MGT Only: 2000-ton destroyer

[Brandon C]

(This might better be classed as a light cruiser in a small ship universe)

2000-ton destroyer

The destroyer is the primary warship used, although by no means the most powerful. It is common and flexible. It can be fitted with four 30-ton modules for further customization. It is the smallest ship type built in any large numbers to have a particle beam bay and a nuclear damper. The four fighters are used primarily for scouting, with a secondary role in escorting the ship's boats. One ship's boat is unofficially reserved for use by the marines.

The destroyer has maneuver drive-U, jump drive-U and power plant-U, giving Jump-4 and 4G acceleration. 914 tons of fuel supports the power plant for 6 weeks and one Jump-4. Twenty fuel processors are installed. Model 5/fib and Model 3/fib computers and very advanced electronics is located in the bridge. There are 40 staterooms and 4 emergency low berths, Two armouries, three briefing rooms and a library are also provided. The ship has twenty hardpoints, with twelve triple beam laser turrets, six (single) particle beam turrets and a small particle beam bay. A nuclear damper is also installed. Small craft are carried in a full hanger and include three 30-ton ship's boats, four 10-ton fighters and two 10-ton maintenance pods. There are also modular sockets for four 30-ton modules. The destroyer is equipped with repair drones and 10 probe drones. Cargo capacity is 86 tons. The ship is streamlined, has stealth and has armor 6.

Crew consists of a commander, first officer, 3 pilots, navigator, 2 medics, 4 engineers, 20 gunners, 14 small craft crew and 20 marines. The ship costs MCr 1318.44 with small craft but no modules.

 

[McPerth]

I like all the ships you're posting, just some questions:

• I understand they are MgT:CB designed (with some tweacks from MgT:HG). Right?
• what TL are those ships?
• Is YTU a small ship one?

And one advice. Forget about missiles. They are nearly useless in MgT, as they are quite vulnerable to laser fire, they have very soft puch againstany armored (even lightly) ship in CB rules and useless if barrage rules (MgT:HG) are used, at least against armored ships (they can be devasting in large numbers, with a lucky hit, but it needs to be quite lucky, as on average any PB armed ship will win the confrontation).

 

[Brandon C]

I like all the ships you're posting, just some questions:

• I understand they are MgT:CB designed (with some tweacks from MgT:HG). Right?
• what TL are those ships?
• Is YTU a small ship one?

I mostly used the CB, the ships are TL 15 and the largest ship is 6,000 tons.

And one advice. Forget about missiles. They are nearly useless in MgT, as they are quite vulnerable to laser fire, they have very soft puch againstany armored (even lightly) ship in CB rules and useless if barrage rules (MgT:HG) are used, at least against armored ships (they can be devasting in large numbers, with a lucky hit, but it needs to be quite lucky, as on average any PB armed ship will win the confrontation).

There are several missile types which makes them handy, despite limitations.

 

[McPerth]

I keep in my reasonings sumarized in this examples (maybe you've already read them in other threads)

In MgT missiles are close to useless.

If using Core Book, just having enough armor makes them useless without even needing lasers to be fired against them.

If using HG, also a well armored ship is nearly imprevious to them, and nuclear dampers make them even more useless. See this example among TL10 ships, comparing missiles vs PA batteries (and see no dampers were used):

See that in MgT missiles are no longer the decisive weapons told about in CT:HG (I guess they are the "Dethroned Queen of the Battle").

If you use CB rules, 2d6 damage (I asume nukes) against heavy armor (Let's asume equal to TL) plus nuc damper plus (possibly) sand, usualy means no damage.

As for barrages (those numbers were run for another thread on a TL 10 ship):

to make numbers easy, let's imagine your 20 missile bays against 16 bearing:

Missiles barrage: 384 - nuclear missile - long - 2

Against an armor 10 ship, in all cases crew quality 3 and FC +2 8maximum for TL A):

Missiles modifier: -10 armor, +2 dice/weapon, +3 crew, +2 FC, - (1d6-1¹+1) sandcasters, -(1d6-2¹+1) for lasers= -(2 + (2d6-1)), so, -(2d6+1). So, assuming average dice, no damage (as the dice for PD will offset barrage roll and still leave a -1 result).

I asume PD is under 90% of missiles in both cases​

Of course, a lucky missile barrage can be devastating (both PD rolls being 1, so a total of -3 and boxes on the barrage roll would inflict 150%, so 576 damage points, But you need a barrage roll 5 over the PD rolls to inflict any damage (I leave the numbers to anyone else). And again, against fighters things go even worse.

As your TL raises, so does Fire Control (up to +5), but so does enemy's armor, for a net effect of 0 until TL 13 (when Fire Control/5 is reached), and negative for the missiles upwards...

More or less the same happens when diffreent Crew Quality is used (after all, +3 is elite crews according to HG: At Crew quality +2, both PDs (sand and lasers) lose a +1 to the roll, but so does the barrage roll (for a total of +1 for the missiles), while Crew Quality +1 evens it again, as the PDs are unaffected while the missiles lose another +1. Crew Quality +4 will again give a +1 to the missiles and won't affect PDs, giving again a +1 more to the missiles. See that in both cases where the missiles receive this additional +1 for Crew Quality they still need to toll on the barrage roll 4 over the PDs rolls to affect the ship (albeit if they do the damage can be devastating).

And all of this is aside form the cost (both in tonnage and Credits) that the ammo represents...

See that the example in MgT LBB2:HG (pages 74-75) is against an armor 2 ship, and even then it only achieves 50% barrage damage on a barrage roll of 7 and PDs rolls of 4 and 2 (so, barrage roll 1 over PDs ones and against very low armor)

As for missile armed merchants, I again feel it a poor choice, given MgT rules.

Being non military ships, I'll assume we use Core Book rules for them (so no barrages, etc...)

If we stay in OTU, I must guess Imperial Rules of War keep in force and so the missiles may not be nukes. That reduces its damage to 1d6. See that any ship with armor 4 (at usual TLs that means 5% of tonnage) will ignore about 2/3 of them, and any ship with armor 6+ will fully ignore them.

The issue about ammo cost (in money and tonnage keeps), so the missiles are quite inferior (IMHO) to lasers or (the ones I feel would be the main weapon in MgT) PBs. Lasers don't use ammo and may be more powerful (at some accuracy cost, for Plasers), and may also help you as PD weapons. PBs are quite more powerful (even inflicting radiation damage) and accurate, and in MgT are quite low TL and power needs is not a problem (the main advantage for missiles in other versions).

See also that in no place (at least no place I've found) PBs are in MgT limited as ortillery, taking off another of their disadvantages from previous versions, where they could not be used against atmospheric targets (but that's again mostly for military thought crafts, not so important for civilian merchants).

 

[wbyrd]

You'll get use to the anti-missile arguments.

The ship is a good one, weapons preferences aside.. I like the idea of a nice flexible ship in a destroyer. They are often shoehorned into roles they probably weren't intended for.

 

[CliffBates]

This ship is tying to do too much. It is trying to be a carrier, a patrol ship and a ship with enough punch to scare baddies.

There is an old saying.. a Jack of all trades, but master of none. One of the most stupid things that has affected the modern US military both in the 60-70s and then again in past 10 years has been the idea of universal multi-role combat platforms. Every time the US tried this it ended poorly.

The F4 in the 60s was built without guns.... but then Vietnam taught them quickly that you still need a gun but that forced the making it as a pod. But look at the so called F/B-111 or then now in the F-35, which was supposed to be operational 6 years ago but still has problems because it was designed to do every for everyone. The division of labor works and remains a very powerful organization principle for any large force or body. In fact for a large force not to have such a constructed force would lead to holes in your ability to project force effectively and respond to different threats differently.

But if you are a small pond world, lets say the world of the 17th Century naval world.. where pure dedicated warships were few and far between and most vessels even commercial ones were armed and thus could be called to protect the flag if need be.

If we are talking about the 3rd Imperium... I am sorry to say, it ain't a Small Ship Universe. Now there is very much a place for small ships in it... commerce (of course piracy) and patrolling (because of piracy). But when there are treats to the Imperium, it would be mad not to have the kind of force necessary to defend it given they have the resources to make such ships.

 

[wbyrd]

Jack Of trades is what destroyers are built to be. Specialized versions are possible. However since at any time a destroyer or other light warship may be called upon to patrol, screen, escort convoys, or interdict baddies, a general purpose, multi role ship is a probable design...

a prime example the Fletcher class destroyers in WWII It was assigned every mission they could think of.

frigates, and corvettes would take up the bulk of, patrol and "rat catching", but a heavier ship would be around to show up with a bigger punch if they were too light for the job.

 

[McPerth]

The ship is a good one, weapons preferences aside.. I like the idea of a nice flexible ship in a destroyer. They are often shoehorned into roles they probably weren't intended for.

And I didn't say it is not, or at least that was not my intent.

 

[wbyrd]

And I didn't say it is not, or at least that was not my intent.

i did not mean to imply that you did not think it was a good design. , dern non verbal communications gaps...

 

[Condottiere]

Depending on era, the jack of all trades would be the frigate, the protected cruiser, the light cruiser, destroyer leader, destroyer, and back to the frigate.

 

[wbyrd]

Depending on era, the jack of all trades would be the frigate, the protected cruiser, the light cruiser, destroyer leader, destroyer, and back to the frigate.

Yep, Ya need a program to keep track.

 

[Condottiere]

It's a question of general capability, which tends to be dependent on a minimal number of systems that you can pack into a hull, and enough redshirts.

 

[wbyrd]

It's a question of general capability, which tends to be dependent on a minimal number of systems that you can pack into a hull, and enough redshirts.

that description Reminds me of a Coast guard cutter...a lot of light weapons,( at least in peace time) a good deal of speed, and pretty dern good radar/comms...not to mention a few boats, and a handful of eager young fellows with assault rifles to come storming aboard for inspections.

 

[Brandon C]

This ship is tying to do too much. It is trying to be a carrier, a patrol ship and a ship with enough punch to scare baddies.

It's not a carrier. The three ship's boats are for utility use (with one unofficially reserved for the marines). The four fighters are primarily used as scouts, effectively extending the sensor range of the destroyer. They have a secondary role as escort for the ship's boats (or other ships, as may be the case). Actual offensive operations are a distant third role. And there are only four of them.

While it can function as a patrol ship, this is not it's only significant role. Unlike the cruiser and larger warships, it (and the destroyer escort) are jump-4 capable (as compared to jump-3 for the other ships, which devote more space to armor and weapon bays). This makes it more useful for scouting and hit-and-run raids as part of a squadron mostly comprised of destroyers and destroyer escorts.

I am thinking of changing about half the triple beam and missile turrets to particle beam turrets, which gives more punch over a longer range. The particle beam bay is useful but hardly a spinal mount.

If we are talking about the 3rd Imperium... I am sorry to say, it ain't a Small Ship Universe.

If I ever actually use this ship, it won't be in a 3I setting. In the 3I, the ship would probably have a different type name.

 

[Brandon C]

You'll get use to the anti-missile arguments.

I'll note I don't put sandcasters on military vessels because they have no significant offensive capability. They are fine for civilian ships, which generally are unarmored and can't afford lasers, but neither is true for warships.

The ship is a good one, weapons preferences aside.. I like the idea of a nice flexible ship in a destroyer. They are often shoehorned into roles they probably weren't intended for.

As mentioned in another post, does converting some of the laser and missile turrets to PB turrets seem like a good idea?

I'm also torn between beam and pulse lasers: do I go with range and accuracy or damage?

And sadly, no railguns, no matter how much I love them.

 

[Brandon C]

Jack Of trades is what destroyers are built to be. Specialized versions are possible. However since at any time a destroyer or other light warship may be called upon to patrol, screen, escort convoys, or interdict baddies, a general purpose, multi role ship is a probable design...

As an example .. the American Clemson-class destroyer was built in large numbers after WWI and about 100 were still in service at the start of WWII. Aside from most continuing normal destroyer duties, various ships were converted to serve as minelayers, minesweepers, seaplane tenders and fast troop transports. This was also the case with some other destroyer classes built during peacetime but still around when war started -- convert them to new roles.

This was the main inspiration for adding the modular capability (four 30-ton modules), allowing the ship to perform different roles without having to rebuilt the hull or construct a new ship (neither of which there would be time for except in a protracted war).

 

[wbyrd]

I'll note I don't put sandcasters on military vessels because they have no significant offensive capability. They are fine for civilian ships, which generally are unarmored and can't afford lasers, but neither is true for warships.



As mentioned in another post, does converting some of the laser and missile turrets to PB turrets seem like a good idea?

I'm also torn between beam and pulse lasers: do I go with range and accuracy or damage?

And sadly, no railguns, no matter how much I love them.

I generally decide which I want, range or punch.

A fast ship, that has decent armor can afford to absorb a few hits on the approach so I go with pulse lasers for the punch.counting on it being able to get close to use pulse lasers..or if you can afford the upgrades go with variable, or long range pulse lasers. and add some extra to the fire control programs to make up for the loss of accuracy.

Beam lasers on the other hand i consider a sniping weapon, hitting a target from beyond the range of larger weapons. If it's fast and light use long range weapons, and stay out of the range of pulse lasers and other shorter range weapons.

Particle beams:
I don't have the cost vs damage numbers, or number of beams vs lasers balanced in m head...but the range extra punch and fact that sand is of no help. And, the fact ships without nuclear dampeners or radiation shielding are going to take crew hits every time you hit..make them a good buy.

However the radiological effects (in my head)go from "I am protecting myself", to "I want you dead." so I consider them an Offensive system that security forces might raise an eyebrow at on a civilian ship...a bit like mercury filled hollowpoint bullets...try telling the inquest it was just self defense....

Railguns
I do use railguns. they have more punch than a laser, less volume than a fusion gun bay...And,no sand, no screens, no jamming/point defense Only very heavy armor is going to protect a ship. It's an up close, bloody brawling weapon. Literally it's the iron fist of small ship weapons.

But to mount them the ship needs speed and armor/defneses. One to get close, the other to survive getting close. So I mount them on ships that the entire concept of the ship is to get inside the range of PBs, missiles and Lasers, and hammer away.

Now,, I do have to point out. I design ships mostly for player level, ship-on-ship fights. For fleet actions or large scale battle oriented ships.I leave that to people who are better at it

As an example .. the American Clemson-class destroyer was built in large numbers after WWI and about 100 were still in service at the start of WWII. Aside from most continuing normal destroyer duties, various ships were converted to serve as minelayers, minesweepers, seaplane tenders and fast troop transports. This was also the case with some other destroyer classes built during peacetime but still around when war started -- convert them to new roles.

This was the main inspiration for adding the modular capability (four 30-ton modules), allowing the ship to perform different roles without having to rebuilt the hull or construct a new ship (neither of which there would be time for except in a protracted war).

Oh I approve/agree with the concept wholeheartedly. I have always thought that a flexible multi-role vessel would be a good addition. the need to have a huge number of ships, spread across entire sectors, never knowing exactly whats going to go down, would force fleets to have swarms of smaller, multi-role ships...even if they were for secondary formations, or local squadrons.

They might not be used for major force on force fights, but they would be the one players would be most likely to encounter.

Like those cutters My brother-in-laws work boat was constantly encountering down in the gulf when i worked for him...you cold count on one pulling alongside at least once a season, and they were too fast, too well armed, and had friends they could call..so no one with half a brain tried to outrun them, or put up a fuss. (That's why criminals went to speed boats....) and if you were in trouble they could pull off rescue and recovery ops, medical assistance, or tow you home without a hitch.

 

[McPerth]

The particle beam bay is useful but hardly a spinal mount.

You could arm some of them (let's say one wiould be the model A and the other the model B) with meson bays instead. The PA is more useful against unarmored ships (more damage dice, not affected by config nor meson screens, though those latter are unlike to be found in small ships), aside from cheaper, but the mesons are deadly against armored ships.

A mix of both models in each flotilla could prove quite deadly against any opponent, even larger ships could not ignore them...

I'll note I don't put sandcasters on military vessels because they have no significant offensive capability. They are fine for civilian ships, which generally are unarmored and can't afford lasers, but neither is true for warships.

Nontheless, even a few of them can give a nice defense DM against both missiles and lasers if you use HG combat (barrage) rules. Not so sure if you're using CB combat rules...

As mentioned in another post, does converting some of the laser and missile turrets to PB turrets seem like a good idea?

Must I answer this question ?

As said before, IMHO, in MgT (and most as there are no power limit rules for turrets, small crafts aside) PBs turrets are among the best weapons one can mount (even when using HG modification, that only allows one per mount, that must be a triple turret). They do higher damage and are not affected by PD weapons...

I'm also torn between beam and pulse lasers: do I go with range and accuracy or damage?

That will depend on and the intended mission...

If you intend the lasers to be anti-missile defense, then go for more accuracy (at least in CB rules, as there's no difference in HG ones).

If you intend them to be offensive, go for more damage (there's no point to be more acurate if you cannot damage your enemy). Even in HG barrage rules, the -2 for pulse lasers is partially offset by the extra die giveing you a +1 (relative to Blasers)

OTOH, your Plasers have shorter range, so the distance at which you intend to engage is also a factor if intended as offensive (but again, as long as they are able to damage the target).

And sadly, no railguns, no matter how much I love them.

There are rail guns in MgT:HG (and I've read here there are rail spinals in TCS, though I have no access to it)...

 

[Brandon C]

I went ahead and replaced the missile turrets with particle beam turrets. This slightly increased cost and the cargo hold.

 

[Brandon C]

Particle beams:
However the radiological effects (in my head)go from "I am protecting myself", to "I want you dead." so I consider them an Offensive system that security forces might raise an eyebrow at on a civilian ship...a bit like mercury filled hollowpoint bullets...try telling the inquest it was just self defense....

I'm considering particle beams only for military and paramilitary (privateer) ships. Normal civilian ships are generally limited to lasers, (non nuclear) missiles and sandcasters.

Railguns
I do use railguns. they have more punch than a laser, less volume than a fusion gun bay...And,no sand, no screens, no jamming/point defense Only very heavy armor is going to protect a ship. It's an up close, bloody brawling weapon. Literally it's the iron fist of small ship weapons.

But to mount them the ship needs speed and armor/defneses. One to get close, the other to survive getting close. So I mount them on ships that the entire concept of the ship is to get inside the range of PBs, missiles and Lasers, and hammer away.

I think a system defense boat, which typically has better speed and armor than a starship, could possibly use railguns.