Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Huh.You don't need to recreate all of them, just Eurisko.
I think I may have just found the Weak Point™ in the Eurisko design ... but in order to exploit it most effectively, you need to commit to doing something highly counter-intuitive, so I highly doubt that anyone would even think to attempt this in a tournament context.
The Eurisko design is "vulnerable" to meson sleds, because armor "doesn't help" against meson weapons.
At TL=12, the following meson gun spinal mounts are available.
USP Code | Tonnage | Tech Level | Cost (MCr) | Energy Points |
A | 5000 | 11 | 10000 | 500 |
B | 8000 | 11 | 12000 | 600 |
C | 2000 | 12 | 3000 | 600 |
D | 5000 | 12 | 5000 | 700 |
K | 8000 | 12 | 10000 | 1000 |
However, what this table from LBB5.80, p24 is "missing" for our purposes is the total tonnage (weapon, power plant, fuel, crew quarters) and cost that would be associated with each of these meson gun spinal mounts ... which can then be used to calculate their "true cost" inside of a Meson Sled™ hull design when it comes to fleet procurement decisions.
Meson-A (TL=11)
- Weapon requires 5000 tons and MCr10,000
- 500 EP requires 1500 tons of power plant and MCr4500
- 500 EP requires 500 tons of fuel (and MCr0)
- Gunnery secton requires 50 gunners (35 ratings, 15 petty officers, 5 officers) + 1 petty officer for battery + 1 chief gunnery officer
- Engineering section requires 15 engineers (10 ratings, 3 petty officers, 2 officers)
- = (45 ratings + 19 petty officers) * 2 tons + 8 officers * 4 tons = 160 tons and MCr20 for staterooms
- = 5000+1500+500+160 = 7160 tons
- = 10000+4500+15.75 = MCr14,520
- Weapon requires 8000 tons and MCr12,000
- 600 EP requires 1800 tons of power plant and MCr5400
- 600 EP requires 600 tons of fuel (and MCr0)
- Gunnery section requires 80 gunners (48 ratings, 24 petty officers, 8 officers) + 1 petty officer for battery + 1 chief gunnery officer
- Engineering section requires 18 engineers (12 ratings, 4 petty officers, 2 officers)
- = (60 ratings + 29 petty officers) * 2 tons + 11 officers * 4 tons = 222 tons and MCr27.75 for staterooms
- = 8000+1800+600+222 = 10,622 tons
- = 12000+5400+27.75 = MCr17,427.75
- Weapon requires 2000 tons and MCr3000
- 600 EP requires 1800 tons of power plant and MCr5400
- 600 EP requires 600 tons of fuel (and MCr0)
- Gunnery section requires 20 gunners (12 ratings, 6 petty officers, 2 officers) + 1 petty officer for battery + 1 chief gunnery officer
- Engineering section requires 18 engineers (12 ratings, 4 petty officers, 2 officers)
- = (24 ratings + 11 petty officers) * 2 tons + 5 officers * 4 tons = 90 tons and MCr11.25 for staterooms
- = 2000+1800+600+90 = 4490 tons
- = 3000+5400+11.25 = MCr8,411.25
- Weapon requires 5000 tons and MCr5000
- 700 EP requires 2100 tons of power plant and MCr6300
- 700 EP requires 700 tons of fuel (and MCr0)
- Gunnery secton requires 50 gunners (35 ratings, 15 petty officers, 5 officers) + 1 petty officer for battery + 1 chief gunnery officer
- Engineering section requires 21 engineers (15 ratings, 4 petty officers, 2 officers)
- = (50 ratings + 20 petty officers) * 2 tons + 8 officers * 4 tons = 172 tons and MCr21.5 for staterooms
- = 5000+2100+700+172 = 7972 tons
- = 5000+6300+21.5 = MCr11,321.5
- Weapon requires 8000 tons and MCr10,000
- 1000 EP requires 3000 tons of power plant and MCr9000
- 1000 EP requires 1000 tons of fuel (and MCr0)
- Gunnery section requires 80 gunners (48 ratings, 24 petty officers, 8 officers) + 1 petty officer for battery + 1 chief gunnery officer
- Engineering section requires 30 engineers (21 ratings, 6 petty officers, 3 officers)
- = (69 ratings + 31 petty officers) * 2 tons + 12 officers * 4 tons = 248 tons and MCr31 for staterooms
- = 8000+3000+1000+248 = 12,248 tons
- = 10000+9000+31 = MCr19,031
So if I were to take the above table from LBB5.80, p24 and "fill in the extra info" ... here's what I would have:
USP Code | Tonnage | Tech Level | Cost (MCr) | Energy Points | Total Tonnage Needed | Total Combined Cost (MCr) | Damage Rolls |
A | 5000 | 11 | 10000 | 500 | 7160 | 14,520 | 2 |
B | 8000 | 11 | 12000 | 600 | 10,622 | 17,427.75 | 3 |
C | 2000 | 12 | 3000 | 600 | 4490 | 8,411.25 | 4 |
D | 5000 | 12 | 5000 | 700 | 7972 | 11,321.5 | 5 |
K | 8000 | 12 | 10000 | 1000 | 12,248 | 19,031 | 11 |
But here's the REAL kicker for this bit of comparative analysis.
USP Code | Tech Level | Total Tonnage Needed per Damage Roll | Total Combined Cost (MCr) per Damage Roll | Damage Rolls |
A | 11 | 3580 | 7260 | 2 |
B | 11 | 3540.6667 | 5809.25 | 3 |
C | 12 | 1122.5 | 2102.8125 | 4 |
D | 12 | 1594.4 | 2264.3 | 5 |
K | 12 | 1113.4545 | 1730.0909 | 11 |
Ordinarily, you would look at this analysis and think that "of course the Meson-K is the best!" @ TL=12 ... but that's only in the 1v1 dueling sense. The Meson-K is "excellent" for single ship kills ... if it hits, penetrates screen and configuration and gets to deal damage ... but that's an "all in one" kill shot if it gets to deal damage. If the Meson-K gets defeated by missing, or is intercepted by a screen or fails to penetrate a configuration ... all of that damage potential gets "wasted" because no damage is dealt.
Also, the Meson-K is a LARGE spinal mount, meaning that if you build a meson sled class around the Meson-K as your "make it go away" weapon, you're going to need ships with humongous hulls ... all of which gets rather expensive in a hurry, eating into the size of your Trillion Credit Squadron.
Now, take a look at the Meson-C and compare it to the Meson-K.
4490 tons needed vs 12,248 tons needed ... meaning the Meson-C is 36.66% of the tonnage needed of the Meson-K.
MCr8411.25 combined cost vs MCr19,031 combined cost ... meaning the Meson-C is 44.20% of the cost needed of the Meson-K.
In other words, a fleet equipped with Meson-C sleds would be able to field more spinal mounts (at least 2x as many) in a fleet of smaller and cheaper to build ships, creating a higher volume of fire while simultaneously increasing the number of spinal mount platforms, potentially better "soaking" incoming damage.
As demonstrated in the tournament by the fleets that the Eurisko actually fought, the adversary fleets simply couldn't muster sufficient firepower for their cost to whittle away at the superior numbers of Eurisko ships fast enough ... so a battle of attrition favored Eurisko. I suspect that most adversary fleets angled for the Meson-K without a second thought (because biggest is bestest! ) and then paid the price (for their lack of vision ...) when they started getting overwhelmed by a Quantity That Has A Quality All Of Its Own that they were ill equipped to fight a battle of attrition with.
However, if someone had DARED to build a fleet of Meson-C "light cruisers" to increase their fleet's rate of fire (for the same construction cost), the outcome of engagements might have been different.
I look at this particular balance point as being broadly similar to the comparison of the Meson-N vs the Meson-T ... and how in the context of a fleet procurement policy and doctrine, the Meson-N is actually the superior choice between the two options because of how the "smaller, lighter" spinal mount makes for "leaner, meaner and more numerous" meson sled designs which can better overwhelm an adversary with superior rates of fire while losing almost nothing in terms of lethality on successful hits.