When refitting, do costs matter that much?
A Different Breed (Warhammer 29K)
When refitting, do costs matter that much?
- Location
- Utrecht
No, but they do matter when building new ones.
I think that's far enough a way in the future that we can simply make a new design at that point, probably based on a custom designed hull.
- Pronouns
- Reader
what cost? we are never going to build Caravels. refits are an AP a ship on capital class, put in whatever weapons you like, though preferably with some manner of strategic justification. the only potential cost is exotics.
Why would you expect that? Mechanis has told us what the Experimental options are and how they work. It's stuff that's developed and understood well on paper, but that we don't have enough practical experience applying to work out all the implementation issues.
In other words, our design stats are based on their theoretical capabilities, which we already know, it's getting them there that's the issue. That's why we can expect stuff like increased EP cost above our design specs for early builds, or extra time getting those designs complete.
I mean, there basically has to be limits on that, or else the optimal path to building super expensive ships would be to design a super budget ship with a bunch of empty slots, bulk build it in large lots to drastically cut down on the time and AP per hull, design a specialty ship with expensive advanced systems and weapons, then refit the budget ships into the expensive ones quickly and with low AP costs.
This seems... unlikely to be the case.
Last edited:
- Location
- Utrecht
So upon rereading Quillian's fleet description, i think our fusion mortars are equivalent to their plasma blasters... Which are noted as exploding on impact and being more effective against void weapons
so, i guess 4x Fusion bombards and 1x heavy grav thruster lance.
so, i guess 4x Fusion bombards and 1x heavy grav thruster lance.
Last edited:
Sheers would be terrible as point defense, the vehicle scale ones only have a few hundred meters of range.
Anyways, I would suggest swapping the regular Grav-Weapons for Suncannons. Our Suncannons cost as much each as a Spike Cannon (5NEP each) but are notably cheaper than they should be so are probably more capable compared to Spike Cannons.Graviton Sheer Cannon Excerpt said:
That said, if we do decide to go all in on Grav-Weapons then I would suggest a Heavy Grav-Amplifier and 4 Grav-Imploders to take advantage of the synergy between Amplifiers and Imploders.Suncannon Excerpt said:
The reasoning behind a Heavy Amplifier instead of a Heavy Imploder is because heavy weapons should have additional range which means that a Heavy Amplifier will ensure that the Amplifier's effect is always active when an Imploder is used.
Actually, looking at it.
We have 64 Caravels.
We have 54 Carracks.
However, our Carracks each embody 350 Starcystals and 214 Fatebender Psy-Scopes, so if they get damaged or destroyed it's far more costly. Our Caravels have zero of both.
As a result, I think we should prioritise the design of a new Carrack that actually has some defences so that we aren't at as much risk of losing them. They currently have:
They can have
To fit in the holo-field and a grav shield would take 3, so we need to get an extra 2. That could be done by converting two of the Weapon Batteries into System Slots.
That would leave us with 1 Weapon battery and 1 Heavy Weapon battery to fill. We could take a second Grav Shield by converting the second Heavy Weapon battery and a Reinforced Hull by converting the Weapon Battery.
This is inefficient in slots, but this is a very expensive vessel in Exotics already, so is probably OK on the weapons front.
The thing is, NEP cost isn't that relevant when refitting. If grav-weapons are better, we probably want them for this design as that's what it'll be used for.
We have 64 Caravels.
We have 54 Carracks.
However, our Carracks each embody 350 Starcystals and 214 Fatebender Psy-Scopes, so if they get damaged or destroyed it's far more costly. Our Caravels have zero of both.
As a result, I think we should prioritise the design of a new Carrack that actually has some defences so that we aren't at as much risk of losing them. They currently have:
• 1x Heavy Starlance
• 3x Fatetwister Cannon Weapons Batteries
• 1x Fatesheer Cannon Close-In Weapons Battery
• 3x Æthersails
• 1x Plasma Drive
• 3x Fatetwister Cannon Weapons Batteries
• 1x Fatesheer Cannon Close-In Weapons Battery
• 3x Æthersails
• 1x Plasma Drive
They can have
- 8 System
- 6 Weapon Batteries
- 2 Heavy Weapon Batteries
To fit in the holo-field and a grav shield would take 3, so we need to get an extra 2. That could be done by converting two of the Weapon Batteries into System Slots.
That would leave us with 1 Weapon battery and 1 Heavy Weapon battery to fill. We could take a second Grav Shield by converting the second Heavy Weapon battery and a Reinforced Hull by converting the Weapon Battery.
This is inefficient in slots, but this is a very expensive vessel in Exotics already, so is probably OK on the weapons front.
The thing is, NEP cost isn't that relevant when refitting. If grav-weapons are better, we probably want them for this design as that's what it'll be used for.
Last edited:
Issue is that lances fit our military doctrine a hell of a lot better than macrobatteries. The latter are suited for heavy DPS, the former for kiting, at least from what I can remember from Rogue Trader.
- Pronouns
- Reader
basic science and engineer knowledge. we know the science of these options. there things Aeldari have tested in a lab. the models we are putting into the fata morgana chassis are prototypes. Vau-Vulkesh has never built plasma drives or Psykcrystal reactors to military specification before. they've never integrated Holo fields, grav shields or DFBG because that is technology developed since the fall, even if the former two were developed right after.
in the process of integrating these into the chassis design and implementing them in test run dummy vehicles, they will collect data on the models in question. how they interact, how they put up with stress testing, what parts could be more efficient or are built larger than they need to be, ect. the result of all this testing is that once it ends, the data in question can be turned to developing a more refined version which works better than the base prototypes we are installing now.
that's just how engineering works. it's the whole point behind an experimental label, besides telling us that these versions will take some time to finish.
these are all incredibly inefficient models that we are unlikely to settle for. just refits is a past turn 20 project between over 240 AP cost and competing priorities. we are missing 3 of the 8 basic naval hull classes all navies has, and will build ships for these classes ahead of everything but more battleships in all likelihood. there will be time in excess to design a from scratch militarized hull, particularly if we get half as many option per taking of the action as we did chassis, which seems likely.
so no, we aren't going to build Caravel models. we are going to build an entirely new light cruiser in a very far off point in the quest.
I think two FB should be enough. there a close range weapons so we should split the standard weapon between them and a pair of long or mid range options. there potential disabling power is to be valued however.
Last edited:
- Location
- Germany
Pretty damn hard to find any (good) info on that, actually.
At least design wise a spike battery has as many weapons in it as a lance battery.
2 for a normal one.
That said we do know that we follow the standard Eldar layout for frontal facing guns and heavy alpha strike.
Depends on the ruleset you use. Generally, macrobatteries have way way more potential for damage, but lances care less about armor or the exact angle of attack in the original BFG set. In the Rogue Trader TTRPG, just shoot macrobatteries, nothing else matters because there's no range advantage for lances and they only do modest damage compared to the obscene damage of stacking macrocannons and to-hit bonus.
- Location
- Seattle, Washington
I think we should focus on long range weapons. We have allies like Zahr-Tann who have ships with combi-grav bombards. We could focus on skirmishers/snipers to support our allies' fleets.
Also long range weapons synergizes well with our speed and holofields
- Pronouns
- Reader
we took two design light cruisers/cruiser action in the winning plan.
so we can design both. I just got a discussion going for the light cruiser first because I don't have a set plan for that.
my design for a carrack. it's affordable exotics wise for refits, and frees up more Fatebender scopes for things like fighter craft and Warhost options, or greater coverage of our battleships. it's an all around good model for dealing with numbers disparity, and I've covered possible variations for further defenses or hanger addition.
Last edited:
- Location
- Seattle, Washington
Here are my ideas for Caravel and Carrack Refits, designed to increase firepower and somewhat reduce exotics cost of Carracks:
- War Caravel
- Caravel Hull (8 System, 4 Weapons, 1 Heavy)
- 2 Las-Lance
- 1 Heavy Las-Lance
- 2 Lascannon Point Defense
- 2 Aethersails
- Add 2x Suncannons
- Add 1x Hangers
- 2 Point Defense Lascannons
- 2 Aethersails
- Add Holofield
- Add Grav-shield
- War Carrack
- 1x Heavy Starlance
- 3x Fatetwister cannons
- Swap empty Heavy weapon battery for 3 standard batteries
- Swap 1 weapon battery for 1 system slot
- Add 2x Suncannons
- Swap Fatesheer CIWS for 1x Lascannon PD
- Add Holofield
- Add Gravshield
- 3x Aethersails
- 1x Plasma thruster
That doesn't seem like a good use of our exotics.
Paying extra Starcrystals per Carrack refit is a bad idea when we've got 16 Brigs to refit with more Starcasters (which give us capabilities that other weapons cannot offer) and you're also preventing us from getting a decent sized Psy-Scope windfall that can be used for refitting our strikecraft.
We've currently got 288 strikecraft and just refitting them with a single Fatesever cannon would require 578 Psy-Scopes.
To break down how many Psy-Scopes a Fatesever PD battery could cost we can scale it with the difference in CIWB gun count.
We know that Escort scale PD is 60 guns and CIWB is 10 guns.
The Carrack uses 16 guns for it's CIWB since it's 3 Fatetwisters should cost 150 Psy-Scopes in total (214-150=64 64/4=16) which is a 60% increase from escort scale PD.
Applying that 60% figure to PD you'd get 96 guns which is 192 Psy-Scopes. That means we are only getting back 24 Psy-Scopes back per refit for a total of 1296 once all the refits are done which wouldn't be enough if we wanted to say expand our strikecraft force by making our light cruisers hybrid carrier combatants.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- Reader
our light cruisers are the vessels most likely to end up in a short range engagement of our option. giving them a power weapon good for disabling enemy guns seems worthwhile. focusing entirely on a long range model will leave vulnerabilities for enemies to exploit. we are going to have solid long range options in Cruisers and Battleships. a light cruiser by nature is something of a brawler out of necessity because of how naval warfare is conducted.
example A.
that's not how that works. you can put naval grade weapon in a heavy slot for a 3 barrel weapon battery.
as a warship with 350 starcrystals and 150 Fatebender scopes(more than a turns worth of production) I think a single las based PD is entirely insuffient. better to just pair down to Fatesever pd.
why would you keep any weak lance weapons when we can refit to replace them with sun cannons at minimum?
with 2 you should vary point defense in case you get an enemy fighter that has resistance to energy weapons.
Yeah. And you don't think that would be represented by Seeker (or possibly Bonesinger) projects to make better versions because...?
I'm not sure how you've come to this conclusion when the QM has already directly told us exactly what the [EXPERIMENTAL] tag is for.
"You can do anything you like in refits because anything but exotics is completely free!"
"There's got to be a limit on that somewhere, though, otherwise building empty hulls in bulk and refitting them to finished ships would be faster than building finished ships at the top end, and that doesn't make any sense."
"No, we aren't building these, that will take way too long, this is just a design to refit into!"
Ok?
Last edited:
- Location
- Seattle, Washington
1. I'd rather have weapons able to engage at any range. I don't see why light cruisers would be more likely to close to short range
2. I kept las-lances to reduce how long it takes to refit the ships
3. The point about putting exotic PD on the Carrack has merit.
4. I kept the one type of PD because I think lascannons are decent due to their good accuracy. Also because again it saves refit time to keep the same weapons.
- Location
- Utrecht
Capital ships take 1 ap and 1 turn per ship to refit, no matter how different the loadout is. Escorts are refit at 3/AP. The cost affects duration only when building new ships.
- Pronouns
- Reader
we have 24300 starcrystals. between refits for assault ketch and bright eagles we have another 49300 to recollect, and 12000 increase by turn 21. the bit about fate bender scope refit is just nonsense since I'm literally removing 3 fatecaster cannon batteries and pairing down a closin fatebender scope weapon to a pd one.
where are you getting these numbers, because I'm pretty sure Fatebender psyscopes aren't used to that degree in a single Fatesever PD even on a battleship, let alone the smaller surface area of a cruiser. u
the fatetwister cannons use up all but 64 of the fatebender scopes in a carrack model.
as we can see here. pairing down certainly doesn't use 588 Fatesever more
if for no other reason than 294 vehicle grade weapons is a ridiculous amount to cover a simple cruiser
and our far, far larger combat brigs only use 180.
I've asked @Mechanis for information on Fatesever PD cost for Carracks but nothing yet. realistically however even a third as many would be enough to cover a cruiser in comparison to a battleship, so we likely still have a net gain of 154 Fatebender psyscopes
please do actual math before you come in with farcical objections.
Last edited:
Mechanis
Confirmed Extremely Screwed
- Location
- Absconding with Alacrity
Quick version, there's a certain amount of "testing room" built in to designing a chassis. Iterating the core systems from prototype to production happens below abstraction slash "off screen." For example, Eldar starships are usually powered by a number of Starlight Reactors---but starships are gigantic, and their reactor assemblies can be the size of a modest shopping mall. So you have experience with the technology, know that it can be scaled down to vehicle size, but no institutional experience with building them on that scale. So maybe nothing beyond the typical testing needs of a new design happens, but you could also end up having your design team get stumped for six months because nobody actually wrote down some critical bit of information for building the things at this size, and they have to work it out through trial and error. and so on.
I mean, if you want to be spending double the AP per ship on average and increasing the already long construction times in the name of modularity, you can do that, but it will definitely affect your lead time on recovering from losses.
(Think about it. a minimum cost "empty" hull to refit is still taking at least a turn to build, and then you have to spend another turn refitting it, at minimum, since that kind of super extensive refit often takes more time---and only then is the ship ready. When you might have made the same ship in half the time by just building it to start with.
wherever did you get that idea? you've so far only done basically trivial refits on escorts and light capitals, mostly the former. Refits don't cost as much time as ship being built from scratch solely because it's only accounting for the time-cost of the actual refits, including any attendant surcharges, rather than the entire hull.
Anyway. What I was Actually here for....
Anyways, here are my Caravel and Carrack refit proposals, decided since escorts seem to be getting named after smaller plant species that capital ships could be named after tree species.
[] Saccharum class Light Cruiser (8 System | 4 Weapon Batteries | 1 Heavy Weapon Battery)
-[] 1x Heavy Grav-Thruster -1 Heavy Weapon Slot
-[] 4x Suncannon Weapon Batteries - 4 Weapon Slot
-[] 2x Æthersail - 2 System slots
-[] 1x Plasma Thruster - 2 System slots
-[] 1x Holo-Field -1 System Slot
-[] 1x Grav-Shield - 2 System Slots
-[] 1x Hanger - 1 System Slot
With each cruiser having one hanger we can more than triple our fleet hangar count once they're all refitted.
The Grav-Thruster is there to let this thing hit above it's weight class and the Suncannons are a potent but affordable weapon to keep costs down in case too much NEP cost per-refit results in it taking more than one turn to refit.
No PD because the 3 strikecraft squadrons and whatever escorts it has should provide adequate PD.
[] Velutina class Cruiser (8 System | 6 Weapon Batteries | 2 Heavy Weapon Battery)
-[] 1x Heavy Grav-Amplifier -1 Heavy Weapon Slot
-[] 1x Heavy Grav-Imploder -1 Heavy Weapon Slot
-[] 3x Fatetwister Weapon Batteries -3 Weapon Slots
-[] Trade 3x Weapon Slots for 3x System Slots
-[] 1x Suncannon PD -1 System Slot
-[] 1x Plasma Thruster -2 System Slots
-[] 3x Æthersail - 3 System slot
-[] 1x Holo-Field -1 System Slot
-[] 1x Grav-Shield - 2 System Slots
-[] 1x Conversion Field - 2 System Slots
The Heavy Amplifier Imploder combo should let it crush most ships as they can bypass most defenses (unlike Point Singularity Projectors Amplifiers and Imploders don't shoot a solid projectile so there is nothing for a Conversion Field or Void-Shield to eat).
I kept the Fatetwisters so that it's got something for shooting smaller ships without needing purposefully aim at them since Fatetwisters basically have a firing sphere rather than a cone.
Since the Heavy Amplifier and Imploder probably have less range than a similarly sized lance I figured dropping some weapon slots for a Conversion Field and Plasma Thruster should improve it's survivability since it may need to get a little closer before it can shoot.
This refit will net us 64 Psy-Scopes per refit for a total of 3456 Psy-Scopes. That is enough to outfit 1728 strikecraft with a Fatesever cannon each which would be more than enough for all our Caravels if we gave them all 1 hangar.
[] Saccharum class Light Cruiser (8 System | 4 Weapon Batteries | 1 Heavy Weapon Battery)
-[] 1x Heavy Grav-Thruster -1 Heavy Weapon Slot
-[] 4x Suncannon Weapon Batteries - 4 Weapon Slot
-[] 2x Æthersail - 2 System slots
-[] 1x Plasma Thruster - 2 System slots
-[] 1x Holo-Field -1 System Slot
-[] 1x Grav-Shield - 2 System Slots
-[] 1x Hanger - 1 System Slot
With each cruiser having one hanger we can more than triple our fleet hangar count once they're all refitted.
The Grav-Thruster is there to let this thing hit above it's weight class and the Suncannons are a potent but affordable weapon to keep costs down in case too much NEP cost per-refit results in it taking more than one turn to refit.
No PD because the 3 strikecraft squadrons and whatever escorts it has should provide adequate PD.
[] Velutina class Cruiser (8 System | 6 Weapon Batteries | 2 Heavy Weapon Battery)
-[] 1x Heavy Grav-Amplifier -1 Heavy Weapon Slot
-[] 1x Heavy Grav-Imploder -1 Heavy Weapon Slot
-[] 3x Fatetwister Weapon Batteries -3 Weapon Slots
-[] Trade 3x Weapon Slots for 3x System Slots
-[] 1x Suncannon PD -1 System Slot
-[] 1x Plasma Thruster -2 System Slots
-[] 3x Æthersail - 3 System slot
-[] 1x Holo-Field -1 System Slot
-[] 1x Grav-Shield - 2 System Slots
-[] 1x Conversion Field - 2 System Slots
The Heavy Amplifier Imploder combo should let it crush most ships as they can bypass most defenses (unlike Point Singularity Projectors Amplifiers and Imploders don't shoot a solid projectile so there is nothing for a Conversion Field or Void-Shield to eat).
I kept the Fatetwisters so that it's got something for shooting smaller ships without needing purposefully aim at them since Fatetwisters basically have a firing sphere rather than a cone.
Since the Heavy Amplifier and Imploder probably have less range than a similarly sized lance I figured dropping some weapon slots for a Conversion Field and Plasma Thruster should improve it's survivability since it may need to get a little closer before it can shoot.
This refit will net us 64 Psy-Scopes per refit for a total of 3456 Psy-Scopes. That is enough to outfit 1728 strikecraft with a Fatesever cannon each which would be more than enough for all our Caravels if we gave them all 1 hangar.
Last edited:
- Location
- Utrecht
Is that not how this works? Each ap lets us refit 3 escorts or 1 capital ship. Our did i misunderstand something again?
Light Grav-Vehicle MK II
