Ships with 7G and higher acceleration

[paltrysum]

MgT2 has seemingly removed the 6G acceleration limit for maneuver drives. You have some SDBs with 8 or more Gs, but none of the jump capable warships exceed 6. Why is this? Tradition? There doesn't appear to be any reason rules-wise for the limit.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

As far as I know most ships in Core and HG are copies of CT ships that follow CT limitations.

The new drive limitations come from T5.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Both T5 and MgT HG2e have raised the maximum limit for maneuver drives. T5 is the go to canon for the OTU these days so it is odd that legacy designs are not rebuilt to the new technology paradigm as was done for MegaTraveller, TNE, GT...

 

[Reynard]

Could higher G maneuver engines be a displacement issue in ships with jump engines that, along with fuel, already take up a lot of tonnage?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Could higher G maneuver engines be a displacement issue in ships with jump engines that, along with fuel, already take up a lot of tonnage?

No, we can easily fit 9G + J-3-4 + armour in warships. And we can really use the higher acceleration since the side with higher acceleration controls whether to break off, and range in combat (and dodging). Warships should really have high acceleration...

 

[Reynard]

I'd like to see what warships give up, tonnage wise. We would have to assume EVERY warship will need to pack a 9G engine plus the additional power source and fuel or be useless in conflict. What do they throw away since they already have no surplus space?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

... EVERY warship will need to pack a 9G engine plus the additional power source and fuel or be useless in conflict.

Not useless with 6 g of course, but better with 9 g.

At TL15 it costs <5% of the ship to go from 6 g to 9 g.

For that you get to decide:
if the engagement happens or not,
control the range of the engagement (if the enemy does not have Long Range armaments, tough luck),
and dodge more (three more missed spinals is a large difference).


And with slower acceleration fighters will close in faster, meaning you have less time to kill them before they close in to dogfight and chew you up.

 

[Old School]

If I was designing them they'd give up staterooms for gunners. The two gunners per gun staffing level seems silly.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The two gunners per gun staffing level seems silly.

It may seem so, but large ships might have an advantage:

Large Ships
The number of crew required to effectively operate a ship increases hugely with the size of the vessel, but large ships do have efficient centralisation of systems.

For ships of more than 5,000 tons, the referee can opt to reduce the required crew by two thirds.

I allow this, so it's 2/3 gunner per turret, which is perhaps more reasonable with a little automation.

 

[Old School]

It is more reasonable, but the crew levels indicated in High Guard (and the ship space dedicated to them) do not factor this in.

 

[AndrewW]

It is more reasonable, but the crew levels indicated in High Guard (and the ship space dedicated to them) do not factor this in.

Most ships have full staffing, which allows a larger body of replacements. Though there are ships that do use the reduced staffing.

 

[Condottiere]

Speed is life.

And you're forgetting about the afterburners.

 

[Linwood]

Larger crews can be useful for damage control, boarding parties and the like. So there are trade offs.

 

[Condottiere]

Redundancy is an option, not only with the cannon fodder.

And for the cannon fodder:

 

[Old School]

A boarding party for a corvette is one thing, but we're talking about thousands of extra gunners for the largest ships. They may have their uses, but a ship with a superior M-Drive is a whole heck of a lot less like to need the extra hands. And redundancy in their primary capacity as gunners can be handled by computers. A ship with redundant gunners will lose to an otherwise equal ship with superior M-drives in their place. The cost, in both credits and tonnage, of M-Drive is a pittance compared to their utility in battle.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The extra gunners isn't all that of a big deal. Say we build a 100 kDt BC, we fill out the last 500 hardpoints with laser turrets, that is 500 gunners with an extra 500 gunners for military crew standard. Those extra 500 gunners take 1000 Dt staterooms or 1% of the ship.

That is quite noticeable, but will not exactly break the system.

 

[Reynard]

When you start losing crew to damage, including gunners, then your guns start being useless. Same thing for pilots and engineers. There's a reason for redundancy today and tomorrow.

I'm amazed that the logic presented here hasn't translated to modern naval warfare featuring all ships up to carriers cruising around with the same speed and maneuverability as frigates, corvettes and destroyers for the reasons being given here including greatly reducing crew for engines, power plant and fuel.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

When you start losing crew to damage, including gunners, then your guns start being useless. Same thing for pilots and engineers. There's a reason for redundancy today and tomorrow.

You have to have enough bridge and engineering crew for three or four watches, so you will automatically have some redundancy?

You don't have to have several watches of gunners, unless you plan to stay at action stations indefinitely.

With local gunners you will lose the gunner at the same time as the weapon, so redundant gunners will not gain you any staying power. With centralised gunnery (I assume well armoured in the centre of the ship), you will lose the weapons long before the gunners, and if you lose central fire control you have bigger problems than losing a few turrets.

So, in short, I don't think it's a good investment to carry 2 - 3 Dt of extra gunner to possibly, under special circumstances, avoid the loss of a 1 Dt weapon.

I'm amazed that the logic presented here hasn't translated to modern naval warfare featuring all ships up to carriers cruising around with the same speed and maneuverability as frigates, corvettes and destroyers for the reasons being given here including greatly reducing crew for engines, power plant and fuel.

Space craft ≠ water craft. Ships floating on water have very different properties than space craft, and performance naturally varies with size of ship. Space craft don't to even nearly the same extent.

I was under the impression that modern warships reduce crew, e.g a Type 45 has a crew of about 200, whereas a less than half the size Type 42 has a crew of about 250. The WWII Dido class light cruiser of roughly the same size had a complement of about 500.

We don't carry around expensive meat-sacks for fun, but because we have to.

 

[Old School]

The extra gunners isn't all that of a big deal. Say we build a 100 kDt BC, we fill out the last 500 hardpoints with laser turrets, that is 500 gunners with an extra 500 gunners for military crew standard. Those extra 500 gunners take 1000 Dt staterooms or 1% of the ship.

That is quite noticeable, but will not exactly break the system.

Fair point, but you’re leaving out half the hardpoints, as well as the common areas, med bays, etc that go with extra crew. And while it may not seem like much space, an additional G of acceleration only takes 2%, and greater acceleration can be decisive in bsttle.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Fair point, but you’re leaving out half the hardpoints, as well as the common areas, med bays, etc that go with extra crew. And while it may not seem like much space, an additional G of acceleration only takes 2%, and greater acceleration can be decisive in bsttle.

I agree that extra agility is a better choice. I tend to use 9 g for big, slow warships.

I assumed 500 hardpoints, because I assumed the main armament took the rest. That is probably too much, but half was a nice round number. We don't really need to provide the comforts of common areas and med bays for all the thousands of gunners. And if we have thousands of gunners it's certainly tempting to cut corners...