Why would one build very large Capital ships?

[Jeraa]

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

There have been 2 recent thread on this:

Highly Creative Ways Of Weaponizing A Black Globe Generator
Black Globe Generators Help

Basically, since the black globe can stop any incoming attack that hits it, convert it to energy and absorb it, then hitting something with the field itself should be possible and do the same thing. The real debate is just how much damage this could cause.

 

[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?

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

It is the anonymous consensus of this forum, supported by Traveller cannon that a black globe field intersecting normal matter annihilates the normal matter with the energy being transferred into the capacitors of the ship containing the black globe generator. If the energy absorbed exceeds the capacity of the capacitors then the ship explodes.

If a drone has a BGG that can create a field of say 50m and it were to activate the screen next to a ship much larger than 50m wide, then the field would cut a 50m semi-circle out of the ships hull and interior with the resulting energy being transferred back to the drone causing it to explode (more damage) almost instantly. The problem is getting the field to complete before the capacitors explode destroying the generator.

The Imperium would never use such a weapon because they have a finite number of BGG's and are prohibitively expensive to manufacture if they even have the capacity at all. On the other hand, if you have a race that has no money, is fighting for its very existence against a much more powerful enemy, and needs a weapon to scare the living bajeesus out of their adversary, than this one fits the bill. And since the drones are armor 16 with reflec, closing in at 10 G's it generally takes bay and barbette weapons to stop them. Add to this that only 1 in 10 or 20 might actually be real, with the rest being cheap decoys...

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.

Against a Terellian ship this would be:

Attack = 2d6 + 8 (BPL) + 4 (fire control) + 3 (gunner) = 2d6 +15
Defence = 16 (armor) + 3 (reflec) + 2 (dodge) +3 (gunners) -2 (BPL) = 22
Barrage = 2d6 - 7 (Pathetic)

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.

So let it become a tempting target. Just make sure it has max armor and shields and it is big enough to take multiple spinal mount hits. If the ship is only 1 or 2 ktons then then you might as well paint a bulls-eye on it. If it's the size of a Tigress I say "let them come".

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.

Only bomb pumped lasers torpedoes are a threat for the types of ships we are talking about here:

Against nuke torps:
Defense = 15 (armor) + 12/18 (dampers)... I won't even bother calculating the rest.

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.

I agree.

I might go for barbettes instead if you can afford it and have a bit of interior room to spare. Uses 1 hardpoint just like a turret and takes up a measly 4 extra tons. You will be getting a +25% damage bonus on the barrage table over a turret and a second 33% damage bonus over a turret due to its base damage. Every little bit counts.

Particle barbettes can do some serious damage to the destroyers and even light cruiser listed in Fighting Ships.

.

 

[Solomani666]

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...

Loss of a single section either destroys or disables the vessel according to the rules.

I would be open to any modifications of this.

At what point do you think that a capital ship should be destroyed or disabled?


.

 

[Solomani666]

]
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.

That is to 'sustain' the black globe field not to trigger it.
It only needs to be up long enough for the field to form, after that who cares.
I'll probably use the power plant plus the same capacitors that absorb the energy to trigger the field.

.

 

[locarno24]

Actually on topic(ish):

torpedoes are nearly worthless according to the standard rules

Missiles yes, torpedoes no. Heavy missiles need to be used in very large numbers to be effective, but then they can mess you up quite badly if you ignore them.

Torpedoes are a fairly dominant weapon in a TL10-13 environment with kilotonne-class ships; a bay that can pump out multiple 6D6 shots rather than just one makes them a great force multiplier as long as the ammo holds out.

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.

Remember that if you can put more torpedoes on a target than it has defensive mounts there's an extra penalty (i.e. concentration of fire, especially if the target's designers feel it "doesn't really need point defence") - also lasers also take the penalty from Bomb-Pumped rounds. Also, if we're talking about TL13+ ships, fire control software goes up to level 5. Lastly, you can get 'in under' the sandcasters because they have a minimum range of medium for barrage defence, whilst torpedoes can be used from short range.

Bonuses: 2(Very High Yield)+5(Fire Control/5)+3(Gunner Skill)
=DM+10

Defences DM: 6(Weapon Damage)-15(Armour)-3(Reflec)-0.5(average roll for Sandcasters w/90% numbers and laser heads)-1(average roll for Lasers w/90% numbers and laser heads)-2(Dodge)
=DM-12.5

Net DM -2.5

That works out as an average of just shy of 50% (well - 49 1/6th % if you're interested) barrage damage. That can potentially be hull-wrecking for a big barrage, and is enough that system damage is actually possible.

By comparison, if you've invested heavily in point defence and decent gunners for it....

Bonuses: 2(Very High Yield)+5(Fire Control/5)+3(Gunner Skill)
=DM+10

Defences DM: 6(Weapon Damage)-15(Armour)-3(Reflec)-4.5(average roll for Sandcasters w/110% numbers, Gunner/3 and laser heads)-4.5(average roll for Lasers w/110% numbers, Gunner/3 and laser heads)-2(Dodge)
=DM-23

Net DM -13

No damage possible.







All things Drone:

I'll probably use the power plant plus the same capacitors that absorb the energy to trigger the field.

Hmm....

If you want a 'short endurance' power plant, I'd recommend using the rules for an emergency power plant from High Guard - 10% of standard size, capable of 1 hour operation maximum (which should cover a drone flight time from long range).

(hit with effect = kill)

Still think that's overdoing it but what the hey; it's your game.

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

Well - 6x8 D6 - presumably the same rules would apply as to the Multi-Warhead Missile.

if you have a race that has no money

Never been quite convinced by this, either. Saying you don't use the concept of money doesn't cause resources to spontaneously pop into existance. A black globe generator is going to require 50 MCr of stuff to make, more or less, even if you don't track it in MCr. Still, as before, your game. Saying the worlds are high TL and resource rich is more than enough, and is far more important.

 

[barnest2]

At what point do you think that a capital ship should be destroyed or disabled?
.

I think It depends heavily on what is lost.
If a ship has two sections, and loses one, it should be disabled or destroyed.

If a ship has more than two sections and loses one section that is not engineering, then the remaining sections remain functional. Of course they are heavily crippled, but they can still act as long as they have power generation etc.

If a ship has more than two sections and loses it's engineering section (assuming it only has one) then it will be disabled at the very least. It will no longer be able to function in the battle.

Also, I doubt the explosion would do much more damage, especially since it will mostly release its energy into the removed section.


Also, I like Locarno's idea on using an emergency power plant. That's pretty cool

 

[billclo]

At what point do you think that a capital ship should be destroyed or disabled?
.

I think It depends heavily on what is lost.
If a ship has two sections, and loses one, it should be disabled or destroyed.

If a ship has more than two sections and loses one section that is not engineering, then the remaining sections remain functional. Of course they are heavily crippled, but they can still act as long as they have power generation etc.

If a ship has more than two sections and loses it's engineering section (assuming it only has one) then it will be disabled at the very least. It will no longer be able to function in the battle.

Also, I doubt the explosion would do much more damage, especially since it will mostly release its energy into the removed section.


Also, I like Locarno's idea on using an emergency power plant. That's pretty cool

I tend to agree. One thing to note: if you have backup power plants, put one in the front section of the ship (any other section not adjacent to Engineering will do). This way if Engineering were to become disabled/destroyed, you have power to fight the ship, though I would rule that the M-drives are disabled as well. Unless you had backup M-drives and designated them as being in another section.

And the spinal mount ought not to work at all.

I would think that if structure and hull in a section are gone, then the ship comes apart in 2 pieces...

Solomani, thanks for the explanation of black globes as weapons. That is innovative.

As for this:

If you want a 'short endurance' power plant, I'd recommend using the rules for an emergency power plant from High Guard - 10% of standard size, capable of 1 hour operation maximum (which should cover a drone flight time from long range).

How about using a seperate capacitor, charge it up at launch time, use that to power the drone's M-drive? It would be more complicated than using a "emergency" power plant, but maybe cheaper.

 

[Solomani666]

Actually on topic(ish):

Missiles yes, torpedoes no. Heavy missiles need to be used in very large numbers to be effective, but then they can mess you up quite badly if you ignore them.

Torpedoes are a fairly dominant weapon in a TL10-13 environment with kilotonne-class ships; a bay that can pump out multiple 6D6 shots rather than just one makes them a great force multiplier as long as the ammo holds out.

Torpedoes are great at the lower tech levels just as you stated.
Against higher tech state of art ships, torpedoes are worthless with the exception of the bomb pumped laser type.

All things Drone:

Hmm....

If you want a 'short endurance' power plant, I'd recommend using the rules for an emergency power plant from High Guard - 10% of standard size, capable of 1 hour operation maximum (which should cover a drone flight time from long range)

Excellent idea! I missed that in the rules. thank you very much!

(hit with effect = kill)

Still think that's overdoing it but what the hey; it's your game.

The real problem is actually getting one to the target.

They are completely devastating in combat against say light cruisers and below and may be fired with few or no decoys.
Against capital ships they are fired with many decoys and act more as a terror weapon, tying up the fire control of the ships bay and barbette weapons for a few turns.

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

Well - 6x8 D6 - presumably the same rules would apply as to the Multi-Warhead Missile.

I based this on the drone example from Traders and Gunboats

if you have a race that has no money

Never been quite convinced by this, either. Saying you don't use the concept of money doesn't cause resources to spontaneously pop into existance. A black globe generator is going to require 50 MCr of stuff to make, more or less, even if you don't track it in MCr. Still, as before, your game. Saying the worlds are high TL and resource rich is more than enough, and is far more important.

Yes they are still expensive, but the question is not "How much money is in the treasury", but "Do we have the time and materials, and how may lives will be saved".

They come from an odd warrior culture where individuals are never sacrificed in battle by order of their commanders, though it is common to get many volunteers for what would seem to be a necessary suicide mission.

If an 'abandon ship' order is given, the ensigns are the first to leave and the commander is last. Younger people are considered more valuable because they have yet to grow to their fullest potential in service to their families and the Empire. In their eyes, the death of a commander is the end of a great man in service to his people, and a time of celebration. His daring exploits will be told throughout the Empire. The loss of a few promising recruits is considered a catastrophe and is a time of morning, for they are considered lives cut short that have never reached their full potential.

Their culture is such that they strive to make each new generation superior to the previous generation. The preservation of people, especially young ones is placed above all other priorities.

Their ship designs reflect this mentality.
Any (non special purpose) capital warship in their empire will have the following:
* Armor 16
* Reflec
* 8 Meson and damper screens
* Larger ships will have 4 black globe generators
* Radiation shielding
* At least 2 Al-Dax drones (Meson warheads)
* Escape pods and auxiliary craft for the entire crew
* Luxuries to accommodate a single crew shift
* No sandcasters or fusion guns
* Maneuver 6
* Never has auxiliary crew in cold sleep

.

 

[Solomani666]

At what point do you think that a capital ship should be destroyed or disabled?
.

I think It depends heavily on what is lost.
If a ship has two sections, and loses one, it should be disabled or destroyed.

If a ship has more than two sections and loses one section that is not engineering, then the remaining sections remain functional. Of course they are heavily crippled, but they can still act as long as they have power generation etc.

If a ship has more than two sections and loses it's engineering section (assuming it only has one) then it will be disabled at the very least. It will no longer be able to function in the battle.

Also, I doubt the explosion would do much more damage, especially since it will mostly release its energy into the removed section.


Also, I like Locarno's idea on using an emergency power plant. That's pretty cool

A 30,000 vessel has three sections Fore Section, Mid Section and Engineering.

So you are saying that if I blow out all of the hull and structure points of the Mid Section, that the the possibly now dis-connected Fore and Engineering Sections might still be able to maneuver and fight!?

.

 

[Jeraa]

IF they are connected all in a line(Fore->Mid->Engineering) losing the middle section would mean they couldn't (or shouldn't) move and fire, and the ship would be removed from combat.

If connected differently (with Fore in the front, and with Mid and Engineering stacked on top of each other or side by side instead of in a line) then there is no reason why losing on section should automatically disable or destroy the entire ship.

But that means the rules would have to me more detailed and complicated, as determining when a ship is disabled/destroyed would have to rely on how each individual ship is laid out. Mongoose just took the easy route, and said a section destroyed = ship destroyed/disabled.

Personally, I hate the individual sections rules. So I just removed them. But I rewrote the ship construction and combat rules almost totally as well, and so many other rules, that I may as well just be playing a different game all together.

 

[barnest2]

A 30,000 vessel has three sections Fore Section, Mid Section and Engineering.

So you are saying that if I blow out all of the hull and structure points of the Mid Section, that the the possibly now dis-connected Fore and Engineering Sections might still be able to maneuver and fight!?

Think logically dear. Yes, if you take out the central column, the ship is disabled.
But as Jeraa said, if the three sections are more interconnected, then you would not lose the ship.

Make sense? thankyou...

 

[rust]

So you are saying that if I blow out all of the hull and structure points of the Mid Section, that the the possibly now dis-connected Fore and Engineering Sections might still be able to maneuver and fight!?

Just take a look at the available configurations and think of a spherical
ship (or a planetoid, or ...) which has no "Mid Section" which connects
the other sections and can be destroyed to disconnect them.

I agree with Jeraa, the entire "sections" idea does not make much sen-
se, at least unless the ship in question has a cylinder configuration or
is intentionally designed to have separate sections. In all other cases it
leads to ridiculous results.

 

[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.

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...

In today's world fire support is more likely to be in the form of a smart missile. While it costs more than a dumb artillery shell it takes less to do the job.

 

[barnest2]

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

In today's world fire support is more likely to be in the form of a smart missile. While it costs more than a dumb artillery shell it takes less to do the job.

Or a 5 inch gun. We still use those, and we've been using them to engage missile batteries in Libya, because some eejit decided shooting unguided rockets at a frigate is a great plan :roll:
They learnt what happens when you shoot first

 

[Rick]

Hmm. Even so a 5" gun is tertiary armament to a battleship - most of them had 14-16" guns at least. Back in the day when battleships were being built, a ship with 5" guns as it's biggest armament would probably only been about destroyer level. Problem was that you couldn't fit a longer range, bigger gun like a 14" on a destroyer, so you had to build a bigger ship - a lot of the ships were built by deciding on the armaments first, then building a ship that could support them.

 

[DFW]

Or a 5 inch gun. We still use those, and we've been using them to engage missile batteries in Libya, because some eejit decided shooting unguided rockets at a frigate is a great plan :roll:
They learnt what happens when you shoot first

:shock: If you got a link or pub name I'd like to read about that.

 

[rust]

I think it was HMS Liverpool, in May or June, off Misurata - sorry I have
no link to an English report on the incident, but it should not be difficult
to find one on the Internet.

 

[DFW]

I think it was HMS Liverpool, in May or June, off Misurata - sorry I have
no link to an English report on the incident, but it should not be difficult
to find one on the Internet.

Thanks

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1391537/Libya-On-board-naval-destroyer-HMS-Liverpool-currently-enemy-coast.html

 

[barnest2]

a lot of the ships were built by deciding on the armaments first, then building a ship that could support them.

No. Just no. First, you choose a tonnage, or a size of ship. Then within that tonnage, you fit machinery (for speed), armaments and armour.
Look up HMS KGV. They discovered you couldn't have 12 14" guns, because they didn't have enough tonnage, so they reduced the number of guns, by reducing the size of B gun to two guns rather than four.

Also, most fire support operations in WW2 and beyond (even when battleships were present) were done by 5" guns. The 4.5" guns is a destroyer weapon, and the 6" is a light cruiser weapon. Those were the ships that did the most fire support.

There are a couple of reasons for this. The 14" gun can only be fired 340 times before the barrel wears out, which is pitiful compared to the number of shells that are fired on tours that involve fire support. Also, those barrels, unlike those of smaller guns like the 4.5 cannot be replaced at sea. A 16" guns (barrel and breech, not the turret) weighs in at 100 tons, and you have to strip back the entire turret to replace the gun, which is a ship yard operation.


Also, nice link DFW. HMS Liverpool did an awesome job.

 

[rust]

In real life there were lots of factors which influenced the design of any
major warship and of its armament, financial ones, political ones (e.g. in-
ternational treaties limiting displacement and armament), technical ones
(e.g. the size of the available shipyard docks, production facilities for the
guns), strategic ones (e.g. the role of the fleet and of the ship within the
fleet, the naval doctrine). In the end a big ship and its guns usually were
a compromise between what the navy in question dreamed of and what
was realistically possible, the calibre of the guns was just one factor of
many.