Spinal Weapons - January Update
- Thread starter Nerhesi
- Start date
Thanks for your thorough thoughts Chas. It's good to see the root cause of why we disconnect, although I was looking forward to a matrix! I will try to address my disagreements only, to keep it clear and concise. We agree on a ton of things, but we dont need to waste space on this.
I disagree strongly. A battle-rider is there to get more weapons into combat effectively. Whether they are spinals or not is irrelevant. The battle riders does this because it has 50% more space than a traditional Jump 4 craft. Therefore - the battle rider is guaranteed to be able to meet it's mission.
This is why battle-riders are not just 10,000 tonners, there are several 100k+ battleriders as well - both in canon and otherwise.
I agree with your statement. But you make the logical jump in that this small-as-possible-spinal should be overly powerful. This I utterly disagree with and the numbers prove it is not necessary. If I can bring in 5 battle-riders doing 3DD, vs 2 cruisers doing 5DD - I am still ensuring victory. My damage drop-off due to casualties is way better. My ability to evade fire and present multiple targets is way better. And those cruisers carrying the best possible spinal have pretty much sacrificed MOST if not all other weaponry because they chose to do so. This is assuming linear scaling of spinal size - as per my example.
While your first statement is arguable (but not factual) - because battle-riders would be instantly shot by small-cruisers as well; your second statement is not mathematically sound.
Low fire power high weight is VERY favourable for battleriders. Extremely so! Because that means a cruiser, that carries the best spinal it can, will not be able to take out the battle-riders before they easily take it out.
The larger the battle-rider the more durable it is and the more excess weaponry it can carry.
Your comparison is rather biased. You're not using the correct numbers and youre conflating the issue with other numbers and factors. This actually really simple:
A 150,000 ton battleship with Jump 4. 50% of the hull weight for Jump drive and fuel. Add 20% for MDrive, Armour, other basic components. So A Jump 4 ship has 45% of it's Space Available for weaponry, the power and crew. A 150,000 ton battleship has 45,000 tons left for weaponry. This is a very liberal of an estimate.
A battle-rider can use 80% of it's weight for weaponry using the same liberal estimate above. So a 20,000 ton battle-rider has 16,000 ton for weaponry.
3 x 20kton Battle-riders are already packing more offensive firepower than the battleship (48,000 vs 45,000).
4 x 20kton battleriders have dwarved the damage of the 150k battleship.
Regardless of the power of the spinal, or even the existence of the Spinal, the battle-riders are superior. Maybe not at 3x20k.. but then thats only 60k riders vs a 150k battleship, but that is not a balanced engagement.
And that sums up my disagreement with why this would be a huge mistake Chas. You're looking at battle-riders as the smallest things I can put the biggest spinal on. I'm sorry to say, that is only a small subtype of battle riders and possibly not the best tactical choice. A battle-rider is simply a ship that can carry X more weaponry than a jump capable ship. If we err on the side of trying to make your niche-example super-viable, then not only does it stand out as an imbalanced oddity, but it screws with the rest of the battle-rider scale and pushes the 1-shot paradigm due to higher damage.
This is why I'm in favour of the current table, with the current values - and a linear progression of damage to weight scale. Battle-riders are not just about getting the best spinals - it is about a robust fighting platform that carries a lot more bang for it's buck.
Chas said:
I disagree strongly. A battle-rider is there to get more weapons into combat effectively. Whether they are spinals or not is irrelevant. The battle riders does this because it has 50% more space than a traditional Jump 4 craft. Therefore - the battle rider is guaranteed to be able to meet it's mission.
This is why battle-riders are not just 10,000 tonners, there are several 100k+ battleriders as well - both in canon and otherwise.
Chas said:Critical is that battle riders need to be as small as possible to bring multiple spinals to fight for the same sized tender.
...
You can put a single high powered spinal on to a rider that’s so heavy that your tender can only carry 1 – but that’s meaningless, you’re better off just building a capital ship (usually).
I agree with your statement. But you make the logical jump in that this small-as-possible-spinal should be overly powerful. This I utterly disagree with and the numbers prove it is not necessary. If I can bring in 5 battle-riders doing 3DD, vs 2 cruisers doing 5DD - I am still ensuring victory. My damage drop-off due to casualties is way better. My ability to evade fire and present multiple targets is way better. And those cruisers carrying the best possible spinal have pretty much sacrificed MOST if not all other weaponry because they chose to do so. This is assuming linear scaling of spinal size - as per my example.
Chas said:
While your first statement is arguable (but not factual) - because battle-riders would be instantly shot by small-cruisers as well; your second statement is not mathematically sound.
Low fire power high weight is VERY favourable for battleriders. Extremely so! Because that means a cruiser, that carries the best spinal it can, will not be able to take out the battle-riders before they easily take it out.
The larger the battle-rider the more durable it is and the more excess weaponry it can carry.
Chas said:
Your comparison is rather biased. You're not using the correct numbers and youre conflating the issue with other numbers and factors. This actually really simple:
A 150,000 ton battleship with Jump 4. 50% of the hull weight for Jump drive and fuel. Add 20% for MDrive, Armour, other basic components. So A Jump 4 ship has 45% of it's Space Available for weaponry, the power and crew. A 150,000 ton battleship has 45,000 tons left for weaponry. This is a very liberal of an estimate.
A battle-rider can use 80% of it's weight for weaponry using the same liberal estimate above. So a 20,000 ton battle-rider has 16,000 ton for weaponry.
3 x 20kton Battle-riders are already packing more offensive firepower than the battleship (48,000 vs 45,000).
4 x 20kton battleriders have dwarved the damage of the 150k battleship.
Regardless of the power of the spinal, or even the existence of the Spinal, the battle-riders are superior. Maybe not at 3x20k.. but then thats only 60k riders vs a 150k battleship, but that is not a balanced engagement.
Chas said:
And that sums up my disagreement with why this would be a huge mistake Chas. You're looking at battle-riders as the smallest things I can put the biggest spinal on. I'm sorry to say, that is only a small subtype of battle riders and possibly not the best tactical choice. A battle-rider is simply a ship that can carry X more weaponry than a jump capable ship. If we err on the side of trying to make your niche-example super-viable, then not only does it stand out as an imbalanced oddity, but it screws with the rest of the battle-rider scale and pushes the 1-shot paradigm due to higher damage.
This is why I'm in favour of the current table, with the current values - and a linear progression of damage to weight scale. Battle-riders are not just about getting the best spinals - it is about a robust fighting platform that carries a lot more bang for it's buck.
Okay Nehersi. You have stated your position. Please back it up with an actual build. Let us see your rider or riders plus their tender that proves what you just said. This is going back on you now. I've built these for a while now and am comfortable with my position. Show me that I am wrong. As you said this conversation needs examples. Well I've built mine and these are conclusions I have reached. Let us see your actual ship build that demonstrates your position.
Chas said:
I have demonstrated the mathematical facts behind my position - and I have done so in such a way that it is applicable to all builds, not one example. I wanted to point out there is no need to say the focus is on me or your to provide instanced examples (aka ships) as those are completely fraught with personal opinions and biases. As we have seen, you can provide ships that try to back up your point, and I can provide ships that back up mine (and I have done so, using your designs and mine).
However - I will provide some clear calculations tonight to indicate how lower-damage-to-weight ratio Spinals actually benefit battle-riders of all sizes, using (actual sizes, spinals, armaments, hull values and attrition calculation). Until then - All I can do now (because it requires my full attention) is just outline my approach:
Assume every 1% a ship has for weapons can cause X damage. This is crew, weapons, power, everything needed.
Assume every 1% a ship puts towards a spinal, cause 2X damage. Spinals basically are twice as efficient as the best bays (This is low, as we know, even after the best armour, we're at 2.X - but I'll make this conscious error to show that the real values are actually much better).
Assume battle-riders are 80% weapon space.
Assume Jump-4 ships are 30% weapon space, but they carry spinals that are twice as powerful as the battle-riders.
The largest mountable spinal will be 50% of a ship's size.
That means, a battle-rider is 50% spinal, and 30% other weapons.
A Jump-4 ship is, 30% spinal and that is it - basically the best case scenario is you put the biggest spinal you can. Chas provided many examples of this where basically if you're fitting the largest spinal you can, you're not leaving much room for other weapons (well, at least until you get past 100ktons or so).
Analysis:
A battle-rider 1/5th (0.2) the size of a jump-4 combat ship (1.0) ends up as follows: (0.2*50%*2)+(0.2*30%*1) vs (1.0*30%*2) = 0.26 : 0.6
That means that a battle-rider has 43% of the firepower of a ship FIVE (5) times as large, with Jump-4 capability. This is a simple mathematical truth based on the very conservative estimate that spinals do double the damage of the equivalent medium bays (the reality is they do more than double, but again, erring on the other side).
This is the best case for Jump-4 capable ships of light cruiser/cruiser sized. Once you get to capital classes that you are mounting the best spinals, it gets even more heavily weighted in favour of the battle-riders, because the jump capable ships now have to mount lower-ratio weapons (normal weapons), rather than just being a giant, jumping spinal.
What I will endeavor to do tonight is simply demonstrate some of these examples (although it should be very evident). The tender conversations is a can of worms because we will get into discussion about how do you determine balanced forces? Is it MCr cost? Is it crew? Is it total ship space/weight? (Which is why I said this has to be waived for a fair comparison - because unlike a miniature game, we're not assigning some arbitrary point values per "ship" for balance).
I hope in the interim, I hope the math was easy to follow. I'm looking forward to resolving this Chas, because I know we're both very passionate about making sure variety, and meaningful options exists in all aspects of the game (especially space combat).
Nehersi your position and maths there is invalid. On one side of the equation you a presenting a firepower efficiency of a jump ship that is defined by the jump drives maneuver drives and fuel behind it. On the other side you are removing this factor from the equation. It's meaningless. It isn't beam me up Scotty warp drive arrival of the riders. Somehow you need to factor into your equation the fuel and drives that got the riders there.
Chas said:
Whoah - Chas - that is your personal opinion, not the Math. This is really a very simple comparison of firepower.
What you propose would be akin to saying, when comparing the 2D AP10 Tachyon and 4D Particle barbette, we need to take into account the speed of the ships carrying them into range because of the range band difference, and factor that into the equation (quantitatively)... heck no. Or like factoring in crew sizes, sector-distance between major worlds, availability of gas giants and the ability of shipyards to produce battlerider vs cruisers (hulls, sizes, components, etc).
All these are qualitative measures, that are part of a large, strategic argument. Choosing one of them (from the dozens) and saying it matters more is just personal bias Chas - but not faulty math.
PsiTraveller
Cosmic Mongoose
To jump in here, I think the issue is the strategy of moving a fleet and the firepower it has, vs the tactics of what will happen when the fleets engage. The issue is on what terms is this fight occurring? The Jump capable carrier will the biggest target a fleet must defend, because if the Jumpship is destroyed the other ships become locked into a single system. Protecting that Jump capability will have to be a vital consideration for all fleet activities. That is the strategic part of the thinking.
The tactical part is the straight up one battleship of X tonnage vs the ships that were carried in by the Battle Tender of X tonnage. Can this ever be done in a vacuum? The Carrier would be the goal of an engagement, ignore the cruisers, go straight for the carrier in order to knock it out. Leave the Battle riders stranded in system.
If you want to compare things and agree on the terms then you have to have a scenario that is agreed upon. Otherwise one side will argue the test is not coherent because it ignores what they consider both a tactical and strategic necessity that should not be ignored in a test.
Will a Jump Carrier be allowed to unload its ships in peace and withdraw to a distance that puts it safely out of the battle equation? If so then the numbers can ignore screening elements and the tactic of forcing the Jump Carrier to defend itself.
Does Jump capability matter in the scenario you are discussing? Or is it only about the damage that each ship can do? A 100 000 ton ship that is jump 4 capable has 40 000 tons of fuel to store. An SDB or Battle rider of similar tonnage could use those 40 000 tons to house fighters, PD arrays, extra ammo,reinforced builds that increase Hull points etc.
You need to agree upon when the Jump number is important to the discussion. Is this a tactical examination or a strategic one?
The tactical part is the straight up one battleship of X tonnage vs the ships that were carried in by the Battle Tender of X tonnage. Can this ever be done in a vacuum? The Carrier would be the goal of an engagement, ignore the cruisers, go straight for the carrier in order to knock it out. Leave the Battle riders stranded in system.
If you want to compare things and agree on the terms then you have to have a scenario that is agreed upon. Otherwise one side will argue the test is not coherent because it ignores what they consider both a tactical and strategic necessity that should not be ignored in a test.
Will a Jump Carrier be allowed to unload its ships in peace and withdraw to a distance that puts it safely out of the battle equation? If so then the numbers can ignore screening elements and the tactic of forcing the Jump Carrier to defend itself.
Does Jump capability matter in the scenario you are discussing? Or is it only about the damage that each ship can do? A 100 000 ton ship that is jump 4 capable has 40 000 tons of fuel to store. An SDB or Battle rider of similar tonnage could use those 40 000 tons to house fighters, PD arrays, extra ammo,reinforced builds that increase Hull points etc.
You need to agree upon when the Jump number is important to the discussion. Is this a tactical examination or a strategic one?
This has always been a tactical discussion at the core.
When we balance damage vs armour values, missile effect vs PD, screens vs weaponry - these are all tactical discussion focusing on the values present. Not the strategic elements about bringing those tactical items to battlefield, or how to provide the correct infrastructure to build and support that.
Just like the days we spent on internal testing with the CSC, we didn't discuss the factory level required to produce armour and weapons vs battle dress and PGMPs. Or the law codes allowed versus the size of the weapon and how easy it was to hide... all these are strategic elements - but when it came to balance, it was X dice vs Y Armour rating. From vehicles weapons, armour, speed, etc all the way to swords and flak vests.
I have never denied that the strategic elements are unimportant - but that it is simply irrelevant to the discussion of tactical values. Especially so when we adhoc/arbitrarily pick one or tow of them, and say they matter but somehow ignore the rest.
When we balance damage vs armour values, missile effect vs PD, screens vs weaponry - these are all tactical discussion focusing on the values present. Not the strategic elements about bringing those tactical items to battlefield, or how to provide the correct infrastructure to build and support that.
Just like the days we spent on internal testing with the CSC, we didn't discuss the factory level required to produce armour and weapons vs battle dress and PGMPs. Or the law codes allowed versus the size of the weapon and how easy it was to hide... all these are strategic elements - but when it came to balance, it was X dice vs Y Armour rating. From vehicles weapons, armour, speed, etc all the way to swords and flak vests.
I have never denied that the strategic elements are unimportant - but that it is simply irrelevant to the discussion of tactical values. Especially so when we adhoc/arbitrarily pick one or tow of them, and say they matter but somehow ignore the rest.
Nehersi. Sorry but what in the world do you mean by saying it is only my personal opinion? That this is only a tactical discussion at its core? A battle rider is a rider plus its tender. That is what it is. By your math you are removing the tender from the equation. You cannot do that.
Let me put it another way. A rider is nothing but a big fighter. By your argument you are saying the carrier for the fighters is not important. It's only a tactical discussion, we only need to consider the fighter. It's like saying here is a Tomcat, forget about the Nimitz it is not important.
This isn't a tactical discussion. We are building a Navy which includes the ships that carry the guns. It doesn't matter if the guns detach from the ships, you still have to consider the ship as a whole.
Let me put it another way. A rider is nothing but a big fighter. By your argument you are saying the carrier for the fighters is not important. It's only a tactical discussion, we only need to consider the fighter. It's like saying here is a Tomcat, forget about the Nimitz it is not important.
This isn't a tactical discussion. We are building a Navy which includes the ships that carry the guns. It doesn't matter if the guns detach from the ships, you still have to consider the ship as a whole.
Alright, the damage #s comparison:
As Chas was so kind to provide on page 5:
The Jump-4, Mdrive 9, TL15 Armour (15), Cruiser is steady at 25% of it's space available for weapons.
The Battle-rider, is steady at 65% of it's space available for weapons.
Now lets take a look at the following criteria for a spinal, the following is per DD of damage:
TL15 Particle Spinal (-30% weight) = 2450 tons (Sorry Phavoc, for the purposes of this discussion, lets keep it to the top weight reduction is -30%, because initially we had it at 40%). Adding 24 crew = 12 staterooms = 48 tons and the 1000 power = 50 tons.
-----
Therefore
1DD: 2550 tons, doing 1925 vs 15 armour on average.
2DD: 5100 tons doing 3850 vs 15 armour on average.
3DD: 7650 tons doing 5775 vs 15 armour on average.
4DD: 10200 tons doing 7700 vs 15 armour on average.
etc..
8DD: 20,400 tons doing 15400 vs 15 armour on average.
From the above tonnage, you can see that clearly, Jump capable ships are going to limited by their "25%" available weapon space right up until they hit 81,600 tons. At that point, they can mount the best spinal weapon (and nothing else).
Lets compare some things, taking for example the 15,000ish ton battle-rider with the 3DD spinal:
They will do 5775 damage on a successful hit with their spinal. This weapon will take up only 50% of their weapon space though, they will have around 2000 tons each for more weapons/crew/power associated. Tl15 medium particle bays with crew AND power are 67 tons is around 29.75 = lets just round it down to 25. 25 particle bays are 325 damage after you subtract 15 armour.
Lets compare this battle rider to something realistic - not sending in 15,000 ton battle riders vs a 150kton battleship but against a 72k battleship. This ship has 25% of it's space left for weaponry, which is barely squeezing in a 7DD weapon. 13,475 damage per hit after armour.
Each battlerider has 6,000 hull, doing 5775 spinal at Long (plus 325 at very long range). 5 spinal hits from battle-riders will destroy the Cruiser.
The cruiser has 28,800 hull, doing 13,475 spinal at long. The cruiser will destroy the out-classed battle-riders in 1 spinal hit each.
So what do I need as a bare minimum to defeat the cruiser with battle-riders? 3.
3 riders fire. cruiser fires. cruiser down to under 40% hull. 1 battle rider down.
2 riders fire. cruiser fires. cruiser destroyed, and another battle rider down. 1 battle rider left.
This is the unrealistic (firing is not simultaneous) but aggregate report - like if would look at 30 simulated battles, here is what would happen. This of course misses two huge assumptions, completely in favour of the cruiser:
a) That 3x15kish ton battle-riders are somehow equivalent to the 72k cruiser. Chas would argue that the tender required to carry these should be somehow factored in evenly. A tender is basically 80-90% fuel and is dirt cheap (cost wise and TL wise) - you can build your TL13 tender with Jump 4, low armour, low thrust because it is jumping in out of system (as per naval tactics - you dont jump in with ANY fleet right on top of the planet unless you're sure it's a forgone conclusion anyways).
b) Spinals are long range. Other weapons are very long range - how come we arent' discussing the fact that each battle-rider can be shooting 25 medium particle bays, until the end of time, without the cruiser ever coming into spinal range?
c) This Cruiser, is fielding the second most powerful spinal - as you scale up to 150k, 200k, 500k dreadnoughts or so, they start facing 50k and even 100k battle-riders. Your biggest spinal will one shot a 38,500 ton, 15 armour target. Once your battle-riders get bigger than 40k tons, you're in even more trouble because you're no longer 1-shotting them! now they're lasting multiple turns? goodbye! That means the biggest spinals will be 2 shotting 75,000 ton ships - this is EXACTLY what Matt was looking for as well.
d) The bigger you get as well, the more space for bays those battle-riders have - and yes that continues to scale even as you hit that threshold where you can already field the largest spinal on the biggest jump-4 ship (82k capital ship, 20k spinal and nothing else). However, at that point, your 82k cruiser is now facing 20k battle-riders (for example) that not only a 4DD spinal, but also have 44 particle beam turrets each. The more you scale up, the more battle-riders are favoured. They start living longer and dealing even more non-spinal damage back.
The conclusion is that battle-riders are more than just spinal-carriers and spinals are not just to battle-rider weapons. Putting up spinal damage and lowering their weight really challenges the logical existence of capital ships and really pushes forth small naval vessels (jump capable or otherwise) that are 1-shotting eachother. Which obviously then questions, why are they even here? Why spend so much money, time and effort if they're popping like flies? This goes exactly back to the argument about Battledress and personal weaponry. We dont need 15k battle-riders 2 to 3-shotting 75k ships. Regardless of the how much we can all argue one way or the other above tenders and how to take them into the equation.
The current proposed table supports entertaining and balanced battles that in no way make it an "obvious choice" to blindly pick 1 type of strategy as the "this always wins" option.
As Chas was so kind to provide on page 5:
The Jump-4, Mdrive 9, TL15 Armour (15), Cruiser is steady at 25% of it's space available for weapons.
The Battle-rider, is steady at 65% of it's space available for weapons.
Now lets take a look at the following criteria for a spinal, the following is per DD of damage:
TL15 Particle Spinal (-30% weight) = 2450 tons (Sorry Phavoc, for the purposes of this discussion, lets keep it to the top weight reduction is -30%, because initially we had it at 40%). Adding 24 crew = 12 staterooms = 48 tons and the 1000 power = 50 tons.
-----
Therefore
1DD: 2550 tons, doing 1925 vs 15 armour on average.
2DD: 5100 tons doing 3850 vs 15 armour on average.
3DD: 7650 tons doing 5775 vs 15 armour on average.
4DD: 10200 tons doing 7700 vs 15 armour on average.
etc..
8DD: 20,400 tons doing 15400 vs 15 armour on average.
From the above tonnage, you can see that clearly, Jump capable ships are going to limited by their "25%" available weapon space right up until they hit 81,600 tons. At that point, they can mount the best spinal weapon (and nothing else).
Lets compare some things, taking for example the 15,000ish ton battle-rider with the 3DD spinal:
They will do 5775 damage on a successful hit with their spinal. This weapon will take up only 50% of their weapon space though, they will have around 2000 tons each for more weapons/crew/power associated. Tl15 medium particle bays with crew AND power are 67 tons is around 29.75 = lets just round it down to 25. 25 particle bays are 325 damage after you subtract 15 armour.
Lets compare this battle rider to something realistic - not sending in 15,000 ton battle riders vs a 150kton battleship but against a 72k battleship. This ship has 25% of it's space left for weaponry, which is barely squeezing in a 7DD weapon. 13,475 damage per hit after armour.
Each battlerider has 6,000 hull, doing 5775 spinal at Long (plus 325 at very long range). 5 spinal hits from battle-riders will destroy the Cruiser.
The cruiser has 28,800 hull, doing 13,475 spinal at long. The cruiser will destroy the out-classed battle-riders in 1 spinal hit each.
So what do I need as a bare minimum to defeat the cruiser with battle-riders? 3.
3 riders fire. cruiser fires. cruiser down to under 40% hull. 1 battle rider down.
2 riders fire. cruiser fires. cruiser destroyed, and another battle rider down. 1 battle rider left.
This is the unrealistic (firing is not simultaneous) but aggregate report - like if would look at 30 simulated battles, here is what would happen. This of course misses two huge assumptions, completely in favour of the cruiser:
a) That 3x15kish ton battle-riders are somehow equivalent to the 72k cruiser. Chas would argue that the tender required to carry these should be somehow factored in evenly. A tender is basically 80-90% fuel and is dirt cheap (cost wise and TL wise) - you can build your TL13 tender with Jump 4, low armour, low thrust because it is jumping in out of system (as per naval tactics - you dont jump in with ANY fleet right on top of the planet unless you're sure it's a forgone conclusion anyways).
b) Spinals are long range. Other weapons are very long range - how come we arent' discussing the fact that each battle-rider can be shooting 25 medium particle bays, until the end of time, without the cruiser ever coming into spinal range?
c) This Cruiser, is fielding the second most powerful spinal - as you scale up to 150k, 200k, 500k dreadnoughts or so, they start facing 50k and even 100k battle-riders. Your biggest spinal will one shot a 38,500 ton, 15 armour target. Once your battle-riders get bigger than 40k tons, you're in even more trouble because you're no longer 1-shotting them! now they're lasting multiple turns? goodbye! That means the biggest spinals will be 2 shotting 75,000 ton ships - this is EXACTLY what Matt was looking for as well.
d) The bigger you get as well, the more space for bays those battle-riders have - and yes that continues to scale even as you hit that threshold where you can already field the largest spinal on the biggest jump-4 ship (82k capital ship, 20k spinal and nothing else). However, at that point, your 82k cruiser is now facing 20k battle-riders (for example) that not only a 4DD spinal, but also have 44 particle beam turrets each. The more you scale up, the more battle-riders are favoured. They start living longer and dealing even more non-spinal damage back.
The conclusion is that battle-riders are more than just spinal-carriers and spinals are not just to battle-rider weapons. Putting up spinal damage and lowering their weight really challenges the logical existence of capital ships and really pushes forth small naval vessels (jump capable or otherwise) that are 1-shotting eachother. Which obviously then questions, why are they even here? Why spend so much money, time and effort if they're popping like flies? This goes exactly back to the argument about Battledress and personal weaponry. We dont need 15k battle-riders 2 to 3-shotting 75k ships. Regardless of the how much we can all argue one way or the other above tenders and how to take them into the equation.
The current proposed table supports entertaining and balanced battles that in no way make it an "obvious choice" to blindly pick 1 type of strategy as the "this always wins" option.
Chas said:
Yes - the tender does not figure into the mathematical equation of spinal damage balance vs armour/hull.
Just like the Carrier does not figure into the mathematical equation of fighter weapon balance vs armour/hull.
That is exactly right and that is exactly what was done for fighters (and vehicle weapons and armour and personal weapons and armour, etc)
The carrier, and the tender are part of the the larger strategic discussion; but never did we say "hmm.. Well we need to take into account how many tons of fighters to be compared to the tons of destroyed before we figure out how much a turret/barbette or bay should do..." - Of course it would come into play when you're trying to make two "teams to have a fleet battle". When you do have those strategic discussions, that is when things like available TL of worlds/empires, hull sizes, jump capability, support craft, logistics and costs figure in - and bunch of other things Im sure I dont have off the top of my head. Things like non-linear pricing, # of pilots and crew, and multitude of factors come into play (take a look at trillon credit squadron guidelines and random constraints to simulate all those strategic elements when building a fleet).
But when we are discussing damage values, targeting penalties, ranges, power consumption, etc.. then we are talking just that - the combat performance of the weapon. The I shoot you, how much do you do? Is that crazy out of whack? are you dying too fast? too slow? We are not taking account how the weapon got there, and how much it will cost, whats the value of Jump 4 vs Jump 2 vs Jump 6? - this is definitely a valid discussion, but it doesn't not come into play as to how broken/ineffective the weapon can be vs X armour or Y hull.
Example, look at our discussion around large bays. All our discussions about balancing them was regarding their damage vs their weight, vs targetting bonuses/penalties. We never discussed the Jump capability of the ships using them, and how it is completely unfair that tiny battle-riders and SDB will pack them and decimate jump capable ships. To do so for spinals, is an arbitrary/adhoc bias.
Nehersi, now that I can, finally , see where you are coming from with your assumptions with the tender (there were reasons I was asking for a build not a maths model!) I do understand the rationale behind your spinal matrix. I'm not going to take a position on that post and say I agree or disagree strongly.
I said with my explanation post that it was a starting point. However I had been very strict on my parameters and I stated that damage / tonnage ratio because I believed the rules are now robust enough to scale if anything moved. I'm now going back to look at this and see if the scaling does hold up with what you have done there. Then I'll put up what I've found and why. I have my suspicions, pros and cons, and will get back to you.
, see where you are coming from with your assumptions with the tender (there were reasons I was asking for a build not a maths model!) I do understand the rationale behind your spinal matrix. I'm not going to take a position on that post and say I agree or disagree strongly.I said with my explanation post that it was a starting point. However I had been very strict on my parameters and I stated that damage / tonnage ratio because I believed the rules are now robust enough to scale if anything moved. I'm now going back to look at this and see if the scaling does hold up with what you have done there. Then I'll put up what I've found and why. I have my suspicions, pros and cons, and will get back to you.
Awesome, sounds like we are getting somewhere 
The update will probably come back to all you chaps before this gets resolved but, if most other things in the design system are solid, we can focus on a few key areas like spinals.
Oh, and as for balance between riders/battleships - I would lean ever so slightly towards battleships being favoured, for no other reason than they are cooler. This does not have to be a straight combat/damage output equation, but can take into account versatility, crew requirements, the fact you can just jump into a system and start fighting, etc. Basically, a fleet should be built around big ships, but riders should have a (specialised?) place.
The update will probably come back to all you chaps before this gets resolved but, if most other things in the design system are solid, we can focus on a few key areas like spinals.
Oh, and as for balance between riders/battleships - I would lean ever so slightly towards battleships being favoured, for no other reason than they are cooler. This does not have to be a straight combat/damage output equation, but can take into account versatility, crew requirements, the fact you can just jump into a system and start fighting, etc. Basically, a fleet should be built around big ships, but riders should have a (specialised?) place.
Just a couple of points to clear up for the record now I'm on a computer and mouse...
Regards,
But it will be good to have this 'proper' choice again, if the weapons are scaled correctly.
Question: what do you think would be the effective point defence of the 15k model rider?
I don't have any disagreement with this. That's just literal reading of what I've written, I've made plenty of non-spinal riders and happy to call them riders - whether it's more weaponry or firepower that's fine.Nerhesi said:
Regards,
I note you have a tendency to discuss this in terms of pure strike cruisers. I haven't been considering cruisers that way, just for the record. This would be the exception rather than the rule I believe. They are supposed to cruise and encounter a wider set of combat scenarios than killing the biggest ship they can and would carry typically I believe a more balanced array of weaponry - which as has been shown is necessary.
But it will be good to have this 'proper' choice again, if the weapons are scaled correctly.
Question: what do you think would be the effective point defence of the 15k model rider?
The discussion of battle riders vs. regular warships is a pernnial one. But there are other factors that have to be mentioned to get a more clear picture.
Defensively a battle rider will best a standard warship every time because it's purpose is to defend. Now this assume that whatever you are defending is worth staying to the bitter end. Whether or not a fleet would fight to that point is very debatable and requires a different answer for each specific battle. So it's a definite maybe, if not a yes. After all being on the defense mean's it's your territory, your people who are relying on you to save them from the enemy. A defensive battle rider may also be classified as a system monitor. Monitor as a term tends to denote very large, bulky warships that if you come within their range they will chew you up and spit out your hulk. But a monitor may be just as speedy and maneuverable as a battleship - without the burden of needing to accommodate jump drives and jump fuel. So, like a battle rider, ton for ton they are more than a match for any interstellar ship. And, like a battlerider, they can't choose to leave the system on their own.
Offensively, when you bring your fleet into the enemies system, your first goal is to secure fuel so you can leave again, if necessary. Because of how jump works, your intelligence is always delayed. The 'empty' system you were planning on striking may get an unexpected visit by a battle squadron and that would end your planned easy invasion real quick. Most battle-rider tenders aren't able to refuel on their own, so their fuel shuttles or fleet tankers will be vulnerable to defenders lurking in gas giants. Warships would be able to refuel on their own and defend on their own (most likely, though not all designs can do this, aka Azhanti High Lightning). But lets assume at least half or more are. This means your first point of weakness is getting your tender refueled.
Now let's move on to the actual movement to battle. Battle will rarely be fought in deep space simply because there's no reason to do so. Defenders would want the benefit of being able to fall back to their planetary defenses, and attackers must engage the defenders or else they'll just stooge around the system uselessly. They are there to invade, not to intimidate someone into surrendering. So the battle riders would need to deploy and be on the battle line. That means the tender is vulnerable. Ships engaging in a pincer movement, or flights of bombers can potentially avoid the larger battle riders and strike the tender. Tenders will have some defenses, and some escorts, but the bulk of their tonnage is devoted to delivering the battle riders. So unlike a standard warship, their defensive firepower to tonnage ratio is horribly low. Pretty much all of their armaments are tied up in those battleriders.
A regular warship takes its' firepower with it wherever it goes, so it would not have that sort of limitation associated with it. It also doesn't need to escape battle and attempt to dock with a carrier while potentially under enemy fire (making it more or less a sitting duck). It can simply jump once it's gotten to the 100D limit.
So which is better? That's a question that can't be answered unless you have all the parameters of the particular fight available to make a comparison. 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?
You decide.
Defensively a battle rider will best a standard warship every time because it's purpose is to defend. Now this assume that whatever you are defending is worth staying to the bitter end. Whether or not a fleet would fight to that point is very debatable and requires a different answer for each specific battle. So it's a definite maybe, if not a yes. After all being on the defense mean's it's your territory, your people who are relying on you to save them from the enemy. A defensive battle rider may also be classified as a system monitor. Monitor as a term tends to denote very large, bulky warships that if you come within their range they will chew you up and spit out your hulk. But a monitor may be just as speedy and maneuverable as a battleship - without the burden of needing to accommodate jump drives and jump fuel. So, like a battle rider, ton for ton they are more than a match for any interstellar ship. And, like a battlerider, they can't choose to leave the system on their own.
Offensively, when you bring your fleet into the enemies system, your first goal is to secure fuel so you can leave again, if necessary. Because of how jump works, your intelligence is always delayed. The 'empty' system you were planning on striking may get an unexpected visit by a battle squadron and that would end your planned easy invasion real quick. Most battle-rider tenders aren't able to refuel on their own, so their fuel shuttles or fleet tankers will be vulnerable to defenders lurking in gas giants. Warships would be able to refuel on their own and defend on their own (most likely, though not all designs can do this, aka Azhanti High Lightning). But lets assume at least half or more are. This means your first point of weakness is getting your tender refueled.
Now let's move on to the actual movement to battle. Battle will rarely be fought in deep space simply because there's no reason to do so. Defenders would want the benefit of being able to fall back to their planetary defenses, and attackers must engage the defenders or else they'll just stooge around the system uselessly. They are there to invade, not to intimidate someone into surrendering. So the battle riders would need to deploy and be on the battle line. That means the tender is vulnerable. Ships engaging in a pincer movement, or flights of bombers can potentially avoid the larger battle riders and strike the tender. Tenders will have some defenses, and some escorts, but the bulk of their tonnage is devoted to delivering the battle riders. So unlike a standard warship, their defensive firepower to tonnage ratio is horribly low. Pretty much all of their armaments are tied up in those battleriders.
A regular warship takes its' firepower with it wherever it goes, so it would not have that sort of limitation associated with it. It also doesn't need to escape battle and attempt to dock with a carrier while potentially under enemy fire (making it more or less a sitting duck). It can simply jump once it's gotten to the 100D limit.
So which is better? That's a question that can't be answered unless you have all the parameters of the particular fight available to make a comparison. 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?
You decide.
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...
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...
