Hm. Does it still work at TL 15? I have the feeling that PA-T battle riders are a better choice for the same basic purpose. A missile boat at long range hits on 8+ and penetrates dampers on 10+, for a total of 15/216 chance to deliver one hit (does both surface and radiation). A PA-T hits on 6+ (26/36, or 138/216) and delivers 19 surface/radiation hits (roughly 170x the lethality), plus it will do automatic criticals on MMBs.
High Guard and Small Armored Vessels
- Thread starter Windknight
- Start date
I can't check, unfortunately. From memory it's pretty marginal at that point, even if it still works, so you may be right about PA spinal mounts working better. On the other hand, the risk of being MMBed means that your capital ships need stacks of armour, so it is still valuable as a threat. Which, and my memory is coming back now, is why you can't get away with lightly armoured meson gun cans, which would otherwise chew up an equivalent budget fleet of more heavily armoured ships. And if you use non-nuclear missiles against lightly armoured ships you can can get a lot of extra hits from not having to worry about dampers.
Still, all of that is based on two equal TL15 fleets a la the Rebellion. If you are fighting someone a TL or more below you, like the Zhodani or (most of) the Solomani, MMB's *really* rule. IIRC.
(I must get my copy of HG back - it's been on loan too long...)
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
You better have a whole lot of rocks (And they better be using Missile Bays.) Because the Continuation of Diplomacy, and the Death of 1000 Cuts (500,000 ton Battle Tenders) just jumped in at the outer edge of the system and immediately went into maximum Stealth mode. Though their payload is rather visible on your sensors. (6G Accel, total of 360,000 of Battleriders inbound.)and it looks like you might be a bit busy to worry about the tenders.
The Harpy II's are coming.
The concept of the small Meson Battlerider is a nasty one. (Even nastier in T20 than other rulesets.) Give them decent armor and Nuclear Dampers, like the Harpy II, and it pretty much takes Captial Ship fire to take them out. A Tigress is likely to be able to take between 2 and 2.5 out per combat turn. (A Plankwell or Kokirrak on average 1.5) But that flight inbound, including tenders and escorts, costs less than Three Tigresses, or less than 4 other Drednaughts. It will kill, on average, 20+ Capital ships, regardless of type, in one combat round and make a mess of your escorts while they are at it.
Of course the concept is a high speed slashing attack, which HG rules doesn't allow, with no more than 2-3 combat rounds of combat. Though it doesn't really matter much because after 2 rounds there is little left anyway.
What surprised me is that 100 missile bays did not render a Harpy II combat ineffective. (Throwing rocks at them, is not all that effective.)
The concept of the small Meson Battlerider is a nasty one. (Even nastier in T20 than other rulesets.) Give them decent armor and Nuclear Dampers, like the Harpy II, and it pretty much takes Captial Ship fire to take them out. A Tigress is likely to be able to take between 2 and 2.5 out per combat turn. (A Plankwell or Kokirrak on average 1.5) But that flight inbound, including tenders and escorts, costs less than Three Tigresses, or less than 4 other Drednaughts. It will kill, on average, 20+ Capital ships, regardless of type, in one combat round and make a mess of your escorts while they are at it.
Of course the concept is a high speed slashing attack, which HG rules doesn't allow, with no more than 2-3 combat rounds of combat. Though it doesn't really matter much because after 2 rounds there is little left anyway.
What surprised me is that 100 missile bays did not render a Harpy II combat ineffective. (Throwing rocks at them, is not all that effective.)
Once you have factor-9 nuclear dampers and factor-F armor becomes practical, missile attacks are marginal, at least in High Guard. Lemme play with a couple of munchkin designs:
1) the Missile Boat (includes J1) </font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">
MB-A116G92-F49900-35009-0 MCr 1,653.260 1.3 KTons
Bat Bear 1 11 1 Crew: 33
Bat 1 11 1 TL: 15</pre>[/QUOTE]Cargo: 66.000 Fuel: 338.000 EP: 208.000 Agility: 6
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops and On Board Fuel Purification
Architects Fee: MCr 16.533 Cost in Quantity: MCr 1,322.608
2) The PA lancer ship, no jump
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> BR-K106HJ3-F99909-99T09-0 MCr 14,626.340 13 KTons
Bat Bear 1 1 111 6 Crew: 138
Bat 1 1 111 6 TL: 15</pre>[/QUOTE]Cargo: 186.000 Fuel: 2,210.000 EP: 2,210.000 Agility: 6
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops and On Board Fuel Purification
Architects Fee: MCr 146.263 Cost in Quantity: MCr 11,701.072
3) The PA lancer ship, with jump-1
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> BR-K116FJ3-F99909-99T09-0 MCr 19,050.640 17 KTons
Bat Bear 6 1 111 4 Crew: 160
Bat 6 1 111 4 TL: 15</pre>[/QUOTE]Cargo: 32.000 Fuel: 4,250.000 EP: 2,550.000 Agility: 6
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops and On Board Fuel Purification
Architects Fee: MCr 190.506 Cost in Quantity: MCr 15,240.512
Combat math will follow
1) the Missile Boat (includes J1) </font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">
MB-A116G92-F49900-35009-0 MCr 1,653.260 1.3 KTons
Bat Bear 1 11 1 Crew: 33
Bat 1 11 1 TL: 15</pre>[/QUOTE]Cargo: 66.000 Fuel: 338.000 EP: 208.000 Agility: 6
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops and On Board Fuel Purification
Architects Fee: MCr 16.533 Cost in Quantity: MCr 1,322.608
2) The PA lancer ship, no jump
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> BR-K106HJ3-F99909-99T09-0 MCr 14,626.340 13 KTons
Bat Bear 1 1 111 6 Crew: 138
Bat 1 1 111 6 TL: 15</pre>[/QUOTE]Cargo: 186.000 Fuel: 2,210.000 EP: 2,210.000 Agility: 6
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops and On Board Fuel Purification
Architects Fee: MCr 146.263 Cost in Quantity: MCr 11,701.072
3) The PA lancer ship, with jump-1
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> BR-K116FJ3-F99909-99T09-0 MCr 19,050.640 17 KTons
Bat Bear 6 1 111 4 Crew: 160
Bat 6 1 111 4 TL: 15</pre>[/QUOTE]Cargo: 32.000 Fuel: 4,250.000 EP: 2,550.000 Agility: 6
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops and On Board Fuel Purification
Architects Fee: MCr 190.506 Cost in Quantity: MCr 15,240.512
Combat math will follow
Did combat math. It's involved, but if you take a 130,000 dton force (100 missile boats, 26 harpy-IIs, or 10 PA battle riders), total casualty rates are about as follows:
MB vs HP, SR/LR: 0.89/1.33 kills, 3.4/5.1%
MB vs PB, SR/LR: 0.051/0.076 kills, 0.51/0.76%
HP vs MB, SR/LR: 1.4/0.42 kills, 1.4/0.41%
HP vs PB, SR/LR: 1.6/0.73 kills, 16/7.3%
PB vs MB, SR/LR: 5.6 kills, 5.6%
PB vs HP, SR/LR: 6.7 kills, 26%
The PB ship kills the missile boats handily. The HP loses every fight, though it loses worse against the missile boats. If we replace the HP with my 10.5 kT battle rider, it has 1.34x the firepower, 8.3x the survivability vs missiles, 1.3x the survivability vs PA-T, which means it wins vs the PA ship at close range, vs the missile boats at any range.
MB vs HP, SR/LR: 0.89/1.33 kills, 3.4/5.1%
MB vs PB, SR/LR: 0.051/0.076 kills, 0.51/0.76%
HP vs MB, SR/LR: 1.4/0.42 kills, 1.4/0.41%
HP vs PB, SR/LR: 1.6/0.73 kills, 16/7.3%
PB vs MB, SR/LR: 5.6 kills, 5.6%
PB vs HP, SR/LR: 6.7 kills, 26%
The PB ship kills the missile boats handily. The HP loses every fight, though it loses worse against the missile boats. If we replace the HP with my 10.5 kT battle rider, it has 1.34x the firepower, 8.3x the survivability vs missiles, 1.3x the survivability vs PA-T, which means it wins vs the PA ship at close range, vs the missile boats at any range.
I've rewritten this post entirely, since I totally missed the key point the first time.
Meson, Missile, Rock does still work at TL 15!
The armour factor 15 ships people are talking about are "Rocks". That is, they are the kind of ships that trump missiles.
The thing is that it is still possible to build "Meson" ships that can trump "Rocks". Give them less armour, and they become cheaper, smaller and more numerous, allowing them to whack the "Rocks" with their spinal mounts.
The "Rocks" benefit from using Particle Accelerators in this conflict, incidentally. They definitely lose if they have Meson Guns.
The thing is, that the "Meson" ships I just described are still vulnerable to "Missile" ships - the dreaded MBBs!
And, in turn, MBBs die against rocks.
In short, the Meson, Missile, Rock cycle still exists.
The "Harpy II" design is a Rock, and can be taken out in the appropriate manner.
And if I had my copy of High Guard handy, I would demonstrate this...
Meson, Missile, Rock does still work at TL 15!
The armour factor 15 ships people are talking about are "Rocks". That is, they are the kind of ships that trump missiles.
The thing is that it is still possible to build "Meson" ships that can trump "Rocks". Give them less armour, and they become cheaper, smaller and more numerous, allowing them to whack the "Rocks" with their spinal mounts.
The "Rocks" benefit from using Particle Accelerators in this conflict, incidentally. They definitely lose if they have Meson Guns.
The thing is, that the "Meson" ships I just described are still vulnerable to "Missile" ships - the dreaded MBBs!
And, in turn, MBBs die against rocks.
In short, the Meson, Missile, Rock cycle still exists.
The "Harpy II" design is a Rock, and can be taken out in the appropriate manner.
And if I had my copy of High Guard handy, I would demonstrate this...
Unfortunately, that doesn't actually work. The rocks with spinal mounts appear to beat the meson ships, at least when dealing with battle riders (the math on ships with jump capability is different).
An unarmored ship with a meson-N is about 8 kT/6.4G (bulk), with a meson-J is about 6 kT/5 GCr (bulk) (the Harpy-II is not high-guard legal, it only has 14 days fuel). A meson-J hits a PA rock on 8+/10+ (short/long range), penetrates configuration on 6+, penetrates screens on 9+. A hit is a mission kill, but odds of hitting are only 8.4%/3.3%.
A meson-N hits a PA rock on 8+/10+ (short/long range), penetrates configuration on 4+, penetrates screen on 7+. Any hit is a mission kill, but odds of hitting are only 22% (short range) or 9% (long range).
A PA-T hits either one on a 6+ (72%) and gets a mission kill with one hit. Making up for a ratio of 72/22 requires outnumbering them by 1.8:1 (square root of the ratio), which is roughly equal to the cost ratio; at long ranges the PA ship wins handily. Note that the meson rock, while it costs 60% more, takes an average of about 2.5 hits to be mission-killed (due to armor and size; it takes 1 automatic critical vs 10 for the unarmored ship, plus surface/radiation hits are nearly irrelevant), so it's just as effective vs the PA rock as the unarmored meson ships, though it's obviously less effective vs unarmored meson ships.
This math is interesting. You want some meson ships in your fleet to keep your enemy honest (i.e. make them spend for meson screens), but the PA ships appear to win against both missile ships and meson ships (it may be worth downgrading the armor to factor-E, you don't get any bonus to resist critical from factor-F). Given the purpose of the meson ships, I'm not sure if they should carry J or N meson weapons; N is x2.82 lethality vs factor-9 screens, but it's only x1.27 vs unshielded targets, and the size difference means 30% fewer platforms (including power plant and fuel, a J is 2,800T, an N is 4,000T, a T is 9,400T)
I presume you are referring here to rocks with PA spinal mounts, rather than meson guns?
If that is so, there may still be a trade-off point between "fully armoured" and "unarmoured".
Yes it is. It seems a little more complex than the calculations at lower TLs.
Correct on the factor-E.
How do the PA ships go against fully armoured meson ships? What about ones too big for them to get size criticals? Planetoid hulls? Or some combination of these.
I think there is a counter to the PA ships as well! But, of course, they in turn suck and die against meson guns...
So, what do we have?
(1)Lightly armoured meson ships that can beat more heavily armoured meson ships. (Correct?)
(2) Heavily armoured PA ships that can beat lightly armoured meson ships. (And possibly more heavily armoured meson ships?)
(3) Really heavily armoured, huge meson ships that can beat heavily armoured PA ships.
(4) Smaller meson ships that can beat the humongous ones.
(5) MMBs that can beat lightly armoured meson ships, but probably aren't the best solution for this any more.
Am I close to correct here?
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
I haven't followed the math in these arguments enough to know for sure if this has been taken into account, so I'll mention it.
Remember that in HG combat, while spinals get one additional damage roll for each size above 9 (so that a factor-T spinal gets 19 damage rolls), these extra rolls are reduced by 1 for every level of armor the target has (except for meson guns, of course). So a factor-T spinal PA shooting at a factor-15 armored target (no matter the size of the target) takes only 4 damage rolls (on both the Surface Explosion and Radiation damage tables, of course) not 19 rolls on each.
This reduces (but does not eliminate) the "mission-kill" ability of large spinal PAs, since with only a few damage rolls (against an armored target) they can't scrub the weapons off the hull with just one hit, as long as the target has enough "soak-off" weapon batteries to absorb the damage.
So for "one-shot-zot" kills, the spinal PA will have to rely on any automatic criticals it will get from having the weapon size exceed the target size (which are also reduced by armor, though not as much). This should bring the "armored PA rider" vs "armored meson sled" battle a little more back into balance.
I will say this has been a very interesting and stimulating discussion. Thanks to all!
Remember that in HG combat, while spinals get one additional damage roll for each size above 9 (so that a factor-T spinal gets 19 damage rolls), these extra rolls are reduced by 1 for every level of armor the target has (except for meson guns, of course). So a factor-T spinal PA shooting at a factor-15 armored target (no matter the size of the target) takes only 4 damage rolls (on both the Surface Explosion and Radiation damage tables, of course) not 19 rolls on each.
This reduces (but does not eliminate) the "mission-kill" ability of large spinal PAs, since with only a few damage rolls (against an armored target) they can't scrub the weapons off the hull with just one hit, as long as the target has enough "soak-off" weapon batteries to absorb the damage.
So for "one-shot-zot" kills, the spinal PA will have to rely on any automatic criticals it will get from having the weapon size exceed the target size (which are also reduced by armor, though not as much). This should bring the "armored PA rider" vs "armored meson sled" battle a little more back into balance.
I will say this has been a very interesting and stimulating discussion. Thanks to all!
I'd forgotten that feature. It means that meson boats over 20 kT (min to avoid auto-crits vs a factor-T spinal with armor-E) can be highly resistant to PA fire (4 damage rolls on each chart; it takes 50-100 damage rolls to kill a capital ship with factor-F armor if you can't get criticals). Unfortunately, they're extra vulnerable (due to size DMs) to everything else, and they're also extra expensive.
Meson battle riders under 20 kT lose to PA battle riders. Meson battle riders over 20 kT, if well armored, should do well enough, but will have problems with munchkin missile boats.
However, jump capable warships are just screwed. You basically cannot build an M6/J4/Armor-F warship (the Tigress is actually J3 based on its fuel tankage).
Meson battle riders under 20 kT lose to PA battle riders. Meson battle riders over 20 kT, if well armored, should do well enough, but will have problems with munchkin missile boats.
However, jump capable warships are just screwed. You basically cannot build an M6/J4/Armor-F warship (the Tigress is actually J3 based on its fuel tankage).
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Based on lessons learned, here is the New and Improved Harpy III. (T20 version doesn't need this refinement.) This refinement improves the missile resistance of the Harpy. Making it a virtual requirement that the ship be engaged with Spinal mounts. Since the Harpy is designed to swamp the enemy fleet with large numbers, and some losses are expected, against a typical capital ship task force, there will be some losses among a Battletender loadout of Harpy-III in a high speed pass, but in general the losses among the capital ships are likely to be total.
Ship: Harpy-III
Class: Harpy
Type: Light Attack Craft
Architect: Bruce Hoins
Tech Level: 15
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">USP
LC-E106ZJ2-B54800-700J9-0 MCr 6,877.000 5 KTons
Bat Bear 5 4 11 Crew: 79
Bat 5 4 11 TL: 15
Cargo: 37.000 Fuel: 700.000 EP: 1,400.000 Agility: 6 Shipboard Security Detail: 5
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops
Substitutions: Z = 28
Architects Fee: MCr 68.770 Cost in Quantity: MCr 5,501.600</pre>[/QUOTE]Detailed Description
HULL
5,000.000 tons standard, 70,000.000 cubic meters, Needle/Wedge Configuration
CREW
14 Officers, 65 Ratings
ENGINEERING
Jump-0, 6G Manuever, Power plant-28, 1,400.000 EP, Agility 6
AVIONICS
Bridge, Model/9fib Computer
HARDPOINTS
Spinal Mount, 1 50-ton bay, 30 Hardpoints
ARMAMENT
Meson Gun Spinal Mount (Factor-J), 1 50-ton Missile Bay (Factor-9), 20 Triple Beam Laser Turrets organised into 4 Batteries (Factor-7)
DEFENCES
10 Triple Sandcaster Turrets organised into 5 Batteries (Factor-5), Nuclear Damper (Factor-8), Meson Screen (Factor-4), Armoured Hull (Factor-11)
CRAFT
None
FUEL
700.000 Tons Fuel (0 parsecs jump and 14 days endurance)
On Board Fuel Scoops, No Fuel Purification Plant
MISCELLANEOUS
44.0 Staterooms, 37.000 Tons Cargo
USER DEFINED COMPONENTS
None
COST
MCr 6,945.770 Singly (incl. Architects fees of MCr 68.770), MCr 5,501.600 in Quantity
CONSTRUCTION TIME
148 Weeks Singly, 118 Weeks in Quantity
COMMENTS
Ship: Harpy-III
Class: Harpy
Type: Light Attack Craft
Architect: Bruce Hoins
Tech Level: 15
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">USP
LC-E106ZJ2-B54800-700J9-0 MCr 6,877.000 5 KTons
Bat Bear 5 4 11 Crew: 79
Bat 5 4 11 TL: 15
Cargo: 37.000 Fuel: 700.000 EP: 1,400.000 Agility: 6 Shipboard Security Detail: 5
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops
Substitutions: Z = 28
Architects Fee: MCr 68.770 Cost in Quantity: MCr 5,501.600</pre>[/QUOTE]Detailed Description
HULL
5,000.000 tons standard, 70,000.000 cubic meters, Needle/Wedge Configuration
CREW
14 Officers, 65 Ratings
ENGINEERING
Jump-0, 6G Manuever, Power plant-28, 1,400.000 EP, Agility 6
AVIONICS
Bridge, Model/9fib Computer
HARDPOINTS
Spinal Mount, 1 50-ton bay, 30 Hardpoints
ARMAMENT
Meson Gun Spinal Mount (Factor-J), 1 50-ton Missile Bay (Factor-9), 20 Triple Beam Laser Turrets organised into 4 Batteries (Factor-7)
DEFENCES
10 Triple Sandcaster Turrets organised into 5 Batteries (Factor-5), Nuclear Damper (Factor-8), Meson Screen (Factor-4), Armoured Hull (Factor-11)
CRAFT
None
FUEL
700.000 Tons Fuel (0 parsecs jump and 14 days endurance)
On Board Fuel Scoops, No Fuel Purification Plant
MISCELLANEOUS
44.0 Staterooms, 37.000 Tons Cargo
USER DEFINED COMPONENTS
None
COST
MCr 6,945.770 Singly (incl. Architects fees of MCr 68.770), MCr 5,501.600 in Quantity
CONSTRUCTION TIME
148 Weeks Singly, 118 Weeks in Quantity
COMMENTS
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Still an illegal design. 1400 EP requires 1400 fuel. A lot of designs can be improved by cheating on fuel requirements. </font>[/QUOTE]It requires 1400 tons of fuel to operate for 28 days. The design concept of the ship is for a single high speed pass. (Less than 48 hours of operation.) yet it has fuel for 14 days of operations. This isn't a patrol craft. It isn't an SDB. It doesn't need fuel during anything but combat operations, which is definitely less than 24 hours. If it isn't during combat operations, then it has more than enough fuel for a month as it isn't using the main gun. (Design concept calls for two power plants that total the 1400 EP. Specifically one for the main gun and the other for everything else.)
Besides you didn't complain about the Harpy II only having 14 days of fuel. I didn't change that spec, I just decreased the missile magazine sorted the turrets and added a point to the Powerplant rating (Adding the fuel for 14 days.). I can probably free up enough space for the extra fuel by deleting things like staterooms. After all this isn't a starship so has no requirement for staterooms.
But if you don't like it, then don't use it.
High Guard does not let you skimp on fuel. You can argue about whether or not this is rational, but that's the way HG works.
Yes I did, though not initially because it took me a while to notice the problem.
Again, High Guard doesn't let you do that.
If you're comparing designs, it helps for everyone to be using the same rules. Otherwise, well, if I ignore hardpoint limits I can cram a 50 ton missile bay in a 250 dton ship and still have agility 6/computer model 9/armor F, with a cost in quantity of 290 MCr. It won't have either nuclear dampers or meson screens, but four times the numbers makes up for it, and it's armored enough to not take automatic criticals from non-spinal weapons.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
High Guard does not let you skimp on fuel. You can argue about whether or not this is rational, but that's the way HG works.</font>[/QUOTE]I seem to remember a couple of Canon ships that are designed that way. (But it has been a while.) Of course Canon ships break the rules all the time, with less reason. (4 hardpoints on a Gazelle, in LBB5 being the most obvious.)
Yes I did, though not initially because it took me a while to notice the problem.</font>[/QUOTE]Not in this thread, and not in the thread where the Harpy was originally proposed.
Again, High Guard doesn't let you do that.</font>[/QUOTE]Actually High Guard does. Only Starships, which this isn't, require staterooms. A Canon example of a Large Non-Starship without staterooms is the Fuel Shuttle for the AHL.
If you're comparing designs, it helps for everyone to be using the same rules. Otherwise, well, if I ignore hardpoint limits I can cram a 50 ton missile bay in a 250 dton ship and still have agility 6/computer model 9/armor F, with a cost in quantity of 290 MCr. It won't have either nuclear dampers or meson screens, but four times the numbers makes up for it, and it's armored enough to not take automatic criticals from non-spinal weapons. </font>[/QUOTE]And less than 1000 ton ships have had a single bay almost since HG was published. (In fact it never took all of their hardpoints to do so.) They are Canon.
Besides, I wasn't the one comparing designs, you were.