Is it time to change the WarShip rules?

[Marwynn]

Very interesting ideas... idea weenie, natch.

So the trade off in going bigger/more massive is that armour starts getting thinner per ton, heat dissipation suffers, and your internal structure requires more mass. Would that be enough to make lighter designs more meaningful? As in, are their actual advantages in staying at the 100-300 kiloton range that can't be overcome by piling on more tonnage?

I like that structure plays more of a role in thresholding than armour. Oh, and in your weapon breakdown, where do Gauss Rifles figure in? With the PPCs?

[Belisarius]

I would keep missiles out there at laser ranges, though. Especially the larger, self-guiding types. Just something cool about firing off a volley and then waiting while they close on the target. And I love the byplay about AMSs vice the size of missile volleys.

[gomiville]

I like your weapon class tradeoffs, Idea Weenie, especially combined with the ship mass tradeoffs.  It gives reasons to have a light laser boat or a heavy gun ship.

That's the thing that's really missing in the current rules: tradeoffs.  In the ground game, you need to decide between speed, power and protection.  It works with 'mechs, vehicles, even infantry.  In space, just go bigger and everything's possible at once.  Yes, that's a little more realistic given the nature of space and ship design, but from the gaming perspective, tradeoffs force designers and players to make decisions and balance play a bit. 

(Maybe if cost was more of a real factor in the game, but big ships are only so much more expensive than small ships, when it comes to super expensive warships anyway.)

Oh, and in your weapon breakdown, where do Gauss Rifles figure in? With the PPCs?

I would think that the projectile mass and extreme velocities of naval gauss would put them more with ballistic weapons.  Armor crackers, more than ablative melters.

[Marwynn]

I think we have the basis of a crowdsourced outline here...

[evilauthor]

I like your weapon class tradeoffs, Idea Weenie, especially combined with the ship mass tradeoffs.  It gives reasons to have a light laser boat or a heavy gun ship.

That's the thing that's really missing in the current rules: tradeoffs.  In the ground game, you need to decide between speed, power and protection.  It works with 'mechs, vehicles, even infantry.  In space, just go bigger and everything's possible at once.  Yes, that's a little more realistic given the nature of space and ship design, but from the gaming perspective, tradeoffs force designers and players to make decisions and balance play a bit. 

Part of the issue is that the rule makers imposed hard limits on what you can mount. Only X amount of weapons per facing before imposing ridiculously fluffed tonnage penalties. Only Y amount of armor can be mounted for every Z amount of structure. Only Z amount of Dropship collars per A tonnage of ship. Etc etc...

All of these limitations were clumsily patched in after the initial construction rules were published to prevent munchkin designs that would vastly outclass canon ships, with little or no in-universe justification for WHY these rules exist at all.

(Maybe if cost was more of a real factor in the game, but big ships are only so much more expensive than small ships, when it comes to super expensive warships anyway.)

The problem here is that Battletech and Aerotech are primarily TACTICAL games while money costs are STRATEGIC and LOGISTICAL consideration. By the time the game starts, the costs for a combat unit should already have been paid for (or put on credit... or stolen... whatever). If BT were primarily a Strategy game, unit costs would be a HUGE factor in decision making up there with firepower and tonnage and what not.

I would think that the projectile mass and extreme velocities of naval gauss would put them more with ballistic weapons.  Armor crackers, more than ablative melters.

Battletech doesn't really make any distinctions on damage type when it comes to actually calculating damage. You'd have to practically rewrite the game rules, not the construction rules, in order to make damage type a real factor in combat.

[CloaknDagger]

Battlespace had an equation so larger ships required a larger percentage of the ship's mass as structure.

For the cube-square law, everything else being identical, a ship 8* the mass will only have 4* the surface area.  This means the same percentage of armor will be 2* as thick, but heat dissipation will only be half as effective.

That only works if you ship is a solid shape. Not if it has any holes for such things.

[A. Lurker]

That only works if you ship is a solid shape. Not if it has any holes for such things.

Given that the postulate was "everything else being identical", of course the rule doesn't apply as neatly anymore as soon as one introduces random changes.

That said, a few holes won't make a huge difference, especially if the smaller vessels have similar ones for the same purpose already as well. That's all swept up in overall "surface area" then. To make a real difference, one would have to explicitly -- and at sufficient differences in scale probably fairly radically -- change the larger ships' entire form away from whatever design principles the smaller ones follow.

[CloaknDagger]

Given that the postulate was "everything else being identical", of course the rule doesn't apply as neatly anymore as soon as one introduces random changes.

That said, a few holes won't make a huge difference, especially if the smaller vessels have similar ones for the same purpose already as well. That's all swept up in overall "surface area" then. To make a real difference, one would have to explicitly -- and at sufficient differences in scale probably fairly radically -- change the larger ships' entire form away from whatever design principles the smaller ones follow.

Yes, you would.

Also, laser heat sink efficiency wouldn't be limited by surface area because it would be inside the ship and generate electricity which would then be pumped out from as little as a single laser.

[Marwynn]

Which brings up the question, "Should there be different shapes of hulls?"

Spherical? Oblong? Good ol' rectilinear stuff? The current rules abstracts this away, they're all the same shape with the same arcs. Can we introduce more tradeoffs?

[CloaknDagger]

Which brings up the question, "Should there be different shapes of hulls?"

Spherical? Oblong? Good ol' rectilinear stuff? The current rules abstracts this away, they're all the same shape with the same arcs. Can we introduce more tradeoffs?

Diamond - All guns except rear can fire forwards.  :D

[Marwynn]

Sphere (Like a Fox!) - Greater heat dissipation, no broadsides.
Oblong ("That looks like a...") - Standard, improved heat dissipation.
Rectilinear (A Box by any other name) - Greater armour and internal structure, less heat dissipation.
Wedge (*Imperial March plays*) - Greater armour OR internal structure, less heat dissipation. Broadsides and Foresides can fire fully forward.
Diamond (Two Wedges) - Like a wedge, but with worse heat dissipation. But can choose which arc to fire fully towards (full on to the broadsides with all guns in the fore, foreside, broadside, rearside, and rear)

Or is this kinda thing just not necessary?

[evilauthor]

Diamond - All guns except rear can fire forwards.  :D

Already covered by aerodyne hull type.

[CloaknDagger]

Already covered by aerodyne hull type.

Wait, what? That's what aerodynes are for?!

*Opens HMA*

[CloaknDagger]

Already covered by aerodyne hull type.

Wait a minute, that's only dropships.

[Belisarius]

I tend to be of the opinion that, given the scale that these vessels fight at, hull-type can be somewhat generalized. I recognize that, in terms of the physics of flight and heat and impact absorption, there are certain shapes that are better than others, but I think that, in compromise with aesthetics, broad brush strokes there are probably close enough.

I think it would behoove us to first identify a 'style of fighting' that we imagine these warships as using. Are these ships more like early 20th Century battleships hammering away at each other with their big guns at long range? Are they more like late 20th Century carrier groups fighting well beyond LOS with long range missiles and carrier-based aircraft? Are they more like 2d Century triremes who have to cooperate to close the huge distances and then jockey to see who will execute the dash in to close quarters? Will crossing the 'T' be of value? How will differing weights of vessels interact on the battlefield?

It seems to me, unless we identify what we envision combat to look like, then we're bound to fall through some of the same pitfalls of design that the original Btech designers did with their space system. They always had a clear (well, mostly) vision of what ground combat should look like, space, less so. If we nail down whether it ought to look like some specific other franchise out there conceptually (with care taken to distance the systems after we agree on a style), then we can pursue the mechanics of how to get it there.

[Red Pins]

Tagged.

[evilauthor]

Wait a minute, that's only dropships.

So? There's a few aerodyne dropships completely incapable of atmospheric operations. BT may not do it, but I don't see anything preventing them from building a warship along aerodyne lines where the majority of the weapon arcs point forward like aerodynes. Well, nothing except a huge lack of R&D funds to make it possible of course.

Really though, a Warship's shape is dictated primarily by the KF Drive (which is mostly rod shaped) and the need to protect it from damage. Therefore, Warships are designed as rod shaped (more or less) with perhaps wings or folds or other design features that increase surface area for no readily discernible reason except possibly to help dissipate heat more efficiently.

A Spheroid Dropship's shape is apparently dictated by the most efficient shape to fit inside the the safe zone of the KF Field by the Jump/Warship's docking collar, which is generally described as a "lobe". Otherwise, those Dropships would be designed more along the lines of flying towers (like Warships) rather than spheroids.

Aerodyne Dropships are (mostly) designed for one of two things: atmospheric ops and/or bring the most firepower to bear in their front arcs as possible. Their size limit seems to be mostly a function of them not being as space efficient s Spheroids; build them too big and they'll start projecting bits of themselves (wingtips, nose, tail, etc...) outside the collar safe zone, which would be Bad during a KF jump.

[CloaknDagger]

What I rally don't get is why there aren't hull-hugging dropships that act as mission pods for the warships.

Need strikecraft? Attach an aero carrying dropship.

Need anti-warship? Attach HNPPC boat dropship.

Or just a fullsized warship that uses all the jump capacity.

[Belisarius]

That's definitely not impossible (even given the current system). In point of fact, having looked somewhat thoroughly at the canon SL era warships, I expect that they did this to a great degree (particularly with respect to ASF forces). A Black Lion is not that huge a threat in its own right (although big enough for most). But if you add in a Vengeance or two onto it, and it becomes a downright scary threat. Continue that by adding an Achilles or two, and you've got a combat team that's hard to match. And, of course, the same goes regardless of the warship you look at. Aegis and Sovetskii Soyuz are in the same boat. More modern ships, it appears, lose some of this flavor as they try to take on more and more of the capabilities of the other ships in a task force on themselves.

[idea weenie]

So the trade off in going bigger/more massive is that armour starts getting thinner per ton, heat dissipation suffers, and your internal structure requires more mass. Would that be enough to make lighter designs more meaningful? As in, are their actual advantages in staying at the 100-300 kiloton range that can't be overcome by piling on more tonnage?

I like that structure plays more of a role in thresholding than armour. Oh, and in your weapon breakdown, where do Gauss Rifles figure in? With the PPCs?

Lighter designs would be able to be constructed faster, can be deployed to more locations, etc.  Figure all the roles smaller ships serve today would be served by the smaller designs.  Since they have more surface area per ton than larger vessels, so CVE would also be a niche role for them.

Larger ships are getting less protection per ton, but more protection for each percent of its mass allocated to the armor, as the surface area goes up slower than volume.  The problem is their heat dissipation is getting worse at the same time.  The small laser sniper ship would actually be a useful design, as it can dump all of its tonnage into a massive NL battery, using only the surface area for the weapons and a lot of Heat Sinks to keep the ship from cooking its crew.  It also has a large engine to keep the single battery pointed at the appropriate enemy.

I'd put GR in with the kinetics, since you are slamming a solid chunk of metal into the enemy.  It'd require a higher tech base for maintenance, so it would be used by the Star League, but only with difficulty by the Houses.  It would also require both recoil bracing and heat sinks, but would have the advantage of lower mass needed for ammo (only clean H2 fuel needed, vs whatever NAC use).


Missiles would be classed as kinetic in terms of damage, but ranges would be determined by missile type.  Launchers would provide a boost to missile initial velocity (as much as desired, so you could launch missiles from the opposite side, and they would do a 180 to engage).  You could have short-burn missiles similar to SRMs, standard anti-shipping like LRMs, and semi-cruise missiles like EELRMs.  Each one would have a different mass and range, and damage would be determined by either the explosive charge of the missile (great for damaging external or damaged stuff), or final velocity (for kinetic impacts).  Final velocity will be a sonovagun to determine for each shot.


Ship hull arrangement is abstracted under the idea of going for a minimum surface area for ship tonnage, then adding more surface area after.  I suppose you could have a little fun with math to give example designs as a result, but that would be mainly for art purposes.

Oh, for a sphere, that would have the worst heat dissipation, due to the low surface area:volume ratio.  But it would have great armor protection.


For ship purpose, that would be defined using weapon ranges vs ship accelerations.  If you have 100:1 of weapon range vs ship acceleration, you'll see Jutland style battles where both sides stand off.  If 10:1, you might see Trafalgar style, where both sides engage, but one can maneuver to cut the enemy wall.  If 1:1, ships will be dogfighting.


You could also have sensor platforms (either small craft, Dropships, or disposable drones) trying to get better targeting on the enemy, while your own weapons and units are trying to deny such information to the other.

I imagine two battleships engaging each other, firing lasers, sensor drones, and missiles, while their Dropships are covering the Battleship from enemy missile fire and supporting their own fighters, while their fighters are trying to shoot down enemy fighters and sensor drones.  A giant, glorious mess of two minds attempting to out-think the other with nuclear powered weaponry.  Fighters loaded with anti-shipping weapons attempt a strike on a Dropship or even the enemy battleship in a calculated risk, and either get shot down on the way, thrust just a bit too much and end in the sights of unengaged anti-fighter weaponry, or manage to strafe and damage some of the enemy ship's surface equipment interfering with heat dissipation, communications, or thrusters, slowly affecting the whole course of the battle.  Of course, if the fighters are lost that will change the course of the battle too.

[Maingunnery]

Sphere (Like a Fox!) - Greater heat dissipation, no broadsides.
Oblong ("That looks like a...") - Standard, improved heat dissipation.
Rectilinear (A Box by any other name) - Greater armour and internal structure, less heat dissipation.
Wedge (*Imperial March plays*) - Greater armour OR internal structure, less heat dissipation. Broadsides and Foresides can fire fully forward.
Diamond (Two Wedges) - Like a wedge, but with worse heat dissipation. But can choose which arc to fire fully towards (full on to the broadsides with all guns in the fore, foreside, broadside, rearside, and rear)

Or is this kinda thing just not necessary?

Well I would like it, as it introduces more very needed design tradeoffs.

[evilauthor]

Missiles would be classed as kinetic in terms of damage,

Um, missiles are classed differently from ballistics and energy weapons because of their performance, not because of the way they do damage. Missiles are slower (at the start) than ballistic slugs which means they can be shot down by AMS systems, but make up for it by being guided (can make in flight course corrections) and having multiple warhead options which can include nuclear payloads. They also need a lighter launcher than a ballistic slug or energy pulse.

I like to fluff the missile's auto-crit ability as missiles being able to guide themselves in on weak spots in a Warship's armor: doors, gun ports, sensor arrays, and the like. They don't always hit, but they have a much better chance than an energy pulse or a (relatively) dumb ballistic slug.

but ranges would be determined by missile type.  Launchers would provide a boost to missile initial velocity (as much as desired, so you could launch missiles from the opposite side, and they would do a 180 to engage).  You could have short-burn missiles similar to SRMs, standard anti-shipping like LRMs, and semi-cruise missiles like EELRMs.  Each one would have a different mass and range, and damage would be determined by either the explosive charge of the missile (great for damaging external or damaged stuff), or final velocity (for kinetic impacts).  Final velocity will be a sonovagun to determine for each shot.

This I can get behind. There really should be a greater variety of missile types.

Ship hull arrangement is abstracted under the idea of going for a minimum surface area for ship tonnage, then adding more surface area after.  I suppose you could have a little fun with math to give example designs as a result, but that would be mainly for art purposes.

Oh, for a sphere, that would have the worst heat dissipation, due to the low surface area:volume ratio.  But it would have great armor protection.

Penalty tonnage. Standard construction rules that when weapons in a facing exceed an arbitrary quantity, they all take penalty tonnage in the form of "additional targeting computers". That always sounded wrong. Change the fluff so the penalty tonnage is "additional heat sink tonnage" because too many weapons in a facing starts interfering with that facing's ability to efficiently dissipate heat. The penalty tonnage comes from making that bit of hull some weird shape to improve heat dissipation to acceptable levels... which costs tonnage!

For ship purpose, that would be defined using weapon ranges vs ship accelerations.  If you have 100:1 of weapon range vs ship acceleration, you'll see Jutland style battles where both sides stand off.  If 10:1, you might see Trafalgar style, where both sides engage, but one can maneuver to cut the enemy wall.  If 1:1, ships will be dogfighting.

Think you have it backwards. You start with an idea of what you want your ship to do and see what tech is available to do it with.

Incidentally, I read somewhere that Warships (Star League ones at least) are designed with broadside fighting in mind. Why? Because attacking head on puts the Warship's sensors at greater risk of being critted and an enemy on your tail puts the engines at risk of being critted.

Not only that, by fighting broadside, you get to use your main engines for maximum evasive maneuvers, because you're accelerating laterally from the target's point of view, making you the most difficult target possible. Meanwhile, a chaser configuration (most firepower pointing forward) practically requires a ship to move TOWARDS an enemy and present them with an easier target because lateral evasion attempts are pretty minimized.

A chaser config is fine if you're a fast and nimble fighter or assault Dropship. But when you're a big, slow Warship who can't keep such more agile targets in front of it? Not so much.

You could also have sensor platforms (either small craft, Dropships, or disposable drones) trying to get better targeting on the enemy, while your own weapons and units are trying to deny such information to the other.

Aren't there canon optional rules for Naval C3 now?

[Dread Moores]

Edited out

[Giovanni Blasini]

Everyone here should go use Gurps Transhuman Space to build a ship, see what a realistic system looks like, and come back when you're done.

Of course, I'm not sure which would be a bigger logistical nightmare: building Battletech-sized WarShips with that kind of system, having to throw Strategic Operations out and rewrite it, or throwing out all Tech Readouts with DropShips, JumpShip or WarShips printed in them, and starting over.

[Maingunnery]

Of course, I'm not sure which would be a bigger logistical nightmare: building Battletech-sized WarShips with that kind of system, having to throw Strategic Operations out and rewrite it, or throwing out all Tech Readouts with DropShips, JumpShip or WarShips printed in them, and starting over.

At one time I did a redesign of the warship construction rules for realistic tonnages, the trick that I found was to reduce the KF-drive % and use leftover tonnage for cargo. In that way I didn't need to fully redesign the warships.

[evilauthor]

At one time I did a redesign of the warship construction rules for realistic tonnages, the trick that I found was to reduce the KF-drive % and use leftover tonnage for cargo. In that way I didn't need to fully redesign the warships.

What the heck are "realistic" tonnages for a Sci Fi Warship using imaginary technology?

[Dread Moores]

What the heck are "realistic" tonnages for a Sci Fi Warship using imaginary technology?

X tons of imaginium + Z tons of handwavium - Z2 tons of plot device. ;)

[CloaknDagger]

want your ship to do and see what tech is available to do it with.

Incidentally, I read somewhere that Warships (Star League ones at least) are designed with broadside fighting in mind. Why? Because attacking head on puts the Warship's sensors at greater risk of being critted and an enemy on your tail puts the engines at risk of being critted.

Man, too bad engines and sensors explode if you put them anywhere but the front and back...

[evilauthor]

Man, too bad engines and sensors explode if you put them anywhere but the front and back...

LOL, ain't it?

Though I dunno about sensors, but wouldn't wherever you put your engine would by definition be the rear? Unless of course you LIKE running your exhaust through the middle of your ship, you know, right where the KF Drive is which is supposed to be kept refrigerated...

And outboard engines just make them that much more vulnerable to enemy fire.

[CloaknDagger]

LOL, ain't it?

Though I dunno about sensors, but wouldn't wherever you put your engine would by definition be the rear? Unless of course you LIKE running your exhaust through the middle of your ship, you know, right where the KF Drive is which is supposed to be kept refrigerated...

And outboard engines just make them that much more vulnerable to enemy fire.

Left and right engines as well as a rear would let you do some interesting maneuvering.