CT/HG Range Bands

[kilemall]

This is the first in a line of merging CT/HG mechanics, with a long term view of being able to run faster battles, more to my taste re: what the tables are saying, adding power profiles and vector effects and railguns, or go with optional rules for detailed single ship command with a full set of, power allocation and maneuver as per the CT mini rules.


This is the first layer, and assumes HG rules are otherwise used as is. Pretty simple on the surface, but it already changes the relationship of agility power and ship design for optimized roles, sizes and effects.



Maneuver vs. Agility-

Agility is still calculated as per HG rules, but during range determination each fleet defines it's overall maneuver speed. The maneuver speed is subtracted from agility, whatever agility is left is applied to the agility DM, rounded down.


Range Band Definition-

Range bands are 200,000 km in width.
Each fleet is assumed to be in the middle of it's range band and thus 100,000 km to the first range band.


The ranges are defined as
0 km-100,000 km Close
100,000 km-300,000 km Short
300,000 km-500,000 km Long
500,000 km-700,000 km Very Long
700,000 km- 900,000 km Extreme


CT detection rules are assumed in play, so fleets cannot detect or fire beyond 900,000 km and effectively break off past that point.


Multiple fleets for each side can be at different range bands from friendlies and enemy fleets- a carrier force may launch fighters that close with the enemy, or scouting cruisers can be ahead a few range bands to detect the enemy and screen the main fleet from detection.



Each range is calculated per relative fleets when determining firing DMs.
Therefore, depending upon the situation, there may need to be range bands defined for a 1-4 million km fighting space.


Range Band Firing DMs-

Range bands apply DMs as per the following


Close (special)
Short (0)
Long (-2)
Very Long (-5)
Extreme (-8)


Close range affects targeting, weapon factors and therefore probability, target selection and hit effects.

• All weapon factors are increased by 6.
• Hit numbers are improved to the new weapon factor or to 9 if there is no spinal value available beyond 9.
• If a bay or turret battery value exceeds 9 after being increased, it is now treated as a spinal weapon for extra rolls, critical hit vs. hull, and increased damage.
• Computer DMs are ignored.
• Neither fleet in contact with the other can screen ships- all are eligible to be fired upon.

Range Determination-

During range determination of each round each fleet rolls for the ability to alter range.

Roll is 1d6 + (skill Fleet Tactics minus 1) + Maneuver speed.
Target is 7+, all results below 7 means the fleet does not move.

The fleets are moved in order of lowest result to highest, so the faster and/or better led fleets get to see what the other fleets are doing before moving.

Fleets that have a chance to move may move one range band to the left or right, or stay at their current band.

Ship Tactics can be substituted in the above roll for individual or small fleet battles.


Note that a fleet or ship commander with 0 tactical skill will find it more difficult to move due to amateur mistakes and reaction time. If dealing with 1-G ACS, this negative DM can be ignored.


Two Or More Fleets-

As noted there can be more then one fleet per side, and enemy fleets can be approaching on both sides of a friendly fleet.

In the case of a fleet with enemies closing on both sides, a line has to be formed against both incoming fleets to screen friendly ships. If the surrounded fleet does not have enough to screen against one or both, that fleet may have to screen against one enemy fleet and leave the screened open to fire from the other side.

The surrounded fleet may also decide to form two lines of all available ships, each line would be effectively screened by the other defending line.

Additional fleets behind the forward fleet may be assumed to be effectively screened from fire by the forward fleet, subject to enough numbers. If the screened fleet fires on any other fleet, it is assumed to have a line and not be screened.

Friendly fleets are assumed to be under control of the same fleet commander if within 900,000 km of each other and unobstructed by an enemy fleet. Beyond 900,000 km or an obstructing enemy fleet, each fleet will need a separate commander.

Strategic communications can occur past 900,000 km if both fleets know their approximate relative positions or have intervening friendly ships relaying messages, but cannot past an obstructing enemy fleet- a courier will have to get through. Non-relayed long distance communications may be intercepted at scenario/referee discretion.

All detection known to a side is assumed to be passed on and known to other fleets assuming strategic communication is possible.


Planet Effects-

A planet may be in the battle space and will affect maneuver and combat.

Planetary gravity does not affect most ships at Close Range unless they are voluntarily close orbit to the planet. The exception are gas giants, they affect all at Close Range as though all are in close orbit.

All fleets within close orbit effect suffer a -1 DM to their range determination roll and -1 to their agility. Fleets can move out of close orbit automatically if they have a maneuver of 1 if they do not roll a successful move, for gas giants the fleet needs to successfully roll the 7 result with -1 DM to 'escape'.

Each fleet is assumed to be either to the left or the right of the planet.

If not in close orbit, a fleet can use the planet to provide 'screening' equal to half of the screen ships against one chosen enemy fleet on the other side of the planet. A second enemy fleet can maneuver to ignore the planet and so engage screened ships as per normal.

Fleets in close orbit are immune to being engaged by enemy fleets that are not in Close Range due to the effect on sensors as noted in CT detection. This advantage disappears if the close orbit fleet fires on anyone.

A fleet in close orbit will either be in orbit and subject to fire by enemy fleets on either side of the planet during a round, or maintaining station on one side of the planet or the other.

If maintaining station, the close orbit fleet is screened and immune from enemy fire from the opposite planetary side, but must keep at least 1 maneuver dedicated to station keeping. If the ship loses maneuver, it falls into the planet's gravity field.

Ships can be screened in station keeping mode, but they too must have Maneuver 1.

Planetary defenses have the same advantages as close orbit/maintaining station and do not have a maneuver 1 requirement.

Unless orbiting forts the PD facilities will be on one side of the planet or the other, not able to be engaged until they fire or an attacking fleet gets to close orbit. PA weapons are useless against an atmosphere.


Breaking Off-

The normal jump rules apply. For maneuver break off, escaping ships can just move to beyond Extreme Range, firing if they are not on emergency agility mode.

 

[kilemall]

Scenarios-

Given the increase in possible maneuver and detection several situations can occur.


Meeting engagement-

Given CT military/scouts detect at 600,000 km, a meeting engagement of fleets otherwise not expecting to find each other would occur at Very Long range.
This would mean a faster or smaller but better led force may attempt to break off. with a fair chance of doing so given the harder chance of doing so. Of course, this is a range where the higher hit probabilities of spinal weapons comes into play.
Or, a faster force can run in and close rapidly.

Space Jutland-

Two grand fleets can meet, with battlecruiser forward fleets scouting for the opposition and 'fighting for information'. I would expect such scouting fleets to be at least 500,000 km ahead of the main fleet. Perhaps fast scouts run past that line to get a look at the enemy? Perhaps the scout fleet feigns fleeing and attempts to lure the battlecruisers to the main spinals?

Space Midway-


Two carrier forces exchange fighter attacks. The Close Range rules make every fighter that gets through a real threat.
In order to close attacking fighters likely have to give up some agility, and the increased factors give a better chance to hit. Should be quite a few intercepting CAP to stop incoming attacks.

Doggo Ambush-

The CT detection rules are in play, and so the doggo limited range detection are as well.
Since all the doggo ranges are less then 100,000 km, all such ambushes would be at Close Range and thus terrifying for both victim and ambusher.


It would be ridiculous if entire fleets are doggo constantly and luring each other to such ambushes (not to mention costly over the long term).
So I suggest some home rules about increased chance of not achieving doggo per additional ship (or worse the doggo fleet thinks it's hidden but it's not and gets fired on first at close range while defenseless), and/or limited detection/information that the doggo ship has about the targets before powering up for the ambush.


Fleet Command Limits-

The fleets can get quite mixed up and incommunicado with several enemy fleets breaking communications and forcing several independent commands to operate.
There may be a limit imposed in terms of command talent similar to say Pilots in TCS, some genius admirals may achieve much but cannot be everywhere and lesser officers are often in command, with less stellar range and tactical results.
This could be a strategy in deployment, stretch an enemy's command structure to breaking and then pounce on lesser led formations, attriting before tackling the main formation with the best admiral.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Initial reaction:

The potential for attacking tenders directly at Close range is bad news for battle riders.

With high tech high agility fleets mesons can only really hit at Short range, so meson ships needs to be screened while closing distance.

PA spinals can hit at longer ranges so are more important. Negated by screening planetoids.

Fighters sounds dangerous until you realise that they still can't do much damage to armoured ships, and are easily countered with defensive fighters (w/o large computers). Bad news for tenders and carriers though, might consider armour 4 on them?

Should "spinal" nukes really get a total DM -6 on the damage table? That is probably quite overpowered.

TL advantage almost disappears at Close range, this is very bad news for a smaller, higher tech fleet wanting to use mesons at Short range. One bad roll and you are at Close range and gets slaughtered.

 

[kilemall]

Re tenders and BRs, if an admiral is halfway smart the tenders will be at extreme range or not even on the board. Docking/clamping and jumping in battle is probably not in the cards, if the fight goes against the BRs they would likely conventionally escape, then meet up and jump.


The high tech agility thing certainly is a factor at range.The objective in many cases would be to use surface impacts to shred the maneuver drive then concentrate meson fire on those relatively crippled ships.



Bonus is the whole target fleet has to slow down to stay together and that gives the faster fleet an advantage at range choice, or fleets separate into the wounded and full speed. Cripple fleets may be more vulnerable to fighter strikes.


Speaking of which, I backed off of taking away agility as a DM at Close Range, but that would be within the logic of the effects. Opinions?


PA weapons do indeed shine a bit more past their expiration date.


On the fighters I could have just as easily designated a +7 to weapon factor and made 3-weapon turrets spinal in effect. That just seemed a bridge too far, I wanted to recreate the Imperium effect of small ships cannot do damage to huge ships and the suicide run attack.


Besides, I have plans for them in the velocity add-on portion of the rules.


I'm not sure where the spinal nuke reading you take comes from. I read the nuclear weapon rules as saying nukes are treated as spinal weapons and do not incur the +6 penalty, not that they have a countervailing -6 to the damage slider that then is cumulative with the Close Range rule.



It's more like conventional missiles can now be spinal in effect from Factor-4 on up then some advantage to nukes (other then additional Radiation hits).



The +6 to weapon factor should be read as Battery Factor-5 is now Spinal Factor-B, Spinal Factor-A is now Spinal Factor-G, with the better hit number in effect as well.


If my rule syntax is not clear, please respond with whatever you think will make that clearer.


Yes it is true, the high tech fleet is going to have to stay agile to use mesons to best effect. As I noted, these rules do have design ramifications.



Possible ways to deal with that, as mentioned heavy surface weapon use to neuter maneuver drives, keep maneuver speed up and meson fleets in the hands of Fleet Tactics-3+ admirals to keep the range edge, design ships to take Close Range better with heavier armor or agility, and of course Meson Guns at Close Range will be that much more devastating.


Do you think I should posit a further plus DM to meson guns at Close Range?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Re tenders and BRs, if an admiral is halfway smart the tenders will be at extreme range or not even on the board. Docking/clamping and jumping in battle is probably not in the cards, if the fight goes against the BRs they would likely conventionally escape, then meet up and jump.

Being recovered by the tender and jumped out is the only way a damaged BR can be retreated. I certainly keep the tenders close to the BRs.

If the tenders are away from the BRs they might get engaged from another direction and be forced to jump out, leaving the BRs abandoned without base or ability to move.

The high tech agility thing certainly is a factor at range.The objective in many cases would be to use surface impacts to shred the maneuver drive then concentrate meson fire on those relatively crippled ships.

With reasonable armour the ships of the battle line should be immune to m-drive hits.

Speaking of which, I backed off of taking away agility as a DM at Close Range, but that would be within the logic of the effects. Opinions?

Taking away agility would turn Close range into a slaughter. Large weapons would autohit. Fighters would lose their only defence. I would hesitate to remove it without careful testing.

I'm not sure where the spinal nuke reading you take comes from. I read the nuclear weapon rules as saying nukes are treated as spinal weapons and do not incur the +6 penalty, not that they have a countervailing -6 to the damage slider that then is cumulative with the Close Range rule.

2. If the weapon inflicting the hit has a factor of 9 or less, apply a DM of +6.
3. If the weapon inflicting the hit was a nuclear missile, apply a DM of -6 on surface explosion damage.

A missile bay becomes factor F at close range, so does not get +6, but gets -6 for nukes, total DM -6.
Note that MT changed that so that factor A nukes get the +6 DM.

It's more like conventional missiles can now be spinal in effect from Factor-4 on up then some advantage to nukes (other then additional Radiation hits).

Both conventional and nukes have the same factor? So both conventional and nukes count as spinal, but nukes always get the DM -6.

Do you think I should posit a further plus DM to meson guns at Close Range?

Mesons already have TH +2 at Short and -2 at Long, I certainly think that is enough.

 

[kilemall]

Being recovered by the tender and jumped out is the only way a damaged BR can be retreated. I certainly keep the tenders close to the BRs.

If the tenders are away from the BRs they might get engaged from another direction and be forced to jump out, leaving the BRs abandoned without base or ability to move.

Works for me, I'm not particularly enamored of BR doctrine anyway. If you get the battle line advantage of BRs, should have the risk of the ride taken away.


So obviously something like a fighter run would need some carrier CAP or anti-fighter forces to forestall such high speed threats.

With reasonable armour the ships of the battle line should be immune to m-drive hits.

True enough, the only sure way to crack heavy armor to expose maneuver drives is to generate critical hits with mesons.



Probably more realistic to expect to drain off fuel hits.

Taking away agility would turn Close range into a slaughter. Large weapons would autohit. Fighters would lose their only defence. I would hesitate to remove it without careful testing.

Like I said, I backed off of it. But it would be consistent with the theme of more power to effective damage as hitting is easy at less then a second sensor data/update target solution/fire/hit cycle that happens below 100K km.

A missile bay becomes factor F at close range, so does not get +6, but gets -6 for nukes, total DM -6.
Note that MT changed that so that factor A nukes get the +6 DM.

Well that wasn't my initial intent, but the LBB5 quotes don't lie, that is what is written. I must have that shortened in my head to 'nukes are spinals' without considering the wording.


That being said, don't necessarily have a problem with that interpretation. I am looking very carefully at the 'damage output EP' factors for Black Globe absorption as effectively a sort of 'joule rating' for damage in general especially for the alternative damage system. Nukes are definitely high powered weapons given their output.


Definitely justifies heavy repulsor bay deployment until nuclear dampers are standard, and even then with the average factor being 9 against NDs there is a pretty good chance to get through.



The balancing factor missing from HG is the cost of nuclear missiles. I don't know that I would be onboard with the MCr costs of SS3 nukes, but some serious multiple should be in the cards for firing nuclear broadsides.

Both conventional and nukes have the same factor? So both conventional and nukes count as spinal, but nukes always get the DM -6.

Without alteration to the expressed rules above, that would be correct. Plus radiation hits for nukes.


The idea for Close Range missiles is that they are being fired in direct fire mode ala SS3, with little chance for EW to work, so many more missiles will actually hit and not be jammed off. It would follow that several more nuclear hits would be bad.

Mesons already have TH +2 at Short and -2 at Long, I certainly think that is enough.

Hmm, I'll have to think about this in light of the balance between PAs and Mesons.


I derived the higher negative DMs from the CT mini movement range DMs, and added an extra DM for furthest range out.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Definitely justifies heavy repulsor bay deployment until nuclear dampers are standard, and even then with the average factor being 9 against NDs there is a pretty good chance to get through.

Repulsor bays are rarely worth it, except possibly a single one to fill out the USP and make it slightly more difficult to get the first weapon hit on the spinal.

Since you generally fire many ship's worth of missiles at a single target, even a heavy investment in repulsors will only stop a small fraction of the enemy attack, while costing you a large fraction of your attack capability.

The idea for Close Range missiles is that they are being fired in direct fire mode ala SS3, with little chance for EW to work, so many more missiles will actually hit and not be jammed off. It would follow that several more nuclear hits would be bad.

Wouldn't that be the same for all weapons, specifically conventional missiles?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Lets see what we can actually hit at longer range:

Assume two identical TL15 Agility 6 forces starting at VLong. One force attempts to close in, the other dodges fully. No ship larger than 20 kDt. Fleet Tactics-3.

The closing fleet uses 3 g to move and 3 g to dodge. With a DM of +(3-1) +3 = +5 it can move on a roll of 2+, so fairly certain to be able to move. The other fleet moves with a DM of +(3-1) +0 = +2, so moves on a roll of 5+. Totally there is an average of 50% to move closer each round.

Very Long range:
Firing at the moving fleet:
Meson: 4+ to hit, DM -3[agility] -5[range], so hit on 12+. Basically useless.
PA: 0+ to hit, DM -3[agility] -5[range], so hit on 8+ (42%).
Missile bay: 2+ to hit, DM -3[agility] -5[range], so hit on 10+ (17%).

Firing at the dodging fleet:
Meson: 4+ to hit, DM -6[agility] -5[range], so hit on 15+. No hits.
PA: 0+ to hit, DM -6[agility] -5[range], so hit on 11+ (8%). Almost useless.
Missile bay: 2+ to hit, DM -6[agility] -5[range], so hit on 13+. No hits.


Long range:
Firing at the moving fleet:
Meson: 4+ to hit, DM -3[agility] -2[range], so hit on 9+ (28%).
PA: 0+ to hit, DM -3[agility] -2[range], so hit on 5+ (83%).
Missile bay: 2+ to hit, DM -3[agility] -2[range], so hit on 7+ (58%).

Firing at the dodging fleet:
Meson: 4+ to hit, DM -6[agility] -2[range], so hit on 12+. Basically useless.
PA: 0+ to hit, DM -6[agility] -2[range], so hit on 8+ (42%).
Missile bay: 2+ to hit, DM -6[agility] -2[range], so hit on 10+ (17%).


Short range:
Firing at the moving fleet:
Meson: 4+ to hit, DM -3[agility] +2[meson], so hit on 5+ (83%).
PA: 0+ to hit, DM -3[agility] -0[range], so hit on 3+ (97%).
Missile bay: 2+ to hit, DM -3[agility] -1[missile], so hit on 6+ (72%).

Firing at the dodging fleet:
Meson: 4+ to hit, DM -6[agility] +2[meson], so hit on 8+ (42%).
PA: 0+ to hit, DM -6[agility] -0[range], so hit on 6+ (72%).
Missile bay: 2+ to hit, DM -6[agility] -1[range], so hit on 9+ (28%).


As we can see PAs mostly work, even missiles struggle at range, and mesons only really work at Short range.

The extra DM at range makes agility even more effective as a defence.

The superior to hit of PAs means they are always effective, so small BRs without extreme armour are probably a bad idea...

 

[kilemall]

Wouldn't that be the same for all weapons, specifically conventional missiles?

Of course, hence the justification for upping conventional missile bay/battery factors by +6 too even though they don't have the speed/concentration of the various energy weapons.

 

[kilemall]

As we can see PAs mostly work, even missiles struggle at range, and mesons only really work at Short range.

The extra DM at range makes agility even more effective as a defence.

The superior to hit of PAs means they are always effective, so small BRs without extreme armour are probably a bad idea...

A few corrections, missiles are -1 at short range, 20K ships are hit on +1 and lasers are not slouches given the higher probability to hit- don't forget the pulse laser -2 DM damage too.



Mesons are also more problematic with Meson Screens and Configuration penetrations required.


For the postulated damage of nukes, repulsors are still a buy to consider, just because they are so cheap power-wise and useful. Even if a ship takes 2 hits out of 8 because of the combo of repulsor and ND, that's more attacks that have to be allocated instead of spreading say 4 against 2 ships.



You're apparently assuming spinal-Ts. Not casual weapons, and even at TL15 I don't know that you are going to be able to power those, secondary/PD weapons and agility-6. Am I to gather you are postulating offense-and-armor-only ships?



Another thing to consider is that the Meson Guns have a flatter to-hit effect then PAs. So you can mount smaller ones and still get many chances at critical hits to reduce armor, by either building smaller then 20K ships or allowing multiple spinals. That depends on the consistency of enemy deployment of Meson Screens of course.



Presumably the closing fleet would have more mesons hence the desire to go to short range. In that case it might be wise to screen the meson spinals until at least long range and probably short range.



Having to waste spinal fire against 7000 ton screening ships with Meson-Js can be as effective a damage sponge as big armor, and even with wrecking fire on the way in, I figure probably going to be 1.5x as many surviving small mesons on the line AND the screened big mesons unmasking and firing unmolested.


Of course, without those range mods, PA fire would be even uglier. It's just the extra VL range band gives high end fleets another round of PA fire on the way in or out of a battle.


Range mods are predicated on the 250K/500K -2/-5 DMs of the CT mini battle, with extrapolation for extreme range.


Other ways to beat a high-PA BR fleet as postulated would be to have several 1000-ton meson bay destroyers that are designed to advance to Close Range and overwhelm with numbers when they all deliver spinal hits, possibly with follow-on fighter nuclear strikes for damaged ships with lowered armor factors.


The high-PA fleet would have to switch to a more maneuver-oriented agility to retain range distance and buy time to destroy the more numerous foe.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Of course, hence the justification for upping conventional missile bay/battery factors by +6 too even though they don't have the speed/concentration of the various energy weapons.

But only nukes get the DM -6 on the damage table?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

For the postulated damage of nukes, repulsors are still a buy to consider, just because they are so cheap power-wise and useful. Even if a ship takes 2 hits out of 8 because of the combo of repulsor and ND, that's more attacks that have to be allocated instead of spreading say 4 against 2 ships.

Let's consider two otherwise identical squadrons of ten ships, one side (A) with five missile bays and five repulsors on each ship, the other side (B) with ten missile bays on each ship.

Each side concentrates fire on a single ship.
Squadron A fires 50 missile bays at 8+ to hit, 10+ to penetrate, 6- to do damage producing ~1.45 hits.
Squadron B fires 100 missile bays at 8+ to hit, 5 hits repulsed, 10+ to penetrate, 6- to do damage producing ~2.55 hits.
Squadron A takes more damage, so will lose the fight.

In a single ship engagement the repulsor ship would win, but in a squadron or fleet fight it loses.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

..., missiles are -1 at short range,

Short range:
...
Missile bay: 2+ to hit, DM -3[agility] -1[missile], so hit on 6+ (72%).

Um, yes?

20K ships are hit on +1 and

Quite, so we keep the ships under 20 kDt. Sloppily:

No ship larger than 20 kDt.

lasers are not slouches given the higher probability to hit- don't forget the pulse laser -2 DM damage too.

Lasers have lower hit probability than missiles, and even pulse lasers can barely scratch armour 15 (doing damage on 2- [2.8%]). They are only good if the target is slow and unarmoured, and then missiles are better... I tend to ignore them, except to soak up weapon hits.

Mesons are also more problematic with Meson Screens and Configuration penetrations required.

Quite, that is a severe limitation, but it is constant wrt range. If I can't hit it doesn't matter.

You're apparently assuming spinal-Ts. Not casual weapons, and even at TL15 I don't know that you are going to be able to power those, secondary/PD weapons and agility-6. Am I to gather you are postulating offense-and-armor-only ships?

I'm assuming particle-T and meson-N (or -J), as the obvious choices.
Riders with spinals, agility, and armour can easily be done at ~10 kDt (not rocks though).

Presumably the closing fleet would have more mesons hence the desire to go to short range. In that case it might be wise to screen the meson spinals until at least long range and probably short range.

Yes, obviously. Rocks of ~8 - 9 kDt would be almost immune to particle and nukes, and very difficult to hit with mesons at range.

Of course, without those range mods, PA fire would be even uglier. It's just the extra VL range band gives high end fleets another round of PA fire on the way in or out of a battle.

At least one more round. In my example the moving fleet had only a 50% chance of getting closer each round, getting to Short would take something like 4 rounds, and would have taken longer if the dodging fleet had chosen to use some agility to retreat.

Other ways to beat a high-PA BR fleet as postulated would be to have several 1000-ton meson bay destroyers that are designed to advance to Close Range and overwhelm with numbers when they all deliver spinal hits, possibly with follow-on fighter nuclear strikes for damaged ships with lowered armor factors.

PAs are excellent at destroying small agile targets. The PA heavy fleet would only have to retreat as fast as the enemy is advancing to keep the range up and the meson bays ineffective.
Even at Close range the factor-F mesons would have severe problems penetrating screens and still probably lose to PAs.

The high-PA fleet would have to switch to a more maneuver-oriented agility to retain range distance and buy time to destroy the more numerous foe.

Quite.

 

[kilemall]

I don't know that I wholly buy the Meson-F argument. We aren't talking 3:1 or 5:1, but 20:1 hull count, that's a lot of rolls against the screens. They would pop like popcorn but at there would be at least a couple rounds of 10:1 close range survivors. Remember, at that point they are spinals so every blow landed means critical rolls. Also, -1 to hit on hull size.




So if I understand the critique, you're saying that your postulated exercise points out that separating maneuver and agility has the effect of upsetting the design ecology of Meson Guns as written compared to PAs, especially mounted on BRs that have none of the overhead of integral jump. Correct?


I don't want to give up the M vs. A component for reasons which will be clear with the velocity add-on. What would you or anyone else recommend?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I don't know that I wholly buy the Meson-F argument. We aren't talking 3:1 or 5:1, but 20:1 hull count, that's a lot of rolls against the screens.

A ~11 kdT GCr 12 spinal particle rider vs ~1.7 kDt GCr 2.4 meson bay rider is far closer to 5:1 than 20:1.

A particle-(T+6) would hit on 7+ (58%) and kill on hit with 16 size crits. Total 58% kill chance.
A meson-F would hit on 8+ (42%), penetrate on 11+ (8%) and 7+ (58%) with a hit having something like 90% kill chance. Total ~2% kill chance.

It would take the single spinal about 9 rounds to kill 5 frigates, giving them about 24 shots with a total kill chance of about 35%.

So 65% chance the spinal wins, 35% the bays win, assuming they were screened while closing in. A few more bays and they would win.


The spinal riders can avoid getting into Close range by spending enough agility to keep the distance open, easily killing the frigates on Short range.

So if I understand the critique, you're saying that your postulated exercise points out that separating maneuver and agility has the effect of upsetting the design ecology of Meson Guns as written compared to PAs, especially mounted on BRs that have none of the overhead of integral jump. Correct?

I don't care what it changes, I'm just trying to understand how it changes things. Yes, I'm using battle riders since they provide vastly better bang for the buck than ships.

Long range combat is almost negated since it is much easier to screen the entire fleet with a few rocks.

Everybody hits better at Short range, since you probably want to reserve some agility for manoeuvre. Meson spinals will start to kill the screening rocks.

Tenders will probably be quite a lot more expensive, since we probably want them to have some more agility to facilitate movement, lest they end up at Close range and are immediately destroyed.

I don't want to give up the M vs. A component for reasons which will be clear with the velocity add-on. What would you or anyone else recommend?

I don't see why you should give it up?

 

[kilemall]

The planet/rock rules are introducing space terrain that is largely ignored in the otherwise 'fleet tourney' format of HG. Hiding in rings and firing minuteman-like between asteroids is a classic trope I would think we would embrace.


I came up with the values I did assuming full size planets or something like a Size .5 moon or the like. When you say 'rocks' I assume you mean full-size asteroids, not the rock-based ships.



The idea is that the fleet would have to spread on either side of the object(s) to achieve that EW haze effect for screening. It's an interpretation of the CT sensor rules, and one that is not as absolute as the 'cannot spot them against planetary sensor muck' wording, but it puts in a game and choices, and that's almost always a priority to me.



I may not envision every min-max possibility which is why a destruction QA test here on the forum is a good idea.


Why lose the M vs. A thing? I am wanting something along the lines of the 'different paths to victory' and no perfect one design solution HG strove for (even if it may not have made it), and I'm concerned your example shows mesons to be a one-trick pony if there can be that much difference in results with fleets based on them with the increased range bands.


Preserving the interrelationship and valuation of the components is core to the game, since it is after all a design validation demolition derby.



Mesons surely are destructive hence their several barriers to success, but this might be too much.


My 20:1 was assuming your max 20K size vs. 1000-ton. So now I'm going to do a meson bay destroyer.


Hmm, looks like I can put out a valid TL15 1000-ton meson bay ship, gaining the -1 target size advantage, and rough estimate is 1 GCr.



However, it occurs to me that a big expense here is the computer and MS/ND screens (must haves as the secondary bays of your PA spinals could be quite effective otherwise in reducing destroyer numbers).



So, I'm thinking more like a 2500-ton destroyer, two meson bays and some minor sand/laser/missile turret battery. Saves half the expense of the ships and more likely to deliver that meson bay punch.


Good point to keep in mind, your putative BRs could have a bunch of meson bays to deal with 'small' numerous threats like this, making that final closing range from short to close very lethal.


Hmm, all this brings up a point re: fuel and BRs. It occurred to me that after maxing out armor you still have that fuel problem, the Achilles heel of surface damage.



I could see speccing extra fuel just as ersatz armor/damage absorption, maintaining operations for just a round or two longer and forcing extra fire on one target instead of two. Then it occurred to me, if you have some extra space like that, might as well spec a J-1. 12% of space, and you have immediate tacjump escape if needed, or even forego some of that 10% and cut into your 4 week maneuver fuel.


Anyway, a serious option to consider in this scenario we are bandying about is a spinal PA/meson bay mix, to kill all these destroyers fast at short range. The flip answer is a similarly sized few 11K ton spinal mesons possibly with missile or meson bays, screened until short range at least.


Another design possibility is substitute missile bays or turret batteries for the meson bays, then use the freed up space from less fuel and power plant to carry fighters. Launch fighters and maneuver them as a separate fleet, then you have twice the chance to close, and a lot of targets an otherwise spinal maxed force would have to deal with.


Speaking of two fleets, it also occurs to me that this exercise is in linear think. But we can have half the meson bay fleet close from the other direction.


This forces the spinal PA fleet to either stay put and shoot in both directions as the mesons close, jump fast, or figure which fleet to close with and use superior local numbers before both can close at the same time.


Or purposely close with one to get to close range and then past ASAP, take the damage to effect a strategic escape. As postulated the tender(s) would be a primary target, which might allow more BRs to savage the mesons on the way through.


Of course, note the comms issues I put in rules for. Coordination past a general 'charge' order is going to be difficult. Therein lies a game.


Dilbert's commentary is most welcome, but I'm a bit surprised I'm not hearing from anyone else. Surely somebody has an opinion?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Meson bays turned into spinals is intriguing, but they use a lot of power and are very expensive even when shoehorned into a small ship.

This is about as cheap as I can make it with reasonable defences:
MCr 1800 in quantity for a 1400 Dt rider with agility-6, armour, screens, and a meson bay.

Add MCr ~700 for a tender.

That is quite expensive for a ship with a very specific use case. Note the power plant-29.

Unfortunately the enemy can easily prevent you from getting into Close range by using enough agility to keep the distance, but that makes all of their ships easier to hit for our other ships. We might use a few such ships just to make the enemy nervous.

 

[aramis]

The planet/rock rules are introducing space terrain that is largely ignored in the otherwise 'fleet tourney' format of HG. Hiding in rings and firing minuteman-like between asteroids is a classic trope I would think we would embrace.

Even the densest shoals of asteroids would have at most three bodies within visual range. The average planar separation is ≥ 22 km for bodies >50 cm, based upon the math presented at https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2...y-navigation-is-not-dangerous-sorry-han-solo/

And that ignores the 3rd dimension.

The voyager probes went straight through with no significant impacts, on a ballistic trajectory.

 

[kilemall]

Hmm, I was doing literally back of the envelope power usage, looks like I'm off by quite a bit.


I suspect the 2500K double-barrelled meson bay testcase works better. Or maybe one meson bay, one missile bay.



I'd stick with a single factor-5 battery, to get an additional spinal hit at close range. Missiles would be another chance at nukes getting through, laser gives that flexible response especially pulse laser, and sand would be an overall defensive choice with no power cost.


I'd spring for the model 9 Fiber, no point in giving a cheap radiation hit take away the whole point of the mission.

 

[kilemall]

Even the densest shoals of asteroids would have at most three bodies within visual range. The average planar separation is ≥ 22 km for bodies >50 cm, based upon the math presented at https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2...y-navigation-is-not-dangerous-sorry-han-solo/

And that ignores the 3rd dimension.

The voyager probes went straight through with no significant impacts, on a ballistic trajectory.

Shrug. Density is up to the scenario writer or referee to determine.


I could see a lot more in specialized circumstances such as planetary rings.


Or, with enough preparation the battlefield could be prepped with artificially moved rocks to support whatever fleet plan maneuver.