"Maybe we'll fix that."

[pendragonman]

Perhaps Jump stresses the entire "bones" of the ship much like what happened to the Galactica in the newer series.

Remember? On the last episode she made her "last" jump to "Earth" and suffered that stem to stern wave effect, just before they sent her off into the sun?

Not that I have any "canonical" evidence to support my theory. But it sounds the most physics-y plausible.

 

[Matt123]

...and those ships rarely (if ever) have any meson screen.

Don't know about that. A TL14/15 factor-3 Meson Screen is 16 ton, 40 MCr and needs PP .6 worth of EP's. Its fairly cheap to get total protection from all meson bays at TL15. Especially if you are designing it as a sacrificial ship.

 

[McPerth]

Don't know about that. A TL14/15 factor-3 Meson Screen is 16 ton, 40 MCr and needs PP .6 worth of EP's. Its fairly cheap to get total protection from all meson bays at TL15. Especially if you are designing it as a sacrificial ship.

In my HG a factor the meson screen worth 16 tons and 40 MCr is factor 4, and it needs 0.8 EP/100 dton. To this you must add 8 tons as crew quarters (screens need a minimal gunnery crew of 4). I'm not sure if screens are counted as weapons in the sense of needing a prety officier for them (I guess it's included in the screen crew, as you don't use to have more than one screen each type). So the true cost would be 24 dton and 40.8 MCr, EPs remaining to 0.8/100dtons.

In any such ships you must dedicate 17% to MD, 16% to armor, 1% to weaponry (assuming all hardpoints used as turrets) 8% to PP (I guess that would be the minimum) 8% to fuel, about 3-5% to crew quarters, and you need 20 dton for bridge, 13 for computer (if you want a model 9, so maximizing your agility/screen effect) and 24 to MS... they could teoretically fill in a 200 dton GB (you'd have to upgrade the PP, but will fit anyway)(*)

You're right anyway it can fit on a GB/SDB/DD size ship, but I havn't seen any on one of those ships.

(*) please, review the math and fix it if needed

 

[Matt123]

In my HG a factor the meson screen worth 16 tons and 40 MCr is factor 4, and it needs 0.8 EP/100 dton. To this you must add 8 tons as crew quarters....

There will be a lower limit for sure, especially if its a Buffered Planetoid. And if its not a Buffered Planetoid, it'll get chewed up by the far more plentiful missile batteries instead.

A factor-3 meson screen is a TL13 technology, at TL14/15 IMTU I have no problem with taking a factor-4 screen & 'limiting' it to factor-3, saving on the EP's. & in this example we only need to make the ship invulnerable to meson bays.

 

[Matt123]

It occurs to me that the sacrificial Rock concept, more likely a squadron of them, could be fixed by not allowing Planetoid Riders.

I've toyed with the idea in the past, as it seems a little 'odd' that planetoids can be carried, launched & recovered so easily in combat conditions and obliging them to carry jump drives & fuel will force them to become very big & expensive Rocks.

I don't recall anything in canon implying that Planetoids are carried into combat and moving them around in peace time could be contracted out or take as long as it needs to, to lash to a Navy transporter. Say a week in TCS terms with both lashing and unlashing being completed at the end of the week in the Final Operations phase, after combats are done. It wouldn't stop the assembly of the fleet in a system & a drive the following week on the homeworld, but it would make life a little more difficult. And effectively make the planetoid rider impractical for tournaments.

Just a thought. I like the idea a couple of weeks ago too that Planetoids perhaps shouldn't get class discounts as each one is pretty unique.

 

[rancke]

I've toyed with the idea in the past, as it seems a little 'odd' that planetoids can be carried, launched & recovered so easily in combat conditions and obliging them to carry jump drives & fuel will force them to become very big & expensive Rocks.

I've always assumed that planetoids are carried at twice their tonnage. I.e. a 50,000T planetoid needs a 100,000T bay to hold it.


Hans

 

[Dragoner]

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?

They are being shifted to sector fleets or sold to client states, so it is only phased out of Imperial service. Economics is probably a main reason as well, the shipyards need ships to build or they will not maintain the capability to build large warships (if real life is an example).

 

[McPerth]

Just a thought. I like the idea a couple of weeks ago too that Planetoids perhaps shouldn't get class discounts as each one is pretty unique.

From the thread 'The compleat battleship'

Plus, no asteroid can be a standard design, as the tunnels have to be custom, even if 2 are identical performance.

 

[McPerth]

I sometimes think one of the problems we have here when trying to justify the existence of BBs, or to design ships in general is that most people seems to think about TCS tourments, where fleets are, in most senses, one battle things thought for fighting a similar budget/TL enemy.

When one is thinking on the 3I fleet (either Imperial, Subsector/reserve or Planetary), they can not afford to think on a fleet that will fight only a battle, nor to fight against a similar fleet (in budget/TLterms) as this is not the situation the fleet will face.

Here is where missiles cost/payload enter on the equation, and where most of the advantages of independently jumping ships (BBs and Cruisers) may have advantages over BR/BT, as well as things like maintenance, easiness to repair (Quite difficult to represent, true), and many other things that you needn't to worry about if you think on a fleet that will only fight one battle, against a symilar fleet, and fully supplied.

 

[rancke]

They are being shifted to sector fleets or sold to client states, so it is only phased out of Imperial service. Economics is probably a main reason as well, the shipyards need ships to build or they will not maintain the capability to build large warships (if real life is an example).

It is still evidence that they're past their prime by now.


Hans

 

[Matt123]

I sometimes think one of the problems we have here when trying to justify the existence of BBs, or to design ships in general is that most people seems to think about TCS tourments...

Yep. A TCS tournament is combat without any context.

The classic is the complaint that hangers & launch tubes are pointless and therefore fighters MUST be onboard ships at the start of battle to make launch tubes 'do' something. The 'proof' that fighters must be on board ships is that launch tubes exist. Never mind that sensors exist & fleets advance to contact.

But yes, launch tubes are 'pointless' for one off battles where you can see the enemy coming, launch well in advance of combat and expect to fight to the death.

They do make a huge difference in a campaign context where preservation of force becomes a critical element of strategy and tactical withdrawals are made when-ever you don't like the odds (which happens frequently).

TCS tournaments are fun, but without context they lack the depth of a campaign and many elements of TCS are only relevant in a campaign.

 

[HG_B]

It is still evidence that they're past their prime by now.


Hans

Yes. However, "past prime" for a front line warship is a TOTALLY different matter than the equivalent for a freighter...

 

[rancke]

Yes. However, "past prime" for a front line warship is a TOTALLY different matter than the equivalent for a freighter...

Evidently (and I use the word advisedly) not.

Look, everything you and others are saying could be true. If we had a canonical statement about most ships lasting for two centuries or a game rule that worked out at two centuries or something else like that, the Azhantis could be explained away as anomalous and an explanation made up of why the IN disposed of ships that had a century and a half left in them to other services and another explanation made up for why one third of all the Atlantics are out of service before they're even halfway through their useful service life.

But we don't.

Let me repeat that.

We don't have any evidence that ships last for that long. We do, on the other hand, have some evidence that they don't.

Of course, if there was some compelling reason -- in terms of a vastly improved roleplaying environment, perhaps -- why letting ships last for centuries would work well, it might be worth while retconning that. I'm not opposed to changing canon if there's a good reason to. I am, however, opposed to changing it for no good reason at all.

So is there any reason why it's a much better idea to let ships last for centuries? Not just that it would work just as well as the current situation, but actually work better? Why go to the trouble of explaining away the Azhantis and the Kokirraks and the Atlantics and the TNE wear value rules?


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

How old is the Arrival Vengeance by the time it returns to the Spinward Marches?

First flight 1006 - retired - upgraded - retired again - reactivated - 1126 returns home

120 years - and a TL14 design to boot.

Stupid internet - didn't get the chance to finish.

The early TL15 designs are probably much like the refurbished AHLs - use TL14 design tropes but use TL15 gear to build them. It's only after a century or so at TL15 (and a couple of wars) that the designers and naval architects are starting to realise how they should construct TL15 ships - hence the phasing out of early TL15 designs such as the Atlantics and Kokirraks.

So they aren't being phased out due to wear and tear, they are being phased out due to better designs coming online.

 

[rancke]

How old is the Arrival Vengeance by the time it returns to the Spinward Marches?

First flight 091-994. Placed in ordinary in 1048. Refurbished and returned to front-line service 1092. Placed in ordinary in 1114. Reactivated 1123. Returned to the Marches 1127. Effective service life (until 1127) 81 years.

So they aren't being phased out due to wear and tear, they are being phased out due to better designs coming online.

Nice theory. Got any evidence to support it? If not, I refer you to my reply to HG_B above.


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

Funny, my copy of Lightning class cruisers gives its first flight as 1006.

As to evidence - the write up for the Atlantic points out flaws in it's design, mainly agility 5 - same as the Kokirrak by the way - as being the reason for its replacement.

If the Imperium wants a m/a 6 j4 fleet it has to either sacrifice armour or use drop tanks.

 

[rancke]

Funny, my copy of Lightning class cruisers gives its first flight as 1006.

Sorry, my mistake. For some reason I looked at the Azhanti High Lightning.

And you're right. The Arrival Vengeance was transferred to fleet auxiliary rather than put in ordinary, so its service life does make it an outlier among the AHLs. On the other hand, 16 of them were scrapped as no longer usable in 1048. When you build a bunch ships, some will last longer than others. There's a certain amount of random chance involved.


Hans

 

[AndreaV]

Evidently (and I use the word advisedly) not.

Look, everything you and others are saying could be true. If we had a canonical statement about most ships lasting for two centuries or a game rule that worked out at two centuries or something else like that, the Azhantis could be explained away as anomalous and an explanation made up of why the IN disposed of ships that had a century and a half left in them to other services and another explanation made up for why one third of all the Atlantics are out of service before they're even halfway through their useful service life.

But we don't.

Errrrr, actually we do. We have the dread 154th with its four reequips, with around 180 years between each. Clearly it would seem at least some Imperial ships do last that long. Tends to make sense too, long periods of stable technology generally produce longer design lifespans.

(The real reason of course is that the author of The Spinward Marches Campaign didn't pay that much attention to a minor bit of chrome in Fighting Ships, but that's really rather common; at least he didn't change the length of the year)

 

[McPerth]

Sorry, my mistake. For some reason I looked at the Azhanti High Lightning.

And you're right. The Arrival Vengeance was transferred to fleet auxiliary rather than put in ordinary, so it's service life does make it an outlier among the AHLs. On the other hand, 16 of them were scrapped as no longer usable in 1048. When you build a bunch ships, some will last longer than others. There's a certain amount of random chance involved.


Hans

Well, we must assume the Arrival Vengeance was at some time put in the ordinary, as in 1120 (IIRC) it was on the Trin's Inactive Ships Facility...

When it was,I don't know

 

[rancke]

Errrrr, actually we do. We have the dread 154th with its four reequips, with around 180 years between each. Clearly it would seem at least some Imperial ships do last that long.

I'll grant you that one as possible evidence of longevity. But it's far from clear that it is so. It's just as possible that the squadron vessels were replaced by ships of the same class once or twice in those 180 years.

Tends to make sense too, long periods of stable technology generally produce longer design lifespans.

Indeed. So it makes sense that ships built in 723 would be replaced by ships of the same design when they wore out and likewise for the new designs from 904.


Hans