in 3152, exactly how many Warships does each Inner Sphere House have?

[Tyler Jorgensson]

^ This. Ever since the decline of the Warships in the First Succession War (and their death in the Second) you rarely see Admirals with any sort of competence until some of the Clan Fiction and even then. That means MechWarriors or Ground Officers get overall command. That is why one of the lines in Endgame at New Avalon is something akin to ‘Shut up Victor: I’m the Admiral here: I guess I have time to run you thru the basics but this is my world not yours.’ I also do like the couple of references to certain officers who used to command various aerospace units transferring to ground command or a major command rank and then still operating well with their aerospace assets because THEY ACTUALLY KNOW HOW THE FUNCTION! Admiral Kossacks from the Davion Guards demanding a Fleet Admiral rank rather than Field Marshal…

Plus a side note on how no one tends to stand up to the ruler/nobles when they make stupid decisions (unless your noble is the hero of the story that is)

[Cannonshop]

^ This. Ever since the decline of the Warships in the First Succession War (and their death in the Second) you rarely see Admirals with any sort of competence until some of the Clan Fiction and even then. That means MechWarriors or Ground Officers get overall command. That is why one of the lines in Endgame at New Avalon is something akin to ‘Shut up Victor: I’m the Admiral here: I guess I have time to run you thru the basics but this is my world not yours.’ I also do like the couple of references to certain officers who used to command various aerospace units transferring to ground command or a major command rank and then still operating well with their aerospace assets because THEY ACTUALLY KNOW HOW THE FUNCTION! Admiral Kossacks from the Davion Guards demanding a Fleet Admiral rank rather than Field Marshal…

Plus a side note on how no one tends to stand up to the ruler/nobles when they make stupid decisions (unless your noble is the hero of the story that is)

I only mentioned it really because it's one of those things that just...irritates me.  They ONLY gave the Clans competent naval, but then hamstrung it with a system that would by its nature not produce competent navies.  It's a huge discontinuity in the setting, but only if you've bothered finding out what it takes to make a ship at sea function, even in peacetime.

On a ship, absolute order is absolutely necessary or everyone dies.  YOu can't have people changing duty rosters with a fist-fight in the mess, or chaotic chains of command, or "Klingon Promotions", because if your crew doesn't work as a single entity, it doesn't function at all and everybody dies.

Historically, mutinies only worked when the Commander was TRULY incompetent to command-which shouldn't survive the Clan system long enough to GET a command.  Having your officers at each other's throats leads to things that kill your ship.

without needing enemy action to do it.

Experience is as critical as education in surviving once at sea, so the Clanner 'Up or out' promotion policy fails here, too.  As does the direction of that 'out'.  You want experienced officers who work well together.  Mediocrity in tactics isn't that big a deal if you're up against Geniuses who are at each other's throats, because their genius plans won't work internally-they undercut each other to compete for the top job, savvy?

Warriors who go to sea end up losing to sailors who have to go to war.  The KOREANS demonstrated this to the Japanese during the early Tokugawa period.  Admiral Yi Sun-sin racked up a damned LEGENDARY kill count with fewer ships by about a tenth, and turned the invasion of korea around on the Japanese of the time-because the Japanese invaders were warriors who went to sea, not sailors fighting a war.

This was repeatedly demonstrated by the many misfortunes the IJN had against the USN after Pearl Harbor-they had a few brilliant successes, that KILLED THEM in the longer term because they fought as Warriors, not Sailors.

But...whatever. handwave it, it doesn't matter, the setting is the setting is the setting.

There is no room for a Yi Sun-Sin or Admiral Nelson in Battletech.

Nor even a John Paul Jones...

[SeeM]

Communication was how the British Empire got so big-they had a Navy to carry it until Telegraphs and Wireless were invented, and successfully integrated those means into their existing system-but they didn't give up using the navy to carry messages they didn't want, say, foreign competitors to read (From, say, London to Capetown, or from London to Hong Kong.)

Reliable shipping requires PROTECTION...and battlemechs don't fly very well and there's no floor in space.  If there's a way to make an illicit profit hijacking shipping, (and there always is) then someone is going to be doing that, and the only real protection you have is Naval forces trained and equipped for the task.

It's BASIC infrastructure.  Not complex, not something you can, as a government, afford to put off until next year because there's a street fair in tharkad city you want to attend.

I really admire Your attention to this detail. It reminds me of w 3050 Mercenary's handbook, or Field Manuals. One of my favourite Aerotech scenarios are combat 'Mech drops from orbit. Even a simple Union is huge in comparison to Mech cocoons. This lets me think about absolutely massive amount of burned supply leading to that point.

Which leads me to the classic Aerotech Map (which is totally compatible with Aero2). It is a single planet and moon system. If I damage enemy dropship, it will not land on the planet, nor drop 'Mechs. Problem solved. It don't have to make an intercept fleet (even if the we have rules for high velocity flyby engagements). I only have to wait for the enemy to appear in my best spot, which is in sensor range near the planet. The only other place worth protecting are Zenith and Nadir points. They are called "points", but are pretty huge areas. There are only three areas worth guarding.

The industry of Great Houses was always pitiful, compared to military expanses. Capella had like 5 'Mech factories at some point and they somehow survived that. Now look at the attached map. This is Lyran space in 3079 with only four systems capable of producing large craft, on of them beeing Skye. They're fine with that. Maybe civilian dropships like Mule don't have to visit Alliance station every year. Most of them are decades out of warranty anyway.

[Church14]

Ooh. What was that map from?

[Caesar Steiner for Archon]

Objectives: Lyran Alliance

[Cannonshop]

I really admire Your attention to this detail. It reminds me of w 3050 Mercenary's handbook, or Field Manuals. One of my favourite Aerotech scenarios are combat 'Mech drops from orbit. Even a simple Union is huge in comparison to Mech cocoons. This lets me think about absolutely massive amount of burned supply leading to that point.

Which leads me to the classic Aerotech Map (which is totally compatible with Aero2). It is a single planet and moon system. If I damage enemy dropship, it will not land on the planet, nor drop 'Mechs. Problem solved. It don't have to make an intercept fleet (even if the we have rules for high velocity flyby engagements). I only have to wait for the enemy to appear in my best spot, which is in sensor range near the planet. The only other place worth protecting are Zenith and Nadir points. They are called "points", but are pretty huge areas. There are only three areas worth guarding.

The industry of Great Houses was always pitiful, compared to military expanses. Capella had like 5 'Mech factories at some point and they somehow survived that. Now look at the attached map. This is Lyran space in 3079 with only four systems capable of producing large craft, on of them beeing Skye. They're fine with that. Maybe civilian dropships like Mule don't have to visit Alliance station every year. Most of them are decades out of warranty anyway.

I'll counter this way:

Take a Jump Point.  We know where the jump points are, and it's not rocket surgery to use a telescope (even a ground based one) to verify who's sitting at that point.  (considering the needs for optics to make weapons-grade lasers, optical telescopes should be VERY good indeed.)

Now, to land a viable force that won't die immediately, your proposed invaders really can't sustain more than around 1 gravity for any duration.  This tells us what their course is going to be, because it's the course they have to take to land their forces on the planet intact and able to fight, rather than exhausted and injured and in need of a nice hospital stay.
 
With a Navy built of vessels that don't have to shepherd a force of ground troops and their ground troop equipment, making the interception is a matter of math and having good local charts with a decent stop-watch.

Oh, and enough fuel to actually fly the interception.

Why? because such a naval unit, isn't trying to keep their passengers intact enough to fight on the ground over a 7 day trip from the jump point (or even a 4-12 hour trip from the L1).

See, sustained gravity stress does NOT do nice things to human bodies.  A colonist from a 1.5 gee planet better have major genetic modifications or pregnancy results, not in stronger babies, but in miscarriages and bleeding out through the crotch, (also heart problems, digestive issues and shortened lifespan.)

Soldiers can survive BRIEF periods of high gravity, aviators can do it for slightly longer periods-but still have to taper off, because even sustained as little as two or three gees and your pilots become exhausted without proper support equipment and a nice, semi-prone seating experience.  (See: F-16 cockpit layout and what actually goes into a flight suit.)

While you can certainly compensate with 24th to 30th century tech advances for the flight crew, doing so for a cargo of ground-pounders is probably outside the realm of reason.

Following me here?  Because Battletech does not include inertial dampening.

High gee manuevers are going to be short duration no matter WHERE you are in a solar system, planetary orbit, between points, or at the jump point itself, esp. for any force on the attack.

we're not even touching on wear and tear to your ships yet.  This is just the squishy bits that run them.

Space is frictionless.  This was actually forgotten, largely, by the original developers of Aerotech 1, who seemed to have forgotten that you don't need constant thrust to maintain constant velocity, there's no floor in space, and that space is a three dimensional battlefield with no cover.

Meaning you don't need powerful sensor arrays if you can point your telescope in the right direction, since nobody's even approaching superluminal velocity. (or for the most part, relativistic velocities), and that huge Fusion torch is going to be visible at multiple AU Through Cloud Cover.

at least, at the stable constants of zenith and Nadir, and any semi-stable L1 point.

You don't need radar, you just need astronomy classes and relatively basic 19th century equipment.

why? because again, we don't have reactionless drives, and fusion heated helium is one of the main outputs from Mister Sun.

Fastest USEFUL approach would be one gee to the turnover, and one gee deceleration to orbit.  That's a pretty straight, predictable line. 

Interception isn't an issue...for adequately trained personnel in equivalent hardware.  harder accelerations are certainly POSSIBLE, but they aren't PRACTICAL if you're landing ground forces.  (it's basically sacrificing your load of ground troops as chaff to absorb ammunition-the recovery time is days to weeks to months to no recovery, depending how long they had to endure multiple gees, which measures into days even under ideal conditions if you want to go fast enough not to be intercepted or completely predictable.)

We knew about this stuff in the 1950s.  Battletech is 'the future as seen in the eighties'.

so it's not that tough to extrapolate.  High gee manuevering beats the shit out of your passengers...and it turns out that sustained existence at null or low gee doesn't have a good impact on fitness for soldiers either.  Lost muscle mass and circulatory problems, reduced bone mass, etcetera.  This would have to be addressed through medical technology.

medical tech unlikely to be widespread, without the kind of population that evolves a Naval force before they evolve a ground force.

which nobody really did or retained, per the Canon, making all of the above I just wrote, pointless.

BUT, if you're doing a campaign and want to make it more immersive, it can be very helpful to consider the 'unaddressed consequences' that aren't looked at too closely by the game designers, like the medical and ACTUAL tactical impacts of the technology as presented.  (lord knows the Devs can't-it would literally break the game's setting, possibly irreparably.)

[Tyler Jorgensson]

I did try explaining some of those points to people in a different space based RPG with similar tech… it didn’t go over well.

But (not being a scientist, military personnel, or related in any field applying (just a nerd who reads a lot)) this is why pirate points frustrate me a bit. You figure how long some of these planets that have been colonized that pirate points would have been sufficiently mapped in some of them: especially the major ones. Basic math and science can show the orbits of planets and their gravitic effects on the solar system in question. It should be basic math that a BT computer could figure out ‘pirate points’ that exist for which portions of the planets rotation around its sun. I know the Nadir and Zenith points are the most common because that’s how they are chosen and operated for normal civilian traffic. Still boggles my mind.

Also the idea of blocking said jump point with mines, debris, or nearby stations can be TRULY devastating to any attacker (or even normal traffic).

Also ‘elevation’ (aka three dimensional combat) in space is another problem I have but it’s too late and I’m too tired to respond… so part two later

[Cannonshop]

I did try explaining some of those points to people in a different space based RPG with similar tech… it didn’t go over well.

But (not being a scientist, military personnel, or related in any field applying (just a nerd who reads a lot)) this is why pirate points frustrate me a bit. You figure how long some of these planets that have been colonized that pirate points would have been sufficiently mapped in some of them: especially the major ones. Basic math and science can show the orbits of planets and their gravitic effects on the solar system in question. It should be basic math that a BT computer could figure out ‘pirate points’ that exist for which portions of the planets rotation around its sun. I know the Nadir and Zenith points are the most common because that’s how they are chosen and operated for normal civilian traffic. Still boggles my mind.

Also the idea of blocking said jump point with mines, debris, or nearby stations can be TRULY devastating to any attacker (or even normal traffic).

Also ‘elevation’ (aka three dimensional combat) in space is another problem I have but it’s too late and I’m too tired to respond… so part two later

It happens.  We ALL love the genre of space opera, or we wouldn't be here, we'd be talking Oats-and-saddles westerns or hardcore fantasy, or superheroes instead.

We all love GIANT ROBOTZ!!!! or we wouldn't be here, we'd be chatting other forms and formats instead.

but...

some of the tropes of Space Opera often demonstrably rely on things we know for a fact aren't true about space, null gee, and things we've actually learned about since the 1950s saw the start of the Space Race, foundation of NASA, etc. etc.

as players, we also see the gaps in the narrative more sharply the more we bother to learn about hardcore science part of science fiction.

Designing a decent space-ships-as-warfare game is HARD.  The more realistic you want to make it, the more difficult it becomes to actually 'game out' the realistic effects without adding magic handwavium...and the harder it is to sell as a product. (which is why so many games in the genre focus mainly on the ground/surface side of combat.)

 

[SeeM]

But (not being a scientist, military personnel, or related in any field applying (just a nerd who reads a lot)) this is why pirate points frustrate me a bit. You figure how long some of these planets that have been colonized that pirate points would have been sufficiently mapped in some of them: especially the major ones. Basic math and science can show the orbits of planets and their gravitic effects on the solar system in question. It should be basic math that a BT computer could figure out ‘pirate points’ that exist for which portions of the planets rotation around its sun. I know the Nadir and Zenith points are the most common because that’s how they are chosen and operated for normal civilian traffic. Still boggles my mind.

Pirate points are the space forests, where bandits are hiding. Every space opera has same excuse for having space forests. Pirate points at lease make some sense, since they are not permanent and each single jump has to be slightly adjusted. Still, magical space forest.

[SeeM]

Take a Jump Point.  We know where the jump points are, and it's not rocket surgery to use a telescope (even a ground based one) to verify who's sitting at that point.  (considering the needs for optics to make weapons-grade lasers, optical telescopes should be VERY good indeed.)

This is way nerdier than I though, I like it. Canonically, only a small Scout jumpship might avoid detection. Not because it's the smallest, bit because it has smallest KF burn while jumping. Before exiting hyperspace, our space should be prepared by burning every matter in the arrival area, which produces a lot infrared light. Or maybe KF signatures would propagate similarly to a black holes merger and Ligo-like facilities on the planet can easily spot every one of them. I think 4 or them are necessary to pinpoint exact location, but since general location are known, even one should be enough. I image infra-red telescopes would be perfect to spot little, hot jumpships in a system.

Now, to land a viable force that won't die immediately, your proposed invaders really can't sustain more than around 1 gravity for any duration.  This tells us what their course is going to be, because it's the course they have to take to land their forces on the planet intact and able to fight, rather than exhausted and injured and in need of a nice hospital stay.

Getting 1G of thrust is how most Dropships operate during almost entire way.

With a Navy built of vessels that don't have to shepherd a force of ground troops and their ground troop equipment, making the interception is a matter of math and having good local charts with a decent stop-watch.

Exactly. This almost make use of Battlemechs defending planet a shameful mistake already.

See, sustained gravity stress does NOT do nice things to human bodies.  A colonist from a 1.5 gee planet better have major genetic modifications or pregnancy results, not in stronger babies, but in miscarriages and bleeding out through the crotch, (also heart problems, digestive issues and shortened lifespan.)

I don't remember if any space trip in Battletech was using more that 1G foe extend periods. Maybe Clan crews do not give a damn about 1,5 and threat it like some kind of a trial. Only the worthy ones will drop on a planet.

Soldiers can survive BRIEF periods of high gravity, aviators can do it for slightly longer periods-but still have to taper off, because even sustained as little as two or three gees and your pilots become exhausted without proper support equipment and a nice, semi-prone seating experience.  (See: F-16 cockpit layout and what actually goes into a flight suit.)

In Aertotech there is a concept of pilotint skill check, and I'm always trying to avoid it. Loosing thrust for entire turn means alpha strike at point black range from the back.

Space is frictionless.  This was actually forgotten, largely, by the original developers of Aerotech 1, who seemed to have forgotten that you don't need constant thrust to maintain constant velocity, there's no floor in space, and that space is a three dimensional battlefield with no cover.

We have a limited Newtonian physics in Aero2. In a simple wariant, it only makes turning depend on velocity. In the advanced there are realistic burns, that changes direction and vessels can fly at every direction, no matter the facing.

We knew about this stuff in the 1950s.  Battletech is 'the future as seen in the eighties'.

If things were designed from Aerotech perspective in a first place with ground combat as n add-on, I think we would get our eighties in space.

There is a worthy read in a Strategic Operations, all the "lore" of jumpships and warchips. At the page 128, there is an "Why Build WarShips?" article, explaining the needs and costs. In the novels, there are destroyed almost instantly to make room for 'Mech action. Rules are representing that fine, because warchips have very high damage to armor ratio. It comes to who can outrange and fire first.

[Nodachi]

I'm fine with keeping warships rare. As it means the other side gets serious when even a corvette shows up. I just got the newest printing of the rulebooks and I'm glad I still have my pdf of StratOps for jumpship/warship rules since those weren't updated as far as I know.

[Cannonshop]

I'm fine with keeping warships rare. As it means the other side gets serious when even a corvette shows up. I just got the newest printing of the rulebooks and I'm glad I still have my pdf of StratOps for jumpship/warship rules since those weren't updated as far as I know.

I admit more favorable view of small warships, than "Pocket WarSHIPZ"

becuase those are, pretty universally, a dumb idea for anything but sneak attacks or ground support (and there are MUCH better ground support platforms-they're called "aerospace fighters" and don't cost a vast amount of lost skill and materials when they get golden-beebees).

Because I don't SEE a sloop or Corvette as useful in the ground battle, really, they're pretty much the sort of ship you build to confront other ships prior to landings, or to act as pursuers/interceptors for a fleeing Dropship.

(because THAT is what they're really good for.)

1. Your Warship group should NEVER come into the atmospheric interphase to orbitally bombard unless you've fully secured the star system (See: Palmyra, Lucien Davion).

2. This means you need to secure not only the close orbit, but also the major jump points.  Good luck covering that with dropships that take days to weeks to get there-by the time they've reached the idling jumpship, he's loaded his loot and is going to jump away, or the force he landed has taken your governor hostage and you can't do a phekk'ta thing about it.

On the Offense, you STILL need to cover the alternate routes in (Nadir or Zenith, L1, etc.) if you want to bring your heavy in to do some strategic bombing via Naval grade weapons.  This isn't a job that even a Castrum is good for (again, by the time he reaches one of the other points, your operations are over or the enemy's reinforced.)

3. The other aspects you need a navy for.  It doesn't have to be all, or even majority, warship based, but there are a lot of jobs where a stick-and-ball-jumpship is a supremely vulnerable target instead of a useful asset.  Reconaissance, communication, or interdiction are the three big ones where having a compact core (even a degraded one with a short range) is more useful than a stick-and-ball, especially if it can pull more than one gee and is crewed accordingly.

There is, in my opinion, a false dichotomy at play in a lot of the "Warships degrade the dignity of a Battlemech" because of two things:

1. Warships cannot take and hold ground.  'mechs can do this...at least, according to the fluff.

2. To claim warships degrade the important role of 'mechs is, to me, about as sensible as claiming that the advent of steam-powered ironclads outmoded horse cavalry or the importance of the Infantry in 19th century war.  There's this little spot in Turkey, on the coast, it's called "Gallipoli" and the combined might of the british and french navies failed to conquer it so decisively that it became a Legendary defeat for Naval forces.

Why? because even with massive fire superiority and almost nothing that could effectively shoot back, the allies were bogged down on the ground and their invasion forces were annihilated by conventional ground troops despite pretty much everything being in naval gun range.

For a Warship, it's worse-you're having to dip in VERY close to the planet, effectively immobilized and blinded to do it.  That's a bit like posting the "Come to chow" sign for predatory fighter craft and surface ADA batteries, and it's even worse if the enemy has a naval force-in-being in the system.

Why? because your bombarding warship is effectively immobilized and blinded while doing it, they have to burn fuel (lots of fuel) to hold pose, and they can't evade or effectively fight back when your forces come in to kill them. (See again: Lucien Davion and Palmyra)

This makes it, effectively a situation where the naval units would be maneuvering and slugging it out while the dropships and fighters do all the important work on the only target worth the effort-the planet.

Savvy that? see where I'm at here?  One of the chief flaws with how Naval is handled in the canon, is this idea that a solo warship is some kind of overwhelming powerhouse that guarantees your victory.

It's not.  What guarantees your victory, is all the OTHER jobs Navies do, like making sure your transport ships can deliver their dropships, or making sure your supply line doesn't get cut by some clever bastard with a wing of fighters on a Vengeance-hauling scout, or preventing the enemy from landing 123456 RCT's on you just as you've finished looting the enemy's factory/ammo dump/city/conquered the local capital.

But mainly the logistics and early warning functions that let you withdraw before he drops ten galaxies on your Battalion, or securing your jumpships so you CAN withdraw (or reinforce).

Warships aren't all-powerful engines of death, they're relatively expensive and fragile specialist tools.  It's how they're USED that is the all powerful engine of Death, and I can point out numerous examples in the canon showing nobody knows what to do with them.

[Cannonshop]

Just in case I miss a reply.... (My last post continued):

The proper use of a warship, is neither as a strategic bomber, nor as a battering ram.  "Hold at all costs" with warships is the same as "Commit suicide in the second most expensive manner possible" (the first, being ramming attacks).

What you do when you're losing with warships, is retreat and regroup.

Why? because having a "Fleet in being" is more useful (and economical) than having megatons of drifting, slightly radioactive slag.

The Enemy cannot ignore it. They have to either pursue, or allow them to escape and regroup.  (this is OH so much easier if your fleet has LF batteries, by the by, but not impossible with newtonian thrust as long as you can accelerate fast enough-which is where light warships shine over big, heavy ones.)

It's very much a different sort of game, from the 'stand your ground and pound" of typical 'mech combat, and that's only the very TIP of what they're for.

Might call it the 'least common case'.

Naval vessels excel at either defending, or attacking the shipping a faction needs to prosecute their war aims.  Dropship interception/hunting, knocking out or capturing Jumpships, forcing stressful evasive manuevering to disrupt landing forces? these are roles for Warships, not trying to be a static artillery battery over a ground battlefield-this is a good way to lose your warship, at least, if the enemy is half awake and not already so degraded they can't fight back.

The key here, is that your combat navy must be able to create a strategic and tactical dilemma for your opponent, they don't even have to WIN the engagement to do this-they just have to pose a significant enough threat that your opponent MUST devote resources to countering them.

That's the battlefield.  What about the rest of the stuff?

Imagine your enemy has access to all your long range codes, all the time, because he's using the same long-distance provider you are, and neither of you own that provider.

Do you suppose you might have orders you don't want the enemy/rival/someone else to read??  Breaking in to steal it from a ship, is like breaking into a military base located in extreme hostile conditions, that is moving and staffed by guys and gals who know their ship's condition is the sole and only thing keeping them alive.

Nobody's gonna be asleep at the gate, and finding a traitor willing to risk his LIFE helping you compromise his LIFE SUPPORT is gonna be a lot harder than finding Private Snuffy at the local bar and using hookers to steal his uniform and I.D. (or compromise him with dirty peektures enough to get him to leave the airlock unguarded-it CAN happen, it's just damned unlikely to work.)

This base is also CROWDED, not a lot of 'private spaces' where an infil can sneak past guards and observers.

makes a pretty decent courier that way, don'cha know?

so, "Military Communications"-especially written orders and war plans, are better moved with your Navy (at least, between friendly ports or friendly ships) than trusting Comstar.

Especially things like one-use codebooks.

Second is "Eyes".  Yes, yes, you can have spies on the ground, calling in from Comstar...right? they're not going to rat you out are they? (derisive laughter here).

Scout vessels provide the eyes-and-ears of the fleet.  IN the Dark Age, with Blakc boxes gone and HPG nets down, they're the ONLY eyes you have because your spies aren't going to be able to tell you things if you can't hear them.

Third, goes back to da combatz.  Supply transports, Merchant Convoys, these keep armies in the field alive on campaign.  They're prime targets for Naval interdiction, you need to protect them, and to be able to exploit someone else NOT protecting them ENOUGH.

This generally works better for units with what htey call 'Strategic mobility'-that is, the ability to strike in system A, then move on to System B either to strike again, or to meet with a supply ship for rearming and refueling (which is ALSO a rather good target for the other side.)

Notice I'm not giving a lot of space to orbital bombardment? yes, it's powerful, yes, it's impressive...but it's not very useful unless you've already sewn up the system so tight the enemy can't get reinforcements in to attack your fleet vessels, or launch fighters to do the same from hidden ground bases.

Which do exist in Battletech.

Most Naval fighting SHOULD be done well away from mister planet.  Just like the fleet units at Gallipoli.  (or the pacific campaign in the 1940s, sure, lots of naval gunfire, most of it wasn't as useful as Marine and Army units actually TAKING THE ISLAND.)

Get what I'm saying?  The Houses could have fleets 100 times the size they do in Canon, and they still wouldn't overshadow the 'mech forces, because warships don't hold ground. and that's what the bulk of fighting in canon is, when it's not raids too small to merit an orbit-to-surface bombardment because it's so much more destructive that it destroys the asset you're trying to either secure, or escape with.

[idea weenie]

The Enemy cannot ignore it. They have to either pursue, or allow them to escape and regroup.  (this is OH so much easier if your fleet has LF batteries, by the by, but not impossible with newtonian thrust as long as you can accelerate fast enough-which is where light warships shine over big, heavy ones.)

Nitpick on this, based on Strategic Operations (corr 4th printing) p135 & p136:
- Warships use 12% of the vessel's mass per G of acceleration, no matter the vessel mass. (6% per Thrust point, and each Thrust point is half a G acceleration)
- Warship Structural integrity is .1% per pt of Structural Integrity, no matter the vessel mass.

Together this means that a ship massing 1 MTon will use an engine 10* the mass of a vessel that is 100 ktons, and have the same acceleration.  Smaller ships are not any more nimble than a larger ship with the same mass fraction devoted to engine.

To se what I mean design two Sampans with the same Thrust ratings, one at 100 ktons and one at 200 ktons.  Compare the engine and structural masses for the two.  The larger one should have 2* the mass of the engine and structure of the smaller.


The advantage of lighter warships should be that smaller Warships can be docked in yards that are Jumpship-capable, while Warships over 500 ktons would need special yards.

[Cannonshop]

Nitpick on this, based on Strategic Operations (corr 4th printing) p135 & p136:
- Warships use 12% of the vessel's mass per G of acceleration, no matter the vessel mass. (6% per Thrust point, and each Thrust point is half a G acceleration)
- Warship Structural integrity is .1% per pt of Structural Integrity, no matter the vessel mass.

Together this means that a ship massing 1 MTon will use an engine 10* the mass of a vessel that is 100 ktons, and have the same acceleration.  Smaller ships are not any more nimble than a larger ship with the same mass fraction devoted to engine.

To se what I mean design two Sampans with the same Thrust ratings, one at 100 ktons and one at 200 ktons.  Compare the engine and structural masses for the two.  The larger one should have 2* the mass of the engine and structure of the smaller.


The advantage of lighter warships should be that smaller Warships can be docked in yards that are Jumpship-capable, while Warships over 500 ktons would need special yards.

How many Fredasa's can you crew compared to a single Leviathan or Levi II (Or McKenna, Or Cameron?)

How many systems can a single Leviathan threaten simultaneously compared to those Freds?  How many systems cn you patrol simultaneously, and how many ships of each class does the enemy need to neutralize before having space superiority?

[Metallgewitter]

Makes me wonder when the first power comes to the bright idea to revive the ancient Monitor class battleships. You know those that can't jump but still roam the space over their respective planet.
Then again that's what you got Assault Dropships and Aerospace Fighters for (preferably ones equipped with nukes should Anti-Warship duty is on the table). Then again the lore makes it sound like that some dropships are good enough of a threat to smash smaller Warships to pieces with ease (like the Interdictor, Isegrimm or Nagsawa)

[Cannonshop]

Makes me wonder when the first power comes to the bright idea to revive the ancient Monitor class battleships. You know those that can't jump but still roam the space over their respective planet.
Then again that's what you got Assault Dropships and Aerospace Fighters for (preferably ones equipped with nukes should Anti-Warship duty is on the table). Then again the lore makes it sound like that some dropships are good enough of a threat to smash smaller Warships to pieces with ease (like the Interdictor, Isegrimm or Nagsawa)

PWS were specifically come up with (out of story) to revive the idea of Monitors after a very hard 'no' on adding Monitors to the game by the lead developer and IP owners.

They're also not practical or pragmatic because they're ONLY useful in a static fight.  Just like PWS.

To be of any value to an Interstellar Nation, (Unlike, say, a planetary chunk of continental land where you might wanna patrol some narrow waterways or a very limited piece of coastline on a continent), Navies must have Strategic Mobility.  Monitors don't have it, and monitors without a mobile naval force end up being very expensive fortifications that have a value so limited as to be a net loss both as tactical, and strategic, assets.

there's a very good reason steamclad monitors didn't make it all the way into the 20th century with anyone who had to cover any distance, and didn't last as defensive units past about 1916 outside of inland waterways and landlocked countries.

(Yes, I'm aware the British built a couple of big-gun monitors for Operation:Overlord, but they only saw action in a specific operation and tehy didn't make it past that point.  They had zero utility once the initial mission was over with.)

Here's the thing, right?  your landlocked (system locked) monitor is something a jump capable foe can, and will, bypass.  They don't even have to enter the star system-cutting off the trade and commerce coming in and going out is enough to break your power in that system, or render it irrelevant for force projection or economic purposes, and your "Monitors" end up using up more resources trying to cover the REST of the duties a Navy has when not in set-piece battles, but with less capability and a higher vulnerability index, because transiting, say, the Sol system at newtonian speeds is a trip of months, but hitting a skipping rocks at the L1 points in the Sol system lowers that to a range of hours to maybe days instead of weeks or months.

The trade off is that the highly non-mobile huge dropship is incapable of making unexpected moves, an enemy can predict it, and by predicting it, control it, losing any semblance of initiative for the faction that built or bought it.

Basically "Impressive firepower and armor, about as useful as mammary glands on a boar hog for anything NOT a set piece battle."

[idea weenie]

How many Fredasa's can you crew compared to a single Leviathan or Levi II (Or McKenna, Or Cameron?)

How many systems can a single Leviathan threaten simultaneously compared to those Freds?  How many systems cn you patrol simultaneously, and how many ships of each class does the enemy need to neutralize before having space superiority?

So you are referring to strategic coverage, not vessel acceleration.  My goof.


Crew-wise is a practical limit, as price-limit is definitely not.

From Strategic Operations, the crew requirements are on page 138, and are: 45 + 1/5000 tons plus crew for onboard equipment.

So assuming 2 ship designs, one at 100 ktons and one at 200 ktons, the crews would be:
100 ktons: 65 people (plus crew needed for the equipment being carried)
200 ktons: 85 people (plus crew needed for the equipment being carried)
Extra equipment would require 'c' crew, so the 100k tons ship would need an additional 'c' crew, while the 200 kton ships would need 2c crew

So if you are comparing two options:
20 ships of 100 ktons: 65*20 + 20*c = 1300 + 20c
10 ships of 200 ktons: 85*10 + 10*2c = 850 + 20c

So if 'c' is 20 extra crew, then the total crew sizes are:
100 ktons = 85 crew per, total of 1700 crew
200 ktons = 125 crew per, total of 1250 crew

So the fewer ships that are twice the size of the smaller would need fewer crew.

If you want to make it where the crew per ton is equal to the base crew size (before crew needed for equipment), that would be about 225 ktons.  This would give you a vessel twice as effective as the 100 kton vessel, and only be 10% higher in cost.  Your crew are far more likely to survive, you can have almost as many ships, and even if the opponent deploys Castrum Dropships you can fight one of them at near-parity.  You can only patrol ~90% as many systems, but those systems have twice the threat to deal with.

(Various rules I can think of that would make more sense for smaller ships to be used were not included)

[Weirdo]

Makes me wonder when the first power comes to the bright idea to revive the ancient Monitor class battleships.

The ones that are explicitly illegal? I'm not talking about treaties or laws, I'm talking about the fact that there is absolutely no way to design one that is rules-legal.

[Cannonshop]

So you are referring to strategic coverage, not vessel acceleration.  My goof.


Crew-wise is a practical limit, as price-limit is definitely not.

From Strategic Operations, the crew requirements are on page 138, and are: 45 + 1/5000 tons plus crew for onboard equipment.

So assuming 2 ship designs, one at 100 ktons and one at 200 ktons, the crews would be:
100 ktons: 65 people (plus crew needed for the equipment being carried)
200 ktons: 85 people (plus crew needed for the equipment being carried)
Extra equipment would require 'c' crew, so the 100k tons ship would need an additional 'c' crew, while the 200 kton ships would need 2c crew

So if you are comparing two options:
20 ships of 100 ktons: 65*20 + 20*c = 1300 + 20c
10 ships of 200 ktons: 85*10 + 10*2c = 850 + 20c

So if 'c' is 20 extra crew, then the total crew sizes are:
100 ktons = 85 crew per, total of 1700 crew
200 ktons = 125 crew per, total of 1250 crew

So the fewer ships that are twice the size of the smaller would need fewer crew.

If you want to make it where the crew per ton is equal to the base crew size (before crew needed for equipment), that would be about 225 ktons.  This would give you a vessel twice as effective as the 100 kton vessel, and only be 10% higher in cost.  Your crew are far more likely to survive, you can have almost as many ships, and even if the opponent deploys Castrum Dropships you can fight one of them at near-parity.  You can only patrol ~90% as many systems, but those systems have twice the threat to deal with.

(Various rules I can think of that would make more sense for smaller ships to be used were not included)

The fewer ships....also gives you less coverage.  Navies aren't necessarily going to be cheap or easy, but part of the function, is coverage.

think in terms of what you have a Navy for in an archipelago of islands...when your primary rivals and enemies are also island chains, and also rely on maritime transport to stay alive.

Interstellar nations function the same way, only without the ability to swim from one island to the other (Even when they're very close relative to the environment.)

There are neither land routes, nor land bridges between your islands, but you still have to maintain communications, order, and commerce or you don't have a nation, your tax system stops working, you can't pay (or pay for) your armies on teh ground...

every resource generator is equally vulneralble to having supply lines cut, or an enemy show up, but the more of them that you can make less vulnerable to soft-power attacks like that, the more hard-power solutions you can afford to build and employ.

Well-patrolled spacelanes makes insurance companies more likely to charge less for the same services because they have to pay out less in indemnities, which makes customers less hesitant to participate in your export markets, which in turn means more income to the State through taxes and tariffs, since even a flat rate the amount of finance will rise through increased activity.

This is how a bankrupt island kingdom wracked by civil wars for centuries and behind the curve economically with a horrid climate became a world power that eventually OWNED their creditors.

and why? because their chief Rivals built BIG ships that were individually "More efficient" (smaller crew proprtional) but couldn't manage the coverage and couldn't make up losses as quickly in terms of skilled crew and commanders, couldn't manage the coverage needed to keep the peace for their empire, and couldn't, in the end, promote or protect their shipping.

for all the coverage that the big, late-sail man-o'-wars had, the Royal Navy's backbone were sloops and frigates for a reason and the lesson can be further translated to another island empire that invested in "Size and quality over quantity"-Battles WON cost the IJN too dearly early on and they literally never recovered, especially after they started losing ships.

Germany's greatest successes were never with either the High Seas Fleet of 1914, or the battleships like Bismarck.  The REAL 'Pocket Battleships" like Graf Spee wound up dying not from enemy fire directly to them, but from lack of support because an enemy with older, less capable ship designs but a larger, deeper naval structure rendered them impossible to keep going.

Graf Spee scuttled because she couldn't escape, not because the British brought in a single, more advanced ship that was individually more powerful.

Naval warfare is Strategic warfare.  USN lost most of the early battles of the 1940s, but those losses counted toward wins in the end, because of the ability to recover from losses and the ability to apply coverage.  We made so many DD's and DE's that we had to give them away in job lots, some of them are still sailing under colors today and it's 2022.

and that's not a flick on the amount we scrapped post-war for raw material.

We turned out so many carriers we were also giving THOSE away after the 2nd world war.

Battleships? not so much.  Too much size and complexity for anything BUT a set piece battle. The OTHER functions a ship like USS Missouri are good for can be (and have been) taken over by lots of smaller ships that can do similar jobs in multiple places with less over-all national vulnerability if you lose one.

Because in life, as in art, eventually you're gonna lose one or two ships.  How well and how readily you can replace the crew you lose (and thus, the skills you lose) along with the hull can be the difference between a conflict with lots of early success that destroys your national ability to defend itself, or a victory achieved after some early setbacks that benefits your nation in the long run.

This isn't even a new concept in the 2000's, (or the 20th Century, or even the 19th) but apparently it's alien thinking to the governments of the 30th through 32nd centuries, because none of them rebuilt their capacity to maintain their damn shipping.

[Caesar Steiner for Archon]

The ones that are explicitly illegal? I'm not talking about treaties or laws, I'm talking about the fact that there is absolutely no way to design one that is rules-legal.

And if you find one the writers will change the laws of the universe to make it not work.

[Metallgewitter]

The ones that are explicitly illegal? I'm not talking about treaties or laws, I'm talking about the fact that there is absolutely no way to design one that is rules-legal.

Were they illegal rule wise? The TRO Boondoogles never mentioned they were "illegal".

Then again the writers make up what comes next so we might get any "illegal" design back.

Also an interesting side note: In the Jihad: Finalreckoning it is mentioned that the confederation could not build new Warships because they lost Necromo. As an addendum the main reason was that the Capellans actually didn't know how to build compact KF drives and that the Blakists supplied the drives and also the specifications. Might tht be true for other houses as well? I mean most Houses lost their primary yards so not only did they lost the means for production but maybe also the knowledge? And then we are back at "Stone controls Terra and with it the possible only home of producing compact KF core" Though that throws the question up why was nobody researching that tech for future application? Yeah I know Stone's peace era but as the Dark Age has shown everyone was basically nodding in public and building in secret even the FedSuns.

[Cannonshop]

Were they illegal rule wise? The TRO Boondoogles never mentioned they were "illegal".

Then again the writers make up what comes next so we might get any "illegal" design back.

Also an interesting side note: In the Jihad: Finalreckoning it is mentioned that the confederation could not build new Warships because they lost Necromo. As an addendum the main reason was that the Capellans actually didn't know how to build compact KF drives and that the Blakists supplied the drives and also the specifications. Might tht be true for other houses as well? I mean most Houses lost their primary yards so not only did they lost the means for production but maybe also the knowledge? And then we are back at "Stone controls Terra and with it the possible only home of producing compact KF core" Though that throws the question up why was nobody researching that tech for future application? Yeah I know Stone's peace era but as the Dark Age has shown everyone was basically nodding in public and building in secret even the FedSuns.

The problem is narrative schizophrenia.  We get answers that range from "nobody knows how to make those" to suddenly getting a whole host of new builds that shouldn't exist to "only x faction can make this" and then a panicked retreat when someone points out that it renders the otehr factions incapable of survival.

all back-and-forths that really come from "We didn't really think this through but it sounded kewl."

like the cost multiplier on Primitive cores was done so that people wouldn't invalidate PWS.  The primitive cores should be EASIER to build, they're developed with a lower technology, but the demand that the transport be both univerally available, yet rare comes up, so you get some pretty solidly nonsense answers to allow for massive troop movements while jumpships are lostech..and of course, nobody's investing in recovering the basic engineering skills despite developing ten new 'mech designs per year...

It's the fasanomics problem all over again.  The Writers shredded all production in the Jihad, then had nobody recover it, then have had to walk it back because someone pointed out that interstellar nations without transport stop being nations pretty quickly.

espl. when the phones go out.

but then, the phones going out really didn't stop a whole lot of things that don't work if the phones are out from happening either.

my point is, stacking logical inconsistencies can screw with your appreciation of the whole thing if you dwell on them too much, or become too reliant on Canon to enjoy the central thing in the product line, which isn't the novels-it's the game.

To paraphrase Randall Bills when he was Line Dev: "If it works in your game/campaign, do it. if it doesn't, ignore it-nobody's keeping score here and you'r e not actually obligated to worry about stuff that doesn't make sense to you."

[Maingunnery]

Also an interesting side note: In the Jihad: Finalreckoning it is mentioned that the confederation could not build new Warships because they lost Necromo. As an addendum the main reason was that the Capellans actually didn't know how to build compact KF drives and that the Blakists supplied the drives and also the specifications. Might tht be true for other houses as well? I mean most Houses lost their primary yards so not only did they lost the means for production but maybe also the knowledge? And then we are back at "Stone controls Terra and with it the possible only home of producing compact KF core" Though that throws the question up why was nobody researching that tech for future application? Yeah I know Stone's peace era but as the Dark Age has shown everyone was basically nodding in public and building in secret even the FedSuns.

Pretty sure that is just the Cappelans, the other houses never had problems with making compact KF drives.

like the cost multiplier on Primitive cores was done so that people wouldn't invalidate PWS.  The primitive cores should be EASIER to build, they're developed with a lower technology

Not really true, it is about cost, trying to achieve something with lesser technology can easily require more effort to produce or more expensive materials.

[Weirdo]

Were they illegal rule wise? The TRO Boondoogles never mentioned they were "illegal".

Extremely illegal, to the point that CGL had to issue errata retconning that entire page out of existence. For all purposes, that entry in XTRO Boondoggles was never published.

[Cannonshop]

Pretty sure that is just the Cappelans, the other houses never had problems with making compact KF drives.

Not really true, it is about cost, trying to achieve something with lesser technology can easily require more effort to produce or more expensive materials.

Problem comes, in that it's not consistent with any other 'Down Tech' situation in the setting or the game.  Rocket Launchers don't cost more than LRM systems, for example.  "Primitlive" fusion engines don't cost more than XL engines (or standards, for that matter), BAR2 armor doesn't cost more than Starslab.

etc. etc.

the inconsistency is notable because it's obviously inconsistent.  The Bugeye's sub-compact core isn't the thing that breaks credibility-it's more capable on a smaller platform, and Compact cores costing more than standards ALSO makes sense-because standard cores have extensive limitations and a single glaring commercial success to them-that being, you can move a lot more, at the maximum distance you can travel in a jump, at a lot less production-cost-wise, using standard cores.

They're supposed to be relatively cheap to make, and go 30 LY with as many dropships as you want to put a collar on, they cna be recharged cheap too-sunlight's effectively free.

Same for compact cores, but compacts cost more because (obviously) they take up less space and can survive harder accelerations while doing the same 30 light year distance.  (there are no Compacts that have a reduced range or capacity for their size.)

and then, we get to the 'primitive' cores-which in theory could be built more easily since they don't require as much in terms of advanced manufacturing techniques, (so the modern techniques SHOULD be shaving a hell of a lot of cost off.)

It's like...the difference between something designed to be forged on a drop-hammer and machined using manual settings 19th century machinery, versus making that product on a modern six axis CNC.

Guess which one's going to be cheaper to manufacture?  (the modern techniques are going to reduce the cost of ANYTHING designed to be made the old fashioned way.  This is demonstrated fact.  minus externalities like gun laws, it's CHEAPER to turn out lever action henry rifles on a CNC line, adjusted for cost, than it cost to make them originally using the original tooling.)

If you can make an invader then the cost of tooling to make something with a 15 LY drive should be LESS..and the quality would be higher.

Even if you're down-stepped one, because the product in question is downstepped soething like ten times in terms of sophistication and you can already make a better product.

the problem is the same as why Clantech isn't standard tech in 3152...because the whole cost of R&D is added to the price even when the units have been in serial production for almost a century.

The principle of Economy of Scale never appears in FASANOMICS, you're buying a full research effort with every copy.

In the case of Primitives, that includes starting at "We don't even know if it's going to work yet, because nobody's done it" to the price.

Imagine if you had to pay for the full R&D, tooling fabrication, factory construction, testing, etc. for your home computer-it would cost as much as the damn space-shuttle for every copy.

[Maingunnery]

Problem comes, in that it's not consistent with any other 'Down Tech' situation in the setting or the game.  Rocket Launchers don't cost more than LRM systems, for example.  "Primitlive" fusion engines don't cost more than XL engines (or standards, for that matter), BAR2 armor doesn't cost more than Starslab.

etc. etc.

the inconsistency is notable because it's obviously inconsistent.  The Bugeye's sub-compact core isn't the thing that breaks credibility-it's more capable on a smaller platform, and Compact cores costing more than standards ALSO makes sense-because standard cores have extensive limitations and a single glaring commercial success to them-that being, you can move a lot more, at the maximum distance you can travel in a jump, at a lot less production-cost-wise, using standard cores.

They're supposed to be relatively cheap to make, and go 30 LY with as many dropships as you want to put a collar on, they cna be recharged cheap too-sunlight's effectively free.

Same for compact cores, but compacts cost more because (obviously) they take up less space and can survive harder accelerations while doing the same 30 light year distance.  (there are no Compacts that have a reduced range or capacity for their size.)

and then, we get to the 'primitive' cores-which in theory could be built more easily since they don't require as much in terms of advanced manufacturing techniques, (so the modern techniques SHOULD be shaving a hell of a lot of cost off.)

It's like...the difference between something designed to be forged on a drop-hammer and machined using manual settings 19th century machinery, versus making that product on a modern six axis CNC.

Guess which one's going to be cheaper to manufacture?  (the modern techniques are going to reduce the cost of ANYTHING designed to be made the old fashioned way.  This is demonstrated fact.  minus externalities like gun laws, it's CHEAPER to turn out lever action henry rifles on a CNC line, adjusted for cost, than it cost to make them originally using the original tooling.)

If you can make an invader then the cost of tooling to make something with a 15 LY drive should be LESS..and the quality would be higher.

Even if you're down-stepped one, because the product in question is downstepped soething like ten times in terms of sophistication and you can already make a better product.

the problem is the same as why Clantech isn't standard tech in 3152...because the whole cost of R&D is added to the price even when the units have been in serial production for almost a century.

The principle of Economy of Scale never appears in FASANOMICS, you're buying a full research effort with every copy.

In the case of Primitives, that includes starting at "We don't even know if it's going to work yet, because nobody's done it" to the price.

Imagine if you had to pay for the full R&D, tooling fabrication, factory construction, testing, etc. for your home computer-it would cost as much as the damn space-shuttle for every copy.

That is an apples-to-oranges comparison. The standard core is an efficient reduced-features system, if you want to compare primitives to something then compare them to Compact cores as those function nearly identical.

[Cannonshop]

That is an apples-to-oranges comparison. The standard core is an efficient reduced-features system, if you want to compare primitives to something then compare them to Compact cores as those function nearly identical.

In which case, the basic scenario STILL APPLIES.

only in this case, let's say you've lost your compact core yard for some reason...

You need to gear up, tool up, maybe learn how to do the refined stuff to replace the lone McKenna you inherited from the previous regime.

in that case, the primitive core yard is the yard you can build, because you can't build the other one yet, you lost that bit.

You're still going to have an easier time than the pathfinder project did, because you don't have to ask "does the technology even work?" You know it works, and even if you're knocked back to 24th century tech, it's 24th century tech, you can build something that was possible in the 22nd century because it's not trying to reinvent fire without knowing what fire is.

The "primitives" might be more expensive than the Standard core transports you CAN build with what you've got, but it's STILL going to be cheaper than trying to jump straight to McKenna Production in one hop.

and for nations that can produce Standard AND Compacts, it fills a lot of roles that you need to fill, including protected shipping or as a functional ersatz to proper (and properly more expensive) full-honk warships...which a PWS doesn't do at all.

Liberty Ships cost a hell of a lot more than Flower class corvettes did, as did proper destroyers, but Flower class vessels did a hell of a lot of work that was overkill for a DD or DG, including convoy escort and antisubmarine missions.  YOu wouldn't be smart to take one and try shore bombardment at Omaha Beach, but then, they bought the Flowers so that missions that proper destroyers do, weren't hampered by having to do the missions the Flower-class were optimal for.

[Maingunnery]

In which case, the basic scenario STILL APPLIES.

It does not, you are still assuming such things as equal materials and equal processes.
Materials: The primitive option might have to resort to using more expensive materials instead of more common materials that have refined in a more advanced way.
Process: The manufacturing process could be different and require more manpower, or even having a higher failure rate.

[Cannonshop]

It does not, you are still assuming such things as equal materials and equal processes.
Materials: The primitive option might have to resort to using more expensive materials instead of more common materials that have refined in a more advanced way.
Process: The manufacturing process could be different and require more manpower, or even having a higher failure rate.

counterpoint: at no point in the writeup did the writers inject unobtainium, Baloneyium, or special/rare isotopes.

Germanium is real stuff, you can buy it in the real world, so is Titanium, and while Ti is expensive as hell to produce in the real world, they produce enough of it that it turns up  in some pretty cheap products.

Neither of those is an extinct material, nor do either of them sit in the "manufactured elements" end of the periodic table.

Second: more manpower intensive is a given if you're looking at lower tech manufacturing, as is higher failure rate until you've perfected the process.  Difference being that it's MUCH easier to perfect a manufacturing process if you already know it can work, than if you're truly in the dark.  It ends up being a difference between doing science and doing engineering.  There aren't a lot of brilliant scientists among mankind, but there are LOTS of smart engineers.

The differene comes down to "We have these equations that MIGHT do this thing." you take it to a scientist to figure out how and spend trillions figuring it out.

versus; "We know how to do this thing, with Germanium and Titanium, but don't have the equipment to fabricate it" so you take it to an engineering firm to turn the proven theory into practical product.