Repairs, Maintenance, and Construction

[Anonymous]

If 1980 kinuinir was designed as a CT warship, she would have J4 and 6G.

That standard was yet to be defined.

To make a usable warship it would need:
A big fat computer (m/9)
A weapon that can actually hurt another warship (missile bay)
Defences to make it survivable (Agility, Armour, Damper, Meson Screen)
Mobility (J-4 is nice)

Of course we can't fit all of that to such a small hull even at TL-15, but we can come close if we skip the screens.


The Kinunir as built, without either noticeable weapons or defences, is laughable as a warship. I agree it makes more sense as a marine transport.

I agree in roleplay terms.

Mechanically in HG 1980 vs supplement 9 ships, low agility and massed small batteries are OK but you must have a model/9 computer. A HG2 wargame fleet that ignored roleplay would be something like a few ships under 20K dtons with spinals and nothing much else, and a majority of ships just 1-10K dtons with the max number of weapon batteries, max armor, damper and a token meson screen. You need a small number of missile-9 to deal with heavy fighters. That's the one unit in all of supplement 9 that actually works, and even then they built it wrong (needs and can fit bigger computer).

A factor-9 weapon would insta-kill anything indigenous (type-T take 5 automatic criticals!) but even a Kinunir could handle it with rad damage from nukes and particles. Any crew hit on High Guard table is basically a win, and a Kinunir's got a damper. The particle barbette on the Fiery/Gazelle is as close to genius as supplement 9 gets (i.e. not very close).

edit: I don't remember if Type-T is armored but I assume not as it's a Book 2 design. If it is, obviously, it takes less criticals.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Mechanically in HG 1980 vs supplement 9 ships, low agility and massed small batteries are OK but you must have a model/9 computer.

Even some of the S9 ships have some armour and/or agility, making them basically immune...

A HG2 wargame fleet that ignored roleplay would be ...

I would call it properly roleplayed the design, instead of letting some drunken operetta character design the fleet during a bender.

something like a few ships under 20K dtons with spinals and nothing much else, and a majority of ships just 1-10K dtons with the max number of weapon batteries, max armor, damper and a token meson screen.

Agreed (but with max meson screens).

You need a small number of missile-9 to deal with heavy fighters.

At low to medium TL, yes. At TL-15 missile bays are basically the only batteries that can hope to penetrate dampers, and do damage against armour.

That's the one unit in all of supplement 9 that actually works, and even then they built it wrong (needs and can fit bigger computer).

Needs to be much bigger to fit a m/9, a bridge, and agility-6, say 75 Dt. Oh, and ditch the armour. No, they don't work.

A factor-9 weapon would insta-kill anything indigenous (type-T take 5 automatic criticals!) but even a Kinunir could handle it with rad damage from nukes and particles. Any crew hit on High Guard table is basically a win, and a Kinunir's got a damper. The particle barbette on the Fiery/Gazelle is as close to genius as supplement 9 gets (i.e. not very close).

Armour 4 is mandatory to avoid Internal Explosions, making you immune to Crew hits (except from spinals). The Kinunir is easily destroyed by a few nukes (even triple turrets can penetrate).

Any 400 Dt ship with even medium armour is immune to size crits from bays. The unarmoured Type T is not a warship, just target practice.

Particle barbettes are more or less useless against anything with agility and/or armour, and uses a lot of very expensive energy. The only reason to use them is to protect your spinal by filling out the USP.

 

[Anonymous]

long post

I won't argue Kinunirs being broken, We're talking about roleplay there. But in roleplay the type T is everywhere, the S9 SDB doesn't have a fib computer, civilians don't have nukes, the + relative computer modifier to penetration means that a pirate type T with stolen nukes won't likely penetrate a Kinunir's dampers, and nothing has much if any agility in book 2 that the model/6 on the Gazelle won't negate. Personally I'd put nukes instead of particles, but it's actually "OK' as it is for roleplay standards. Broadswords don't have 4+ armor. Anyway all these ships are near-useless but the Kinunir & Gazelle are OK but not amazing in that environment.

S9 ships aren't really immune from a few points of armor. When you're rolling 10x or 30x as many attacks as you're "supposed" to because you maximised number of batteries, even factor-15 armor and a nuclear damper won't save your weapon batteries from nukes (given equal computer factor). You need a buffered planetoid. I don't understand why all warships aren't.

I don't understand the point of a maxed meson screen. Some low factor like 2? 3? will stop any bay and if he's wasting spinals at your 1-10K dton hulls, you're very happy. Spinal carrier at 10-20K dtons can have a real meson screen. You can probably fit a J spinal into a 10K ton hull at TL 15.

Heavy fighter are actually sort of OK for Supplement 9. Their main defense is that they are hard to hit with a low factor battery and when it does, it doesn't kill. Going to model/9 and a bridge sounds like a sensible idea but you pay more than double for the fighter and without armor they go down to a single hit. It's possible that a TL 15 heavy fighter with full armor and computer in the 95-200 dton range might work.

edit: The thing to remember for TCS is MCr, MCr, MCr. Fancy screens are nice and all that, but it's 2 power plant factors to drive it, and that's a huge increase in the cost of your ship.

edit: I forgot to mention agility. You don't need agility-6 on large units with this setup. You can't afford it, and it's better with lower agility and get more hulls. At TL 15, this is easier, and you'll have a higher agi, but you don't need 6 on a 10K ton "capital".

 

[phavoc]

If 1980 kinuinir was designed as a CT warship, she would have J4 and 6G.

That standard was yet to be defined.

To make a usable warship it would need:
A big fat computer (m/9)
A weapon that can actually hurt another warship (missile bay)
Defences to make it survivable (Agility, Armour, Damper, Meson Screen)
Mobility (J-4 is nice)

Of course we can't fit all of that to such a small hull even at TL-15, but we can come close if we skip the screens.

The Kinunir as built, without either noticeable weapons or defences, is laughable as a warship. I agree it makes more sense as a marine transport.

I agree in roleplay terms.

Mechanically in HG 1980 vs supplement 9 ships, low agility and massed small batteries are OK but you must have a model/9 computer. A HG2 wargame fleet that ignored roleplay would be something like a few ships under 20K dtons with spinals and nothing much else, and a majority of ships just 1-10K dtons with the max number of weapon batteries, max armor, damper and a token meson screen. You need a small number of missile-9 to deal with heavy fighters. That's the one unit in all of supplement 9 that actually works, and even then they built it wrong (needs and can fit bigger computer).

A factor-9 weapon would insta-kill anything indigenous (type-T take 5 automatic criticals!) but even a Kinunir could handle it with rad damage from nukes and particles. Any crew hit on High Guard table is basically a win, and a Kinunir's got a damper. The particle barbette on the Fiery/Gazelle is as close to genius as supplement 9 gets (i.e. not very close).

edit: I don't remember if Type-T is armored but I assume not as it's a Book 2 design. If it is, obviously, it takes less criticals.

Well, if you were role-playing parts of the Battle of Tsushima it could make sense.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I won't argue Kinunirs being broken, We're talking about roleplay there. But in roleplay the type T is everywhere, the S9 SDB doesn't have a fib computer, civilians don't have nukes, ...

Any warship will easily beat up unarmoured civilians.

Civilians won't have nukes or real weapons, so no worry about Internal.

S9 ships aren't really immune from a few points of armor. When you're rolling 10x or 30x as many attacks as you're "supposed" to because you maximised number of batteries, even factor-15 armor and a nuclear damper won't save your weapon batteries from nukes (given equal computer factor). You need a buffered planetoid. I don't understand why all warships aren't.

Almost only bays can penetrate and occasionally inflict damage. More bays means less spinals, you should be happy!

In my experience planetoids are uneconomical on spinal craft at TL-15, too many mesons around, unless the enemy likes PA spinals. Good for the missile line.

I don't understand the point of a maxed meson screen. Some low factor like 2? 3? will stop any bay and if he's wasting spinals at your 1-10K dton hulls, you're very happy. Spinal carrier at 10-20K dtons can have a real meson screen. You can probably fit a J spinal into a 10K ton hull at TL 15.

A meson screen-9 cuts almost half meson-N hits compared to screen-2. This tends to be the main source of losses at TL-15.

If your missile line can degrade the enemy's spinals before you commit your spinals you have the advantage.

Heavy fighter are actually sort of OK for Supplement 9. Their main defense is that they are hard to hit with a low factor battery and when it does, it doesn't kill. Going to model/9 and a bridge sounds like a sensible idea but you pay more than double for the fighter and without armor they go down to a single hit.

Basically only bays can hit and they will kill a size 0 ship with size crits anyway.

Max agility and computer is required to be difficult to hit, fighters only defence. But I agree it is ridiculously expensive with a fighter for MCr 200 (+carrier).

edit: The thing to remember for TCS is MCr, MCr, MCr.

Agreed, completely.

Fancy screens are nice and all that, but it's 2 power plant factors to drive it, and that's a huge increase in the cost of your ship.

Agreed, but if it almost halves losses it's worth 5% of the ship.

edit: I forgot to mention agility. You don't need agility-6 on large units with this setup. You can't afford it, and it's better with lower agility and get more hulls. At TL 15, this is easier, and you'll have a higher agi, but you don't need 6 on a 10K ton "capital".

Agility-6 versus Agility-5 cuts meson hits by 40% (long range), easily worth it at TL-15.
But agreed, at say TL-12 you can't afford both agility and armour, you have to choose (armour).

 

[Anonymous]

I don't recall any of us ever using a meson larger than J in our TCS.

You're right that adding nice things like agility to a ship makes them better but it's sometimes surprising how the numbers work out when you wargame it. You can get 1 point of free -1 to hit by not being 20K tons and then means no huge spinals and it's also +1 effective agility.

Meson guns have to roll to penetrate planetoids. I don't remember the charts by now but it was close to 50/50 for a spinal.

You might well be right on nuclear dampers. I don't remember the charts anymore. But as I said we did have some factor-9 missile bays to take out heavy fighters and the like. Heavy fighter with 15 armor will take 2 criticals from a factor-9. Only a few of the results from 2d6 would stop it attacking and they weren't on 6, 7, 8.

 

[Anonymous]

No it doesn't, in the same way that the US Airforce doesn't build WW2 era aircraft for the transport or refueling role, and the US Navy doesn't build WW2 era transports for auxiliary duty - everything is state of the art because that's what the enemy does.

It has auxiliaries and secondary warships at lower TLs due to not building replacements yet.

There is nor evidence in FFW for regular IN assets being anything less than TL15.

The only advantage the Imperium has over the Zhodani and the Solomani is TL, to field warships that do not match their adversaries is idiotic.

See the problem with this analogy is that last month there was a story about the USA ordering new planes to replace their old F-15s. Well of course, you say. They're getting F-22s and F-35s! Well, no. They're buying more F-15s. But you say, this is the ANG and not the USAF! But when there's a war and they're called up, they all fight together. And aren't buying more F-22/F-35ss for the air force and transferring the old F-15s to the ANG as one might expect to happen. They're producing and buying an older generation plane. Upgraded of course, but still not equal to the current generation.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/12/27/four-big-questions-for-the-air-force-in-2019/

edit: Also note the comment from the air force guy: We want a 50/50 mix of 4th and 5th generation jets, but we're currently 80/20.

 

[baithammer]

The biggest issue is that militaries don't go full out on the latest technology as you won't get sufficient numbers to apply the advantage, what they do is go with sufficiency instead where enough key technologies are placed in certain platforms and the bulk of the forces are equipped with technology that is sufficient to get the job done, otherwise you won't have enough platforms to survive a conflict.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

See the problem with this analogy is that last month there was a story about the USA ordering new planes to replace their old F-15s. Well of course, you say. They're getting F-22s and F-35s! Well, no. They're buying more F-15s.

They are not buying more old F-15s. They are buying new designs with new electronics, new engines, and new airframes, making it current TL.

By skipping stealth they are getting more payload further, faster, and much cheaper. Probably a good deal unless you have infinite budgets...

 

[Sigtrygg]

See the problem with this analogy is that last month there was a story about the USA ordering new planes to replace their old F-15s. Well of course, you say. They're getting F-22s and F-35s! Well, no. They're buying more F-15s. But you say, this is the ANG and not the USAF! But when there's a war and they're called up, they all fight together. And aren't buying more F-22/F-35ss for the air force and transferring the old F-15s to the ANG as one might expect to happen. They're producing and buying an older generation plane. Upgraded of course, but still not equal to the current generation.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/12/27/four-big-questions-for-the-air-force-in-2019/

edit: Also note the comment from the air force guy: We want a 50/50 mix of 4th and 5th generation jets, but we're currently 80/20.

So they are replacing F15s with upgraded F15s, upgraded to new technology standards. They are not buying P51 Mustangs or giving the national guard F86 Sabres

 

[baithammer]

They are not buying more old F-15s. They are buying new designs with new electronics, new engines, and new airframes, making it current TL.

By skipping stealth they are getting more payload further, faster, and much cheaper. Probably a good deal unless you have infinite budgets...

Not really updating the entire package either and not just avoiding stealth tech either.

Basically upgrading some of the systems with the airframe not being changed much at all, that is where there is cost savings.

 

[Anonymous]

They are not buying more old F-15s. They are buying new designs with new electronics, new engines, and new airframes, making it current TL.

By skipping stealth they are getting more payload further, faster, and much cheaper. Probably a good deal unless you have infinite budgets...

So they are replacing F15s with upgraded F15s, upgraded to new technology standards. They are not buying P51 Mustangs or giving the national guard F86 Sabres

Whichever way you look at it, this is still an older generation of plane and not really that new.

Even assuming it's equivalent electronically, which it isn't, it lacks stealth & super-cruise.

No stealth limits its usefulness against a first-rate airforce.

No super-cruise limits it's ability to penetrate hostile air space and its interception range when defending friendly airspace.

How many of these F-15X will it take to fight an F-22? 4? 8? With the updates, It's probably similar to Eurofighter Typhoon so maybe 8-1 kill ratios?

edit: My understanding is these exercises use unsupported planes, so not entirely realistic, but it does illustrate the difference in generational capability.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

As far as I understand resumed F-22 production is not under consideration.

The alternative is the F-35.

The F-35 is slower, have shorter range, less powerful radar, and lower payload (if the public stats are correct), but is much more expensive. Stealth costs.

The F-35 can't supercruise either (if public stats...).

Stealth is great, but not the only consideration.

 

[phavoc]

Deploying F-35 and F-22 against 2nd, 3rd or 4th rate militaries is a waste of money. The air force needs both high tech and airframes. The huge price increases that the F-22 and F-35 incurred means the number of airframes is fewer than needed. The navy ran into the same thing with the Zumwalt class - a planned class of 30 was shrunk to 3.

Most of the usage of aircraft the US has used has been against combatants that had little, if any air defenses. So it make sense to use 4th generation craft (especially upgraded ones) against these sorts of enemies.

Like it was said upthread - even the lowliest warship is going to beat up on a civilian merchant due to armor/nukes/weaponry mix that merchants simply don't have.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm not criticizing the US policy at all. This was just an example to debunk the USAF analogy used to claim that older models will no-longer produced, and everything on the front line must be brand spanking new and top tech level.

If you want to talk about the plane options specifically, the US itself has a number of options still, and the F-15 & F-22 don't help the navy or marines who need a carrier plane.

Most of the usage of aircraft the US has used has been against combatants that had little, if any air defenses. So it make sense to use 4th generation craft (especially upgraded ones) against these sorts of enemies.

What, no. They aren't buying them for that. They can't afford the casualties & political fallout from losing a pilot just in case someone gets lucky, or the Russians sold someone a missile system and the CIA didn't know about it. They'll use them to supplement their F-22s or garrison the homeland.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I don't recall any of us ever using a meson larger than J in our TCS.

Meson J is not all that much larger, but significantly better at penetrating. It is certainly a possibility.

You're right that adding nice things like agility to a ship makes them better but it's sometimes surprising how the numbers work out when you wargame it. You can get 1 point of free -1 to hit by not being 20K tons and then means no huge spinals and it's also +1 effective agility.

Agreed, keep below 20 kDt.

You might well be right on nuclear dampers. I don't remember the charts anymore. But as I said we did have some factor-9 missile bays to take out heavy fighters and the like. Heavy fighter with 15 armor will take 2 criticals from a factor-9. Only a few of the results from 2d6 would stop it attacking and they weren't on 6, 7, 8.

A crit knocks out a fighter about 19/36≈53%, so two crits have a ~78% chance to knock out the fighter. The armour makes the fighter bigger, bigger than 100 Dt with a m/9, making it much more expensive and easier to hit. Not worth it, as far as I can remember.

 

[Anonymous]

You might well be right on nuclear dampers. I don't remember the charts anymore. But as I said we did have some factor-9 missile bays to take out heavy fighters and the like. Heavy fighter with 15 armor will take 2 criticals from a factor-9. Only a few of the results from 2d6 would stop it attacking and they weren't on 6, 7, 8.

A crit knocks out a fighter about 19/36≈53%, so two crits have a ~78% chance to knock out the fighter. The armour makes the fighter bigger, bigger than 100 Dt with a m/9, making it much more expensive and easier to hit. Not worth it, as far as I can remember.

That seems very specific, so I assume you got the chart out?

I did the same and I make it 11/36 to disable.

The following rolls will prevent it attacking (the condition i originally gave for "disable"):

2d6 - 2 vaporised; 4 computer; 9 powerplant; 10 crew; 11 fire/control (50% to hit spinal = no effect).

The rolls here have no effect: 3 (bridge), 5 (maneuver), 6 screen, 7 jump, 8 hangar, 12 troops. (If you put a bridge in, obv the bridge effect now works. Smallcraft bridge is 20% dtons which is huge).

There's a pilot limit for TCS that affects fighter numbers. That might have been another reason why we put armor in. It was a long time ago.

While doing this I looked at my old TCS army lists and I see that someone wrote "LOL No" next to "TL 15 campaign". Below it is the design for a 1000-ton planetoid that's 100% immune to any non-spinal weapon. There's another page of designs created on the assumption that assume that armor capped at 15. Which is odd, since we had some designs exceeding 15 at TL 14.

Sadly I've lost the combat resolution software I wrote. I'd really like to run this again.

 

[phavoc]

What, no. They aren't buying them for that. They can't afford the casualties & political fallout from losing a pilot just in case someone gets lucky, or the Russians sold someone a missile system and the CIA didn't know about it. They'll use them to supplement their F-22s or garrison the homeland.

The USAF, just like the other branches, often has a view that is not shared by Congress or fits within their budgets. The F15E is capable of carrying a huge bomb load that the F-35 cannot. Plus F-15s have the capability of deploying munitions that F-35 cannot. The F-22 has been given some ground attack capability, but it's a huge waste of an airframe to use it like that.

It's true that the USAF is trying to do all it can to avoid losing a pilot. But at the end of the day the mission of the force is to do it's job. And sometimes you need a different hammer to hit the nail. Unless your enemy has purchased the most advanced AA and radar systems, a 4th generation aircraft is just as capable as a 5th generation one at a far reduced cost. And since most of your enemies are probably going to be 2nd tier or lower, having a force mix that fits your reality is the better logical choice.

Then again the men and women asking for the F-22 and F-35 forces only want the newest toys and try very hard not to live within their budgets. And they also do their damndest to eliminate competitors to their missions, such as trying very hard for many years to kill the A-10 because it's not a fighter aircraft and it's "only" mission is ground support - a mission the USAF does not want but also refuses to allow the Army to handle. Silly politics between services remains a problem, and would, I suspect, be present in the Traveller universe as well.

 

[Anonymous]

Then again the men and women asking for the F-22 and F-35 forces only want the newest toys and try very hard not to live within their budgets. And they also do their damndest to eliminate competitors to their missions, such as trying very hard for many years to kill the A-10 because it's not a fighter aircraft and it's "only" mission is ground support - a mission the USAF does not want but also refuses to allow the Army to handle. Silly politics between services remains a problem, and would, I suspect, be present in the Traveller universe as well.

Remember when the air force wanted to sell the A-10s to the army, and the army said no?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

That seems very specific, so I assume you got the chart out?

Yes, always.

I did the same and I make it 11/36 to disable.

The following rolls will prevent it attacking (the condition i originally gave for "disable"):

2d6 - 2 vaporised; 4 computer; 9 powerplant; 10 crew; 11 fire/control (50% to hit spinal = no effect).

I make it:
1 Vaporised
2 Bridge (I assumed bridge, else the fighter is easier to hit)
3 Computer
4 Manoeuvre drive (fighter is trivial to hit next turn, it's mission-killed)
4 Power Plant
3 Crew
2 Fire Control (I cheat: If no spinal 100% chance of fire control)
=
19 chances out of 36.
I can agree it should be 18 of 36 for only 50% Fire Control.

Without a bridge it would be 16/36 for 69% kill from two size crits. So the armour gives you a 31% chance of surviving a hit. Without a bridge the enemy has a higher chance of hitting: 9+(28%) instead of 10+(17%). Armour is roughly as large as the bridge, but more expensive. We can't have both at less than 100 Dt.
I guess the bridge is better, but the difference is not great.

While doing this I looked at my old TCS army lists and I see that someone wrote "LOL No" next to "TL 15 campaign". Below it is the design for a 1000-ton planetoid that's 100% immune to any non-spinal weapon. There's another page of designs created on the assumption that assume that armor capped at 15. Which is odd, since we had some designs exceeding 15 at TL 14.

Invulnerable ships quickly gets "not fun". Sticking to TL11-13 is more fun.

You were probably testing house rules to make TL15 fun?