[HG] Designing a TL12 fleet

[Golan2072]

I'm currently trying to figure out what ship types would be present in the service of the Solar Triumvirate - in other words, my HG/HGS to-do list.

The Solar Triumvirate is a relatively young (300 years old) and small (9 subsectors) polity in a relatively young (400 years from the present) and small (a little more than a sector) universe.

Max TL is 12, though TL12 worlds are rare (but they are also the most developed and heavily populated worlds IMTU). A little peculiarity (sp?) of my universe is that nuclear damper technology occurs one TL later than in standard Traveller; that is, it does not exist yet IMTU and will be developed only in a few decades, once TL13 will be reached. Most designed military ships would be of the STN's (Solar Triumvirate Navy's) front-line units,

The fleet should, in general, be rated for Jump-2.

I'll also be using The Oz's excellent fighter grouping rules for ships with more than ten fighters.

I'm looking for advice as for the kinds of ships nescery and their recommended configuration (especially big ship armament)

So far, here is the list of designs that I see as nescery:

- 10-ton Light Fighter (done), missiles/sand
- 50-ton Heavy Fighter, triple missiles, armor (?)
- 95-ton Dropship (done), missiles/sand
- Various small craft (done).
- 100-ton Scout/Courier (done), lasers/sand
- 200-ton Fleet Courier, jump-3, missiles/sand
- 400-ton Police Frigate (done), lasers/sand
- 300-ton Close Escort, lasers/sand
- 300-ton SDB, missiles/sand
- 800-ton Paramilitary (Mercenary) "Cruiser" (done), missiles/lasers/sand
- 1,200-ton Light Destroyer, 100-ton missile bay and 2 triple sand turrets
- 2,000-ton Destroyer, 100-ton missile bay, 6 triple laser turrets (3 batteries), 4 triple sand turrets (2 batteries)
- 10,000-ton Light Cruiser, 9 100-ton missile bays, 6 triple laser turrets (3 batteries), 4 triple sand turrets (2 batteries), as many fighters as possible
- 10,000-ton Light Carrier, undergunned in lasers/sand, many fighters
- 10,000-ton Light Frieghter (done)
- 20,000-ton Cruiser, Spinal Weapon, several missile bays, the rest fusion/sand turrets, possibly some fighters, one Marine Company
- 50,000-ton Carrier, light armament but LOTS OF FIGHTERS
- 100,000-ton Heavy Carrier, new and rare but EVEN MORE FIGHTERS!
- 50,000-ton Tanker, partial streamlining
- 50,000-ton Military Frieghter
- 25,000-ton Military Space Station, a little mobile (1-G) but mounting a big stick (spinal?), usually a naval High Port overseeing orbital fuel farms.
- Marine Troop Transports; I don't know exactly what sizes, but I know that a Platoon requires one 95-dton Dropship and 42 crew accomodations (including pilot and dropship maintainance technician) and that a Company requires 5 Dropships and 165 crew accomodations (including pilots and dropship maintainance technicians). I have yet to design the Battalion and above level.
- Army Troop Transports (low berths?), again an unknown territory.

Suggestions and comments will be very welcome.

EDIT: About the Marines, I think I'll have the following ships for them:
1) RAC (Rapid Assault Corvette), think Sulaco, carries one Platoon in a single Dropship. 400-800 dton (I'll see what fits), lots of missiles (orbital bombardment glore).

2) RDC (Rapid Drop Corvette), think Roger Young, A larger version of the RAC designed for Drop Troops (Marine semi-special forces).

3) Assault Destroyer, circa 1Kdton, carries a Marine Company (5 Dropships).

4) Battalion Transport, 2Kdton-5Kdton, carries a full Marine Batallion and serves as its lander (no Dropships).

A Marine Regiment would probably be composed of 4-5 Battalion Transports; a Planetary Assault Group (PAG) would be 4 Regiments and a CruRon.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Don't forget that navy ships need small craft. A 20 dTon gig, at least. Maybe a couple of pinnaces or cutters for cruisers. Carriers should have a collection of small craft, ten to twenty or more.

As for the 20 kdTon cruiser, I think you'll have trouble at TL-12 stuffing the spinal mount, armor, small craft, and troops aboard without . . .

Wait.

What kind of fleet Jump and Maneuver performance are we talking about here? For the larger ships (the cruisers).

Is it M-6/J-3? M-5/J-3? What?

--------------------------------

Also, I see no capital ships, just carriers.

I am dredging through my mind for what I remember of reading your Solar Trimuvirate milieu information.

Wouldn't the central power be the type to desire the production of big impressive ships for their admiralty to sail the stars in? <He says, without really knowing.>

 

[mike wightman]

How much of the High Guard combat system do you intend to use, and, if you use it, how much of a munchkin do you want to be?

Using High Guard combat, your destroyers should be designed as 1900t vessels, armed with a missile bay and whatever turrets you want to fill up the USP.

Your cruiser should try to be 19,999t

 

[mike wightman]

Now let's assume you don't want to play the system.

I think you need a larger spinal armed ship to round out the fleet.

Do you allow meson guns and meson screens?

That 50kt common hull could form the basis of a heavy cruiser, while the 100kt hull could be a battle ship in the making.

Do you want to consider tender/battle rider designs?

I'd also suggest a fighter armed with plasma or fusion guns.

 

[Whipsnade]

2-4601,

Ther are ways to 'play the system' as Sigg points out. However, with your setting's lack of damper technology the nuc-missile armed fighter is the arm of decision.

We ran a series of tests at 'ct-starships' back in early 2001 that showed - in a damperless setting - fighters could routinely mission kill warships in a single combat round.

First, several warships were designed and very simple (~ 10dT) fighters were then bought with 80% of the warship's cost. Unless the warship was an extreme design; a 'slow', heavily armored planetoid, it was mission killed in one round; usually by a 100% loss of fuel.

Fighter losses occurred too, but a single warship only has so many batteries and only one round to use them in.

Using Oz' or JTAS' fighter grouping rules will heighten this of course because of the boost fighters recieve.

So, your setting's primary method for killing ships in battle is the nuc-missile, either delivered in thousands of 'penny packets' by fighters or in large bay-sized volleys. Facing this without dampers means that ships will need LOTS of laser/sand batteries, LOTS of agility, LOTS of computing power, and LOTS of armor. Sticking all of that in a hull along with jump drives and jump fuel is impossible.

The upshot? You're looking at riders/tenders along with your carriers/fighters.

A HG2 battle in your setting has carriers/tenders in the Reserve supporting fighters/riders in the Line. Fighters deliver your missile volleys while riders target opposing fighters.

Fighters are cheap, agile, and have the biggest/best computer you can cram aboard.

Riders are agile, heavily armored, have the biggest/best computer, and enough batteries to target multiple fighters per combat round.

A few heavily armored, weakly armed, and highly agile escort ships exist too. These 'turtles' are used primarily to take a place in Line and cover the withdrawl of the carriers/tenders in the Reserve. All they need to do is last one combat round with a single offensive weapon intact, then they and the carriers/tenders can jump away. (Admittedly, this is more 'playing the system' than not.)

Spinal armed vessels may exist. However, they will not last long in the whirling fighter/rider scrum of the Line. They could be committed from the Reserve to the Line the turn a commander feels a breakthrough is likely. There, they could either target the 'turtle' escorts to cause a breakthrough or be held to target opposing carriers/tenders after a breakthrough. However they're used, it will be tough balancing a spinal mount and jump drives with the agility and armor needed to survive the fighter swarm for only a few rounds.

Your setting's battles are going to be attritive in the extreme. There's a German word for this (that I can't quite remember) which means 'material fighting'. Major battles will involve thousands of fighters and results in hundreds of fighter losses. No warship will enter the Line and face the fighter/rider scrum until it is somewhat safe to do so; remember that vessels only lasted one combat round in our tests! Once a combatant feels their Line is weak, they'll call back their remaining fighters/riders, deploy their 'turtles', and jump away.

Naval campaigns will have very few Trafalgars, Aboukir Bays, or Midways and lots of Jutlands and Phillipine Seas. It will a long, slow, attritive grind involving the destruction of enough of an opponent's fighters/riders until his 'swarm' can't meet your 'swarm'.

So, your setting's powers will build fighter, riders, more fighters, more riders, carriers/tenders, escorts, patrollers, and the occasional spinal-armed ship in that order.

Hope this helps.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
Your setting's battles are going to be attritive in the extreme. There's a German word for this (that I can't quite remember) which means 'material fighting'.

Materielschlacht, meaning "materiel battle" and generally frowned upon as a losing strategem in the long haul. Forces reliant on superior numbers (men and materiel) can be beaten with time. Of course if the force is sufficient to assure swift victory, blitz krieg, to borrow another German term many of the oppurtunities to live to fight again are lost.

Not sure how things would go in the case of two nearly equal forces both adopting materielschlacht tactics. Given sufficient resources it could be a long war with huge losses on both sides.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
Don't forget that navy ships need small craft. A 20 dTon gig, at least. Maybe a couple of pinnaces or cutters for cruisers. Carriers should have a collection of small craft, ten to twenty or more.

That's why I've included the following bit in my list:

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:

- 10-ton Light Fighter (done), missiles/sand
- 50-ton Heavy Fighter, triple missiles, armor (?)
- 95-ton Dropship (done), missiles/sand
- Various small craft (done).

Is it M-6/J-3? M-5/J-3? What?

Probably M-3/J-3 max for big ships (except for the more nimble cruisers); the fighters do most of the fast manouvering.

Also, I see no capital ships, just carriers.

As far as I understand, Carriers *ARE* the capital ships in a TL12 milieu; lots of fighters are a menace. But, I think I'll add a 50Kdton Battleships to that list anyway.

Wouldn't the central power be the type to desire the production of big impressive ships for their admiralty to sail the stars in?

Remember that the number of TL12 Starport-A's available is limited, the Solar Triumvirate has TL12 for only 30 years, and there are SO many parsecs of frontier to defend; Even though ultra big ships are technically possible, they might be economically problematic. The really big hulls are reserved for ships with low cost (both in MCR and construction time) per dton.

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
How much of the High Guard combat system do you intend to use, and, if you use it, how much of a munchkin do you want to be?

Using High Guard combat, your destroyers should be designed as 1900t vessels, armed with a missile bay and whatever turrets you want to fill up the USP.

I don't intend to "Play the System"; instead, I intend to create a fleet that will fit the suspension of disbelief in my universe (i.e. that will be both be interesting and belivable within IMTUs context) and will be fun to play with in typical High Guard.

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Now let's assume you don't want to play the system.

I think you need a larger spinal armed ship to round out the fleet.

Do you allow meson guns and meson screens?

That 50kt common hull could form the basis of a heavy cruiser, while the 100kt hull could be a battle ship in the making.

Do you want to consider tender/battle rider designs?

I'd also suggest a fighter armed with plasma or fusion guns.

Won't the Fusion Gun make a big cut in the Fighter's Agility? And Tender/Rider designs are a Matriarchate (a rival polity) speciality - for the Solar Triumvirate, I intend to leave the battleship/carrier design.

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
2-4601,

Ther are ways to 'play the system' as Sigg points out. However, with your setting's lack of damper technology the nuc-missile armed fighter is the arm of decision.

We ran a series of tests at 'ct-starships' back in early 2001 that showed - in a damperless setting - fighters could routinely mission kill warships in a single combat round.

First, several warships were designed and very simple (~ 10dT) fighters were then bought with 80% of the warship's cost. Unless the warship was an extreme design; a 'slow', heavily armored planetoid, it was mission killed in one round; usually by a 100% loss of fuel.

Fighter losses occurred too, but a single warship only has so many batteries and only one round to use them in.

Using Oz' or JTAS' fighter grouping rules will heighten this of course because of the boost fighters recieve.

So, your setting's primary method for killing ships in battle is the nuc-missile, either delivered in thousands of 'penny packets' by fighters or in large bay-sized volleys. Facing this without dampers means that ships will need LOTS of laser/sand batteries, LOTS of agility, LOTS of computing power, and LOTS of armor. Sticking all of that in a hull along with jump drives and jump fuel is impossible.

The upshot? You're looking at riders/tenders along with your carriers/fighters.

A HG2 battle in your setting has carriers/tenders in the Reserve supporting fighters/riders in the Line. Fighters deliver your missile volleys while riders target opposing fighters.

Fighters are cheap, agile, and have the biggest/best computer you can cram aboard.

Riders are agile, heavily armored, have the biggest/best computer, and enough batteries to target multiple fighters per combat round.

A few heavily armored, weakly armed, and highly agile escort ships exist too. These 'turtles' are used primarily to take a place in Line and cover the withdrawl of the carriers/tenders in the Reserve. All they need to do is last one combat round with a single offensive weapon intact, then they and the carriers/tenders can jump away. (Admittedly, this is more 'playing the system' than not.)

Spinal armed vessels may exist. However, they will not last long in the whirling fighter/rider scrum of the Line. They could be committed from the Reserve to the Line the turn a commander feels a breakthrough is likely. There, they could either target the 'turtle' escorts to cause a breakthrough or be held to target opposing carriers/tenders after a breakthrough. However they're used, it will be tough balancing a spinal mount and jump drives with the agility and armor needed to survive the fighter swarm for only a few rounds.

Your setting's battles are going to be attritive in the extreme. There's a German word for this (that I can't quite remember) which means 'material fighting'. Major battles will involve thousands of fighters and results in hundreds of fighter losses. No warship will enter the Line and face the fighter/rider scrum until it is somewhat safe to do so; remember that vessels only lasted one combat round in our tests! Once a combatant feels their Line is weak, they'll call back their remaining fighters/riders, deploy their 'turtles', and jump away.

Naval campaigns will have very few Trafalgars, Aboukir Bays, or Midways and lots of Jutlands and Phillipine Seas. It will a long, slow, attritive grind involving the destruction of enough of an opponent's fighters/riders until his 'swarm' can't meet your 'swarm'.

So, your setting's powers will build fighter, riders, more fighters, more riders, carriers/tenders, escorts, patrollers, and the occasional spinal-armed ship in that order.

Hope this helps.


Have fun,
Bill

Hmmmm.... It seems, then, that I should remove the law delaying the Dampers in order to make my battles more decisive and interesting; would a TL12 Damper make fighters less effective?

And don't fighter grouping rules make them LESS effective by reducing their swarming capability?

 

[The Oz]

Grouping fighters into squadrons or wings does reduce the number of targets the fighters can attack, but in a setting with thousands of fighters in a single battle that usually won't be a major factor; there will be enough fighters to go around.

TL12 dampers have good effect against the size of missile batteries that a single fighter can carry (f-2 maximum, at TL12) but TL12 dampers are little use against the salvo strength of a group of missile-heavy fighters.

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
Hmmmm.... It seems, then, that I should remove the law delaying the Dampers in order to make my battles more decisive and interesting; would a TL12 Damper make fighters less effective?

2-4601,

No, allowing TL12 dampers won't help. TL12 is the 'cusp' as it were. At TL12 and below, fighters are deadly, above TL12 fighters lose most of their usefulness.

This relies of several interlocking factor:

- Dampers; TL12 dampers are rather weak (only USP code 1) and are easily beaten by even small missile USP codes.

- Great improvement in powerplant's "EP per dTon" rating. A TL9-12 plant requires 3% of hull tonnage per rating while a TL13 plant requires 2%. More EPs equals more agility and more 'room' for other stuff.

- Improvements in lasers at TL13 provide a +1 USP code bonus. This allows 'smaller' batteries to have a better chance of hitting fighters or stopping missiles.

- Armor costs and tonnage remains the same across TL12 and 13, but powerplant dTon savings means you have more 'room' to install it.

- Improvement in computers from 6/F to 7/G. Any increase in the 'computer gap' between fighters and ships is deadly to fighters. The relative computer rating between firer and target is a bonus for hitting and penetrating. Fighters find it hard to mount big computers, power them, and still maintain high agility ratings. Also, the (usually) lack of bridges on fightrs reduces any installed computer's rating by one.

TL12 is about the upper end of the HG2fighter's effectiveness, albeit at great cost.

And don't fighter grouping rules make them LESS effective by reducing their swarming capability?

Oz' rules first. (A proviso: I've read Oz' rules, I have not played them.)

Oz' rules uses fighter squadrons to lessen the 'computer gap' between fighter and ships. I think his "Squadron computer rating = installed computer plus 1 for each fighter upto TL" may be too much, but it certainly is interesting.

OTOH, as you surmised, Oz' combining of all fighter weapons in a squadron works against swarming. The squadrons' combined computer rating and combined weapon rating do make hitting and penetrating easier, but it also limits the number of hits and gives the target a better chance to prevent penetrations.

The results of the 'ct-starships' depended on very large numbers of batteries. A low odds 'to hit' or 'to pen' probability may seem worthless until you apply it to 100+ fighters. This works especially well against 'to pen' rolls. Because a target will only have so many laser/sand batteries to throw at missile hits, each missile hit after a certain number automatically penetrates.

The JTAS rules; in Issue #14 by Stefan Jones, work by allowing squadrons to engage in 'close attacks' at either short or long range and recieve 'to hit' bonuses. A squadron's fighters' computers and weapons are not added together as Oz' rules do. (Mr. Jones other rules involved using squadrons as missile defense among other things.)

So, yes, Oz' rules will limit the effect of 'swarms' and the JTAS rules will not.

In each 'swarm', a balance must be struck between fighters and the small riders that hunt them. Lots of fighters provide the lots of batteries you need for the 'large number' effect on 'to hit' and 'to pen' rolls, but fighters alone will be easy meat for the small riders. Conversely, small riders alone will be swarmed by all the fighters.

It's a constant balancing act and, if the fighter/rider 'scrum' starts to go against one side, they simply call all their light force home, deploy the 'one round' turtles, and jump away. You could easily have battles in which neither side's carriers/tenders are hit.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
- 10-ton Light Fighter (done), missiles/sand
- 50-ton Heavy Fighter, triple missiles, armor (?)
- 95-ton Dropship (done), missiles/sand
- Various small craft (done).

Wow! You've been busy.

I could, of course, see where these might be going into the bigger ships, but that doesn't mean you were going to put them in . . . so I thought I'd mention it.

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
Probably M-3/J-3 max for big ships (except for the more nimble cruisers); the fighters do most of the fast manouvering.

M-drives equal Agility, and that equals the only universal defense against all weapons.

By giving up on cruiser Agility, they give up a substantial portion of their defense.

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
As far as I understand, Carriers *ARE* the capital ships in a TL12 milieu; lots of fighters are a menace. But, I think I'll add a 50Kdton Battleships to that list anyway.

Hooray! I am such a big fan of giant battleships.

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
Even though ultra big ships are technically possible, they might be economically problematic. The really big hulls are reserved for ships with low cost (both in MCR and construction time) per dton.

But one giant hull, that probably never leaves home . . . it's happened before. (Or maybe a handful of giant hulls.)

Perhaps there is some political wrangling going on over the construction of the first 200 kdTon super battleship in the halls of their military procurement and budget departments. The admirals want them, and those controlling the purse strings don't.

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
Won't the Fusion Gun make a big cut in the Fighter's Agility?

What, the fighter's agility matters, but the cruiser's agility doesn't?

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
We ran a series of tests at 'ct-starships' back in early 2001 that showed - in a damperless setting - fighters could routinely mission kill warships in a single combat round.

First, several warships were designed and very simple (~ 10dT) fighters were then bought with 80% of the warship's cost. Unless the warship was an extreme design; a 'slow', heavily armored planetoid, it was mission killed in one round; usually by a 100% loss of fuel.

I admit to not understanding.

A 10dT fighter? What computer model did it mount? 2? 3? Against large warships?

A TL-12 10dT fighter with a triple missile rack is Missile USP Factor 2. That is a 6 to hit on the chart (against no active defenses).

A large warship will have a Model 6 computer (TL-12 limit). This a -3 modifier to penetrate. If you include the -6 for the cruiser's agility (if I designed it), that's -9. +1 for the Cruiser's L to P size (50 kDton for cruisers is pretty typical), that's -8, with a base of 6. This cannot be rolled on 2d6.

Even at short range with only -7, it still cannot be rolled on 2d6.

In the strict rules, there are no weapons massing for fighters, so each one fires it's tiny triple missile rack (with nuclear warhead loads on the missiles) separately.

All of them miss. Every last one.

Unless I'm missing something.

-----------------------------------------

A 50dt fighter could mount a model 6 computer, but that will only mean it needs to roll 10, 11, or 12. Even in a giant wing of fighters, the 2d6 bell-curve means that a great many will miss.

It also means mounting a MCr55 component in every fighter.

I can't see fuel-depletion mission kills against armored warships. (Nuclear warheads get -6 on damage rolls, but USP 9 or less gets +6 on damage rolls, and add ship's armor . . . it will take 100 Fuel-1 hits coming in from rolls of 10, 11, or 12; or maybe a little less with a few lucky Fuel-2 hits, but there is only one slot for that on the chart.)

I think the m-drives will be shot off before that.

It also depends on how much armor the warships mounted.

------------------------------------------

Can you please provide a more extensive description of the conditions of starship construction in the test, or point out the errors in my assumptions above?

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
A 10dT fighter? What computer model did it mount? 2? 3? Against large warships?

RoS,

Please do not worry, you have not misunderstood a thing. The fault is mine alone. Thanks to a spotty memory, I have mixed and matched a series of tests we did at 'ct-starships' over four years ago. Because this thread needed the details, I went back and re-read most of the salient posts from four years ago.

The ~10 dTon fighter varieties were tested against 'civilian' and 'paramilitary' designs like the 800 dTon merc cruiser, 400 dTon Vargr corsair, and a few non-canonical others.

The fighters that mission killed the large, purely military designs was a 50 dTon one. Here are two of the designs:

FM-0306G51-000000-00002-1 MCr 138.525
Batt bear 1 Crew; 1
Batt 1 TL: 12
Cargo: 1.000 Fuel: 8.000 EP: 1.000 Agility: 6

and

FG-0306G51-000000-04000-0 MCr 138.275 50 tons
Batt Bear 1 Crew: 1
Batt 1 TL: 12
Cargo: 0.00 Fuel; 0.00 EP: 0.00 Agility: 2

The first was called 'XM' for 'experiment, missile'. The 2nd was called 'XG' for 'experiment, gun'. Each performed differently against different designs.

Here's one 'Smoke Test' design called 'BB-L', two variants, and the results against it.

BB - R6346F3-671106-88Q08-0 MCr104,696.52 100kt
bb E E 741 Y Crew 942
b L L A51 Z TL 12
Cargo 1132 Fuel 37kt EP 7000 agi 4 troops 100
Craft 4x 50t cutter
6fib + 1 backup
bridge + 1 backup
nuc damper 1 + 1 backup
meson screen 1 + 1 backup
armor factor 6
Y=35 Z=50

Jump-3, 4-G.

1 spinal PAW-Q
20 bay repulsor-6
50 bay missile-8
100 triple laser (10 batteries factor 8)
50 dual fusion (5 batteries factor 8)
100 triple sand (20 batteries factor 7)

Variants:
armor 0, 6G, agility 6.
armor 3, 5G, agility 5.

Next how different fighters did against it:

BBL vs. XM-nucs
780 fired
130 hits
11 penetrate damper
0 penetrate the beams (the beam batts forced a to hit muber of 13,
so 4 would be unused)
0 damge

BBLv2 vs. XM-nucs (BBLv1 is agility 6, armor 0)
780 fired
22 hits
2 penetrate damper
0 penetrate beams (see note above)
0 damage

BBLv1 vs. XM-nuc (BBLv2 is agility 5, armor 3)
780 fired
65 hits
6 penetrate dampers
0 penetrate beams (see note above)
0 damage

BBL vs. XM-he
780 fired
130 hits
115 penetrate beams
damage: 68 weapons, 28 fuel, 19 no effect

BBLv2
780 fired
22 hits
7 penetrate beams
damge: 4 weapons, 4 fuel, 1 maneuver

BBLv1
780 fired
65 hits
50 penetrate beams
damage: 32 weapons, 16 fuel, 3 maneuver

And some more results and analysis from the set of 'smoke tests' using the designs I've posted:

With the low missile factor of the TL 12 XM, even an early nuc damper is a stopper. Surprisingly, the BBLv2 variant, with the highest agility and least armor, took the least damage. The BBLv2 also did better against the fusion gun armed XG, but still ended up mission killed like it's bretheren. It was a difference in scope rather than kind.

With the XMs, both other variants suffered mission kills due to fuel hits in one combat round. Running the "numbahs" and roughly speaking:

280 XMs would mission fuel kill a BBL
490 XMs would mission fuel kill a BBLv1
156 XGs would mission fuel kill a BBL
211 XGs would mission fuel kill a BBLv1
290 XGs would mission fuel kill a BBLv2

Considering that 780 of each of fighter style was purchased for only 75% of the cost of a BBL or it's variants. It should pointed out, that both fighters only mass 50Dt and sacrifices (armor, agility) have been made in order to place a factor 5 computer in each.

While smaller numbers of the XG can mission kill the BBL, they are much more fragile than their XM counterparts due to an agility of 2 while using their fusion guns. The idea that the presence of fighters will force certain design
choices. ie: "raise the bar", is certainly a valid one.

Please note, the mission kill numbers are the number of fighters needs to mission kill the warship in ONE combat round. You can buy a lot of fighters; even 50 dTon fighters, for 75% of the cost of a warship.

Hope this clears up some of the confusion I created.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Ptah]

E 2-4601,
Absent the damper I see the factor-9 nuclear missile bay being the major threat. My primary defense would be armor-7 minimum. Against fighter swarms my primary defense would be factor-4 sand (that should be one triple turret at TL12). My philosophy being, I would rather apply four factor-4's against a missile/beam than two factor-5s, or one factor-6.

As to other larger ships, I would design them around a factor-K meson spinal mount, armor-7, M drives-3 (your max drives), and enough extra EP for max agility. The idea is these ships have high agility to obtian initiative and set range to short to gain a +2 for the meson. Also agility never hurts. I think if you hit that's 11 damage rolls.

How big depends on cost-benefit. I would tend to go with as small as possible and even consider battle-riders. The remainder of my fleet, besides support, would be the 50,000 ton carriers (maybe smaller), and 2,000 ton and 10,000 ton, armor-7, missile-9 ships. I'd focus on sand for the big ships and let my fighters take out enemy fighters.


If you can afford it throwong in a battle ship, e.g., 108,000 ton meson monster version, might provide those Meson Cruisers with extended life. Such a battleship might be able to mount sufficient defense to stand in the line, e.g., by mounting fifty 100 ton repulsor bays to provide 50 defensive rolls against enemy missile-9 bays, and 500 sand-4's for defense against fighter missiles/plasma weapons. The idea is to give it a chance to stand in the line and require the enemy to concentrate fire on it if they want to remove it from the line by means other than their own meson monster.

 

[Golan2072]

RainOfSteel and Ptah, thanks for pointing out the need for high Agility on warships. The manouver would probably be 6 max now.

So it seems that in HG, all TL12- naval battles (even with Dampers? These I can bring back; and even with The Oz's grouping rules?) would be long, tiring and boring attritional fights dominated by fighters. I can't go up to TL13 without invalidating all of the material I was making, and I can't go back to LBB2 as its combat system doesn't work well with more than a very few turrets (battery rules are one of HGs strong points). I have only part of the MT books, and no T20. So I'm kinda stuck

 

[Whipsnade]

2-4601,

If retarding the development of dampers doesn't work, would advancing their development work instead? Put TL13 or 14 dampers in your TL12 tech package.

I don't know what effect you want in your setting.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:

I don't know what effect you want in your setting.

The effect I want is doublefold:

1) I want it to be playable and interesting to play, both in the HG light-semi-wargame level and (with the smaller ships and with Sigg Oddra's rules) in the PC level.

2) I want naval battles that would resemble those in Babylon 5 to a degree: Fighters matter, but big ships matter too. I want to fleets of big ships clashing with the fighters zipping around them, firing at each other but also trying to attack the bigger ships.

 

[mike wightman]

By selecting the best of the High Guard house rules that have appeared over the years you should be able to get the effect you're after.

I started collecting all the various modifications together, but unfortunately it is buried in a thread I have long since forgotten the title of

 

[Whipsnade]

2-4601,

Okay, I think I can help with #2.

Definitely use Oz' squadron rules and advance damper tech to TL13.

Using the Oz' squadron rules:

- Closes the 'computer gap' which allows fighters to hit/penetrate more often.
- Limits the number of fighter batteries which reduces the 'swarm' effect.
- Lets you handle fighters as groups and speed play.

Advancing damper tech to TL13:

- Limits or prevents penetration by low USP code missile batteries; i.e. lone fighters or 'weak/damaged' squadrons.
- Still allows penetration by mid to high USP code missile batteries; i.e. warships and full/nearly full strength squadrons.

The idea of limiting the number of fighter weapon batteries without limiting the number of actual fighters is key here. For example; take 10 fighters each with 3 missiles launchers installed. In regular HG2 at TL12 they'd represent 10 USP code 2 batteries. In HG2 with Oz' rules, they become one USP code 6 battery. Yes, a better chance to hit/pen but less overall damage too! The single fighters could mean as many as ten damage rolls while the squadron means only one.

Squadrons interact dampers in much the same manner. Using the same fighters and squadron as above and assuming only TL12 dampers (USP code 1), the lone fighter penetrates on 9+ while the squadron pentrates on 5+. Assuming TL13 dampers (USP codes 2 or 3), the lone fighter now penetrate on 10+/11+ while the squadron penetrates on 6+/7+. Thus your dampers nearly shut out lone fighters while still allowing squadrons and warships to trade missile volleys.

Hope this helps.


Have fun,
Bill

P.S. Did my Striker suggestion help?

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
By selecting the best of the High Guard house rules that have appeared over the years you should be able to get the effect you're after.

I started collecting all the various modifications together, but unfortunately it is buried in a thread I have long since forgotten the title of

Do you mean this thread? Or this one? Or is it this one? Or this one?

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:

Definitely use Oz' squadron rules and advance damper tech to TL13.

Consider it done. Thanks for you suggestions.

The idea of limiting the number of fighter weapon batteries without limiting the number of actual fighters is key here. For example; take 10 fighters each with 3 missiles launchers installed. In regular HG2 at TL12 they'd represent 10 USP code 2 batteries. In HG2 with Oz' rules, they become one USP code 6 battery. Yes, a better chance to hit/pen but less overall damage too! The single fighters could mean as many as ten damage rolls while the squadron means only one.

Squadrons interact dampers in much the same manner. Using the same fighters and squadron as above and assuming only TL12 dampers (USP code 1), the lone fighter penetrates on 9+ while the squadron pentrates on 5+. Assuming TL13 dampers (USP codes 2 or 3), the lone fighter now penetrate on 10+/11+ while the squadron penetrates on 6+/7+. Thus your dampers nearly shut out lone fighters while still allowing squadrons and warships to trade missile volleys.

So, you mean that the main issues I had would be mostly removed. Now, what fighters and big ship kinds do you suggest for this milieu? Would missiles still be the primary weapons?

P.S. Did my Striker suggestion help?

Yes, it did; the results would be designed soon

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
So, you mean that the main issues I had would be mostly removed.

2-4601,

Well, you won't see fighter swarms tearing into each other or 'nibbling' warships to death via fuel hits.

Now, what fighters and big ship kinds do you suggest for this milieu? Would missiles still be the primary weapons?

Missiles will still be useful, but they'll be one of many useful weapons.

Spinals will be IT for big warships. Critical hits are your best ship killers in HG2 and spinals are the best way to get them. You either get 'crits' by rolling them on the damage tables or by hitting a target with a battery whose USP code exceeds that target's hull size USP code.

At TL12, the biggest PAW spinal is 'Q' which produces 'auto crits' for all hulls under 75 KdTons. The TL12 meson spinal is a 'K' which does the same for hulls under 10K dTons. (To be fair regarding meson spinals, at TL12 meson screens are weak, USP code 1 only, and mesons get to roll on the Interior Explosion table too.)

EPs are your problem with spinals. Both of those batteries above need 1000 EPs and at TL12 you'll be spending 3% hull tonnage for every integer in your powerplant's USP code.

Bay weapons; especially energy 'free' missiles, are a good bet too. PAW bays are nice if you can find the EPs.

Turrets should be held for anti-fighter and anti-missile work. Lasers are nice but fusion guns are great, especially if you're looking for big battery codes. Ten double fusion gun turrets will give a you a battery with a code of 8. Again, available EPs will constrain you. EP 'free' sand may not be an offensive weapon, but it can stop missiles, laser, plasma guns, and fusion guns alike.

Fighters should look at nuc-missiles or fusion guns. Nuc-missiles are everyone's favorite because they avoid the +6 DM on the damage roll. (Any battery with an USP code under 9 gets +6 on the damage roll.) Fusion guns are nice because of their big battery factors; ten will get you eight as I mentioned above.

Agility is vital. Armor is nice but not getting hit is better. Again, having the EPs agility requires may be troublesome. That's when armor is your friend.


Have fun,
Bill