Author Topic: Real Talk about Vengeance Flatops  (Read 584 times)

Goose

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1440
  • … the Laws on his tail, burning for home …
    • Home of HeavyMetal Pro
Real Talk about Vengeance Flatops
« on: 20 January 2025, 22:51:53 »
How do these things work at all? :shocked:

Garbage for cargo; Too fast to have a supply ship keep up; You need somekind'a House Rule™ to shoe-horn supplies into otherwise vacc-rated fighter bays.

Has there been some new-think for this ship? :blank:
Goose
The Ancient Egyptian God of FrustrationAnimare Tai-sa Shikishima
I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught.

Liam's Ghost

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8250
  • Miss Chitty finds your honor rules quaint.
Re: Real Talk about Vengeance Flatops
« Reply #1 on: 20 January 2025, 23:10:30 »
Thrust isn't really an issue for supply ships keeping up with her. In transit a force isn't going to be running anywhere near a vengeance's peak acceleration. That extra speed is purely for getting out of a tough spot when you're actually in combat.

That said, I'm reasonably certain the Vengeance was originally intended as a WarShip escort, and thus was built expecting to be paired with a frigate, cruiser, or battleship that carried most of its supplies.

I imagine if a Vengeance has to operate alone it does so with less than a full complement of aerofighters, and uses the empty bays to stack additional supplies. Heck, during the worst part of the succession wars, a Vengeance would be hard pressed to scrape together a full complement anyway.
Good news is the lab boys say the symptoms of asbestos poisoning show an immediate latency of 44.6 years. So if you're thirty or over you're laughing. Worst case scenario you miss out on a few rounds of canasta, plus you've forwarded the cause of science by three centuries. I punch those numbers into my calculator, it makes a happy face.

(indirect accessory to the) Slayer of Monitors!

glitterboy2098

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12467
    • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
Re: Real Talk about Vengeance Flatops
« Reply #2 on: 21 January 2025, 00:21:41 »
especially given that it's hanger space doesn't fit the standard IS fighter organization.. you can easily fit three squadrons into each bay, but that leaves you with 4 cubicles spare in each. even if we assume that those are meant to be a full Wing and give it the Command Flight, you still have 2 cubicles empty in each. few commands have that many fighters, and certainly the few that do wouldn't be likely to want to concentrate that many into a single hull.

my own hypothesis is that the Vengence, in its carrier operations, is not meant to be a long term home base for fighters. it's a battle taxi for deploying fighters to a target, with said fighters carried on other ships long term (especially aboard warships, which it definitely was designed to work with)

this also helps explain why the hanger design is such that it has to shut its drives off entirely and coast, in order to recover any fighters. something no other carrier vessel has to do. (they just have to have a steady thrust and vector.) it's optimized around hauling lots of fighters and launching them rapidly. recovery is a secondary concern.

Liam's Ghost

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8250
  • Miss Chitty finds your honor rules quaint.
Re: Real Talk about Vengeance Flatops
« Reply #3 on: 21 January 2025, 00:35:04 »
Note also its armor and heaviest weapons are uniquely oriented to the rear.

It's a ship that is clearly intended to run fast from any fight it might get into.
Good news is the lab boys say the symptoms of asbestos poisoning show an immediate latency of 44.6 years. So if you're thirty or over you're laughing. Worst case scenario you miss out on a few rounds of canasta, plus you've forwarded the cause of science by three centuries. I punch those numbers into my calculator, it makes a happy face.

(indirect accessory to the) Slayer of Monitors!

Alan Grant

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2509
Re: Real Talk about Vengeance Flatops
« Reply #4 on: 21 January 2025, 06:43:43 »
Yeah, it's going to need its resupply. So there isn't a lot of point in setting it so it can't receive that unless you just have no intention of launching fighters in the interim.

Think of the extra speed in tactical/emergency terms and not a cruising speed thing. Like it might use it to get to a particular launch/recovery point, or to avoid an attack. Someone trying to kill a Vengeance to deny the enemy that vessel is a distinct possibility.

I've seen some theories that suggest the best use of a Vengeance is to set up up almost like a mobile fighter base rather than a carrier. You move it where you want it. Whether that's in orbit over a battlefield, or at a jump point or wherever, and then it stays pretty penned up and protected by escorting dropships, and the supply ships know where to find it. In order to keep it functioning at full form and deploying fighters you basically need a steady armada of cargo ships bringing fuel/supplies to it.

I had a friend once running a game where his unit had a Vengeance. It was frequently docked with, if not a dropship for cargo, then a jumpship for much the same reason. Or even something like a recharge station. It spent a lot of time docked and resupplying. Or times it would ferry it's complement of ASFs to a new planet (like as part of the waves of a planetary invasion), land those ASFs at some newly captured airbase on the planet's surface, and then withdraw. It was a ferry boat for them.

Same friend also developed a trick where ferried fighters would take off from the Vengeance, go fly a mission. Then travel to a planet-side airbase to fuel/ammo back up, including loading up on things like drop tanks of fuel, not to mention replenishing ammo, and then return to the Vengeance. By completing this circuit, the fighters helped to bring resupply back to the carrier.

It would venture away from that, but basically to get into position to launch a super-critical 1-sortie mission such as during a raid or the opening wave of an invasion. Which given the number of fighters it can launch can be very significant and meaningful. But then it would withdraw, it wouldn't hang around.

Lacking resupply or ferry options the way to stretch out a Vengeance's ability to have an impact is to limit how many fighters it puts into the air at once. If it's only sortieing one squadron at a time, then it can keep up a steady rotation of a small number of fresh fighters and fresh pilots. There are situations where that has value.

In a way the quirks of the Vengeance makes it a little more balanced and I've sometimes thought of it that way. It's ability to carry THAT many ASFs makes it overpowered in a sense. Even in the days of incredibly advanced pocket warships and massive assault dropships, the technically most powerful non-warship spacecraft out there is still a fully loaded Vengeance able to launch every ASF it has at you in 1 sortie. I don't care who you are. You could be a Taihou, a Conquistador (Blockade Runner variant), an Interdictor PWS a (insert name of massive pocket warship class here). But against that many fighters (especially if they are good fighter designs for anti-ship missions) you have a very real problem.

But it can't sustain that. It throws its punch, and then, success or fail, it has to stand down flight operations until resupplied.

Keep it resupplied though, and it's a menace.
« Last Edit: 21 January 2025, 06:46:47 by Alan Grant »

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11582
Re: Real Talk about Vengeance Flatops
« Reply #5 on: 21 January 2025, 10:35:22 »
especially given that it's hanger space doesn't fit the standard IS fighter organization.. you can easily fit three squadrons into each bay, but that leaves you with 4 cubicles spare in each. even if we assume that those are meant to be a full Wing and give it the Command Flight, you still have 2 cubicles empty in each. few commands have that many fighters, and certainly the few that do wouldn't be likely to want to concentrate that many into a single hull.

my own hypothesis is that the Vengence, in its carrier operations, is not meant to be a long term home base for fighters. it's a battle taxi for deploying fighters to a target, with said fighters carried on other ships long term (especially aboard warships, which it definitely was designed to work with)

this also helps explain why the hanger design is such that it has to shut its drives off entirely and coast, in order to recover any fighters. something no other carrier vessel has to do. (they just have to have a steady thrust and vector.) it's optimized around hauling lots of fighters and launching them rapidly. recovery is a secondary concern.

Crazy thought here, but...

UNREP
AWACS
Refueler
Transport smallcraft/shuttle for carrying supplies or landing parties or utility jobs or liasion or in-flight maintenance inspection craft, spare parts, spare airframes...

There's a lot of good uses those 'extra' bays can be put to, most of which are kinda necessary for a ship's operations, some are kind of useful if you expect to take casualties.

During WW1, the U.S. Flattops carried spare airframes, engines, spare parts, spare whole aircraft.  seems to me likely that a Vengeance carrier would be carrying spares in those spaces, along with specialist units like EW/ECM smallcraft, in-flight refueling aircraft, boarding shuttles, landing shuttles...

I mean, a Vengeance may be an aerodyne, but it's noted as not having wings or landing gear, because it's not supposed to ground....
"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

Highball

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 271
Re: Real Talk about Vengeance Flatops
« Reply #6 on: 21 January 2025, 11:39:11 »
You could just house rule it. The Aerofighter bay is 150 tons. You just divide it up logically ...... 100 tons for fighter, 20 tons for maintenance/repair/storage equipment, and 30 tons of supplies (ammo, fuel, repair parts). If you have a 50 ton fighter then you can convert 50% of the unused space available for supplies ...... 25 tons in the case of a 50ton fighter.
Marshal Russell Trest Oberlan. "War to the sword ..... the sword to the hilt!"

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 41656
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Real Talk about Vengeance Flatops
« Reply #7 on: 21 January 2025, 13:16:17 »
Garbage for cargo; Too fast to have a supply ship keep up; You need somekind'a House Rule™ to shoe-horn supplies into otherwise vacc-rated fighter bays.

This isn't a house rule, it's standard.
My wife writes books

Sixteen tons means sixteen suits. CT must be repaired.

"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul

Goose

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1440
  • … the Laws on his tail, burning for home …
    • Home of HeavyMetal Pro
Re: Real Talk about Vengeance Flatops
« Reply #8 on: 21 January 2025, 16:23:22 »
This isn't a house rule, it's standard.
'Mech and vehicle bays are only sort'a vacc-rated: Really Vacc-Rated parts, needed to keep fusion torches running, would seem to require more care in handling in LEO. :undecided:
Goose
The Ancient Egyptian God of FrustrationAnimare Tai-sa Shikishima
I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught.

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 41656
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Real Talk about Vengeance Flatops
« Reply #9 on: 21 January 2025, 16:37:13 »
So? The rule explicitly allows Fighter and Shuttle bays to do this. What do mech/vee bays have to do with that?
My wife writes books

Sixteen tons means sixteen suits. CT must be repaired.

"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 41074
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Real Talk about Vengeance Flatops
« Reply #10 on: 21 January 2025, 20:08:36 »
What Weirdo said... what does "vacc-rating" have to do with RAW?

Goose

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1440
  • … the Laws on his tail, burning for home …
    • Home of HeavyMetal Pro
Re: Real Talk about Vengeance Flatops
« Reply #11 on: 21 January 2025, 20:23:00 »
So? The rule explicitly allows Fighter and Shuttle bays to do this. What do mech/vee bays have to do with that?
:embarrassed: I thought you where linking to https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=85267.0

 :bow:
Goose
The Ancient Egyptian God of FrustrationAnimare Tai-sa Shikishima
I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught.

DevianID

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2237
Re: Real Talk about Vengeance Flatops
« Reply #12 on: 23 January 2025, 02:03:00 »
I havent read the fluff in a while, but I always thought the vengeance was an intercept platform, not a long term solution.  As an interceptor, it has more then enough strategic fuel to get where it needs, and action after the intercept isnt really a concern on the pass.

Also, I always assumed the 2 extra fighters per wing were the command flight of each wing.  Not all wings have a command flight, but like a Capellan wing is 3x12 plus 3 for 39, a fed suns or merc wing is 3x6+2 command, for 20, lyrans/fwl have 18 or 24, and dcms has 18.  So id imagine a lyran/fwl might eat 2 of the small craft bays to have an 18+24 wing, and the DCMS might have 4 airmechs or spares or something in addition to their 2 flights of 18.

Alan Grant

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2509
Re: Real Talk about Vengeance Flatops
« Reply #13 on: 23 January 2025, 08:48:25 »
Some in this thread have said the fighter complement doesn't really fit IS organizational patterns.

I think it's important to keep in mind that aero regiments are a thing. So in some cases for some factions you may see a Vengeance carry let's say 2 18-20 airframe air wings or whatever makes the most sense given the organizational structure that Great Houses uses. Therefore they are potentially carrying a big chunk of one aero regiment, with the rest being carried by other dropships.

We also know by its fluff that the Vengeance rarely operates alone. So some of the airframes associated with whatever ASF unit(s) it is carried are likely carried by other dropships. If it's been paired up with an Intruder or Achilles for example, it's easy to imagine 2 of its fighters are being carried by that dropship. So that thought in general expands upon your options if you just think of the same ASF unit(s) as being split across a few different hulls. Its own fluff says a Vengeance really shouldn't be operating alone, and that's true, it really shouldn't. It's very valuable, it's a very big important target, and it's going to struggle to defend itself.

Also there's another role that deserves consideration that is supported by canon facts. It's role in jumpship fleets.

Several sourcebooks tell us that at least some of the Great Houses organize at least a portion of their jumpships into fleets of around 6-12 jumpships or more, with at least some dropships attached as well. Such forces are usually commanded by very senior naval officers (admirals) and represent big units of strategic mobility. Some sourcebooks or field manuals note that these fleets often have one or more escort fighter wings attached.

A Vengeance is perfect for a role like that. Because it is tied to the hip of the resupply chain itself that the jumpship fleet represents, therefore alleviating its greatest weakness. Plus it occupies just 1 dropship collar. Compare that to assigning an escort wing to a jumpship fleet, but it's carried around by Leopard CVs.

Also a Vengeance in this role might have some permanent contingent of ASFs aboard, to defend itself and the fleet. It might carry a full complement for this job. OR it might carry only a partial ASF complement as a fleet defense unit, leaving the rest of its hangar deck available to temporarily take onboard other ASF units to transport them from A-B. So it isn't just escorting the fleet in this scenario, it could be functioning as a ferry carrier for some other unit's fighters.

So that's a great use for a Vengeance, especially if you think the risk of an enemy trying to intercept your jumpships is high. The jumpship fleet itself can contribute its cargo carrying capacity to the Vengeance's needs. The fighters it can bring to bear represent a halfway decent or even excellent defense against someone trying to round up and capture the jumpship fleet.

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 41656
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Real Talk about Vengeance Flatops
« Reply #14 on: 23 January 2025, 11:12:30 »
...whole lotta stuff...

Honestly, the more I think about it, the more it seems plausible that this was the original role for the Vengeance when it was designed in the Star League era. The powers at the time had no shortage of, let's call them attack carriers, the ones meant to enter battle with their fighters like the Titan and to a lesser extent the Leopard CV and DroST IIB. Many troop carrier DropShips carry their own fighter cover, as do most WarShips. But WarShips can't be everywhere even in the SLDF and the capabilities of an attack carrier DropShip are kinda wasted guarding what is usually the quietest part of the campaign in a star system. Flotillas of JumpShips don't need a bruiser of a combat carrier, and as you say they can provide plenty of supplies. The only thing they really need is a bunch of fighter bays floating in space, which sums up the Vengeance nicely.

This second-line role would have kept Vengeances safe(er) during the early Succession Wars while Titans and Leopards did the fighting and dying(and of those, only the Leopard was easy to replace). In the same way that mechs with no business in the front line got pressed into that job in the later SWs, the Vengeance became the premier carrier for the ad-hoc formations the Inner Sphere called fleets simply because it's what was left.
My wife writes books

Sixteen tons means sixteen suits. CT must be repaired.

"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 41074
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Real Talk about Vengeance Flatops
« Reply #15 on: 23 January 2025, 19:48:16 »
A well thought out summary! :)