Topic: what's the deal with Warships? (Read 4190 times)

Takiro · « **Reply #45 on:** March 22, 2014, 10:05:19 PM »

See what happens when you go to Canada....

Yup, yup on a lot of what you said except

Quote

NOW! fast forward to the Clan Invasion period. The Clans Warship Production is decidedly small capacity. The Nightlord was their only new vessel on record, any others were refits of older ships, and the Leviathans were built almost by hand. They are mostly trying to maintain the vessels they have, and lacked sufficient resources to have all of their hulls active at once (Wars of Reaving refers to multiple Naval Caches).

Right the Clans didn't consider warships a priority but they did develop more then just the Nightlord (slipped from the Snow Raven shipyards at Lum in 2932) prior to the Leviathan (3055 joint Bear-Raven effort). There is the more numerous Fredasa which debuted in 2962 and appears in several Clan Toumans the stats are in TRO3057. Also we have a few unknown classes referred to in Strategic Operations under First Warships. Clan Wolf apparently fielded the Molniya in 2951, Clan Jade Falcon launched the Peregrine in 2969, and Clan Snow Raven deployed the Corone in 2915. You could argue that the Clan Carrack which is based on a Star League design was a joint warship built by the Diamond Sharks and Nova Cats in 2950 but lets not. So that is six Clan designed Warships that we know of. Could be more. Not likely though but maybe 1 or 2 at most.

Yes many Clans lacked the desire and motivation to activate their total war fleet like the Star Adders following the Burrock Absorption. I'd love to go over all those Naval Caches and speculate on their contents some time but right now I would not underestimate the Clan warship capacity. They also sent a few warships with the Wolf Dragoon's remember.

skiltao · « **Reply #46 on:** March 22, 2014, 11:28:56 PM »

JP, I agree that terminology can be an issue, especially as shipbuilding technology progresses through the centuries. Interpreting FR:2765's fleet sizes as being exclusively BattleShips and Cruisers and the like is an interesting thought (and I don't think it's necessary to pose it as a political ploy or faulty intelligence). If the idea is to bring the fleet sizes closer to FASA, though, then it's a wash. If we assume Catalyst's figures exclude certain categories of ship then (in the absence of a citation to the contrary) we should treat the old FASA figures as though they assume the same exclusions as well.

Quote from: JPArbiter on March 22, 2014, 07:35:59 PM

I am gonna come out and say it. Warships as they were initially presented were a BAD IDEA.construction mechanics, weight limits, guns, whatever the whole thing was a sloppy mess and if I had my way I would hop into the TARDIS and vehemetly prevent the construction rules for Warhships from ever being released in the first place.

Oh I don't know, Catalyst's aerospace team seems pretty happy with how warship combat interacts with dropships and aerospace now.

What do you think of the various methods proposed for making the ships less problematic for the ground side? Do you think it impossible that, if warships were made less problematic, that the setting might feature them more numerously in the future?

Dread Moores · « **Reply #47 on:** March 23, 2014, 11:30:09 AM »

Quote from: skiltao on March 22, 2014, 04:13:02 PM

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.

One tiny little note: The "whatever reason" that is currently keeping WarShips few in number (presuming you are referring to the current 3145 point in the timeline) is the destruction of the two preceding conflicts (the Jihad and the FedCom Civil War, as well as adding in the Bloody Tricentennial attacks...those are actually quite significant and often forgotten outside of the Jihad proper). I would doubt that players would want such a reason repeated over and over again to keep WarShip numbers limited. I'm actually a fairly big fan of the era, but even I wouldn't want continued repetition of it. There are two...maybe three yards (I honestly don't recall the exact number, but it is easily limited to counting on one hand) left in the entire Inner Sphere, Clan OZs included, capable of constructing vessels on the scale of WarShips.

That's not to say that another reason couldn't be used in its place, but this reason exist only at this point in the timeline for very specific reasons. It isn't a solid enough reusable reason to maintain internal consistency. I use that phrase specifically, because internal consistency is what rules any game setting, not realism. Once you start talking about "realistic or unrealistic" in just about any game system, especially one as space opera based as BT, you've already made a major mistake.

skiltao · « **Reply #48 on:** March 23, 2014, 12:59:11 PM »

I don't think a trend towards small shipyards, or smaller warship berths, would need any explanation. But yes, you're right, Catalyst will have to come up with something if they intend to keep WarShips few in number.

Dread Moores · « **Reply #49 on:** March 23, 2014, 02:26:25 PM »

Quote from: skiltao on March 23, 2014, 12:59:11 PM

I don't think a trend towards small shipyards, or smaller warship berths, would need any explanation.

I definitely think it would need an explanation. No other unit in the entire game suffers any sort of production restriction on said unit's already established size range. At least not that I can recall. 'Mechs don't suddenly stop being made in the heavy or assault weight range without explanation (the CapCon after the 4th SW having next to no assault factories remaining, for example). If anything size range has been increased for most units (the Tripods and Superheavy 'Mechs reaching regular production levels rather than experimental technology, Superheavy vehicles becoming relatively common production models, the greatly expanded battlearmor and infantry construction options, etc.)

Such a drastic change in design philosophy would need a very tight, explicit explanation or internal consistency goes right out the window. I'm not trying to say it cannot be done, but I do think it requires an explanation and that such an explanation would not be an easy one.

skiltao · « **Reply #50 on:** March 23, 2014, 02:43:39 PM »

Fair enough. I guess I should say that post-Jihad cultural fatigue, lack of warship-specific infrastructure (initially due to damage but later due to inertia), and a new strategic caution against putting all their eggs in one basket, would be sufficient explanation without needing to get terribly deep.

Given enough time the setting will change to a new status quo, and at that point we'd need new explanations, but I think these make an okay first set and could last for an Era or so.

JPArbiter · « **Reply #51 on:** March 23, 2014, 11:11:29 PM »

Quote from: skiltao on March 22, 2014, 11:28:56 PM

What do you think of the various methods proposed for making the ships less problematic for the ground side? Do you think it impossible that, if warships were made less problematic, that the setting might feature them more numerously in the future?

Incompatible Rule sets specifically for Capital scale action. it would give Warships more options and more actionable rules without trying to confine them to the ground game. Limit Rules for orbital fire support from Capital Scale Weapons as "possible, but too detrimental to the planet itself." basically turning OFS into planet cracking events.

this would in turn limit it to Capital Missiles and Sub Capital Weapons.

then again if I was allowed to do what I would want I would tell the warship community, too bad so sad, but we will no longer support the rules for Capital Ship Warfare the same way LAMs were treated.

JPArbiter · « **Reply #52 on:** March 23, 2014, 11:19:01 PM »

Quote from: Takiro on March 22, 2014, 10:05:19 PM

See what happens when you go to Canada....

Yup, yup on a lot of what you said except

Quote
NOW! fast forward to the Clan Invasion period. The Clans Warship Production is decidedly small capacity. The Nightlord was their only new vessel on record, any others were refits of older ships, and the Leviathans were built almost by hand. They are mostly trying to maintain the vessels they have, and lacked sufficient resources to have all of their hulls active at once (Wars of Reaving refers to multiple Naval Caches).

Right the Clans didn't consider warships a priority but they did develop more then just the Nightlord (slipped from the Snow Raven shipyards at Lum in 2932) prior to the Leviathan (3055 joint Bear-Raven effort). There is the more numerous Fredasa which debuted in 2962 and appears in several Clan Toumans the stats are in TRO3057. Also we have a few unknown classes referred to in Strategic Operations under First Warships. Clan Wolf apparently fielded the Molniya in 2951, Clan Jade Falcon launched the Peregrine in 2969, and Clan Snow Raven deployed the Corone in 2915. You could argue that the Clan Carrack which is based on a Star League design was a joint warship built by the Diamond Sharks and Nova Cats in 2950 but lets not. So that is six Clan designed Warships that we know of. Could be more. Not likely though but maybe 1 or 2 at most.

Yes many Clans lacked the desire and motivation to activate their total war fleet like the Star Adders following the Burrock Absorption. I'd love to go over all those Naval Caches and speculate on their contents some time but right now I would not underestimate the Clan warship capacity. They also sent a few warships with the Wolf Dragoon's remember.

pardon the double post.

I forgot about the Frdesha, but less then 15 vessels are named in canon. IF we take those numbers as the hard limit then that is a pitifully small number of ships between Klondike and the Reavings. still any other "Clan Unique" Vessels are still refitted from SLDF classics. Riga to York, Kigamure to Conquerer, Avatar to Liberator.

the point I was trying to make is that clans were decidedly small capacity, even with their military first economies warships were a luxury more then a necessity.

Knightmare · « **Reply #53 on:** March 24, 2014, 05:04:24 PM »

Quote from: skiltao on March 22, 2014, 04:13:02 PM

"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?

Well, if the text sectionâ€”or the whole book for that matterâ€”is set in relation to the period prior to the Blackoutâ€”or more specifically in relation to the period before the FORTRESSâ€”I'd say the building spree is relative to that time frame.

I get why you'd want to split hairs, or why some players need to know every ship component down to the last rivet, but it's not really necessary for a good story or good universe building. If this is about comparing eras, then FORTRESS production is less than in the SL, but more than during the SWs. But honestly, that's irrelevant within the timeframe. In this regard, Republic aerospace industries have seen noticeable growth in production. Since we also "know" the RAF has expanded it's front line forces to roughly 20 regiments from 5-6 during the period of the Fortressâ€”and sustained losses in the processâ€”we can reliably infer that text stating BattleMech factories have also increased production is also "true."

As Weirdo once said, "...if you want to keep changing the goal posts just let me know." Overall front-line â€™Mech forces are known, but outside of a few notable exceptions the total number of DropShips & JumpShips is never stated. Nor are their relative production numbers stattedâ€”at least not for some time. Part of this is to avoid mistakes made by FASA, but also so people can use what they need for their own games.

Quote from: skiltao on March 23, 2014, 02:43:39 PM

Given enough time the setting will change to a new status quo, and at that point we'd need new explanations, but I think these make an okay first set and could last for an Era or so.

Absolutely spot on. And while we're progressing through this era into the next we'll tackle the gameplay-related questions necessary to determine whether or not WarShips make a comeback in the next one. Hopefully, through a combination of something like: setting changes, tech and rules changes/modifications we'll find a way to keep WarShips in the setting.

skiltao · « **Reply #54 on:** March 24, 2014, 05:25:27 PM »

Dread, sorry, apparently I sidestepped the bulk of your objection... I agree, size hasn't been an issue for a long time. It was a bigger deal in the 3025 material (general armor trends, a comment in the BattleMaster fluff, I forget what else). It would be nice to see the difficulty of production scale more consistently with size, armor, firepower, speed, tech, etc.

Quote from: JPArbiter on March 23, 2014, 11:11:29 PM

Incompatible Rule sets specifically for Capital scale action. it would give Warships more options and more actionable rules without trying to confine them to the ground game. Limit Rules for orbital fire support from Capital Scale Weapons as "possible, but too detrimental to the planet itself." basically turning OFS into planet cracking events.

this would in turn limit it to Capital Missiles and Sub Capital Weapons.

then again if I was allowed to do what I would want I would tell the warship community, too bad so sad, but we will no longer support the rules for Capital Ship Warfare the same way LAMs were treated.

I haven't seen anyone try to confine warships to the ground game? And if you raise the power level of capital weapons, what prevents the introduction of lighter weapons at the old power level?

Don't get me wrong; were I in charge of warship and LAM construction, I'd write them differently too.

skiltao · « **Reply #55 on:** March 24, 2014, 10:14:16 PM »

Knightmare, where am I nit-picking? Where did I move goal posts?

Dread made the initial comment that settings with large fleets require equally large attrition. I responded by saying attrition is scalable. You equated my remark to 3Sw-level attrition, so I drew a parallel between 3SW and 3100s manufacturing, and clarified that attrition is scalable. You tried to refute my parallel with subjective statements from 3145, and I showed you why that doesn't work.

You are the one making claims about naval capacity in 3145. I did not. At most I implied alternatives which would scale to whatever resources a given era is already capable of putting into warships.

You've also made a big deal about whether "hard numbers" have been published. You realize that CGL's fiction establishes a certain level and intensity of conflict for the 3100 era? And that this imposes upper and lower limits to certain broad statistics? These limits may not be "hard" numbers, but they are sufficient for comparison to 3025.* Does it matter if the Republic's amazing growth is still less** than 3025 rates, as long as the stories are the ones you/CGL want to write?

EDIT:
*obviously you know that, you gave numbers I can work from. Apologies for the redundant questions, I've been AFK'ing all day.
**assuming generous (considering its relative inactivity) attrition, the Fortress' total production over 3135-3145 looks to be within +/-2% of what three average factory worlds would achieve circa 3025. Which means annual production by the end of the 3135-3145 decade should be close to double that and 3067 levels could well be within reach.

JPArbiter · « **Reply #56 on:** March 24, 2014, 11:16:59 PM »

Quote from: skiltao on March 24, 2014, 05:25:27 PM

I haven't seen anyone try to confine warships to the ground game? And if you raise the power level of capital weapons, what prevents the introduction of lighter weapons at the old power level?

Don't get me wrong; were I in charge of warship and LAM construction, I'd write them differently too.

I am not boosting power, I am saying that the residual effects of capital scale weaponry would be too damaging to the planets biosphere, and thus orbital fire support would be considered WORSE then nuclear weapons. you know, like Capital lasers and PPCs risking setting the atmosphere on fire, or Naval Autocannons projectiles being toxic to the Nth degree.

but that is so much fluff to justifying not having "fire ships onto the planet" rules.

My point is that if you want to have a game about big floating death engine skyscrapers in space, why have it in a fictional universe about giant stompy robots? hence the core comprimise being to segregate the two right down to their game engines.

skiltao · « **Reply #57 on:** March 24, 2014, 11:29:27 PM »

Okay, I getcha.

Blacknova · « **Reply #58 on:** March 24, 2014, 11:49:43 PM »

A way to work naval weapons may be to introduce a new type of naval weapon, one with a damage to weight ratio much better than current capital scale weapons, so that WarShips that did not use them would be flat out trying to scratch the other guy's paint work. However, as good a naval weapon as they are, for whatever reason, that can't hit units planetside.

Over time, older ships are retired or converted and ground support is left to fighters and DropShips. WarShips are then broken away from being able to damage Mech regiments from orbit.

It does not ease the problem of getting Mech units to the surface in the face of naval superiority, but that's what fancy flying is for.

JPArbiter · « **Reply #59 on:** March 25, 2014, 09:45:50 AM »

The problem BN is that is trying to make a broken game engine work in the first place. spcace combat works well enough with fighters and droppers and even jumpships, but the capital scale game Does not and needs to be wiped clean and completly re done in order to be sensible.

OBT Forum

News:

Author Topic: what's the deal with Warships? (Read 4190 times)

Takiro

Re: what's the deal with Warships?

skiltao

Re: what's the deal with Warships?

Dread Moores

Re: what's the deal with Warships?

skiltao

Re: what's the deal with Warships?

Dread Moores

Re: what's the deal with Warships?

skiltao

Re: what's the deal with Warships?

JPArbiter

Re: what's the deal with Warships?

JPArbiter

Re: what's the deal with Warships?

Knightmare

Re: what's the deal with Warships?

skiltao

Re: what's the deal with Warships?

skiltao

Re: what's the deal with Warships?

JPArbiter

Re: what's the deal with Warships?

skiltao

Re: what's the deal with Warships?

Blacknova

Re: what's the deal with Warships?

JPArbiter

Re: what's the deal with Warships?