Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

[baithammer]

Previous designs had a mistake in the Computer Rating, its supposed to be Core/100 not Core/90.

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

 

[AnotherDilbert]

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[baithammer]

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.

Also note the pocket screened ship is a raider not a ship of the line.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

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.

That depends on how you define your fruit. I generally sort ships by cost, not random size limits.
But sure, we can keep the tonnage constant at 150 kDt, then we get an unscreened ship of 150 kDt, GCr 95, and 12DD spinal. Equal cost we would get 14 unscreened ships for 10 screened ships, with the same result...

Also note the pocket screened ship is a raider not a ship of the line.

Ah, yes that is different.

My tentative conclusion is that cruisers, generally dispersed on single missions, should have meson screens and particle spinals, ...

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.

 

[phavoc]

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.

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.

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.

And your enemies rarely schedule their battles around what is convenient for your deployment.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

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.

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.

Sounds 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:

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.

 

[phavoc]

Sounds 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:

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.

What is your justification for your numbers?

 

[baithammer]

Battleships average 8dd - 10dd Spinals, if you go above this your moving into dreadnought / pocket dreadnought territory.

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.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

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.

What is your justification for your numbers?

If you follow the arrow in my quote you will find this:

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.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

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.

I based all comparisons on the 150 kDt screened pocket battleship with a 6DD spinal and 1000 meson screens.

 

[Condottiere]

Meson screens might not be worth it for an armoured cruiser earmarked as a commerce raider, assuming mesons remain solely humongous spinal mounted weapons.

Anything that's actually describable as a battleship tends to need a balance of defence and offence.

 

[phavoc]

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.

What is your justification for your numbers?

If you follow the arrow in my quote you will find this:

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.

Ok, so if I follow your example, you are stating that whichever side chose to build ships without screens would be the victor?

But that assumes the side building the ships that trades offensive firepower for less defenses would still be able to do this without addressing my argument that it would have problems finding naval personel to fly their deathtraps.

From history we can see parallels to the future because human behavior is more or less static. Unless you are able to crew your ships with fanatics, it's not reasonable to expect that they are going to fight for you (and die for you) because it's more cost effective to skimp or disregard defenses. When the tech doesn't exist then people only expect the capabilities of what is currently available. Take, for example, crew quarters. It used to be you got a hammock and you were expected to find your own space. WW1 capital ships had crew stacked five high in wire racks. Today even smaller ships have decent crew quarters. It would be far cheaper to cram them into a cargo hold, and you'd have more tonnage for offensive weaponry. But that's not going to happen if you expect to get crews, especially crack ones.

The same logic holds true for defenses. Even smaller ships like frigates are getting CIWS weapon systems, chaff, and flare launchers. If you dropped the cost and space for those items you could cram more offensive weapons on board, but at a price. The same parallel goes here.

I don't see ships of the future dropping screens to cram in larger weapons. Nor would your opponents unless they are fanatical or something else similar. Ships would fight with the best offensive and defensive weapons they could equally mount. That's part of the human condition.

If you are fighting spreadsheets in space, then your designs make sense because they are min/max. Though I don't think they are good examples of what you would normally find as warships in the future.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Ok, so if I follow your example, you are stating that whichever side chose to build ships without screens would be the victor?

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.

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?

If you are fighting spreadsheets in space, then your designs make sense because they are min/max. Though I don't think they are good examples of what you would normally find as warships in the future.

And fitting ships with every shiny, expensive device in the book without considering the budget would be more realistic?

 

[baithammer]

Using the pocket battleship which is designed as a raider and not the screened battleship makes for an unrealistic match up, the pocket screen defense is designed around confronting cruisers and escorts rather than stand in the line of battle. ( Also why it retains jump 4.)

Meson screens might not be worth it for an armoured cruiser earmarked as a commerce raider,

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.

 

[phavoc]

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.

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?

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.

And fitting ships with every shiny, expensive device in the book without considering the budget would be more realistic?

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.

The assumption is generally that you take your ship up against a comparable ship. An average level of defenses (point defense, ECM, screens) is considered reasonable. If your enemy is deploying larger ships because the cost is the same, then I would expect the defender to also deploy larger ships, with more average defenses, as a counter. Something that no player considers is morale. Losing ships and people in battle, even if you are winning the war, hits hard at home.

While the rules allow players to do a great many things, it's not necessarily what you should do. However everybody has a different view, and you go with what you prefer.

 

[baithammer]

Large vessels increase the amount of material required to manufacture, which isn't modeled very well..

 

[AnotherDilbert]

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.

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.

From what I can see screens are simply too expensive and ineffective to be very useful in the battle line.

I would much rather fill out empty hardpoints with laser turrets. They are rather cheap and somewhat useful against most foes, ships, missiles, and fighters alike, and can punish anyone that skimped on armour.

The assumption is generally that you take your ship up against a comparable ship. An average level of defenses (point defense, ECM, screens) is considered reasonable.

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.

If your enemy is deploying larger ships because the cost is the same, then I would expect the defender to also deploy larger ships, with more average defenses, as a counter.

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.

Something that no player considers is morale. Losing ships and people in battle, even if you are winning the war, hits hard at home.

In war you will lose ships. Winning battles and losing few ships are better than losing battles and losing more ships.

People are not that stupid, you can't just say "We have the best screens in the known Universe!" and ignore that your ships are outnumbered and outgunned, and you lose battles because of it.

 

[baithammer]

So you take what amounts to a pocket dreadnought ( 16dd spinal on a class that typically runs 8dd - 10dd.) and pair it against a pocket battleship meant for raiding and use that as the basis for decrying screens.

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.

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.

Only true if materials aren't taken into account, which is where the rules run into a modeling error.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Using the pocket battleship which is designed as a raider and not the screened battleship makes for an unrealistic match up, ...

OK...

The screened BB is 200 kDt, GCr 244, meson spinal 8DD, and 4000 meson screens.
Replacing the screens with a bigger spinal we get 200 kDt, GCr 147, meson spinal 22DD, and 0 screens.

We get 244 / 147 ≈ 1.65 unscreened BBs for each screened BB. Let's make it 10 screened BBs vs. 16 unscreened BBs.

The screened BBs do 10 × 8 × 3500 ≈ 280 000 damage killing 1.9 enemy ships, or 12% of the unscreened force.
The unscreened ships do 16 × 22 × 3500 ≈ 1 232 000 damage killing 1232000 / ( 146666 + 4000 × 28 ) ≈ 4.76 screened ships or 47% of the screened force.
Screened ships lose badly.


In a single ship engagement on the other hand:
The screened BB do 1 × 8 × 3500 ≈ 28 000 damage killing 19% of the unscreened BB.
The unscreened BB does 1.6 × 22 × 3500 ≈ 123 200 damage, of which about 4000 × 28 ≈ 112 000 damage is stopped by screens, so roughly 11 200 damage is inflicted or 7.6% of the screened ship.
Screened ship win.


So, screens are good for ships intended for single patrol, but not for battle squadrons.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

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.

So, show me a scenario in which screens win major battles.

Only true if materials aren't taken into account, which is where the rules run into a modeling error.

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.

In the space age with belt or moon mining and orbital smelters powered by fusion that is not much of a limitation.

Long term it's just money to dig up more ore and build more factories...