mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Great idea, I hope you don't mind if I borrow it and experiment a bit
Why did the Battleships in the Homeworld computer games come to mind when I read this
Fleets, IN organization, and general TO&E.
- Thread starter BetterThanLife
- Start date
Why did the Battleships in the Homeworld computer games come to mind when I read this
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
If we ignore dampers and armor then the tech level differences tend to disappear. Because you can still build a TL12 or TL11 Cruiser with Agility 5+ if you have no armor and no dampers.
But OK. We'll talk about lower tech level ships. PICK ONE from canon. To have a discussion we need a common frame of reference. I picked the ships I did because they are both common ships through out Canon. I chose High Guard because all the other versions of combat are based off it. But Just because I chose the lowest common denominator doesn't invalidate the point.
At any tech level below 13 the biggest battery you can mount on a fighter is 4 (And that is a single barrel Fusion gun. and becomes available only at TL 12.)
Assuming fighters are built with an agility of 6, and I have yet to see a fighter that doesn't have an agility of 6 in any canon source. Another fighter needs a 14 or a 13 to hit it. (Factor 3 or 4 beam weapon or a factor 2 missile.) The agility modifier and size modifier are factored in. You need a better computer than your opponent to generate a hit. And even then unless you have a wide disparity in computers your chances to hit are still slim to none.
No matter what tech level you are talking about a factor 2 or 3 weapon is still a factor 2 or three weapon.
No two equal fighters can hit each other.
At lower tech levels the Maneuver drive and jump drive don't change size the only thing that gets bigger is the armor, the powerplant, and the missile bays. The computer gets smaller and less power hungry. THe Spinal mount goes down a notch or two but generally stays about the same in terms of power consumption and size.
But OK, I'll give you your shot. Pick a Tech Level. Build your super fighter. I'll build a Cruiser and we'll see. As long as the Cruiser's Agility stays at around 5-6 and the computer is maxed your fighters are still going to cost more than my Cruiser to generate one hit. Oh and don't forget your low tech Carriers to go with them.
BTW missiles have a better chance of scoring a hit than energy weapons but you will be stuck with a limited number of shots.
The reason for choosing HG is a simple one. It is the basis for everything that follows and it is the version virtually everyone has. I don't own TNE, T4 or GURPS, but if you prefer MT or T20 by all means let me know. (Though designing capital ships in MT is a royal pain.)
Don't just say my point is invalid, show me. Where are your numbers? I have listened patiently to your comments but I have yet to see your evidence.
As for the Marquis, some of us believe this website is worth supporting.
But OK. We'll talk about lower tech level ships. PICK ONE from canon. To have a discussion we need a common frame of reference. I picked the ships I did because they are both common ships through out Canon. I chose High Guard because all the other versions of combat are based off it. But Just because I chose the lowest common denominator doesn't invalidate the point.
At any tech level below 13 the biggest battery you can mount on a fighter is 4 (And that is a single barrel Fusion gun. and becomes available only at TL 12.)
Assuming fighters are built with an agility of 6, and I have yet to see a fighter that doesn't have an agility of 6 in any canon source. Another fighter needs a 14 or a 13 to hit it. (Factor 3 or 4 beam weapon or a factor 2 missile.) The agility modifier and size modifier are factored in. You need a better computer than your opponent to generate a hit. And even then unless you have a wide disparity in computers your chances to hit are still slim to none.
No matter what tech level you are talking about a factor 2 or 3 weapon is still a factor 2 or three weapon.
No two equal fighters can hit each other.
At lower tech levels the Maneuver drive and jump drive don't change size the only thing that gets bigger is the armor, the powerplant, and the missile bays. The computer gets smaller and less power hungry. THe Spinal mount goes down a notch or two but generally stays about the same in terms of power consumption and size.
But OK, I'll give you your shot. Pick a Tech Level. Build your super fighter. I'll build a Cruiser and we'll see. As long as the Cruiser's Agility stays at around 5-6 and the computer is maxed your fighters are still going to cost more than my Cruiser to generate one hit. Oh and don't forget your low tech Carriers to go with them.
BTW missiles have a better chance of scoring a hit than energy weapons but you will be stuck with a limited number of shots.
The reason for choosing HG is a simple one. It is the basis for everything that follows and it is the version virtually everyone has. I don't own TNE, T4 or GURPS, but if you prefer MT or T20 by all means let me know. (Though designing capital ships in MT is a royal pain.)
Don't just say my point is invalid, show me. Where are your numbers? I have listened patiently to your comments but I have yet to see your evidence.
As for the Marquis, some of us believe this website is worth supporting.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
In T20 Meson Screens do act as Armor against Meson guns which means they are ignored on a crit. But on a non-crit they subtract the number of damage dice being used. Even with a factor 9 Meson Screen you are stil going to get hurt from a Spinal hit but not as badly.
The problem you run into in T20 is that a Spinal Meson crits 55% of the time. Statistically a Spinal Meson Crit scores twice the available damage points of a ship up to 500,000 Tons. And will take an 8,000,000 ton ship to 0 SI. Even a factor 4 Meson bay will cripple most capital ships with a crit.
Since T20 goes back to HG in that you can't mount the same weapons at different levels, (Turret, Bay, Spinal) I have been experimenting with Cruisers with no spinal or a spinal PA and multiple Meson Bays. (NASTY!) But I found the nastiest toy is a 5000T LAC. (It is about the smallest craft you can mount a Spinal Meson, and have it survivable against most escorts.) The design came from the TA7 book and refined a little then the inspiration for using them as a carried squadron came from David Webber. And cost wise 30 of them cost the same as 6 typical 30KTon Battle Riders and can easily fit on the same tender. (WIth a 30KTon tanker? or for a little more cost another 6 of them.)
I then took the same design into HG and it is every bit as nasty there. They are still egg shells armed with sledgehammers But they will definitely overwhelm a BatRon is short order.
Spinals rip them apart but Thre are so many of them and their spinals do nasty things to Drednaughts as well. THe problem a BatRon runs into is it can't kill them fast enough. And with the crit rules in T20 in 1 turn 36 of them will kill 18 Drednaughts. On the flip side of the coin though in one turn two dreds will kill the tender.
I got (stole) the idea from TNE, adapting it to CT.
Once you allow meson screens to work this way, what I'm considering to increase capital ship firepower is to say that any weapon that has a tonnage greater than 1% of a ship's displacement is a "spinal weapon" and has the restrictions of such a weapon (if you're using a system that has such restrictions) and that any weapon with a tonnage of 1% or less of a ship's displacement is a "turret/bay" weapon.
So, any fighter under 100 dtons has only "spinal mounts," that is, fixed-forward weapons. 50-ton bays become "spinal mounts" on ships of less than 5000 dtons, 100-ton bays similarly do so on ships of less than 10,000 dtons.
Here's the real kicker....
Spinal mounts of 1000 dtons size become =turret/bay weapons= on ships of 100,000 dtons or greater, and the allowed "turret/bay" weapon size goes up as the ship does. So a Plankwell could mount factor-N meson guns as "turret/bay" weapons, and a Tigress could handle factor-R meson "turrets".
I've played around with this in HGS (thanks, Andrew!) using the "User Defined" section to add the other meson guns. If you accept only J-3 for fuel tankage you can get a factor-T spinal mount and two factor-N turrets into a 200,000 dton hull, and I have room for backups for everything, including the bridge.
I've not done any serious combat testing with this concept yet, but I would think that such a ship could give an equal-cost number of battleriders a run for their money. It has a lot more firepower (especially the secondary weapons) and better passive defenses (backups for systems, etc) and just more toughness to absorb damage. </font>[/QUOTE]
The problem you run into in T20 is that a Spinal Meson crits 55% of the time. Statistically a Spinal Meson Crit scores twice the available damage points of a ship up to 500,000 Tons. And will take an 8,000,000 ton ship to 0 SI. Even a factor 4 Meson bay will cripple most capital ships with a crit.
Since T20 goes back to HG in that you can't mount the same weapons at different levels, (Turret, Bay, Spinal) I have been experimenting with Cruisers with no spinal or a spinal PA and multiple Meson Bays. (NASTY!) But I found the nastiest toy is a 5000T LAC. (It is about the smallest craft you can mount a Spinal Meson, and have it survivable against most escorts.) The design came from the TA7 book and refined a little then the inspiration for using them as a carried squadron came from David Webber. And cost wise 30 of them cost the same as 6 typical 30KTon Battle Riders and can easily fit on the same tender. (WIth a 30KTon tanker? or for a little more cost another 6 of them.)
I then took the same design into HG and it is every bit as nasty there. They are still egg shells armed with sledgehammers But they will definitely overwhelm a BatRon is short order.
Spinals rip them apart but Thre are so many of them and their spinals do nasty things to Drednaughts as well. THe problem a BatRon runs into is it can't kill them fast enough. And with the crit rules in T20 in 1 turn 36 of them will kill 18 Drednaughts. On the flip side of the coin though in one turn two dreds will kill the tender.
I got (stole) the idea from TNE, adapting it to CT.
Once you allow meson screens to work this way, what I'm considering to increase capital ship firepower is to say that any weapon that has a tonnage greater than 1% of a ship's displacement is a "spinal weapon" and has the restrictions of such a weapon (if you're using a system that has such restrictions) and that any weapon with a tonnage of 1% or less of a ship's displacement is a "turret/bay" weapon.
So, any fighter under 100 dtons has only "spinal mounts," that is, fixed-forward weapons. 50-ton bays become "spinal mounts" on ships of less than 5000 dtons, 100-ton bays similarly do so on ships of less than 10,000 dtons.
Here's the real kicker....
Spinal mounts of 1000 dtons size become =turret/bay weapons= on ships of 100,000 dtons or greater, and the allowed "turret/bay" weapon size goes up as the ship does. So a Plankwell could mount factor-N meson guns as "turret/bay" weapons, and a Tigress could handle factor-R meson "turrets".
I've played around with this in HGS (thanks, Andrew!) using the "User Defined" section to add the other meson guns. If you accept only J-3 for fuel tankage you can get a factor-T spinal mount and two factor-N turrets into a 200,000 dton hull, and I have room for backups for everything, including the bridge.
I've not done any serious combat testing with this concept yet, but I would think that such a ship could give an equal-cost number of battleriders a run for their money. It has a lot more firepower (especially the secondary weapons) and better passive defenses (backups for systems, etc) and just more toughness to absorb damage. </font>[/QUOTE]
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
Bhoins:
Oh, yes, the "meson sled" (the biggest possible meson gun in the smallest possible ship) is lethal to large ships. The counter to the meson sled is the "missile boat": a small ship with a good computer armed with all the missile bays it can hold. Meson sleds simply cannot have much in the way of armor or other defenses (to do so makes them more like regular cruisers in size, and adds too much to their cost) so the missile boats can get mission kills on them fairly quickly, the missile boats are even more numerous (cheaper) than the meson sleds, and the meson sled spinal mount is overkill against a missile boat (no matter whether it's a factor-J or a factor-T, a single spinal mount can still only kill one target per turn).
And the answer to the missile boat is the "Rock," a ship as heavily armored as possible (preferably with a buffered planetoid hull) with whatever weapons you can fit into the leftover space. It is possible (at higher TLs) to make a ship heavily enough armored to be invulnerable to missile attacks of any kind or factor. "Rocks" can wipe out missile boats without any losses at all.
Of course, meson sleds are the natural enemies of "rocks."
And that gets right back to where we started. This is the classic "rock-paper-scissors" shipbuilding stategy that evolved a long time ago thanks to the way HG works. "Rocks" kill missile boats, meson sleds kill "rocks," and missile boats kill meson sleds. In theory a HG-designed fleet optimized for space warfare would consist of nothing else but these three ship types.
And if you look at Supp. 9 and the other canon sources in the right way, they do. Battleships and heavy cruisers are "rocks," battleriders and light cruisers are meson sleds, and escorts are the missile boats. You can argue that all these ships are not optimized for their space combat role (which is certainly true), but the counter-argument is that these ships do not exist solely for space combat. They spend most of their time patrolling, training, doing humanitarian intervention, doing military intervention, and generally living the life peacetime ships lead. They have additional systems and capabilities for that peacetime life which necessarily makes them less than optimized for space warfare, but space warfare actually makes up a very small part of their service life
Oh, yes, the "meson sled" (the biggest possible meson gun in the smallest possible ship) is lethal to large ships. The counter to the meson sled is the "missile boat": a small ship with a good computer armed with all the missile bays it can hold. Meson sleds simply cannot have much in the way of armor or other defenses (to do so makes them more like regular cruisers in size, and adds too much to their cost) so the missile boats can get mission kills on them fairly quickly, the missile boats are even more numerous (cheaper) than the meson sleds, and the meson sled spinal mount is overkill against a missile boat (no matter whether it's a factor-J or a factor-T, a single spinal mount can still only kill one target per turn).
And the answer to the missile boat is the "Rock," a ship as heavily armored as possible (preferably with a buffered planetoid hull) with whatever weapons you can fit into the leftover space. It is possible (at higher TLs) to make a ship heavily enough armored to be invulnerable to missile attacks of any kind or factor. "Rocks" can wipe out missile boats without any losses at all.
Of course, meson sleds are the natural enemies of "rocks."
And if you look at Supp. 9 and the other canon sources in the right way, they do. Battleships and heavy cruisers are "rocks," battleriders and light cruisers are meson sleds, and escorts are the missile boats. You can argue that all these ships are not optimized for their space combat role (which is certainly true), but the counter-argument is that these ships do not exist solely for space combat. They spend most of their time patrolling, training, doing humanitarian intervention, doing military intervention, and generally living the life peacetime ships lead. They have additional systems and capabilities for that peacetime life which necessarily makes them less than optimized for space warfare, but space warfare actually makes up a very small part of their service life
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Actually Oz in T20 it doesn't have to be a big meson spinal just a Meson Spinal. And destroyers with Meson bays, If the Destroyer is in the 8000T range you can mount 2 100T bays on it without really degrading it's other capabilities and pose a threat to Capital ships. Of course real world WWI Destroyers posed a threat to capital ships when they dashed in with torpedoes. (Provided they survived to firing range.)
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
If there is one weapon system I would like to see for Traveller ship combat it is the equivalent of the WW1 Destroyer/torpedo combo.
IMTU I classify factor 1 nuclear missiles as A for damage/critical hits, 2 as B etc up to 9 is J. They still have to roll to hit and penetrate as their numerical factor but use the letter code for additional hits and criticals.
IMTU I classify factor 1 nuclear missiles as A for damage/critical hits, 2 as B etc up to 9 is J. They still have to roll to hit and penetrate as their numerical factor but use the letter code for additional hits and criticals.
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
Bhoins:
I've seen that said before about T20 with the lethality of the meson bay. I don't have T20 so I'm not really familiar with it, but it sounds to me like there was some kind of failure in the translation from CT/HG to T20, since a HG meson bay is helpless against any serious meson screen.
What made the wet-navy destroyer/torpedo combination so lethal was that it attacked where the target would take the worst damage: under the waterline. Bombs and shells let air into surface ships, torpedoes let water in. There really isn't any equivalent in TRAVELLER terms: it's just vacuum all around the ship.
HG created a functional equivalent through the "Surface explosion/Radiation Damage/Interior Explosion" model, where the most vital systems were protected from the kind of damage the most common weapon could create. And then they invented the meson gun to inflict just that kind of damage.
Bhoins is right that the closest TRAVELLER equivalent to the WW1 destroyer/torpedo weapons system is the "meson sled," a small ship with a spinal meson gun (or a bunch of meson bays, in T20).
I've seen that said before about T20 with the lethality of the meson bay. I don't have T20 so I'm not really familiar with it, but it sounds to me like there was some kind of failure in the translation from CT/HG to T20, since a HG meson bay is helpless against any serious meson screen.
What made the wet-navy destroyer/torpedo combination so lethal was that it attacked where the target would take the worst damage: under the waterline. Bombs and shells let air into surface ships, torpedoes let water in. There really isn't any equivalent in TRAVELLER terms: it's just vacuum all around the ship.
HG created a functional equivalent through the "Surface explosion/Radiation Damage/Interior Explosion" model, where the most vital systems were protected from the kind of damage the most common weapon could create. And then they invented the meson gun to inflict just that kind of damage.
Bhoins is right that the closest TRAVELLER equivalent to the WW1 destroyer/torpedo weapons system is the "meson sled," a small ship with a spinal meson gun (or a bunch of meson bays, in T20).
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Oz:
What makes the Meson so deadly in T20 is the way Crits work. A Crit in T20 ignores Armor for damage reduction and then multiplies the damage by a "Crit multiplier" A Meson crits on a 15 (on a D20) and then does x10 damage. (Which is a D20 for normal damage and a D12 for radiation damage.) Now it does a D20 normal damage for each factor and spinal's do a flat 16D20 normal damage. Oh spinals also reduce the number required to roll a Crit by 5. So a spinal is going to crit on a 10+ (on a D20) or 55% of the time. Doing an average of 1680 SI points of damage, ignoring the radiation damage. If a ship is reduced to 0 points of Structural Integrity it is dead in space but repairable, oh and you get all sorts of internal damage stuff. If it has twice it's SI done to it there isn't anything left to repair.
Now all that has no real meaning until you realize that to have more than 1680 SI you have to be an 8,000,000 ton ship. (Which has 1700 SI.) To have more than 840 SI you have to be a 500,000 ton ship. (850 SI) And none of that includes the damage done by the radiation component because how that works is fairly ambigous in the rules. (Depends on interpretation, but in most cases it is immaterial as you don't see too many 500,000+ ton ships out there.)
A factor 9 meson bay on a crit is going to do, on average 945 points of damage on a crit. (With a 30% chance of a crit.) Even a lowly factor 4 meson bay is going to do 420 SI on average on a crit. (8000 T ship has 425 SI.)
Now a Meson Bay has a 30% chance of a crit. Actually the way D20 combat works is you have a critical threat range then if you roll in that range on a Natural roll you have to roll for a hit again, with a semi compentent gunner in a typical capital ship against even the hardest target to hit you hit on a 2+. So your crits work out at about 52.5% and 27.5% but still....
You send 16 5000 Destroyers, each with a 100T meson bay against 4 Drednaughts and the Drednaughts are destroyed on turn 1, for the loss of 2 destroyers and probable damage to 10 more (2 from spinal hits and the rest from seconday weapons.). (And the 16 destroyers cost less than 1 Dred.)
Or two LACs/Meson Sleds for every Dred. (And the 36 5000T LAC's and tender cost less than a BatRon of any Battleship in Canon) You will kill 18 Drednaughts on turn one for the loss of 9 LACs and quite a few damaged. Economically a sound deployment.
What makes the Meson so deadly in T20 is the way Crits work. A Crit in T20 ignores Armor for damage reduction and then multiplies the damage by a "Crit multiplier" A Meson crits on a 15 (on a D20) and then does x10 damage. (Which is a D20 for normal damage and a D12 for radiation damage.) Now it does a D20 normal damage for each factor and spinal's do a flat 16D20 normal damage. Oh spinals also reduce the number required to roll a Crit by 5. So a spinal is going to crit on a 10+ (on a D20) or 55% of the time. Doing an average of 1680 SI points of damage, ignoring the radiation damage. If a ship is reduced to 0 points of Structural Integrity it is dead in space but repairable, oh and you get all sorts of internal damage stuff. If it has twice it's SI done to it there isn't anything left to repair.
Now all that has no real meaning until you realize that to have more than 1680 SI you have to be an 8,000,000 ton ship. (Which has 1700 SI.) To have more than 840 SI you have to be a 500,000 ton ship. (850 SI) And none of that includes the damage done by the radiation component because how that works is fairly ambigous in the rules. (Depends on interpretation, but in most cases it is immaterial as you don't see too many 500,000+ ton ships out there.)
A factor 9 meson bay on a crit is going to do, on average 945 points of damage on a crit. (With a 30% chance of a crit.) Even a lowly factor 4 meson bay is going to do 420 SI on average on a crit. (8000 T ship has 425 SI.)
Now a Meson Bay has a 30% chance of a crit. Actually the way D20 combat works is you have a critical threat range then if you roll in that range on a Natural roll you have to roll for a hit again, with a semi compentent gunner in a typical capital ship against even the hardest target to hit you hit on a 2+. So your crits work out at about 52.5% and 27.5% but still....
You send 16 5000 Destroyers, each with a 100T meson bay against 4 Drednaughts and the Drednaughts are destroyed on turn 1, for the loss of 2 destroyers and probable damage to 10 more (2 from spinal hits and the rest from seconday weapons.). (And the 16 destroyers cost less than 1 Dred.)
Or two LACs/Meson Sleds for every Dred. (And the 36 5000T LAC's and tender cost less than a BatRon of any Battleship in Canon) You will kill 18 Drednaughts on turn one for the loss of 9 LACs and quite a few damaged. Economically a sound deployment.
Bhoins wrote:
"But OK, I'll give you your shot. Pick a Tech Level. Build your super fighter. I'll build a Cruiser and we'll see."
Mr. Bhoins,
No need to. As I said before, we already ran the test at the 'ct starhips' Yahoo Group. There's no need to waste tiem and webspace 'proving' it to you.
When Andrew Moffat-Vallance shared is superb HGS program with Our Hobby, you could crank out HG2 designs quickly enough to analyze all sorts of ideas. One of the first problems we tackled was the 'Fighters Are Useless' complaint. WE found out that the complaint was true - above certain tech levels. However, below certain tech levels, fighters were nasty indeed and, if you built ships that were either 'fighter-proof' or more 'fighter-resistant' they faired basly in combat against other ships.
"Don't just say my point is invalid, show me. Where are your numbers? I have listened patiently to your comments but I have yet to see your evidence."
You haven't listened patiently whatsoever. I'm agreeing with you up to a certain point and just offering a qualifier to your statement that fighters are useless. I'm adding as a qualifier that fighters are useful at low tech levels. You even added a qualifier yourself, fighters are deadly to small ships like the ones PCs operate.
The numbers you want - and they won't convince you because you won't allow yourself to be convinced by anything - are at 'ct-starships'. Here are some results that I found floating around my hard drive anyway:
Target Design:
Quiz-classBB - R6346F3-671106-88Q08-0
E E 741 Y
L L A51 Z TL 12
Crew 942 TL 12 MCr104,696.52 100kt
Cargo 1132, Fuel 37ktl, EP 7000, agi 4, troops 100,,Craft 4x 50t cutter, 6fib + 1 backup,
bridge + 1 backup, nuc damper 1 + 1 backup, meson screen 1 + 1 backup, armor factor 6, Y=35, Z=50, jump-3, 4-G.
1 spinal PAW-Q
20 bay repulsor-6
50 bay missile-8
100 triple laser (10 batteries factor 8)
50 dual fusion (5 batteries factor 8)
100 triple sand (20 batteries factor 7)Variations: armor 0, 6G, agility 6.
armor 3, 5G, agility 5.
Hope the battery stuff lined up. Now the test fighter:
USP
FM-0306G51-000000-00002-0 MCr 138.525 50 Tons
Bat Bear 1 Crew: 1
Bat 1 TL: 12
Cargo: 1.000 Fuel: 8.000 EP: 8.000 Agility: 6
Architects Fee: MCr 1.385 Cost in Quantity: MCr 110.820
And the results:
780 HE fired
130 hits
115 pens vs. beam
68 weapon hits, 28 fuel hits, 19 no effect
That's TWENTY EIGHT fuel hits. It only takes TEN to mission kill any ship. Note the number of fighters too, 780. The BB cost MCr 104,696.52 and we killed it nearly with three times over 'only' MCr 86,439.6 worth of fighters, about 83% of the BB's cost. Also note that the fighters fired HE missiles, nukes were less effective becuase even the BB's low tech damper would effect ALL nuke missiles while the BB's lasers and sand 'ran out' against HE missiles.
That's just one example of the numbers you want. I've told you where the others can be found.
"As for the Marquis, some of us believe this website is worth supporting.
"
Ah, Moot membership has it's privileges!
Sincerely,
Larsen
"But OK, I'll give you your shot. Pick a Tech Level. Build your super fighter. I'll build a Cruiser and we'll see."
Mr. Bhoins,
No need to. As I said before, we already ran the test at the 'ct starhips' Yahoo Group. There's no need to waste tiem and webspace 'proving' it to you.
When Andrew Moffat-Vallance shared is superb HGS program with Our Hobby, you could crank out HG2 designs quickly enough to analyze all sorts of ideas. One of the first problems we tackled was the 'Fighters Are Useless' complaint. WE found out that the complaint was true - above certain tech levels. However, below certain tech levels, fighters were nasty indeed and, if you built ships that were either 'fighter-proof' or more 'fighter-resistant' they faired basly in combat against other ships.
"Don't just say my point is invalid, show me. Where are your numbers? I have listened patiently to your comments but I have yet to see your evidence."
You haven't listened patiently whatsoever. I'm agreeing with you up to a certain point and just offering a qualifier to your statement that fighters are useless. I'm adding as a qualifier that fighters are useful at low tech levels. You even added a qualifier yourself, fighters are deadly to small ships like the ones PCs operate.
The numbers you want - and they won't convince you because you won't allow yourself to be convinced by anything - are at 'ct-starships'. Here are some results that I found floating around my hard drive anyway:
Target Design:
Quiz-classBB - R6346F3-671106-88Q08-0
E E 741 Y
L L A51 Z TL 12
Crew 942 TL 12 MCr104,696.52 100kt
Cargo 1132, Fuel 37ktl, EP 7000, agi 4, troops 100,,Craft 4x 50t cutter, 6fib + 1 backup,
bridge + 1 backup, nuc damper 1 + 1 backup, meson screen 1 + 1 backup, armor factor 6, Y=35, Z=50, jump-3, 4-G.
1 spinal PAW-Q
20 bay repulsor-6
50 bay missile-8
100 triple laser (10 batteries factor 8)
50 dual fusion (5 batteries factor 8)
100 triple sand (20 batteries factor 7)Variations: armor 0, 6G, agility 6.
armor 3, 5G, agility 5.
Hope the battery stuff lined up. Now the test fighter:
USP
FM-0306G51-000000-00002-0 MCr 138.525 50 Tons
Bat Bear 1 Crew: 1
Bat 1 TL: 12
Cargo: 1.000 Fuel: 8.000 EP: 8.000 Agility: 6
Architects Fee: MCr 1.385 Cost in Quantity: MCr 110.820
And the results:
780 HE fired
130 hits
115 pens vs. beam
68 weapon hits, 28 fuel hits, 19 no effect
That's TWENTY EIGHT fuel hits. It only takes TEN to mission kill any ship. Note the number of fighters too, 780. The BB cost MCr 104,696.52 and we killed it nearly with three times over 'only' MCr 86,439.6 worth of fighters, about 83% of the BB's cost. Also note that the fighters fired HE missiles, nukes were less effective becuase even the BB's low tech damper would effect ALL nuke missiles while the BB's lasers and sand 'ran out' against HE missiles.
That's just one example of the numbers you want. I've told you where the others can be found.
"As for the Marquis, some of us believe this website is worth supporting.
Ah, Moot membership has it's privileges!
Sincerely,
Larsen
TheEngineer
SOC-14 1K
So defining useablity of a design seems to be quite complicate
Anyway, is there a mechanic in T20 like the Tactical Skill Point Pool in MT in order to tweak statistics a bit ?
Anyway, is there a mechanic in T20 like the Tactical Skill Point Pool in MT in order to tweak statistics a bit ?
vermeylenhans
SOC-11
I'm working on a planetary navy design system, like the one presented, for planetary armies, in Gurps Traveller - Ground Forces.
Does anyone have an idea of the part of a navy (I mean a today real-world navy) budget spent on personnel?
What about an army (again today, real world)?
How does US armed forces reserve work? How much time does a guy from the reserve spend being activated per year?
And how does a national guard work? Who's paying for it? Who's commanding it? What happens in wartime? What are its missions?
Does anyone have an idea of the part of a navy (I mean a today real-world navy) budget spent on personnel?
What about an army (again today, real world)?
How does US armed forces reserve work? How much time does a guy from the reserve spend being activated per year?
And how does a national guard work? Who's paying for it? Who's commanding it? What happens in wartime? What are its missions?
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Or if the Cruiser can hold the fighters at short range No chance for a hit if the BB can hold the fighters at short range then the chance for a hit drops to 1 in 36.
But lets leave the engagement at long range.
Of those 1 in 12 hits the first 14 fail to penetrate (Repulsers). The next 11 only have a 1 in 36 chance of scoring damage (Beams). The next 14 only have a 1 in 12 chance to score damage(Sand).
So to score one damaging hit you need, statistically, 180 fighters for a 1 in 36 chance for damage. Firing 300 fighters gives you a 11 chances in 36 or 30.6% chance of scoring one damaging hit. (And .8% chance of scoring two.)
at 468 fighters your odds increase slightly. You will statistically score 1 damaging hit and have a 30.7% chance of scoring a second.
If you don't have more than 300 fighters your odds go down because the ship can use both Sand and laser against the few that get through.
So you in round 1 have scored 1.3 damaging hits. I am going to assume your rounds are conventional because against a Nuclear damper 1 your percentages go through the floor. Because with nukes a further 1 in 12 aren't getting through.
Turning the tables 35 fighters per turn go down without more than a whimper. If there is a Carrier that is likely to go down by turn 2 to the Spinal PA, but if there isn't a carrier make that 36 fighters per turn. (ANd the BB is free to use Nukes.) So starting with 468 fighters by Turn 2 you have 432 and statistically will score one hit. On Turn 3 you are down to 398-400 fighters and you are down to about a 90% chance of scoring a hit. On Turn 4 a 73% chance of a hit. Turn 5 46% chance of scoring a hit. Turn 6 30%, Turn 7+ 0% (You are out of missiles.) In 13 turns your last fighter dies because with a maneuver and agility of 6 your fighters can't run away.
With 468 fighters you have managed to score statistically less than 5 hits that cause some kind of damage. Your force, which incidentally without carriers cost only 2/3 of the battleship, is a total loss. Adding the cost of a carrier is likely to reduce your fighter strength to 300 and have you still cost more than the BB.
But since most Canon BBs are 200,000 tons or more with a more than doubling of secondary weapons your odds get much worse not better.
You might call that effective fire but I sure don't. I guess it is a question of point of view.
Oh and your comment about a pair of FH's can't shoot each other down. Your FM's can't either.
OK Now I will admit against the same ship in one turn with 780 fighters you are going to get 27 hits that cause damage and because I removed the armor statistically that will yield 9 fuel hits. But if I can cause the engagement to be fought at close range, at least initially, (With a 6 agility is is just as likely, though I have a serious command staff and all you have is fighter jocks) Then your 780 fighters are down to .01% chance of scoring one damaging hit in a turn. Each turn I can keep you there kills 30+ fighters for no return damage.
But 780 fighters cost more than the in quantity cost of the BB 755 is about the same cost. Lowers you to 8.3 fuel hits and 25 hits total. And your fighters aren't going anywhere. They are stuck there. 300-400 is the number of fighters carried on a typical Fleet Carrier. So for offensive operations Fighters are still not cost effective.
I for one would not sail a lone BB into a system that has a defense force of any kind. And your fighters aren't going to come to me in those numbers.
How is this more effective? The fighters become cheaper because they can have a lower computer because the computer is lower on the capital ship. But the results are basically the same.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Mr. Whipsnade,
Now against this Battleship.
Ship: Valor
Class: Valor
Type: Battleship
Architect: Bruce Hoins
Tech Level: 12
USP
BB-S4268F4-791106-880D8-0 MCr 239,643.260 200 KTons
Bat Bear Y D YG 1Y Crew: 1925
Bat Z L ZR 1Z TL: 12
Cargo: 2,516.000 Fuel: 56,000.000 EP: 16,000.000 Agility: 6 Marines: 200
Craft: 10 x 50T Cutters
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops and On Board Fuel Purification
Substitutions: Y = 32 Z = 50
Architects Fee: MCr 2,396.433 Cost in Quantity: MCr 191,714.608
Detailed Description
HULL
200,000.000 tons standard, 2,800,000.000 cubic meters, Close Structure Configuration
CREW
172 Officers, 1553 Ratings, 200 Marines
ENGINEERING
Jump-2, 6G Manuever, Power plant-8, 16,000.000 EP, Agility 6
AVIONICS
Bridge, Model/6fib Computer
HARDPOINTS
Spinal Mount, 20 100-ton bays, 50 50-ton bays, 1250 Hardpoints
ARMAMENT
Meson Gun Spinal Mount (Factor-D), 50 50-ton Missile Bays (Factor-8), 500 Triple Beam Laser Turrets organised into 50 Batteries (Factor-8), 250 Dual Fusion Gun Turrets organised into 25 Batteries (Factor-8)
DEFENCES
20 100-ton Repulsor Bays (Factor-6), 500 Triple Sandcaster Turrets organised into 50 Batteries (Factor-9), Nuclear Damper (Factor-1), Meson Screen (Factor-1), Armoured Hull (Factor-7)
CRAFT
10 50.000 ton Cutterss (Crew of 1, Cost of MCr 0.000)
FUEL
56,000.000 Tons Fuel (2 parsecs jump and 28 days endurance)
On Board Fuel Scoops, On Board Fuel Purification Plant
MISCELLANEOUS
1,000.0 Staterooms, 2,516.000 Tons Cargo
USER DEFINED COMPONENTS
None
COST
MCr 242,039.693 Singly (incl. Architects fees of MCr 2,396.433), MCr 191,714.608 in Quantity
CONSTRUCTION TIME
212 Weeks Singly, 170 Weeks in Quantity
It might cost twice as much but the differences are telling. This is a true TL 12 BB.
Your fighters have to show up in real numbers now.
Your first 540 fighters are useless. The next 576 statistically will score 1.3 hits. Add carriers and for 1200 fighters and you are at double the cost of one of these. Without fighters it takes 12 fighters past this initial 1116 fighters to score each hit. But at this kind of cost your fighters are purely defensive. They have no offensive punch if the cost is going to stay the same. (I hope you have a good pilot training program.)
You might mission kill it but you are going to loose several hundred fighters to do it.
Now if the agressor, since the fighters have no carriers have a 2 TL advantage or one more point of computer advantage, cutting the sandcasters down to factor 8 the number of sandcaster batteries increases to 75. Then 3960 fighters couldn't scratch the paint. Which is more than twice the cost of the BB.
I don't see this as cost effective or useful. It might work in a purely defensive role if you only have one system to defend and economic parity with your attacker, but you can't take the fight to him. If you have several systems to defend you have to split your forces and can't maneuver to meet your opponents thrust.
Defensive planning ultimately leads to defeat. You must go on the offensive to win. And once you are paying for carriers the fighters loose any chance of coming out ahead. (And the mortality rate among your flight crews will definitely be appaling.)
So OK I will grant you that if all you have is fighters, regardless of techlevel, that have a computer no less than 1 less than a Capital ship you can actually overwhelm it and get a mission kill, provided you can keep it at long range and come at it with an equal cost of fighters. However a 50KT Cruiser with agility 6 and a 2 point computer advantage is immune to factor 2 missiles and factor 5 beams. A ship the next size up and bigger with agility 6 and a 3 point computer advantage is also immune to the same thing. Tech level doesn't matter. What matters is the disparity between the fighters' and the Ship's computers.
Now against this Battleship.
Ship: Valor
Class: Valor
Type: Battleship
Architect: Bruce Hoins
Tech Level: 12
USP
BB-S4268F4-791106-880D8-0 MCr 239,643.260 200 KTons
Bat Bear Y D YG 1Y Crew: 1925
Bat Z L ZR 1Z TL: 12
Cargo: 2,516.000 Fuel: 56,000.000 EP: 16,000.000 Agility: 6 Marines: 200
Craft: 10 x 50T Cutters
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops and On Board Fuel Purification
Substitutions: Y = 32 Z = 50
Architects Fee: MCr 2,396.433 Cost in Quantity: MCr 191,714.608
Detailed Description
HULL
200,000.000 tons standard, 2,800,000.000 cubic meters, Close Structure Configuration
CREW
172 Officers, 1553 Ratings, 200 Marines
ENGINEERING
Jump-2, 6G Manuever, Power plant-8, 16,000.000 EP, Agility 6
AVIONICS
Bridge, Model/6fib Computer
HARDPOINTS
Spinal Mount, 20 100-ton bays, 50 50-ton bays, 1250 Hardpoints
ARMAMENT
Meson Gun Spinal Mount (Factor-D), 50 50-ton Missile Bays (Factor-8), 500 Triple Beam Laser Turrets organised into 50 Batteries (Factor-8), 250 Dual Fusion Gun Turrets organised into 25 Batteries (Factor-8)
DEFENCES
20 100-ton Repulsor Bays (Factor-6), 500 Triple Sandcaster Turrets organised into 50 Batteries (Factor-9), Nuclear Damper (Factor-1), Meson Screen (Factor-1), Armoured Hull (Factor-7)
CRAFT
10 50.000 ton Cutterss (Crew of 1, Cost of MCr 0.000)
FUEL
56,000.000 Tons Fuel (2 parsecs jump and 28 days endurance)
On Board Fuel Scoops, On Board Fuel Purification Plant
MISCELLANEOUS
1,000.0 Staterooms, 2,516.000 Tons Cargo
USER DEFINED COMPONENTS
None
COST
MCr 242,039.693 Singly (incl. Architects fees of MCr 2,396.433), MCr 191,714.608 in Quantity
CONSTRUCTION TIME
212 Weeks Singly, 170 Weeks in Quantity
It might cost twice as much but the differences are telling. This is a true TL 12 BB.
Your fighters have to show up in real numbers now.
Your first 540 fighters are useless. The next 576 statistically will score 1.3 hits. Add carriers and for 1200 fighters and you are at double the cost of one of these. Without fighters it takes 12 fighters past this initial 1116 fighters to score each hit. But at this kind of cost your fighters are purely defensive. They have no offensive punch if the cost is going to stay the same. (I hope you have a good pilot training program.)
Now if the agressor, since the fighters have no carriers have a 2 TL advantage or one more point of computer advantage, cutting the sandcasters down to factor 8 the number of sandcaster batteries increases to 75. Then 3960 fighters couldn't scratch the paint. Which is more than twice the cost of the BB.
I don't see this as cost effective or useful. It might work in a purely defensive role if you only have one system to defend and economic parity with your attacker, but you can't take the fight to him. If you have several systems to defend you have to split your forces and can't maneuver to meet your opponents thrust.
Defensive planning ultimately leads to defeat. You must go on the offensive to win. And once you are paying for carriers the fighters loose any chance of coming out ahead. (And the mortality rate among your flight crews will definitely be appaling.)
So OK I will grant you that if all you have is fighters, regardless of techlevel, that have a computer no less than 1 less than a Capital ship you can actually overwhelm it and get a mission kill, provided you can keep it at long range and come at it with an equal cost of fighters. However a 50KT Cruiser with agility 6 and a 2 point computer advantage is immune to factor 2 missiles and factor 5 beams. A ship the next size up and bigger with agility 6 and a 3 point computer advantage is also immune to the same thing. Tech level doesn't matter. What matters is the disparity between the fighters' and the Ship's computers.
I'm not disputing that. I'm claiming that it is wrong, an error, a mistake. Because if BatRon 154 is a BatRon, then all CruRons are BatRons too.</font>[/QUOTE]Have you looked at the counter mix in FFW?</font>[/QUOTE]Not in this connection.
And it costs about one tenth of what a battleship squadron costs. You don't think that's a little strange?
So why buy BatRons at all? Why buy a squadron of Tigresses if a single Lurenti with its 7 Nolikans can match them and you can get a dozen them for the same price? Do you really not think there's something that's not quite right about that picture?
Actually, IIRC, the reference that I'm thinking of (an article in JTAS) says that battleriders will outfight battleships of the same tonnage (which is hardly a surprise), but that the question becomes much more debatable when you factor in the cost of the carrier too.
Incidentally, note that ther are two different problems involved here. One is the effectiveness of riders vs. starships (and the comparison should be between vessels of the same effective cost, not the same size).
The other is the relative effectiveness of different sizes of combat vessels. A Lurenti + 7 Nolikans will cost roughly (very roughly; I'm guesstimating) the same as a squadron of 40,000 T cruisers. If any hit with a spinal mount really is a mission kill then those 8 40,000 T cruisers should be a match for BatRon 154. Which means that BatRon 154 is actually no more effective than any CruRon (And that there really is no functional difference between CruRons and BatRons (except tha tthe CruRons are so much cheaper)).
To sum up: If the Imperium builds ships in various sizes, then size matters. If size matters, then a 20,000 T ship is not a match for a 200,000 T ship. and if the combat system makes them a match, then the combat system is stuffed.
If size matters, then BatRon 154, with its 7 cruiser-sized combat vessels, is actually a CruRon.
(NB: I'm not saying that you can't have battlerider BatRons. I'm just saying that in order to make sense in a universe where navies builds battleship-sized combat vessels, they should contain 4-8 carriers, not 4-8 riders).
BTW. I don't want to just say that the combat system is broken without suggesting a fix. How about saying that the bigger spinal weapons have bigger ranges? That way our battleships get X number of free shots at those pesky Nolikans, which would even out the odds a bit, I should think.
Hans
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
Bhoins:
Here's how I work the math in this kind of problem, using a TL-12 missile fighter I've designed.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Ship: Tester
Class: TL12FM
Type: Missile fighter
Architect: Osmanski
Tech Level: 12
USP
FM-0606B61-000000-00002-0 MCr 115.250 50 Tons
Bat Bear 1 Crew: 1
Bat 1 TL: 12
Cargo: 1.500 Fuel: 5.500 EP: 5.500 Agility: 1
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops
Architects Fee: MCr 1.153 Cost in Quantity: MCr 92.200
Detailed Description
HULL
50.000 tons standard, 700.000 cubic meters, Flattened Sphere Configuration
CREW
Pilot
ENGINEERING
Jump-0, 6G Manuever, Power plant-11, 5.500 EP, Agility 1
AVIONICS
Bridge, Model/6 Computer
HARDPOINTS
1 Hardpoint
ARMAMENT
1 Triple Missile Turret organised into 1 Battery (Factor-2)
DEFENCES
None
CRAFT
None
FUEL
5.500 Tons Fuel (0 parsecs jump and 28 days endurance)
On Board Fuel Scoops, No Fuel Purification Plant
MISCELLANEOUS
2 Acceleration Couches, 1.500 Tons Cargo
USER DEFINED COMPONENTS
None
COST
MCr 116.403 Singly (incl. Architects fees of MCr 1.153), MCr 92.200 in Quantity
CONSTRUCTION TIME
24 Weeks Singly, 19 Weeks in Quantity</pre>[/QUOTE]This fighter has a Mod/6 computer and a bridge to use it at full effectiveness. Yes, it has low Agility, but that won't matter much. I'll put it against your TL-12 battleship. At equal cost, I can get 2079 of my VM for one of your BBs.
The first round of HG combat is always at long range, so that's where we start. I get 2079 shots of factor-2 missile at your BB. The DMs are -6 for your Agility6, +2 for your size of Q+, and +0 for equal computers, giving a to-Hit of 10+ so I get 6 hits out of every 36 shots fired, giving me 346.5 hits.
You have a total of 145 defensive batteries (50 laser, 50 sand, 25 fusion, 20 repulsor). We'll assume each stops one hit (the repulsors are guaranteed to do so, the others nearly so), that leaves 201.5 hits penetrating the active defenses.
There is a total DM of +13 on the Surface Explosion table (+6 for factor-2 batteries, +7 for your Armor7. This shifts the possible die roll results to be from 15 to 25. Anything of 22+ is No Effect (stopped by the armor, basically). That's 10/36 of all hits. 19/36 of all hits will be Weapon-1 hits, while 7/36 of hits will be Fuel-1 hits. We have 201.5 hits penetrating, so:
56 (rounding up) hits are stopped by armor.
106 Weapon-1 hits.
39 (rounding down) Fuel-1 hits.
Your BB can take a total of 208 Weapon-1 hits (13 on the meson gun, and one each for 195 other batteries), so after one round of combat your BB will be missing roughly half its weapons (including half the anti-missile batteries). Your BB will also be missing over a third of its fuel.
In return, your BB will kill 51 fighters (50 missile shots, one spinal mount). That's all. You can't use the lasers or fusion guns offensively since they fired defensively.
In the next combat round, even if you've gotten to close range, your half-destroyed BB will be
facing 2028 fighters. This is a losing proposition for your BB. At this range, 2028 fighters will score 169 hits, your half-destroyed defenses will stop only 73, so 96 penetrate, giving:
51 (rounding up) Weapon-1 hits
19 Fuel-1 hits.
That's half of what weapons the BB has left. In return the BB kills 25 fighters.
Do I have to keep going? After that first salvo at long range, the BB simply cannot deal with the fighters. And it's up to the dice who will win the initiative and choose the range: the BB has the Agility, but the VM have the numbers.
Here's how I work the math in this kind of problem, using a TL-12 missile fighter I've designed.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Ship: Tester
Class: TL12FM
Type: Missile fighter
Architect: Osmanski
Tech Level: 12
USP
FM-0606B61-000000-00002-0 MCr 115.250 50 Tons
Bat Bear 1 Crew: 1
Bat 1 TL: 12
Cargo: 1.500 Fuel: 5.500 EP: 5.500 Agility: 1
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops
Architects Fee: MCr 1.153 Cost in Quantity: MCr 92.200
Detailed Description
HULL
50.000 tons standard, 700.000 cubic meters, Flattened Sphere Configuration
CREW
Pilot
ENGINEERING
Jump-0, 6G Manuever, Power plant-11, 5.500 EP, Agility 1
AVIONICS
Bridge, Model/6 Computer
HARDPOINTS
1 Hardpoint
ARMAMENT
1 Triple Missile Turret organised into 1 Battery (Factor-2)
DEFENCES
None
CRAFT
None
FUEL
5.500 Tons Fuel (0 parsecs jump and 28 days endurance)
On Board Fuel Scoops, No Fuel Purification Plant
MISCELLANEOUS
2 Acceleration Couches, 1.500 Tons Cargo
USER DEFINED COMPONENTS
None
COST
MCr 116.403 Singly (incl. Architects fees of MCr 1.153), MCr 92.200 in Quantity
CONSTRUCTION TIME
24 Weeks Singly, 19 Weeks in Quantity</pre>[/QUOTE]This fighter has a Mod/6 computer and a bridge to use it at full effectiveness. Yes, it has low Agility, but that won't matter much. I'll put it against your TL-12 battleship. At equal cost, I can get 2079 of my VM for one of your BBs.
The first round of HG combat is always at long range, so that's where we start. I get 2079 shots of factor-2 missile at your BB. The DMs are -6 for your Agility6, +2 for your size of Q+, and +0 for equal computers, giving a to-Hit of 10+ so I get 6 hits out of every 36 shots fired, giving me 346.5 hits.
You have a total of 145 defensive batteries (50 laser, 50 sand, 25 fusion, 20 repulsor). We'll assume each stops one hit (the repulsors are guaranteed to do so, the others nearly so), that leaves 201.5 hits penetrating the active defenses.
There is a total DM of +13 on the Surface Explosion table (+6 for factor-2 batteries, +7 for your Armor7. This shifts the possible die roll results to be from 15 to 25. Anything of 22+ is No Effect (stopped by the armor, basically). That's 10/36 of all hits. 19/36 of all hits will be Weapon-1 hits, while 7/36 of hits will be Fuel-1 hits. We have 201.5 hits penetrating, so:
56 (rounding up) hits are stopped by armor.
106 Weapon-1 hits.
39 (rounding down) Fuel-1 hits.
Your BB can take a total of 208 Weapon-1 hits (13 on the meson gun, and one each for 195 other batteries), so after one round of combat your BB will be missing roughly half its weapons (including half the anti-missile batteries). Your BB will also be missing over a third of its fuel.
In return, your BB will kill 51 fighters (50 missile shots, one spinal mount). That's all. You can't use the lasers or fusion guns offensively since they fired defensively.
In the next combat round, even if you've gotten to close range, your half-destroyed BB will be
facing 2028 fighters. This is a losing proposition for your BB. At this range, 2028 fighters will score 169 hits, your half-destroyed defenses will stop only 73, so 96 penetrate, giving:
51 (rounding up) Weapon-1 hits
19 Fuel-1 hits.
That's half of what weapons the BB has left. In return the BB kills 25 fighters.
Do I have to keep going? After that first salvo at long range, the BB simply cannot deal with the fighters. And it's up to the dice who will win the initiative and choose the range: the BB has the Agility, but the VM have the numbers.
jchurchill
SOC-12
I just got a copy of Imperial Squadrons yesterday after posting my remarks about battleships versus battle riders and found the following:
"It is generally beleived that in any meeting between a battleship and a battle tender fully outfitted with a tonnage of battle rides rivaling the battleship will triumph. On the other hand, battleships can jump out of such situations while battle riders deprived of theor tender must win or die. Even when the battle tender is present retreat without losses is nearly impossible."
Tactically battle riders may have advantages but the margin for error for a battle rider fleet is much slimmer than for a starship or starship fleet.
As some one suggested -- a battle rider could try and run to the outer edges of a system but ultimately that rider is trapped there and can be hunted down or will eventually have to surrender.
"It is generally beleived that in any meeting between a battleship and a battle tender fully outfitted with a tonnage of battle rides rivaling the battleship will triumph. On the other hand, battleships can jump out of such situations while battle riders deprived of theor tender must win or die. Even when the battle tender is present retreat without losses is nearly impossible."
Tactically battle riders may have advantages but the margin for error for a battle rider fleet is much slimmer than for a starship or starship fleet.
As some one suggested -- a battle rider could try and run to the outer edges of a system but ultimately that rider is trapped there and can be hunted down or will eventually have to surrender.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Hans,
my tiny brain has finally realised what you have been saying:
1 BatRon like BR154 costs about the same as 1 300-400kt battleship, which is the same approximate cost as 1 CruRon of 40kt cruisers.
1 BatRon of battleships costs 8 to 10 times that of the BT/BR or Cru Ron.
Therefore a CT BatRon is equivalent to a CruRon.
But combat effectiveness wise:
1 BR/BT BatRon has up to 7 spinal mounts and hulls
1 CruRon has 8 spinal mounts and hulls
1 BS BatRon has 8 spinal mounts and hulls but costs 8 to 10 times what the BT/BR BatRon does.
So why is the Imperium in favour of BR/BT over BS?
Economics.
Why are the BT/BR squadrons designated as BatRons?
To look impressive on paper
my tiny brain has finally realised what you have been saying:
1 BatRon like BR154 costs about the same as 1 300-400kt battleship, which is the same approximate cost as 1 CruRon of 40kt cruisers.
1 BatRon of battleships costs 8 to 10 times that of the BT/BR or Cru Ron.
Therefore a CT BatRon is equivalent to a CruRon.
But combat effectiveness wise:
1 BR/BT BatRon has up to 7 spinal mounts and hulls
1 CruRon has 8 spinal mounts and hulls
1 BS BatRon has 8 spinal mounts and hulls but costs 8 to 10 times what the BT/BR BatRon does.
So why is the Imperium in favour of BR/BT over BS?
Economics.
Why are the BT/BR squadrons designated as BatRons?
To look impressive on paper
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Now, as to fixing the combat system to make the big ships more effective, Oz's suggestion of having meson screens reduce meson gun extra hits and criticals like armour does for particle accelerators is a good one.
Your idea for introducing a range modifier difference for the larger guns could be incorporated as well. Give the big meson guns, the 7 and 8kt ones, the +2 to hit modifier at long range as well.
The only real answer would to have the spinal mount as a percentage based component, the effectiveness of which could be scaled up to make the really big guns on the really big ships more effective.
Alternatively you could convert High Guard combat to a range based system rather than the abstract ranges in HG. The range band system could be added for little complication and yet give more tactical options for engagement range.
Mike
Your idea for introducing a range modifier difference for the larger guns could be incorporated as well. Give the big meson guns, the 7 and 8kt ones, the +2 to hit modifier at long range as well.
The only real answer would to have the spinal mount as a percentage based component, the effectiveness of which could be scaled up to make the really big guns on the really big ships more effective.
Alternatively you could convert High Guard combat to a range based system rather than the abstract ranges in HG. The range band system could be added for little complication and yet give more tactical options for engagement range.
Mike
