Why are warships built without armored bulkheads, EM hardening, and backup power?

Condottiere said:
That's sort of opposite of my opinion.

Battlecruisers are great in peacetime, and in the opening stages of a conflict.
Click to expand...

I tend to think the IN is right on that one, at least from an Earth historical perspective.
Ships spend the vast majority of the lifetimes on patrol, so in my mind it makes very little sense to spend the resources to build a low quality battleship when you can get two or three good quality cruisers for the same money.
Sure. The battlecruiser will run rampage for a little while, but then the defending navy will detail a squadron of cruisers to hunt it down.
In the end, that battlecruiser [which cost so much to build] will have spent its operational life doing a cruisers job and only cost their enemy one or two cruisers [perhaps as many as four] cruisers in trade for what is essentially a Sword Worlder Death Ride [tm]
 
MasterGwydion said:
Although now, you have made meson guns use different Radiation Rules from every other radiation weapon in the game. Every other radiation weapon will irradiate its own crew without protection. The only reason other Radiation weapons on ships don't do this is shielding, which is clearly stated to not work on meson weapons.

The intent may be clear, but the execution doesn't make sense. What protects the crew from the radiation of a meson weapon? It can't be shielding as it is clearly stated that doesn't work, since if you are on the hull of your ship while the meson weapon is firing, you take full radiation damage. It can't be meson screens since those need to be actively used by crew members and you need a ton of them per gun.
Click to expand...
You're also reading the first paragraph with an intent it wasn't intended to have:

It should be noted that radiation weapons have shielding and other safeguards that prevent them from affecting the gunners who fire the weapon and other crew in the vicinity

'shielding and other safeguards' are inherent in radiation weapons, and protect the crew regardless of the radiation weapon type, which includes meson guns, which are are in the set of objects 'radiation weapons'.
 
Geir said:
You're also reading the first paragraph with an intent it wasn't intended to have:

It should be noted that radiation weapons have shielding and other safeguards that prevent them from affecting the gunners who fire the weapon and other crew in the vicinity

'shielding and other safeguards' are inherent in radiation weapons, and protect the crew regardless of the radiation weapon type, which includes meson guns, which are are in the set of objects 'radiation weapons'.
Click to expand...
Yes, but why can't I use these magical protections to protect My ship from meson weapons as well? Whatever the firing ship uses, it obviously negates 100% of the radiation damage. You have magic ship protections that are detailed nowhere in the rules. If this radiation protection exists and protects against 100% of the radiation, what is it and why can't we use it to protect crews from the radiation of other ships' weapons?

Personally, I think the flaw here was making radiation weapons irradiate their own crews in the first place. Take that part out and everything works.
 
The people who wrote these rules:
ignored previous editions
haven't a clue about directed energy weapons in the real world
misuse the word radiation

Fusion guns fuse the plasma inside the weapon, it adds heat and velocity to the plasma blot that is projected, the plasma bolt is in no way radioactive. It may be hot enough to be giving off UV or soft x-rays, but those can be dealt with by a welders mask and leaded glass. The plasma bolt impact imparts kinetic energy and heat on the target.

A particle beam causes radiation damage to the target ship only, it is a function of the particles in the beam interacting with the material of the target ship's hull.

The meson gun, well I have no idea how this thing actually works (previous canon is a physical impossibility) but my current working theory is that the "meson" gun generates glueballs (balls of gluons) and/or tetra-penta-hexa-hepta quark or some other arrangement of quarks that leads to stability. Regardless, the gun fires a stream of particles that pass harmlessly through normal matter, so they can't hurt the gun crew, and decay at a controlled point (I am toying with the idea of having a neutrino beam intersect with them causing the decay). This decay produces a burst of sub-nucleonic particles that then destabilise and shatter nuclei in the vicinity of their decay, This causes an enormous release of radiation and heat inside the target. Note - a "meson" gun fired into empty space would not cause much of an effect since there are no particles to rip apart.
 
And now I have a sudden vision of John Malkovich in R.E.D. wrapped in explosives, screaming, charging forward... in a kilt.

Radiation weapons were only ever meant to cause damage to the target any anyone who got in the way between the shooter and the target. It's all been rules lawyer interpretations of vague language that's even caused the 'problem'. And then attempts to finesse or obfuscate the problem that have been less than 100% successful. Not saying I'm blameless here either.

But I'm going to fall back on the need for examples again (and go back and look at my text - though I am slightly hobbled by building off core book language and rules, not revising more than I think I can get away with...)
 
Sigtrygg said:
The people who wrote these rules:
ignored previous editions
haven't a clue about directed energy weapons in the real world
misuse the word radiation

Fusion guns fuse the plasma inside the weapon, it adds heat and velocity to the plasma blot that is projected, the plasma bolt is in no way radioactive. It may be hot enough to be giving off UV or soft x-rays, but those can be dealt with by a welders mask and leaded glass. The plasma bolt impact imparts kinetic energy and heat on the target.

A particle beam causes radiation damage to the target ship only, it is a function of the particles in the beam interacting with the material of the target ship's hull.

The meson gun, well I have no idea how this thing actually works (previous canon is a physical impossibility) but my current working theory is that the "meson" gun generates glueballs (balls of gluons) and/or tetra-penta-hexa-hepta quark or some other arrangement of quarks that leads to stability. Regardless, the gun fires a stream of particles that pass harmlessly through normal matter, so they can't hurt the gun crew, and decay at a controlled point (I am toying with the idea of having a neutrino beam intersect with them causing the decay). This decay produces a burst of sub-nucleonic particles that then destabilise and shatter nuclei in the vicinity of their decay, This causes an enormous release of radiation and heat inside the target. Note - a "meson" gun fired into empty space would not cause much of an effect since there are no particles to rip apart.
Click to expand...

I can't say I entirely disagree with you, Sig, especially about the writing of Mg HG2.
But I think we're all ascribing too much importance to the word 'meson'. It wasn't bad science in 1977, but it has since proven to be erroneous.
I just put 'meson gun' into the general category of 'technical buzzword', like 'dilithium crystal' or 'hyperdrive'. LLB Book 5 called it a 'meson gun' and that's as good a word for it as any.
Traveller ships are being built thousands of years in the future at double our current tech level. Spinal mounts in the OTU use a particle on a heretofore undiscovered branch of the periodic table to fire a rapid-decay particle into an enemy ship. Call it a 'meson gun', call it a 'phaser', call it a 'wave-motion gun', the spinal mount does what the rules says it does.
 
ottarrus said:
I can't say I entirely disagree with you, Sig, especially about the writing of Mg HG2.
But I think we're all ascribing too much importance to the word 'meson'. It wasn't bad science in 1977, but it has since proven to be erroneous.
I just put 'meson gun' into the general category of 'technical buzzword', like 'dilithium crystal' or 'hyperdrive'. LLB Book 5 called it a 'meson gun' and that's as good a word for it as any.
Traveller ships are being built thousands of years in the future at double our current tech level. Spinal mounts in the OTU use a particle on a heretofore undiscovered branch of the periodic table to fire a rapid-decay particle into an enemy ship. Call it a 'meson gun', call it a 'phaser', call it a 'wave-motion gun', the spinal mount does what the rules says it does.
Click to expand...
Just like "Bandwidth". It doesn't actually mean "Bandwidth", it describes something else or several something elses and uses "Bandwidth" as the simplified buzz word.
 
ottarrus said:
I tend to think the IN is right on that one, at least from an Earth historical perspective.
Ships spend the vast majority of the lifetimes on patrol, so in my mind it makes very little sense to spend the resources to build a low quality battleship when you can get two or three good quality cruisers for the same money.
Sure. The battlecruiser will run rampage for a little while, but then the defending navy will detail a squadron of cruisers to hunt it down.
In the end, that battlecruiser [which cost so much to build] will have spent its operational life doing a cruisers job and only cost their enemy one or two cruisers [perhaps as many as four] cruisers in trade for what is essentially a Sword Worlder Death Ride [tm]
Click to expand...


For a long time, so did I.

Then, I had a chance to study the concept.

I think that it no longer matters to the Imperium command the advantages that a battlecruiser brings to the table, since they have a technological level advantage, and numbers.

For the Confederation, the Victory class was a compromise, which paid off as long as there is no war; power projection, without fear of reprisal.

You don't need hull armour, if no one is shooting at you.
 
Terry Mixon said:
I've been building the Warmonger Battle Tender and some battle riders (one new and a redesign of the Hadrian plus a supporting gunship) and had someone mention how expensive the battle riders and gunboat were. They and the spreadsheets are in the Warmonger thread. The cost difference was me adding armored bulkheads, EM hardening, and power backups to the battle riders I made and the gunboat auxiliary.
Click to expand...
Even the IN has a finite budget, every credit spent on extravagances means less ships in the line of battle...

Bulkheads for major systems are massive, making the ships larger, hence a lot more expensive. They are kind of underwhelming, since they can only reduce the severity of a crit, not prevent it completely. Large ships are not bothered by crits all that often. Note that crits can be repaired in the same round, and large ships have lots of Engineers...

Backup power is the same, very expensive for relatively little benefit. Nice to have, but...

Hardening is stupidly expensive, but only effective against Ion weapons. How often do you use Ion weapons? Keeping out of their range is cheaper...

Radiation Shielding is mandatory with all the Radiation weapons out there, and not all that expensive.


Warships are tightly packed, every extra system makes the ship bigger or displaces some other necessary system. A TL-15 warship that is well armoured, J-4, and M-9 is nearly 90% machinery. Every Dton added adds 10 Dton to the ship. Trim the fat ruthlessly... Do you really want armoured bulkheads over a size bigger spinal or better screens?


Carriers and Tenders are different, but should never be shot at as they will vaporise quite nicely. Don't bother with defences, just don't put them at risk. If you armour them, they will balloon in size and cost and still lose to any warship.
 
AnotherDilbert said:
Even the IN has a finite budget, every credit spent on extravagances means less ships in the line of battle...

Bulkheads for major systems are massive, making the ships larger, hence a lot more expensive. They are kind of underwhelming, since they can only reduce the severity of a crit, not prevent it completely. Large ships are not bothered by crits all that often. Note that crits can be repaired in the same round, and large ships have lots of Engineers...

Backup power is the same, very expensive for relatively little benefit. Nice to have, but...

Hardening is stupidly expensive, but only effective against Ion weapons. How often do you use Ion weapons? Keeping out of their range is cheaper...

Radiation Shielding is mandatory with all the Radiation weapons out there, and not all that expensive.


Warships are tightly packed, every extra system makes the ship bigger or displaces some other necessary system. A TL-15 warship that is well armoured, J-4, and M-9 is nearly 90% machinery. Every Dton added adds 10 Dton to the ship. Trim the fat ruthlessly... Do you really want armoured bulkheads over a size bigger spinal or better screens?


Carriers and Tenders are different, but should never be shot at as they will vaporise quite nicely. Don't bother with defences, just don't put them at risk. If you armour them, they will balloon in size and cost and still lose to any warship.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the insight. I already removed the versions with the extra stuff.
 
Sigtrygg said:
9g should be the m-drive rating of every IN capital ship. The IN should be making use of TL stage effects to make better jump 4 designs if that is the desired performance for fleet movement.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Sigtrygg said:
After that the same old rules apply - bring as many spinals as you can to the battle and there is no such thing as a fair fight.
Click to expand...
I suspect spinals are obsolete in HG22. The same tonnage of bays can potentially more damage, with more to hit rolls, hence less chance of dodging.

A 7500 Dton meson does 6D×1000, average 21000 damage.
15 large meson bays does 15×6D×100, average 31500 damage and is more difficult to dodge, and can fire at several (and smaller) enemies.
 
AnotherDilbert said:
Even the IN has a finite budget, every credit spent on extravagances means less ships in the line of battle...

Bulkheads for major systems are massive, making the ships larger, hence a lot more expensive. They are kind of underwhelming, since they can only reduce the severity of a crit, not prevent it completely. Large ships are not bothered by crits all that often. Note that crits can be repaired in the same round, and large ships have lots of Engineers...

Backup power is the same, very expensive for relatively little benefit. Nice to have, but...

Hardening is stupidly expensive, but only effective against Ion weapons. How often do you use Ion weapons? Keeping out of their range is cheaper...

Radiation Shielding is mandatory with all the Radiation weapons out there, and not all that expensive.


Warships are tightly packed, every extra system makes the ship bigger or displaces some other necessary system. A TL-15 warship that is well armoured, J-4, and M-9 is nearly 90% machinery. Every Dton added adds 10 Dton to the ship. Trim the fat ruthlessly... Do you really want armoured bulkheads over a size bigger spinal or better screens?


Carriers and Tenders are different, but should never be shot at as they will vaporise quite nicely. Don't bother with defences, just don't put them at risk. If you armour them, they will balloon in size and cost and still lose to any warship.
Click to expand...
Well stated! Now I need to go and revise My ship design philosophy. Thank you! :)
 
AnotherDilbert said:
Agreed.


I suspect spinals are obsolete in HG22. The same tonnage of bays can potentially more damage, with more to hit rolls, hence less chance of dodging.

A 7500 Dton meson does 6D×1000, average 21000 damage.
15 large meson bays does 15×6D×100, average 31500 damage and is more difficult to dodge, and can fire at several (and smaller) enemies.
Click to expand...
Also, gunners...

7500-ton meson bay = 75 gunners
15 Large Meson Bays = 60 gunners
 
Terry Mixon said:
Are you guys literally trying to make me redo the battle riders again? Tell me straight up. You've got a bet on how many times you make me redo them before I give up. ;)
Click to expand...
Actually, no. They line up pretty good with canon. The current discussion seems to be that canon doesn't line up well with the current ruleset.
 
MasterGwydion said:
Also, gunners...

7500-ton meson bay = 75 gunners
15 Large Meson Bays = 60 gunners
Click to expand...
A Tech Level 15 Meson Spinal mount is only 6000 dTons, 1000 Power, 60 gunners, and 2400 MCr -- for low/avg/high damage of 6000/21000/36000.

A Tech Level 15 (2x 'Smaller') loadout of 15x Large Meson Bays is 6000 dTons, 1500 Power, 60 Gunners, and 3750 MCr -- for a low/avg/high damage of 9000/31500/54000.

The Spinal Weapon is cheaper & requires less power (25 dTons less powerplant); but also delivers less damage. Honestly, I think the Large Bays have the edge; a ship designer can always oft to drop a single bay (to go to 14x) to free up the extra tonnage -- and still end up out-competing the Spinal on damage.

It seems like the designers may not have thought this through; a 4D Large bay would make more sense if the intention is for Spinal Mounts to have decisive primacy. Another factor that hurts Spinal Weapons is the current nonsense about how screens apply AFTER damage multipliers, and each only apply to ONE particlur hit. That means that Screens do not provide an armor-like damage reduction that could give bigger-dice-in-one-shot spinals an advantage; imagine having 'Meson Armor' to reduce incoming shots by 6D -- Large Bays could be ignored, while more-than-minimal Spinal Weapons could punch right through.
 
J. L. Brown said:
A Tech Level 15 Meson Spinal mount is only 6000 dTons, 1000 Power, 60 gunners, and 2400 MCr -- for low/avg/high damage of 6000/21000/36000.

A Tech Level 15 (2x 'Smaller') loadout of 15x Large Meson Bays is 6000 dTons, 1500 Power, 60 Gunners, and 3750 MCr -- for a low/avg/high damage of 9000/31500/54000.

The Spinal Weapon is cheaper & requires less power (25 dTons less powerplant); but also delivers less damage. Honestly, I think the Large Bays have the edge; a ship designer can always oft to drop a single bay (to go to 14x) to free up the extra tonnage -- and still end up out-competing the Spinal on damage.

It seems like the designers may not have thought this through; a 4D Large bay would make more sense if the intention is for Spinal Mounts to have decisive primacy. Another factor that hurts Spinal Weapons is the current nonsense about how screens apply AFTER damage multipliers, and each only apply to ONE particlur hit. That means that Screens do not provide an armor-like damage reduction that could give bigger-dice-in-one-shot spinals an advantage; imagine having 'Meson Armor' to reduce incoming shots by 6D -- Large Bays could be ignored, while more-than-minimal Spinal Weapons could punch right through.
Click to expand...
Each screen can still only be used once though and each screen action requires one crew operating that battery of screens (variable number). So, more attack rolls means that less screens can be brought to bear on each attack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Arkathan
Excel Ship Designer v2025.05.31
75 76 77
Replies
2K
Views
284K
Hardwire
H
Back
Top