System Defense Fleets

[mike wightman]

No, because then no one would build battleships.


Hans

If you want to bring big guns to the battle at Tl14- you have to either build big battleships or medium sized riders.

The Imperium still build BB because it is expected and they haven't yet learned how vulnerable those BBs are to TL15 weapons.

Much like BBs were abandoned after WW2.

While there is no ship killer missile, waves of aircraft or torpedo analog in HG at TL15 there is the #J meson gun...

 

[rancke]

Below TL15 if you want a meson gun in the battle that can mission kill you have to build a big ship to carry it. They are much larger weapons and require much more of the power plant dedicated to powering them so a big ship is needed to carry them.

How big a ship do you need at TL14 to carry a Factor S meson?

Not so at TL15 where the power plant size reduction and the smaller size of the meson gun means you can get them in much smaller ships.

How much smaller?

really? The imperium has been at TL15 for 3000 years?

No, meson guns have been around since TL 12.

Exactly my point. The Imperium has only been at TL15 for a century or so and as a result haven't built an effective TL15 fleet yet because they haven't had the war to reveal the flaw.

Yes, that seems reasonable enough if the difference between TL14 and TL15 is as pronounced as you say.

Do the rest of you TCS experts concur with Mike's assensment?


Hans

 

[rancke]

If you want to bring big guns to the battle at Tl14- you have to either build big battleships or medium sized riders.

Ah, there's the other problem. I'd forgotten about it. The riders that are so much more effective than battleships that one battleship's cost of riders (including the tender) is roughly as effective as an entire battleship squadron. Sounds like a sound reason to build riders not battleships.

The Imperium still build BB because it is expected and they haven't yet learned how vulnerable those BBs are to TL15 weapons.

But why is it expected? They've had 400 years since TL14 was reached to realize that medium-sized riders are much more effective than big battleships.


Hans

 

[Tobias]

Big TL15 ships may have a better chance against medium-sized TL14 ships than big TL14 ships have, but is the chance significantly better? If you put a Tigress up against 10 50,000T TL14 ships, does it have a better than 50% chance of blowing them all away?

Short answer: No. It depends on how they are designed, of course, but if you design them well, the Tigress will probably destroy just one of them before being blasted to smithereens.

This is not a TL 15 thing, either. At TL 14, the situation is very similar.

 

[Tobias]

How big a ship do you need at TL14 to carry a Factor S meson?

That depends on which other capabilities you want. The Vrapkenchkinj class light battlecruiser featured in PP:F is a 56kt, Jump-3, Agility-5 ship carrying a factor S meson gun. Its main tradeoff is light armor (factor 3.) A squadron of eight such ships will destroy a Tigress with near-certainty (95% or more) in the first round of combat. Of course, the Tigress could disable most or all of them by a massive salvo of nuclear missiles killing the crews.

Against the Tigress a less agile, better armored variant would fare better. The obscene number of missile bays is about the only advantage of the Tigress' large size.
If you're willing to allow the the TL 14 ship to compromise on the Jump number (Jump-2 instead of Jump-3) the whole question is settled anyway. You can armor the smaller TL 14 to a level where nuclear missiles are a minor nuisance at worst and be done with it.

 

[Murph]

I forgot the 74,999 ton battleship with the type "T" Meson gun.

 

[far-trader]

I forgot the 74,999 ton battleship with the type "T" Meson gun.

I have to chuckle at these "cheat" min/max design tonnages. If I'd been the referee the above 74,999ton battleship would have been designated 75,000tons. I apply a 5% rule based on the Shuttle design being 95tons for the small craft sub-100tons ceiling and not a min/max of 99tons. To squeak the above battleship in below the 75,000ton rating it would have to built to 71,250tons or less. Sure it's not a big deal but I loathe min/max munchkins.

 

[McPerth]

That depends on which other capabilities you want. The Vrapkenchkinj class light battlecruiser featured in PP:F is a 56kt, Jump-3, Agility-5 ship carrying a factor S meson gun. Its main tradeoff is light armor (factor 3.) A squadron of eight such ships will destroy a Tigress with near-certainty (95% or more) in the first round of combat. Of course, the Tigress could disable most or all of them by a massive salvo of nuclear missiles killing the crews.

Against the Tigress a less agile, better armored variant would fare better. The obscene number of missile bays is about the only advantage of the Tigress' large size.
If you're willing to allow the the TL 14 ship to compromise on the Jump number (Jump-2 instead of Jump-3) the whole question is settled anyway. You can armor the smaller TL 14 to a level where nuclear missiles are a minor nuisance at worst and be done with it.

And don't forget the thread began as an SDB issue, so you can make your ship even without jump dive, so making it smaller yet.

About the obscene number of missile bays, here I see (again) the problem HG had about not needing place (nor cost) for munitions. As I said in a previous post, one of the advantages of the energy weapons against missiles is that, once built, energy weapons are dirt cheap to fire, while nuclear missiles should not be so (aside from needing some space to hold the missiles reload). In MT, where each 50 dton bay fights 25 missiles/salvo and each 100 dtons one 50 missiles/salvo, and you need 0.1 kl per missile, at a cost of kCr 150 per nuke, this limitation is featured.

As an aside, I didn't know the Zho light BC you talk about, but I see the design quite coherent with the MT statement that Zhodani use to give more importance to offensive power than to armor (IIRC in 101 Vehicles book).

 

[Matt123]

Fleet composition, not ship design, is the answer to MG armed ships. Thats why BB's have escorts, to reduce the capabilities of the opposition BB's before they get to attack your BB's.

HG combat balances on whose nerve breaks, he who puts his BB's in the line first gets the disadvantage. He is fighting many escorts and the total loss of one escort every second or third turn to a MG is a cheap price to get that MG whittled down over time.

 

[rancke]

Fleet composition, not ship design, is the answer to MG armed ships. Thats why BB's have escorts, to reduce the capabilities of the opposition BB's before they get to attack your BB's.

How is a force of battleships with escorts going to fare againt a force of the equivalent (in cost[*]) number of battleriders with the same number of escorts?

[*] Not forgetting the 'tender slice'.​

Hans

 

[Matt123]

How is a force of battleships with escorts going to fare againt a force of the equivalent (in cost
[*]) number of battleriders with the same number of escorts?

[*] Not forgetting the 'tender slice'.​

Thats not an Escort question nor even a Fleet composition question, that is a "which is better BB's or BR's?" question.

But to answer it anyway, it depends on context. Smoke tests and one off battles (ie Tournaments) will favour BR's. Campaigns where Fleet survivability becomes a factor, will favour BB's or mixed Fleets of BB's & BR's.

Either way, both will benefit significantly from having Escorts.

 

[rancke]

Thats not an Escort question nor even a Fleet composition question...

You raised the point that escorts would change the effectiveness of battleships. I wanted to know if escorts would change the effectiveness of battleriders likewise.

...that is a "which is better BB's or BR's?" question.

And canonically the issue is in doubt. Which is fair enough if battleriders are only somewhat better than their equivalent cost in battleships, because then you get into the strategic issues. But if they're six or eight times better, it would take one big load of strategic disadvantages to counterweigh the advantage.

But to answer it anyway, it depends on context. Smoke tests and one off battles (ie Tournaments) will favour BR's. Campaigns where Fleet survivability becomes a factor, will favour BB's or mixed Fleets of BB's & BR's.

If getting jumped by a superior force meant certain destruction, the survivability of battleriders would be a big problem. But there's nothing to keep a navy from having an SOP of always keeping battleriders loaded on tenders with full fuel tanks. When a superior foe jumps into the system, the tenders are just as capable of running away as battleships.

Or the battleriders could be deployed and shoot up many times their value in enemy battleships before they get defeated while the tenders flee with half the value of the rider/tender combo. A ruthless option, and not one every navy would be willing to implement, but an effective one for those that are.

Either way, both will benefit significantly from having Escorts.

So escorts are a side issue?


Hans

 

[McPerth]

If getting jumped by a superior force meant certain destruction, the survivability of battleriders would be a big problem. But there's nothing to keep a navy from having an SOP of always keeping battleriders loaded on tenders with full fuel tanks. When a superior foe jumps into the system, the tenders are just as capable of running away as battleships.

In this case, if ever taken by surprise (difficult, but not impossible), your whole fleet is likely to be taken out of operation as the tender is shoot before deploying the raiders.

Or the battleriders could be deployed and shoot up many times their value in enemy battleships before they get defeated while the tenders flee with half the value of the rider/tender combo. A ruthless option, and not one every navy would be willing to implement, but an effective one for those that are.

With HG/MT rules, where most ships taken out of comision would be for lack of fuel, PP disabled or computers destroyed (not so easy in MT due to the triple redundancy on computers), this tactics would lead to leave on the 'battlefield' some crippled, but easily repairable enemy BBs plus your own equally crippled but easily repairable BRs, that would be left for the enemy to take.

Remember the main ship killer in HG/MT are criticals and fuel tanks shattered. Criticals will occur aproximately 1 time in 6 in Interior Explosion table, and about 1 in 4 will so cripple your ship (results 2=ship vaporized, 4=computer destroued and 9=PP disabled) in HG, while about 1 in 8 in MT (due to the redundant computers). In any case, only 1 in 36 criticals will fully destroy the ship. Interior Explosion table would give you also a FTS result in 9 rolls.

So, Less than 1 % of the meson rolls will destroy a ship, while about 13 % of them will left it crippled while repairable. If you're shooting J rated mesons, about 7 % of the hits will mean a killing, while the rest will be crippled ships to recover/take and repair. If your plan is to use your BRs as suicide ships counting on taking a BB per BR lost, you'll be giving most of your BR fleet to be taken (unless scuttled) in exchange to taking out of comision for a few weeks some of the enemy BBs.

So escorts are a side issue?

The main use of escorts (armed with factor 9 nukes) is to erode the enemy's weaponry (mostly spinals) so that the damage given by their spinals is less when they are used against your battle fleet. Of course, most of those escorts will be taken out of comission quite early (they will have a larger percentage of shipsdestroyed due to the automatic criticals for weapon size vs ship size).

 

[rancke]

In this case, if ever taken by surprise (difficult, but not impossible), your whole fleet is likely to be taken out of operation as the tender is shoot before deploying the raiders.

I would be interested in hearing how you propose to take a defending force by surprise, but even if you're right, you missed the main point: loaded and fuelled tenders are exactly as capable of escaping an incoming superior force as battleships are. If the attacker can mop up an inferior force of battleriders then it can mop up an inferior force of battleships. Which eliminates the advantage battleships are supposed to have over battleriders. And if the real difference is that you need six times as many attackers to make up a superior force against battleriders as you need to make up a superior force against the equivalent (in cost) numder of battleships, I know which way I'd spend MY naval budget.

With HG/MT rules, where most ships taken out of comision would be for lack of fuel, PP disabled or computers destroyed (not so easy in MT due to the triple redundancy on computers), this tactics would lead to leave on the 'battlefield' some crippled, but easily repairable enemy BBs plus your own equally crippled but easily repairable BRs, that would be left for the enemy to take.

The enemy would need empty tenders to be able to carry the crippled battleriders away with them. He's already paid six times as much for his battleships to achieve combat parity and now you want him to pay for empty tenders too?


Hans

 

[Matt123]

You raised the point that escorts would change the effectiveness of battleships. I wanted to know if escorts would change the effectiveness of battleriders likewise.

No. I raised the point that effective use of Escorts will defeat Meson Gun armed capital ships.

And canonically the issue is in doubt.

Canonically the issue is decided. The "current day" CT Imperium and its protagonists favour BB's with some BR's.

If getting jumped by a superior force meant certain destruction, the survivability of battleriders would be a big problem. But there's nothing to keep a navy from having an SOP of always keeping battleriders loaded on tenders with full fuel tanks. When a superior foe jumps into the system, the tenders are just as capable of running away as battleships.

Absolutely. While the campaign is going well, BR's are great. Where BB's shine is in the ability to recover the situation when the campaign isn't going so great.

4 weeks to repair a BB vs 2 years to rebuild a BR.

Or the battleriders could be deployed and shoot up many times their value in enemy battleships before they get defeated while the tenders flee with half the value of the rider/tender combo. A ruthless option, and not one every navy would be willing to implement, but an effective one for those that are.

Errr, thats not very effective... Those shot up BB's are repaired in 4 weeks, plus travel time. Your surviving Tenders are effectively mission killed for 2 years.

So escorts are a side issue?

Only since you changed the context from "how to defeat MG armed Fleets" to "which is better BB's or BR's".

 

[rancke]

No. I raised the point that effective use of Escorts will defeat Meson Gun armed capital ships.

So you were changing the subject from the relative effectiveness of BB and BRs to how to defeat meson armed capital ships?

Canonically the issue is decided. The "current day" CT Imperium and its protagonists favour BB's with some BR's.

Which makes no sense if BBs are as relatively ineffective as the combat system implies. Whichi s the subject I was discussing. I thought you were raising a point that for some reason the proper use of escorts meant that BBs were not as ineffective as I claimed.

Errr, thats not very effective... Those shot up BB's are repaired in 4 weeks, plus travel time. Your surviving Tenders are effectively mission killed for 2 years.

I don't know of any reason to suppose that any of the tenders will fail to survive.

Only since you changed the context from "how to defeat MG armed Fleets" to "which is better BB's or BR's".

Sorry, I hadn't realized that you'd changed the subject from "which is better BBs or BRs" to "how to defeat MG armed fleets", so I kept on arguing about the original subject. My bad.

Apparently.


Hans

 

[Matt123]

Remember the main ship killer in HG/MT are criticals and fuel tanks shattered.

The main killer of ships in a campaign is being stranded and running the PP fuel dry. BR's suffer this a lot more than BB's.

That aside, despite how the MG table appears, the majority of damage in combat is caused by missiles scrubbing hulls.

And to appreciate the odds of MG damage, you also need to factor in the odds of hitting your target. A MG armed capital ship will hit and penetrate its peers defences roughly every three turn.

1. Long Range 4+, -6 agility, +2 size = 8+ to hit (41.7% hits)
2. Penetrate Configuration 1 = 3+ (hits reduced to 40.5%
3. Meson screen 5+ (hits reduced to 33.7%)

Now look at your damage results from the perspective that you only have a 1/3 chance of getting a hit in the first place.

... 4=computer destroyed...

Most HG designs have back-up computers.

If you're shooting J rated mesons, about 7 % of the hits will mean a killing

(Saves me working out the numbers )
In effect in any given turn the odds of a Meson-J crippling his target is roughly 7% x 33.7% or 2.6% each turn. Even if you recalculate to allow for Interior Explosion Criticals or FTS, the scale of successful results from a MG per turn is not great. It most definitely is not a battle winning strategy.

And you are only guaranteed one turn of firing with a MG at full strength.

T-Mesons are of course much nastier - once they hit. Bur what makes them nasty is not the number of criticals they get, but that the Imperium is the only power with Factor-9 Meson Screens and factor-9 Computers, meaning that vs Zhodane or Solomani Fleets they achieve a hit & penetration rate of 53% per T-Meson per turn;

1. Long Range 4+, -6 agility, +1 computer +2 size = 7+ to hit (58.3% hits)
2. Penetrate Configuration 1 = 3+, +1 computer = 2+ to penetrate (hits still 58.3%)
3. Meson screen 5+, +1 computer = 4+ to penetrate (hits reduced to 53.4%)

The main use of escorts (armed with factor 9 nukes) is to erode the enemy's weaponry (mostly spinals) so that the damage given by their spinals is less when they are used against your battle fleet. Of course, most of those escorts will be taken out of commission quite early (they will have a larger percentage of ships destroyed due to the automatic criticals for weapon size vs ship size).

Exactly how I use escorts in main fleet battles. I would rather stock up on and lose Escorts than lose BB's.

 

[Matt123]

I don't know of any reason to suppose that any of the tenders will fail to survive.

Mission Kill or Combat Ineffective is not the same as dead. As I have no doubt you know.

Any Tender that has to wait 2 years before its BR's are replaced is unable to carry out its mission. Mission killed.

 

[rancke]

Mission Kill or Combat Ineffective is not the same as dead. As I have no doubt you know.

I do know. I failed to catch your drift because I didn't imagine that you would assume the defender would be witless enough not to build spare BRs and deploy them as system defenses until needed.

Any Tender that has to wait 2 years before its BR's are replaced is unable to carry out its mission. Mission killed.

Unless it can jump somewhere and load up on spares. If it can, it will be able to join the expedition that will be heading back to the lost system to gather up all those mission-killed battleships that won't be able to move until they've been repaired, which takes at least four weeks -- assuming, that is, that the attacker can begin using the local shipyard capacity immediately, or is accompanied by mobile ship repair facilities. If repair facilities are not readily available, those battleships are stuck in the system for much longer, but it really doesn't matter; four weeks is plenty of time for the word to get out and a response force to get back to the captured system. It would even be possible for ships two jumps away to get there (J6 courier jumps to alert, force makes two jumps back; three jumps in 28 days, plenty of time).

Now, it's quite possible that there are no suitable response force in range, but in that case the tenders simply bug out without dropping their riders first. Too bad for the system, but that's what happens when your opponent musters overwhelming odds against you. And if the defender had invested in battleships instead of tenders+riders, the attacker would have needed a smaller force to achieve overwhelming odds.


Hans

 

[McPerth]

I would be interested in hearing how you propose to take a defending force by surprise, but even if you're right, you missed the main point: loaded and fuelled tenders are exactly as capable of escaping an incoming superior force as battleships are. If the attacker can mop up an inferior force of battleriders then it can mop up an inferior force of battleships. Which eliminates the advantage battleships are supposed to have over battleriders. And if the real difference is that you need six times as many attackers to make up a superior force against battleriders as you need to make up a superior force against the equivalent (in cost) numder of battleships, I know which way I'd spend MY naval budget.

About how to acheve surprise, it's quite difficult as rules are (in CT I'd say nearly impossible, in MT a little more possible, as sensors are not automatic), but I guess the possibility must exist, and if so, you're caught off guard.

And about easiness to escape from a superior force, sure the tenders may as easy as BBs, unless their lack of maneover (with uses to be lower than BBs) becomes a factor.

The enemy would need empty tenders to be able to carry the crippled battleriders away with them. He's already paid six times as much for his battleships to achieve combat parity and now you want him to pay for empty tenders too?

Are you saying that BB fleets don't have recovery ships?

I've always assumed that they have, as if not any BB with jump drive inoperative on a system without starport A or B would be stranded there.

Sure those recovery ships are not as effective as tenders, probably requiring several hours to match or separate with any ship they recover, but I'm pretty sure they exist.