OBT Forum

my take on unit production is that it was low, in general, during the early Dark Age but with all the conflicts going now should have cranked way up to make good losses-military and civilian losses both. 

Not every realm's story is the same.  The Capellans we know did not play by the Republic's rules at all, for example. 

I think TPTB need to take a careful look at the picture they are painting for us because it looks like we are headed to a situation where naval ANYTHING is so rare that mechwarriors won't be able to move about the galaxy.  I realize Catalyst hasn't said this but it seems the trend with numbers of everything being so low. 

As with my initial question about warships that started this thread...the situation doesn't make alot of sense when you think about it. 
The writers and game designers seem to be keeping numbers of everything artificially low. 
I know, its a fictional universe and they can say whatver they want but....there has to be some verisimilitude.   

skiltao, if you meant for that spoiler to be hidden, that wasn't the case.

Yeah... I guess spoilers aren't a thing here. Still, splitting the post into three parts worked well enough instead.

Those numbers are interesting, when you look at the original split I had (FASA versus FanPro/CGL taking over). Obviously, I simply broke down the books before, as I wasn't taking the time to count through the number of vessels. Nice work there. You'd expect that FASA would have the lion's share, as they were laying down the foundations of the Star League era and WarShips in general. I actually would not have expected the FanPro/CGL side to be as close as it was to the FASA numbers. My original reasons for using the FASA versus FanPro/CGL split came from the fact that is was the closest point (from memory) I knew of when Randall Bills and much of the same staff stepped into line development roles. The continuity of staff (on the Battletech side) from FanPro through CGL was roughly equivalent to the continuity of staff during the FASA era. I don't recall if Randall had any line developer credits under the FASA imprint. The best product to check would be FM: Periphery (as it was one of the last FASA imprint products), but I don't have an electronic copy. I know that FM: Updates came out under Randall's aegis. Anyway, that's why I made the split as I did.

Thanks! I don't recall when Randall stepped into an editor role, but I know most of the FanPro writers got started during the Field Manual series (or earlier). The numbers aren't surprising when you realize Catalyst is just continuing the FASA/FanPro habit of 1 or 2 ships per book.

Quote from: skiltao on March 20, 2014, 11:48:32 PM

Station warships primarily at jump points or assign them to escort active shipping & logistics.

That would require fleet sizes that even the Star League couldn't regularly pull off, if you're looking to have regular patrols in most significant systems for each faction.

No, I'm not talking about fleet size or frequency of patrol. I'm saying that, regardless of however many ships you have, these are duties which are plausibly more important than sitting in planetary orbit.

It also leads back into the same issue of drastically changing the raiding paradigm that serves as a major part of the setting's backdrop. How do you allow for raids and smaller, objective based ground conquests with such a preponderance of naval resources in more systems? (That's not meant as a smart-ass response, truly. That's a serious question, as I'm not seeing how you avoid the issue.)

Provided fleet sizes are comparable for every House, then it'll be the same as Aerospace wings and assault ships in the 3rd (and every other) war. Aerospace engagements have always been part of the setting and many (probably most) raids--they just never got much screen time.

Granted, if the fleet sizes increase to the point where even smaller raids are accompanied by warships, I'd rather have warships themselves be smaller overall. But I like small KF-capable warships (20 kilotons to 120 kilotons) and don't mind trying to find room for them.

De-glorify nukes and changing orbital fire are both certainly strong suggestions, but not something that can be done with the existing rules. What those things can do have been established within the context of the Total Warfare rules. If you're looking at another rules edition (possibly coinciding with the rumored 3250 era), then those things definitely become more viable options.

Agreed.

I'm not so sure about that. Considering how many new designs have hit the market in that time frame versus the 3rd SW period (at least the early through middle 3rd SW), I don't see that. Then again, without some sort of Objectives series, it's tough to pin down exact production.

Breadth vs. depth: the number of new design series doesn't tell you anything about their rate of production. What you can do, though, is examine how long it took the 3100s armies to expand and how much they expanded. The numbers are known well enough to approximate an overall Sphere-wide rate of production. Even accounting for attrition & the draw down & decades-slow retooling, overall manufacturing capacity doesn't seem to exceed 3025's level until sometime (perhaps a short time) after 3145.

Quote from: skiltao on March 20, 2014, 11:48:32 PM

Quote from: Dread Moores on March 19, 2014, 10:48:55 PM

If you have large fleets and don't use them (or simply say they cancel each other out)...then why have large fleets? Just to be numbers on a page?

Why have infantry be part of the setting? Why astechs? Why civilians? Why stars?

Unless infantry somehow magically develop the ability to wipe entire regiments out with the equivalent of 1/20th of their weapon allotments (something WarShips can do with just a few capital bays), there's not really much comparison. Honestly, prior to Total Warfare's changes for infantry, they weren't really a very effective part of the setting. That's definitely a change in direction, but it is one that has far more built-in balance than massive WarShip fleets.

You weren't asking there what do with warships that could wipe out entire regiments. You asked if there was any point to including warships that don't wipe out entire regiments. That's all I mean to address there.

Also, you're probably barking up the wrong tree here. I like infantry far more than 'Mechs.

Heh. That makes the comparison better then, yeah? What with people liking warships more than infantry? 

Mostly, with quality product that didn't have atrocious editing, proofing, and poorly thought out ideas. <snip> I don't think as highly of it in current products. That should help to give you some idea of what I thought of the early to mid FASA proofing and layout, in comparison.

Thank you for the additional context, your position makes more sense to me now, and it's one I can respect, if not agree to completely. As you said, you've had your own criticisms of CGL, which made your (deliberately over the top?) criticism of FASA somewhat surprising to me.

I'd also politely ask to keep your personal attacks to yourself.

Apologies, I'd thought my remark light enough to pass. I wanted to disagree without getting into how (typos aside) early FASA's numbers are better-planned and more functional than latter-day-FASA/FanPro/Catalyst's, since working through the numbers and citations always seems to antagonize people. A little light teasing seemed less incendiary in comparison.

An embarassing mistep; I'm sorry I offended. 

If you look at the Master Unit List under IS General, Periphery General, and Mercenary for the Late Republic and Dark Ages area, it paints a pretty bleak picture.

I think the Master Unit team has only completed (as complete as an ongoing resource like that can be) a single era so far. So the Late Republic and Dark Ages might be more hazy than bleak.

I think that one of the reasons that OB seems so powerful is the size of the maps upon which the table top game is played. 

If you look at the historical concentration of a division across a front, from WWI until the Cold War, the length of a division's front and its depth have increased substantially.  Part of this is due to better communications, but part is intentional dispersal, as artillery and air strikes became more prevalent and deadly and the possibility of getting nuked entered into high level planning during the Cold War.

Apply that to the BT universe, where 120+ units can scatter across large areas and the WarShips will have a hell of a time trying to effectively eliminate a regiment without wrecking the place in the process.  I think the break has to come from attaching the significance of table top rules to strategic warfare across the face of a planet. Do that and OB does not seem such a big deal, unless you have a SLDF Fleet and a dozen or so divisions to rain fire upon or the regiment has been forced to concentrate to a level that would be critical for effective bombardment.

You can't hold a world hiding from WarShips. You can't hold a world from the nuclear hell they can unleash on you, if you're scattered around in hidden fortifcations. Looking at WarShips as they exist currently (way, way too freaking big), the way orbital fire works within the setting, and the way battles are fought...yeah, there is a serious problem.

Yes, yes and yes.

The fact that there are a bunch of new designs doesn't tell you how fast they're being built. When you examine army sizes, attrition rates, etc, the numbers come out low. I'm very curious to see what army sizes and attrition look like after 3145.

::Sigh:: Have you read FM: 3145 or any of the 3145 TRO entries? Many of them go on to say whether or not a unit is being built at "breakneck speed," or "arming the new RAF."I'm only ask because it's explicitly stated in the Republic write up that the military industries behind the FORTRESS are on a build spree. (I should know—I wrote it.) So off the top of my head I can point to the expansion of the Wolf Touman and the RAF as examples of massive industrial expansion. With the other major factions it becomes slightly more blurred because of the fighting that has been going on for the last fifteen years, but needless to say outside of combat losses, the fact that most factions have been able to sustain their numbers AFTER the supposed draw down suggests that production has ramped up enough to support the war effort.

If you're looking for hard numbers you won't find any, but part of the setting post-Blackout is the general idea that everybody is ramped up for war (some quicker than others.)

Because I agree about how BattleTech is 'Mech-centric. (Though I will note that WarShips do not break BattleTech any worse than it already was: regular artillery, in sufficient quantity at sufficient distance, is equally bad; and neither the rules nor the setting give any explanation for why it is not used in such a way.)

True, WarShips do not break BattleTech any worse because they're already broken.

As for artillery the setting has offered numerous examples, dating all the way back to the Field Manual series explaining exactly how and where artillery is deployed. Even the vaunted SLDF for all its might deployed artillery in relatively low concentrations per-Division. The setting has established that massed artillery, as it would be found along the Western Front, is not happening in the BTU. Plus, artillery isn't all that overpowering compared to the weapons a WarShip can bring to the tabletop.

So we won't see artillery in sufficient quantity at sufficient distance very often, and when we do it'll be for plot purposes. Game use of artillery isn't over-powering.

By "de-glorify" I meant reduce their effectiveness against 'Mechs and WarShips.

You mean either a retcon or a rules change.

Why can't we reduce the effectiveness of warship weapons vs 'Mechs?

Do you like it when CGL retcons? Most people don't. FASA established the power of naval weapons long, long ago. Reducing their effectiveness would mean rewriting almost all of BattleTech's published history. I'm not one for doing that, are you?

We can't just make arbitrary changes to how the universe worked. We can probably tweak rules and direct plot to help support some minor modifications, but changing or destroying anything major is out of the question. At that point your applying major modifications to either the aesthetic or setting. This is why I challenged you to find a way to keep ’Mechs king, not change or break the setting, while maintaining WarShips has a relevant table top unit. WarShips will remain a plot device as long as their necessary, but they'll do so within the established roles of WarShips in the BTU. That means leaving jump points, conducting orbital bombardment and fighting regular space battles.

That said, how then can you justify restricting WarShips to garrison jump points when all of BTU history says otherwise? You can't, without breaking major precedent and setting. Moreover, if we restrict WarShips to jump points enemy units will simply use pirate points. Then what? The WarShip stays at the jump point while the world is taken? Are they relevant if the factories that provide the goods for said logistics has been taken by the enemy? Not really.

Regardless, it's irrelevant insofar that handwavium or arbitrary changes like restricting WarShips to jump points and shipping lanes won't happen. 


Why go through the motion of building a massive strategic weapon that can literally destroy whole worlds and virtually ensure your ground forces make landfall, and then just leave it at a jump point or escorting shipping?...
[/quote]

Because your troops are worthless without the supplies carried by those ships and your shipping is more vulnerable than the troops on the ground. Because if you have warship superiority you probably have superior ground forces as well, and the jump points are where enemy reinforcements come from. Because if your "strategic" asset is suddenly needed at another planet or another system they need to get to a jump point anyways. In short? Jump points and shipping are more important, strategically, than most of the things you could achieve with orbital bombardment--and if that isn't always the case, we can certainly stack the game and setting to make it true as often as possible.

Yeah, FASA's orbital bombardment rules are an issue, I'll grant you that. However, I'm still curious: do you think the ship sample described in TR:2750 precludes the widespread existence of much smaller KF-capable warships?

Smaller WarShips are a possible option, but you have to figure out a way to explain why BTU factions won't increase mass as time progresses. Sadly, since we've seen the whole width and breadth of WarShips tonnage up to the 2 million mark it's a hard sell to the setting to just arbitrarily say no new WarShips won't mass over 250,000 tons or XYZ tons after a given period of time. If the BTU keeps churning out "supporting characters" like new BA, Vehicles, DS, JS, etc., why wouldn't they start churning out newer and heavier WarShips as well?

Since you'll need a suitable setting explanation, we could say that maybe we broke Hyperspace? Well since hyperspace isn't mass specific that won't work...All the computers everywhere can't figure out how to calculate the mass for a K-F Drive for anything over 500,000 tons? Well that's not exactly plausible.

So at this point we're either stuck with WarShips that can mass up to the established 2.5 million tons or we don't have WarShips.

I see what you're saying, but it's a complicated issue that no amount of handwavium will fix. The solution to this problem with require a comprehensive combination of probable rule change, tech and some plot development...or not. In the end we may end not being able to "fix" WarShips and maintain the current setting. If that becomes the case then WarShips will likely disappear.

I will say this, players DON'T like WarShips more than infantry when it comes to sales. Aerospace products consistently sell low, despite a very vocal, yet minor portion of the overall BattleTech community (the same goes for faction specific products, like the Handbooks). However, that little factoid has no bearing on whether or not WarShips survive as a playable unit in BattleTech. It's just worth noting.

Knightmare thanks for the clarification. 
I got the wrong impression i guess based upon stuff on the Battletech forums and the wiki.
That's the main reason I asked the question....more knowledgeable fans can point out where I am mistaken. 

If warships are going to fade into the background is there going to be something (smaller capital ships, escorts or the like) that is going to take over that role within the battletech universe? 

I'll look into the 3145 Field Manual and TRO to help sharpen my grasp of the issue...right now I've only been able to afford to pick up the 3145 era report.  I'm working on it though!

Quote from: Dread Moores on March 21, 2014, 05:32:05 PM

You can't hold a world hiding from WarShips. You can't hold a world from the nuclear hell they can unleash on you, if you're scattered around in hidden fortifcations. Looking at WarShips as they exist currently (way, way too freaking big), the way orbital fire works within the setting, and the way battles are fought...yeah, there is a serious problem.

Yes, yes and yes.

Couldn't something like the Ares Conventions hold? After all, the whole universe saw what happened during the Amaris' Coup, before Operation Klondike, in the 1st and 2nd Succession Wars and during the Jihad.
You can have these big guns and nukes but agree not to use them unless someone unleashes them on you (this is what is happening on Earth right now).

::Sigh:: Have you read FM: 3145 or any of the 3145 TRO entries? Many of them go on to say whether or not a unit is being built at "breakneck speed," or "arming the new RAF."I'm only ask because it's explicitly stated in the Republic write up that the military industries behind the FORTRESS are on a build spree. (I should know—I wrote it.) So off the top of my head I can point to the expansion of the Wolf Touman and the RAF as examples of massive industrial expansion. With the other major factions it becomes slightly more blurred because of the fighting that has been going on for the last fifteen years, but needless to say outside of combat losses, the fact that most factions have been able to sustain their numbers AFTER the supposed draw down suggests that production has ramped up enough to support the war effort.

If you're looking for hard numbers you won't find any, but part of the setting post-Blackout is the general idea that everybody is ramped up for war (some quicker than others.)

"Breakneck speed" and "building spree" relative to what? To Terra at the height of the Star League? To Luthien in the First Succession War? Hesperus II at its 50s-70s height? Or, perhaps, relative to the decades immediately preceding 3145? Overall force sizes are known fairly exactly, and the fact they can sustain (or expand) their numbers tells you that production is balancing attrition. Attrition in this Era can be estimated from other factors.

And as I said, 3145 may be a turning point in terms of production.

As for artillery the setting has offered numerous examples, dating all the way back to the Field Manual series explaining exactly how and where artillery is deployed. Even the vaunted SLDF for all its might deployed artillery in relatively low concentrations per-Division. The setting has established that massed artillery, as it would be found along the Western Front, is not happening in the BTU. <snip>

So we won't see artillery in sufficient quantity at sufficient distance very often, and when we do it'll be for plot purposes. Game use of artillery isn't over-powering.

That's what I said, yes. My point is that nobody ever explains why such a common weapon is used with such restraint. Why can't WarShips be similarly common yet unexplainedly restrained?

Quote from: skiltao on March 21, 2014, 04:57:05 PM

By "de-glorify" I meant reduce their effectiveness against 'Mechs and WarShips.

You mean either a retcon or a rules change.

Yep.

Do you like it when CGL retcons? Most people don't. FASA established the power of naval weapons long, long ago. Reducing their effectiveness would mean rewriting almost all of BattleTech's published history. I'm not one for doing that, are you?

We can't just make arbitrary changes to how the universe worked. We can probably tweak rules and direct plot to help support some minor modifications, but changing or destroying anything major is out of the question. At that point your applying major modifications to either the aesthetic or setting.

How is it arbitrary? How does this affect the aesthetic or the setting?

• Gameplay: we've already agreed that easy destruction of 'Mech regiments is bad for gameplay and makes WarShips less playable.
• Aesthetic: WarShip bombardment, if brought down to the level of conventional artillery, would still be overpowered compared to BattleMechs and still be capable of large-scale devastation.
• Physics: it makes no sense that warship weapons, which need more than 60 seconds to penetrate foil-thin armor hundreds of meters wide, become suddenly extra effective against a different armor which is 100x thicker and is designed to withstand bursts 100x more concentrated at rates 30x faster.
• Consistency: if we examine 'Mechs-vs-infantry-armor effects and scale up to Warships-vs-'Mech-armor, warship weapons would not only lose their Area of Effect against 'Mechs but their damage would be reduced to essentially zero.
• History: BattleTech has used WarShips primarily in fleet actions and to bombard hardened positions. The Jihad is the first period with orbital bombardments detailed enough to even possibly need revising, and even it can't have all that many anecdotes.

Catalyst is not above making modifications this major; adopting Maximum Tech's artillery and infantry rules was a "retcon" of the same type and scale. You're right that people dislike changes. But you're also right that WarShips are less popular than the ground game--the people who dislike a change to bombardment are going to be outnumbered by people (including myself) who disliked the change to infantry.

Such a change would probably go smoothest in a 3250 ruleset, like Dread suggested. Might even help (as with Total Warfare's infantry) to introduce it as an optional rule a few years beforehand, to give players time to get used to it.

That said, how then can you justify restricting WarShips to garrison jump points when all of BTU history says otherwise? You can't, without breaking major precedent and setting.

How do you figure? The 3050s-3070s are a low WarShip environment, very different from what we're discussing here; and the only sufficiently detailed Star League assault I'm aware of--the Liberation of Terra--was against an enemy who had no assets or allies outside their home system.

Moreover, if we restrict WarShips to jump points enemy units will simply use pirate points. Then what? The WarShip stays at the jump point while the world is taken? Are they relevant if the factories that provide the goods for said logistics has been taken by the enemy? Not really.

The Warship can jump to the attacker's point of entry. The WarShip has a less obstructed line of sight than it would in planetary orbit, and can communicate easily with detection sites near the planet or elsewhere in the system. (If there are two attackers entering from different points, then the WarShip generally enjoys an advantage by engaging them one at a time.)

Of course important factory worlds will be exceptional. But most battles do not occur on factory worlds, and in those cases, aerospace superiority tends to result in the enemy attempting to withdraw or going to ground. Adding WarShips doesn't change that.

Smaller WarShips are a possible option, but you have to figure out a way to explain why BTU factions won't increase mass as time progresses. Sadly, since we've seen the whole width and breadth of WarShips tonnage up to the 2 million mark it's a hard sell to the setting to just arbitrarily say no new WarShips won't mass over 250,000 tons or XYZ tons after a given period of time. If the BTU keeps churning out "supporting characters" like new BA, Vehicles, DS, JS, etc., why wouldn't they start churning out newer and heavier WarShips as well?

I'm not saying that King-sized ships would disappear. And whatever reason is currently keeping WarShips few in number could surely be used to keep the majority of ships small in size.

Well since hyperspace isn't mass specific that won't work

Uh, dude? Hyperspace is mass-specific. That is literally the first and only thing we know about Kearny-Fuchida physics. Catalyst even says it's more difficult to make KF drives for some ship masses (e.g., Bug-Eye) than for others.

I will say this, players DON'T like WarShips more than infantry when it comes to sales.

I was drawing a parallel between two minorities within the player base, not describing the aggregate behavior of the majority.