Large Ships and Spinal Mounts: What is the Point?

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by veltyen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Small may imply maneuverable and fast now. However that wasn't always the case. In the age of sail bigger ships, due to better sail configuration, more sail area and better capability to handle waves were actually faster and more nimble than smaller ships. (I know it is counter intuitive.)

Oddly enough it ain't just the sails. Cavitation hulls are limited in velocity to their length in the water. Therefore a longer ship can go faster then a shorter one.

This is only for cavitation hulls. Supercavitation, skimming, foils and most other types of hull don't have this limitation.

Bhoins: What was the crew and maintenance costs like? The capital costs should be swallowed by the ongoings in most cases. I'm surprised the ratio is quite that high, I would have expected 3 or 4 to 1 rather then 5 to 1. </font>[/QUOTE]Since maintenance costs are based on cost of the ship. (And you are definitely getting a volume discount on these.

) The maintenance of 5 of these costs about the same as 1 BR. As far as crew, remember that the size of the crew is proportional to the size of the ship. (With exceptions of course.) Your Squadron Gunnery Numbers, with the larger number of spinals, and your need for multiple command crews, (Though smaller command crews.) would tend to increase your staffing requirements. The number of engineers would be about the same for example, the same with the number of other non-command staff. I hadn't thought about crew costs, manpower requirements never really have entered my thought processes when it comes to Naval vessels.

 

[Klaus]

The dreadnought may have the same acceleration and agility as the fighter but it still has much much more inertia.

In a real space engagement, opposing ships would have to opt for a high speed single pass from any vector or they'd have to match vectors. In a matched vector case all combatants would start with a relative speed of effectively zero in game terms and would all be maneuvering within the same volume.

Fighters would be beter suited for a high-speed single -pass operation. They have less fuel for maneuvers (matching velocities with an unwilling target would probably require alot of patience) but can achieve straight line speed and are very small, making them hard to hit; also they have a small payload so won't want to linger in the target zone. A big ship may be at a slight disadvantage when faced with lots of small ships coming in at varying vectors at high speed, as its large size may hamper its ability to change its vector effectively.

I tend to assume Agility refers to maneuverability within the tactical point of view, rather than ability to rapidly change the vessels vector. If you've been accelerating at 2g's for the past 3 days before being attacked combat will be over a long time before your vector is significantly changed.

As I see it, T20 and High Guard seem to describe a 'tactical' situation, where combatants are all on a similar vector. Perhaps we need some rules for the 'strategic plot', so we can have tense submarine style maneuvering games before the shooting starts, and the option of the high pass assault makes fighters more viable as a combat platform (you wouldn't want big vessels to do this as it would take so long to return the vector back towards the combat all they'd likely find was debris, or the winners!).

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
Actually thirty of those 5000T LACs I posted a while back cost about the same as 6 30KTon Battleriders. (With obviously 5 times the major firepower.) Granted you can fit 36 of those LACs on the same tender as the 6 Battleriders, but still.

Bhoins, could you post the stats or the link to thase LACs again please.
I'm having trouble finding them </font>[/QUOTE]I'll have to find them again as well. I'll post them here in a bit. (Now that I use Falkyn's Spreadsheet for T20 it won't take long.

)
I will appologize but I have never done these up in MT. MT starship design always gave me headaches.

 

[mike wightman]

Thanks.
Will they work as High Guard designs I wonder?
Rough check of the numbers:
5000t hull
1000t spinal meson J
850t maneuver 6
1250t power plant 25
1250t fuel
100t bridge
550t remaining

 

[The Oz]

I've often thought that a ship's configuration should reduce it's Agility because the shape of the ship affects the ship's moment of inertia, which is a critical factor in determining how fast the ship can point it's nose in a new direction. Perhaps a table like this might make a good house rule:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Configuration Agility Modifier
Needle/Wedge -3
Cone -2
Cylinder -1
Close Structure -1
Sphere None
Flattened Sphere -1
Dispersed Structure -3
Planetoid -1
Buffered Planetoid -2</pre>[/QUOTE]My thinking here is that the more compact shapes don't lose much Agility, but either longer shapes (Needle/Wedge) or more spread out shapes (Dispersed Structure) or shapes that must have more mass near the surface of the shape (Planetoid, Buffered Planetoid) will tend to lose more Agility.

 

[The Oz]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Thanks.
Will they work as High Guard designs?

I've played around with HG designs similar to Bhoins', and yes I can get a factor-J meson gun into a 5kton LAC. The LAC doesn't have much in the way of defenses or secondary weapons and you can only get about 4.5 of them for one factor-T carrying 30kton BR, but it can be done. Here's what I got:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Ship: Shrike
Class: LAC-15
Type: Light Attack Craft
Architect: Osmanski
Tech Level: 15

USP
RL-E406ZJ2-190900-900J7-0 MCr 5,594.710 5 KTons
Bat Bear 1 1 12 Crew: 63
Bat 1 1 12 TL: 15

Cargo: 7.000 Fuel: 1,350.000 EP: 1,350.000 Agility: 6 Marines: 1
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops and On Board Fuel Purification
Substitutions: Z = 27

Architects Fee: MCr 55.947 Cost in Quantity: MCr 4,475.768</pre>[/QUOTE]Detailed Description

HULL
5,000.000 tons standard, 70,000.000 cubic meters, Close Structure Configuration

CREW
13 Officers, 49 Ratings, 1 Marines

ENGINEERING
Jump-0, 6G Manuever, Power plant-27, 1,350.000 EP, Agility 6

AVIONICS
Bridge, Model/9fib Computer

HARDPOINTS
Spinal Mount, 40 Hardpoints

ARMAMENT
Meson Gun Spinal Mount (Factor-J), 20 Triple Missile Turrets organised into 2 Batteries (Factor-7), 10 Triple Beam Laser Turrets organised into 1 Battery (Factor-9)

DEFENCES
10 Triple Sandcaster Turrets organised into 1 Battery (Factor-9), Nuclear Damper (Factor-9), Armoured Hull (Factor-1)

CRAFT
None

FUEL
1,350.000 Tons Fuel (0 parsecs jump and 28 days endurance)
On Board Fuel Scoops, On Board Fuel Purification Plant

MISCELLANEOUS
34.0 Staterooms, 7.000 Tons Cargo

USER DEFINED COMPONENTS
None

COST
MCr 5,650.657 Singly (incl. Architects fees of MCr 55.947), MCr 4,475.768 in Quantity

CONSTRUCTION TIME
148 Weeks Singly, 118 Weeks in Quantity


P.S. Thanks, Andrew, for HGS!!!!

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by The Oz:
I've often thought that a ship's configuration should reduce it's Agility because the shape of the ship affects the ship's moment of inertia, which is a critical factor in determining how fast the ship can point it's nose in a new direction. Perhaps a table like this might make a good house rule:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Configuration Agility Modifier
Needle/Wedge -3
Cone -2
Cylinder -1
Close Structure -1
Sphere None
Flattened Sphere -1
Dispersed Structure -3
Planetoid -1
Buffered Planetoid -2</pre>

My thinking here is that the more compact shapes don't lose much Agility, but either longer shapes (Needle/Wedge) or more spread out shapes (Dispersed Structure) or shapes that must have more mass near the surface of the shape (Planetoid, Buffered Planetoid) will tend to lose more Agility. [/quote]Hmm, interesting idea.

Just one thing, wouldn't the buffered planetoid, with all its internal bracing, be more able to withstand the effects of inertia?

Do acceleration compensators only protect the crew, or do they mitigate the inertial effects for the ship as well?

 

[mike wightman]

What do you reckon is the smallest hull you can go down to and still fit a spinal meson J, agility 6 and a model 9fib computer?

 

[BetterThanLife]

The Harpy Class LAC. T20 Stats and HG stats. Thanks to both Falkyn and Andrew Moffett.

T20 Starship Design Sheet Output

Harpy - Harpy Class Light Attack Craft
Designed by: Bruce Hoins

Statistics:
5,000-ton Hull (Needle/Wedge) - Streamlined
AC: 30 (17 vs. Meson Guns) AR: 15 (TL-15) SI: 350 Initiative: 6
Starship Size: Large Cost: 4,002.192 MCr (5,002.74 MCr without discount)
Model/9 Fib (PP: 65/14) Computer Avionics: Less than 10,000-ton Sensors: 2 Parsecs (passive survey) Communications: System Wide
Cargo: 111.0-tons Passengers: 0
Annual Maintenance = 400.219 KCr (200.11 KCr if routinely maintained)
Routine Maintenance = 100.055 KCr/Month (1,000.548 KCr per year)

Performance:
Acceleration: 6-G Agility: 6
Power Plant: TL-15 Fusion (1,552 EP output, enough fuel for 4 weeks)
Fuel Scoops, Fuel Purification Plant (TL-15, 5hrs per 800 tons of fuel)
Atmospheric Speeds: NOE = 1,175kph Cruising = 3,525kph Maximum = 4,700kph

Active Defenses:
Nuclear Dampers USP:9
Meson Screens USP:9

Weapons:
Hardpoints: 50
10 x 2 turret batteries, Triple Beam Laser Turret TL-15, +5 To Hit, 5d8 (20/x1), Range: 30,000km
5 x 2 Turret Batteries, Triple Sandcaster Turret TL-15, +5 AC, Ammo: 300 sand canisters
1x 50-ton Missile Bay TL-15, +9 To Hit, 9d6 (18/x1), Range: 90,000km, 250 magazines, Magazine holds 5000 missiles (1000 Standard, 2000 Nuke, 2000 BPL)
Meson Gun Spinal Mount: TL-15, +14 To Hit, 16d20 (15/x10), Range: 75,000km

Accomodations & Fittings:
39x Double Occupancy Stateroom (78 People)
1x Airlock

Crew Details:
7x Command Officers, 3x Command Crew
0x Flight Officers, x Flight Crew
1x Gunnery Officers, 30x Gunnery Crew
2x Engineering Officers, 15x Engineering Crew
1x Medical Officers, 0x Medical Crew
15x Service Crew

Description:
This Craft is designed to act as a system Monitor or a Small Battlerider. In general a Standard TL15 Dispersed Structure Battle Tender carries 6 x 30Kton craft. For about the same cost 30 of these craft can be carried. To fill the same space 36 of these can be carried.

HG stats:

Ship: Harpy
Class: Harpy
Type: Light Attack Craft
Architect: Bruce Hoins
Tech Level: 15

USP
SL-E106PJ2-750400-500E9-0 MCr 6,035.680 5 KTons
Bat Bear 5 A 11 Crew: 78
Bat 5 A 11 TL: 15

Cargo: 54.000 Fuel: 1,150.000 EP: 1,150.000 Agility: 6 Shipboard Security Detail: 5
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops and On Board Fuel Purification

Architects Fee: MCr 60.357 Cost in Quantity: MCr 4,828.544


Detailed Description

HULL
5,000.000 tons standard, 70,000.000 cubic meters, Needle/Wedge Configuration

CREW
14 Officers, 64 Ratings

ENGINEERING
Jump-0, 6G Manuever, Power plant-23, 1,150.000 EP, Agility 6

AVIONICS
Bridge, Model/9fib Computer

HARDPOINTS
Spinal Mount, 1 50-ton bay, 30 Hardpoints

ARMAMENT
Meson Gun Spinal Mount (Factor-E), 1 50-ton Missile Bay (Factor-9), 20 Triple Beam Laser Turrets organised into 10 Batteries (Factor-5)

DEFENCES
10 Triple Sandcaster Turrets organised into 5 Batteries (Factor-5), Nuclear Damper (Factor-4), Armoured Hull (Factor-7)

CRAFT
None

FUEL
1,150.000 Tons Fuel (0 parsecs jump and 28 days endurance)
On Board Fuel Scoops, On Board Fuel Purification Plant

MISCELLANEOUS
41.0 Staterooms, 54.000 Tons Cargo

USER DEFINED COMPONENTS
None

COST
MCr 6,096.037 Singly (incl. Architects fees of MCr 60.357), MCr 4,828.544 in Quantity

CONSTRUCTION TIME
148 Weeks Singly, 118 Weeks in Quantity

COMMENTS

See above.

As you can see HG and T20 aren't quite the same. The T20 version is much nastier. But, and this is a big but, Spinal Mesons are still nastier in T20 even with the Meson Screen.

 

[The Oz]

Sigg,

It's not the ability to withstand bending forces, but the fact that more of the mass of the ship (the "buffering") is further from the ship's center of gravity, which (IIRC) increases the moment of inertia.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
What do you reckon is the smallest hull you can go down to and still fit a spinal meson J, agility 6 and a model 9fib computer?

I think about 5Kton is about as small as you would want to go. You might in T20 get smaller, but with HG proportions, the Powerplant-P is already a bit nuts. Your powerplant isn't going to get much smaller. Neither is your engineering crew. You might lose a couple of gunners, but you are pretty much on a minimum crew as is. The only real savings you can find on the HG hull is the Armor and in mine you can lose the missile bay, but that is there to mess with the escorts and keep them off your back. (30-36 Missile Batteries, 30-36 Missile Batteries bearing, is better than most Cruisers can throw so they would have to be respected.) Rock, Paper, Scissors.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by The Oz:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Thanks.
Will they work as High Guard designs?

I've played around with HG designs similar to Bhoins', and yes I can get a factor-J meson gun into a 5kton LAC. The LAC doesn't have much in the way of defenses or secondary weapons and you can only get about 4.5 of them for one factor-T carrying 30kton BR, but it can be done. Here's what I got:

</font>[/QUOTE]I like it OZ. I think I prefer the higher Armor and the lower Nuke Dampers of mine but it is a very nice design.

I wanted to make it much tougher to kill with Fighters. With yours a couple hundred 50 Ton fighters (granted with model 9 computers and bridges) will cause it no end of grief. Fleet Carriers will definitely be an asset against your wing. Because of the armor mine virtually have to be fought with Capital ships, which, as designed, was the whole point. Credit for Credit, ton for ton I want these going up against Capital ships. (Also why I accepted smaller factor Laser and Sand batteries.)

 

[The Oz]

Bhoins:

Yes, yours is less vulnerable to escorts but it's less effective against capital ships since it only has the factor-E meson gun. That means it have only a 3 in 36 chance of penetrating a factor-9 meson screen, while the factor-J meson gun penetrates at a probability of 10 in 36. So while the same number of either LAC will get the same number of hits in a salvo (roughly 1 hit in 6 shots) my LACs will get over 3 times the penetrations of a heavy meson screen.

Of course, neither of these LACs can deal with the missile boat swarm which is the classic answer to meson sleds like these.

 

[mike wightman]

All of those fighters aren't much of a problem
If they are armed with triple missile racks they'll only score about 16 hits at long range, 6 at short (HE only, nukes won't penetrate the damper).
If fusion gun equipped, or triple beam lasers, then only 6 hits at short range.

You can't really compare T20 designs to High Guard designs because of the design and combat system differences. The T20 halving of power plant size has a big effect on ship designs, while the combat systems are chalk and cheese

 

[The Oz]

Here's an 8kton LAC that could possibly be better than either of our designs:

====================================
Ship: Razor
Class: Lt Msn Rdr
Type: Light Meson Rider
Architect: Osmanski
Tech Level: 15
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">USP
RM-H106NJ3-F99905-995J9-1 MCr 10,094.490 8 KTons
Bat Bear 1 1 11111 Crew: 100
Bat 1 1 11111 TL: 15</pre>[/QUOTE]Cargo: 25.000 Fuel: 1,760.000 EP: 1,760.000 Agility: 6 Marines: 10
Craft: 1 x 100T B-17 VF
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops and On Board Fuel Purification

Architects Fee: MCr 100.945 Cost in Quantity: MCr 8,075.592
========================================

It costs only twice as much as mine, and less than twice as much as yours and is only 3ktons larger so you get three of them in 30kt, and you'd get four in just 32kt. It has the armor and secondary weapons to withstand any reasonable escort (note that it carries its own escort in the form of a 100t heavy fighter) and still has the factor-J meson gun.

 

[mike wightman]

Take along your own missile boat swarm - lots and lots of 1000-1900t escorts

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by The Oz:
Bhoins:

Yes, yours is less vulnerable to escorts but it's less effective against capital ships since it only has the factor-E meson gun. That means it have only a 3 in 36 chance of penetrating a factor-9 meson screen, while the factor-J meson gun penetrates at a probability of 10 in 36. So while the same number of either LAC will get the same number of hits in a salvo (roughly 1 hit in 6 shots) my LACs will get over 3 times the penetrations of a heavy meson screen.

Of course, neither of these LACs can deal with the missile boat swarm which is the classic answer to meson sleds like these.

I missed the fact it was a J. I used the E because it was a T20 design first. And in T20 the factor of the Meson Spinal mount has little impact on the results. (But I have had that conversation before.

Though for the cost compared to a Drednaught, or a Battlerider, you are still, in HG, getting too many penetrations for the target to survive. But yes in that case yours is better for HG and mine for T20. Like I said I like it.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
All of those fighters aren't much of a problem
If they are armed with triple missile racks they'll only score about 16 hits at long range, 6 at short (HE only, nukes won't penetrate the damper).
If fusion gun equipped, or triple beam lasers, then only 6 hits at short range.

You can't really compare T20 designs to High Guard designs because of the design and combat system differences. The T20 halving of power plant size has a big effect on ship designs, while the combat systems are chalk and cheese

In HG 16 damaging hits is too many. You are likely to be combat ineffective after 16 hits without armor. If the fighters come out to meet you, and the capital ships hang back while the Fighters soften you up a bit, you are in trouble.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by The Oz:
Here's an 8kton LAC that could possibly be better than either of our designs:
<snip>

I've just test fired 100 nukes at this thing.
42 of them hit.
8 of them penetrated the nuclear damper.
Fuel 1, 7 x Weapon 1 total damage.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
In HG 16 damaging hits is too many. You are likely to be combat ineffective after 16 hits without armor. If the fighters come out to meet you, and the capital ships hang back while the Fighters soften you up a bit, you are in trouble.

Oh, I agree completely.
The heavy fighter screen is a great way for ensuring no damage to either side
Big ships that can hit each other hide behind the fighters, the fighters can't actually hit each other - stalemate.
High Guard really needs better movement rules...