Is it time to change the WarShip rules?

[Hephestus]

How about this idea: the more bays you have in an arc, the more vulnerable to crits that arc becomes, because each bay is effectively a hole in your armor that you're sticking weapons into.

Alternatively, impose a stacking Armor Points penalty for going over the weapon count limits in an arc. This represents the need for additional armoring that all these weapons need.

those are good ideas. you could have it scale with the size of the warship cause bigger ships would have more weapons per arc and give fighters a better chance to crit.

it would also help in creating the "sweet spot" that wellspring was talking about.  middlewight ships would have a good balance between firepower and defence, larger ships would be more powerful, but also more vulnerable to fighters, and smaller ships would be more effective vs fighters but couldnt stand in the line of battle.

[guardiandashi]

what if we set the "hardening" of armor as a sliding scale thing with some factors that can increase it, and some additional factors that decrease it.

example and this is just speculating at this point

base absorption would be based on si for example and there could be standard and capital absorption

eg fighters get at most 1 standard absorption per 10 si,
dropships get 1 std (absorption) per 10 si, plus an additional 1 per 100 armor and or they can get capital (ff) absorption at the same rate

jumpships and warships could get absorption in a similar way but its now CAPITAL absorption

fighters even if they cannot cause actual armor damage (absorption is too high) can still try to crit said ships, and damage/disable systems

things that could reduce absorption rates are:
excessive number of weapons bays
excessive numbers of doors
critical effects
"thresholding attacks"
etc

things that could increase absorption beyond base
special armors
hull reinforcement
etc

[dragonkid11]

guardiandashi

It seems you have the same idea as mine

Based on this rule of mine,the only thing that changed is the rule,no construction rule of jumpship,warship and spacestation needed to be changed.

We can just write fluff that the structure that support the armor of warship didn't just contain structure support and KF bloom support system,but also impact dampeners and heat absorbers.

Of course,the bigger the ship,the more damage reduction system you needs.This will give small warship some advantage over bigger warship as they can get tougher with less SI(And by that I mean SI that weighted 20% of a 500000tons warship give as much resistance as 35% of a 1000000tons warship,or something similar)

Other than that,anti-fighter weapons should stay as anti-fighter weapon.Thank to the damage reduction system,standard weaponry tend to be ineffective.Standard weaponry on warship when used to fire at warships(any kind) or even super tough dropships(Maybe having more than 500 tons in armor?) need a roll to hit first then another roll to see if the hit is effective(Maybe 9 for tough dropships and 12 for warship),to represent lucky hits on the structure.

Does that mean fighter is just fly now?Of course not,fighter is small,that means they can spot weak point in armor easier(especially if it's a warships shaped like a giant crab).Weak standard weaponry might do zero damage if the warship can reduce that much damage,but still can make critical hit(At chances of 12 if the warships is REALLY tough).Bigger guns can do damage but the further they are from the warship,they less chances they have to hit weak points(Again,roll first to hit,roll another to see if hit is effective).Any weapon that deal damage with lots of projectile(HAG,LBX,SRM) will most likely do zero damage and zero critical due to low damage.

We should also have two kind of damage reduction which I get inspiration from the Fallout series.Damage reduction and damage resistance.Damage reduction reduce damage in percentage.Damage resistance reduce damage with point and can withstand attack if the resistance point is equal or higher than damage point.

Damage reduction should only be used in capital and sub-capital weaponry attack,while damage resistance should be used in both.The damage deal by standard weaponry after getting resisted and reduced is just too low to worth the trouble of using fighters against warships.Damage resistance for both capital and standard weaponry should be different,to represent that projectile of NAC and beam diameter of NL used by warships are HUGE,so more damage reduction system can reduce the damage.

In fact,it's perfectly possible for warship to withstand NL hit with zero damage.

For nuclear missile,ANOTHER damage resistance AND damage reduction number is used,because nuclear weaponry always caused big explosive that effects wide area. :D

My 2 c-bills.Although I feel like I make warships OP now :D

[Maingunnery]

For nuclear missile,ANOTHER damage resistance AND damage reduction number is used,because nuclear weaponry always caused big explosive that effects wide area. :D

Except in space, then they are more like large flares.

[Maingunnery]

I just got some inspiration:

Capital scale ships may mount an x amount of collars per arc, per x amount of ships weight. However mounting capitial scale weaponry prevents the mounting of collars in that arc.

This forces ships to trade off collars and capital weapons.

[wellspring]

I just got some inspiration:

Capital scale ships may mount an x amount of collars per arc, per x amount of ships weight. However mounting capitial scale weaponry prevents the mounting of collars in that arc.

This forces ships to trade off collars and capital weapons.

I think the problem is that people keep tinkering with the design rules and hoping that will change the game play. Instead, I think the idea should be to come up with compelling game play and then work out balanced construction rules that support it.

Starting with design rules first and then trying to work outwards to the game table is part of what got us here in the first place.

[Maingunnery]

You are right with that, I was just trying to think of good tradeoffs (which the system really needs). 

[mathesont]

To my mind dropships are the real problem area.  Rather then the glass hammer of a PT Boat analogy they are armored jackhammers able to withstand the standard grade weapons of warships and avoid most of the capitol grade batteries.  Figuring out the balance seems critical to warship rules.  Maybe more capitol weapons aren't hindered targeting dropships, maybe capitol class weapons really put a hurt on the standard class armor and structure of dropships.  Something.

[Jackmc]

To my mind dropships are the real problem area.  Rather then the glass hammer of a PT Boat analogy they are armored jackhammers able to withstand the standard grade weapons of warships and avoid most of the capitol grade batteries. 

That's really only valid in a pue canon engagmenet.  You start using well-designed custom warships, and the droppers simply start going away. 

-Jackmc

[Hephestus]

a big problem that limits gameplay and warship construction are the engines.  most ships are designed to only have an st of 3 or 4, anything more cuts into the weapons too much to be usefull.  its like if battletech was limited to heavy and assult mechs.

[Maingunnery]

That's really only valid in a pue canon engagmenet.  You start using well-designed custom warships, and the droppers simply start going away. 

-Jackmc

Won't be nice if we have a weapon that affected Warships and not Dropships?

[wellspring]

Won't be nice if we have a weapon that affected Warships and not Dropships?

We do, it's called a JumpShip with a death wish.  :P

[Maingunnery]

We do, it's called a JumpShip with a death wish.  :P

Now to make it bomb munition sized.  ;)

[evilauthor]

Now to make it bomb munition sized.  ;)

I was unaware that there are any size limits on bombs and munitions...

[Sandslice]

to use an example of what they are argueing against bay limits as an "exploit"
lets look at ppc's 70 ppc's in 1 bay/arc would be legit and max out a 70ff "bay" however those 70 ppc's only weigh 490 tons plus another 700 tons of heat sinks to keep them chilled sure its ~1200 tons  but if I remember right you MIGHT be able to fit 1 light naval ppc or so for that tonnage

now I kinda like the idea of fighters being able to possibly crit a cap ship, while not being able to do significant damage to its hull/hit points

70 PPCs in one bay used to be legit, at least in BattleSpace - WarShip bay sizes were capped at 70 fire factors regardless of weight.  Your PPC bay would simply weigh 1190t, not counting fire controls; a Clan LPL bay was even more fun, at 1120t.  :P

MUCH better than two NL-35s.

[HobbesHurlbut]

70 PPCs in one bay used to be legit, at least in BattleSpace - WarShip bay sizes were capped at 70 fire factors regardless of weight.  Your PPC bay would simply weigh 1190t, not counting fire controls; a Clan LPL bay was even more fun, at 1120t.  :P

MUCH better than two NL-35s.

Except there's one factor between standard and capital weaponry; range.

[Sandslice]

Except there's one factor between standard and capital weaponry; range.

Actually, it's that standard weapons can't be used as ortillery.  Certain standard weapons could reach out and poke at extreme range (the ERLL and AC/2s, definitely, I forget what else.)  :)

[HobbesHurlbut]

Actually, it's that standard weapons can't be used as ortillery.  Certain standard weapons could reach out and poke at extreme range (the ERLL and AC/2s, definitely, I forget what else.)  :)

And do you know how many hexes the Extreme Range for standard weapons cover? Vs. the Extreme Range for Capital weapons.
It's 25 hexes for the Standard Extreme Range vs 50 hexes for Capital Extreme Range.

Do you know what Capital Range bracket cover the standard Extreme Range? It's Capital Medium Range one hex shy (24). Which mean a capital weaponry firing at Medium Range suffer a smaller range penalty than the standard weaponry firing at Extreme Range (three times the penalty).

Against a Large Craft, you're better off with the capital weaponry.

Against a small craft. Now let us say you are using NL-35s in AA mode, you have a +3 Penalty to hit but they reach out to Capital Long Range which is +4 modifier.
With a PPC bay, you only reach out to 12 Hexes. It is still medium range so it is only a +2 range penalty. But at that range it is considered Short Range for the NL-35.

Now the advantages of the capital weaponry over the standard weaponry are; Range, Fewer Gunners, and better Heat output.

A twin NL-35 battery require 2 gunners, 104 heat sinks and reach out to 40 hexes (Long Range Bracket for Capital) plus 1400 tons
A 70 PPC bay require 12 gunners, 700 heat sinks and only reach out to 12 hexes (Medium Range bracket for Standard) plus 490 tons (before FCS penalty)

If you wanted a purely anti conventional craft bay or sheer firepower or is really tight on weight limit, then yes the PPC bay is the better choice of the two. But for everything else the NL-35 is the better option.

Also don't forgot that the FCS penalty affect all the weapons mounted in the arc. So it hurt a mixed weapon loadout more than an uniform loadout.

[Sandslice]

I completely agree with you, when it comes to the current state of the rules.  I did say "used to be legit" and "BattleSpace" though.  :)
-There wasn't a separate capital range in the old rules; the range bands were 1-6, 7-12, 13-20, 21-25, out.  Only a few weapons had extreme range: no standard IS weapons; Clan ERLL, LB-2X, UAC/2; NAC 35 and 40; NL 45 and 55; MNPPC and HNPPC; all NGauss; all cap missiles.

-WarShips had a limit of 70 *capital* fire factors per bay, with no limit on standard weapons per bay.  There was no FCS penalty for exceeding any thresholds.  Also, the number of bays (not the number of weapons) determined the number of gunners and techs needed.

-On the other hand, Dropships had a hard limit of eight weapons per arc (which is now a soft limit of twelve.)

In short, back in the BattleSpace days, the only advantage 2x NL/35 had over 70xPPC (or 70xCLPL, for that matter) was ortillery.  That's why I said that 70xPPC used to be legit.  :)

[evilauthor]

I completely agree with you, when it comes to the current state of the rules.  I did say "used to be legit" and "BattleSpace" though.  :)
-There wasn't a separate capital range in the old rules; the range bands were 1-6, 7-12, 13-20, 21-25, out.  Only a few weapons had extreme range: no standard IS weapons; Clan ERLL, LB-2X, UAC/2; NAC 35 and 40; NL 45 and 55; MNPPC and HNPPC; all NGauss; all cap missiles.

-WarShips had a limit of 70 *capital* fire factors per bay, with no limit on standard weapons per bay.  There was no FCS penalty for exceeding any thresholds.  Also, the number of bays (not the number of weapons) determined the number of gunners and techs needed.

-On the other hand, Dropships had a hard limit of eight weapons per arc (which is now a soft limit of twelve.)

In short, back in the BattleSpace days, the only advantage 2x NL/35 had over 70xPPC (or 70xCLPL, for that matter) was ortillery.  That's why I said that 70xPPC used to be legit.  :)

Pretty much. Best Warship designs back then were to carry gobs of conventional weapons and only a few naval energy weapons for the rare time you wanted to do orbital bombardment.

[CJvR]

I think a good way to reduce both the effectiveness of massed standard weaponry and to some extent penalize larger units a bit better would be to require the designer to "spend" SI points for certain items. Then when the design is done whatever structural mass "remains" will be used to calculate the maximum armor protection. That will sting

Cap weapon bay - 1 SI (except missile tubes)
FC Penalty in arc - 1 SI for each FC penalty level for all weapon bays in arc
FC Penalty in single bay - 2 SI for each FC penalty level in bay
Door - 1 SI
ASF squadron - 1 SI (or mech/vehicle)
4 SC - 1 SI

So if you have 20 NL35 in a 70 point bay you would pay 1 SI for the privilege.
If you have 70 C-ERLL in a single bay you would pay 3 SI for the level 3 FC violation and 6 more for because you violate the FC in a single bay.
You could break down the bay to 2x35, then it would cost 6 SI, 2 bays and a third level FC penalty. Also since each bay is still over 20 guns they each get a 2 SI penalty.

SI is expensive, particularly on large ships with many guns. Such a reg should encourage lighter weapons on smaller ships and heavier guns on big ships while also making Battle Carriers a much more questionable investment.

The Thera's fighter wing arrangement alone would cost 60 SI !

[Wolflord]

I think a good way to reduce both the effectiveness of massed standard weaponry and to some extent penalize larger units a bit better would be to require the designer to "spend" SI points for certain items. Then when the design is done whatever structural mass "remains" will be used to calculate the maximum armor protection. That will sting

Cap weapon bay - 1 SI (except missile tubes)
FC Penalty in arc - 1 SI for each FC penalty level for all weapon bays in arc
FC Penalty in single bay - 2 SI for each FC penalty level in bay
Door - 1 SI
ASF squadron - 1 SI (or mech/vehicle)
4 SC - 1 SI

So if you have 20 NL35 in a 70 point bay you would pay 1 SI for the privilege.
If you have 70 C-ERLL in a single bay you would pay 3 SI for the level 3 FC violation and 6 more for because you violate the FC in a single bay.
You could break down the bay to 2x35, then it would cost 6 SI, 2 bays and a third level FC penalty. Also since each bay is still over 20 guns they each get a 2 SI penalty.

SI is expensive, particularly on large ships with many guns. Such a reg should encourage lighter weapons on smaller ships and heavier guns on big ships while also making Battle Carriers a much more questionable investment.

The Thera's fighter wing arrangement alone would cost 60 SI !

If I understand this correctly it seems like a good rule to borrow from FASAs old Star Trek Starship Construction system.

[Col Toda]

Not really as it is really an adjunct to the ground combat rules .  The Jihad  did manage to make any
warship heading for an inhabited world a terror weapon of NBC warfare at worst and orbital
bombardment platform at best and since the WOB is so connected with spies in interstellar
communication you cannot trust the flag or transponder of any warship heading for a planet.
In that environment it is necessary to destroy any warship that heads to an inhabited planet
regardless of  apparent flag or transponder code. The only response when millions of lives
are at stake is to throw all armed and unarmed assets in space to destroy it . By ramming it
with a Mule if necessary .  If that is the rules of engagement everyone adopts almost no one
will use Warship for ground support as gunners on that ship know that Mule or Behemoth
drop ship has a skeleton crew who is dead certain that their ship is the WOB regardless of
what assurances otherwise.  The use of what few Warships they are will be curtailed .