Now, THAT is funny.
The Compleat Battleship
- Thread starter robject
- Start date
Now, THAT is funny.
OK..in an attempt to put this choo-choo back on track...
Earlier discussions of multiple spinal weapons on a single platform got me thing about that: what exactly is the rational - other than designer fiat - for there being only one spinal weapon in a ship?
What if there was a rule allowing for up to 1 weapon per 10kt, if you are going to design for several in the hull, and in that case each weapon is limited to say... no larger than 4kt in size and must have a dedicated computer model 4 assigned to each weapon to help synchronize central battery control.
The spinal batteries can then fire away as per the normal rules for battery fire.
Huh?
There is semi-relevance in that the sinews of war, eg the economics of the Imperium, are the reasoning behind the fleet for the most part.
The unknown LBB's I always wanted were the supplement 13: The Imperium & AM 13 the Vilani, too bad they never happened, if nothing but to see Marc Miller's thoughts on the subject.
Rule 1 of the Imperium is that it's all about trade. Or something to that effect.
Anyhow, there's no room for fooling around with the rules, unless you're saying that there should be a rule that the Imperium must build X battleships for every Y cruisers. Though we don't know or perhaps care about actual allocations, we do know that they react to losses and change strategy when none doesn't work. So they're not so hidebound that they prefer tradition over winning battles.
And I don't know about the Marches, but if anything it would seem that the Imperial half should be much more militarized than other Imperial fronts, because of the Zhodani. Or, at least, equally built up.
Finally, we have High Guard, which allows us to build battleships, but doesn't give us any compelling reasons to do it. The implication then is that GDW wanted big battleships, so they created Rules to allow it, but somewhere in the mix these biggest ships weren't given sufficient value.
And here we are.
Anyhow, there's no room for fooling around with the rules, unless you're saying that there should be a rule that the Imperium must build X battleships for every Y cruisers. Though we don't know or perhaps care about actual allocations, we do know that they react to losses and change strategy when none doesn't work. So they're not so hidebound that they prefer tradition over winning battles.
And I don't know about the Marches, but if anything it would seem that the Imperial half should be much more militarized than other Imperial fronts, because of the Zhodani. Or, at least, equally built up.
Finally, we have High Guard, which allows us to build battleships, but doesn't give us any compelling reasons to do it. The implication then is that GDW wanted big battleships, so they created Rules to allow it, but somewhere in the mix these biggest ships weren't given sufficient value.
And here we are.
Last edited:
My thought is one Spinal per 100k dtons, and then thinking about BBG protected super-dreadnaughts with gatling spinals is just too cool.
"Oh, by the way, a batron of 8 500k ton BB's has just dropped force field near you and opened up with 40 factor T Meson shots...."
No podunky colonial forces there.
The main problem I see in this rule is the very concept of spinal weapon. To aim it you must move the whole ship as they ned to be so long that may only be put along the axis of the ship.v So, to have more than one, you must mount them parallel to one another.
Someone has compared this with the wet navy battleships having more than one main weaponry turret. I'd compare it with the MGs/guns of a WWII fighter aircraft. You may have more than one, but all point to the same direction and can only shoot against one target at once, don't matter if you have 2 MG as Gladiator had, or 8 as did Spitfire. Only secondary weaponry may shoot at other planes (as in Me110).
Someone pointed the sphere of the Tigris as a possibility to haveseveral spinals pointing in different angles. That would be possible, but not useful, unless the enemy was so kind to put his ships in the exact angle relative to your Tigris as more than one spinal could shot at once against a different target.
Last edited:
Even so, no target would be receiving the full attention of a spinal for 20 minutes, as they are in game rules when a spinal fires on them, so, IMHO, the attack should also be lessened some way to represent that, mostly negating the added firepower multiple spinals represent.
No, I can see the reason in that. A DM of -1 per additional spine would place an upper limit on the number of spines carried, while trading off the extra volume available with some potentially devastating extra firepower.
It's a fair tradeoff.
Thing is, battleships still don't seem to be able to defend adequately against meson guns carried by cruisers. Or can they?
It's a fair tradeoff.
Thing is, battleships still don't seem to be able to defend adequately against meson guns carried by cruisers. Or can they?
Starviking
SOC-13
AFAIK historical battleships used their main batteries on one target at a time, due to the need to get as much firepower on their opponent in as little time as possible - though it was possible to divide the fire too.
If the agility rating is the amount of targets, then 6 six would be the max number for a 600k ton ship. Not, their only defense beyond Force Fields would be destroying their opponent first.
And that's another interesting possibility. But that might be too complex, because now you've added a variable... Potentially, spending an agility point in order to fire a spine in a turn.
Hmm. That's very interesting.
But these battleships are still highly vulnerable (one shot kill?) to large cruiser mounted meson guns.
And that was usually true, at least abainst symilar opponents, but they had the possibility to direct each turret against a different target, if they so desired or needed.
And that's the real point. As I said before, making battleships more lethal isn't going to align the game rules more closely with the canonical setting[*]. For that, you need to make them better able to survive.
[*] Besides, it involves changing the rules anyway, just in a different way. What's the sense in changing them in one way to avoid changing them in another?
Hans
to make any changes as minimal as possible, otherwise you are changing rules for both cruisers and battleships.
My suggestion was to leave cruisers as vulnerable to meson attacks as the current rules make them but improving the defenses of battleships. That wouldn't change the rules for cruisers at all. Oh, and make one change to the damage tables.
Admittedly, I don't know if my proposals would work as intended. But I do know that making battleship more lethal isn't going to make them match the canonical description any better.
Hans
what is the canonical description? supp 8 describes them as mostly just being able to jump away from battle. more spinals mean in force, they will be more survivable, because they will having more shots versus a single mount ship. supp 9 just says they an well protected against fighters and small ships, not meson guns.
how do you improve defenses for one ship and not the other?
how do you improve defenses for one ship and not the other?
Canonically, they are capable of standing in the line of battle, whereas cruisers are not. And that would be the case, except for meson guns, which is the Achilles heel of battleships.
Defenses for battleships can take the form of large but more effective meson screens, or allowing meson screens to be joined into larger factors, but their energy and volume requirements put them out of reach of cruisers and negates the value of riders, perhaps to some degree.
There are other ways as well. I do not know what is best.
Similar threads
