Warship Race Redux

[marcussmythe]

It appears (pure conjecture following) that in an effort to make troop dropships feasible despite their horrific x28 cost multiplier on everything (/guess), tptb have removed quarters costs from all advanced aerospace units. Which, indeed, can mean goldplated toilets for everyone besides ground infantry. It does, admittedly, not have a massive effect on the cost of warships, courtesy of their jump drive taking care of that.

So, it is a rule, created to solve a problem made by another rule, which was created to solve a problem...

I would suggest before anyone else starts another one of these a long and jaundiced look be taken at almost all of the rules, especially ship costs - because Im starting to think playing by the rules as written generates things that look NOTHING like the ships that are 'supposed' to have been produced by navies operating under the constraints suggested by the rules.

Provisional Ruling:  When possible, use the most updated version of the spreadsheet for newest designs.  Older designs can remain on older spreadsheets, or be updated as you see fit. If Gold Toilets are free, so be it.  If this makes space stations even more absurdly cheap, so be it (stop cheering, Lagrange, I can hear you from here. :) )

[UnLimiTeD]

The most updated version from the start of the thread, or the ones Lagrange posted?

Im starting to think playing by the rules as written generates things that look NOTHING like the ships that are 'supposed' to have been produced by navies operating under the constraints suggested by the rules.

Not trying to be snarky here, but... you notice that now?  :P

Canon BT ships have far fewer weapons than they could or should. Missiles only work as long as they barely exist. The Fire control rules encourage you to place weapons in a weird alternating pattern, and most canon ships are armed with glass and cardboard.

I suspect this is mostly due to a lot of the existing ships NOT having been designed under the existing ruleset. Some were designed before those rules existed, which leads to ships with odd weights and supersized shuttle hangars, others were designed under the old AT2 rules (that I've never read) that also gave us fighters like the Chippewa. I assume that armour just didn't work very well under that ruleset.
Which the newer books acknowledge, see the mention of the Agamemnon in ... SO, I believe?
What a canon design can look like if the author intends to make it a good ship can be seen with the Thera and Leviathan 2.

I also have a feeling that, in an analogy to real world naval warfare, the Warship is supposed to have been somewhat surpassed by the Aerospace fighter.

So, it is a rule, created to solve a problem made by another rule, which was created to solve a problem...

Beautifully said.  ;D

[Lagrange]

I would suggest before anyone else starts another one of these a long and jaundiced look be taken at almost all of the rules, especially ship costs - because Im starting to think playing by the rules as written generates things that look NOTHING like the ships that are 'supposed' to have been produced by navies operating under the constraints suggested by the rules.

Indeed. 

The 1:10 capital ratio results in absurdity.  Shifting to our 1:100 houserule, the lack of standard scale weapons is at least excusable.  The lack of point defense however seems inexplicable. 

Provisional Ruling:  When possible, use the most updated version of the spreadsheet for newest designs.  Older designs can remain on older spreadsheets, or be updated as you see fit. If Gold Toilets are free, so be it.  If this makes space stations even more absurdly cheap, so be it (stop cheering, Lagrange, I can hear you from here. :) )

Actually, it's more expensive.  I found and fixed two more bugs---the sheet was not taking into account bay personnel (which it should be) for the purpose of calculating life support and the sheet was taking into account the cost of infantry bays (when it should not).  The newest bugfix version is here.  Can you update the first post link?

The net effect is always more expensive.  The relative increase in price is greatest for space stations because they are cheap and have the highest multiplier.  The impact on warships is near negligible.   I'll deal with the fallout for CC next turn. 

I'm also happy to help with the turn.

[marcussmythe]

Can you update the first post link?

I'm also happy to help with the turn.

1.)  Its updated.
2.)  If I could figure out a way to conveniently parcel out work, a-la folding at home for this sort of thing, I would.  I appreciate everyone's willingness to step in and load share.  Its just that currently everything is so much of a single piece that there isnt (that I see) a good way to do that.  Though I will spare a few clock cycles to see if I can come up with one.

[truetanker]

Why not state the results in a PM or post it and we type our own results based on that?

Like Marian expans 2 planets but had a scrimmage with FWL, lose 3 warships and 6 JS, etc. And I'll have to type it in, same as the FWL  player.

TT

[kindalas]

Winners do write the history books.

[UnLimiTeD]

If I want to seat bay personell in quarters, how would I do that? Manually reduce the quantity? Also, now that I think about it, using small craft bays for fighters causes another 3 men to automatically be added to the bay. I should probably abolish this practice.  :))

[Lagrange]

If I want to seat bay personell in quarters, how would I do that? Manually reduce the quantity? Also, now that I think about it, using small craft bays for fighters causes another 3 men to automatically be added to the bay. I should probably abolish this practice.  :))

You can use cargo to ship things and quarters to ship people.  The disadvantage of cargo is that things need to be readied for deployment, but this doesn't take to long if you have sufficient tech teams available.

[UnLimiTeD]

I ... don't think I understand. Could you clarify what you mean?

As to what I mean, a small craft bay requires a crew of 5 per "small craft". Which incurs life support cost (well, it currently doesn't). Kind of questionable, if you ask me, given that the small craft may well include quarters. Now, I house ASF in those bays, with extra room for spares and all, but those obviously only require a crew of 2 - pilot and mechanic. Maybe 3 if I really want a benefit of it. If I want to house one of them in a regular quarter on the ship, to improve crew quality and morale, then that drops to one or two.
So how would I reduce the "Bay personell" if that is indeed a cause for running costs based on an assumption I know is incorrect?

Example: My Battlecruiser has 240 "Bay Personell", and I also allocate an extra standard crew quarter for every 5 of them. The bays are meant to house 12 Small Craft and 36 Asf, so a standard arrangement would save 108 bay personell and 48 standard quarters. I never considered it before, and the costs are probably negligible, but paying a running cost for non-existent crew rubs me.

[Lagrange]

I ... don't think I understand. Could you clarify what you mean?

As to what I mean, a small craft bay requires a crew of 5 per "small craft". Which incurs life support cost (well, it currently doesn't). Kind of questionable, if you ask me, given that the small craft may well include quarters. Now, I house ASF in those bays, with extra room for spares and all, but those obviously only require a crew of 2 - pilot and mechanic. Maybe 3 if I really want a benefit of it. If I want to house one of them in a regular quarter on the ship, to improve crew quality and morale, then that drops to one or two.
So how would I reduce the "Bay personell" if that is indeed a cause for running costs based on an assumption I know is incorrect?

Example: My Battlecruiser has 240 "Bay Personell", and I also allocate an extra standard crew quarter for every 5 of them. The bays are meant to house 12 Small Craft and 36 Asf, so a standard arrangement would save 108 bay personell and 48 standard quarters. I never considered it before, and the costs are probably negligible, but paying a running cost for non-existent crew rubs me.

The rules don't allow you to avoid paying life support for Bay Personnel, although the costs are trivial on warships.  For the Kuan Yin, which is a troop cruiser amongst other things, the cost is <1%.

You can however avoid having bays.  For marines, you could just assign them quarters.  For vehicles, you could stick them in cargo and then allocate quarters separately for crew/techs.  To use them, you have to pull them out of cargo into a bay and then send in the techs to make sure they are working properly.  This might take 20 minutes, for example, so it's not something you want to do in a battle situation.  The same can be done with Mech/ASF/smallcraft.  Cost wise, you might be able to save a little bit.  Tonnage-wise, this is most helpful if the individual units are less than full size or on long duration trips.

Doing this all is a little bit delicate, because you want to have enough bays to handle launch/recovery/maintenance/repair.

[UnLimiTeD]

Well, I suppose I'll start with abolishing my practice for housing fighters in small craft bays in the future. I just wanted bigger bays for maintenance and spares, not to throw out food and oxygen for non-existing crew every day. My invasion transport also has infantry bays for the infantry to store their equipment, but still assigned quarters.
Man, the rules... :(

[Lagrange]

While we are waiting, I've been considering how to maximize the usage of armor on warships.  There's a 3-sides/1 corner strategy that I haven't seen discussed previously.  This isn't relevant in fleet vs fleet combat where warships either live or die after each attack. 

The core observation here is that the nose weapons arc is 120 degrees wide while the incoming damage nose arc (for receiving damage) is only 60 degrees wide.  As a consequence, there are two 30 degree slices of the nose weapons arc for which return fire is to the side arcs.  Hence, in a low intensity combat situation where you have time to roll sides, a warship could take damage on the left side, then the right side, then the nose side.  Since the side arc is balanced aft, with the right armor arrangement a warship can burn through some of the aft armor, all of it's armor from the aft sides, fore sides, and nose, as well as the structure before the warship is killed while all weapons can fire the entire time.  Used this way, nose arc weapons are strictly superior to broadside weapons, since you can (a) double up weapons in the nose while taking fire in the side arcs as well as (b) roll to a 3rd side (the nose). 

You may be worried that a 30 degree arc is to small to use, but keep in mind that there are two 30 degree arcs with either one or the other relevant on a hexgrid.  Also relevant is the fact that the broadside arc (which side-fire approaches use) is only 60 degrees  (~= two 30 degree arcs) wide.   You might also be considered that the random nature of hits makes this an unreliable strategy, but since the structure forms a shared reserve, much of the randomness doesn't matter, at least in terms of damage to destroy a warship (it would matter for critical hits). 

You can optimize armor layout for the 3-sides approach.   There's a free variable related to the fraction of fire taken in the side arcs before shifting to the nose arcs.   Ranging over that free variable you get:

side/nose fraction	1/0	0.5/0.5	0/1
nose armor fraction	0.028	0.319	0.611
fore side armor fraction	0.194	0.194	0.194
aft side armor fraction	0.25	0.125	0
aft armor fraction	0.083	0.042	0

It's interesting here that the fore side armor fraction is constant.  I double-checked---that's not a mistake.  In the side arc there is a 14/36 chance of hitting the fore side while in the nose arc there is a 7/36 chance.   After taking into account the fact that there are two sides, the fore side armor fraction is invariant here.

[kindalas]

I think that you are overthinking this game.

I just armor based on one of two factors.

Is it a Snotra or is it everything else I build.

[Lagrange]

I think that you are overthinking this game.

Oh, I know I'm overthinking it  :)

[Lagrange]

In reading through the designs of neighbors, I noticed an issue with the FS defense stations (Bailey and Parapet): they should not have broadside arcs.   This is not particularly important, but may be worth fixing.

[kindalas]

How is the burnout treating you?

Need any support?

[Smegish]

So have enough for a quiet turn at least. Have something for the UHC I haven't finished yet

[UnLimiTeD]

Don't beat yourselves up.  :)
I for one welcome a quiet turn. That mediocre leader is not yet dead (or is he? Canonically, he would be dead. Maybe he'll be assassinated soon, after all, Parker did plan that before Nihongi just snapped his own neck).
... You know, looking at it, the PoR and RWR are, together, on the step of becoming another "great house".

[Lagrange]

Just checking: the Terran Hegemony budget isn't a typo?  (They grew by 89B = 13.5%?)

[truetanker]

All I can say is someone is going to die this turn... wonder who?

 :-X
TT

[Tyler Jorgensson]

Yah!!!

Time to over stress on my next turn plans again ;)

[Lagrange]

The other interesting/unexpected thing I see is NCSS helping overcome ECM.  This makes sense, although I hadn't seen it previously.  It's similar to the ghost targets rules for ECM vs active probes.  Related, I realized the tech advancement table doesn't seem to have active probes.

[Smegish]

Just checking: the Terran Hegemony budget isn't a typo?  (They grew by 89B = 13.5%?)

Terrans precious leadership was stifling the naval budget, similar to how the US Congress did prior to WW1. New leadership is throwing money at the navy. This is also why some other nations got big boosts to budgets

[kindalas]

Terrans precious leadership was stifling the naval budget, similar to how the US Congress did prior to WW1. New leadership is throwing money at the navy. This is also why some other nations got big boosts to budgets

And here I thought it was because I was investing money into the economy with the navy.

[UnLimiTeD]

Terrans precious leadership was stifling the naval budget, similar to how the US Congress did prior to WW1. New leadership is throwing money at the navy. This is also why some other nations got big boosts to budgets

And how the DC is currently stiffled with that.
But I'm sure he'll die eventually.  ^-^

Kindalas, you could instead just invest the money in me.

[Lagrange]

All I can say is someone is going to die this turn... wonder who?

Well, the CC is enjoying some prime real estate in Terra Firma which is in commuting distance of Terra using their fancy new LF batteries...  What could possibly go wrong?

[Smegish]

Updated with the current map, which includes rings around the systems with ship yards in them, for easier identification.

Some people have yards packed tight together, others are scattered to the winds.

[UnLimiTeD]

Gotta love me some data.
You know, I think this was the first turn the DC didn't have to replace something.
What am I gonna do with all that money!?  :excited: Except, I don't even have that much. Still, I never thought about the dragons expensive "lifestyle" before.  ;D

[Smegish]

Updated the turn report with the UHC pirate hunt going very, very wrong.

And they are not happy.

[UnLimiTeD]

The poor pirates.  :'(