The Compleat Battleship

[aramis]

mmmm....
Armour 15 16%
M6 17%
J4 5%
PP7.8 (must be equal to M +1.8 for Meson screen) 7.8%
Engineering crew 0.596%
J fuel 40%
PP fuel 7.8%
purification 0.717%
Bridge 2%
Command Crew 0.1%
Service Crew 0.6%

equals 97.613% payload = 2.387%

plus
9fib computer 26T
command staterooms 6T
T Meson 8000T
factor 9 Meson screen 40T
gun crew 176T
Power for 1200 ep 1200T
Fuel 1200T
Purification 18T

Payload equals 10666T

Therefore Min ship with agility 6 armour 15 T meson and factor 9 meson screen equals 10666/0.02387 = 446,838T
(or to put it another way, isn't going to fly)

You've done something wrong math wise...

Additionally, FPP isn't essential, and I put the PP slice for the weapons and defenses into the defenses; they are, semantically PAYLOAD.

And the T meson is 7KTd, not 8, until you add the 1200 (not 1000) Td for power plant (and then you need to add the additional PP fuel).

I did make a mistake, tho, as I should have used PP6 or reduced to M4 Agl 4.
M4 makes it work, and frees up a few extra %... it's only 11%.

Also, rounding Command, maint and drive crew up to 2% hull at TL15 is generous for DO staterooms.

 

[Matt123]

Yes, I know HG combat doesn't allow a ship to be screened by escorts while still being able to fire its spinal, but in "reality" that must be a viable tactics. If there's an escort placed between a fighter and the battleship, the fighter can't hit the battleship. Same for missiles. The only secondaries that could shoot throgh an escort would be meson guns.

It works up to TL15, the art is in judging when to put your BB's in the line of battle. Too soon & your spinal gets degraded too quickly while everything the other side has focuses on your BB's. Too late & your opponent gets free shots at your BB's in the reserve.

At TL14/15, it could be argued that escorts are useless because they have trouble penetrating armour-15, but that problem already exists at earlier techs with planetoids.

I'd go so far as to suggest one answer to lots of spinals is exponentially more escorts around 1200-1800 tn, each carrying a missile-9 bay, firing nukes. Sure 'only' 6 in 36 nuke hits cause damage and every time one is hit by the spinal its toast, but the numbers will tell. And keep a spinal or three in reserve for the mopping up after your opponents spinals are whittled down a few pegs.

 

[skyth]

Agility of only 4 will reduce the survivability of the design by quite a bit (If my quick mental math is correct, that will a hair bit more than double the number of ships lost to Spinal Mesons at long range) (Hitting on 7's vs hitting on 9's)

 

[Dragoner]

At TL 14... things get much uglier
_2% Bridge
_5% J4 drive
_8% M3 drive
_8% PP4 drive
30% AV 14
40% 1J4 fuel
_4% 4wk PP Fuel
_2% Crew Quarters
99% total...

Which is the TL of both the Zhodani and Solomani, so these are the threat ships the IN faces.

 

[AndreaV]

Their primary purpose is the same. To stand in the line of battle opposite the enemy line of battle and beat them. Secondary purposes and deployment tactics may differ, but essentially their purpose is to bring a spinal gun into range of the enemy and shoot at him.

... in a specified set of circumstances. Same as any weapon system. All have their designed engagement environment.

Why is a rider/tender (especially your single rider tender) ill suited for peacetime deployment? What tasks can a battleship perform that the tender can't? I have to tell you that I'm not impressed with the psycological warfare suggestions.

The traditional multirider tender combo has serious mobility issues unless deployed as a unit. Yes you can drop off a single rider and then come back for it weeks or more likely months later, but that's basically only good for defending fixed points. My single tender rider combo, hell of a lot more flexible, similar to that of ships in fact. But they are for some reason not built (not an argument I want to reopen).

The psychological aspect? The main peacetime role of capital ships (talking historical wet navies here) has been "showing the flag". You provide a visible reminder of the power of the navy to reassure allies and deter enemies. And the "target market" for this is the political power base. Its also a fine art, too much power displayed and you risk moving to intimidation. You tend to use a single ship, because most sane worlds do not want a whole squadron of "sailors" making liberty on a friendly or enemy planet (nor for that matter does the navy).

This sounds like an unsupported and untested theory. Any way to substantiate it?

That capital ships spend 90%+ of their life in peacetime duties? Well not living in the 3rd Imperium it is a little hard to test But it is how real life navies (and armies and airforces) work.

I don't see why riders need J4-6. But apart from that, what peacetime functions can a 300,000T battleship perform that a half-squadron of 75,000T cruisers can't?

Perhaps poorly phrased, battleships do not need the same strategic mobility as riders. Riders are an offensive weapon, battleships operate on interior lines with established support facilities. Thus they can afford to have a lower jump rating.

And interestingly enough, a Jump 3 armour 11 T meson ship? around 74Kton.

No, they'd built a mixture of riders and heavy cruisers. And if they did build any 500,000T ships, they would be very reluctant to put them into the line of battle.

I'd agree, the 500Kton ship is a prestige item along the lines of Ptolomy's Tessarakonteres'. Even a high end J4 ship is going to be impractical (around 335Kton). But a high end J3 ship comes in around 75Kton and costs "only" about twice its equivalent rider.

 

[robject]

Armor for the ship. (HG p 28)

No armor, and missiles, lasers, PA's, and Fusions will eat you.

Thank you!

Next stupid question: why aren't battleships all planetoid hulls?

 

[AndreaV]

You've done something wrong math wise...

Additionally, FPP isn't essential, and I put the PP slice for the weapons and defenses into the defenses; they are, semantically PAYLOAD.

And the T meson is 7KTd, not 8, until you add the 1200 (not 1000) Td for power plant (and then you need to add the additional PP fuel).

I did make a mistake, tho, as I should have used PP6 or reduced to M4 Agl 4.
M4 makes it work, and frees up a few extra %... it's only 11%.

Also, rounding Command, maint and drive crew up to 2% hull at TL15 is generous for DO staterooms.

Yep you are correct, slight miscalculation in my payload.

computer 26
cmd sr 6
T meson 7000
meson 9 screen 40
gunnery crew 156
power (1200ep) 1200
fuel for power 1200
extra purification 18
extra engineering crew 24
TOTAL - 9670/0.02387 = 405,111

reduce agility by 1 and you add 5.08% to the payload (reduce by 2 and add 10.16%). So....
9670/0.07467 = 129,503
9670/0.12547 = 77,070

However if you reduce the whole thing to J3 you add over 11% to the payload, so for a ship, a slight reduction in strategic mobility is possibly a wise design option.

 

[robject]

[...]
_2% Bridge
_5% J4 drive
11% M4 drive
_4% PP4 drive
16% AV 15
40% 1J4 fuel
_4% 4wk PP Fuel
_2% Crew Quarters
75% total

Which leaves 10% for major weapon and power for it, and defenses.

Payload is 10%, got it.

That Factor T meson needs 7000 Td for the weapon, 1200 Td for the additional PP to power it, 1200 Td for the fuel for said PP (but only because of HG not allowing multiple active PP's...), and 140 Td for the 70 gun crew, and 24 for the 12 additional power plant crew. So it's a net 9564 Td weapon. Fitting that in, a 100KTd cruiser could mount one, and a couple of bays.

Make it 9800 t then?

The TL15 Factor 9 Meson Screen is 1.8% hull in EP... which means 1.8% fuel and 1.8% power plant and 1.8%*2% crew tonnage, and a flat 40 ton install. for said 100KTd cruiser, it's 1800+1800+36+40=3670 tons...

Fixed non-tonnage related costs run to under 100 Td; command crew SR's, Computer, PP tonage, fuel and crewman to supply computer.
Includes NO defenses nor weapons other than armor.

Adding in 3800 tons.

Total payload is appx 13,600 tons?

So minimum volume to carry that, per specs above, is (13,600 / 0.1 ) = 136,000 tons.

 

[AndreaV]

Agility of only 4 will reduce the survivability of the design by quite a bit (If my quick mental math is correct, that will a hair bit more than double the number of ships lost to Spinal Mesons at long range) (Hitting on 7's vs hitting on 9's)

Yes, but reducing agility from 6 to 5 roughly reduces the size and therefore cost by roughly 2/3rds. It is a HUGE saving.

 

[AndreaV]

Thank you!

Next stupid question: why aren't battleships all planetoid hulls?

Because with planetoids, 20-35% of the hull is "waste" (not exactly, it does give some armour, but its still essentially waste)

 

[Matt123]

Because with planetoids, 20-35% of the hull is "waste" (not exactly, it does give some armour, but its still essentially waste)

Or put another way, as a designer losing that 20-35% forces you to compromise on something else, usually resulting in lower agility, armour or jump capacity.

 

[aramis]

Because with planetoids, 20-35% of the hull is "waste" (not exactly, it does give some armour, but its still essentially waste)

Yep. The only advantage is for monitors; a monitor trades JFuel for that extra 6 points of armor.

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

 

[aramis]

Robject: I'm not rounding weapons for a reason; I'm adding all the PP and fuel chunks as part of the payload. M4 should be about 20% available...

M5 looks like:
_2% Bridge
_5% J5 drive
14% M5 drive
_5% PP5 drive
16% AV 15
40% 1J4 fuel
_5% 4wk PP Fuel
_2% Crew Quarters
89% total

M6 looks like
_2% Bridge
_5% J4 drive
17% M6 drive
_6% PP6 drive
16% AV 15
40% 1J4 fuel
_6% 4wk PP Fuel
_2% Crew Quarters
92% total

I used the calculator this time.

 

[Dragoner]

The mystery of the Imperial Battleship is solved. Looking at the numbers, it seems obvious that the Imperium builds Battleships in the way other, poorer polities would build Cruisers. Battleships are not 6x more expensive than Cruisers and the Imperium has the Credits to build Battleships. Part of this could be explained that with the Imperium's size a higher jump capabilitiy is seen as necessary, as well as most likely, better crew accommodations for long voyages. The Tigresses probably stay out of the battle line, acting just as carriers for their fighters, thus Marc's statement to that effect. The sentence in Fighting Ships of Cruisers vs Battleships, to be put in perspective is that Battleships are smaller then one might think, and when they commonly talk of Cruisers, they are speaking of Light Cruisers. The ships people are designing here, a Cruiser that could take on a Battleship, is in fact a Battle Cruiser, an intermediate design between the Cruiser and Battleship. This also is most likely due to the level of threat the Imperium faces, obviously if pressed, the IN would field more bare bones Cruisers, most likely with a lower jump number, higher agility, greater screens and heavier armor.

 

[AndreaV]

Robject: I'm not rounding weapons for a reason; I'm adding all the PP and fuel chunks as part of the payload. M4 should be about 20% available...

M5 looks like:
_2% Bridge
_5% J5 drive
14% M5 drive
_5% PP5 drive
16% AV 15
40% 1J4 fuel
_5% 4wk PP Fuel
_2% Crew Quarters
89% total

M6 looks like
_2% Bridge
_5% J4 drive
17% M6 drive
_6% PP6 drive
16% AV 15
40% 1J4 fuel
_6% 4wk PP Fuel
_2% Crew Quarters
92% total

I used the calculator this time.

I think you're forgetting to add the power for the meson screen, that requires another Power 1.8 for a factor 9 screen (3.6%). Your M6 adds up to 94% BTW

 

[aramis]

Counting the payload as a 14KTd block (T Meson, 9 Meson Screen, PP slice, PPF slice,

An M6 Ag6 J4 Av15 looks to be about 175KTd for a 14KTd mission load (which is roughly a Spinal MesonT, MesScr 9, and a couple Factor 9 SC and Repulsors.

That's a line BC.

An M5 Ag5 J4 Av15 looks to be just over 127KTd (127272.7); call it 130 for round numbers, and buff the defenses.

At M5, it's pretty much a CA, especially after buffing the defences

M4, that same 14KTd package needs 16%.. 87.5KTd. Call it 90, and that's in the crusier range... adding a couple 1200Td fuel shuttles (M1, FPP, scoops).

 

[Dragoner]

Supp 8 Library Data calls a Battleship 100k tons in the caption for the picture of the Sylea Class (Which somehow ironicly, become the type of fighters carried by the 154th Battle Rider squadron). So it seems the line between Battleship, Battle Cruiser and Cruiser is blurred; for sure it would seem a Plankwell can take out a Gionetti.

There are other questions, such as why replace the Kokirrak with Plankwells, which seem inferior, but that's another thread.

 

[mike wightman]

If you really want to play the HG design rules don't use av15 on your BBs, av14 will do much the same on the combat tables and saves you 1% for payload.

 

[AndreaV]

Counting the payload as a 14KTd block (T Meson, 9 Meson Screen, PP slice, PPF slice,

You're missing the power requirements for the Meson Screen. That's another 3.6% less for your payload capacity (essentially halving it).

 

[rancke]

Supp 8 Library Data calls a Battleship 100k tons in the caption for the picture of the Sylea Class (Which somehow ironicly, become the type of fighters carried by the 154th Battle Rider squadron). So it seems the line between Battleship, Battle Cruiser and Cruiser is blurred; for sure it would seem a Plankwell can take out a Gionetti.

Of course a Plankwell has an advantage over a Gionetti. But can it take out six Gionettis? (You can get six (and a half) Gionettis for the price of one Plankwell).

Maybe it can. I don't know how much less effective factor-J spinals are. But according to the Eurisko experience, the winner of a battle is the one who brings the most spinals to the fight. I expect that the size of the spinals makes some sort of difference, but once your ship is big enough to carry the best available spinal, anything bigger is contra-indicated.


Hans