Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 60 guests

Hypothetical 2.5M ton BC(P)

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: Hypothetical 2.5M ton BC(P)
Post by Duckk   » Fri Jun 17, 2016 6:17 am

Duckk
Site Admin

Posts: 4200
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:29 pm

Henry Brown wrote:Ok, as I recall RFC has said that the two primary advantages of the Nike class BC compared to the Agamemnon BC(P) class are that: 1. The Nike class is far more durable and resistant to damage compared to the Agamemnon class and 2. The Nike class has much greater magazine capacity.

Fair enough: Himself has spoken, the RMN prefers the Nike class, and it is his world. So I'm not trying to restart the Agamemnon vs Nike debate. However, I would like to point out that the Nike class masses 2.5M tons while the Agamemnon class only masses 1.75M tons.

Shouldn't it be possible to build a 2.5M ton BC(P) that is also both tougher and has greater magazine capacity than an Agamemnon? Particularly if the RMN was to devote the majority of the extra 750K tons to active and passive defenses? How do you think this hypothetical 2.5M ton BC(P) would compare to a Nike class BC?


viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1537&start=30
-------------------------
Shields at 50%, taunting at 100%! - Tom Pope
Top
Re: Hypothetical 2.5M ton BC(P)
Post by darrell   » Fri Jun 17, 2016 9:28 am

darrell
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1390
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:57 am

SharkHunter wrote:--snipping--
darrell wrote:5 rolands with 12 tubes each put 120 missiles on target and completely destroyed one SL BC per salvo in saltash. using 40% of their ammo they destroyed 4 SL BC's.
...yes but in my tiger analogy, I am referring to RMN tech vs. RMN level tech. 5 on 1. Likely no ship would survive that mutual kill fest simply because by the end of the first couple salvo there's still thousands of 1st Flight tech arriving on time on target and under ACM control [based on 23-E controlled towed pod launches].

But in DDM and MDM years, why would the RMN risk a single ship vs. the five in terms of build rates? The bigger ship likely takes at least double the time of a Sag-, so go figure 10 ships that can be placed in multiple systems as heavy cruiser combos vs. one ship which is pretty much limited to fleet actions?

Keep in mind that ONE Sag-C plus a freighter part full of pods part full of Marines likely wins any Verge or Shell engagement up to Mannerheim size, takes the planetary orbitals and that would be that. Two Sag-C's plus one freighter wins at Meyers and no FF ships escape. And yes, I'm including Rozak's early build ships in that (the DDM has 3-4 times the range and a much higher kill rate than occurred at Torch). Rozak is not an enemy, however so that's not a concern.

Meanwhile and simultaneously, the other three take a smaller freighter each go stomp on three Saltash's, Mobius, Monica's, etc. Then... the single 2.5mm kton ship commissions... and joins a fleet.

That's why I say "not going to happen".


forget the Sag-C and freighter analogy, ain't gonna happen.

the Nike is designed for the roll and doesn't need the freighter.
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
Logic: an organized way to go wrong, with confidence.
Top
Re: Hypothetical 2.5M ton BC(P)
Post by Jonathan_S   » Fri Jun 17, 2016 10:43 am

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8792
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

darrell wrote:
forget the Sag-C and freighter analogy, ain't gonna happen.

the Nike is designed for the roll and doesn't need the freighter.
Also, the Nike is far more survivable than Sag-C + ammo freighter if it stumbles into range of a system's pod based missile defenses.

Unless you're willing to give up the offensive raiding role for cruisers you need something that can usually survive the kind of cheap system defenses that even 3rd tier systems of major powers are installing. As nice as the Sag-C is the Nike is vastly more survivable thanks the the extra CM tubes and the Keyholes it can carry that the lighter cruiser can't.
Top
Re: Hypothetical 2.5M ton BC(P)
Post by darrell   » Fri Jun 17, 2016 11:41 am

darrell
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1390
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:57 am

Jonathan_S wrote:
darrell wrote:
forget the Sag-C and freighter analogy, ain't gonna happen.

the Nike is designed for the roll and doesn't need the freighter.
Also, the Nike is far more survivable than Sag-C + ammo freighter if it stumbles into range of a system's pod based missile defenses.

Unless you're willing to give up the offensive raiding role for cruisers you need something that can usually survive the kind of cheap system defenses that even 3rd tier systems of major powers are installing. As nice as the Sag-C is the Nike is vastly more survivable thanks the the extra CM tubes and the Keyholes it can carry that the lighter cruiser can't.


not to mention the DN power armor and sidewalls :)
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
Logic: an organized way to go wrong, with confidence.
Top
Re: Hypothetical 2.5M ton BC(P)
Post by kzt   » Fri Jun 17, 2016 1:17 pm

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11360
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

SharkHunter wrote:Keep in mind that ONE Sag-C plus a freighter part full of pods part full of Marines likely wins any Verge or Shell engagement up to Mannerheim size, takes the planetary orbitals and that would be that. Two Sag-C's plus one freighter wins at Meyers and no FF ships escape. And yes, I'm including Rozak's early build ships in that (the DDM has 3-4 times the range and a much higher kill rate than occurred at Torch). Rozak is not an enemy, however so that's not a concern.

I've got 6000 pods full of the DDM missiles that the SL.released the design, in highly stealthily hidden hardened pods, in orbit. Not close orbit only, also out to a few million in out. And I'm making 50 more every day.

I tell you to go away, I'm not buying. You do what with your single ship? How many missiles can your single ship stop? They are not great missiles, but I've got 60,000 of them. Today.
Top
Re: Hypothetical 2.5M ton BC(P)
Post by Somtaaw   » Fri Jun 17, 2016 2:03 pm

Somtaaw
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1203
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 11:36 am
Location: Canada

Jonathan_S wrote:
darrell wrote:
forget the Sag-C and freighter analogy, ain't gonna happen.

the Nike is designed for the roll and doesn't need the freighter.
Also, the Nike is far more survivable than Sag-C + ammo freighter if it stumbles into range of a system's pod based missile defenses.

Unless you're willing to give up the offensive raiding role for cruisers you need something that can usually survive the kind of cheap system defenses that even 3rd tier systems of major powers are installing. As nice as the Sag-C is the Nike is vastly more survivable thanks the the extra CM tubes and the Keyholes it can carry that the lighter cruiser can't.



Well a battlecruiser is ALWAYS more survivable than a similar tech level heavy cruiser :roll: Freak accidents, ala Thunder of God or Monica, show that battlecruisers can be defeated by superior tech heavy cruisers, but generally it's not something to count on.

Ideally, the RMN would be building both Sag-C's and Nike's, because they're two different classes, with different intended roles.
Top
Re: Hypothetical 2.5M ton BC(P)
Post by Jonathan_S   » Fri Jun 17, 2016 2:13 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8792
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Somtaaw wrote:
Jonathan_S wrote:Also, the Nike is far more survivable than Sag-C + ammo freighter if it stumbles into range of a system's pod based missile defenses.

Unless you're willing to give up the offensive raiding role for cruisers you need something that can usually survive the kind of cheap system defenses that even 3rd tier systems of major powers are installing. As nice as the Sag-C is the Nike is vastly more survivable thanks the the extra CM tubes and the Keyholes it can carry that the lighter cruiser can't.



Well a battlecruiser is ALWAYS more survivable than a similar tech level heavy cruiser :roll: Freak accidents, ala Thunder of God or Monica, show that battlecruisers can be defeated by superior tech heavy cruisers, but generally it's not something to count on.

Ideally, the RMN would be building both Sag-C's and Nike's, because they're two different classes, with different intended roles.
Well yes, but the Keyhole is a real step change. The fact that Nike is big enough to mount them seriously amplifies the normal difference between a BC and a CA.

Previously a BC would be expected to usually win against an equal tonnage of CAs, but it'd likely be in the yards for a long time afterward.
However, thanks to the defensive advantages of Keyhole, a Nike should be able to take on 6 - 8 Sag-Cs and win with minimal damage.


I'm not suggesting that you no longer need CAs. Just trying to point out why the specific mission SharkHunter was advocating (raiding hostile systems) hadn't really been a CA mission since early in the 1st war with Haven, and why the ability to drag a freighter full of pods along doesn't change that fact.
Top
Re: Hypothetical 2.5M ton BC(P)
Post by Somtaaw   » Fri Jun 17, 2016 2:57 pm

Somtaaw
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1203
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 11:36 am
Location: Canada

Jonathan_S wrote:
Somtaaw wrote:Well a battlecruiser is ALWAYS more survivable than a similar tech level heavy cruiser :roll: Freak accidents, ala Thunder of God or Monica, show that battlecruisers can be defeated by superior tech heavy cruisers, but generally it's not something to count on.

Ideally, the RMN would be building both Sag-C's and Nike's, because they're two different classes, with different intended roles.
Well yes, but the Keyhole is a real step change. The fact that Nike is big enough to mount them seriously amplifies the normal difference between a BC and a CA.

Previously a BC would be expected to usually win against an equal tonnage of CAs, but it'd likely be in the yards for a long time afterward.
However, thanks to the defensive advantages of Keyhole, a Nike should be able to take on 6 - 8 Sag-Cs and win with minimal damage.


I'm not suggesting that you no longer need CAs. Just trying to point out why the specific mission SharkHunter was advocating (raiding hostile systems) hadn't really been a CA mission since early in the 1st war with Haven, and why the ability to drag a freighter full of pods along doesn't change that fact.


You're totally correct that carting around a freighter for reloads, is impractically at any form of singleton level. Anything less than an entire squadron wouldn't even rate getting an ammunition resupply freighter, and more likely anything less than a task force doesn't get them either.

In the Second war, Sag-C's were a big portion of Eighth Fleet's composition. Agamemnon's were too until their weaknesses were shown and then as Nike's were built and worked up they were included heavily into the mix. Solo raider squadrons composed purely of heavy cruisers was never a thing either, even during the first war, they were always backstopped by two divisions of battle cruisers. Tourville's first Silesia adventure for example, or Tourville again when he took over Adler, were both primarily heavy cruisers backstopped by battlecruisers, and light cruisers for advance recon and screen.

From the wiki
Heavy cruisers (often abbreviated to CA for "Cruiser, Armored") were a class of medium combatants. They were designed for long-term independent action as a system picket, a heavy commerce protection unit and as a screening unit for capital ships.


Ignoring the screen role, since it's irrelevant, CA's in the singleton and independent squadron level aren't intended for raids, they're long endurance scouts and heavy anti-pirate ships. For raids, you'd always want a battlecruiser core, but since BC's are classed as capital ships, they'd virtually always have a CA screen, and probably the CL's for advance scouts; almost exactly like Tourville brought to Silesia, I think he was lighter on the BCs and heavier on CA's however.
Top
Re: Hypothetical 2.5M ton BC(P)
Post by Kytheros   » Sun Jun 19, 2016 12:29 am

Kytheros
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1407
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:34 pm

Jonathan_S wrote:Also, the Nike is far more survivable than Sag-C + ammo freighter if it stumbles into range of a system's pod based missile defenses.

Unless you're willing to give up the offensive raiding role for cruisers you need something that can usually survive the kind of cheap system defenses that even 3rd tier systems of major powers are installing. As nice as the Sag-C is the Nike is vastly more survivable thanks the the extra CM tubes and the Keyholes it can carry that the lighter cruiser can't.

Somtaaw wrote:

Well a battlecruiser is ALWAYS more survivable than a similar tech level heavy cruiser :roll: Freak accidents, ala Thunder of God or Monica, show that battlecruisers can be defeated by superior tech heavy cruisers, but generally it's not something to count on.

Ideally, the RMN would be building both Sag-C's and Nike's, because they're two different classes, with different intended roles.

Jonathan_S wrote:Well yes, but the Keyhole is a real step change. The fact that Nike is big enough to mount them seriously amplifies the normal difference between a BC and a CA.

Previously a BC would be expected to usually win against an equal tonnage of CAs, but it'd likely be in the yards for a long time afterward.
However, thanks to the defensive advantages of Keyhole, a Nike should be able to take on 6 - 8 Sag-Cs and win with minimal damage.


I'm not suggesting that you no longer need CAs. Just trying to point out why the specific mission SharkHunter was advocating (raiding hostile systems) hadn't really been a CA mission since early in the 1st war with Haven, and why the ability to drag a freighter full of pods along doesn't change that fact.

Yeah, Keyhole's a huge step forwards.
I suspect that in the future, for any role other than scouting and perhaps anti-piracy, some degree of Keyhole, or an equivalent, is going to be considered almost mandatory in new designs, at least for those navies capable of building at least the lightspeed and/or defensive elements of Keyhole - they don't need to be FTL-capable Keyhole-2 equivalents to make it worthwhile.
And that's going to push minimum size upwards by a fair amount. Actually, I suspect that the minimum size hull for a Keyhole is also large enough for conventional broadside DDM tubes. They might not have more offensive firepower than the Sag-C does, but I believe that defensive capabilities will be increasing.
Top
Re: Hypothetical 2.5M ton BC(P)
Post by SharkHunter   » Sun Jun 19, 2016 8:43 am

SharkHunter
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1608
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:53 pm
Location: Independence, Missouri

The suggested counter to the Sag-C's plus freighter approach seems to be a "star system chock full of hidden SDF pods, and the fact that they're not going to deploy one freighter per pair of Sag-Cs. And the fact that Keyhole makes the big new battlecruisers that much better. Agreement on all counts...

However, that doesn't mean the counter is workable. Given that no one outside the GA has shoals of MDM SDF pods, AND Keyhole capable battlecruisers available. So for my "ammo freighter" (an HMMAMC sans offensive weaponry) plus -C's approach, add one bit of timing: by the time anyone builds a 2.5MM kTon BC(p), Mycroft ought to be in wide distribution, the supporting ships are carrying Lorelies, and you still have a "too many star systems needing too few ships problem to address". Let's game this out.

So... let's say I give you those 6,000 pods, heck, make it 60,000 and a really decent nodal defense force, say 'Frontier Fleet's best' but not with the first line FTL resources that I have. I'll even specify those FF best ships are all upgraded to handle Cataphract DDMs. In theory, you've got my missile count outnumbered by a factor of what, 50-500:1?

To win, all I have to do is get one cruiser to your high planet orbitals with even 50 missiles left, with you not having a ship or ships in the right place to take me out.

Because as a squadron commander, I'm no fool, so I'm going to show your system government something they want to see, which is the "opportunity for expanded trade", here's your bribe.

I'm going to send in a scout first in the form of a dispatch size, which will carry some useful diplomatic tidbit, incoming financial data, whatever. Something along the lines of sign here, and my freighter can be here in a week, we do two of these systems every six months, yada yada yada.

Once the dispatch boat hypers back to me it gives mes me a dang good map of your defenses, so that I know what my ships will do on the way in, and the best possible That gives me the best possible system entry points/vectors. Freighter comes in to begin trade, emptying several bays worth of Lorelies, mycrofts, mistletoe drones soon after arrival and sending my sneaks on their merry little way to their assigned points. Maybe even towing their own sets of pods. May do some trade and then the big ship departs.

Meanwhile, my two pre 'loaded for bear' -C's with as many pods as possible choose the appropriate time to hyper into your system from way out using the mapped/selected but non-standard vector (above the ecliptic, gas giants in optimal positions to help me disappear, whatever), going into stealth nearly immediately, and stay that way until a few hours before my pod's tractors run out of juice... or heck, I've got unpowered racked pods, there's a concept... power cords, etc.]

Do you really think I won't find a direction and vector that I can control well enough to win? I only have to survive along ONE vector. By the time I reach my best "attack point" all of my hidden resources have been mapping and approaching your pods, nodal ships, etc. or positioning themselves to flash the 'bad $hit happening in your star system' signal far far away from that vector. Then I pull the trigger, all controlled FTL.

I've now got 1200 missiles per- plus pods times two -C' cruisers . Your shoals of pods start disappearing in 500 megaton blasts (mistletoe) and your outer nodal ships are getting blown away from my own mycroft controlled pods? All of your ships are headed out to take out attacking ships that don't exist, [the lorelies], abandoning my vector.

Do you really think I won't win?...

Perhaps you've forgotten... Space is big.
---------------------
All my posts are YMMV, IMHO, and welcoming polite discussion, extension, and rebuttal. This is the HonorVerse, after all
Top

Return to Honorverse