00
Fire Control Computers: 0.00
Armor: 80 pts Standard 200.00
Fore: 20
Fore-Left/Right: 20/20
Aft-Left/Right: 20/20
Aft: 20

Dropship Capacity: 2 2,000.00
Grav Decks:
Small: 0.00
Medium: 0.00
Large: 10 5,000.00
Escape Pods: 500 3,500.00
Life Boats: 125 875.00

Crew And Passengers:
21 Officers in 1st Class Quarters 210.00
74 Crew in 1st Class Quarters 740.00
26 Gunners and Others in 1st Class Quarters 260.00
50 Bay Personnel 0.00
1650 1st Class Passengers 16,500.00
2nd Class Passengers 0.00
Steerage Passengers 0.00


# Weapons Loc Heat Damage Range Mass
10 AC 2 Nose 10 20 (2-C) Long 60.00
10 AC 2 FR 10 20 (2-C) 60.00
10 AC 2 RBS 10 20 (2-C) 60.00
10 AC 2 AR 10 20 (2-C) 60.00
10 AC 2 FL 10 20 (2-C) 60.00
10 AC 2 LBS 10 20 (2-C) 60.00
10 AC 2 AL 10 20 (2-C) 60.00
10 AC 2 Aft 10 20 (2-C) 60.00

Ammo Rounds Mass
AC 2 Ammo 8000 177.78

Equipment Mass
NCSS Large 500.00



This changed the price by +$16M, doubled for first ship syndrome, and I'll take the 32M hit as a deficit to keep you from having to rework any tech rolling you might have done already.  Sorry about that.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Vition2 on 25 June 2018, 14:30:42
I'm new to shipbuilding with the new rules.  Let's just say I still have an original first run 2750, and there's a ton of "notes" on "warship varients" penciled into it.  So I'm picking up a lot of the new and additional rules on the fly, and wasn't aware that warships had to be in 10kt increments.  Are the official ships just "special" or did they get retconned/rebuilt in a later supplement?  I'm asking cause a few of the canon ships don't follow that rule.  The Vincent, for instance, is 412kt, and the Bug-eye is 6.1kt.

Most of them were retconned up to the nearest 10kt.  One of the construction rules sets that warships were created using shifted the increments to 10kts, but the original rules allowed increments as low as 1kt.  The bug-eye may still be 6.1kt, it and I think one other warship are special cases as they are also below 100kt.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: DOC_Agren on 25 June 2018, 18:09:30
Not a player but following this and have to say the fluff for the пивной пиво (Bringer of Beer) made me  ;D even if it was a Capellan Design, Well Done.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 25 June 2018, 19:05:12
Alsadius : PM sent, kinda urgent really.

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 26 June 2018, 00:52:42
@DOC_Agren-  Thank you!  That makes the effort worth it.  Glad I could amuse and entertain.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 26 June 2018, 09:57:37
A communique from a group describing itself as "The Provisional Government of the Principality of Rasalhague" has been made public.

Quote
Five years after the magnificent success of the Trondheim operation in 2355 that killed over three times its own weight of forces, the Snake fleet still fears us. They thought that we'd be easy pickings for them - that we'd roll over and die when they showed up. Well, they've learned the error of their ways! They know that we have claws, and that they can't just walk all over us. The heroes of New Bergen have armed our forces, and the heroes of Trondheim have showed us that even their invading fleets can be slaughtered too.

Who do the Snakes deploy their fleets against? They say we're defeated, but they have as many ships devoted to fighting little Rasalhague as they do to whole empires! They call us weak, but they know the truth - each of us fights with the strength of ten! Our forces on our planets are bleeding their garrisons, and our forces in the air and in space are bleeding their fleets. And they will keep bleeding until they leave. We wanted peace, but they've given us thirty years of war instead. And whether it takes thirty more, or three hundred more, or three thousand more, they will never get peace until they give us back what is rightly ours!

- Seija Mannerheim, Elected Princess (Interim) of Rasalhague

---

200x fighter, of course.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 26 June 2018, 10:20:26
and the Bug-eye is 6.1kt.

The Bug-eye uses a slightly different set of rules than other warships, because it has a sub-compact K-F drive rather than a warship's normal compact K-F drive. Ships with Sub-Compact K-F drives are built in the 5000 to 25000 ton range, and if I remember correctly, are built to the nearest 100 tons.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 27 June 2018, 05:07:14
The United Hindu Collective has 17 planets and 6x Pratham in service right now(two of which are at Panpour), so they'll build 12 more to ensure there's at least one per world. They'll also invest in small craft and fighters to fill the stations and to act as system-defence forces, and a set of JumpShips to ferry around the DropShips they bought last turn.

Maintenance(@150%): $2.735B
12x Pratham: $6.06B
1200x fighter: $6B
100x small craft: $1B
8x JumpShip: $4B
Research: $205m

---

The Taurian Concordat is somewhat outside the usual Inner Sphere information net, so they're not entirely aware of how out-gunned their Independance class is. As such, they'll build another, plus a bunch of defensive forces.

Maintenance(@100%): $527m
1x Independence: $4.567B
468x fighter: $2.34B
8x small craft: $80m
1x DropShip: $300m
Research: $186m

(Saved for R&D next turn = $2B)

---

Apparently, the post below was exceeding character length limits with the latest battle added in. As such, I'll move some of that post up to here.

Turn 2: 2360-2369

Previous turn: 2350-2359 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1421728#msg1421728)

Player Turns:
Lyran Commonwealth: Budget $80B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1423015#msg1423015)
Free Worlds League: Budget $100B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1422623#msg1422623)
Draconis Combine: Budget $100B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1422146#msg1422146)
Marian Hegemony: Budget $10B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1423161#msg1423161) (Extra Fluff (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1423884#msg1423884))
Federated Suns: Budget $91B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1423623#msg1423623)
Capellan Confederation: Budget $89B. (Fluff (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1423936#msg1423936), Budget (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1423937#msg1423937), Design (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1424089#msg1424089), Doctrine (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1423507#msg1423507))

NPC Turns:
Terran Hegemony: Budget $750B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1423555#msg1423555)
United Hindu Collective: Budget $20B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1424612#msg1424612)
Rim Worlds Republic: Budget $20B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1423862#msg1423862)
Taurian Concordat: Budget $10B.  (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1424612#msg1424612)
Principality of Rasalhague: Budget $1B. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=61764.msg1424376#msg1424376)

Astropolitical Summary
- Seluk Tucas of the Capellan Commonality succeeded beyond his wildest dreams with his efforts to unify the nearby nations. The Capellan region came together in mid-2360 to form the "Capellan Confederation", a loose collective of nations dedicated to mutual defence and peaceful co-existence. While it was not yet a true nation, having a single political structure at the head of all Capellan realms was to prove a major unifying factor over time. This alliance was also cemented by a marriage between Tucas' daughter Caroline with Franco Liao, Duke of Liao.

- In late 2360, a survey mission led by Commander Tracy Ashton Pendelton of the Taurian Navy discovers a prison on the Federated Suns world of Tentativa with over 15,000 prisoners of war from the recent invasion of the Tikonov Grand Union. Disgusted at the sight of the prisoners being used as little better than slave labourers, she and her crew managed to incite an uprising among the prisoners, and after heroic efforts to jury-rig sufficient life support to get the prisoners off-world, the surviving prisoners are freed and sent back to their homeworlds.

- In 2363, Seluk Tucas recalls his brother Dmitri from his position as Ambassador to the Federated Suns, but Dmitri's ship vanishes mysteriously en route, and Dmitri is never found. The Capellan forces mobilize against the threat, planning a major invasion of the world of Lee. However, the Capellan forces were betrayed, and eight full regiments of Davion troops were ready on-planet when the Capellans arrived, which led to the Capellan forces being nearly annihilated. The fiasco leads to the fall of Tucas from power, as well as the arrest and eventual trial of Alexi Nimzovich, Premiere of the Sarna Supremacy, who had been a major opponent of Tucas. While Nimzovich was acquitted, he never again held office. (Note: To keep the ambush secret, no naval forces were used, which means that the defenders could not stop the DropShips from taking off again. As such, this battle has no effect on either navy)

- After the Battle of Lee, the Federated Suns began to feel that a major "peacekeeping" operation was needed in the Capellan regions. The Davion forces advanced on several border worlds, but encountered unexpected degrees of resistance from the locals, who inexplicably saw their forces as aggressors.

- The Marian Hegemony had built up a fleet for conquest, and to gain additional realms to control, so by 2366 it had set its sights on the nearby Lothian League. While the Marians had tremendous difficulty gathering sufficient merchant JumpShips to allow a meaningful invasion force to be delivered to Lothario, they eventually managed to scrape up enough force to make the attempt. Their ground forces were substantially outnumbered by the defenders, but with total space superiority allowing them to call down generous orbital fire support, no Lothian ground force could stand long against the Marian invaders. The Lothians, rather than fighting a doomed guerrilla war that would tear apart their planets, decided to resist the invaders through bureaucracy - malicious compliance, sit-down strikes, short-term stress leave, paperwork tangles, and simply ignoring the dictates of the Marians became the norm across the Lothian systems almost overnight. Due to the small ground forces at the Marian's disposal, direct enforcement of decrees was virtually impossible, and it rapidly became clear that the terrifying orbital bombardments which had devastated the defending legions would never be used against Lothian cities that did not openly rebel for fear of destroying their prize. The Marians carted off some loot, and had the ability to collect a moderate amount of taxes, but the planets proved shockingly stubborn against the invaders in a way that nobody had expected to see.

OOC: I know you wanted to hit the Illyrian Palatinate too, but you're a one-world nation and those are more like ten worlds in total. Since they have no navy, I can't give you any worthwhile naval battles, but you're going to have a few problems hit you even so. Besides, this way you'll have some extra combat to keep you busy in future turns - it can't all be pirate-squashing. So IMO, you're going to take some time to digest these gains.

Also OOC: I wanted to call this "Mar(s)ian Attacks!", per the comments below, but I couldn't find a way to fit it in. :(


- The Free Worlds League, seeing the newly minted "Capellan Confederation" as a sham that would never withstand a serious attack from outside given their embarrassment at Lee, and seeing that they're occupied with the Federated Suns attack, decide to assault several border worlds in 2366. Under pressure from the attack, the Capellan Commonality adopts a new, much more centralized constitution in 2367, giving its leader, Duke Francis Liao, significantly more military authority.

- A Federated Suns survey fleet jumps into Taurus in late 2369. While they had maps implying the world was likely colonized, they were shocked to see how thoroughly industrialized the system was, with asteroid mining operations exceeding those in some Terran systems. Believing that no major realm had any worlds in that sector, the immediate assumption of a very well-organized pirate force is immediately made, though after listening to broadcasts in system while waiting for their drive to charge, it becomes clear that this is a permanent base, and suspicions of Capellan colonial expansion become the leading theory among the crew. Before a Taurian ship can reach them to investigate, the survey ship jumps out of system and immediately heads back to report their discovery to New Avalon.

- In 2369, the Draconis Combine pronounces the Rasalhague resistance to be at an end, and withdraws the bulk of their forces from the region. Scattered hold-outs would continue to make trouble for years to come, but never again would major combat forces be arrayed against the Combine by the Rasalhague rebels. Rasalhague Consortium Eliminated
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 27 June 2018, 06:25:53
Combat Results
The Great Rasalhague Ambush
The last major naval offensive of the Rasalhague rebellion took place in 2362. The Rasalhague commanders once again assembled a strike force in secret, this time on their old capital of Rasalhague. In addition to a large number of old fighters(suspected to be misappropriated surplus from the Terran fighter fleet update program), the Rasalhague leaders managed to convince or coerce large numbers of civilians to use private aircraft as decoys. The Rasalhague plan relied on staying within the atmosphere, to keep the Draconis fleet too far away to usefully support their landing DropShips, and attempted to once again kill large numbers of DropShips full of landing troops and supplies. Unfortunately for the Rasalhague forces, the commander was somewhat desperate for operating bases for this impromptu air force, and had some of his units take off from a base in an adjacent province. This base was in a different time zone, and the commander was too headstrong to listen to the objections of his subordinates. As such, the first 13 fighters took off an hour before any of the other forces. While they realized their error before launching their attack run, the anomalous movement tipped off the Draconis fleet.

While the Draconis forces did not realize the size of the arrayed Rasalhague forces, they had learned from their mistake in 2355, and remained on alert until the real attack took place. Once the true attack took off, the commander of the Draconis fleet took the Atago and the Luthien as close to the atmosphere as was safe, and launched a barrage of naval laser fire against the Rasalahaguers in support of his DropShips, as well as launching a over a hundred of his own fighters to support his landing units. A gigantic missile barrage of almost four hundred Barracudas was launched against the DropShips. The Draconis fighters and the point defences of the DropShips managed to shoot down over half the attack, and the poor storage conditions of the Rasalhague missiles meant that a third of the rest malfunctioned. However, the remaining 117 missiles did tremendous damage to the DropShips, destroying over a dozen outright and crippling five more.

Once the fighters had fired their missiles, they were once again nimble enough for serious combat, and the resulting combat rapidly devolved into was a wild furball. Over a hundred light civilian craft were slaughtered while totally unable to defend themselves, but even with this diversion of fire, the experience and training of the Draconis pilots began to tell. Despite being outnumbered two to one, they almost managed to hold their own even without their supporting fire, and with the power of the WarShips added in, they eventually forced the Rasalhaguers to flee. While the original Rasalhague plan had called for the fighters to re-arm and attack other units, their inability to defeat the Draconis fleet outright meant that they were unable to break contact, and most of the Rasalhague units were followed back to their bases. The resulting orbital bombardments killed over ten thousand civilians, as well as an unlucky squad of Draconis military police who had been attempting to investigate potential rebel activity, but they broke the back of the resistance fleet. Only three pilots took to the air for a second strike. Seeing the forces arrayed against them, and realizing that the Draconis fleet was offering them no quarter after their attack on defenceless ground troops that the Draconis fleet had been protecting, they flew their craft into the planetary militia headquarters as a final protest against the hated invaders.

Losses:
Draconis Combine = 14x DropShip, 31x fighter.
Rasalhague Consortium = 200x fighter.

The Peacekeeping War
The peacekeeping mission to various major Capellan worlds encountered very stiff resistance from the Capellan ground forces, who seemed surprisingly averse to peace. Fully two-thirds of the Federated Suns fleet was moved in to assist with the operation, rendering substantial amounts of direct orbital assistance to the planet of Highspire before the Capellans could mobilize their fleet. Duke Francis Liao was eager to prove that his newly-allied realm was no paper tiger, and dedicated the entire Capellan fleet to operations against the Federated Suns. Two Quinru Zhe raiders were dispatched to wreck FedSuns infrastructure and trade, while the remaining fleet of four Quzhujian destroyers with one Qinru Zhe as escort were used as a compact fighting force to beat the "invaders" back.

The main clash between these two powerful fleets took place over the world of Tikonov. An escaping JumpShip brought word that the AFFS was burning towards the planet, and the Capellans jumped to a pirate point to intercept. However, disaster struck for the Capellans when the navigator aboard one of their Quzhujians mis-calculated the jump, and the resulting error stranded the ship deep in the outer system, too far away to take part in the battle. The Federated Suns admiral, eager not to replicate the mistakes of the late Admiral Arthur, had many of his fighters and small craft on scout duty, and caught wind of the Capellan fleet far outside weapons range, giving his forces a chance to prepare.

Knowing that his fighters were likely to be outnumbered, and suspecting that the Capellans would use their fighters to engage in a massive anti-shipping strike, he loaded his fighters for anti-fighter operations and set them lying in wait well ahead of his ships to intercept the Capellan attackers. The tactic was a stunning success - despite being outnumbered three to one, the Capellan fighters were badly weighed down by their heavy Killer Whales and White Sharks, and were unable to maneuver when the Barracudas rained down upon them. Some pilots fired their missiles from well beyond effective range, and a few even attempted to use the anti-shipping missiles against the FedSuns fighters(with little success), but many tried to press home the original attack, and died before they could. The FedSuns fighter pilots bled for their success, but the numerical advantage of the Capellan forces was whittled down substantially, and the remaining forces were not sufficient for the next strike to pose a serious threat to naval vessels without the fleet supporting them. Eighty missiles were still launched within combat range, but with only a quarter of the planned barrage being fired, the defences of the AFFS fleet were sufficient to stop them without excessive damage - the FSS Galahad suffered moderate engine damage, but the armor of the ships remained intact, if pockmarked.

Both sides paused to collect their battered fighter wings and to assess their damage. The Capellan commander knew his fleet to be outnumbered, especially with the loss of one of his destroyers, and prepared to fall back and lick his wounds, but when the AFFS fleet slowed down to keep pace with the damaged Galahad, he saw his chance to perhaps salvage the battle. Knowing that his ships all had longer ranges than his opponents, and believing that he may now be able to hold the range open(or at least to break contact with part of the enemy fleet if he needed to), he chanced a continuation of the fight. The Capellan plan was simple, as these things go - hold the fighters close to the fleet, prevent enemy fighters from attacking them while they were vulnerable, and try to replicate the success of the Qinru Zhe a decade prior with the addition of a major missile strike.

Seeing that he held the advantage of numbers and that the teeth had been pulled from the Capellan fighter wings, the Davion re-armed his fighters for an attack on the enemy fleet and closed the range slowly. Unsurprisingly, the Capellans tried to hold the battle at extreme range and whittle him down with their lasers, but unlike the last time these fleets met, the laser fire was barely more effective than his own shots, despite the superior range of their guns. Both sides attempted missile attacks, but neither side wanted to waste their limited ammunition on such distant shots. After the pattern had been established - barrage and feint, launch and fall back, but never actually press home an attack - the Davions made their move. Letting the wounded Galahad fall behind somewhat, the fleet leapt towards its opponents at full emergency power. The Capellans fell back, of course, but in so doing they left left their poorly-armed aft sections pointed at the enemy, and the enemy took advantage. Finally throwing the long-hoarded fighter missiles into the fight, a wave of heavy missiles swept towards the rearmost Quzhujian, CCS Elias Liao, and its aft section was badly battered. Losing half its acceleration almost instantly, the Capellans were left with a cruel dilemma of abandoning a quarter of their fleet or turning back to defend it. Historians will long debate the choice he faced, but when he faced it he turned his fleet around with no hesitation.

Heavy ship-killers flew from destroyers and fighters alike, as barrages larger than the original fighter strike flew out as fast as tubes could be loaded. Fighters unloaded their missiles, like the Davions had a minute before, and then launched themselves into the melee. In the three great destroyers, a dozen and a half of the largest guns ever used in human warfare fired their first shots in anger. However, attempting to defend their lamed ally had deprived them of their great advantage of range, and the sheer mountains of amour on the Albion and Galahad designs began to tell. They too had autocannons, but when those hammer blows began to land their guns kept firing while the Capellans were cut down. When the fleets had closed ranges so tightly that even point defence guns were strafing enemy fleet units, the mighty Galahad-class FSS Percival fired full broadsides into enemy units and tore half a dozen gaping holes into the Qinru Zhe in a particularly successful broadside.

For as long as Capellan missile supplies held out, their fleet scored important successes. Capellan fighter strikes endured horrible losses to cripple the Galahad's point-defence systems with their cannons as the fleet pounded the Albion-class FSS Rostock into scrap, and then a fresh wave of armor-piercing White Sharks savaged the now-defenceless Percival while the fighters turned on the Rostock to finish the job. However, despite the staggering damage being dished out, the AFFS ships were too tough to destroy quickly, and speed was of the essence. The Qinru Zhe had been crippled and was completely unable to fight, and the enemy was focusing its fire on the Elias Liao, which was buckling under the pressure.

Almost simultaneously, the Elias Liao's forward autocannon magazine exploded and the Albion's primary fusion reactor lost magnetic containment. Both ships were destroyed instantly, and the only survivor from either ship's complement was a rookie fighter pilot from the Elias Liao. The twin explosions blinded most sensors in the fleet, but the remnants of the Qinru Zhe's sensor system noticed something. Galahad was returning. Lamed by an engine hit, but still as well-armed as the day she was launched, the Galahad showed up on Capellan scanners as the dust cleared, and finally the Capellans took to their heels. The Qinru Zhe was unable to leave, and its crew abandoned and scuttled their ship to deny the Davions their prize, but the two remaining Quzhujians scooped up the remaining fighters and headed away from the planet, leaving the defenseless citizens of Tikonov in the hands of the invading peacekeepers.

Losses:
Capellan Confederation = 1x Quzhujian, 1x Qinru Zhe, 117x fighter
Federated Suns = 1x Albion, 44x fighter. Significant damage to 1x Galahad - $2B repair cost

Guerre de Course
While the Capellans reserved one of their Qinru Zhe raiders as a "battlecruiser" for their main fleet, the other two were detailed to fulfill the design's original role of commerce raiding against the Federated Suns. The CCS Mu was tasked with raids in the area of Muskegon, and the CCS Fangzhou was sent towards Carmacks further south. Both were given orders to preserve their commands if at all possible, and to focus on hitting the softest targets they could find - the goal was to cause pain in New Avalon, but the primary fleet combat was to take place elsewhere, and the realm was still too imperiled with too small a fleet to allow excessive chances to be taken.

The Fangzhou's raids were generally successful, if undramatic. Due to the deployment of the main Federated Suns fleet to the warzone around Tikonov, they encountered shockingly little resistance. Instead of remaining at the jump point to snap up JumpShips, the Fangzhou's captain headed in-system to destroy as much civil infrastructure as possible. A raid in-system in Carmacks destroyed three civilian space stations around the planet after giving the crews time to evacuate, though the captain elected not to bombard the planet itself for fear of causing excessive civilian casualties. An asteroid-mining operation in Ogilvie was destroyed, and an attack on Sekulmun could find no targets worthy of firing on. The most dramatic moment came when jumping into the old pirate haven of Kluane - the ship landed within sensor range of a JumpShip that was waiting with sails furled, apparently waiting for a laggard DropShip. The JumpShip jumped away almost immediately, long before the Fangzhou could get into combat range, but the ship began burning back towards the planet looking for the DropShip as a prize. The same engine trouble that led to the ship being late in the first place meant it couldn't avoid the Fangzhou, and it was boarded, the crew imprisoned for the duration of the trip back to the planet, and the ship destroyed. By this point, low on fuel from the long burns and the need to recharge the jump drive by running the reactor at maximum capacity, the ship returned home with just over a billion in damage inflicted to the civilian economy of the Federated Suns.

The Mu's raiding mission was shorter and much sharper. Within minutes of leaving Capellan space and arriving at the Amiga system, the Mu found a JumpShip charging its drive, and after a shot across its bows the boarding party put aboard managed to take the ship with no resistance, capturing it as a prize for the Commonwealth and sending it back independantly. The second jump, into Muskegon, was far more dramatic. It rapidly became obvious why Capellan intelligence had reported unusual movements among system-defence fighters(and why the Fangzhou had found none of them) when the Mu found a newly-built station at the nadir jump point, and fighters began to scramble out of the station in huge numbers. The Davions had been ready - news had reached them of the raiders, and the commander was holding most of his forces ready with anti-shipping missiles loaded for quick launch. Within less than ten minutes, over a hundred fighters formed up and were streaking towards the Mu. The Mu's captain had seen this strike forming on his sensors, but was unable to get close enough to interfere, so he instead switched his lasers to anti-air targeting mode and readied his dual-purpose light autocannons to shoot down the inevitable hurricane of fire.

The Davion fighter pilots were among the best that the AFFS had to offer - two of the squadrons had come from the first class at the newly-founded Albion Naval Academy's Fighter College, and while they found themselves in a difficult fight, they threw themselves into it with enthusiasm and skill. Facing no fighters on the opposing side, they could fly complex patterns to confuse the Mu's fire control computers, and flew them with skill and precision. Launching their missiles in a single coordinated wave, they then burst forward to attack the ship while its point-defence was occupied, and tried to destroy as many of the point-defence cannons as they could, in hopes of being able to pick the ship apart at leisure. The Mu's defences were overwhelmed by the wave of missiles, and dozens of heavy armor-piercing missiles landed and did terrible damage, leaving the ship adrift. Many of the autocannon mounts on the Mu were destroyed by the fighters, and the fighters celebrated their seeming crippling of the enemy ship. However, they hadn't won yet - while the Mu was drifting and lacked many of its light weapons, the fighter's cannons were not heavy enough to destroy the capital weapon mounts, and the Mu's lasers cut down fighter after fighter mercilessly. The fighters were planning to fall back and re-arm with missiles, but as it happened they had crippled the Mu's engines in the middle of a turn, and its momentum was taking it directly towards their home station. The fighters broke off, their magazines empty, but before the station could re-arm them for another strike, the Mu's capital guns came within range. The cannons spoke, and the station was defenceless against them. Most of the fighters launched with empty magazines, simply to avoid the destruction of their base, and the remainder surrendered to ensure that they would not be left adrift in short-legged defensive fighters.

It took the Mu over a week to fix their engines well enough to ensure that they could at least maneuver somewhat, and the ship staggered back home for repairs instead of continuing its voyage. But the damage had been done.

Gains and Losses:
Capellan Confederation = Moderate damage to 1x Qinru Zhe - $500m repair cost. Gained 1x JumpShip
Federated Suns = 1x Federation, 108x Fighter, $1.9B civilian damage not relevant to naval budget

Andurian and Irian
In 2367, the Free Worlds League saw an opportunity in the Capellan region. The newly formed "Confederation" had done poorly defending against the Federated Suns, and the League believed that several border worlds were ripe for the taking.

The order of battle available to Admiral Thomas Masters was a powerful one. Seven Heracles-class battlecruisers supported by two Phalanx corvettes was known to be far superior to anything that the Confederation had left after their disaster in Tikonov - intel estimated that they had not more than three of their heavy cruisers, probably two raiders, and that the balance of their fleet was converted merchants and cruise ships. The primary problem Masters faced was speed. His ships could not force an engagement directly, since his corvettes could not stand against the enemy fleet and his battlecruisers could not catch them. If he used single ships as detachments, he risked defeat in detail, and the Capellans had a known policy of trading coverage of their border for the ability to mass the largest possible fleet at the key point.

The League had three key points that must be defended in this war - their invasion force, their JumpShip flotilla supporting the invasion force, and the natural choice for a Capellan counterattack, the shipyards of Irian. Masters had enough force to support two with a good chance of victory at each against the entire Capellan fleet. So he did what any good commander would do in this situation - he buffed. With the JumpShips he left one Phalanx and three DropShips that had been modified to have the outward appearance of Heracles-class ships, complete with jump sails that had been liberated from an extremely irate merchant flotilla. With the invading force, three Heracles and his second Phalanx. And in Irian, the Heracles that had recently been laid down was shoved into the small yard to continue work on core systems, one Heracles was given the appearance of being incomplete in the primary yard itself, and three more Heracles were arrayed around the planet in such a way that an attacker would never see more than one of them from any jump point.

As predicted, the Capellans chose to abandon their forces under the gun in the Andurien region. The ground troops were reinforced when war seemed imminent, but no further reinforcements would come. The fleet concentrated for an attack, and given the overwhelming firepower they could see alongside the invasion fleet, the order came down to avoid a direct confrontation and raid the Mariks to death instead. Instead of a light raid like they had against the Federated Suns, the plan was a true deep strike operation against Irian, for only a truly important target like Irian could put enough pressure on the Mariks to come to a peace treaty.

In the end, it was a lowly sensor lieutenant on the Fangzhou that saved the Capellan fleet. On a quiet night shift as the fleet burned towards the planet, her scanners caught a whiff of communication between the base and another unit. After hours of analysis of the signal, she managed to put together a theory of what the Mariks had done based on occasional snippets of communication and the shocking similarity to an exercise that had been run in her training courses. The theory went up the ladder, and while the fleet admiral wasn't convinced, he agreed to keep a watch out for potential hidden units. As a result, the fleet laid in a contingency plan - instead of a traditional engagement where they would stop and pulverize the enemy shipyard, they chose a passing engagement that would give them enough speed to break through any opposition that did try to form up, while strafing the yard as they passed. At full emergency power, they would need only 20 minutes of warning to build up enough speed that the Mariks could never catch them. They got 23 minutes.

The Marik battlecruisers came out from behind the shadow of the planet, and the Capellans reacted almost instantly. Turning their ships around, the fleet began a burn at three gravities past the planet, and readied their guns. Instead of a slugfest, it would be a single quick burst of firepower from both sides. The battlecruisers gave chase, even after realizing that they would never be able to keep up, in hopes of being able to capture any crippled ships. Any fighters that could keep up with the crushing acceleration of the fleet units were launched to thicken up the fleet's firepower, and the two sides raced towards their meeting point. Six hundred missiles were fired in an instant between the two fleets, and almost four dozen gigantic cannons traded shells. A few more were fired from the opposite broadside as the Capellan fleet sailed through at a relative speed of over thirty kilometres a second, and lasers spiked the battered hulls of the battlecruisers as well. The Marik fleet's gunnery proved to be far less skilled than the battle-hardened Liaos, but the sheer weight of metal that they brought to bear was still enough to ensure that every single ship in the Capellan fleet suffered at least one armour breach. The Fangzhou, whose sharp eyes had saved the fleet, was aflame, and detonated less than two minutes later, taking 80% of her crew to eternity with her. But the Mariks had suffered too - the Heracles had gaping wounds and had lost most of her broadside armaments, and her sister ship Bellerophon's engines were shattered ruins. Three of the fleet's DropShips had been totally destroyed, and one unlucky fighter had been caught "like a bug on a windshield" by the doomed Fangzhou.

While the Capellan fleet struggled to control their damage, the shipyards that had been their original target were coming up rapidly. Each ship turned its least-damaged side towards the yards and fired what it could at them - the damage was far less significant than it could have been, but it was still massive. The germanium purification plant was shattered by missiles, the autocannon construction tooling was destroyed by the same model of autocannon that it had been producing, and the support infrastructure for the main yard would take months to repair. But the yard survived, and the ships under construction did as well.

The rest of the invasion went virtually unopposed in space, though the ground troops on both sides fought a bitter war on several planets. But with no navy to cover their forces, the Capellans lost world after world. When the peace treaty was signed, the Marik eagle was raised over seven worlds, and the Capellans swore to reclaim the important world of Andurien at the first opportunity.

Losses:
Capellan Confederation = 1x Qinru Zhe. Significant damage to fleet totalling $3B.
Free Worlds League = 3x DropShip, 1x fighter. Moderate damage to fleet totalling $2B, moderate damage to shipyard totalling $3B.

Research
Research:
DC: $3,792m
FS: $1,209m
CC: $353m

TH: $7,727m
UHC: $205m
TC: $186m
RWR: $310m

TOTAL = $13,782m

The winner is the Capellan Confederation, gaining vehicular drop chutes. Not related to naval construction, but you'll get a nice surprise round on any ground combats you happen to fight in the next round. And, given how many fights you seem to be getting into, that seems rather inevitable.

Budgets
I promised you guys economic growth, so growth you shall have. I did a bit of math on this - in order for the combined income of the great houses to match the TH by 2780, they need to grow about 1% per turn faster than the Hegemony does. If they grow at 2%, they'll be substantially stronger as a combined force, even if they're all individually weaker. For the RWR to catch up to a typical great house(which is perhaps a bit ambitious, but it was in that ballpark by the time of the Amaris coup), it'd need to grow about 4% faster than they do, or 5-6% per turn faster than the Terran Hegemony. Obviously, these growth rates will be jerked around by combat results as well - the Age of War will do bad things to long-run growth, while the relative peace Star League will do good things(though these trends may be masked by short-term budget prioritization - after all, in wartime the navy gets a bigger percentage of the pot than they do in peacetime, even if that pot is smaller).

Some of this will come from colonization and natural population growth(since the Battletech universe seems not to have ever stopped growing its population, unlike the real world's projections), some from background economy-boosting technologies, and some from economic development projects like recharge stations. I don't want to go into too much detail, because I know you'll all game the hell out of any rule set I explain to you, but suffice it to say that I am paying attention to that stuff.

CC: $82B, due to significant territorial losses. Note that there was also $2.869B unspent on the first turn when the CC was still NPC. Round that up to +$3B of surplus, because I forgot to draw it to your attention sooner.
DC: $110B, due to economic development and conquest.
FS: $105B due to minor conquest and economic growth.
FWL: $108B, due to conquest.
LC: $85B, due to economic development.
MH: $12B, due to conquest and loot.

TH: $760B, due to population and technological growth.
UHC: $21B, due to economic development.
RWR: $23B, due to colonial expansion and aggressive economic development.
TC: $12B, due to emergency wartime spending after discovery.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 27 June 2018, 08:27:20
Marian Attacks -

My brain went immidiately to ‘Martian Attacks’ and from there to ‘Mars Attacks’
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 27 June 2018, 08:37:46
Marian Attacks -

My brain went immidiately to ‘Martian Attacks’ and from there to ‘Mars Attacks’

Whoops, that was supposed to be edited out until I had time to expand on it.

Ah well - I still got two out of three last-minute edits done, and that ain't bad!
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 27 June 2018, 08:41:22
It was worth a laugh, and thus worthwhile.  And no worries!  Very glad to see it going up... I know at least myself and a few others have been wearing out the board hitting ‘check updates for your posts’.  :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 27 June 2018, 11:37:46
I been meaning to ask this. Since the Hegemony develops 99% of the major new stuff in cannon is everyone else going to have to wait till they use said stuff before they can build there own? Case in point NPPCs should be showing up soon. But if Terra doesn't actually attack anyone and use said NPPCs how does anybody know to research and build them?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 27 June 2018, 11:41:17
I been meaning to ask this. Since the Hegemony develops 99% of the major new stuff in cannon is everyone else going to have to wait till they use said stuff before they can build there own? Case in point NPPCs should be showing up soon. But if Terra doesn't actually attack anyone and use said NPPCs how does anybody know to research and build them?

I'm handwaving that - every tech is available to the whole universe one turn after it's developed. Being the first to research gives you a one-turn monopoly on it, but corporate espionage, parallel development, etc. will spread it around within a decade or so.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 27 June 2018, 11:46:39
I been meaning to ask this. Since the Hegemony develops 99% of the major new stuff in cannon is everyone else going to have to wait till they use said stuff before they can build there own? Case in point NPPCs should be showing up soon. But if Terra doesn't actually attack anyone and use said NPPCs how does anybody know to research and build them?

Given  relative budget sizes, math suggests that the majority of new developments will be Hegemony, anyway.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 27 June 2018, 11:56:21
Given  relative budget sizes, math suggests that the majority of new developments will be Hegemony, anyway.

Note the edit above - the CC won this round. I made a bit of a point to reduce NPC research spending a bit, so you guys feel like it's less of a waste(and because tbh, it's probably not as valuable as my spending first turn implied). The TH still spent about half the total research budget, but that means they play catch-up half the time too.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 27 June 2018, 12:11:04
Note the edit above - the CC won this round. I made a bit of a point to reduce NPC research spending a bit, so you guys feel like it's less of a waste(and because tbh, it's probably not as valuable as my spending first turn implied). The TH still spent about half the total research budget, but that means they play catch-up half the time too.

I saw that.

Some people will still choose to pursue research.  The sense and understanding of the Lyran Navy is that they would rather buy another cruiser every few decades than have a 1 in 10 chance for a fleeting advantage in a tech whose nature cannot be known in advance.  Small powers (and we are all small powers)  will generally 'go big or go home' on pursuing 'wonderweapons', and the Lyran Navy chose 'home'.  Reasonable minds can differ.

Besides, historically, we get our biggest tech upgrade by stealing it from the Hegemony, anyway. :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 27 June 2018, 13:39:52

Combat Results
- Marian attacks on Periphery states

I attack Mars!?! Whoot! Take that rocks...

> Braces for counter attacks... <

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 27 June 2018, 13:54:46
I attack Mars!?! Whoot! Take that rocks...

> Braces for counter attacks... <

TT

I wouldn't worry too much about counterattack.  The Giant Tripod Walkers wont be around until turn 75 or 80.  :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Charistoph on 27 June 2018, 15:33:39
I wouldn't worry too much about counterattack.  The Giant Tripod Walkers wont be around until turn 75 or 80.  :)

It's called a preemptive strike, and is probably more effective than attacking the darkness.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 28 June 2018, 15:18:11
~reads the first of the combat reports~

Hmm.  Interesting.  Very, very interesting.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 28 June 2018, 16:00:44
One problem dealt with, now for the more serious opponents
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 28 June 2018, 22:31:14
While I wait, impatiently of course, for my realm's after action reports, I decided to pop out my 5 Million " Generic " Aero fighters. Now I know these cost way less than $5 mill, I can justify the cost in training procedures.

Code: [Select]
Class/Model/Name:  Falco 
Mass:              65 tons

Equipment:                                                              Mass
Power Plant:  195 Fusion                                                 8,00
Thrust:  Safe Thrust: 5
      Maximum Thrust: 8
Structural Integrity: 6                                                   ,00
Total Heat Sinks:    10 Single                                            ,00
Fuel:                                                                    4,00
Cockpit & Attitude Thrusters:                                            3,00
Armor Type:  Standard  (224 total armor pts)                            14,00
                           Standard Scale Armor Pts
   Location:                            L / R
   Nose:                                 75
   Left/Right Wings:                    53/53
   Aft:                                  43

Weapons and Equipment      Loc        SRV    MRV    LRV    ERV  Heat    Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Machine Gun              Nose         2     --     --     --    0      1,00
  Ammo (MG) 200            ---                                           1,00
3 Autocannon/5             Nose         5      5     --     --    3     24,00
  Ammo (AC/5) 60           ---                                           3,00
2 Machine Gun              RW           2     --     --     --    0      1,00
2 Machine Gun              LW           2     --     --     --    0      1,00
  Ammo (MG) 400            ---                                           2,00
2 Machine Gun              Aft          2     --     --     --    0      1,00
  Ammo (MG) 200            ---                                           1,00
1 Refueling drogue (Aft).                                                1,00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS:                                                     Heat: 3     65,00
Tons Left:                                                                ,00

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost:        2.843.384 C-Bills
Battle Value:      859


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class/Model/Name:  Bueto 
Mass:              65 tons

Equipment:                                                              Mass
Power Plant:  195 Fusion                                                 8,00
Thrust:  Safe Thrust: 5
      Maximum Thrust: 8
Structural Integrity: 6                                                   ,00
Total Heat Sinks:    10 Single                                            ,00
Fuel:                                                                    8,00
Cockpit & Attitude Thrusters:                                            3,00
Armor Type:  Standard  (224 total armor pts)                            14,00
                           Standard Scale Armor Pts
   Location:                            L / R
   Nose:                                 75
   Left/Right Wings:                    53/53
   Aft:                                  43

Weapons and Equipment      Loc        SRV    MRV    LRV    ERV  Heat    Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Machine Gun              Nose         2     --     --     --    0      1,00
  Ammo (MG) 200            ---                                           1,00
2 Autocannon/5             Nose         5      5     --     --    2     16,00
  Ammo (AC/5) 40           ---                                           2,00
2 Machine Gun              RW           2     --     --     --    0      1,00
2 Machine Gun              LW           2     --     --     --    0      1,00
  Ammo (MG) 400            ---                                           2,00
2 Machine Gun              Aft          2     --     --     --    0      1,00
  Ammo (MG) 200            ---                                           1,00
1 Refueling drogue (Aft).                                                1,00
1 Bomb Bay                                                               5,00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS:                                                     Heat: 2     65,00
Tons Left:                                                                ,00

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost:        2.672.856 C-Bills
Battle Value:      780

Designed for the original Aero-Carrier of the Marian Hegemony, the Falco and Bueto were co-designed by the Hadrian Mechanized Industries, a semi-conglomerate on the plane Pompey. When first proposed, the Falconidae Project as it was called, was chosen to be a multipurpose frame. Able to deal threats as a main stage fighter or in support bomber roles, the Falconidae was re-designated as two separate identities.

The Falco was built with such a heavy barrage in it's nose, three of the now standard Parva Tormentis or Autocannon 5, given her the ability to plow into any enemy it encounters. Her brother aerofighter, the Bueto was given over for more supporting roles, such as SAR and Bomber runs, they were also seen preforming in-flight refueling and general cargo humping missions. Losing one of the Parva Tormentis and a ton of ammo, the Bueto has the capacity to carry bombs in the five ton Bomb bay located in the fuselage.

Both frames are covered in same amount of armor called Lorica Hamata, or plain standard armor for the non-Hegemony citizens. Since both share the same movement profile, and look identical in every way, one won't realize until to late when on target. As each have a single Refueling Drogue and eight Jejunium Iaculis Machine Guns located in the Nose, Wings and Aft sections, with way more than enough ammunition to supply them indefinitely, the Falconidae Project was complete.

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 28 June 2018, 22:37:42
Truetanker: I couldn't find a plausible way to give you a combat this round, but you may want to check the astropolitical summary for 2366 ;)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 28 June 2018, 22:59:22
Truetanker: I couldn't find a plausible way to give you a combat this round, but you may want to check the astropolitical summary for 2366 ;)

* Shakes pugilistic fist at them... *

Next turn.. I'll drop a Billion into Recruitment Drive! I want those systems...

Joking of course... or am I?  ::)

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 28 June 2018, 23:02:06
Economic Growth will be nice.  Im just waiting around for a Very Important Coup. :)

RE:  “Game the hell out of any ruleset I explain to you”

I have no idea what your talking about.  I havent plotted the ‘payback time’ on yard upgrades, in terms of higher combat power per cbill for ships, or yard-constricted combat power and its implications on ship design, carriage, and collars. -shifty eyes-

Like the fluff so far, cant wait to see all the big Capellan fights!
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 29 June 2018, 00:26:02
I have noticed the yards listed on the Master Sheet are inaccurate. Luthien has 2 Level 2's and a Level 1 to go with its Level 3.

Also I never got a clear answer last turn, but are we paying for WarShip repairs? And if so, what cost? Same as maintenance, as I budgeted last turn, or some other cost?

Also, at what point is a new ship design a variant or a totally new ship? Just needs to be same tonnage? Same engine? Same Collars?
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Starfox1701 on 29 June 2018, 02:10:33
I hate to say this but the Marian Hegemony doesn't exist yet. I just realized it and double checked and sure enough it was founded in 2920. Oh dear
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 29 June 2018, 03:10:56
We are aware. He wanted to be the Space Romans, so we let him
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 29 June 2018, 05:19:26
* Shakes pugilistic fist at them... *

Next turn.. I'll drop a Billion into Recruitment Drive! I want those systems...

Joking of course... or am I?  ::)

TT

Just remember that the basic principle of this game as that you're in charge of the navy, not the nation. TBH, I'm being really generous letting you make foreign policy at all, because that wasn't how this was supposed to work.

Also, remember that the other players can skimp on buying JumpShips because they're all major nations that can just snap up merchants at need. You're an obscure single-system polity in the middle of nowhere, whose only real advantage is a lot of free money from germanium mining. (And as a side note, the fact that it's germanium aiding a Roman-themed empire is an irony not lost on me). And you still don't own a single docking collar anywhere. You're lucky two get two merchant ships into the same place at the same time, which is a big part of why your land forces are so badly outnumbered - you can hire mercenaries, but you simply cannot carry them to your targets.

And really, you were the one who said the Lothians and Illyrians - look up the canon on how you fared when you tried to take them in the 31st century. I'm just adapting the attacks you asked for :P.

I have no idea what your talking about.  I havent plotted the ‘payback time’ on yard upgrades, in terms of higher combat power per cbill for ships, or yard-constricted combat power and its implications on ship design, carriage, and collars. -shifty eyes-

Of course not! Just like there's no way Kiviar has given thought to how he can name ships after Hanse Davion 700 years before his reign.

I have noticed the yards listed on the Master Sheet are inaccurate. Luthien has 2 Level 2's and a Level 1 to go with its Level 3.

Also I never got a clear answer last turn, but are we paying for WarShip repairs? And if so, what cost? Same as maintenance, as I budgeted last turn, or some other cost?

Also, at what point is a new ship design a variant or a totally new ship? Just needs to be same tonnage? Same engine? Same Collars?

Fixed the sheet. It's only up to date for the beginning of turn 2 (I'll update it to the beginning of turn 3 once I finish the turn), but I've fixed the yards at Luthien. That said, it seems like the extra level 1 should be at New Samarkand, not Luthien, once this turn is posted.

Re repair costs, that was going to be obvious by the end of the turn, but I'll describe it - I'll add a repair cost to any relevant battle reports, so if that battle from last turn had happened this turn it'd say something like:
Losses:
Draconis Combine = 4x DropShip, 13x fighter. Kutai damaged - repair bill $1B
Rasalhague Consortium = 200x fighter.

You can either pay the repair bill or write off the ship (which is an easy choice when the ship is still new, but writing off may be interesting when your units are getting long in the tooth). For turn 2, you all made reasonable enough assumptions, so I was just going along with them to avoid needing to make you re-do your turns.

Re variants, I didn't have any hard-and-fast rules in mind, but it should be close. The Davion II changed its mass, the Leviathan II changed its speed, and there's a bunch of L-F refits, but no variant changed more than one of those. To keep it simple, let's say +-20 ktons, +- 10 SI, and +-1 safe thrust is a variant. It's a bit more latitude than canon used, but not enough that you guys just get half-price R&D on everything. Feel free to change docking collars, though - those changed pretty often between variants, so it can't be that hard. (And yes, I know how ridiculous that is when docking collars are the biggest single determinant of ship cost, but I want to keep this simple. Maybe creating a docking collar interface for a KF drive is just a well-known recipe that happens to be expensive (https://www.e-reading.club/chapter.php/71251/13/Dahl_-_Charlie_and_the_Great_Glass_Elevator.html)?)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 29 June 2018, 05:43:28
fair enough, that works

EDIT: As to the location of the new yard, Luthien is further from potential front lines
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 29 June 2018, 09:06:47
Nah, actually, that makes a kind of sense.  Collars are pricey, but tiny.  IF we assume its all super-expensive super-delicate 99% of parts fail testing stuff, but external to the actual core rather than requiring modifications thereto, it could be ‘expensive but easy.

Pulling the steam turbines out of a ship to replace with a while new gearing, drive train, and screws might be ‘hard but cheap’ compared to say replacing an entire computer suite and combat software - espc if you have to custom bake the computers and sortware for each ship.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Jester Motley on 29 June 2018, 12:41:26
Makes sense to me, really.  Plenty of real-world examples too.  Upgrading the ram on your PC is easy, fast, and easily one of the most expensive things you can do.  If the docking collars are "cut hole in ship, weld on pre-fab, attach some cables and umbilical ports to some plumbing" then no big deal for a varient.  But if the cost to manufacture the pre-fab module is high, well, there ya go.  Anything from ultra complicated, semi-lostech, or just pricy materials can all do it.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 29 June 2018, 12:55:38
I reckon since collar costs are flat per collar, but greatly increased by the LF battery, they are super-expensive plug and play.

They shape an extend the K-F field around the thing carried.  So since we are dealing with hyperspace magitech, I can see huge costs and huge maintenance costs. And the cost of a collar triples when you put it on a ship with an LF battery... perhaps those collars are ‘double jump rated’, and have to be built to super-narrow tolerances to survive channeling the energy and extending the K-F field twice in very quick succession, without a cool down period or some presumed ‘standard post jump’ service and maintenance.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 29 June 2018, 14:10:47
Of course not! Just like there's no way Kiviar has given thought to how he can name ships after Hanse Davion 700 years before his reign.

No, but you know for a fact that I have also totally not at any point thought about those exact same warship/yard cost efficiencies. And, tbh, since this is the pre-civil war Federated Suns, I am actively trying not to name literally everything the 'Davion X'

Also, I wish you had told me I had a secret slave planet. I would have gotten them working on some pyramids while I still had them on the payroll.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 29 June 2018, 14:35:37
No, but you know for a fact that I have also totally not at any point thought about those exact same warship/yard cost efficiencies. And, tbh, since this is the pre-civil war Federated Suns, I am actively trying not to name literally everything the 'Davion X'

Also, I wish you had told me I had a secret slave planet. I would have gotten them working on some pyramids while I still had them on the payroll.

If it makes you feel any better, you're paying them just as much now as you were before  ;)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 29 June 2018, 21:15:15
The Peacekeeping War

Damnit Alsadius, why did you have to go and raise the bar like that.

Welp, guess my turn is going to take a while to write now...
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 29 June 2018, 21:17:48
Hmm.  That will definitely impact the value I ascribe to cargo fraction.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 29 June 2018, 22:28:48
Question for the crowd. My battle write-ups are way longer this turn than last turn. As you might imagine, this means writing them takes a lot longer as well. Is this worthwhile to you? Would you rather have turns resolve faster with short battle reports, slower with long battle reports, or some sort of middle ground where only the really important battles get lengthy write-ups?

Hmm.  That will definitely impact the value I ascribe to cargo fraction.

Heh. Question is, in which direction? One one hand, the FedSuns fleet has the smallest cargo fraction by far, and they won. On the other, shallow ammo bins can clearly come back to bite you sometimes(I had a somewhat longer description of what happened when the Capellans started running out of ammo, but it got cut in the editing process).
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 29 June 2018, 22:33:52
Well, assuming we get our turns in promptly during the week, I'm okay with the reports taking a few days to resolve :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 29 June 2018, 22:43:01
Question for the crowd. My battle write-ups are way longer this turn than last turn. As you might imagine, this means writing them takes a lot longer as well. Is this worthwhile to you? Would you rather have turns resolve faster with short battle reports, slower with long battle reports, or some sort of middle ground where only the really important battles get lengthy write-ups?

Heh. Question is, in which direction? One one hand, the FedSuns fleet has the smallest cargo fraction by far, and they won. On the other, shallow ammo bins can clearly come back to bite you sometimes(I had a somewhat longer description of what happened when the Capellans started running out of ammo, but it got cut in the editing process).

Well, shallow ammo is bad, so dont use missiles.  (At 10’rounds per ton, they start to suck).  But shallow cargo doesnt affect your ability to conquer.  So no missiles, no cargo.  Now, its possible that you could fire enough missiles to overcome that issue.  Ive considered a CG.  Rules say it works, but thats effectively simulation, not real.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 29 June 2018, 22:54:33
Let's put some numbers on it. Counting ammo(including 1x Killer Whale per fighter), but not heat sinks, the Quzhujian uses 20,400 tons on AR-10s, 27,216 tons on NAC/40s, 17,600 tons on NL/55s, and 9,600 tons on fighters. You can judge for yourself which of those weapon systems had the best effect per ton invested in the battle we saw.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 29 June 2018, 22:58:05
Fair cop.  May just be too hard to tell, as to ammo fed weapons.  But we know you can at least drive over

Beyond that, I really like the long writeups/details.  They have some great story to them.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 29 June 2018, 23:02:01
-delete duplicate-
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 29 June 2018, 23:07:25
FYI, the reason I say "You can judge for yourself" is that I'm not even sure, and I wrote the thing. Looking at those numbers, my first thought is that maybe I should have mentioned the NLs a bit more.

At the end of the day, I want all sensible strategies to be viable. The design of a unit should be about coordinating with your other units and fulfilling a role in your fleet, not about max-minning a set of game stats. It's possible to get really dumb if you want(e.g., 1 SI on a WarShip), but any good-faith approach to ship design that pays attention to the basics will produce a ship that's probably good at something. It may not be the role you need filled - e.g., a Quzhujian is a good design for a small nation like the Capellans, but it'd be a terrible SLDF ship - but it'll have some kind of role somewhere. Don't worry too much about certain weapon systems being overpowered or underpowered, because I don't intend for that to be a major issue overall. I even have a plan in mind to make NGauss not suck  :o
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 29 June 2018, 23:38:10
Please make NGauss not suck.  Their huge guns with a long range, so Im morally obligated to love them as a Lyran.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Vition2 on 29 June 2018, 23:45:03
First, as a watcher, I like the fluff.  :)

As for the combat and the horrible losses the CapCon suffered... it seems that the issue was much more down to luck and tactics.  The discounting of one of their warships in the outer system really didn't help matters and made a potentially even battle uneven at the outset.  Then not covering the attack wings with fighters, the Capellans left themselves open to massive amounts of aerospace losses, something not able to be recovered from in the middle of combat.  And lastly, pushing an attack you are already at a disadvantage at - attacking at parity is a poor choice, to do so when you are already an underdog is straight folly.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 29 June 2018, 23:57:10
Well, that goes to both dice rolls, and the basic problems of a naval underdog.  Lanchester is a cruel master, and history is chock full of ‘2nd string but close’ navies getting turned into dust.

What will be more interesting is to see the results of the commerce raiding.  If it has significant economic impact, enough to balance the combat losses, we know that you need to build balanced fleets and defenses and cover yourself.  If the raiders arent productive, and -very- productive at that, then that tells us the right answer is monobuilding the largest, best armed hammers possible. 

Neither is ‘wrong’.  Commerce raiding is very good at some points in naval history (age of sail) and very, very bad in others (surface raiders, ww1/2).  My gut feel is that its going to depend here on investment in defenses.  Running down a commerce raider thats cautious is, mostly, impossible - jump in well clear of the limit, outside detection.  Charge your core.  Then run in, hit the jump point hard if you can beat whats there, jump out if you cant.  Now - are we hitting the planet/orbital factories?  Thats rolling dice - you can get trapped inside the limit against a superior force.  You can barrel down on those orbital factories to find 500 fighters taking off with 1000 Barracudas under their wings with your name on them.  Or you can burn the orbital infrastructure and all the droppers between the jump point and the planet.

But rememeber - your operational mobility is 1G, same as everyone else.  Id do a high speed run in with my course plotted for a pirate point.  Look around on way in.  If go, go.  If no go, keep that 1G plus whatever your crew can stand right up to the pirate point and leave - defenders at best get a high speed pass.  Still riskier than just hitting the polar jump point, but TANSTAAFL.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Vition2 on 30 June 2018, 00:18:36
Basically what I was getting at is what would an in-game admiral take from the fight, assuming he got a full report.  This may have been a poor way to look at it considering it is a game.  But an admiral would look at the fight and say, "they did that wrong... and that wrong... and that right." Because regardless of the losses, it was a close thing, the FS lost ~9 gigabills worth of stuff while the CC lost ~14 and the difference was mostly tactical decisions.

That dice rolls play a part in how things turn out, I understand completely, but I'm looking at this from and in-universe perspective, where the gods of the dice aren't any where near apparent.

The question I ask is: how would a navy react to mitigate the issues that plagued the CC during this fight? Not, How can I design a warship to change the math on the fight?  But I understand I'm not one actually participating, and that decision isn't mine to make - this post is primarily to say where my last post was coming from, nothing more.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 30 June 2018, 00:23:41
Well, we cant fix bad luck.  Training is the obvious choice, but training costs money -> which by definition the second class navy doesnt have.  Training is the only way for a navy to ‘prevent’ tactical ******, and history shows that nothing immunizes it.

Here, I dont think the CapCom admiral made a bad gamble.  He -lost- the gamble, but thats not the same thing.  The inferior navy -has- to gamble.  Playing safe just means dying slower.  Range advantages had worked for him before, so it was worth trying.  Which takes me back to my original point - the inferior navy has to take bad risks, so most of the time it just ends up even more inferior.  But sometimes it can make a few good gambles and acheive parity. Sometimes.

Thats one thing thats haaard to get away from.  Small initial advantages in naval conflicts snowball.  Its going to make it challenging to make a game like stay interesting.

Given the positional advantages enjoyed by the FedsSuns, here (yard size, unity of command structure), the CapCom actually still punched well above its weight.

Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Smegish on 30 June 2018, 00:26:38
I have noticed I seem to be the only one paying above the minimum for maintenance to cover extra training. Haven't seen it really payoff yet because I haven't had a serious opponent, but it may be worth investing a few extra million into rather than spending it on research that the Terrans will win 90% of the time anyway.

Could be something else for those dirty Earthers to throw their buckets of money at too, they are supposed to be the best and all.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 30 June 2018, 00:37:00
Smegish - goes to budget.  If I had inferior empires on both borders, id haippily budget 150% or more every turn - because more training means less risk, and the superior force should be risk adverse.  An inferior power cant afford to budget for extra training (Lanchester is a cruel master!) until war is immanent. 

Traditionally, the weaker power often dumps a bunch into training and then starts the war on its own schedule.  The stronger navy has little interest in starting the war (its stronger for economic reasons - its ‘ahead’ and likely to get moreso) unless it sees itself losing that dominance.  The weaker navy wants to train hard and try to suckerpunch big brother while big brother is busy doing all the ‘other things’ you have a navy for thst arent blowing up navies... if we were within swinging distance of the Hegemony and wanted to take their toys away, thats what we should be doing.

When training times come for me, I may segregate it, if GM allows.  Intensive training for my jumpship crews is a waste of money.  Ditto colliers.  Double-ditto jump station crews - what are they gonna do, shoot AC5s better?  But line of battle ships might be worth some ****** insurance, and max-training at least the fighter crews on shipboard, and any powerful, independent operations style units, would be a good idea.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 30 June 2018, 00:41:36
RL admirals know there's an element of luck involved in any battle too. Look at the bizarre turns of luck at Jutland, or basically every single aspect of Midway. Or Nelson's comment before Trafalgar - "Something must be left to chance; nothing is sure in a sea fight above all."

The Cappies didn't do well with the dice in that battle, no question. The fleets were roughly equally matched in most senses, and it was quite plausible for them to have won. But a few things went wrong, and so they lost. Some of those will be obvious to any observer(a misjump taking 20-25% of your combat power off the board), while some (gunnery that's generally less effective than in the previous battle) are subtler and could be missed. As for ways to fix it, a navigator blowing a combat jump seems like an obvious case for additional training budgets(which is included in maintenance for gameplay purposes, as a reminder), or you can go the other way and economize on maintenance so that you afford to get an extra ship on the board and be no worse off it you do lose one to chance. Fixed defences might help, if you can ensure that the battle happens in the right place, and of course there's a dozen approaches to building your ships differently that might help in one way or another. For example, if your tactics tend to be full-on Brave Sir Robin, why not build a ship with most of its guns facing aft?

Also, a side note occasioned by the maintenance discussion above. The maintenance budget has been a flat percentage thus far, if only because we have fairly little to maintain, but feel free to mix it up. If you want 200% maintenance on your fighter forces, or to go to 80% on those old non-refitted ships you'll have kicking around in a century's time, just say so. It'll move money around within your force structure instead of giving you freebies - TANSTAAFL, as the man above said - but it may be of interest to some.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 30 June 2018, 00:45:30
Alsadius, get out of my brain.   ;D
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 30 June 2018, 10:20:38
   -sribbles

* Looks up... hides notes.   What?

   -sribbles

TT  :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 30 June 2018, 12:12:26
Question for the crowd. My battle write-ups are way longer this turn than last turn. As you might imagine, this means writing them takes a lot longer as well. Is this worthwhile to you? Would you rather have turns resolve faster with short battle reports, slower with long battle reports, or some sort of middle ground where only the really important battles get lengthy write-ups?

Ive been thinking about this.  I think theres no real right answer.

My 'gut feel' is that if we could get turns to turn over in about a week?  Much longer than that, and its hard to maintain focus/flow, for me.  I start forgetting what people have built, and what I'm building, and how I want it to work.  As for how much writing that means for Alsadius - Id maybe look at keeping a comfortably steady turnover, and writing as much or as little as your real life allows?  I know you had said something about work beating you up more lately.

For this turn, youve got A LOT of combat going on.  By my recollection of future history, this is one of the more exciting turns between now and the fall of the star league.

All of that said, when do you anticipate being able to publish the end of turn, so I can plan accordingly (and stop digging down to look for post edits! :) )
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 30 June 2018, 14:30:17
Suggestion:

Make each battle a separate posting, with a final count and link last. Or run a separate thread in the RPG.

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 30 June 2018, 14:48:55
Yeah, I want weekly if it can be managed. This one has been closer to two weeks, and that's too long.

FYI, deciding not to announce the edits was clearly a mistake, so count this as notification that I've just posted the commerce warfare. I suspect there'll be less to write about in the other battles. I may actually push the discovery of the Taurians back a turn just to spread things out a bit. I want to finish it this weekend, just to let you guys go back to playing your side of things.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 01 July 2018, 08:57:59
I have noticed I seem to be the only one paying above the minimum for maintenance to cover extra training. Haven't seen it really payoff yet because I haven't had a serious opponent, but it may be worth investing a few extra million into rather than spending it on research that the Terrans will win 90% of the time anyway.

Could be something else for those dirty Earthers to throw their buckets of money at too, they are supposed to be the best and all.

Your navy’s tactics and handling of the Rasalhauge fighter swarm was much better the second time around.  This may be due to familiarity (they came, in the same old way), but may also be reflective of your increased spend there.  They had enough fighters and capital missiles to easily kill a capship - and didnt. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 01 July 2018, 11:19:35
Your navy’s tactics and handling of the Rasalhauge fighter swarm was much better the second time around.  This may be due to familiarity (they came, in the same old way), but may also be reflective of your increased spend there.  They had enough fighters and capital missiles to easily kill a capship - and didnt.

That wasn't quite what I was thinking at the time. The Rasalhaguers were afraid of tangling with fleet units after what happened on turn 1, so they tried to hit a comparatively defenceless target instead. That decision wasn't maintenance-based. Where maintenance comes in is that I use it to increase your die rolls. Their attack was messed up by the commander's roll being really low, however, so they wound up doing less well than they could have(albeit, the situation was salvaged by the other two being pretty decent). If the Rasalhaguers had been at 200% maintenance for a century(to pick an extreme example), then they'd have had commanders trained at an effective military academy and a good training budget, so that blunders like that would be less likely to happen. In such a situation, a low roll is still worse than a high roll, but rolling a 1 means you're the worst that a highly educated, well-trained fleet has to offer. That's very different from being the worst in the fleet of a nation that crews its battleships with condemned prisoners because nobody else will work for the wages they offer.

Die rolls are invisible to you guys, but they make a big difference - the two Capellan/FedSuns fleet fights thus far have both been between near-equal forces, but in both cases one side rolled substantially worse than the other and lost as a result.
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 01 July 2018, 11:25:01
Maintenance has momentum.  Good to know - it makes sense, and I was wondering about it, but it wasnt high enough on the priority list to ask.  :)
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Kiviar on 01 July 2018, 14:19:47
I clearly need to be investing more in my fighter maintenance if the "best" of the FPF/AFFS's aerospace corps thought taking an entire aero-regiment in to battle against a lone warship with nothing but their pea-shooters was a good idea.

Although at this point in btech history the Federated Suns are incompetent jerks, so, things are working out about as they should be. Oh well, at least I'll get Simon Davion soon and have a few turns of not being the literal worst.

Of course after that I go to war with the Hegemony....
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: truetanker on 01 July 2018, 18:33:09
Liam's Ghost made a very nice idea...

That is if Alsadius would allow inclusion.

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=62000.msg0#new (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=62000.msg0#new)

TT
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: Alsadius on 01 July 2018, 18:53:07
Liam's Ghost made a very nice idea...

That is if Alsadius would allow inclusion.

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=62000.msg0#new (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=62000.msg0#new)

TT

Armed merchant ships are legal in these rules. Same R&D cost as warships, but they get built twice as fast. Feel free to design something like that if you want - no need for the DropShuttle bay, even, because we have collars. That'll save 10,000 tons - I'm sure you can think of something interesting to do with 10,000 tons of payload on an armed merchantman. 
Title: Re: Group Design Challenge: WarShip Arms Race
Post by: marcussmythe on 02 July 2018, 13:44:57
Lyran Commonwealth, Turn 3 (Fluff)

(crunch to follow when we have final numbers for turn 2 - but this scene has been stuck in my head a few days, and needed out)

The young man had charisma, she had to give him that.  Tall, well built, with a broad white smile that distracted from the predator’s eyes above it.  A few decades ago, he’d have turned her head.  Of course, a few decades ago, he was busy being born.  Still, such musings served no purpose, and her lawful civilian superior was speaking.

“I’m not saying your -wrong-, Jackie.  Your Navy, I'm not.  I’m saying make me understand why.  Understand in a way I can explain it to the other eight.”

Jackie, aka Jaqueline Angler, FFA, NSP, ECT, and no doubt a half dozen more similar useless fripperies, was a study in contrast to the young man.  Small by any standard, she was dwarfed by his height.  A slender build and brown complexion had compressed and wizened over the years into something like a burl of dark, dark wood.  Heavy.  Hard.  Something useful for making a walking-stick, someone had said once.  Or a cudgel.

“You’re an Army man, Archon Marsden.  In the Army, you can defend a point with.. what… a third the attacking force, in extremis?  Half or two thirds, certainly.  You have terrain.  You can prepare defenses.  Your attacker has a logisitics train to worry about.  Things of that nature.”

Robert nodded, once, but said no more.

“Space isn’t like that.  Theres no terrain.  No cover.  Fixed defenses are possible, but unless you can afford to put meaningful defenses everywhere, nothing requires the enemy to come to you.  And you can’t prepare a position in a week or a month.  And you have no idea the other side is coming until you get the flash of an incoming jump.”

After a moment, the Archon spoke… “So like an engagement on the open desert?”

“Yes!  Exactly.  If the desert was perfectly flat.  And you couldn’t dig in.  You’ve heard of Lanchester, maybe, in command school?  He applies well enough to ground combat, but not perfectly.  Terrain, cover.  Limits of force density.  Space isn’t like that.  Tell me.  Your defending a.. hill, or a city, with 8 tanks.  12 attack.  You probably can repulse them, yes?”

“Doctrine is 2-1 is the minimum for offensive operation.  3-1 is better.”

“Right.  In space?  12 units attack 8.  The 8 flee, and do so before the first shot is fired, or they are crushed.  Its math, and only slightly less inevitable than gravity.  Assume that it takes the fire of 4 units to destroy 1, over, say, ten minutes.  And lets assume the units are equal.  These are huge assumptions, but they illustrate the problem.  After ten minutes… the larger force has lost 2 ships, the smaller force 3.  So 12-8 is now 10-5.  In the next interval, the larger force loses another vessel, and a second suffers, formally, 25% damage.  The 5 unit force loses two, and half of a third.  So 8.75 vs. 2.5... and warships keep most of their firepower till they die.  The weaker force if it gets lucky finishes off the damaged warship, and the stronger side reduces the weaker to a single cripple... and 4 ships have been lost to kill 8."

“And then it is all over. So what do you do, if you can’t match the larger force?”

“There’s no end of tricks that are tried.  The French, under Napoleon, focused on long range accuracy and speed – taking what they could for free and running before there could be a decisive engagement.  They got some damage in, but nothing decisive.  And when the decisive fights happened?  Nile?  Trafalgar?  They were crushed.  Because they had trained and built for sniping and running.  Inferior position had forced strategy and tactics that, while it kept them in the game for a time, made their loss inevitable.  Hell, they couldn't have capitalized on a winning engagement if they had the opportunity for one.  They probably couldn't have seen it as such.”

“The Germans focused on trying to catch isolated ‘bits’ of the British Fleet in WW1.  Unfortunately for them, Jellicoe was not an idiot.  You’ll note that the German fleet communication was arguably better.   They didn’t have an idiot in charge of their Battlecruiser Squadrons – Beatty was an idiot.  Just trust me on that.  German ships sacrificed freeboard and sustainability – they didn’t have huge cargo bays or bunkerage, they were pure ‘come out and fight in the north sea ships’, while the British had commitments all over the world.  German gunnery was better.  German shells were phenomenally better – they actually worked, unlike the British shells – which mostly didn’t explode when they were supposed to.  German armor was better – more internal subdivision, less need for long term habitability, and their yards could lay broader ships, which had a lot of advantages.  German powder was better – it was cased, not loose, and didn’t explode nearly so casually as the British powder.  And the Germans knew their powder handling better – they didn’t leave doors open, turning ships into floating bombs one penetration away from a firework show…

“I’ll stop you there.  I take it you could go on a while.”

“I could.  But do you know what happened?  They got beaten so badly that after Jutland the German Navy never stuck its neck out again.  Sure, the box score in lost ships looked better for Germany, but while most of those well built ships survived to make it back to port, their battlecruiser squadron was still beaten to ruins, and the British were still building faster than them.  By a few months after Jutland, the Germans were -further- behind than they before – despite enough unforced errors on the part of the British to make a woman weep.”

“That’s enough, Jackie, I think that covers…”

“One more, Robert.  Japan.  USA.  Terran ‘Second World War.’  The