With a little playing around have come up with a pocket screened battleship.

The question is if the screens are worth it?baithammer wrote: ↑ With a little playing around have come up with a pocket screened battleship.
That depends on how you define your fruit. I generally sort ships by cost, not random size limits.baithammer wrote: ↑ If you go with apples to apples, the screened ship in the example would be facing a ship carrying 8dd -10dd tops, anything higher than this at the battleship category would apple to orange.
Ah, yes that is different.baithammer wrote: ↑ Also note the pocket screened ship is a raider not a ship of the line.
Two of your screened pocket battleships fighting would do rather little damage to each other. If they are intended to operate singly, a particle spinal is probably better, since they ignore screens.AnotherDilbert wrote: ↑ My tentative conclusion is that cruisers, generally dispersed on single missions, should have meson screens and particle spinals, ...
You will find it very hard to get people to join the Navy if you do not provide them with adequate protection. An accountant talks about bringing more ships to bear at a cheaper cost. A naval warship designer assumes that ever ship they are designing is going to be "the one" that gets ganged up during combat, and therefore deserves protection to the best of the TL and role of the ship. The same goes for things like lifepods - people who die in combat like to know at least they have a fair chance at survival.AnotherDilbert wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:32 pmThe question is if the screens are worth it?
In a single ship duel it's probably worth it since it stops most of the damage the single enemy can do.
But in a battle with several battleships you can concentrate fire on a single ship, it's screens can only stop one or two hits. If you dispense with screen the ships will be cheaper, hence you can have more ships.
My tentative conclusion is that cruisers, generally dispersed on single missions, should have meson screens and particle spinals, but screens are not worth it for battleships intended for concentrated battles.
Sounds nice, but if not very effective protection displaces half your firepower, all the protection will do is get more of your spacers killed.phavoc wrote: ↑You will find it very hard to get people to join the Navy if you do not provide them with adequate protection. An accountant talks about bringing more ships to bear at a cheaper cost. A naval warship designer assumes that ever ship they are designing is going to be "the one" that gets ganged up during combat, and therefore deserves protection to the best of the TL and role of the ship.AnotherDilbert wrote: ↑ The question is if the screens are worth it?
In a single ship duel it's probably worth it since it stops most of the damage the single enemy can do.
AnotherDilbert wrote: ↑ In a BatRon vs BatRon fight, say 10 ships vs 10 ships, it's even worse:
10 Screened ships do average 10 × 21000 ≈ 210000 damage killing 1.36 unscreened ships. 10 unscreened ships do average 10 × 63000 ≈ 630000 damage killing 630000 / ( 110000 + 28000 ) ≈ 4.56 screened ships. Screened ships loose badly.
AnotherDilbert wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:57 pmSounds nice, but if not very effective protection displaces half your firepower, all the protection will do is get more of your spacers killed.
As we can see from this example the fleet with screens will lose more ships, hence more spacers:What is your justification for your numbers?AnotherDilbert wrote: ↑ In a BatRon vs BatRon fight, say 10 ships vs 10 ships, it's even worse:
10 Screened ships do average 10 × 21000 ≈ 210000 damage killing 1.36 unscreened ships. 10 unscreened ships do average 10 × 63000 ≈ 630000 damage killing 630000 / ( 110000 + 28000 ) ≈ 4.56 screened ships. Screened ships loose badly.
If you follow the arrow in my quote you will find this:phavoc wrote: ↑What is your justification for your numbers?AnotherDilbert wrote: ↑ In a BatRon vs BatRon fight, say 10 ships vs 10 ships, it's even worse:
10 Screened ships do average 10 × 21000 ≈ 210000 damage killing 1.36 unscreened ships. 10 unscreened ships do average 10 × 63000 ≈ 630000 damage killing 630000 / ( 110000 + 28000 ) ≈ 4.56 screened ships. Screened ships loose badly.
AnotherDilbert wrote: ↑Your screened pocket battleships costs GCr 134. About GCr 45 and 18 kDt is screens. For equal cost (GCr 134) we would get a 210 kDt ship with an 18DD spinal, but without screens.
In a single ship duel the screened ship would do average 6DD ≈ 21000 damage against the unscreened ships 154000 Hull or ~14%. The unscreened ship would do 18DD ≈ 63000 damage of which about 1000 × 7 × 4 ≈ 28000 is prevented by the screens, so the screened ship suffers 35000 damage of 110000 Hull or ~32%. Barring extraordinary luck the screened ship will lose...
In a BatRon vs BatRon fight, say 10 ships vs 10 ships, it's even worse:
10 Screened ships do average 10 × 21000 ≈ 210000 damage killing 1.36 unscreened ships. 10 unscreened ships do average 10 × 63000 ≈ 630000 damage killing 630000 / ( 110000 + 28000 ) ≈ 4.56 screened ships. Screened ships loose badly.
I based all comparisons on the 150 kDt screened pocket battleship with a 6DD spinal and 1000 meson screens.baithammer wrote: ↑ The ave for the Screen BS is 28,000 damage not 21,000 and the Meson screens when used with angled screens action raises the screen average to 56,000 absorption assuming a 2 Effect.
Ok, so if I follow your example, you are stating that whichever side chose to build ships without screens would be the victor?AnotherDilbert wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:47 amIf you follow the arrow in my quote you will find this:phavoc wrote: ↑What is your justification for your numbers?AnotherDilbert wrote: ↑ In a BatRon vs BatRon fight, say 10 ships vs 10 ships, it's even worse:
10 Screened ships do average 10 × 21000 ≈ 210000 damage killing 1.36 unscreened ships. 10 unscreened ships do average 10 × 63000 ≈ 630000 damage killing 630000 / ( 110000 + 28000 ) ≈ 4.56 screened ships. Screened ships loose badly.AnotherDilbert wrote: ↑Your screened pocket battleships costs GCr 134. About GCr 45 and 18 kDt is screens. For equal cost (GCr 134) we would get a 210 kDt ship with an 18DD spinal, but without screens.
In a single ship duel the screened ship would do average 6DD ≈ 21000 damage against the unscreened ships 154000 Hull or ~14%. The unscreened ship would do 18DD ≈ 63000 damage of which about 1000 × 7 × 4 ≈ 28000 is prevented by the screens, so the screened ship suffers 35000 damage of 110000 Hull or ~32%. Barring extraordinary luck the screened ship will lose...
In a BatRon vs BatRon fight, say 10 ships vs 10 ships, it's even worse:
10 Screened ships do average 10 × 21000 ≈ 210000 damage killing 1.36 unscreened ships. 10 unscreened ships do average 10 × 63000 ≈ 630000 damage killing 630000 / ( 110000 + 28000 ) ≈ 4.56 screened ships. Screened ships loose badly.
No, I'm suggesting that the side that wastes a large part of their budget on very expensive, but not very effective, components that displaces effective components loses.
And fitting ships with every shiny, expensive device in the book without considering the budget would be more realistic?
Which you wouldn't be using that class for in the first place, you'd be better off using a larger battle cruiser for that setup. Assuming a armoured cruiser is between 50,000t -75,000t with defenses being the primary focus and a battlecruiser being 80,000t -100,000t with a battle ship main weapon and balancing all other considerations.Meson screens might not be worth it for an armoured cruiser earmarked as a commerce raider,
That's a fair question. Today's ships have no torpedo bulges. The defense against submarines and torpedoes is an active defense - aircraft with sonobuoys, helicopters with dipping sonar, your own escorting submarines, etc. Nimitz class carriers are now deploying active torpedo defenses. Current ships, with current defense, are considered safe. Admittedly we have not been in a shooting war for 60 years where we could actually test these defenses, so it's best guess. But the impression from sailors (USN) is that they feel pretty safe on the major combatants. Even some guys I talked to from the old FFG's were ok with what they could do - but knew in an all-up attack FFGs, unless they were tied in with Aegis, would have a tough time against a Soviet attack.AnotherDilbert wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:23 pmNo, I'm suggesting that the side that wastes a large part of their budget on very expensive, but not very effective, components that displaces effective components loses.
I agree that we should strive for a good balance of offence and defence. A current comparison might be, as you suggest, CIWS that are fairly small, light, cheap, and effective, and hence probably a good idea, but a few feet of armour is not considered a good investment anymore.
Does current sailors refuse to board death-trap ships without heavy armour and torpedo belts?
No. However any major combatant would normally expect to be deployed against equally equipped enemies. If your enemy preferred missiles and torpedoes, your ships deployed against them would be missile defense heavy. But enemies tend to do things you least expect. The tendency with naval designs today is you build generic ships to fight and defend well against a wide range of enemies. For the Imperium if you built classes of ships to fight Zhodani and deployed them along those lines I would expect them to be more or less optimized to defeat the average Zho comparable enemy combatant. Deploying them against the Vargr or Aslan, or Sword Worlders, would be probable as fleets tend to move around. But moving fleets from the Marches to Capital probably wouldn't occur.AnotherDilbert wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:23 pmAnd fitting ships with every shiny, expensive device in the book without considering the budget would be more realistic?
Quite, but we cannot a priori know which defences are effective, we have to analyse and simulate battles to find defences that have a good chance of being effective. Since we have to defend against several attack vectors we can't blow half our budget on something that only works against one attack vector, and only from one ship at a time.phavoc wrote: ↑ However any major combatant would normally expect to be deployed against equally equipped enemies. If your enemy preferred missiles and torpedoes, your ships deployed against them would be missile defense heavy. But enemies tend to do things you least expect. The tendency with naval designs today is you build generic ships to fight and defend well against a wide range of enemies.
Which is reasonable for a cruiser intended to be deployed singly on patrol or raid, but not for a ship intended to stand in the line of battle. In the line of battle your line must face and survive the attacks from many ships. A defence, like screens, that can only stop a single attack is easily overwhelmed and not very valuable.
You can only use bigger ships at the same cost if you leave out the expensive components (screens). Since size (Hull points) is the ultimate defence, the expensive components must be better than not just the displaced weapons, but also the lost Hull points at the same time.
In war you will lose ships. Winning battles and losing few ships are better than losing battles and losing more ships.
Only true if materials aren't taken into account, which is where the rules run into a modeling error.You can only use bigger ships at the same cost if you leave out the expensive components (screens). Since size (Hull points) is the ultimate defence, the expensive components must be better than not just the displaced weapons, but also the lost Hull points at the same time.
OK...baithammer wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:59 pmUsing the pocket battleship which is designed as a raider and not the screened battleship makes for an unrealistic match up, ...
So, show me a scenario in which screens win major battles.baithammer wrote: ↑ Screens aren't a binary one or nothing defense, it still reduces the incoming damage and forces more ships to focus fire on the screened ship.
It does have drawbacks with trying to stay within the confines of existing displacement by trading increased defense with shorter jump distances.
100 000 ton of metal isn't very limiting on a planetary, or system, scale. Our current low tech world produces about 1 600 000 000 tons of steel per year.baithammer wrote: ↑ Only true if materials aren't taken into account, which is where the rules run into a modeling error.
Users browsing this forum: esmdev and 9 guests