Why would one build very large Capital ships?

[Solomani666]

Using the "Screens to Max" order costs 4 initiative points and reduces the number of reactions by 1 for that turn.

Since the ships initiative is:
1d6 + Commanders Tactical Chain Effect + Crew Skill
The only way to guarantee that the order can be given each round is to have a crew skill of 3 and not have the commander make a tactics roll.

Having a battleship with 400 meson bays is sure to make it a primary target for any ship that does not have max screens and cruisers, but without a spinal mount it really won't have the power to go up against the 'big boys'. If it does have a spinal mount then it will be the target of every ship in the opposing fleet. And since it only gets to fire 1 barrage before every other ship gets to fire, its life will be short lived. It is the lone ogre on a battlefield of men.

The Terellians get around this 'ogre syndrome' by making all their warships ogres. They may not have as many ships, but they are all build kind of like yours, but with spinal mounts (sometimes 2) in edition. Having an aggressive empire many times their own size at their front door requires 'deterrents'.


.

 

[DFW]

Using the "Screens to Max" order costs 4 initiative points and reduces the number of reactions by 1 for that turn..

Any idea why it would hamper initiative to have a enlisted person flick a switch?

 

[Solomani666]

Using the "Screens to Max" order costs 4 initiative points and reduces the number of reactions by 1 for that turn..

Any idea why it would hamper initiative to have a enlisted person flick a switch?

Probably several very large switches that require a strength roll to toggle and are located near a dangerous electrical field generated by the screens. (I saw this in a Buck Rogers movie once.)

.

 

[DFW]

Using the "Screens to Max" order costs 4 initiative points and reduces the number of reactions by 1 for that turn..

Any idea why it would hamper initiative to have a enlisted person flick a switch?

Probably several very large switches that require a strength roll to toggle and are located near a dangerous electrical field generated by the screens. (I saw this in a Buck Rogers movie once.)

.

:lol: Good one!

 

[billclo]

I would think that in reality once screens were put on max that they'd stay on until dialed back down to normal.

Solomani, good observations. I tend to favor fewer, more ogre-like ships over mass quantity of cheaper ships. But you know the old saying about quantity over quality...

I'm looking into a middle road as an experiment; large ugly ships that carry lots of small spinal-mount battleriders. The ship's firepower is somewhat reduced - especially on the torpedo loadout - but having a battleship drop numerous battleriders may tend to take some of the heat off of it. The enemy won't like the idea of facing the main ship plus 5+ Spinal Meson-B/C riders. :shock:

Any thoughts as to my suggestion that there ought to be some sort of penalty for running ships with max screens?

 

[DFW]

Any thoughts as to my suggestion that there ought to be some sort of penalty for running ships with max screens?

If there was insufficient power, there could be consequences. Otherwise, I don't see why there would be a penalty.

 

[BFalcon]

Carriers, superfreighters, supertankers and mobile bases are the only "ships" I can think of that would benefit from the largest sizes of hull...

Largest cargo with the minimum of crew would make the same sorts of sense that they do these days, I guess...

As for carriers, if you can carry enough small craft that you can keep the enemy out of weapons range, the damage won't really matter... but the endurance on-station might be a key issue for some kinds of ships too.

Sidenote: When designing carriers, do you assign the fighter fuel as fuel or cargo??

 

[rust]

Sidenote: When designing carriers, do you assign the fighter fuel as fuel or cargo??

I treat it as fuel, a normal cargo hold does not have the technology to
store liquid hydrogen, keep it cold and under pressure, and transfer it
to the fighters.

 

[DFW]

Sidenote: When designing carriers, do you assign the fighter fuel as fuel or cargo??

I treat it as fuel, a normal cargo hold does not have the technology to
store liquid hydrogen, keep it cold and under pressure, and transfer it
to the fighters.

What about collapsible fuel tanks that ships use in their cargo holds? Per the rules, you can fill tanks with water for use with PP's that don' require purified J-Drive fuel. So, why not for fighters?

 

[rust]

What about collapsible fuel tanks that ships use in their cargo holds? Per the rules, you can fill tanks with water for use with PP's that don' require purified J-Drive fuel. So, why not for fighters?

While this is possible according to the rules, I do not consider it convin-
cing enough to use it for my settings. :wink:

 

[DFW]

What about collapsible fuel tanks that ships use in their cargo holds? Per the rules, you can fill tanks with water for use with PP's that don' require purified J-Drive fuel. So, why not for fighters?

While this is possible according to the rules, I do not consider it convin-
cing enough to use it for my settings. :wink:

Unconvincing how? You are just using it to hold H2 until you need it. Where does the H2 fuel come from in your game?

 

[rust]

Unconvincing how? You are just using it to hold H2 until you need it. Where does the H2 fuel come from in your game?

Sorry, the post was rather vague. I did mean the use of collapsible fuel
tanks for storing liquid hydrogen.

Of course you can store water to turn it into liquid hydrogen with a fuel
processor when it is needed, although I think that a carrier would still
need dedicated liquid hydrogen tanks, too, in order to be able to refuel
its fighters quickly, instead of forcing them to wait while the fuel proces-
sor turns the water into fuel.

 

[DFW]

Unconvincing how? You are just using it to hold H2 until you need it. Where does the H2 fuel come from in your game?

Sorry, the post was rather vague. I did mean the use of collapsible fuel
tanks for storing liquid hydrogen.

Of course you can store water to turn it into liquid hydrogen with a fuel
processor when it is needed, although I think that a carrier would still
need dedicated liquid hydrogen tanks, too, in order to be able to refuel
its fighters quickly, instead of forcing them to wait while the fuel proces-
sor turns the water into fuel.

Agreed. I was thinking more along the lines of fueling them while in jump. But, as you point out, refueling after that would take a good while without dedicated tankage.

 

[BFalcon]

Sorry, I meant on paper - I'd fully intended to do like the official ships and have separate fuel tanks for the small craft - just wasn't sure if they counted as "fuel" or "cargo" on the stat sheets...

I'll just kill the dilemma and make up a third catagory: "Fighter Fuel" since both the fuel and cargo stats are just 1:1 "assign as much as you want as long as you don't cause the total to go over" stats and not dependant on anything, nor do they cost anything...

 

[Solomani666]

I would think that in reality once screens were put on max that they'd stay on until dialed back down to normal.

Agreed.

Solomani, good observations. I tend to favor fewer, more ogre-like ships over mass quantity of cheaper ships. But you know the old saying about quantity over quality...

Ahh... The old Russian T-34 motto... "Quantity has a quality of its own."

I'm looking into a middle road as an experiment; large ugly ships that carry lots of small spinal-mount battleriders. The ship's firepower is somewhat reduced - especially on the torpedo loadout - but having a battleship drop numerous battleriders may tend to take some of the heat off of it. The enemy won't like the idea of facing the main ship plus 5+ Spinal Meson-B/C riders.

A Terellian would never fly or be caught dead in an ugly ship.
There ships are known for their beauty as well as their lethality. Battle scars on either a person or a ship are considered badges of honor. Even after repairs, the repaired area may be left a few color tones off, mimicking the original battle damage.

Missiles are totally worthless against a battle cruisers and torpedoes are nearly worthless according to the standard rules. When you include the re-occurring costs, the logistics, and the wasted tonnage, they become more of a liability than an asset. Terellian capital ships don't even bother wasting point defense against them.

Terellian ships use drones (armor 16 + reflec) equipped with black globe generators as warheads (hit with effect = kill) fired in separate flights causing the enemy to use bay weapons or at the least multiple barbettes to stop them.

If the ships are TL15 I would design the raiders with 15 points of armor, reflec, and Meson D spinal mounts and 6 meson and damper fields. I would use particle bays as my secondary weapons and not meson bays. Be sure to take advantage of all of the TL size reductions for all components. Don't even concern yourself with point defense for missiles and torpedoes or fighters. (Do the math.) Any space left over, I would fill with particle barbettes. Use these to mop up the fighters and take out any drones.

Any thoughts as to my suggestion that there ought to be some sort of penalty for running ships with max screens?

There already are a penalties in the rules:
A ship giving the order will probably shoot last (initiative -4)
Lose 1 reaction.

What the rules don't seam to state is weather 2 separate missile barrages require 2 separate reactions. If that is the case than entire barrages could go unchecked by point defense.

Will be starting a new thread to answer this question.

.

 

[barnest2]

Terellian ships use drones (armor 16 + reflec) equipped with black globe generators as warheads (hit with effect = kill) fired in separate flights causing the enemy to use bay weapons or at the least multiple barbettes to stop them.

How big are your drones?
And how much do they cost?

 

[billclo]

Terellian ships use drones (armor 16 + reflec) equipped with black globe generators as warheads (hit with effect = kill) fired in separate flights causing the enemy to use bay weapons or at the least multiple barbettes to stop them.

How big are your drones?
And how much do they cost?

I am so not getting how you use Black Globe generators as drone warheads.

Torpedoes are not totally useless, but they aren't the uber weapon some may think either.

Take a bomb-pumped torpedo, very high yield. Barrage strength = 8.

8 (avg die roll) = 8 (weapon barrage strength) = 4 (firecontrol) + 3 = 23.

Minus: -2 dodge, -15 armor, -3 (avg roll for lasers vs torps) - 1 (avg roll for sand, -2 penalty vs bomb pumped torps) = 2. Now that by itself yields no damage. So a roll of 8 or less = no damage. You can get up to 75% damage by rolling a 9-12. Not great odds, but not miserable either.

Edit, duuh, I forgot to add reflec armor coating into those calculations. So you'd need a die roll of 12 to do damage. That changes things drastically.

But yes, I no longer consider torps to be a primary weapon; they are a secondary one. I do see your point about skipping them though, and using particle beams...but then we get into the issue of a ship having so many energy bays that it becomes a tempting target.

I can see the point of not wasting point defense on missiles. Even very-high yield nuclear missile won't damage a ship with 15 pts of armor and 6 nuclear dampers. I'd save the P.D for torpedoes.

What's your thoughts on particle turrets (assume 1 particle beam per turret)? I consider them okay, especially in the very high yield variety. Decent for pounding lightly armored ships.

 

[barnest2]

I am so not getting how you use Black Globe generators as drone warheads.

Big argument about cutting through hulls, capacitance and such.
I still don't think the loss of a section should destroy a ship, I think that is ridiculous.
Solomani obviously does. That's his... choice...

 

[Solomani666]

Terellian ships use drones (armor 16 + reflec) equipped with black globe generators as warheads (hit with effect = kill) fired in separate flights causing the enemy to use bay weapons or at the least multiple barbettes to stop them.

How big are your drones?
And how much do they cost?

The original large version was 20 tons, had 6 Ortillery Torp Warheads (48d6) as a warhead and cost around 22 MCr.

I have not worked out the details for the black globe version yet, but it will most likely be 30 tons and cost maybe 150 Mcr translated into Imperial terms.
The culture making them does not have 'money' per se.

.

 

[barnest2]

]
I have not worked out the details for the black globe version yet, but it will most likely be 30 tons and cost maybe 150 Mcr.
.

I don't think you're going to fit enough power generation facilities into 30 tons. You need a capital scale power plant, and for that you pretty much need a 60 ton drone.