Imperium capital ships of the 5FW - some thoughts

[ChrisJ]

Wouldn't the Hadrian be better off with a factor 6 PA spinal, instead of the factor 3 meson?

Meson-3: DV18 × 1000 ≈ 18 000 base damage.
PA-6: DV48 × 1000 ≈ 48 000 base damage, or perhaps 40 000 against heavy armour?

The Meson is the standard design in HG2022 for the Hadrain.
The Fleet rules do not include the extra -3% per armor factor that the description of the Particle Spinal includes.
Against the Gallak - DV48 - 5AV = 43x1000 -3%x17 =20k or so - still enough to wipe the Gallak in one hit

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It seems HG'22 undid all the balancing work in HG'17...

 

[ChrisJ]

Agreed, the aggressor should have closed to, and then kept, the distance at VLong, to maximise the range advantage of the PAs. That is what the Lightning did, and won the game.

It would be the Hadrians problem to close the range, and with no Thrust advantage, probably an insurmountable problem.

The longer range would also have made the battle slower, as Attack Effectiveness would have been lower at VLong range.

Yeah - I was too keen to use the secondary weapons - which were useless, by which I had entered the Hadrians kill window and it was hopeless - only some bad rolls on the part of the Hadrian spinal weapons (I rolled two 3's in the first round and a 2 in the second - so over two rounds only two Meson spinals hit).

The 3 Hadrians would have had to split up and tried to outflank/pincer the Gallaks trying to keep at range.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The Fleet rules do not include the extra -3% per armor factor that the description of the Particle Spinal includes.

Perhaps?

P35 seems to say to use percent armour instead of deductive armour, as in HG'17. With higher armour in HG'22, that renders PA spinals ineffective.
P119 seems to say use deductive armour as normal, but not percentage armour. That completely unbalances PA spinals.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

HG'22, p118-119:
Spinal mounts are the only weapons that must roll to hit. The standard space combat rules apply, using the Crew Skill score for the Gunner skill. Be sure to apply all range, target size and fire control software DMs. If a hit is scored, reduce the Damage score by Armour (if applicable), multiply this by the spinal mount damage multiple (1,000 per factor) and apply the damage to the target ship.

This would seem to imply that we can evade spinals, effectively negating the first few attacks?

As bays now can do damage, without that burden, perhaps we should skip spinals altogether?


Sorry if I'm slow, it's my first look at the HG'22 fleet combat system.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

HG 2022 set out to ensure that capital ship combat is destructive and fast; not ponderous and slow.

Please enlighten us:

How do we apply armour to PA spinal damage in standard vs. fleet combat?

Can we take Evasive Action and/or Aid Gunners for spinals in fleet combat?

 

[Sigtrygg]

I really wish that for the Third Imperium setting you would stick with Third Imperium canon.

Battle Rider: Non-jump capable ship intended to stand in the line of battle in space combat and carried interstellar by a battle tender.
Battleship: Jump-capable starship intended to stand in the line of battle in space combat.

Two opposite views in naval architecture have dominated the design of the major warships of space navies.
The battle rider concept involves a large jump-capable tender carrying many (two to ten) heavily armed and armored battle riders. The opposite concept is the battleship, a large jump-capable ship which carries the jump
drives and fuel tanks internally.
The battleship concept involves large, well armed and well-armored starships of massive tonnage and capable of meeting almost any adversary. In a battle against a superior force, however, the battleship can flee using its own jump drives. The opposite concept (of the battle rider carried into combat by a battle tender) does not allow for the possibility of superior force; no matter how good a rider is, if it meets a superior adversary, it is placed in a position of winning or dying. Retreat is nearly impossible without losses.
By dispensing with the need for jump drives and jump fuel tanks on each of the riders, each becomes ton for ton more heavily armed and armored. It is generally held that, in any meeting between a battleship and a battle rider of equal tonnage, the battle rider will triumph.
The battle tender, so integral to the concept of the battle rider, is little more than a large dispersed structure with jump drives, fuel tanks, and basic controls. It transports a squadron of battle riders ready for immediate launch upon entry into a system. While the riders press the attack, the tender stays in the reserve for protection.

In addition to prompting a strategic reevaluation, the Fourth Frontier War (1082 to 1084) also brought about a minor counter-revolution in naval tactics. Prior to the war, naval architecture had concentrated primarily on the battle rider as the main vessel intended to stand in the line of battle. A battle rider is a non-jump-capable capital ship generally carried on a large (up to one million tons) fleet tender. Such a tender carries a complete Battle Squadron (BatRon) of from six to eight vessels.
While it is undeniable that a BatRon of battle riders will invariably defeat an equal tonnage squadron of jump-capable battleships, the early weeks of the Fourth Frontier War uncovered a serious design weakness. When faced with superior numbers, the riders were unable to withdraw and jump out-system due to the time required to secure them in their tenders. Thus, rider BatRons suffered disproportionate losses in the early stages of the war.
The solution arrived at was to concentrate all rider BatRons in the strategic reserves while manning the frontier delaying forces exclusively with ships. (Note: in naval parlance, the term ship is reserved for jump-capable vessels, while non-jump
capable vessels are referred to as boats, riders, or monitors).

 

[Sigtrygg]

Next an analysis of meson bay weapons vs screens.

100t bay	TL13 #3		TL14 #5	TL15 #9
50t bay		TL 15 #4
#1 screen TL12	15	14	14	12
#2 screen TL13	15	15	14	12
#3 screen TL13	16	15	15	13
#4 screen TL14	16	16	15	13
#5 screen TL14	17	16	16	14
#6 screen TL14	17	17	16	14
#7 screen TL15	18	17	17	15
#8 screen TL15	18	18	17	15
#9 screen TL15	19	18	18	16

 

[ChrisJ]

I really wish that for the Third Imperium setting you would stick with Third Imperium canon.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. I took the fleet order of battle from the new 5FW book, which clearly lists deployment of two Battle Rider Squadrons at Jewell - I double checked and I don't think I mixed up and accidently misused the term Battleship and Battler rider - can you be clearer where you think we are drifting from canon? As this is a discussion on 5FW tactics, staying close to canon is something I do desire.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Next an analysis of meson bay weapons vs screens.

Nothing much to analyse, none of them can penetrate even a factor 1 screen in CT.

MgT screens works differently.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I really wish that for the Third Imperium setting you would stick with Third Imperium canon.

Canon still says the Imperium uses both battleships and battle riders, for slightly different tasks.


In CT battleships were useless, and battle riders ruled supreme.

The MgT the ship design and combat systems are re-biased to make battleships viable (at least in HG'17). In HG'22 I'm not so sure, the added armour (and consumed tonnage) might make for a comeback of battle riders?

 

[Sigtrygg]

Nothing much to analyse, none of them can penetrate even a factor 1 screen in CT.

MgT screens works differently.

Yes they can, you forget TL computer difference,

A TL15/c9 meson gun vs a TL12/c6 factor 1 screen has a +3 to penetrate, A TL15/c9 meson gun has a +2 to penetrate a TL13/c7 screen, and a TL15/c9 is +1 to penetrate a TL14/c8.

A factor 9 100t meson bay can penetrate up to a meson screen 4

This is where it should have started when designing meson screens for MgT HG.

 

[Sigtrygg]

If you take the HG80 table and make one little change you can end up with

Tech Level	Tonnage	Cost	EP per factor	Maximum factor
12	90	80	0.2	1
13	30	50	0.2	2
13	45	55	0.2	3
14	16	40	0.2	4
14	20	45	0.2	5
14	24	50	0.2	6
15	20	40	0.2	7
15	30	50	0.2	8
15	40	60	0.2	9

It is then a simple matter of giving meson screens an "effective armour rating vs meson guns"
Factor 4 is the cut off for bay weapon effectiveness, screen factor 5 and above have enough to defeat all bay weapons and reduce the effectiveness of spinals.

A much simpler system and it maintains parity with original HG.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

A TL15/c9 meson gun vs a TL12/c6 factor 1 screen has a +3 to penetrate, ...

Agreed, but at that TL difference you have already won...

OK: A large meson bay at high TL can, but is unlikely to, penetrate a low factor, low TL meson screen.
With a DM+6 on the damage tables they can't produce crits or fuel tanks shattered results, the meson spinals claim to fame. Against a good TL-12 rock (that can't hurt a TL-15 warship) it has a <1% chance of getting a crew-1 hit that will eventually wear it down.

Or simplified: Meson bays are useless, and can basically not penetrate screens (in CT).

 

[Sigtrygg]

TL15 Meson bays degrade power plants, weapons, jump drives, and stand a chance (low) of a "mission kill" with a crew 1 hit. They are also great for planetary bombardment.
For MT the damage of a TL13 bay meson gun could be set to never damage a ship with a factor 1 screen with higher TL bays gaining TL effects that grant them more damage or screen penetration. You then wouldn't need to stack multiple screens (the current MgT HG method) you just go back to a screen value of betwen 0 and 9

 

[AnotherDilbert]

TL15 Meson bays degrade power plants, weapons, jump drives, and stand a chance (low) of a "mission kill" with a crew 1 hit.

Against a good TL-13 warship with screen-3 a Impie meson bay would stand about a 0.05% chance of inflicting a Crew-1 hit, the rest can easily be repaired during the battle. A frozen watch would negate the crew hit, and a TL13 warship is likely to have that.

That bay would cost 500 Dt space with power, against 4000 Dt for a spinal that would have a ~40% chance of killing the TL13 warship.

So, do you want a ~0.5% chance of inconveniencing the enemy ship with a bunch of bays, or a ~40% chance of definitively killing it with a spinal, for the same cost?

Most TL14+ warships would be completely immune to the bays, but still be quite vulnerable to the spinal.

They are also great for planetary bombardment.

Agreed, about as good as spinals, unless of course if the enemy has screens...

 

[Sigtrygg]

I'm not looking for a way to make bay meson guns more effective against screens, I'm looking at ways to simplify how MgT HG does it.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I'm not looking for a way to make bay meson guns more effective against screens, I'm looking at ways to simplify how MgT HG does it.

If you introduce unlimited percentage meson screens, and presumably dampers, you have to rebalance all damage, basically rebuilding half the combat system.

There is already a simplified system, in the Fleet battle system:

Screens: Separate scores are recorded for meson screens and nuclear dampers. For each, add Crew Skill score to 3.5, multiply that by 10 and then multiply the resulting figure by the number of screens.

That is a pool of damage dice that you prevent, from any attack you want. No rolls needed.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Yet another clunky system.

 

[phavoc]

Has anyone come up with a decent way to convert ships to having ATT/DEF numbers like you'd use in strategic wargames vs. having to care about all the different bays/etc?