"Maybe we'll fix that."
- Thread starter whartung
- Start date
GURPS is far more accurate considering the materials and construction used at those TL's.
You're right, I missed that (I guess I've readed it too quickly...)
Then, following your numbers (wich, after what we've seen, I trust more than mine), you need about 125 50 ton bay's worth of nuclear misiles to disable one of those gunboats. So one those gunboats could hold on the line about two Koriraks or one Plankwell, and you still have some of them surviving...
I don't believe that may be true in real battle, that's why I believe some rule must be given to avoid that.
BTW: those 125 battery round would cost, according to MT rules (AFAIK there's no oficial cost for nuclear missiles in HG) MCr 3.75 each, for a total of more than MCr 450 to disable each gunboat... I guess some quartermaster would feel a pain in his chest...
And I guess the enemy fleet won't be engaged by such small gunboats, just ignoring them and going for the reserve. After all, those fighters/gunboats are little more than a nuisance with no real threat to the BBs to push forward.
You're right again. I forgot the EP used by the computer...
Sorry about that. It was more than 20 years since my last HG design (I am mostly MT player) and I guess I lost practice.
Last edited:
I would put it more down to poor canon designs, most HG players will max out on 50-ton missile-9 bays as the secondary batteries for BB's & for a 200kTon BB that would be around 150+ bays. The rest are tertiary batteries, useful against small craft that make it past the escorts but mostly intended to slow down the rate of Spinal & Missile attrition.
I probably shouldn't have used cannon ships as a example.
I can't argue with that
. But the cut-off has to be somewhere. I dabble occasionally with this and with infrastructure costs such as training academies for the various crew branches (making the player pay to reach the assumed skill level-2 or better) and ground & orbital facilities (eg: fighter bases and ground controlled orbital missile-9 bays).My view on the lack of missile costs/payload space in HG is that it affects both sides equally and any change would also affect both sides equally.
That depends on how you as an Admiral handle your fleet on defence. Using a picket/skirmishing screen you should be able to maneouver your main force (in the HG reserve position) without hindrance. And in HG the Reserve can fall back as fast as the Enemy fleet comes forward. In addition the pickets have a chance to knock a point off a BB or two's spinal mounts, which would seriously annoy the attacking commander and give a slight advantage to your fleet when you do choose to engage.
The use of pickets/skirmishers in this way is well established in historical wargaming and RL military tactics.
No problem, whenever I post I wait with baited breath for some bright spark to tell me I've made an error. & it happens fairly regularly
Use Eurisko's. It created a 1000-ton fighter for just such a trick (untouchable "fighter" holding the LoB so capital ships could escape).
However, I think the original point - that you would like to create a system that avoids this sort of munchkinism - is being lost in the argument about whether min-maxing has an effect under HG rules. The answer is: it does. Next questions: can we avoid it? Do we want to avoid it? And more importantly, how much effort are you prepared to put into a supposedly "simple" system for the sake of avoiding "Murphy's Rules"-type situations? The more checks and balances, the more loopholes you seek to plug, the more complicated the "simple" system becomes. (I know - I'm currently working for the Tax Office...
)
Last edited:
its funny you should mention Eurisko, I've spent the last couple of day looking at it.Eurisko didn't win its tournament battles by covering its fleet as it ran away, so I can quite safely state that wasn't the purpose of the 1000ton Wasp class. There is other 'interesting' stuff & dynamics going on in that fleet, but running away was not part of the strategy.
However the point I think you are making is a good one.
The following has calculation errors, corrected in a later post. This is kept only at evidence that my maths is poor...
--//--
Any Buffered Planetoid with extra armor will potentially be immune to missiles. Eurisko's Wasp class had Armour-18, at TL15 a similar Buffered Planetoid could have Armour-21 and is immune to surface & radiation damage from nukes & PA spinals. However that same TL15 Buffered Planetoid cannot be a small craft (the original proposition was that a single fighter could hold up a fleet) and must commit (35% + 16%) 51% of its volume to armor. I would expect even a carried ship of this nature would likely have a low agility making it relatively easy to hit with Meson weapons.
FWIW I can get a carried TL15 Rock, lightly armed 1900ton, Armour-21, Agility-0, Meson Screen-9, Buffered Planetoid for around 2000MCr.
An attacking fleets Meson spinals (say factor-N on average) would need 5+ to hit this Rock (assuming long range) hitting (30 in 36 times or 83.3%). Factor-9 screens (penetrates 21 in 36 times or 58.3%) and Configuration-9 (penetrates 26 in 36 times or 72.2%) = the Meson-N hitting & causing damage 35% of the time.
So 3 Meson-N or better will get one hit & cause 6 criticals, reducing the Planetoids armor by 6 and will get a roll on the Radiation & Internal Explosion tables. A Vaporised, Crew-1 or PP Disabled result on the Critical table will occur (8 in 36 times * 6 rolls) 133% of the time, Crew-1 on the Radiation table (12 in 36 times) 33% of the time and Crew-1, Fuel tanks shattered, and nasty Criticals on the Internal Explosion table (7 in 36 times or 19.4% + Criticals 6 in 36 * 8 in 36 or 3.7%) 23.1%. The odds of a single damaging Meson-N hit on this ship enabling a breakthrough is 189%, or statistically pretty darn good.
3 Meson-N spinals = breakthrough a single TL15 1900ton Rock.
Last edited:
I would put it more down to poor canon designs, most HG players will max out on 50-ton missile-9 bays as the secondary batteries for BB's & for a 200kTon BB that would be around 150+ bays. The rest are tertiary batteries, useful against small craft that make it past the escorts but mostly intended to slow down the rate of Spinal & Missile attrition.
I can't argue with that
My view on the lack of missile costs/payload space in HG is that it affects both sides equally and any change would also affect both sides equally.
I think it's a heavy rules error. It's true that it affects both sides equally, but, if you're playing a campaign (Islands Cluster style), where economics are important, its net effect is to give greater fleets to all players, as they have not to pay ammunition.
The other net effect is giving those missiles this secondary role, against beams (at this effect ammunition free) that are given the tertiary role you say.
If missiles are free, then you can rely on them nearly exclusively (aside from spinals, of course, wich are out of this discusion), while if you have to pay for them (MT puts the cost of a nuke missile at KCr 150), you have to rely more on beams, using missiles only when they are decisive, as, even if you have no losses, spending MCr 450 to kill a 200 ton GB will put your budget in jeopardy
They were used mostly in land battles, and less so in naval, but in air battles (IMO the more like the space battles, as are the only ones with a third dimension), their use is not so effective.
And to be effective, pikets/skirmishers must be able to damage the main enemy body, or they will be mostly ignored. Skirmishers could damage the enemy troops, and destroyers (used usually as naval pickets) could damage even BBs, with its torpedoes). This 200 dton GB is nearly useless agains a BB.
You're wrong here. The correct way to calculate it is:
A critical hit will be survived 28 times in 36 (77.777...%)- As you roll 6 times, 6 rolls have to be survived, so this must be elevated to the 6th potence, giving you a 22.13% possibility to survive. So the possibility to kill it with a single meson N hit is about 77.87%, far from your 133% (you nearly doubled it).
BTW: (about the whole heavy armored fighter to hold the fleet fact) if using MT ship design rules, this is not more the case, as the possibility to have meson bays aside from your meson spinal will make those Heavy Fighters/Gunboats ineffective. Also the tactics pool rule (IMO another thing to fix, but that's another thread...) will make some of your BB shoots at +8 (so needing 3+ to hit), regardless the DefDM the HF/GB have (of course, you will choose the mesons for those DMs). As a TL 15 meson bay is factor 4 (if 50 ton) or 9 (if 100 ton), those HF/DM won't last much...
Last edited:
Garyius2003
SOC-13
We have had nuclear power carriers go a long time, such that 60 years is within range even floating in salt water.
In space, assume that the grav plates cover 90% of the hull, that there is zero stress for a hull, and it is in vacuum.
Your only wear points are the power plant, jump grid, fuel tank lining, and leading edges of the hull armor. (And moving parts, of course) Those areas can be addressed in rebuilds when the equipment gets upgraded. GURPS took this into account with their rules for ship rebuilds.
Except for tech and warfighting theory jumps, and I regard the FFW as such, rebuilding will almost always take place. (And during an actual war). It keeps yards open and skilled workers working, without the bald faced budget issue of a new ship.
In space, assume that the grav plates cover 90% of the hull, that there is zero stress for a hull, and it is in vacuum.
Your only wear points are the power plant, jump grid, fuel tank lining, and leading edges of the hull armor. (And moving parts, of course) Those areas can be addressed in rebuilds when the equipment gets upgraded. GURPS took this into account with their rules for ship rebuilds.
Except for tech and warfighting theory jumps, and I regard the FFW as such, rebuilding will almost always take place. (And during an actual war). It keeps yards open and skilled workers working, without the bald faced budget issue of a new ship.
Accurate? As in corresponding more closely to real life starships?
The lifespan of 70 to 90 years mentioned by Wil seems to correspond pretty well with the service records of the Azhanti High Lightings. And unless there is some expense that takes the place of the bank payments after 40 years, fully paid up starships are incredible money-makers.
Hans
Garyius2003
SOC-13
And the High Lightning class were on the go a lot. Because they were so useful for everyday work.
There must be something in jump that wears a hull down such that 80 years of jumping twice a month or so wears it out.
There are lots of TL 15 classes that will be parked waiting until the next conflict. Plankwells in lagrange points and reworked every 10 years, waiting for the transport full of reserves for the sixth frontier war.
There must be something in jump that wears a hull down such that 80 years of jumping twice a month or so wears it out.
There are lots of TL 15 classes that will be parked waiting until the next conflict. Plankwells in lagrange points and reworked every 10 years, waiting for the transport full of reserves for the sixth frontier war.
Accurate? As in corresponding more closely to real life starships?
The lifespan of 70 to 90 years mentioned by Wil seems to correspond pretty well with the service records of the Azhanti High Lightings. And unless there is some expense that takes the place of the bank payments after 40 years, fully paid up starships are incredible money-makers.
Hans
The Atlantics were produced from 1020 to 1050 (possibly the first ones were earlier than that, but the last one was produced in 1050. Most, probably all, must have been produced after the Solomani Rim War). Of 794 produced, approximately 500 remain in service by 1107 and they are "fast approaching obsolesence". That's one third of them retired in some way in about 80 years. Seems right on the mark for those 70-90 years. The Kokirraks, likewise a TL15 design, so at most a century old (probably less), they are "now being phased out of service". Once again, the timespan seems to fit.
Is there any evidence at all for longer service lives?
Hans
Garyius2003
SOC-13
According to Fighting Ships, older battleships of over 500,000 tons exist in the Imperial core. Unless the 3I Navy has stupid senior leadership, they must be TL15. That means unlike the Tigress class, they seldom jump. (Reserve ships?)
Something in jump must wear out hulls if used bimonthly.
The less you jump. the longer you last.
Something in jump must wear out hulls if used bimonthly.
The less you jump. the longer you last.
We don't know how old the Tigress class is, but we do know that it is still being built; The Lioness, lost in the 5FW was replaced by the Lioness II in the GTU, so the existence of older classes that are still active is perfectly possible even if they have similar service lives as the ones we know about.
Nice theory. Any evidence to support it? Any evidence that all the ship classes we know details about service lives for are being worked harder than most? Any evidence that TNE's wear values provide results that are inconsistent with "reality"?
Any evidence at all for longer service lives?
Hans
Last edited:
FWIW I can get a carried TL15 Rock, lightly armed 1900ton, Armour-21, Agility-0, Meson Screen-9, Buffered Planetoid for around 2000MCr.
An attacking fleets Meson spinals (say factor-N on average) would need 5+ to hit this Rock (assuming long range) hitting (30 in 36 times or 83.3%). Factor-9 screens (penetrates 21 in 36 times or 58.3%) and Configuration-9 (penetrates 26 in 36 times or 72.2%) = the Meson-N hitting & causing damage 35% of the time.
So 3 Meson-N or better will get one hit & cause 6 criticals, reducing the Planetoids armor by 6 and will get a roll on the Radiation & Internal Explosion tables. A Vaporised, Crew-1 or PP Disabled result on the Critical table will occur (8 in 36 times * 6 rolls) 133% of the time, Crew-1 on the Radiation table (12 in 36 times) 33% of the time and Crew-1, Fuel tanks shattered, and nasty Criticals on the Internal Explosion table (7 in 36 times or 19.4% + Criticals 6 in 36 * 8 in 36 or 3.7%) 23.1%. The odds of a single damaging Meson-N hit on this ship enabling a breakthrough is 189%, or statistically pretty darn good.
3 Meson-N spinals = breakthrough a single TL15 1900ton Rock.
I just loaded up high guard shipyard and cranked out a 6 agility 1900 ton armour 21 buff planetoid with the meson screen-9 and computer 9, so let's recalculate that based on agility = 6
Arse, you are of course correct. I'll adjust my post above. ta
Meson Bays are problematic in HG, a factor-1 Meson Screen is enough to near automatically stop all Meson bays.
Cricky, twice in one post! I had given our little Rock one of every weapon & had a 200EP Meson Bay in there...
I will recalc & repost later tonight
Accurate? As in corresponding more closely to real life starships?
The lifespan of 70 to 90 years mentioned by Wil seems to correspond pretty well with the service records of the Azhanti High Lightings. And unless there is some expense that takes the place of the bank payments after 40 years, fully paid up starships are incredible money-makers.
Hans
I guess Azhanti class is not representative, as they became obsolete due to Tech Level increase in the 3I. Those refitted with TL 15 components are still in use, some 100 years after their fist 'flight' (though some of this time may have been in mothball).
Meson bays should be seccondary weaponry, to use against GB/SDBs, at most against DDs, and those ships rarely (if ever) have any meson screen. The problem with HG is that if you have a meson spinal, you cannot have meson bays.
Maybe to fight those light ships there should be some escorts armed with meson bays, enough for keeping those nuisances aut, but not thought for capital ship fighting ( more or less as the Omaha class CLAA in WWII, very useful as escort gaainst aircrafts and light class as PT/DD, but nearly useless against CA/BB)...
Last edited:
They may have been (probably were) relegated to secondary duties as more modern ships took their place, but ust because they weren't put in the front line doesn't mean they weren't used. They were mostly kept in service until 1048, fifty years after being superceded by TL15 designs. That's a long time to pay for the upkeep of obsolete ships. 16 were kept in service for another 30 years. I see no reason to suppose they're not representative, especially since such an assumption fits with every other (admittedly scanty) scrap of evidence we have on the subject.
Hans
[FONT=arial,helvetica] second go, feel free to check the math again.
Our example ship is a carried TL15 Rock, lightly armed 1900ton, Armour-21, Agility-6, Meson Screen-9, Buffered Planetoid for around 1500MCr.
The defensive modifier is Agility-6 + a size mod of -1 for a 7 defensive mod. All Meson Spinals of substance, will hit the Rock of 11+ (3 in 36 chance or 8.3%). I don't like that (will need lots of Meson-N spinals...) , so I'll change strategies.
A PA-N will hit on an 8+ (I'm picking on factor N only in an admittedly poor attempt to allow for existing combat damage on a much higher factor PA spinal.) (8+ fails to hit 21 in 36 times or 58.3%). To get the chance of failure down to less than 10% will take 5 PA-N (58.3% ^5 = 6.8%)
So we need 5 PA-N to be very confident of scoring a hit.
A PA-N will not cause any surface or radiation damage, but will cause 12 criticals, less armor-21 / 2 = 2 criticals. The Rocks armor will be reduced to 19 by the criticals. [/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]A Vaporized, Crew-1, PP Disabled or Fire Control Out result on the Critical table will allow a breakthrough (27 in 36 chances of surviving each roll, [/FONT]75%) 2 rolls (75% x 75% =) 56.3% chance of survival or 43.7% chance of a breakthrough.
Hmmm. 4 criticals gives, (the hitting PA is factor-Q+ or 2 of the 5 PA-N's score hits) .75^4 = 31.6% chance of Rock survival or 68.4% chance of a breakthrough.
How lucky do you feel...[FONT=arial,helvetica]
[/FONT]
second go, feel free to check the math again.Our example ship is a carried TL15 Rock, lightly armed 1900ton, Armour-21, Agility-6, Meson Screen-9, Buffered Planetoid for around 1500MCr.
The defensive modifier is Agility-6 + a size mod of -1 for a 7 defensive mod. All Meson Spinals of substance, will hit the Rock of 11+ (3 in 36 chance or 8.3%). I don't like that (will need lots of Meson-N spinals...) , so I'll change strategies.
A PA-N will hit on an 8+ (I'm picking on factor N only in an admittedly poor attempt to allow for existing combat damage on a much higher factor PA spinal.) (8+ fails to hit 21 in 36 times or 58.3%). To get the chance of failure down to less than 10% will take 5 PA-N (58.3% ^5 = 6.8%)
So we need 5 PA-N to be very confident of scoring a hit.
A PA-N will not cause any surface or radiation damage, but will cause 12 criticals, less armor-21 / 2 = 2 criticals. The Rocks armor will be reduced to 19 by the criticals. [/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]A Vaporized, Crew-1, PP Disabled or Fire Control Out result on the Critical table will allow a breakthrough (27 in 36 chances of surviving each roll, [/FONT]75%) 2 rolls (75% x 75% =) 56.3% chance of survival or 43.7% chance of a breakthrough.
Hmmm. 4 criticals gives, (the hitting PA is factor-Q+ or 2 of the 5 PA-N's score hits) .75^4 = 31.6% chance of Rock survival or 68.4% chance of a breakthrough.
How lucky do you feel...[FONT=arial,helvetica]
[/FONT]
Similar threads
