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

[AnotherDilbert]

Okay, but every MGT2e frontline Naval vessel is J4 and the Imperial Navy sourcebook specifies that J4 is the "if you can't do this, you are obsolete" standard.

Sure, J-4 was selected arbitrarily in CT S9, perhaps to make ship design interesting, since we could not have everything we wanted at J-4 and 6 G.

Here's the Kokirrak: View attachment 2632

In CT S9 the Kokirrak (and the Tigress) pretended to be J-4, but only had J-3 fuel...



In MgT2'22 we can build J-4, M-9 warships, but they are much more expensive or less combat-capable than J-3 ships.

The story still does not work with the rules...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

At TL-15, J-4, and M-9 we get 27700 Dt (14%) free for armaments



The same ship at J-3 gets 55000 Dt (27%) free for armaments:



The J-4 ships has half the armaments, or twice the size (and cost).

J-3 gives you twice the combat power for the same budget...

 

[Terry Mixon]

At TL-15, J-4, and M-9 we get 27700 Dt (14%) free for armaments
View attachment 2637


The same ship at J-3 gets 55000 Dt (27%) free for armaments:
View attachment 2638


The J-4 ships has half the armaments, or twice the size (and cost).

J-3 gives you twice the combat power for the same budget...

Blame the emperor.

 

[ottarrus]

Historically, battlecruisers existed because of the armor-offense-speed pick 2 paradigm. Battleships picked offense and armor. Battlecruisers picked offense and speed. They were roughly similar size ships.

It isn't clear that the High Guard rules really make the armor-offense-speed paradigm have the same impact. Traveller Dreadnaughts are not lacking tactical speed. So the "speed" component is probably Jump rating. And is there really that much value in Jump 5 or Jump 6 cruisers that make giving up the requisite armor or offense worthwhile?

They have a few Rift Cruisers/Frontier Cruisers for patrolling those kinds of spaces, but outside of that I suspect that the Imperium is correct. J4 frontline battleships are all you need. You don't need "fast battleships" for taking down cruisers, because your dreadnaughts are already Thrust 6 and can chase them down just fine.

And again, you can get most of a squadron of very able cruisers for the same cost as one battlecruiser.

 

[Vormaerin]

Sure, J-4 was selected arbitrarily in CT S9, perhaps to make ship design interesting, since we could not have everything we wanted at J-4 and 6 G.



In CT S9 the Kokirrak (and the Tigress) pretended to be J-4, but only had J-3 fuel...
View attachment 2634


In MgT2'22 we can build J-4, M-9 warships, but they are much more expensive or less combat-capable than J-3 ships.

The story still does not work with the rules...

200k ship can j4 for 80k tons. Yes, they didn't include the 3k of fuel for the power plant. Looks more like an oversight than a "haha, this is really a J3 vessel.".

You are still playing a different game. I can make J2 ships that are better combatants than J3 ones. So?

Despite bad math in S9 (corrected in later editions of the ship), it is obvious that the Imperium's standard is Jump 4 and it has consistently been Jump 4 since CT. The design says its Jump 4. The wargame says frontline ships are J4 (some second echelon ships are not). So that's the basis for discussion as far as I am concerned.

Could have an argument that battlecruisers should be 200k ships with Thrust 9 instead of the Dreadnaught's Thrust 6. That's about 4% of the ship's volume to accomplish between increasing the M Drive, Power Plant, and Power Plant fuel. Ditch the modular hull on the Kokirrak and you have 60% of that right there. The remaining couple thousand tons is a couple points of armor. Probably a good trade actually, but maybe not.

 

[Vormaerin]

And again, you can get most of a squadron of very able cruisers for the same cost as one battlecruiser.

I was agreeing with you? "Faster battleships" don't actually get you much in the Traveller paradigm and that's what battle cruisers are. Whether you want 3 Ghalak cruisers or 1 Kokirrak, there's nothing particularly useful as a role for a battle cruiser since you can't make them faster than dreadnaughts tactically and making them faster strategically carries quite high costs and gives little return value.

 

[Terry Mixon]

I posted the 1,200-ton Hornet-Class Battle Rider and it's 1,000-ton high automation version in the Warmonger thread. It has a single large meson bay (long range) and it isn't afraid to use it. It has a couple of fusion gun barbettes and a pair of point defense lasers, but it's the +2 the high automation version that I like. The size reduction to the ship and dropping two fusion gun barbettes made the smaller version MCr366 more expensive, which seems totally worth that +2 to all shipboard task rolls.

The Warmonger can haul 800 of the high automation versions, so that could ruin a system commander's day. It'll make @MasterGwydion happy, though.

Find them in the first post in the Warmonger thread which I updated to include them.

The Warmonger-Class Battle Tender

I was browsing the ships in High Guard 2022 Update and was reading about the Hadrian-Class Battle Rider. It mentions it is most often carried by the one-million-ton Warmonger-Class Battle Tender. Sadly, the latter doesn't seem to have been published anywhere. Are there plans to do so? It would...

forum.mongoosepublishing.com

 

[MasterGwydion]

I posted the 1,200-ton Hornet-Class Battle Rider and it's 1,000-ton high automation version in the Warmonger thread. It has a single large meson bay (long range) and it isn't afraid to use it. It has a couple of fusion gun barbettes and a pair of point defense lasers, but it's the +2 the high automation version that I like. The size reduction to the ship and dropping two fusion gun barbettes made the smaller version MCr366 more expensive, which seems totally worth that +2 to all shipboard task rolls.

The Warmonger can haul 800 of the high automation versions, so that could ruin a system commander's day. It'll make @MasterGwydion happy, though.

Find them in the first post in the Warmonger thread which I updated to include them.

The Warmonger-Class Battle Tender

I was browsing the ships in High Guard 2022 Update and was reading about the Hadrian-Class Battle Rider. It mentions it is most often carried by the one-million-ton Warmonger-Class Battle Tender. Sadly, the latter doesn't seem to have been published anywhere. Are there plans to do so? It would...

forum.mongoosepublishing.com

*evil laughter*

 

[AnotherDilbert]

200k ship can j4 for 80k tons. Yes, they didn't include the 3k of fuel for the power plant. Looks more like an oversight than a "haha, this is really a J3 vessel.".

Despite bad math in S9 (corrected in later editions of the ship), it is obvious that the Imperium's standard is Jump 4 and it has consistently been Jump 4 since CT. The design says its Jump 4. The wargame says frontline ships are J4 (some second echelon ships are not). So that's the basis for discussion as far as I am concerned.

The Kokirrak and Tigress are J-3 in CT:

The USP says J-3, the fuel says J-3 (60 000 Dt + 20 000 Dt PP fuel = total 80 000 Dt).




The Plankwell is the only J-4 battleship in CT S9, and has severely compromised defences as a consequence, e.g. it is only 5 G and almost no meson screen.

Fuel: J-4 is 80 000 Dt and PP is 16 000 Dt for a total of 96 000 Dt.

There are no J-4, 6 G battleships in CT S9, that just wasn't possible.


Not even the cruisers were J-4 and 6 G, they were mostly J-4, but with less acceleration and compromised defences.

The only J-4, 6 G ships in CT S9 are escorts, and they have no spinals and basically no defences at all.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

You are still playing a different game. I can make J2 ships that are better combatants than J3 ones. So?

Yes, of course, but the difference is less stark than J-3 and J-4.
J-2 to J-3 is about +40% added cost for 50% more speed.
J-3 to J-4 is about +100% added cost for 33% more speed.
J-5 necessitates severely compromised performance, not really combat worthy.
(HG'22, TL-15)

J-3 is the sweet spot, if we read the rules. Just as it were in CT...


Jump number is the main differentiator between ship, and the natural divider between fast and slow ships.

All ships needs about the same defences to withstand battle. Think German BCs, not British.

 

[Vormaerin]

I suppose we'll just have to admit that the Admiralty of the Third Imperium doesn't read the rules and go from there.

 

[MasterGwydion]

I suppose we'll just have to admit that the Admiralty of the Third Imperium doesn't read the rules and go from there.

Time for an Anti-Imperial Campaign! New entrant in the Rebellion. lol

 

[collins355]

Hmm, lots of great chat and banter, but I think we've departed a long way from the actual MgT HG fleet battle rules, which no-one actually seems to play (?)
All these tweaks and rules exploits seem designed to exploit the basic HG system (which nobody in their right mind would try to fight a fleet battle with).

 

[Terry Mixon]

Hmm, lots of great chat and banter, but I think we've departed a long way from the actual MgT HG fleet battle rules, which no-one actually seems to play (?)
All these tweaks and rules exploits seem designed to exploit the basic HG system (which nobody in their right mind would try to fight a fleet battle with).

Is it an exploit if the weapons under discussion do have the advantage over the spinal mounts? Seems like the evolution of warfare to me.

And, yeah, the topic has wandered. Once again, those pesky rules made the additions not worth it even though they should have been.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Hmm, lots of great chat and banter, but I think we've departed a long way from the actual MgT HG fleet battle rules, which no-one actually seems to play (?)
All these tweaks and rules exploits seem designed to exploit the basic HG system (which nobody in their right mind would try to fight a fleet battle with).

More of a discussion of perhaps how combat has evolved and how that affects canon designs, and if perhaps canon designs should change in the future to reflect the current ruleset realities. We are challenging Our assumptions about combat and ship design.

 

[collins355]

Sure, no problems, but my question would be do these exploits / "evolutions" work in the fleet battle rules, cause that's the test.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Sure, no problems, but my question would be do these exploits / "evolutions" work in the fleet battle rules, cause that's the test.

For that We need an MgT2 combat rules expert. We know now that is works on the individual ship scale, but not at the fleet-scale

 

[collins355]

It sounds like I may be one of the very few people who has actually read the fleet battle rules and tried to play them. Its a hard slog!

 

[Terry Mixon]

For that We need an MgT2 combat rules expert. We know now that is works on the individual ship scale, but not at the fleet-scale

This. We don’t fight in the big leagues.

 

[ottarrus]

I was agreeing with you? "Faster battleships" don't actually get you much in the Traveller paradigm and that's what battle cruisers are. Whether you want 3 Ghalak cruisers or 1 Kokirrak, there's nothing particularly useful as a role for a battle cruiser since you can't make them faster than dreadnaughts tactically and making them faster strategically carries quite high costs and gives little return value.

I was agreeing with you, but emphasizing my point also.
That point being that navy ships spend most of their operational lives on patrol rather than warfighting. The best bang for the taxpayer's buck for a naval ship is presence. The more hulls you have, the more systems you can patrol the presence your fleet has in your territory. Keeping the peace is WAY cheaper than fighting a war. However, you also want capable vessels when that war eventually happens. Again the old adage, 'I don't care if it's a carrier or a patrol cutter, if you fire on a flagged vessel of the Imperial Navy you declared war on the Imperial Navy. And you really don't want to do that.'
Because of these factors the most cost effective way for a navy to spend its budget is balancing quality and presence, again getting back to balance and tradeoffs.
Since battlecruisers have no strategic advantage over battleships, it is foolish to waste time, men, and money on them when you can get three-quarters of a squadron of good quality cruisers for price of one poorly designed not-quite-a-battleship. Those cruisers increase your strategic presence, gives you more tactical options, AND keeps the best quality shipyards building navy hulls [instead of having to rapidly retool from building freighters].