Spinal Weapons - January Update

[phavoc]

Something else to consider on the Docking Clamps...

For small ships (sub-2000 tons), it might be reasonable to say that in the round they are launched, they cannot perform any shooting or moving actions - they are working to separate themselves from the mother ship.

For larger vessels, we could increase that (1D rounds for really big stuff?), which will add a new tactical factor - riders need time to deploy, whereas a cruiser/battleship is up and running from the moment it jumps in...

I could see doubling it, but there's no need to go to 10 rounds. That's way too much. These ships will be optimized for docking under fire, but you can't fight physics. What should make it 'dangerous' is that the docking ship cannot do any evasive maneuvering because it has to line up and mate with the docking mechanisms. That means it's armor and screens and point defense are it's only protections. That's much more realistic.

You could also add in an optional rule for docking under fire - halves the time from 2 to 1 rounds, but if you miss the die roll, you inflict like 1DD damage to your tender....

 

[Condottiere]

Sure you can fire while docking, it's just you might hit something that you hadn't planned on.

 

[Annatar Giftbringer]

Well, to be honest it was a stupid idea to put a sensor antenna right in front of where the main gun of the rider ends up while docked...

 

[Nerhesi]

Hi Chas - thank you for the honest reply, and I do hope my that there was no moment when I would have seemed to be making the argument personal. When I get passionate I sometimes get cold-robotic-factual, to which my wife then responds "thats rude - I dont work for you".

I do have tendency to look at super strike cruisers for the following reasons Chas, because they have the best bang-for-the-buck for damage, because they're all spinal. If you think about how spinals are basically, double the bay damage; then the cruiser that is all-spinal is the best damage-to-weight/space-ratio.

So basically, the cruisers that are deadliest to battle-riders (pure numbers wise), are the ones with the biggest spinals. Of course this doesn't take into account things like very-long-range bays-only cruisers.

The more bay/turret/barbette weapons you pack on cruisers, the more you're favouring battle-riders because you're not going to do enough damage to 1-shot the riders anymore. IF you remove spinals from both, the comparison is incredibly ugly where you have battle-riders nearly matching the firepower of Jump-4 ships nearly 3 times the size

Can't wait to get home and see the February update

 

[Chas]

Hi Chas - thank you for the honest reply, and I do hope my that there was no moment when I would have seemed to be making the argument personal. When I get passionate I sometimes get cold-robotic-factual, to which my wife then responds "thats rude - I dont work for you".

I do have tendency to look at super strike cruisers for the following reasons Chas, because they have the best bang-for-the-buck for damage, because they're all spinal. If you think about how spinals are basically, double the bay damage; then the cruiser that is all-spinal is the best damage-to-weight/space-ratio.

So basically, the cruisers that are deadliest to battle-riders (pure numbers wise), are the ones with the biggest spinals. Of course this doesn't take into account things like very-long-range bays-only cruisers.

The more bay/turret/barbette weapons you pack on cruisers, the more you're favouring battle-riders because you're not going to do enough damage to 1-shot the riders anymore. IF you remove spinals from both, the comparison is incredibly ugly where you have battle-riders nearly matching the firepower of Jump-4 ships nearly 3 times the size

Can't wait to get home and see the February update

All good Nehersi, I think we'll be able to come to a reasoned consensus in the next back and forth. I've been able to make progress and should get this up later today.

There's plenty to take into consideration here and it's certainly been a worthwhile exercise.

Regards,

So basically, the cruisers that are deadliest to battle-riders (pure numbers wise), are the ones with the biggest spinals. Of course this doesn't take into account things like very-long-range bays-only cruisers.

Do keep in mind over-kill by the cruiser's spinal. It's a major disadvantage to the cruiser when it's putting weight into a spinal when the spinal one-shotting of the rider is burning relative firepower. There's little point in the cruiser doing 12,000 hull points on the shot when the rider only has 6000 hull points. I'm not suggesting that the cruiser should be packing the same weight spinal as the battle rider, but for non-strike cruiser I think there would be a middle point here. In the previous example, you might only but in a 5DD or 6DD spinal rather than squeezing in a 7DD and allowing space for some secondary weapons.

 

[Nerhesi]

Do keep in mind over-kill by the cruiser's spinal. It's a major disadvantage to the cruiser when it's putting weight into a spinal when the spinal one-shotting of the rider is burning relative firepower. There's little point in the cruiser doing 12,000 hull points on the shot when the rider only has 6000 hull points. I'm not suggesting that the cruiser should be packing the same weight spinal as the battle rider, but for non-strike cruiser I think there would be a middle point here. In the previous example, you might only but in a 5DD or 6DD spinal rather than squeezing in a 7DD and allowing space for some secondary weapons.

Very good point. There is that sweetspot where you should "mount the spinal capable of killing the reinforced hull battle-rider of up to X weight"

 

[Chas]

Do keep in mind over-kill by the cruiser's spinal. It's a major disadvantage to the cruiser when it's putting weight into a spinal when the spinal one-shotting of the rider is burning relative firepower. There's little point in the cruiser doing 12,000 hull points on the shot when the rider only has 6000 hull points. I'm not suggesting that the cruiser should be packing the same weight spinal as the battle rider, but for non-strike cruiser I think there would be a middle point here. In the previous example, you might only but in a 5DD or 6DD spinal rather than squeezing in a 7DD and allowing space for some secondary weapons.

Very good point. There is that sweetspot where you should "mount the spinal capable of killing the reinforced hull battle-rider of up to X weight"

Yes, it's going to make a player's final choices in a ship build very interesting and a lot of fun @headache

 

[Chas]

(this is a repost of something that seemed to get lost, applogies if double post)

Something else to consider on the Docking Clamps...

For small ships (sub-2000 tons), it might be reasonable to say that in the round they are launched, they cannot perform any shooting or moving actions - they are working to separate themselves from the mother ship.

For larger vessels, we could increase that (1D rounds for really big stuff?), which will add a new tactical factor - riders need time to deploy, whereas a cruiser/battleship is up and running from the moment it jumps in...

I could see doubling it, but there's no need to go to 10 rounds. That's way too much. These ships will be optimized for docking under fire, but you can't fight physics. What should make it 'dangerous' is that the docking ship cannot do any evasive maneuvering because it has to line up and mate with the docking mechanisms. That means it's armor and screens and point defense are it's only protections. That's much more realistic.

You could also add in an optional rule for docking under fire - halves the time from 2 to 1 rounds, but if you miss the die roll, you inflict like 1DD damage to your tender....

This is a pertinent point though. And related to this is we should also include the time it takes to clamp back on when coming back. Critical if running away from something!!

A very effective ship in the new Edition rules will be the assault carrier, the big capital ship that also carries fighters or riders and how quickly these clamped units can be released and re-clamped will be important tactically.

I think Phavoc is on the money regards the release, this should be relatively easy for any sort of advanced tech. Clamping would be more tricky.

How about:
For releases
< 2000 tons 1 turn no actions, > & = 2000 tons 2 turns no actions
For clamping
<2000 tons 2 turns, > & = 2000 tons 4 turns.

Trying to clamp a 15,000 ton battle rider onto the side of a dreadnought should be a major exercise I think.

 

[Chas]

Generally speaking, on offense, having all jump-capable ships gives the attacker the ability to retreat far more easily than a battle-rider can hope to do. It also gives them more flexibility in deploying assets. Your battle riders have to deploy as a single unit, whereas you can split up multiple regular warships in whatever fashion you want. The selling point of a battle rider is its much higher firepower to tonnage ratio. That's important, but is it enough to offset its inherent limitations?

Right, and when combined with its other limitations I'd said I'd prefer to tip the pure firepower equation in favor of the battle riders a little. They become your premium option for space superiority combat, but are only good for space superiority combats.

However Matt has stated his preference for battleships so we don't want to overdo things here.

This will come down a bit to the design of the tender if we get the balance right. If you go for the ultra budget, lift as much firepower as you can model, virtually a jumping hulk with plenty of battle rider weight, you'll get space superiority on whatever formula you choose to use. However, this unit will never be useful for anything other than jumping into a place a pitched battle is expected and you have covering escorts and a whole battle fleet with it - the risk to the tender is too high.

 

[Nerhesi]

Motion to move to Spinal Weapons - February Update post (Imma make one now )

 

[Chas]

Okay. I'll put a bunch of the current information in my next big discussion post over there.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Just to let you know, I have added detachment/recovery rules to the next update, for both clamps and hangars - this makes launch tubes a lot more worthwhile too!