Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 366
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby baithammer » Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:10 am

Designs are based on M-drive maximum thrust 6 for >200t ships, central role of the battleship/dreadnought is to carry a heavy Meson Spinal weapon into combat ( >10DD ) with secondary batteries primarily anti-small craft / point defense while relying on escorts to combat ships <= 10,000t.

Screens top out at x60. (12DD ) and High Burn Thrusters require a cool down period equal to the number of turns used.

Battleships/Dreadnoughts being >100,000t in order to limit critical hits to large bays.
Heavy Cruisers being > 10,000t and topping out at 100,000t in order to limit crits to medium and heavy bays
Light Cruisers being between 5,000t -10,000t to ignore critical hits from turrets and barbettes.
Frigates <5,000t and >2,000t
Destroyers / Corvettes <2,000t

Pocket Dreadnought

Image

Pocket Battleship

Image
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2456
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:34 pm

Hull cost 260000 × 90%[Close] × 150%[Reinforced] = MCr 17550.

You can't use 3 advantages on the jump drive since J-4 is TL13.

You have not applied Energy Efficient to the M-drive.

You can't use 3 advantages on a TL15 P-Plant on a TL15 ship.

You have not calculated the cost of Holographic bridge?

Scoops cost MCr 1.

A military ship should have an Armoury.


Why the CORE/70 computer? A CORE/100 would cold next to nothing.
You probably want Fire Control-5 for the spinal. And Point Defence software, and ...

The Reflec is hardly cost efficient in a Meson fight.
Reinforced hull is hardly cost efficient on battleships.

Why the screens and PD batteries? That few hardly have any effect.

The laser turrets could use a tech upgrade, e.g. Long Range or Accurate.

The fuel processor is very small, it takes almost 5 days to process the jump fuel. That severely limits strategic mobility.


With budget drives you could make the ship bigger, cheaper, and have more hull points.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 366
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby baithammer » Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:26 pm

Hull cost 260000 × 90%[Close] × 150%[Reinforced] = MCr 17550.
You forgot 50,000cr per hull dt, (50,000*1.4*260,000)/ 1,000,000 = 18,200
You can't use 3 advantages on the jump drive since J-4 is TL13.
You can't use 3 advantages on a TL15 P-Plant on a TL15 ship.
Scoops cost MCr 1.
You have not calculated the cost of Holographic bridge?

You have not applied Energy Efficient to the M-drive.
Will have to fix those.
Why the CORE/70 computer? A CORE/100 would cold next to nothing.
Programs are only required for a specific step so doesn't require the extra processing power of the larger core.
And Point Defence software
Both designs have Point Defense/2 software.
The Reflec is hardly cost efficient in a Meson fight.
The most common weapon system is still the pulse laser which appears on most fighters, so its a good mitigation strategy as it pushes the upper limit of armor.
Reinforced hull is hardly cost efficient on battleships.
Given the only way to incease hull points is either by increasing dt or reinforced hull, the cost is rather efficient.
Why the screens and PD batteries? That few hardly have any effect.
Meson Screen x60 = 12DD reduction from meson weapons so nothing to sneeze at, considering its the only effective defense to a meson weapon due to meson weapons ignoring Armor.

Nuclear Dampers are also effective at stopping Fusion weapons in addiation to Nuclear weapons.

The laser turrets could use a tech upgrade, e.g. Long Range or Accurate.
The lasers are mainly for point defense purposes with a secondary purpose of engaging small craft at close / adjacent range.

The Particle Barbettes are the secondary system for engaging past close range.
The fuel processor is very small, it takes almost 5 days to process the jump fuel. That severely limits strategic mobility.
Considering most designs are designed between 3-5 days this isn't really an issue.
With budget drives you could make the ship bigger, cheaper, and have more hull points.
The point was to make the ship smaller and still carry the largest meson spinal available on the dread and the pocket battleship is designed with a similar setup versus battleship designs.

The dread could however go up to 300,000t to see if drive / fuel dt can be compensated for.

A military ship should have an Armoury.
That would more be the case if either design were to require heavy weapons or held a marine detachment which is dealt with at the escort level.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 366
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby baithammer » Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:23 pm

Mk2 of the pocket Dreadnought, has put on some weight and less advanced systems.

Image
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2456
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:52 pm

baithammer wrote:
Hull cost 260000 × 90%[Close] × 150%[Reinforced] = MCr 17550.
You forgot 50,000cr per hull dt, (50,000*1.4*260,000)/ 1,000,000 = 18,200
You are right, I forgot kCr 50, thanks.

I can't say which is correct, but I do:
260000 × 0.05 × 90%[Close] × 150%[Reinforced] = MCr 17550
not
260000 × 0.05 × ( 1 - 10%[Close] + 50%[Reinforced] ) = MCr 18200

baithammer wrote: Programs are only required for a specific step so doesn't require the extra processing power of the larger core.
Not since LBB2.

baithammer wrote:
The Reflec is hardly cost efficient in a Meson fight.
The most common weapon system is still the pulse laser which appears on most fighters, so its a good mitigation strategy as it pushes the upper limit of armor.
Reinforced hull is hardly cost efficient on battleships.
Given the only way to incease hull points is either by increasing dt or reinforced hull, the cost is rather efficient.
Reflec is good, but it is also very expensive.
Reinforced hull is good, but it is also expensive.

Cheaper ships means more ships, which gives you more hull points and more firepower.

baithammer wrote:
Why the screens and PD batteries? That few hardly have any effect.
Meson Screen x60 = 12DD reduction from meson weapons so nothing to sneeze at, considering its the only effective defense to a meson weapon due to meson weapons ignoring Armor.

Nuclear Dampers are also effective at stopping Fusion weapons in addiation to Nuclear weapons.
Sure, but 60 screens prevents (with a good crew, on average): 60 × 4[effect] × 7[2D] ≈ 1680 damage points. Against a Meson spinal that inflicts on average 84000 damage, that is next to nothing.

baithammer wrote:
The laser turrets could use a tech upgrade, e.g. Long Range or Accurate.
The lasers are mainly for point defense purposes with a secondary purpose of engaging small craft at close / adjacent range.

The Particle Barbettes are the secondary system for engaging past close range.
Laser turrets are great multi-purpose tertiary armament. They are somewhat effective against everything, missiles, fighters, and other ships. The best way to kill fighters are at long range, before the ship gets negative modifiers for dogfight.

You have already invested in a lot of space and money in the turrets, a little extra will make them considerably more effective.

baithammer wrote:
The fuel processor is very small, it takes almost 5 days to process the jump fuel. That severely limits strategic mobility.
Considering most designs are designed between 3-5 days this isn't really an issue.
That is enough for a tramp merchant that spends a week between jumps, but not for ships that intends to jump more often.

It your ships can jump every 12 days and the enemy's ships can jump every 8 days, you are at a serious disadvantage.

baithammer wrote:
With budget drives you could make the ship bigger, cheaper, and have more hull points.
The point was to make the ship smaller and still carry the largest meson spinal available on the dread and the pocket battleship is designed with a similar setup versus battleship designs.

The dread could however go up to 300,000t to see if drive / fuel dt can be compensated for.
At a quick try I had to go to ~350000 Dt resulting in MCr ~180000 and ~256000 Hull. So cheaper and more Hull, win/win.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2456
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:03 pm

baithammer wrote:
Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:23 pm
Mk2 of the pocket Dreadnought, has put on some weight and less advanced systems.
Looks better! 15% cheaper for 15% more Hull and the same firepower.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 366
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby baithammer » Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:35 pm

Not since LBB2.
MGT 2ed
Combat Steps
When spacecraft fight, instead of one ship completing
all of its actions before you move onto the next, as
happens in combat between Travellers and vehicles, you
instead go through the following steps in every combat
round.
1. Manoeuvre Step: In order of initiative, each ship
manoeuvres based on its Thrust.
2. Attack Step: In order of initiative, each ship can
attack, using weapons or conducting boarding actions.
3. Actions Step: In order of initiative, ships can perform
other, miscellaneous actions, such as repairing damaged
Since certain steps don't require certain software it would be trivial to switch programs to active memory.
Reflec is good, but it is also very expensive.
Reinforced hull is good, but it is also expensive.
At this scale that would be pinching dimes to save pennies.

Reinforced hull allows increase to hull points without having to increase hull size and considering the number of components that use that value the reinforced hull's cost is very effective.

Also uses less materials allowing more hulls to be built.
Sure, but 60 screens prevents (with a good crew, on average): 60 × 4[effect] × 7[2D] ≈ 1680 damage points. Against a Meson spinal that inflicts on average 84000 damage, that is next to nothing.
The multiplier for destructive trait occurs after all roll modifiers which is where for every 5 screens applied during an Angle Screens Reaction 2d + Effect from gunners roll is removed from the damage roll.

So, assuming 24DD Meson Spinal vs 60x Meson Screens (12DD) with gunner doing the Angle Screens Skill 2 and stat mod +1.

24d (84 average )
Angle Gunner Roll vs 8 2d+3 (10 average) = Effect 2
12d+2 (44 average)

84 - 44 =40 x1,000 = 40,000 instead of 84,000 on average.
You have already invested in a lot of space and money in the turrets, a little extra will make them considerably more effective.
The problem is with reflec in play thats 2d6+4 at max 16 versus Armor 18 which requires attacking gunner to get a +3 Effect to apply the minimum 1 damage.

If you added intense +2AP you bring the floor down to +1 Effect at minimum with maximum damage roll.

Outside the point defense role its more about removing low armour targets ( Armour 8 and lower).

Could add long range though.
That is enough for a tramp merchant that spends a week between jumps, but not for ships that intends to jump more often.

It your ships can jump every 12 days and the enemy's ships can jump every 8 days, you are at a serious disadvantage.
12 days vs 8 days is moving the goal post.

Most military designs are between 3-5 days for fuel reprocessing and the counter point being the possibility of using a tanker to speed the process up way faster then skimming.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2456
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sun Sep 10, 2017 6:12 pm

baithammer wrote:
Combat Steps...
Since certain steps don't require certain software it would be trivial to switch programs to active memory.
Yes, we have combat steps, but that does not mean that we can use different software loadouts in different steps. We are actually manoeuvring and attacking throughout the round, we are not manoeuvring for 2 min, then shooting for 2 min, and finally waiting politely while the enemy fires for 2 min.

baithammer wrote:
Reflec is good, but it is also very expensive.
Reinforced hull is good, but it is also expensive.
At this scale that would be pinching dimes to save pennies.
In your "pocket Dreadnought mkII" above Reinforced Hull cost almost 10% of the ship and Reflec well over 10%. Together they increase the cost of the ship by 25% for very little gain.

For the same budget you get less ships, and actually less Hull points and much less firepower.

Reinforced hull is generally penny wise, pound foolish.

baithammer wrote:
Sure, but 60 screens prevents (with a good crew, on average): 60 × 4[effect] × 7[2D] ≈ 1680 damage points. Against a Meson spinal that inflicts on average 84000 damage, that is next to nothing.
The multiplier for destructive trait occurs after all roll modifiers which is where for every 5 screens applied during an Angle Screens Reaction 2d + Effect from gunners roll is removed from the damage roll.
No, screens do not remove damage dice from the attack, but they reduce damage after it is rolled.
The gunner must succeed at a Gunner (screen) check against an attack and, if successful, he will reduce the damage of the attack, after the armour has been accounted for, by the number of dice rolled by the screen
The screens roll their own roll and use the regular D = × 10, since they are not spinal mounts.

baithammer wrote:
It your ships can jump every 12 days and the enemy's ships can jump every 8 days, you are at a serious disadvantage.
12 days vs 8 days is moving the goal post.

Most military designs are between 3-5 days for fuel reprocessing ...
Moving what goal-post? That is the basic problem with slow fuel processors.

I don't know about most military ship, but my ships use faster processors.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4029
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby phavoc » Mon Sep 11, 2017 2:07 pm

This discussion is classic Traveller ship design vs reality. Players try to always min-max their designs because they don't have to consider real world problems, like paying for ships over the long term, a shortage of hulls able to be deployed, etc, fighting with legislatures to pay for things that don't get used all that often (except when they need to be), etc.

In reality naval designers have to consider all kinds of things that players never do. Which is why, i think, the canon designs always seem so "boring" on paper if you compare them to the uber killer ships designed using the books.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2456
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby AnotherDilbert » Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:40 pm

phavoc wrote: This discussion is classic Traveller ship design vs reality.
The old CT FS design are not carefully designed to be realistic, they are just a random bag of components.

It's not very difficult to design something better for any value of "better" you care to choose.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2456
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby AnotherDilbert » Tue Sep 12, 2017 3:49 am

AnotherDilbert wrote: I can't say which is correct, but I do:
260000 × 0.05 × 90%[Close] × 150%[Reinforced] = MCr 17550
not
260000 × 0.05 × ( 1 - 10%[Close] + 50%[Reinforced] ) = MCr 18200
There seems to be an answer for this...
AndrewW wrote:
Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:46 pm
AnotherDilbert wrote:From what I remember AndrewW has confirmed (for the Heavy Fighter) that it should be 3000 × 0,05 × 1,2[Streamlined] × 1,5[Reinforced] = MCr 270.
Yup.

So it is,
260000 × 0.05 × 90%[Close] × 150%[Reinforced] = MCr 17550
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 366
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby baithammer » Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:02 am

Which would be inconsistent with the modifiers in the design step as they are additive and not multiplicative, -10% for close hull and +50% for the reinforced hull so ending up as +40%.

Where as if reinforced hull is 150% rather than +50%, you'd end up with 135% to the price with the 90% from closed hull.

As to the screens and going with d6*10 per 5 screens ends with a really bad return for defense.

To get the equivalent of a 2dd Spinal Meson ( 2d6x 1,000) you would need 1,000 Meson screens per 2dd which ends up with the following.

Spinal Meson 2dd @ TL15 6,000t 2,600 Mcr 1,000 Power vs
Meson Screens 2dd 10,000t 20,000 Mcr 30,000 Power
steve98052
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 6:13 am
Location: near Seattle

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby steve98052 » Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:11 pm

phavoc wrote:
Mon Sep 11, 2017 2:07 pm
. . .
In reality naval designers have to consider all kinds of things that players never do. Which is why, i think, the canon designs always seem so "boring" on paper if you compare them to the uber killer ships designed using the books.
This is a very good point. Another point is that a lot of canine designs are based on different rule sets -- classic Book 2, classic High Guard first edition (which was a very broken system), classic High Guard second edition, the classic ship supplement, Mega Traveller, etc. Yet another point is that the canon designs were written under publishing deadlines, and aren't necessarily all that well designed even according to the combination of rules and in-world economic considerations.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2456
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby AnotherDilbert » Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:47 am

baithammer wrote: Which would be inconsistent with the modifiers in the design step as they are additive and not multiplicative, -10% for close hull and +50% for the reinforced hull so ending up as +40%.
Cost +50% = increase by 50% = multiply by 1.5
To imply additive percentages you would have to say "+50% of base cost".

baithammer wrote: As to the screens and going with d6*10 per 5 screens ends with a really bad return for defense.
D * 10 * effect of angle screen. You can improve your crew with augmentations and Expert software...
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 366
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby baithammer » Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:40 am

To imply additive percentages you would have to say "+50% of base cost".
Which is what the following means.
Reinforced Hull: By increasing the cost of a hull by
+50%
D * 10 * effect of angle screen. You can improve your crew with augmentations and Expert software...
Which still doesn't make up for the 100 times difference in scale considering the 1:1 screen is called out for ship scale and progresses linearly while the 1:5 destructive scale has a noticeable reduction in progression.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5514
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby Condottiere » Sat Sep 23, 2017 6:44 am

By historical implication, any warship termed pocket is a min/max design, that at the constructed design level can outrun anything that can outshoot it, and outshoot anything that can catch up to it.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 366
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby baithammer » Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:07 pm

Not exactly, that description is more apt of the battle cruiser design.

Pocket warships are a product of restrictions ( Various Treaties in this case) and of material constraints, essentially having the minimum amount of hull to support equivalent of a full battleship.

The point of the designs I was aiming for were to reduce the amount of material usage ( IE reduce the displacement per hull) while still mounting enough firepower and defense to hunt capital warships.

One thing that needed to be traded was a reduced secondary battery and a smaller point defense, where escorts would fill the gaps.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5514
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby Condottiere » Sun Sep 24, 2017 5:20 am

It's more the dead end evolution of the armoured cruiser, whereas the battlecruiser is more of an intermediate stage to the fast battleship.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 366
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby baithammer » Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:25 am

Different ends of the same scale, the battlecruisers were a contemporary of the armoured cruiser trying to increase main battery and speed at the cost of armour which didn't end well. Fast Battleships proved more effective than the battlecruisers.

Pocket Battleships were built as a hull closest to a battleship without tripping the treaties that were in place at the time. A much greater effort was made in the technology to make this design work.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5514
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

Postby Condottiere » Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:35 pm

For Fisher, they were the successors to first class armoured cruisers.

The Deutschlands were a solution to a German dilemma, the need to power project in the Baltic, and/or sockblock the French, while not appearing to defy the provisions of Versailles. The eleven inchers are at the low end of capital class guns, whereas nine point twos tended to be the prewar limitation for cruiser guns. You have a substantial secondary anti surface armament.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 16 guests