Nike Class Battlecruiser

[Nightmares about Minbari]

I know it's space, and looks shouldn't matter, even Legend of the Rangers appreciated that fact!

However the ship was designed by humans, so human asthetics guided it's design, which means that if the ship looks fast, then the designers were probably designing a fast ship. Even if only subconsciously, their design criteria would have shaped the look of the ship.

Stat wise, maybe the ship should be based on an up-gunned or toughened Marathon, taking it into the war priority?

 

[prelude_to_war]

The stats are still a work in progress - I think some more discussion is needed before they're finalized. War is probably the right slot for it...Personally I haven't had time to properly address the Nike's stats!

For what it's worth, EFNI does describe it as being maneuvarable but stylisticly I wanted to retain some brick-like qualities we all know and love!

 

[kritikalfailure]

I'm still partial to the 10" speed and the 2 45 degree turns. Perhaps we should reduce the beam to 2 AD and make it rely upon the missiles and Q-Lasers? Then it really would be a slugger and less of a generic Warlock replacement.

 

[Voronesh]

I would prefer a heavy particle cannon on the ship, well it is finely modeled there.

Yes it seems sleek for a brick, even faster than the snickers, and that one is speed 12. 8 should be the minimum for it 2 turns i dont know about.

 

[Chernobyl]

I've take some previous ideas and adapted them a bit, let me know what you think of this proposal.

Nike-class Battlecruiser (Crusade Era EA)

PL: War
Hull: 6
Speed: 10
Turns: 2/45
Troops: 3

Craft: 4 Thunderbolts
Special: Advanced Jump Point, Flight Computer, Interceptors 4, Self-repair 1D6
Damage: 70 / 18
Crew: 65 / 18

- Heavy Particle Cannon - B - 25" - 4AD - Beam, SAP, TD
- Advanced Missile Rack -- F - 30" - 4AD - Precise, SAP, SL*
- Heavy Pulse Cannon --- F - 12" - 8AD - TL
- Q-Lasers ------------------ F - 10" - 6AD - AP, MB
- Heavy Pulse Cannon --- P - 12" - 6AD - TL
- Q-Lasers ------------------ P - 10" - 6AD - AP, MB
- Heavy Pulse Cannon --- S - 12" - 6AD - TL
- Q-Lasers ------------------ S - 10" - 6AD - AP, MB
- Heavy Pulse Cannon --- A - 12" - 4AD - TL
- Q-Lasers ------------------ A - 10" - 6AD - AP, MB
- Railguns ------------------- T - 12" - 6AD - AP, DD
- Particle Beams ------------T - 5" --- 4AD - TL, AF

*Ignores slow-loading trait unless crippled


Chernobyl

 

[Silvereye]

Looks like one of the more interesting statlines there Chern. I'm glad you didn't go down the HEL-track route. Still not too sure with the Self-Repair though.

 

[kritikalfailure]

I've take some previous ideas and adapted them a bit, let me know what you think of this proposal.

Nike-class Battlecruiser (Crusade Era EA)

PL: War
Hull: 6
Speed: 10
Turns: 2/45
Troops: 3

Craft: 4 Thunderbolts
Special: Advanced Jump Point, Flight Computer, Interceptors 4, Self-repair 1D6
Damage: 70 / 18
Crew: 65 / 18

- Heavy Particle Cannon - B - 25" - 4AD - Beam, SAP, TD
- Advanced Missile Rack -- F - 30" - 4AD - Precise, SAP, SL*
- Heavy Pulse Cannon --- F - 12" - 8AD - TL
- Q-Lasers ------------------ F - 10" - 6AD - AP, MB
- Heavy Pulse Cannon --- P - 12" - 6AD - TL
- Q-Lasers ------------------ P - 10" - 6AD - AP, MB
- Heavy Pulse Cannon --- S - 12" - 6AD - TL
- Q-Lasers ------------------ S - 10" - 6AD - AP, MB
- Heavy Pulse Cannon --- A - 12" - 4AD - TL
- Q-Lasers ------------------ A - 10" - 6AD - AP, MB
- Railguns ------------------- T - 12" - 6AD - AP, DD
- Particle Beams ------------T - 5" --- 4AD - TL, AF

*Ignores slow-loading trait unless crippled


Chernobyl

Still looks like it's pumping out far too many dice. Perhaps with the description of the Q-Lasers and Pulse Cannon, they should simply be Laser/Pulse arrays?

 

[Chernobyl]

Well they're pretty blatantly two different systems in the original description... Remember, the mini beams don't have the range of most mini beams. I think we're using a shorter range similiar to that of the shadow omega. I don't think 1D6 of self repair is going to be a big deal as crew loss will probably doom this type of ship anyway. but if it is a big concern, could probably drop to (self repair 3)
Chern

 

[kritikalfailure]

Well they're pretty blatantly two different systems in the original description... Remember, the mini beams don't have the range of most mini beams. I think we're using a shorter range similiar to that of the shadow omega. I don't think 1D6 of self repair is going to be a big deal as crew loss will probably doom this type of ship anyway. but if it is a big concern, could probably drop to (self repair 3)
Chern

Good points. The Self-Repair might be good in a campaign, but I doubt many smart opponents will let it get off the field anyway.

Overall I think your design is much nastier than mine.

Something to keep in mind, however, is EFNI lists the pulse cannons as "heavy phasing pulse cannons," which means we might want to alter the traits a bit.

However the more true we make this to the description, the more it's starting to sound like an Armageddon ship (which I, at least, don't like).

 

[katadder]

chernobyls looks more like an upgunned bin'tak and is definately more powerful than eitehr the arma warlock or nemesis.

 

[Chernobyl]

OK, well, I did a little reading on ENFI's site and there are a couple of naming conflicts.

in the general text description its described as...

For the short range combat, are available four M111 heavy pulse twin turrets and two Railgun turrets

further down, he lists a set of technical specs which describe it as...

4*Raytheon M 111 Heavy Phased Pulse Cannon turrets.

Bold emphasis mine
the M111 here is a hyperlink which leads to a deal of the weapon system where it is called

Raytheon M111 Heavy Phased Plasma Pulse cannon

again bold emphasis mine.
Plamsa is a description we've not seen on a pulse weapon.
And to make things yet more confusing, the text description above this weapon detail says it was the same system equipped on the warlock, which implies its a simple laser pulse array.

In any event, being fan made material, I don't fault the author for his enthusiasm (sp?) and a couple inconsistencies, but to fit the role it should fit a certain power range, and a laser pulse array in combination with mini-beams would be very nasty indeed.

Chern

 

[kritikalfailure]

Ok, so we cannot put full faith in the fanwork.

I suppose the next step is to label what is generally agreed upon, then talk about what we're still in disagreement over.

Generally agreed upon:
Speed 10
2 45 degree turns
Hull 6
Interceptors 4
Flight Computer
Turret Missile Rack, 4AD Ignores Slow-loading until crippled
Heavy Particle Beam: 25" range seems to be the consensus and with 4AD, TD, Beam, Super AP.
Damage: 70/18
Crew: 70/20 (or 65/20, though this is pretty minor)

Disagreed upon:
Q-Laser Arrays (traits, AD, and range...ok so we have the name settled upon)
Railguns: Mostly if they should be 4AD front and aft or 6AD turret.
Particle Beams: Whether to include them or not.
Craft: We seem to be split between 2 and 4 flights.
Troops: Anything from 2 to 4 has been suggested.
HEL-Trak: Whether or not to include it.
Self-repair: Mostly divided on how much it should have.

The question is simply, where do we go from here?

 

[Chernobyl]

more research....
going back to the efni.org page...

There are 6 Q-laser turrets. the 4 outriggers and one on each wingtip.
implied firing arcs: 4AD turret, 1 Port 1 Starboard.
range is listed as 40,000 km, the main particle cannon listed as 75,000 km, or slightly more than half. So if we make the main gun 25", 16" inches is fairly proportional. This results in a reduction in firepower for an increase in range, but with some flexibility, and could also warrant perhaps a MB, SAP rating rather than an AP, MB.

There are 4 Heavy phasing pulse turrets, mounted somewhat like a Nova on the sides, in front of the wing stubs, which would probably rule out firing to the aft. the Heavy Phasing name would imply a shadow warlock type weapon, but the text describes a warlock-like relation. so I think the options here would be either Heavy Phasing Pulse Cannons, 12", 4 AD port, 4 AD Stbd, 8AD front, AP, DD; or Laser Pulse Array, same attack dice and arcs but 15" range TL or 12" AP/Beam
effective range listed here is 600km which seems insanely close by comparison (unless we're playing in log_10 scale... :lol: )

there are two railgun turrets, which occupy the top and bottom towers, in the center of the waist area, so a complete turret mount here is appropriate, and 4AD also. recommend Railguns - Turrett 4AD, 12", AP,DD. 700km range...ok so some of these really don't match up very closely... :wink:

particle cannons, there are like 25 of these sprinkled around the ship in several locations, so rather than turret mount I think I recommend F/P/S/A, and probably on the order of 5AD F, 6 AD P, 6AD S, 8AD Aft, range 4" or 5", and AF but not TL based on the number of mounts.

Its pretty clear in the fluff that the ship is intended to be a ship-killer, and so this level of AF protection clearly indicates that while the minibeams/Q-lasers can be used in an AF role (theres more fluff to indicate AF capability here, so more weight for a MB rather than a LPA), they really are intended to attack the big guys as there's more than enough to cover little stuff already.

The text describes 8 bow mounted missile tubes, which I honestly can't see, so I'm assuming they're under the mess of cool looking stuff at the front, so an advanced missile rack 8AD F, 30", P,SAP,SL* souds good to me.

24 interceptor mounts, meh, Interceptor 4 sounds good.

The listing says 24 thunderbolts, but we could really go with whatever we want here. most EA capital ships have 4, but the marathon has 2, and it is intended to replace the hyperion. The Nike kind of fits that role in my mind, so after thinking about it, I'm ok with only 2 thunderbolts.

The fluff also describes a nano-technological armor, so some level of Self repair is appropriate, we're up in the air on that.


so, what do we have....:

Flight Computer
Damage: 70/18
Crew: 70/20 (or 65/20, though this is pretty minor) [/quote]

Nike-class Battlecruiser (Crusade Era EA)

PL: War
Hull: 6
Speed: 10
Turns: 2/45
Troops: 3

Craft: 2 Thunderbolts
Special: Advanced Jump Point, Flight Computer, Interceptors 4, Self-repair (say 2 for now)
Damage: 70 / 18
Crew: 65 / 20

Weapons
Heavy Particle Cannon --------- B - 25" - 4AD - Beam, SAP, TD
Advanced Missile Rack --------- F - 30" - 8AD - Precise, SAP, SL*
Heavy Phasing Pulse Cannons - F - 12" - 8AD - AP, DD
Particle Cannons ---------------- F - 5" --- 5AD - AF
Q-Lasers ------------------------- P - 16" - 1AD - MB, SAP
Heavy Phasing Pulse Cannons - P - 12" - 4AD - AP, DD
Particle Cannons ---------------- P - 5" --- 6AD - AF
Q-Lasers ------------------------- S - 16" - 1AD - MB, SAP
Heavy Phasing Pulse Cannons - S - 12" - 4AD - AP, DD
Particle Cannons ---------------- S - 5" --- 6AD - AF
Particle Cannons ---------------- A - 5" --- 8AD - AF
Q-Lasers ------------------------- T - 16" -- 4AD - MB, SAP
Railguns -------------------------- T - 12" -- 4AD - AP. DD
Q-Lasers ------------------------- T - 16" - 4AD - MB, SAP

* This weapon ignores the slow-loading trait unless crippled.

looking at the marathon and the nemesis, its not that bad. It looks like a lot of weapons, but I don't think it is really. With that much AF, most folks wouldn't try unless they had stealth.
I'm not sure the purpose of the heavy phasing pulse cannons on reflection - its the same traits as the railguns.

anyway, what do you think of this one...?

Chernobyl

 

[prelude_to_war]

I suppose the next step is to label what is generally agreed upon, then talk about what we're still in disagreement over.

Generally agreed upon:
Speed 10
2 45 degree turns
Hull 6
Interceptors 4
Flight Computer
Turret Missile Rack, 4AD Ignores Slow-loading until crippled
Heavy Particle Beam: 25" range seems to be the consensus and with 4AD, TD, Beam, Super AP.
Damage: 70/18
Crew: 70/20 (or 65/20, though this is pretty minor)

Agreed on the above...

Q-Laser Arrays: TL, AP, 12"*, all arcs
Fluff explanation - EFNI states, "while limitated in terms of the damage they can inflict with a single shot, have an excellent piercing power (AP or MB?) and a very high rate of fire (6AD, TL)"

MB weaponry would bypass interceptors inadvertently making missiles and railguns less effective. Unless we added a trait where the Nike could switch MB on/off? Too powerful? I've taken some things away below which may even out this proposed upgrade.

Railguns: the railgun turret should be of the 6AD turret variety for more flexibility. Having it be F and A on a ship with 2/45 turns makes it feel like an Artemis, trying to jockey for position in order to fire the rail guns.

Particle Beams: Maybe redundant with all of the MB weaponry.

Craft: I still feel 2 is the right number.
Fluff explanation: EFNI states, "she has a reduced crew complement in respect to the old EA ships standards thanks to an high degree of automation." - Therefore less pilots and fighter support crews.

EFNI continues, "operationally the Nike is a more specialized, less flexible unit than the Warlock" - less fighters to my mind..."with a strong emphasis on fleet operations and ship to ship engagements", not fighter delivery and weapons platform like the Nova doctrine. One or the other for our Nike; weapons platform. 2 fighters to provide a defensive screen.

Troops: 2
Fluff explanation: EFNI states, "she has a reduced crew complement in respect to the old EA ships standards thanks to an high degree of automation." I think this should translate into less troops as well as less crew. Another angle on the fluff is that due to the Earth quarantine in this era, there may be a relative shortage on trained manpower/soldiers? I understand that there's still plenty of humans abound even with Earth quarantined but it could be an interesting reflection of the era.

In the case of the fighters and troops, what I was trying to do was take the built-in strength of automation (ie flight computer) and even it out with some built-in weakness (ie less fighters and troops).

HEL-Trak: Whether or not to include it.
With the tendency for what seems like anti-Minbari tech in the Crusade era, I favor it. However maybe it puts it over the top for a War PL.

Maybe - and I may be getting ahead of myself - we introduce a varient. The Orion, which according to EFNI carries a 'Enhanced EGAD (anyone else find this funny?) sensor suite' -->HEL Track? I can see the Orion losing the Q-Lasers and or Rail Guns for something more conventional, using the HEL Track for hard hitting particle cannon and missile attacks. This would make the Orion a long-ranged anti-stealth sniper specialist and less of a brawler.

Self-repair: Perhaps this ability should be dropped. Afterall only the Nemesis and Omega X - both Armageddon PL - get this in the EA list. Especially since having a number of these hulls in a campaign setting would make them very tough. Automated is one thing but self-healing may be a bit much.

*By the time I got to the end of this entry, I realized I'm suggesting taking away self-repair and HEL-Track. In light of this I thought the Q-Laser range should go back up to 12". If it's emphasis is ship-to-ship engagements, the extra 2" seemed reasonable.

Therefore:
Hull: 6
Speed: 10
Turns 2/45
Damage: 70/15
Crew 70/20
Craft: 2 Thunderbolts
Troops: 2
Traits: Interceptors 4, AJP, Flight Computer

Heavy Particle Cannon, 30", 4AD, TD, B, SAP, Boresight
Railguns: 12", 6AD, AP DD, T
Q-Laser Array: 12", 6AD, AP, TL, All Arcs
Advanced Missile Rack: 30" 4AD, SAP, Precise, Slow loading unless crippled, Turret

Interesting take Chern - just saw your entry as I was editing my post...I'll read it as I post my response...

 

[Goldritter]

Give the Railguns more range as on the Warlock.
15" or 20". So they have a reason for the Nike to mount some.
(Or make a rule, that the Railgun can use different Ammunition like the EA Missile Rack.)

Or let it be, because the the advantage of the Railgun over the Phasing Pulse Cannon is, that it need less energy to fire and the Phasing Pulse Cannon has the advantage to use no ammunition.
So the Railgun is on the Ship to have a hard punch but not to overtaxing the energy system on the ship.

 

[kritikalfailure]

24 interceptor mounts, meh, Interceptor 4 sounds good.



Nike-class Battlecruiser (Crusade Era EA)

PL: War
Hull: 6
Speed: 10
Turns: 2/45
Troops: 3

Craft: 2 Thunderbolts
Special: Advanced Jump Point, Flight Computer, Interceptors 4, Self-repair (say 2 for now)
Damage: 70 / 18
Crew: 65 / 20

Heavy Particle Cannon --------- B - 25" - 4AD - Beam, SAP, TD

No problem here.

Advanced Missile Rack --------- F - 30" - 8AD - Precise, SAP, SL*

I have a problem here since the Nemesis only has 6 AD. I think 4 AD is what we should shoot for.

Heavy Phasing Pulse Cannons - F - 12" - 8AD - AP, DD
Q-Lasers ------------------------- P - 16" - 1AD - MB, SAP

The more I look at these, the more I'm convinced we should unify them into one weapon system similar to the Laser/Pulse arrays. I know they are described as being independent systems, but I think an amalgamation is what's in order. Plus there's no way they will fit on my 8x5 index cards :wink: This will allow us to stick with precedent within the game as well as stick to the fluff (on a side note, while both the Marathon and the Warlock have Laser/Pulse arrays that work the same in game terms as those on the Nova, I imagine Earthforce R&D has put together a different mechanical system for it, such as the addition of say, Q-Lasers within the firing array).

We could either do them as the Laser/Pulse arrays already written, or give them Mini-beam and Twin-Linked for the normal (full range) firing mode and AP/Double Damage for the secondary.

Particle Cannons ---------------- F - 5" --- 5AD - AF

I think having these on all arcs is a bit much. A Turret particle beam is fine with me (though that would load up the turret with weapons, so shame on you if they get knocked out). As much as I love to stick it to ISA players, no other ship aside from Vree has an independant anti-fighter weapon on every available arc. Let's make them turret, give them 6 AD, and make them TL and AF.

Railguns -------------------------- T - 12" -- 4AD - AP. DD

No problem here. I tend to think of a single "rail gun turret" as having 2 railguns. Since it has 2, 4 AD sounds about right.

looking at the marathon and the nemesis, its not that bad. It looks like a lot of weapons, but I don't think it is really. With that much AF, most folks wouldn't try unless they had stealth.
I'm not sure the purpose of the heavy phasing pulse cannons on reflection - its the same traits as the railguns.

anyway, what do you think of this one...?

Chernobyl

Chernobyl,

Overall I like your design. I just think we need to clean up the weapon systems some. 8AD on the missile launcher, however, really is too much.

Let's assume for the moment that we go with the 15" Laser/Pulse arrays. The Marathon is 4 on the rear and 6 on the other arcs. The Warlock is 10 on all arcs. Therefore a good bridge would be 8 on all arcs.

I think we're getting closer to what we want to see, however.

 

[Goldritter]

I like the idea of an "Phasing Pulse Cannon / Mutli-Phased Cutter Array" .
It would be a logical step from the Laser/Pulse Array.

Something like

MPC/PPC | 12" / 10" | 4AD/8AD | AP,DD / MB,AP,TL

Or such ....

 

[kritikalfailure]

Q-Laser Array: 12", 6AD, AP, TL, All Arcs

If we lose the Self-Repairing and HEL-Track systems, I feel these should be 8AD each. Therefore the ship becomes more of an offensive powerhouse and less of a neverendering thorn in your side.

 

[Chernobyl]

thats what I say, except for the missiles. the ship, while war level, shouldn't be reduced to "inbetween the nemesis and marathon"
I realize I made that comparison myself, but I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I think I was trying to make an overall comparison, rather than direct comparison of some weapons.
On reflection (again...must be another mirror) the heavy phasing could be reduced to 4 AD front. 8AD is a bit steep.

something to recognize is that this ship does have weak spots, except for turreted, the rear is pretty bare. port and starboard are again pretty weak, but for the turrets. Most of the hitting power is in the turret with a little to lend from each arc, except the front, even reduced to 4AD heavy phasing pulse. I don't think 4AD is reasonable at war level, but looking at the apollo maybe you're right. maybe take 8AD, slow loading, and don't make it advanced?

Chern

 

[Goldritter]

Yes drop the "Advanced" of the Missile Racks.
These Missiles make sense for "High End Ships" like the Nemesis (and even there I think it isn´t a must) and for "Bombardment" ships like the Apollo.

Ships like the Warlock use the Missiles as a little extra punch, but relay more on their standart weapons like Heavy Particle Cannon and Laser/Pulse Arrays.

And the Nike has Railguns too, so the advanced Missiles would put to much stress on supply lines. Remember the railguns and the Missile Rack needs ammo.
The Nemesis has no Railgun and the apollo has only Missiles. So they have to care only about one ammunition type.
The warlock has both and so the tranporter need to transport railgun rounds and Missiles. So it makes no sense to have a Missile Rack which could be depletet in a matter of minutes, because you have/can not carry many missiles, because you must carry Railgun rounds too.