Why would one build very large Capital ships?

[billclo]

I've been fooling around with creating an entire hypothetical Navy, and one issue I've run into that defenses cannot be increased past a certain point.

Specifically Meson and Nuclear Damper screens. A fairly small ship can easily carry level 6 meson and Nuclear damper screens - the exact same protection as a large cruiser or battleship. Once you get into the realm of pretty large ships, it's easy to create a ship that has so many 100-ton bays you can blow up a battleship or larger in one salvo.

Example: I've been working on a 350kton Battleship. It has over 400 100-ton Meson Guns and can blow an identical opponent out of space in one salvo, and that's without the spinal mount. There's certainly room for more meson screens to defend itself with, but the limit is 6 (which a destroyer/light cruiser can easily mount).

So why would one even bother building anything bigger than say a heavy Cruiser or Battlecruiser? It'd be more efficient to build 2 Battlecruisers than one Battleship - at the least you have 2 or 3 targets to blow up instead of one. To say nothing of a larger ship such as 500k+ ton ship.

I was thinking why not allow more, but you'd have to have a second powerplant to power them - a secondary powerplant of 3 would allow 3 more screens, 6 would allow 6 more.

Obviously there would have to be some upper limit or you'd never be able to damage a ship with 15+ defensive screens. Perhaps allow more than 6 but allow some damage to bleed through regardless of how many the target mounted over the standard 6? (reflecting some sort of inefficiency perhaps).

Or some sort of minimum hull size per screen; that way if you wanted to go over 6 of each screen you would have to have a certain size ship. Which would return some sort of supremacy to the very large ships.

It might actually make it more relevant to have alot of spare torpedoes and other munitions since you would have to wear the enemy down versus vaporizing him in one meson salvo.

What's everyone's thoughts on this?

 

[rust]

In the real world the naval doctrines of the various nations tend to change
regularly between the "big ship doctrine" and the "small ship doctrine" (as
well as between "multipurpose ship" / "specialized ship", and so on).

In the long run none of the extreme positions were successful, and so the
navies are still searching for the right balance somewhere in the middle,
which is difficult to achieve because new weapon systems usually change
the question before an answer was found.

I think it will be the same in any fictional universe, and in the end the de-
cision whether to build huge monsters or swarms of small hornets, or any
mix of them, is mostly a matter of military ideology.

 

[GypsyComet]

Under the original CT High Guard, large hulls were a combination of needing to carry the biggest guns while being immune to gratuitous extra crits from the same gun (hull size rating vs weapon rating), having "fleet mobility" (whatever M and J are standard for the TL and polity), and otherwise fulfilling some battlefield role. Stack the doctrines with the rules and ships get big very easily.

 

[billclo]

Under the original CT High Guard, large hulls were a combination of needing to carry the biggest guns while being immune to gratuitous extra crits from the same gun (hull size rating vs weapon rating), having "fleet mobility" (whatever M and J are standard for the TL and polity), and otherwise fulfilling some battlefield role. Stack the doctrines with the rules and ships get big very easily.

Right. I do recollect the extra crits if the target's hull was not big enough phenomenon. I'd forgotten about that.

In the real world the naval doctrines of the various nations tend to change
regularly between the "big ship doctrine" and the "small ship doctrine" (as
well as between "multipurpose ship" / "specialized ship", and so on).

In the long run none of the extreme positions were successful, and so the
navies are still searching for the right balance somewhere in the middle,
which is difficult to achieve because new weapon systems usually change
the question before an answer was found.

I think it will be the same in any fictional universe, and in the end the de-
cision whether to build huge monsters or swarms of small hornets, or any
mix of them, is mostly a matter of military ideology.

I agree. I just can't see building anything much above 150-200ktons because the ship is simply too subject to dying in one combat round with a similar opponent. Offensive capability in that case has outrun the capability of the defense to obviate incoming fire sufficiently. There is an effective limit on defensive capabilities versus large bay weapon/spinal fire, and a less firm limit on offensive capabilities.

I'd rather have 5 200k-ton ships instead of 1 x 1 million ton or 2x500k-ton ships because of that. An exception might be ships intended to stay out of mainline ships range - large fleet carriers/fleet tenders/repair ships/battle rider carriers, etc.

 

[rust]

I just can't see building anything much above 150-200ktons because the ship is simply too subject to dying in one combat round with a similar opponent.

Yes, this is where some real world big ship navies sailed into the infamous
"eggshells armed with sledgehammers" trap, with huge fleets which had
to avoid combat, because their ships were too expensive and vulnerable
to ever risk their destruction in combat.

 

[BFalcon]

I can think of one... Jump Tenders for Battle Riders... if you want the Battle Riders to be a decent size...

 

[billclo]

I can think of one... Jump Tenders for Battle Riders... if you want the Battle Riders to be a decent size...

Certainly. But they aren't intended for the main line use...though there is something to be said for a larger ship for main line use that carries several Battle-riders armed to the teeth (spinal mounts with some other minimal weapons)...like the one I designed in the minimal spinal mount competition for example. :shock:

Though I wonder if once the Riders are launched, the maneuver drive rating could go up since the ship is now "lighter"?

 

[BFalcon]

Bill: Possibly... you could do stats for multiple Riders or none using the new tonnage each time to recalculate...?

I'm now wondering about doing a max-tonnage cargo hauler and/or tanker now...

 

[rust]

Though I wonder if once the Riders are launched, the maneuver drive rating could go up since the ship is now "lighter"?

It would depend on the design. If the battle riders are carried in internal
hangars, the rules would not really allow a higher maneuver speed after
the launch of the battle riders, but if the battle riders are carried in exter-
nal docking clamps, the ship's acceleration could increase after the battle
riders are launched.

 

[apoc527]

Black globes.

 

[billclo]

Though I wonder if once the Riders are launched, the maneuver drive rating could go up since the ship is now "lighter"?

It would depend on the design. If the battle riders are carried in internal
hangars, the rules would not really allow a higher maneuver speed after
the launch of the battle riders, but if the battle riders are carried in exter-
nal docking clamps, the ship's acceleration could increase after the battle
riders are launched.

Oh I would definitely use external clamps. Though one might want to launch the Riders before you tried a refuelling pass through the atmosphere of a gas giant. :shock:

Black globes, maybe, but they also penalize outgoing fire, and it doesn't appear to be all that hard to overload them with massed fire.

 

[Solomani666]

I am not sure how you are doing your calculations but I come up with a much higher survivability rate with larger ships:


A TL15 Spinal mount meson D does 540 points of damage.

Each section of a Plankwell Dreadnought has 889 structure points, meaning that it can survive multiple hits by the most powerfull TL15 meson gun. Attacks by lesser spinal mount guns will allow it to survive multiple hits to the same section.


400 x 100 ton meson bays do 8 points of damage each.

6 meson screens normally give 12 points of defense leading to a basic (-4) defense before other modifiers. If the "Screens to Max" order has been issued then the screen protection jumps to 18 giving a (-10) defense before other modifiers.

Since the barrage Damage is split between two ship sections it is highly probable that with a "Screens to Max" order that a battle ship will not only survive such an attack, but take only relatively light damage.

At this point the ships will have to duke it out with their spinal mason cannons, with the larger ship having the clear advantage.

In the case of your 350 kton ship:
A partial barrage will pretty much cripple/kill any cruiser with less than 6 meson screens while the spinal mount takes out another.

If you look at it from an economic point of view, an enemy could field 10 or more ships equipped with meson D spinal mounts and 6 meson screens for the cost of your ship. That being the case, then your ship is screwed. If your ship is not heavily armored, then they could attack you with particle weapons instead and then your ship screwed. Note that the cost of your meson guns alone are the exact same cost for an entire Trigress Dreadnought!

Now if you are building a ship for my Terellian Empire, where they construct whatever they need/want based solely on available resources, then I would say that you are off the a good start. Just add an equal number of 100 ton particle bays because few ships have a sufficient armor rating to withstand a barrage from them.

In summary:
A TL15 Meson D is basically a one shot cripple/kill for any ship under 100 ktons, while larger ships of 200 ktons or more might be able to survive multiple hits to the same section. They also have more ship sections, lessening the odds of any two attacks hitting the same section.

Example:
A Tigress Class Dreadnought can theoretically take 20 hits from a TL15 Meson D and still survive, while a ship of 100 ktons might be destroyed with one shot depending on its TL, and a ship of 50 ktons or less will certainly be destroyed.

.

 

[billclo]

Solomani,

I was using Apoc's method of computing damage. I'll break it down for you, as I used the numbers. I had assumed the "screens to maximum rule" was not being used as it's an optional rule.

Assume a die roll of 8. Assume there is no modifier for target hull configuration. Armor is ignored because meson guns pass through armor.

8+ 8 (100t meson bay) +3 (crew skill) +4 (firecontrol) -2 (target dodged) = 21.

21 attack - 12 (6 screens x 2) =9, which is 150% damage.

400 bays x 8 points each = 3200 points. 3200 pts x 150% damage = 4800 pts. 4800 pts divided by 2 because the barrage hits 2 sections of the target hull. This = 2400 structure points per section hit.

Even assuming a 350kton TL15 hull with 10,000 pts hull/structure, that's 2000+2000 per section, which means the target dies on a 7+ die roll.

It's even worse if you use a high or very high yield meson bay, as I am wont to do.

If you assume that the screens to maximum rule is in force, then yes, the target takes a lot less damage (from 150% to 10%).



When the 100t bays do this kind of damage, why bother with a spinal mount?

I'm actually tempted to skip the spinal mount and use the tonnage to mount 2 x Battleriders that contain a spinal mount.

 

[Kromodor]

We can see the trend.

As the ship gets bigger, the damage of Meson barrage gets bigger, screens are capped at Six.

House rule that a capital ship can operate second Power plant for the sole purpose of having more Active Screens

 

[Solomani666]

When the 100t bays do this kind of damage, why bother with a spinal mount?

I see my error and your point.

Your 400 large meson bays cost roughly the same amount as a Spinal mount meson D at TL 15.

A TL15 meson D spinal mount will still have a 73% chance of penetrating 6 screens even when set to max, while the large bays will only do moderate or light damage. This would be a very good reason to have one. They also concentrate their energy into a single hull section. Another good reason.

Personally I would either:
A. Allow the "screens to max" rule. or
B. Assume that all screens are automatically set to max (3) after battle stations.

Using either of the two rules above still allows for balanced game play without a rules re-write.

You can have more than 6 meson/damper screens at TL15, but the only a bank with 6 screens max can be active at any time. The TL limitation might be because it is difficult to get the screens to work in sync and not cause interference between one another. It is definetly not an issue of not having enough power, so simply adding another power plant and more active screens will not work.

Extrapolating from the screens chart, I allow my TL16 race to use 8 nuclear damper and 8 meson screens and 4 black globe generators. With all of their warships armored to 16 and with reflec, they don't even bother with sandcasters or fusion guns and only have a few laser turrets. Their larger ships basically ignore point defense for anything smaller than a drone.

Using Starblazers as a precedence I do allow for their larger ships to have a second power supply and a second spinal mount. This is mainly a power issue, and since meson cannons have no recoil, this should not be too difficult of an engineering feat at TL16.


.

 

[Iron Warrior.]

Simple ego:

"My steel ---- is bigger than yours."

Really, that's the main reason america maintained battleships long after the rest of the world dropped them.

 

[barnest2]

Simple ego:

"My steel ---- is bigger than yours."

Really, that's the main reason america maintained battleships long after the rest of the world dropped them.

You know, I was thinking this all the way through the thread, but I couldn't put it eloquently enough. Well done Sir.

Also fire support, but yes, the Iowa's were really good ----- extensions...

 

[apoc527]

I've never seen a ship with 400 large meson bays. Even the Tigress-class from Fighting Ships has only 36 Large Meson guns. I think the reason has to do with cost and a "real economy" (yes yes, I know the 3I's economy is mucked up).

So, while in theory, it's possible to have a ship with 400 large meson bays, I don't see it happening.

A Tigress vs. Tigress battle will take a while, even with the 1,000 missile bays firing non-stop (those missiles will rarely do damage).

 

[locarno24]

A Tigress vs. Tigress battle will take a while, even with the 1,000 missile bays firing non-stop (those missiles will rarely do damage).

It goes beyond 'rarely' - a standard-calibre missile is really not a battlefield-worthy weapon where proper warships are involved. Even nuclear-tipped warheads aren't much cop.

 

[billclo]

Personally I would either:
A. Allow the "screens to max" rule. or
B. Assume that all screens are automatically set to max (3) after battle stations.

Using either of the two rules above still allows for balanced game play without a rules re-write.

After looking at the optional rules concerning issuing orders, by and large I have no issue with them. I would have rather them be standard rules though, instead of optional, though I can see why they did it that way I guess. If they are standard at least players can design their ships with some of those orders in mind.

I'm also okay with a player's first order at the start of the battle being "screens to max" and leaving them on max for the battle. BUT there ought to be some sort of penalty for doing so. I would imagine running the screens on max incurs much higher than normal power draw at the very least. And or a small chance of screens burning out if left on max too long.

As for penalties, perhaps one of the following: cannot fire the spinal mount :shock:, max manuever speed reduced by X percentage, or X percentage of energy weapons cannot fire.

Of course this would provide a good reason to have a spare powerplant, say at least level 2 (minimum required to have a spinal mount) to power the screens at max. This way you could get the benefit of screens to max, lengthen the game somewhat (desirable in my opinion after seeing what a large number of energy weapons can do in one salvo), and perhaps reduce the number of offensive weapons slightly (either losing X percentage due to lack of power or losing tonnage due to having to add a spare powerplant).

As for lengthening the battle with the screens to max rule I find that desirable. Why bother having a bunch of torpedo or missile launchers plus many reload salvos if you suspect your enemy will just build his ships with maximum energy weapons and destroy you on his first or second salvo?

I've never seen a ship with 400 large meson bays. Even the Tigress-class from Fighting Ships has only 36 Large Meson guns. I think the reason has to do with cost and a "real economy" (yes yes, I know the 3I's economy is mucked up).

So, while in theory, it's possible to have a ship with 400 large meson bays, I don't see it happening.

While having a ship with that many meson bays may not be canon as part of the Traveller Imperium, it certainly is possible to build such. Cost is the most likely reason I can think of why more large bays aren't canon. They make more sense to me than tons of torpedo bays. I always plan for the enemy building a ship that is worst-case, not what I can comfortably fight.

It goes beyond 'rarely' - a standard-calibre missile is really not a battlefield-worthy weapon where proper warships are involved. Even nuclear-tipped warheads aren't much cop.

I agree. About the only time I would build a high-tech ship with missiles is with the very-high yield option (barrage strength of 4) for use as tertiary weapons to use against small ships that didn't warrant using the main guns on (spinal mount or large bays).