System Defense Fleets

[rancke]

I guess the BB fleet's home defenses will also be paid by the system defense budgets, as your, that also must pay for your spare BRs to make up losses.

I'm not arguing about the absolute effectiveness of battleships and battleriders. I'm arguing about the comparative effectiveness of the two. Any problems that applies equally to both BR based navies and BB based navies are irrelevant to that question.

If someone musters the strength to jump into one of your systems and destroy the system defenses, it's going to hurt and take time to replace. The difference here is that a BR based navy can use its tenders to shift monitors from system to system to minimize the strategic weaknesses inflicted by those losses whereas the BB based navy will need to have invested in (i.e. spent some of its budget on) dedicated transports to do so.

Matt argued that tenders that lost their riders would be useless for the two years it would take to replace them (in the same way that lost battleships are "useless" for the four years it takes to replace them). With proper defense planning (i.e. building monitors that can be used as riders), this is not the case. Rather, the tenders will be back in business in the time it takes to pick up some monitors and the defenses of some rear worlds will be reduced for the two years it takes to replace them.

I've found your earlier posts about time to mobilize and counterattack quite optimist. In it you assumed that:

-You have a strong enough TF in suport range.

Yes.

-You know where your supporting forces are (if this battle is not the only operation on the area, there's a nice possibility that any mobile forces it has have jumped from the position you assumed them on the last weeks, so sending your courrier to a wild chase trying to find them.

I some cases I would know where they are, but no, I'm not assuming that I do. I'm assuming that I have enough couriers and destroyers to send one to every system within 6 parsecs.

I'm also assuming that there was a reason I left my riders behind to shoot up attackers when I ran away with my tenders and the only reason I can think of is having some reinforcements in range so that I judge the loss of my riders worth it. Can you think of any other?

Canonical wisdom is that battleriders get reamed when attacked by superior forces and battleships do not. That's only true if the attacker can force an engagement. If the tenders can just bug out carrying the riders with them, they escape just as easily as battleships would.

There is one situation where the claim is true: If the riders engage in an even fight that turns against them, they do get reamed. But that assumes a fight that is fair enough to tempt the commander of the BR force to engage in it. I think it is a significant countervailing consideration that it costs the BB based navy six times as much to get that even fight. And while battleships can bug out of a losing fight (I will assume they're smart enough not to go into a fight with empty fuel tanks), the battleships that got their fuel tanks shattered before the battle turned against them won't be able to get away. Seeing as the loss of each of them is equal to ten or twelve times the loss of a battlerider (the tender part of the battlerider/tender slice cost isn't lost with the rider), I don't think that engaging in even fights is a winning strategy for the BB navy. I will admit I haven't actually worked out the sums, so I suppose I could be wrong.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Cost of missiles is nothing compared with crew wages =)

Or put another way - HG doesn't bother itself with costs for anything but construction. Life support, crew salaries, repair parts, ordnance... none of it.

TCS does though, albeit in a really crude way. A maintenance figure of 10% of the ship's original cost covers crew wages and a multitude of other expenses, possibly even including missiles and the cost of munition ships. At least, that's the assumption I've always operated on, but Matthew's figures for the cost of missile salvoes do give me reason to doubt that assumption.

But salaries are not a problem with a budget of 10% of the ship's cost per year. Not even if you assume a quarter of that is used to build replacements for ships that are retired for old age (combat losses are extra, of course).


Hans

 

[rancke]

I guess 3I doesn't make its ships to fight other TL 15 fleets (as there are no enemy with such a capability on their borders).

Some Vargr worlds have TL15. But in any case, Armor 14 can be achieved at TL11, so the Imperium certainly have neighbors who can manage that. And has had for all of its existence.

EDIT: Wait, that's wrong, isn't it? Max armor is equal to TL, isn't it? And then you can get +3 and +6 by using planetoids and buffered planetoids, which has its own limitations. OK, so you can achieve armor-14 with TL14, not TL11.


Hans

 

[Tobias]

I guess 3I doesn't make its ships to fight other TL 15 fleets (as there are no enemy with such a capability on their borders).

K'kree, Hivers and Vargr all have TL 15. The Zhodani have some TL 15 capability. I'm not sure about the Julian protectorate, but I guess they are at TL 14 since their capital is.

 

[rancke]

K'kree, Hivers and Vargr all have TL 15. The Zhodani have some TL 15 capability. I'm not sure about the Julian protectorate, but I guess they are at TL 14 since their capital is.

"How many TL X worlds does it take to make a star nation TL X?" is one of the questions there is very little evidence on. Is it more than one? If one is enough, all the TL16 worlds in canon are mistakes (which I for one wouldn't mind one little bit, seeing as we have a canonical statement of TL15 being the highest available in the Imperium). But be that as it may, I suspect you can have a certain (low) percentage of TL X+1 worlds in a TL X nation.


Hans

 

[McPerth]

TCS does though, albeit in a really crude way. A maintenance figure of 10% of the ship's original cost covers crew wages and a multitude of other expenses, possibly even including missiles and the cost of munition ships. At least, that's the assumption I've always operated on, but Matthew's figures for the cost of missile salvoes do give me reason to doubt that assumption.

Sure, but the cost is not increased if the fleet actually goes to battle (as missile cost would). In a single engagement a ship is likely to spend more in missiles than a year's worth of training exercices.

And anyway it doesn't feature the space needed for missile reloads, should more than the 7 salvos figure given by Mike Wingman

Some Vargr worlds have TL15. But in any case, Armor 14 can be achieved at TL11, so the Imperium certainly have neighbors who can manage that. And has had for all of its existence.

K'kree, Hivers and Vargr all have TL 15. The Zhodani have some TL 15 capability. I'm not sure about the Julian protectorate, but I guess they are at TL 14 since their capital is.

I said enemy on its borders. Hivers and K'Kree are not seen as hostile by the Imperium (at least that is how I read it, even if the K'Kree are probably seen as far from friendly).

Anyway let's take a glance on 3I neighbours (or better said on how I understand they are valued by the 3I, I can be wrong, off course):

- Zhodani: TL 14 and seen as hostile (good reason for that).

- Aslan: TL 14 and seen as likely hostile, though they have honored the peace of Felthair for centuries.

- Solomani: TL 14 and technically at war (the Solomani war ended with an armistice, not a peace).

- Vargr: TL varies, up to 15 and seen as hostile, but (due to their nature) unable to muster a fleet that can be seen as a credible threat to the Imperium as a whole.

- K'Kree: TL 15. Not seen as directly hostile, but in suspicion. I guess they have problems with building a battle fleet, as due to space needs for their crews their ships must be massive and underarmed for its size. I also foresee problems for them to recruit crews, due to their claustrophobia.

- Hivers: TL 15 (and probably 16 when refered to computers). Not seen as hostile.

- There are other presumibly hostile entities (Sword worlds, some in Hinterworlds, etc...), but they are small and usually have a TL disadvantage.

"How many TL X worlds does it take to make a star nation TL X?" is one of the questions there is very little evidence on. Is it more than one? If one is enough, all the TL16 worlds in canon are mistakes (which I for one wouldn't mind one little bit, seeing as we have a canonical statement of TL15 being the highest available in the Imperium). But be that as it may, I suspect you can have a certain (low) percentage of TL X+1 worlds in a TL X nation.

That's an old question, but in any case the problem (at least with the Vargr) is not that one, but that the Imperium, aside from having more TL 15 worlds, may muster its entire Imperial resources to build TL 15 fleet, even those paid by worlds of lower TL, while the Vargr have problems to mantain a political unity needed for that.

 

[Tobias]

"How many TL X worlds does it take to make a star nation TL X?" is one of the questions there is very little evidence on. Is it more than one? If one is enough, all the TL16 worlds in canon are mistakes (which I for one wouldn't mind one little bit, seeing as we have a canonical statement of TL15 being the highest available in the Imperium). But be that as it may, I suspect you can have a certain (low) percentage of TL X+1 worlds in a TL X nation.

Well, I'm going by the descriptions in the various Alien Modules to arrive at the Tech Levels I mentioned above. It does not really matter to the question at hand: Even if the Zhodani, to take one example, only have a handful of TL 15 worlds, that still means they can produce a limited number of TL 15 warships and the Imperium would probably want to take this into account.

For the other races I mentioned, the matter is clear: AM2, AM3 and AM7 all list TL15 as the maximum for the various races, and there are several examples of TL15 worlds for each.

By the way, I entirely agree that the TL16 Imperial worlds introduced during the MT era are a mistake. In CT, TL15 was clearly spelled out as the Imperial maximum, and all of the various source and rule materials conform to that. High Guard, for one, explicitly limits Imperial Navy ships to a maximum of TL15.

 

[Tobias]

I said enemy on its borders. Hivers and K'Kree are not seen as hostile by the Imperium (at least that is how I read it, even if the K'Kree are probably seen as far from friendly).

Oh, they are not currently at war, of course. The only acute TL15 threats the Imperium faces are Vargr incursions and probably very limited numbers of the newest Zhodani warships. As I said: Canonically the Zhodani do have some TL 15 capacities.

However, the Imperial Navy is sure to design its ships to deal with possible threats, not just with acute ones. In fact, if it was only to deal with present or imminent threats, there would be nothing to deal with at all. By the CT era, the Imperium had not been involved in a full-scale war for more than a century (the 4FW being a limited affair fought by locally available units) until the 5FW - and classifying any of the Frontier wars as "full-scale" is somewhat of a stretch.

 

[aramis]

Well, I don't know enough about how meson guns "really" affect targets to state flat out that the combat system is wrong; that's why I'm positing that there is a discrepancy between the effects as portrayed in the combat system and the building of lots and lots of battleships by OTU navies. But I do know that missiles require magazines, costs money, and are expended. So I don't feel the need to prove that the combat system that ignores that is wrong on that point. (Or rather, simplifies "reality" for game purposes). I consider that a given.


Hans

The effects of meson guns are, per Striker, to render a diameter of (USP)x10m into a fine powder.

The affected sections in a space battle should therefore be blown into space in fine particles, as whatever internal pressure drives the dust right out of the ship.

 

[Tobias]

The effects of meson guns are, per Striker, to render a diameter of (USP)x10m into a fine powder.

Not quite.

All personnel within the burst area of a meson accelerator are killed; all vehicles and weapons are destroyed; all buildings collapse and any smooth ground surface becomes broken ground.

But yes, that speaks for total destruction.

Then again, Striker compatibility with HG is IMHO rather dubious.

 

[AndreaV]

At TL 15? I don't think so.
Nonnuclear missiles cannot hurt any armor 14+ ship. Nuclear missiles only get through versus factor-9 nuke dampers on a 10+, which is one in 6. Finally, missiles can be reliably stopped by repulsors.

Yep, which is why you need to lob about 2500 rounds to kill that 74Kton ship, needing some 2500 1Kton ships to fire them. And when the 74Kton ship hits one of the 1Kton ships it kills it (rather spectacularly). Problem is poor old 74Kton only kills about one of the cloud of 1Ktons every other turn. Like I said "nibbled to death by hamsters."

 

[Tobias]

Yep, which is why you need to lob about 2500 rounds to kill that 74Kton ship, needing some 2500 1Kton ships to fire them. And when the 74Kton ship hits one of the 1Kton ships it kills it (rather spectacularly). Problem is poor old 74Kton only kills about one of the cloud of 1Ktons every other turn. Like I said "nibbled to death by hamsters."

Well, duh. A 30 to 1 tonnage superiority is a sure victory, who would have thought it. I don't see how that proves that missile armaments are inherently superior to Meson Guns.

 

[Tobias]

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).

Heh, I just noticed that. You're correct, that is said about Zhodani design philosophy in some context in 101 Vehicles - the Iavchieql class G-Carrier IIRC.

That wasn't the inspiration behind the Vrapkenchkinj class, though. The designer (yours truly) modeled them somewhat after these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courageous_class_battlecruiser
I even included the designation "Large light cruiser" in the fluff text.

 

[AndreaV]

Well, duh. A 30 to 1 tonnage superiority is a sure victory, who would have thought it. I don't see how that proves that missile armaments are inherently superior to Meson Guns.

From memory, you can get around 5000 1300 Ton missile boats for about 100 74Kton P gun cruisers. Roughly the cruisers kill 50 missile boats (1%) per turn and the missile boats kill 2 cruisers (2%) per turn. Therefore eventually the boats win. Sure it takes a *long* time and requires something like three quarters of a trillion credits worth of missiles, but HG doesn't track these things. This is what makes missiles superior to meson guns (or anything else for that matter.)

And yes I think this is broken.

 

[McPerth]

Heh, I just noticed that. You're correct, that is said about Zhodani design philosophy in some context in 101 Vehicles - the Iavchieql class G-Carrier IIRC.

That wasn't the inspiration behind the Vrapkenchkinj class, though. The designer (yours truly) modeled them somewhat after these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courageous_class_battlecruiser
I even included the designation "Large light cruiser" in the fluff text.

Then, even if not trying to, you kept the coherence on Zhodani design when designing the Cruiser, be it by chance, understanding of the Zhodani, subconscious knowing the 101 vehicles quote... or being influenced by some Zho agent who is manipulating your mind...:devil:

 

[AndreaV]

Well, duh. A 30 to 1 tonnage superiority is a sure victory, who would have thought it. I don't see how that proves that missile armaments are inherently superior to Meson Guns.

My apologies I got my numbers wrong (lesson don't post from memory). To kill a P meson ship you need to fire roughly 4000 Fac-9 missile batteries (costing MCr 12,000 ouch). Now you need about 24 P guns to kill one missile boat. 100 P guns will kill 4 missile boats, 4000 missile boats will kill 1 cruiser. So the cruisers are losing 1% of their strength each turn while the boats are lossing 0.1%. So as long as you can afford more than 4 missile boats per cruiser, the missile boats win.

 

[mike wightman]

Andrew, I applaud your persistence in including missile costs every time you post but it isn't in the rules as written to worry about such things.

Lets face it as written the CT/HG missile may as well be a magic missile - a 50kg missile that can accelerate at 6g for an hour and cause significant damage to a ship it doesn't even intercept (just has to be close).

 

[mike wightman]

My apologies I got my numbers wrong (lesson don't post from memory). To kill a P meson ship you need to fire roughly 4000 Fac-9 missile batteries (costing MCr 12,000 ouch). Now you need about 24 P guns to kill one missile boat. 100 P guns will kill 4 missile boats, 4000 missile boats will kill 1 cruiser. So the cruisers are losing 1% of their strength each turn while the boats are lossing 0.1%. So as long as you can afford more than 4 missile boats per cruiser, the missile boats win.

OK - I'm hooked.

How big are your missile boats?

Are you using nukes or normal warheads?

Why a P meson gun, TL13 ships?

 

[Tobias]

My apologies I got my numbers wrong (lesson don't post from memory). To kill a P meson ship you need to fire roughly 4000 Fac-9 missile batteries (costing MCr 12,000 ouch).

You cannot "kill" the cruiser at all, can you? Did you calculate this for fuel hits? Otherwise you can merely scrub off the weapons, after which the cruiser can jump out, repair the damage and live to fight another day.
Heck, by the rules it could repair the weapons while the fight is still raging. Ad infinitum, if needed.

Now you need about 24 P guns to kill one missile boat.

I don't think so? According to my calculations, the spinal mount will hit (and thus kill - there is no chance for a size A ship to survive a hit by a factor-T meson gun) ~6% at long range and ~ 22% at short range, average 14%. That would amount to one kill per 7 cruisers per turn.

 

[AndreaV]

You cannot "kill" the cruiser at all, can you? Did you calculate this for fuel hits? Otherwise you can merely scrub off the weapons, after which the cruiser can jump out, repair the damage and live to fight another day.
Heck, by the rules it could repair the weapons while the fight is still raging. Ad infinitum, if needed.


I don't think so? According to my calculations, the spinal mount will hit (and thus kill - there is no chance for a size A ship to survive a hit by a factor-T meson gun) ~6% at long range and ~ 22% at short range, average 14%. That would amount to one kill per 7 cruisers per turn.

Okay we are working with an N gun (sorry misremembered) as its the most cost effective TL15 meson against a Size A agility 6 missile boat (which if hit, as you point out, disappears into an incandescent glow). Hits on 11 or better (1 in 18), penetrates the Fac-9 meson screen on 7, penetrates config-1 on 3. Gives a 4.726% chance of hitting (roughly 1 in 24). At short range the odds go up to 15.754% (roughly 1 in 6). However, the missile boats seriously out number the N guns and have a +1 to initiative and want to hold range at long, so 2/3rd of the battle is at long range.

Assuming fac-15 armour 1 in 3 missiles causes a Weapon-1, and 1 in 6 missiles gets through the Nuc damper so 1 in 18 missiles that hit causes a weapons 1. At short range the missiles hit on 9 (10 in 36) at long on 8 (5 in 12). To reduce the N gun to B factor (where it can not penetrate the fac-9 meson screen) you need 11 weapon-1 on the meson. Assuming a well designed BR with sufficient secondaries to soak up hits that means 63 weapons-1 hits are required. At short range you need to fire 64.8 missiles per weapon-1 (giving 4082.4 fac-9 missile fires) to achieve this result. At long range you need 43.2 missiles per weapon-1 (giving 2721.6 fac-9 fires)

So assuming 4000 MB against 100 BR; at long range the BR's kill 0.1% of the MB's and at short range they kill 0.4% of the MB's. The MB's kill 1.4% at long range and 1% at short range. Either way, MB wins.

Going to a T gun gives the ship a 6.944% hit rate at long and 23.148% at short. You now need 73 wpn-1 hits so thats 4730.4 missiles at short and 3153.6 missiles at long. Pitting 100 T guns against 4000 MBs (unrealistic since the T gun is *significantly* more expensive): BR kills 0.15% at long and 0.6% at short. MBs kill 0.85% at short and 1.26% at long. Again MB wins.

Yes the BRs merely have their weapons scrubbed off and can go off and be fixed. But battlefield repair does not significantly change the odds (we're talking a 10 to 1 advantage for the MBs here.) And in a campaign game, the BRs fight another day so eventually given sufficient depth of defense the MBs will lose. But you need one hell of a depth for this to happen. Nibbled to death by hamsters and the meson guns simply can't kill the hamsters fast enough.

Now I will be the very first to agree that this is broken. However it is HG rules as written.