Re: (2662) Large Warship design problems

In your letter dated Mon, 22 Jul 1991 19:38 -0500, you wrote:
>
> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1991 19:38 -0500
> From: [email removed]
> Subject: (2662) Large Warship design problems
>
> I wasn't doing much this weekend so I decided to check out some of
> the warship designs that have been submitted on this list. After
> Steve Higginbotham's "Sikkinthar" and "Aenoegrr" class ships, I
> felt rather humbled and obligated to support his premise. So I
> decided to check on whether his assertion had any validity. Steve's
> assertion being that 8 of his Sikkinthar class (7ktons) could
> destroy a Atlantis class (1 million tons).

Almost anything will destroy an Atlantis class...as the designer I should
know.  You should probably be aware of a couple of things with regard to
the Atlantis before using it as an example of anything.

1) It was originally designed using High Guard and converted to MT with as
few modifications as possible.

2) It was designed as an experiment to see what the 'maximum tonnage' ship
would look like.

3) It was assigned to the Imperial Glisten Navy, which was the first fleet
that I designed, and which therefore had a bunch of questionable designs,
such as Particle Accelerator cruisers (bad idea in High Guard) and some
smaller vessels with armors of 3 or so (also a bad idea in High Guard as this
allows a nuclear missile the possibility of an interior hit.)

4) Its game rationalization is that it was built for 'prestige' or 'propaganda'
purchases.  Besides, if doing a force on force comparison of an Atlantis
versus something else, you should really factor in the subsidiary craft. The
three 10000ton riders with Meson Gun-J are not bad ships.  (Not great either--
I just did a Mk II 10kton rider last week...)

> What I found was rather amusing. Actually it would take only 5 to
> do the job. This got me thinking on whether any of the other
> capital ship (20ktons + ) were any good. I found that in general
> they were not. It seems that most of these warships were built with
> the "bigger is better" mentality with no regard to their actual
> effectiveness. Before I go into further details let me point out a
> few things that I noted:
>
> 1. Most capital ships were heavily overarmored, overpriced and very
> vulnerable to meson weapons. Most designs would be LESS vulnerable
> to ALL weapons if they were LESS armored.
>
> 2. I do not know if anyone has actually done any large scale combat
> with these starships( or any other starships tonnage > 20 kt) in
> large numbers. I have a feeling that the designs would be a lot
> different if they had done even rudimentary tests. If someone has,
> it would be of great benefits to the "architects" to know its
> results.

Yes.  But only with High Guard.  I pitted the Glisten fleet against a surprise
attack by a TL13 industrial planet as part of the Fifth Frontier War.  The
enemy was using a fleet consisting of only four standard designs--a 1000 ton
missile boat, a 6000 ton missile armed 'destroyer', a 28000 ton 'cruiser'
armed with the largest available particle accelerator (R?), and a 60000 ton
'battlecruiser' armed with the largest available meson gun.  All hulls were
configuration 4 for lowest possible price, and there was little armor.  The
overall results were that the TL13 vessels died in droves due to the computer
imbalance (agilities were generally about equal), but since they outnumbered
the Glisten fleet at almost every encounter, they were able to destroy most
of the large Glisten ships (the Lemuria of the Atlantis class survived by not
engaging in combat).  The Ospreys (under High Guard) and the Sun Tzus stood
up reasonably well, but since their PA main armament was laughable, they
got ignored in the early combat rounds.  I had a class of 8000 ton cruisers
armed with a Meson Gun E (don't ask--J would have been better, but I _said_
this was my first fleet) which I have not yet converted to MT because there
was _one_ survivor out of a class of 60.  The Revenge class battlecruisers
did OK with their large meson guns, but they were prime targets and out-
numbered so I lost about 2/3 of them.  The Lobachevsky's with their covey of
15 10kton meson gun J riders were probably the stars of the whole thing.
When they finally got engaged, it was all over for the much-depleted TL13
fleet.  As a result of these combat tests, I redesigned the fleet under
High Guard rules and had even laid out what the procurement schedule would
be through about 1120 when MT finally came out.  The Type 1107 destroyer,
the Sun Tzu refit, The refit Osprey with Meson Gun N (only one that can be
substituted for PA T), the Nergal, the Yathaghan (good High Guard design
that doesn't translate due to shift in the agility rules), and the 11000ton
meson gun destroyer (forget the class name), as well as the fighters with
the computer 7s and computer 9s are part of the redesign.  I guess I'll
give them a test drive one of these days when I get around to doing a TL13/14
Aslan Ihatei fleet to my taste.  Anyway, the bottom line is that I know that
a lot of the IGN designs are not sound, but I converted them to MT anyway
because there were survivors from the Fifth Frontier War still in service.

> 3. There were hardly any capital ship designs with PA spinals, yet
> there were lots of ships with armor > 60. Similarly there was a lot
> of use of the TL 15 50 ton factor 9 missile bay but NOONE used the
> more effective 100 t factor A missile bay.

Old High Guard habits...most of my large warships (all of the Glisten Navy)
used 50ton missile bays because there were no 100 ton TL15 missile bays, so
I didn't change them when I converted.  I also used to put in spinal PAs, which
made the high armor necessary.  As it is--which comes first?  If I reduce armor
then the enemy will build PA armed ships in their next procurement cycle, and
I will have to uparmor mine to compensate, as well as be left with a bunch
of vulnerable ships.  I think real designers faced with this problem would
either a) accept the PA casualties for increased agility or b) routinely armor
at such a level as to render PAs useless, and either solution would be
acceptable.  My earliest designs used a lot of PAs because I liked the idea
that there was 'no defense'.  It was much later that I actually tried combat
and realized that they did too little damage to be really useful.

> 4. It seemed to me that the rider/tender vs battleship controversy
> is now decided firmly in favor of the rider/tender. A 100,000 ton
> tender brings far more spinal mounts to bear than a 200,000t
> battleship. And when both sides have armor 60+ than the battle is
> decided by who is nimbler and with more spinal weapons.

Agreed.  The retreat issue as discussed in old Trav is still valid though--
I tend to expect that fleets would run toward medium meson gun jump capable
cruisers for forward system screens (which would run if disadvantaged) and
rider squadrons to remain concentrated for the counterattack.  Battleships
are very questionable.

> 5. Steve Higginbotham's designs assume a standard 24/72 cruise
> endurance with a 1/3 peak power endurance. For those who may have
> played large scale capital ships battles, a question. How realistic
> is this figure? It seems very suitable since all my battles were
> over in 2-5 rounds (40-100 min).

The 24 cruise endurance seems potentially a little short if you start looking
at insystem maneuvering requirments, but the 1 day peak power duration is
probably quite long enough.  As you have seen, I like to figure that all of the
fuel tanks can be crossconnected and that the power plant can be 'throttled
back' at least to a limited number of settings, which gives you the flexibility
to fight two or three separated insystem battles without need of refueling,
which Steve's ships could probably do too even though he has chosen to
represent his power distribution differently.

> 6. I think the Imperial requirement of warship specs should be
> amended as follows.
>
> Imperial warships should be J-4 with a cruise endurance of 21/63+.
> Cruise implying constant 2-G accel (1/3rd power) with all noncombat
> systems powered and some offensive and defensive systems powered.
>
> All warships should be capable of 6-G, Agility - 6 and all
> weapons/screens powered at peak powerplant output. The endurance
> for this peak performance being atleast 1/3 days.
> I will also recommend that all Imperial warships > 100,000t be
> battle tenders. The reasoning for this will become clear soon.
>
> 7. As an interesting aside, the requirement for armor becomes lower
> as ship size increases. A 100,000t ship has less need of armor than
> a 20,000 t ship.

A reasonable specification system.  Note that thrust based maneuver
calculations can make it difficult to actually achieve 6-G in any ship
with even minimal (50+) armor.

> All the following assume standard MT vehicle construction rules:
> All die rolls are assume craft at long range for combat purposes.
>
> Atlantis class (1,000,000 t battleship)
> vs.
> Sikkinthar class SDB(7,000 t)
>
> Atlantis Price MCr903,000          Sikkinthar Price MCr7100
> TL15, DefDM=+7,Armor=82G           TL15, DefDM=+15, Armor = 40G
> Weapon:
> Spinal-T Meson Gun                 Spinal N-Meson gun
> To Hit: 10+                        Auto
> To Pen Meson Screen: 4+            7+
> To Pen Conf: 3+                    Auto
> Shots Needed to Get a Hit: 6.7     1.7
>
> Beam Lasers Factor=9
> To Hit: 11+                        None
> To Pen: Auto
> Shots Needed to Get a Hit: 12
>
> Missiles Factor=9
> To Hit: 8+                         Auto
> To Pen Nuc Damp : 10+              10+
> To Pen Beam/sand: Auto             5+
> To Pen Repulsor: Auto              Impossible
>
> Particle Accel Factor = 9
> To Hit: 10+                        None
>
> After one round of combat Atlantis was destroyed by 5 SDB. 2 SDB
> were damaged none was destroyed. The damage was from the spinals
> which are guaranteed a hit on the Atlantis.

Well, I might wish that you would include the Atlantis' 13 2kt+ riders and
the several hundred fighters with comp-9s in the analysis, figuring that
these subcraft will act as a screen for a couple of rounds before the main
ship actually joins combat.  After all, they are included in the price you're
quoting for the price comparison.

> Note Factor-N spinal is by no means the largest spinal that can be
> put on a starship or a SDB of 7-50ktons. Note also the price
> differnce betwwen the two craft.
>
> What follows is an off the cuff analysis of other large ships
> designs that have been put on the list. All assume that the firing
> ship has the best computer for that TL. Shown Spinals are the
> SMALLEST ones that have a chance to get through. Also shown are the
> larger calibers available at that tech level:
>
> 1. Atlantis class battleship. Def DM = +7
> 2. Osprey class battleship. Def DM = +8
> 3. Nergal class battleship. Def DM = +8
> 4. Atlantic class cruiser. Def DM = +10
> 5. Revenge class SDB/Rider. Def DM = +9
> TL-13 Meson - L
> To Hit: 3+/4+/4+/6+/4+
> To Pen Screen: 10+/10+/10+/9+/10+
> To Pen Conf: Auto/5+/7+/Auto/4+
> Larger Caliber: P
>
> TL-14 Meson - G
> To Hit: Auto/3+/3+/5+/3+
> To Pen Screen: 11+/11+/11+/10+/11+
> To Pen Conf: Auto/7+/7+/Auto/6+
> Larger Caliber: H,M,Q,R
>
> TL-15 Meson - J
> To Hit: Auto/Auto/Auto/4+/Aut
> To Pen Screen: 9+/9+/9+/8+/9+
> To Pen Conf: Auto/6+/6+/Auto/5+
> Larger Caliber: N,R,T
>
> All above craft had factor-9 meson screens. As can be seen all are
> basically guaranteed hit at long range. The fact that it is hard
> for a "run-of-the-mill" spinal mount to penetrate the best possible
> screen is small consolation. Their best hope seems to be increased
> agility but with the bulk of factor 60+ armor, it is practically
> impossible for any of the above to have any agility over 1 and not
> even that in most cases.

Small consolation indeed, because small meson gun size can usually be
balanced within any given budget for more hulls, definitely putting
the advantage on the side of the smaller distributed weapons systems.
Do we want to rehash the 'what is agilitly argument'?  Your analysis, that
improving agility is the key to survival, appears to be correct.  I just
don't like the way it is handled in MT, not to mention the unresolved
ambiguities in how it is calculated.  My ships, at least, were High Guard
conversions, and it should be remembered that it was easy under those
rules to keep your agility up to the level of your maneuver drive _and_ have
a reasonable armor class, so the ships mentioned above were not quite so
crippled as they appear to be now.

> Which led me to my next question as to why have armour in the first
> place? The primary reason seems to be the fear of the spinal PAs
> with their "Penetrate-All" attack. Strangely though I have seen
> just one ship with a spinal PA. The other reason seems to be
> nuclear missiles. The T-PAWS cannot deliver any automatic criticals
> to a vessel over 50ktons. So that will rule out protection against
> crits as an excuse. To avoid the "Interior Explosion" and
> "Critical" hit results on the Surface Explosion or Radiation Damage
> chart you only need armor factor 52(-4 to damage die roll). A case
> could be made to make a vessel invulnerable to secondary weapons.
> However it is a pretty weak case as secondary weapons rarely do
> enough damage to seriously effect the firepower of any capital
> ship. Actually it seems that the bigger ships have little to fear
> from PAs and more to fear from their size and lack of agility.

Please check my recent designs for the number of craft carrying armor 52
for this reason...Your analysis is quite correct.  The other potentially
useful armor values are 82 (minimum to avoid all surface damage from
secondary weapons) and 100 (minimum to avoid all surface damage.)  I
might calculate the mimimum necessary to avoid manuever hits from surface
damage too.  Once again, the spectre of High Guard hovers over the fleets.

> Even the largest Spinals can be carried on smaller cruiser size
> craft and that would render little need for larger vessels. The
> only really good reasoning that I can come up for a 100,000t +
> craft is as a battle tender or carrier(much like today..). With
> factor-9 meson screen, agility 6 and dispersed configuration it
> stands a good chance against meson weapons, and if armored to 52 it
> can survive PAs too; atleast until help arrives or it can jump.

Yes.  If I ever do another fleet, the cruiser with a meson gun N or lower
tech equivalent will be the largest jump capable combat ship.  (Poor Glisten,
always behind the times...)

> Ameer

Rob Dean