OBT Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Welcome to OurBattleTech.com - A BattleTech Fan Site

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: (Thought Exercise) What if: no warships, sort of?  (Read 2699 times)

0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

lucho

  • Kavallerist
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
(Thought Exercise) What if: no warships, sort of?
« on: July 31, 2012, 09:45:39 PM »
Ok, while I am somewhat on parole from Real Life, I have been mulling over the recent discussions here and elsewhere about many fans' dismay at Catalyst's desire to see warships disappear. Just to be clear, while I don't like the heavyhanded approach, I do agree to an extent about the TPTB's need to maintain the focus on big, stompy robots. Warships as written definitely alter the game by their very presence. (Even so, the construction rules and TROs mean that they will always be around). Instead of booting them out of this party, what about a halfway approach? I originally conceived of this as a people in my Arda setting, but what about making it across the board?

Let's turn the clocks back a couple of eras. The venerable TRO:3025 made the incredible statement that the Overlord mech hauler was comparable to the Star League battlewagons. So let's go with that. There are no warships per se, just armed jumpships. In short:

1)There are no compact KF drives, only standard KF cores.

2)As written, the rules state that Jumpships can mount Capital and SubCapital weaponry, if tonnage is available. Let's change the rules: dropships can too (tonnage permitting).

3)Not a rule change, but a fluff change for consistency: SubCapital weaponry has existed since the Age of War.

The idea here is to incorporate the blackwater naval aspects without going full warship, which would threaten the mechwarrior's status. What do y'all think? More to come
Logged

MadCapellan

  • Warlock Fusiliers
  • Hexare Grenadier
  • Kapten
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 382
  • Louise & Saito: Love Forever!
Re: (Thought Exercise) What if: no warships, sort of?
« Reply #1 on: July 31, 2012, 10:56:45 PM »
The Traveler universe utilized a concept called the "battle rider", where numerous combat vessels were transported through hyperspace by a single engine-dedicated FTL ship, essentially, a fleet of pocket warships on a JumpShip.  The advantage is somewhat obvious - the combat vessels do not need to be weighed down by a massive, encumbering jump drive while maneuvering for combat.  This allows them to dedicate more space to maneuvering thrusters, armor, and weaponry.

I've long been a fan of the idea of rescaling Battletech's naval fleets to where the Frigate class of Warship is the new Battleship, and pocket warships fulfill all the traditional destroyer/escort roles. 
Logged

drakensis

  • Duke of Avalon
  • KU Player
  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,299
Re: (Thought Exercise) What if: no warships, sort of?
« Reply #2 on: August 01, 2012, 03:24:00 AM »
Indeed. In one strategic game (Katar's Periphery Lords) I had the Canopian's navy built around cruisers and battleships carrying battlerider monitors.
Logged

Minerva12345

  • Menig
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39
Re: (Thought Exercise) What if: no warships, sort of?
« Reply #3 on: August 01, 2012, 03:44:04 AM »
I have been pondering issue of aerospace warfare for quite some time and came up with following (few years ago):

The BattleTech space aesthetics is essentially Big Gun era of naval warfare. This means that WarShips are leviathans. The life in naval service is like in Royal Navy in pre-1914 with some aspects similar to US Navy in early 1950's.

There are three classes of vessels: Warships, DropShips and ASF.
There are three classes of weapons: Capital, sub-capital and normal.

Guns are very effective and penetrate well (bigger ones may cause critical hits), Missiles have longer range but have poor hit probability and are deadly (always? a critical hit). Missiles can be blocked with area defense and point defense systems housed in warships and DS.

Capital weapon hit kills, cripples or damages heavily (causing critical hits) any DS and autokills any ASF. Sub-capital weapon does same to any ASF.

Sub-capital weapons cause light damage to WS and have same effectiveness as above to any DS scale target. They autokill any ASF.

ASF's may carry 1 to 3 sub capital light missiles and they are used to attack DS and WS in packs.

WarShips have KF drive and come with standard sizes/types as: BB, CB, CA, CL and DD with each bigger size roughly twice the previous one. Acceleration is between 5 and 8. They carry mixed armament of capital and sub-capital systems.

DropShips come in standard sizes/types (but scaled much smaller than Warships) with CA, CL, DD, DE styled types. Here you can also see Destroyer Leaders and AA cruisers. They are used as a screen between warships and to block ASFs and attack lighter warships in emergency. The defense systems are common but can be worn down with constant stream of ASF missile attacks.

The idea of my aesthetics is that warships are thus big gun era ships that are very tough and have enormous firepower. The DS are missile era ships with markedly weaker armor and lighter weaponry (still formitable against other DS). ASF are essentially torpedo bombers and thus do not have much role in equation.

My goals were to make WS leviathans and DS much tougher and deadlier than before and diminish the IMHO excessive usefulness of ASFs in space combat.
Logged

JPArbiter

  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,725
  • Host of Arbitration. Your last word in Battletech
Re: (Thought Exercise) What if: no warships, sort of?
« Reply #4 on: August 01, 2012, 10:22:55 AM »
I love how people say Herb and thus Catalyst wants warships to dissapear.  in the last battletechat he said the exact opposite.  Warships are to have a role, but the role will be much reduced.  Basically the era of a fleet of four squadrons of 18 ships a piece are long since over.  thanks to improved ideas on Assault Dropships you will see a single large KF equipped vessel like a Avalon, or a Thera, being supported by dozens of Assault Vessels and Pocket Warships.

Doing it this way gives the concept of a Warship weight, where every KF Vessel is considered a precious resource.
Logged
BattleTech products aren't Pokemon Cards. You don't have to catch, or collect them all.

WHAT NO ONE EVER TOLD ME THAT!

Minerva12345

  • Menig
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39
Re: (Thought Exercise) What if: no warships, sort of?
« Reply #5 on: August 01, 2012, 12:27:34 PM »
Quote from: JPArbiter on August 01, 2012, 10:22:55 AM
I love how people say Herb and thus Catalyst wants warships to dissapear.

IMHO the aerospace rules have always been clunky and slow (and have nothing to do with game aesthetics). ASFs are too useful (powerful) without real defensive mechanism to keep WS and DS useful. In essence the game balance is poor. The fact that Catalyst (essentially same bunch of people were also FanPro and FASA) writing and fiction is also weak only adds insult to injury.

Bad rules, bad fiction and poor game universe fit all make aerospace side of BattleTech not popular and thus a money loser. Thus diminishing Warships makes perfect sense from business standpoint as they are not popular and do not bring in money for company.
Logged

JPArbiter

  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,725
  • Host of Arbitration. Your last word in Battletech
Re: (Thought Exercise) What if: no warships, sort of?
« Reply #6 on: August 01, 2012, 03:56:04 PM »
it is born from the fact that initially warships were made as an afterthough with no serious rules or developing on the part of Fasa, and successor companies have had to try and make something coherent afterwards.
Logged
BattleTech products aren't Pokemon Cards. You don't have to catch, or collect them all.

WHAT NO ONE EVER TOLD ME THAT!

MadCapellan

  • Warlock Fusiliers
  • Hexare Grenadier
  • Kapten
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 382
  • Louise & Saito: Love Forever!
Re: (Thought Exercise) What if: no warships, sort of?
« Reply #7 on: August 01, 2012, 05:07:03 PM »
Quote from: Minerva12345 on August 01, 2012, 12:27:34 PM
IMHO the aerospace rules have always been clunky and slow (and have nothing to do with game aesthetics). ASFs are too useful (powerful) without real defensive mechanism to keep WS and DS useful.

As apparently one of the three Aerospace fighter fans, I find this arrangement perfectly acceptable.  Why build large Warships?  Several flights of nuclear missiles are far cheaper and can eliminate a large WarShip rather easily.


Quote from: Minerva12345 on August 01, 2012, 10:22:55 AM
Bad rules, bad fiction and poor game universe fit all make aerospace side of BattleTech not popular and thus a money loser.

Do you actually like Battletech, or did you join this forum by accident?   ???
« Last Edit: August 01, 2012, 07:50:59 PM by MadCapellan »
Logged

Knightmare

  • Terran Supremacist
  • Network Gnome
  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,459
  • Taking out the Sphere's trash since 3026
    • Our BattleTech
Re: (Thought Exercise) What if: no warships, sort of?
« Reply #8 on: August 01, 2012, 06:09:08 PM »
Quote from: MadCapellan on August 01, 2012, 05:07:03 PM
As apparently one of the three Aerospace fighter fans, I find this arrangement perfectly acceptable.  Why build large Warships?  Several flights of nuclear missiles are far cheaper and can eliminate a large WarShip rather easily.

I mentioned this on the CGL forums and kinda hit a little anti-nuke wall. Sad really. A squadron or two of fighters armed with Crocketts can ruin a WarShip's day real quick.

I'm a rabid aerospace fan, and the current WarShip situation doesn't bother me one bit. If I were hung up on a certain faction (as some rabid fanboys happen to be), or era I might be a little disappointed with the overall number of WarShips available in the present. Then again, this ain't Babylon 5. This is BattleTech – made possible by BattleMechs. Notice WarShips aren't called BattleWarShips.

BattleMechs baby. Everything else is icing.

Logged
Quote from: Dragon Cat
WORD (of Blake) is good for two things. 1. Leaving inappropriate notes on other people's work. 2. Adding fake words (of Blake) to the dictionary.

Blacknova

  • Puppet Master
  • Global Moderator
  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,351
  • Rugby Players - Inspiration for the BattleMech
    • The Kapteyn Universe
Re: (Thought Exercise) What if: no warships, sort of?
« Reply #9 on: August 01, 2012, 06:19:45 PM »
Quote from: Knightmare on August 01, 2012, 06:09:08 PM
If I were hung up on a certain faction (as some rabid fanboys happen to be),

All hail the LYRAN wait..sorry we were talking about WarShips.

I must admit, I have moved from deploring the loss of the great fleets, to accepting it and looking forward to the new era of naval combat, based mainly on the reasoned arguments in this thread and others like it. Humble pie actually tastes rather nice.
Logged
Dedicated to committing viciously gratuitous bastardy of the first order.

The Kapteyn Universe - http://www.ourbattletech.com/kapteyn

Follow the KU on twitter: Matt Alexander
@BlackNova01

You know there is something wrong with the FWL, when Word's spell check changes Impavido to Impetigo and Zechetinu to Secretion.

MadCapellan

  • Warlock Fusiliers
  • Hexare Grenadier
  • Kapten
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 382
  • Louise & Saito: Love Forever!
Re: (Thought Exercise) What if: no warships, sort of?
« Reply #10 on: August 01, 2012, 07:48:46 PM »
Quote from: Knightmare on August 01, 2012, 06:09:08 PM
Quote from: MadCapellan on August 01, 2012, 05:07:03 PM
As apparently one of the three Aerospace fighter fans, I find this arrangement perfectly acceptable.  Why build large Warships?  Several flights of nuclear missiles are far cheaper and can eliminate a large WarShip rather easily.

I mentioned this on the CGL forums and kinda hit a little anti-nuke wall. Sad really. A squadron or two of fighters armed with Crocketts can ruin a WarShip's day real quick.

Good news for you - Herb holds the same opinion on this you and I do, at least to my knowledge.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2012, 07:49:46 PM by MadCapellan »
Logged

Takiro

  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,175
  • For the Last Cameron!
Re: (Thought Exercise) What if: no warships, sort of?
« Reply #11 on: August 01, 2012, 08:30:22 PM »
Well shouldn't it be called NukeTech cause everything has a bad day when it runs a fowl of a nuclear warhead. Nasty glow in the dark tan. I mean any BattleMech regiment encounters a nuke and same result as a warship. And while we are on the subject you've got to think nuclear weapons of the BT universe are much more deadly than todays.

However, when you whip out Warships and Nukes then unrestrained war in the BattleTech universe mirrors unrestrained war today. The damage is so immense that it becomes unimaginably horrific for human beings to inflict so much on one another. Think about it. We can argue philosophy but it does make sense*. BattleMechs do become the Kings of the Battlefield because they exemplify humanity, project power and limit damage during conflict. They are everything to glory. Now Warships, I love them, they are big and bad and quite vulnerable. They aren't very human, create mass destruction, work in a vacuum, and despite all the armor in the world they are the biggest freakin target around. And we all know what gets taken out first. Now I don't buy the ceiling set by TPTB. The artificial way in which some handwavium has been done is screwy. IMO you can build warships till your blue in the face but the fact is the BattleMech is supreme. War will show this.

And in my opinion Pocket Warships are but the tip of the iceberg on anti-warship tactics. I'd love to see a universe (and you will see it in a few of my settings) where LAMs and/or other special Mechs (Marines) are used to board warships fight on their hulls tear them open and yada yada yada.

* I could see unrestrained nuclear warfare very easily in a BattleTech universe as your not confined to a single planet anymore but thousands.
Logged

Dread Moores

  • Overste
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 740
Re: (Thought Exercise) What if: no warships, sort of?
« Reply #12 on: August 01, 2012, 09:07:00 PM »
Quote from: Takiro on August 01, 2012, 08:30:22 PM
Now I don't buy the ceiling set by TPTB. The artificial way in which some handwavium has been done is screwy. IMO you can build warships till your blue in the face but the fact is the BattleMech is supreme. War will show this.

I wouldn't buy that ceiling either. Fortunately, that's not the ceiling that was set by TPTB. So thankfully, we don't have to worry about that.

Whether or not you actually agree with the ceiling (which isn't really a ceiling at all, so the term really doesn't fit) is an entirely different issue. But handwavium has little to do with the reduction in WarShip numbers. The type of conflict found in the Jihad has everything to do with that reduction. If you're not seeing the logical reasons for why such a conflict would led to a massive reduction in overly expensive, easily destroyed WarShips that provide very limited return and are only produced from very few, select facilities that would be one of the primary targets...well, I think you and I have a difference of opinion in the definition of logical. There's a very bad cart/horse or chicken/egg misconception that comes from the overly enthusiastic WarShip fans regarding TPTB and their motivations. The Jihad wasn't invented at the drop of a hat to get rid of WarShips in some sort of moustache-twirling moment of joy about "screwing the fans". WarShip numbers were reduced as a direct result of the Jihad as it was defined, and the context they had to make work. Additionally, lack of building WarShips comes about as a direct result of that conflict. Why build more of something (which would also require rebuilding the destroyed production facilities from scratch...production facilities that you had working for less than 20 years) that proved relatively ineffectual in the more modern style of BT conflicts, when PWS proved so much more effective and cheaper? This isn't handwavium, it's a solid chain of logic that fits in rather well with the characterization of the persona dramatis and the feel of the conflict.

Don't like WarShips being reduced? I totally get it. I have some very irrational hatred for the Phoenix 'Mechs ever coming back. I understand your pain. But don't miss the actual chains of logic through that disappointment of seeing their numbers reduced.

What I'm more curious about, is for the folks who are more agreeable to the "CGL killed my battleships and it's dumb!" crowd...how much did your play, prior to their reduction, involve WarShips? Has that number actually increased or decreased since (especially considering the greater product support for WarShips than at any point in BT's production history)? Why? And does the change of fleet styles (with the fewer WarShips taking on the role that SLDF battlecruisers once held) mean you will have less fleet action in your play or more?
« Last Edit: August 01, 2012, 09:21:02 PM by Dread Moores »
Logged
The first one to use the term Dork Age loses.

MadCapellan

  • Warlock Fusiliers
  • Hexare Grenadier
  • Kapten
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 382
  • Louise & Saito: Love Forever!
Re: (Thought Exercise) What if: no warships, sort of?
« Reply #13 on: August 01, 2012, 09:08:53 PM »
Quote from: Takiro on August 01, 2012, 08:30:22 PM
Well shouldn't it be called NukeTech cause everything has a bad day when it runs a fowl of a nuclear warhead. Nasty glow in the dark tan. I mean any BattleMech regiment encounters a nuke and same result as a warship. And while we are on the subject you've got to think nuclear weapons of the BT universe are much more deadly than todays.

The large difference is that if you are in the conquest business, the objective of your business is to seize control of valuable land and resources.  If you nuke ground targets, you lose what you are trying to gain in the first place. 


A WarShip is a big, ugly target in a big, black void.  Hitting it with a nuke eliminates it easily, costs considerably less than operating your own WarShip or throwing a fleet of DropShips at it, and doesn't harm the natural beauty of the world you're attempting to conquer.  It's a no brainer.

« Last Edit: August 01, 2012, 09:09:24 PM by MadCapellan »
Logged

Dread Moores

  • Overste
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 740
Re: (Thought Exercise) What if: no warships, sort of?
« Reply #14 on: August 01, 2012, 09:23:49 PM »
Quote from: lucho on July 31, 2012, 09:45:39 PM
Let's turn the clocks back a couple of eras. The venerable TRO:3025 made the incredible statement that the Overlord mech hauler was comparable to the Star League battlewagons. So let's go with that. There are no warships per se, just armed jumpships. In short:

1)There are no compact KF drives, only standard KF cores.

2)As written, the rules state that Jumpships can mount Capital and SubCapital weaponry, if tonnage is available. Let's change the rules: dropships can too (tonnage permitting).

3)Not a rule change, but a fluff change for consistency: SubCapital weaponry has existed since the Age of War.

The idea here is to incorporate the blackwater naval aspects without going full warship, which would threaten the mechwarrior's status. What do y'all think? More to come

One question (and I'm only going from memory here, as I have rarely touched the large aerospace construction rules). Don't standard cores take up a hugely overwhelming majority of a ship's tonnage? Would these "combat JumpShips" even be very combat worthy?
Logged
The first one to use the term Dork Age loses.
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
« previous next »