- Location
- Fort Worth, TX
[X]OPLAN: Bowshot
Traveller, The Rise of Empire: A Naval Design, Procurement and Command Quest
- Thread starter 4WheelSword
- Start date
- Original Art Quest Sci-Fi
0t4n1z3r019
Member of the HAFPTG
- Location
- Philippines
[X]OPLAN: Bowshot
- Location
- 51.005635, -0.143671
If it was a rogue actor then the PMC is vastly incompetent, it was one of the their asteroid monitors that crossed demarcation line. You don't give reckless, impulsive, overly aggressive, or disloyal commanders your best and most expensive warships.
You could be right, there may be things moving behind the scenes right now. But giving how they have acted so far I'm not buying it, I've been distrustful of the PMC since their attack on our ships and the interrogation of our crew gave off Stasi vibes to me.
They could just hate the Dynast so much, that they would be willing to restart the war. If they think they can win the resulting war why would they not. We know most of their economy and infrastructure exists to support the military, they have a vested interest in continuing the war.
Last edited:
Which might fit both. The Dynasts saw themselves sidelined as we cut a deal with the Junta for their yards. The Junta saw that we used their yards to build an FSS instead of a combat ship and figured this will continue, so it is best to strike before the power balance changes too much in our favour.
So the real question to ask right now. Who remembers we have the System Defense Destroyers still bumbling around in our home system? After the conflict in S'Taxu winds down, we really need to figure out what to do with them. I kinda feel like they would be the perfect ships to refit into jump capable carriers, since they are 4k tons already, but we may not be able to do that.
Having browsed a few designs on google, I don't think we can get it down to one person. However, I agree; a 15-ton design looks much nicer on paper. These would be good multi-role fighter-bombers, but for a dedicated spammable fighter, we want something very light to avoid needing obscenely heavy spacecraft handling arrangements.
Agreed, they'd make for a good testbed in advance of a heavier carrier (say, around 7,000 tons, splitting our build capacity in half?)
I think I like refitting the SDD for testing carrier operations more than building something new for it. However:
1. It's a TL-7 craft. It's obsolete, so investing large sums of cash into it is inadvised. Can the hull even handle jumping?
2. We do need something that can't jump from Home, so that we're not tempted to strip our capital system of defenders.
1. It's a TL-7 craft. It's obsolete, so investing large sums of cash into it is inadvised. Can the hull even handle jumping?
2. We do need something that can't jump from Home, so that we're not tempted to strip our capital system of defenders.
[X]OPLAN: Bowshot
Definitely think the System Destroyers could do with a refit at some point. Though I would want to keep them in their current role. We need some sort of dedicated Home Fleet for defensive purposes, and they are already fulfilling the role.
I'd rather we just commit to making a proper carrier design. Though, if we want to test our fighter craft before designing the carrier we could also create some defensive stations at home with hangars for small craft.
Definitely think the System Destroyers could do with a refit at some point. Though I would want to keep them in their current role. We need some sort of dedicated Home Fleet for defensive purposes, and they are already fulfilling the role.
I'd rather we just commit to making a proper carrier design. Though, if we want to test our fighter craft before designing the carrier we could also create some defensive stations at home with hangars for small craft.
Rat King
Izutsumi-pilled
I don't think we even want to have it jump, we just wanna strip out a bunch of internals and add testbed hangars and launch tubes to experiment with take-offs, landings, craft handling, etc.
But as @Tallhart just pointed out, it'd probably be cheaper to build some station segments for the same thing (and they can also then serve as orbital defense platforms to supplement existing things).
But as @Tallhart just pointed out, it'd probably be cheaper to build some station segments for the same thing (and they can also then serve as orbital defense platforms to supplement existing things).
Hmm, for everyone voting for plan Bowshot with the PMCA bombardment vessel instead of the BMF Sloop, can I ask you why? The BMF sloop is, in my opinion, a much more flexible ship since in addition to point defense, it is designed for patrolling and scouting which the PMCA vessel is not. The PMCA vessel is worse in these roles, due to it not having a sand caster or infirmary as it has to use tonnage to carry missile ordnance. Having a ship that can fullfill multiple roles, in both peacetime and wartime, saves pilots and money.
The main selling point for the PMCA vessel seems to have been its missiles allowing it to punch larger ships harder, which is not its job, we have our cruisers for damaging large ships. Missiles also have some weaknesses that particle beam weapons lack. It actually seems to me that the current version of the BMF sloop would absolutely stand a chance against the PMCA vessel in a straightforward fight between the two. It might even have the edge, since its point defense counters missiles and the PMCA vessel cannot do anything to mitigate Particle Beam fire.
The point is, the updated BMF design is no longer a pushover in combat with ships of equal tonnage, especially since many sub-1000 tonnage ships likely rely heavily on missiles and torpedoes.
Also, why is it called a Missile Bombardment Vessel if it is supposed to be a Point Defense Escort Ship?
The main selling point for the PMCA vessel seems to have been its missiles allowing it to punch larger ships harder, which is not its job, we have our cruisers for damaging large ships. Missiles also have some weaknesses that particle beam weapons lack. It actually seems to me that the current version of the BMF sloop would absolutely stand a chance against the PMCA vessel in a straightforward fight between the two. It might even have the edge, since its point defense counters missiles and the PMCA vessel cannot do anything to mitigate Particle Beam fire.
The point is, the updated BMF design is no longer a pushover in combat with ships of equal tonnage, especially since many sub-1000 tonnage ships likely rely heavily on missiles and torpedoes.
Also, why is it called a Missile Bombardment Vessel if it is supposed to be a Point Defense Escort Ship?
Last edited:
- Location
- Somewhere in the stacks
- Pronouns
- She/Her
TBH I just think the missile frigate serves a better multi-role function as both patrol vessel and fleet escort. Also since it doesn't have a more expensive p-beam on it, is a better choice for our budget.
Rat King
Izutsumi-pilled
I think the PMCA vessel fills the multi-role better, as a point-defense ship that can also punch other ships and "flood the zone". It's primary purpose is, as I believe we discussed, to provide some point defense and be a fleet escort, with a secondary task as an in-system patrol vessel. It does those things just fine. If we want it to be a multi-mission vessel with an infirmary, etc., we should have laid that requirement down from the start - as it is, that's just mission creep and the sloop can only do that because it was such a bad design in the first place that it dedicated loads of tonnage to stuff that wasn't in the mission profile.
Last edited:
On this, we have to agree to disagree then. The lack of an infirmary is worse for patrolling. As for the price, the Sloop will be slightly more expensive but it has strictly better survivability, so we are likely to lose less of them.
I mean, to be fair, I do agree here. The current version is much better and is fine, since the speed is now upgraded. But I still remain perplexed by this vote, since in my opinion the Sloop does both tasks equally well or better.
It was always intended to be a patrol ship as well, that was part of the original vote. There is no mission creep here.
While the original design was flawed, the extra tonnage was there in the first place because this ship does not use tonnage for carrying missiles. During patrols in peacetime, missiles are dead weight, which consune fuel but add nothing to capabilities. Replacing that weight with usable tonnage (infirmary, extra storage) is good design.
Also, I don't see how the "can punch other ships" argument applies anymore after the updates to both designs. The Sloop likely beats the PMCA Missile frigate in a one on one fight.
Adding a long-range particle beam weapon to a ship that is already fast with excellent point defense is a big deal, since it now can stay out of the effective range of enemies while shooting them. The Sloop is now extremely annoying to fight, since it can stay out of range of lasers, shoot down missiles and torpedoes with point defense and easily destroy any of the small craft that can actually catch it. It's a much better counter against carriers than the PMCA vessel, since its particle beam can threaten the carriers while its lasers deal with the fighters. It's only weakness is larger ships with particle beams, ironically enough.
Last edited:
Rat King
Izutsumi-pilled
When it comes down to it, I just do not like the sloop. I don't like the P-beam, I don't like it's original incarnation. I would rather diversify our armament so in a fleet engagement we're not all P-beams all the time - which we are currently since our cruisers are just P-beam vessels.
Further, missiles can also be used against enemy smallcraft *and* fighters and has a theoretical higher alpha strike than the P-beam sloop (assuming 100% of the missiles get through). A particle barbette has 4d6 damage, the Missile Massacre Alpha Strike maxes out at 12d6 damage, assuming all missiles hit. And even if 1-in-2 missiles are intercepted, it's still getting 6d6 damage. It'd have to get 75% of it's salvo intercepted for the damage to fall below the barbette; the main benefit of the P-beam in this case would be that it doesn't run out of ammo.
So I would still bet on the missile craft over the p-beam sloop at this point.
Coyote Niff
the most transbian obligate scavenger on the 'net!
- Location
- Misery!
- Pronouns
- She/Her
At least for me, it's because I'm set on introducing a heavier purpose-built scout-escort for the Flotilla missions-the Bodkin class missile/torpedo escort destroyer, at 800~850 tons. It's the Dog-Sabre iteration of a really old design I've been torch-carrying for since the start of this quest.
Actually... Could we get a simulated fight between the upgraded designs of these two vessels? I wouldn't even be opposed to building the one that wins this simulation.
I don't see the issue here. A 25% hit rate for missiles against a small, fast, anti-missile point defense craft sounds way too high to me. If point defense is this ineffective, why bother?
You are also forgetting about the range, the particle barbette is a long ranged weapon while missile effectiveness falls off at longer ranges since there is more time to dodge and shoot them down with point defense. Since the ships are equally fast, the Missile Craft cannot catch the Sloop, and has to fight at a non-optimal range.
I mean, this is a ok argument, but I disagree that the escort-patrol frogate is where we should diversify. Missiles bring extra weight, which is bad in a patrol role and lasers are very good point defense. We could add missiles and torpedoes to our fighter-bombers, which makes sense since missiles/torpedoes fired at close range are harder to intercept. Or build torpedo variants of our cruisers.
This would be very interesting, yes. Although keep in mind that tactics and range really matters here: the Sloop can win at long range with hit-and-run tactics, while the Missile vessel can likely overwhelm the Sloop's point defense at close range.Actually... Could we get a simulated fight between the upgraded designs of these two vessels? I wouldn't even be opposed to building the one that wins this simulation.
[X] Operation Tempest's End
We should save Missile/Torpedo strike capability for either strike craft, or a dedicated missile ship. Missiles launchers are useless once all ammunition is expensed, and we want an escort that doesn't have most of its tonnage useless after the first few engagements. Once all ammunition is spent, it would have to jump to a safer hex to be rearmed.
We should save Missile/Torpedo strike capability for either strike craft, or a dedicated missile ship. Missiles launchers are useless once all ammunition is expensed, and we want an escort that doesn't have most of its tonnage useless after the first few engagements. Once all ammunition is spent, it would have to jump to a safer hex to be rearmed.
To a point. Remember that the FSS is designed to ferry fuel and supplies for extending operational range. If you put too many missiles into its cargo holds, it competes with supplies. It doesn't much matter when operating close to Home, but it becomes important on further deployments.
Actually, come to think of it, is not voting for both the current Missile Escort ship and planning for future Bodkin-class somewhat counterproductive? I just don't see the need for a 800-850 tonne Bodkin class missile/torpedo escort destroyer, if we already are fielding a 500 ton missile escort ship? Why should we field two different sub-1000 tonne missile craft?
If we choose the non-missile option now, the Bodkin could find a role as a fast, agressive missile/torpedo destroyer, which can also do escort missions when more firepower than just the Sloop can provide is needed. If we build the PMCA now, in my opinion there is no need for the Bodkin.