Topic: BT WarShips - A Historical Thought (Read 3775 times)

Blacknova · « **on:** February 21, 2011, 04:56:24 PM »

One thing that has always bothered me about BT WarShips is that they often do not follow one of the axioms of naval WarFare, which is:

Apply maximum possible firepower at the maximum possible range.

BT WarShips resemble 18th Century ships in many regards, with primary, secondary, tertiary and sometime additional batteries of weapons. What is more, these weapons (specially the primaries) are not placed in effective turrets, spread as they are across 8 facings, making them more akin to 18th, rather than late 19th century WarShips.

The need for firepower at long range was realised in the design of the Dreadnought in 1906, following Tsushima, and has been maintained ever since through multi-gunned primary turrets and later in Surface to Surface and Cruise Missiles. The use of Aircraft as part of a naval weapons platform is also tied to the delivery of heavy ordnance at long range. Although these ships had secondary and anti-fighter batteries, they were concentrated in certain calibres or missile types.

The style of WarShips in BT leads me to think the original designers had little awareness of naval technology and its development over the last 200 years, or that they chose an aesthetic, but did not clearly understand the limitations and faults of that aesthetic with regards to naval technology.

Consider a BT WarShip, with 4 triple Naval Heavy Gauss turrets, that could traverse either broadside, fore and aft. Also, considering grav deck technology, it would not be inconceivable to have turrets that also moved on a ring around the hull, giving each turret a nearly 360 degree arc in all areas..

Such a ship could concentrate massive fire power in deadly brackets and cripple even the largest enemy vessels quickly, or if equipped with Vertical Launch System Krakens, swarm and crit to death and enemy vessel in just a few short rounds.

I would be interested to see what others think regarding this.

Takiro · « **Reply #1 on:** February 21, 2011, 05:09:23 PM »

Interesting thoughts on the Grav Deck Turrets. That would be a nice innovation.

It was challenging when we (Liam, Irose, and myself) worked on the Naval Archive that designed the Historical Ships of the Great Houses prior to TRO3057R. The jumble of canon designs that existed prior along with hints made for other stated designs painted a chaotic picture that I still don't fully understand.

BattleTech is a game of ground combat center on Mechs not space combat. I believe the original creators of the universe didn't care that much about warships and prior to Battlespace there was no established construction rules.

Blacknova · « **Reply #2 on:** February 21, 2011, 05:10:45 PM »

So it would appear. I was very close to redoing Naval Tech for the KU, but in the end let it go, as it would have pissed off too many purists.

Ice Hellion · « **Reply #3 on:** February 21, 2011, 05:18:00 PM »

Perhaps not a full rotation as few ships are able to achieve that but I do agree with you: apart from torpedoes and fixed weapons, weapons in turret should have a greater fire angle (like weapons in the arms for a BattleMech).

Blacknova · « **Reply #4 on:** February 21, 2011, 05:23:39 PM »

That could always be dealt with in rules, with 3 dimensional traverse turrets being far weightier than 2 dimensional traverse turrets. Say cube the original turret mass or some such.

Knightmare · « **Reply #5 on:** February 21, 2011, 05:33:32 PM »

Quote from: Blacknova on February 21, 2011, 05:23:39 PM

That could always be dealt with in rules, with 3 dimensional traverse turrets being far weightier than 2 dimensional traverse turrets. Say cube the original turret mass or some such.

That's one way to work it.

I think with the descriptions we have for the construction of Grav Decks heavy ammunition-firing turrets might prove problematic, but there's nothing to say that something frictionless, like Naval Lasers wouldn't be well suited for the area.

BT Naval Construction has always taken a very "ground combat" oriented approach to design, construction and rule sets. While we're stuck living with it, there is something fun in the way BT naval are designed, built and played. True it's complete fantasy and ignorant of centuries of blue water naval design, but its got character.

Blacknova · « **Reply #6 on:** February 21, 2011, 05:47:52 PM »

Thats a nice way of sayiing that its ugly, but has a nice personality...

As to ammo weapons, say a turret can have X amount of round per gun (determined during construction), but has to return to top deck for turret resupply for one round and cannot fire whilst next set of ammo is raised into the turret. This also has the effect of deadly turret criticals when a full load is in them.

Knightmare · « **Reply #7 on:** February 21, 2011, 05:59:04 PM »

Quote from: Blacknova on February 21, 2011, 05:47:52 PM

Thats a nice way of sayiing that its ugly, but has a nice personality...

As to ammo weapons, say a turret can have X amount of round per gun (determined during construction), but has to return to top deck for turret resupply for one round and cannot fire whilst next set of ammo is raised into the turret. This also has the effect of deadly turret criticals when a full load is in them.

Keep in mind that Grav Decks aren't in operation when the ship is under thrust. Not only is rotation unnecessary since thrust creates artificial gravity, but thrust can also damage the Deck's rotating mechanism. Now I'm sure that last bit can be figured out so a Grav Deck could rotate without being damaged under thrust. If that's the case, then we're basically talking about a solid circular deck of variable width (along the ship's spine.) Ammunition limitations would be null.

But I do like the idea of changing the way critical damage is resolved seeing how explosions would most likely ruin the rotation mechanism.

Blacknova · « **Reply #8 on:** February 21, 2011, 06:02:00 PM »

The hull rings I was thinking of were not grav decks, just rotating rings. However, the option of limited turret ammo, with the need to return to zero for reloading after 2, 5 or 10 shots would add an interesting tactical element to the game and to design.

Knightmare · « **Reply #9 on:** February 21, 2011, 06:08:50 PM »

Quote from: Blacknova on February 21, 2011, 06:02:00 PM

The hull rings I was thinking of were not grav decks, just rotating rings. However, the option of limited turret ammo, with the need to return to zero for reloading after 2, 5 or 10 shots would add an interesting tactical element to the game and to design.

It would, but if we're designing under our original "plausible" construction premise then ammunition limitations are unnecessary.

That being said, Grav Decks would be the archtype equipment rotating hull turret batteries would be patterned after. After all, if this "Gun Ring" can rotate and fire weapons while under thrust wouldn't the same rationale, however useless since the ship would be operating under thrust, be applicable to a Grav Deck? And if so, then a rotating Gun Deck and a rotating Grav Deck would be similar items, but with different functions?

Either way for game purposes the tactical limitations placed by the reload rule and changes to the critical damage chart would be fun to play and therefore useful to the game and game universe.

Blacknova · « **Reply #10 on:** February 21, 2011, 06:25:21 PM »

True, but as to grav decks, they are in constant rotation and not "hardened" for combat operations. I would see, lets call them Turret Belts - as opposed to the turret ring below the turret itself - as being hardened and weighter than grav decks, allowing them to manage under the stresses of rotation and shifting gravitational force and still enable the main batterires to be brought to bear in a timely manner and without problems for gunnery.

Knightmare · « **Reply #11 on:** February 21, 2011, 06:33:57 PM »

Then the same construction rules and technology could be used on Grav Decks. They'd never be necessary since we've already established that Grav Decks are useless under thrust, but could be constructed to still function in a thrust environment - which they aren't under the existing construction rule set/explanation.

That's all I was trying to point out. If you create your Gun Ring or Turret Belt, then the same rules would also rewrite the Grav Deck's.

Trust me, I don't have a problem with the concept or changes you're proposing. If anything it would radically alter the way ships were designed. It'd probably also speed combat up a bit by bringing larger batteries to bear regardless of facing or orientation.

Blacknova · « **Reply #12 on:** February 21, 2011, 06:36:49 PM »

Yes, we are discussing the trees to the detriment of the forrest.

As to speeding combat up, yep that was part of my original thinking, as naval combat has always been strategicly slow and catious, but tactically fast and extreemly destructive.

lrose · « **Reply #13 on:** February 21, 2011, 06:37:56 PM »

I think the reason why BT Warships don't have the types of capabilities you are talking about is because the game is very 2 dimensional in it's thinking- there is no dorsal or ventral areas on ships from a game mechanics viewpoint. The "Broadsides" of the ship are quite literally the sides of the ship - and the designers did not envision a turret being able to fire in all directions because they pictured it sticking out of the side of the ship and not being mounted on top and able to turn.

Then again warships (and dropships and jumpships for that matter) were designed without a rules systems - so who knows how much thought went into the original ships- then those ships became the "standard" and the rules were fit around them....

Blacknova · « **Reply #14 on:** February 21, 2011, 06:39:37 PM »

True, function following form, the surest way to wreck anything designed to function efficiently, especiall a rules set. Applies to the Dark Age Mechs that TPTB are trying to stuff into the exisiting rules.

OBT Forum

News:

Author Topic: BT WarShips - A Historical Thought (Read 3775 times)

Blacknova

BT WarShips - A Historical Thought

Takiro

Re: BT WarShips - A Historical Thought

Blacknova

Re: BT WarShips - A Historical Thought

Ice Hellion

Re: BT WarShips - A Historical Thought

Blacknova

Re: BT WarShips - A Historical Thought

Knightmare

Re: BT WarShips - A Historical Thought

Blacknova

Re: BT WarShips - A Historical Thought

Knightmare

Re: BT WarShips - A Historical Thought

Blacknova

Re: BT WarShips - A Historical Thought

Knightmare

Re: BT WarShips - A Historical Thought

Blacknova

Re: BT WarShips - A Historical Thought

Knightmare

Re: BT WarShips - A Historical Thought

Blacknova

Re: BT WarShips - A Historical Thought

lrose

Re: BT WarShips - A Historical Thought

Blacknova

Re: BT WarShips - A Historical Thought