Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests

Logic behind splitting Lacoon?

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: Logic behind splitting Lacoon?
Post by lyonheart   » Tue Dec 09, 2014 7:05 am

lyonheart
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4853
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:27 pm

Hi Rob,

Kudos for an excellent analysis, but may I add a couple of additional points? ;)

You're quite right missile production should resume soon; the original projection was ten month's, or some time in December 1922, but thanks to Beowulf's high tech, and indirectly the RoH ending the war, production was expected to begin month's earlier, so by the time Anton met HA-H in October they could be back in production, albeit at less that the war production peak rate before OB yet, but give the SEM a few more month's and who knows?

The original textev stated the Agamemnon's would run out of pods in less than 20 minutes, leading some of us to project they only carried 288 pods for just 18 minutes sustained fire, or 14.4 minutes at 20 pods per minute, but RFC refused to confirm although he did say it carried more than 288 pods, and the Honorverse Wikia says 330 pods, obviously it hasn't been updated by the HoS data yet.

In fact given that 288 was 72% of the pods RHN SDP's carried, and after Apollo had become available, there were those at the bar like me proposing that the Agamemnon was the cheapest and quickest solution to equalize the RHN's numerical advantage of 1200 SDP U/C etc, building as many as possible to fill the gap before the roughly two years required for the fresh SDP construction compared to something around 10 month's [IIRC] in smaller yards etc, but RFC shot it down.

But you'll notice despite their apparent vulnerability, which is played up too much in HoS, they are still assigned to the fleet.

Why?

Because they can carry more Apollo pods for the Keyhole 2 Invictuses, so 85+ means another 30,600 Apollo pods or almost a quarter million more Apollo's; those 360 more pods means that the nearby Apollo SDP could kill another 14 RHN SDP's real easy before they both reload.

Against the BF it means another 24-30 SD's easily killed, so I think we'll continue to see some Agamemnon's serving with the fleet in division or squadron strength, while the SLN remains clueless about any possible class vulnerabilities, because they won't see that much of them before they're destroyed.

Although against the SLN and particularly the BF their vulnerabilities are almost meaningless given their massive volleys to swamp the SLN's pathetic defenses.

Just a pair [with a suitable screen] could probably ruin a typical FF base's day, so dozens of them could be taken out simultaneously, so yes I don't see much of the SLN surviving the next six month's, let alone the year. ;)

Taking the BF reserve out will be the immediate mission after the Beowulf attack is resolved either way by major GA TF's, but Agamemnon's have little to fear from active BF SD's, so if it weren't for having plenty of SDP's, the GA might use them on the smaller BF bases as well.

Your point about the disparate composition of the various SLN sector detachments is very well taken, and a pair or two of Agamemnon's attached to each wormhole TG could do excellent work until Moriarty's or Mycroft's were installed in a year or so, if not reinforced with SDP's earlier, ie after there are no more suitable targets. :D

Regarding rear area defense, given the older BC's can tractor 70-80 MDM pods, enough to kill up to 4 BF SD's if need be, they will do even better against FF BC's.

Again kudos for the excellent points.

L


Armed Neo-Bob wrote:*quote="Hutch"*Depending on how many Nike's are available. Using House of Steel as my reference, there were only 12 Nikes in service just prior to the BoM, and while they were in full-scale production, only the 'initial' production run would have been completed prior to Oyster Bay.

So maybe 60 additional Nikes', totally 72 in service, of which 16 are in Talbott with Mike's Tenth Fleet.

There are still 85+ Agamemmnons' out there, so they may be employed in the raiding missions.

We shall see, eventually.*quote*

*quote="munroburton"*Conversely, those Agamemmnons might be assigned to rear areas or 'less likely' SLN targets(such as Gryphon during 2nd BoM) and not to front line action in order to prevent giving the SLN a strong hint of the BC(P) concept, even if said concept has been evaluated as ultimately undesirable by the GA navies.

They have more than enough SD(P)s to compensate for absent BC(P)s, not to mention how many SD(P)s would be freed up by the BC(P)s' relegation to rear area duty.*quote*

*quote="Hutch"*I like that idea a lot more than mine, monroburton; in fact, I may have to start a thread on it...*quote*

fallsfromtrees wrote:I like this idea as well. Since one of the major problems with the Agamemmnons is the tendency to shoot themselves dry, serving in a system defense role, where they are effectively acting as a mobile command center makes a lot of sense, since they will not, in general, be using their internal magazines, and in fact, will be able to reload from a central depot in the system. Makes a lot of sense.


Fallsfromtrees, remember who and what they were facing when they shot themselves dry. Actually, we' ve never seen that happen in text, however much it has been discussed.

First, we don't know much about FF and BF nodes-- are they in the same places? Using the same supply ships? Or are they separate? Different bases in different systems, with BF in the Core, while FF bases mostly in the Shell (closer to the Verge)?

The biggest question is really, will the offensive kick off before New Years? By that time, if the projected reconstruction efforts were accurate, some replacement missiles will be available from San Martin. (I am not including defending Beowulf as part of the offensive here.)

The Aggies ammunition supplies run out fast, but only if they need to stack and launch everything in a do-or-die, last ditch effort. Against Sollie ships, they should be ok, as long as they are up against FF (which had no wallers).

For those who don't have House of Steel yet, here are the numbers.

The Aggies had 360 pods, with 14 missiles, or 5040 missiles total; Mk 16 missiles with a powered range around 3 to four times that of the Solarian Ships (using Javelin/Spatha). They fire 56 missiles in a salvo, every 12 seconds, without even stacking their fire. Which is 90 salvos, 3 times as many as a Saganami-C, with a heavier salvo density (especially if they stack them). They actually had more salvos than the original Medusas with the Mk-41 MDMs, or the original Mk-23s (before the flat-pack pods, a Medusa had 82 salvos).

By they time they "shoot themselves dry" the opposition (Nevadas? and smaller) will be scrap. And they can always either run away, or duck into stealth if they start running low. And, however they get deployed, it will be a division or small task group, not single ships.

Because of that firepower, I disagree with the notion of them in rear areas. I don't think Aggies will be in the back corners, even if the Nikes are better armored and defended. I think once the RMN takes the gloves off to operate offensively in Sollie-space, they will want to operate in as many systems as possible; I also believe that whatever the SLN may want to do, they're not going to get much done in less than a year. Meaning, I think there is enough time for Manticore to get some production started.

Genovese Sector had Indefatigables, as did Madras. But Nolan had Commodore Chalker's Rampart squadron, headed up by SLNS Lancelot. How many "Nolan" type detachments are there?

And officially, Maya as a sector only had a flotilla of destroyers and some second-rate "subscription ships;" how much opposition do you guys think will actually be there?

The Solarian League has always depended on the threat of its huge fleet, not the physical presence of powerful ships. It is big in the aggregate, but in individual systems, it isn't.

A Wolfhound could kill Chalker's flagship (Lancelot) without effort; an Aggie is gross overkill against anything less than a waller. If it isn't taking capital ship fire, the weaknesses of its armor will not be apparent to the SLN.

Also, there were around 85 Saganami-B's and a similar number of the Reliant III/IV (like Black Rose) which still significantly outgun Sollies. . . at least for now. If you got your hands on a list of FF fleet dispositions you could play hell against the older ships. Zilwicki can't be the only hacker in the Honorverse capable off hacking the Navy. Pat Givens probably won't even need any help from "Uncle Jaques".

Assuming combat ops off-screen didn't result in lots of losses in any of these classes in the last couple years. Which they certainly could have.

YMMV, as always.

Rob
Any snippet or post from RFC is good if not great!
Top
Re: Logic behind splitting Lacoon?
Post by Vince   » Tue Dec 09, 2014 10:31 pm

Vince
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 11:43 pm

Theemile wrote:
Vince wrote: <snip> I would expect that the same would be even more true for the GSN's Courvosiers with only half the mass and volume.


Agree with the rest, but I think you are confusing the GSN BCs.

The Courvosier class BC is a Reliant clone without lasers and a few extra missile launchers massing ~900Ktons. The Courvosier II class BC(p) masses almost the same as the Agamemnon class and has both a pod bay AND some broadside launchers.

I wish we had some more data on the 3rd existing BC(p) - The IAN Blucher class.

Personally, I see the BC(p)s on the front lines for the forseeable future. Despite their hull's fragility, their active defenses are superior to many Dreadnaughts - coupled with Keyhole's ability to roll wedge and still have active defenses, they can probably routinely withstand fire that would destroy a DN, just with a MUCH higher probability of a golden BB.

Even after they are deemed a 2nd tier ship, I can see them being used as a fast ammo carrier in hot zones - after all, if you have to risk an ammo carrier - wouldn't it be better if it was one the opponent feared messing with WITHOUT using a proponderance of capitol ships?

Actually I had 3 oopsies:

1) Forgot to add the II to the Courvosier ship class name
and
2) Didn't check to see if the mass/volume was increased, as it was by the GSN. House of Steel lists the Courvosier
II-class pod battlecruiser with Mass: 1,763,500 tons.
and
3) Didn't check the Agammenon class for the mass. House of Steel lists the Agamemnon-class pod battlecruiser with Mass: 1,750,750 tons.
-------------------------------------------------------------
History does not repeat itself so much as it echoes.
Top
Re: Logic behind splitting Lacoon?
Post by Armed Neo-Bob   » Wed Dec 10, 2014 2:56 pm

Armed Neo-Bob
Captain of the List

Posts: 532
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:11 pm

Although I was born at RNAS, (Rota, if the acronym changed), I really don't quite qualify as a Navy brat because my parents left the Navy before I acquired any long-term memory capacity. I was an enlisted Army type; so my disagreement with your description of the BCP as "ammunition ships" or "fleet train" may not be too well thought out. :D

Comments are interspersed. Otherwise, yes, the MWW will do a Girl Genius maneuver and "SHOW US ALL" with evil laughtrack.

Also, I like the rest of your ideas.

Rob

Vince wrote:I've said before that the Agamemnons are essentially minelayers (or now that we've seen them, possibly ammunition ships) with fire control and other warship mission systems.

The RMN doesn't like building Fleet Train ships (minelayers or ammunition ships) with the ability to shoot at the enemy, because it encourages the ship's COs and their superiors to take risks with them that are suboptimal.


Minelayers create obstacles for area denial; although pod layers may share some machinery, minelayers weren't armed or defended well enough to take into action. Unlike the Aggie, which not only had almost twice as much missile defense, but also off-bore capability for its CMs.

Vince wrote:When the RMN built the Agamemnons, it essentially married the BC's offensive/defensive roles with that of their minelayers (built on fast BC hulls, but without the BC's offensive systems and only light defensive systems) strictly defensive role. Even in a ship with the mass and volume of 2 million tons, the result was a compromise that did not work very well against a peer opponent (eggshells armed with sledgehammers, as noted at Solon). And if lost to enemy action, the price in terms of combat power, personnel and financial cost was much more than losing even a whole LAC wing. I would expect that the same would be even more true for the GSN's Courvosiers with only half the mass and volume.


Vince, as you point out below, NONE of the podlayers when introduced had "peer opponents;" in the battlecruiser's role of killing cruisers and fighting other battlecruisers, the Aggie seems like a winner, able to take out a bunch of enemy ships before it runs out of ammo. When it was first designed (a couple years before it commissioned, so ca. 1913?) the majority of the cruisers in the RMN were still the Prince Consorts, and Haven didn't have job lots of their Mars class cruisers. But those Mars classes, and their Warlord cousins, were their targets--NOT SD(P)s full of all-up MDM's. Saying it isn't competitive for its designed target is sort of like saying a volleyball doesn't work in softball. New tech will, of course, change the game, but for now?

Vince wrote:When Grayson built the Harrington SDP, they had enough mass and volume that the compromise between the missions of the SD and minelayer/ammunition ship was such that neither mission was impacted to the point were it couldn't be carried out. Although against a peer opponent, even the SDP can't as yet carry out the SD's mission of surviving in the wall of battle (as shown in the Battle of Manticore, the offensive lethality of the SDP is far more than its defensive capability).

However, the BCP exists, and until decommissioned will be used. And the SLN is NOT a peer opponent, by Haven sector standards it is at best a 3rd or 4th rate navy.

So the question is which would be the better use of the BCP? Use it defensively in the rear area to free up the SDPs for offensive missions? Or send it out on offensive raids while the SDPs play defense. If it was just the GA against the SLN, it would be easier to determine the best use of the BCPs. But there are at least 2 jokers in the deck that will affect the GA's thinking on this, one of which they know about (the Mesan Alignment Navy) and one they don't know as yet (the Renaissance Factor).

How this will affect their thinking is an interesting question, which hopefully we will see answered in the next Honorverse book. Until then, let the speculation (also known as SWAGs--Scientific Wild Ass Guesses) continue.


A great summation. All of my WAGS will be WAGS, I don't have the science background for SWAGS.

One reason I don't think they'll go all out (against the League) with the SDPs is that that much firepower isn't needed against SLN targets; another reason is to have that firepower at home to defend against a repeat Yawata Strike. In spite of the numbers of ships in commission, the GA has a lot of home front and allies to cover, and the SLN isn't what they need to worry about.

They don't need to know about the Factor per se, as they expect to see regional power blocks being built up. As that happens, the Factor-- unless they are exposed somehow--will just be another one.

Also, some readers don't have HOS, so here're stats for the Aggie and the last-gen Reliant, similar in size to Warlords.

Note that the Aggie has a stronger beam armament; and a third more missile defense than the older ship, which was defensively superior to the Reliant II-class HMS Nike in SVW (10cm,10pd). And though the armor is "thin" compared to Nike class, does anyone think any of the Reliants would have survived the hits Ajax took at Solon?

If you were in a cruiser, these things are a nightmare come true.

Also, the stats lack crewing information and ammo information for tube-based ships. And ships killed. (It is not sufficient for order of battle analysis--built doesn't mean "still exists".)

Agamemnon-class pod battlecruiser
Mass: 1,750,750 tons
Dimensions: 815 _ 118 _ 110 m
Acceleration: 692.6 G (6.792 kps_)
80% Accel: 554.1 G (5.434 kps_)
Broadside: 10G, 30CM, 30PD
Fore: 4G, 12PD
Aft: 4MP, 4G, 12PD
Pods: 360
Number Built: 85+
Service Life: 1919–present

Reliant-class battlecruiser (Flights III-IV)
Mass: 934,250 tons
Dimensions: 727 _ 92 _ 82 m
Acceleration: 616 G (6.041 kps_)
80% Accel: 492.8 G (4.833 kps_)
Broadside: 24M, 4L, 6G, 18CM, 18PD
Chase: 4M, 2G, 6CM, 6PD
Number Built: 73
Service Life: 1915–present
Top
Re: Logic behind splitting Lacoon?
Post by Armed Neo-Bob   » Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:08 pm

Armed Neo-Bob
Captain of the List

Posts: 532
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:11 pm

lyonheart wrote:Hi Rob,

Kudos for an excellent analysis, but may I add a couple of additional points? ;)

You're quite right missile production should resume soon; the original projection was ten month's, or some time in December 1922, but thanks to Beowulf's high tech, and indirectly the RoH ending the war, production was expected to begin month's earlier, so by the time Anton met HA-H in October they could be back in production, albeit at less that the war production peak rate before OB yet, but give the SEM a few more month's and who knows?



Hi Lyonheart,
This reads like some of the German stuff I learned at DLI, the sentences that never end. Subordinate clauses ad infinitum . . . Breathe, buddy! :twisted:
Top
Re: Logic behind splitting Lacoon?
Post by Jonathan_S   » Wed Dec 10, 2014 6:16 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8800
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:Although I was born at RNAS, (Rota, if the acronym changed), I really don't quite qualify as a Navy brat because my parents left the Navy before I acquired any long-term memory capacity. I was an enlisted Army type; so my disagreement with your description of the BCP as "ammunition ships" or "fleet train" may not be too well thought out. :D

[snip]

Vince, as you point out below, NONE of the podlayers when introduced had "peer opponents;" in the battlecruiser's role of killing cruisers and fighting other battlecruisers, the Aggie seems like a winner, able to take out a bunch of enemy ships before it runs out of ammo. When it was first designed (a couple years before it commissioned, so ca. 1913?) the majority of the cruisers in the RMN were still the Prince Consorts, and Haven didn't have job lots of their Mars class cruisers. But those Mars classes, and their Warlord cousins, were their targets--NOT SD(P)s full of all-up MDM's. Saying it isn't competitive for its designed target is sort of like saying a volleyball doesn't work in softball. New tech will, of course, change the game, but for now?
I more or less agree, but at least in RMN service BCs had missions beyond acting as cruiser killers.

None of those missions involved deliberately fighting with SDs, but some of them did involve raiding. And the advent of pod based MDMs didn't just make SD(P)s vastly more lethal than SDs, but also make a cheap and cheerful system defense installation very lethal to raiders. The BC(P) is far less capable, against a near peer enemy, of this system raiding mission than a BC(L). If subject to even relatively light pod based system defense fire it's unlikely that the BC(P)'s very formidable active defenses (and I'm lumping sidewalls in with these) would be capable of preventing any hits from being scored. Once hit it's passive armor defenses are far weaker than a BC(L)s; so a much higher chance of golden BBs against the ship as a whole (critical hit on fusion reactor) or on it's offensive firepower (any hit into the podbay will likely wipe all remaining pods).

For that matter, I think it's arguable whether it has any significant advantage in that system raiding role compared to an equal tonnage of similar tech CAs (Sag-Cs). On the one hand it does have Keyhole, which adds some PDLCs and lets you fight while rolled behind your wedge. On the other hand that's 3.5 CAs for each BC, which collectively have over twice the CM tubes, over 2.5 times the PDLCs (though individually less capable) and their primary offensive weapons are less vulnerable, while their armor doesn't have the same kind of weak spots (though its max thickness is less)



Of course the pods the League has now are nothing great, so the BC(P) is a perfectly viable raiding platform against their systems (at least for the moment). And it remains able to smash any likely collection of cruisers less capable than similar BC(P)s, or BC(L)s. So even against peer enemies it's still a powerful cruiser killer, very capable heavy escort for convoys, and deadly as an anti-raider unit in forward systems.
Top
Re: Logic behind splitting Lacoon?
Post by kzt   » Wed Dec 10, 2014 6:24 pm

kzt
Fleet Admiral

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

You can't do long range raids with BC(L)s, because they will face MDMs that they don't have due to the proven inability of the RMN to develop electrical power connectors. If someone is shooting at you with MDMs from ships it's pretty obvious from the events in AAC that trying to shoot back with ballistic Mk16s will simply not work, as the side with MDMs will maneuver out of the engagement envelope of the Mk16s during their ballistic phase.

In addition, use of large numbers of surface mounted pods restricts your point defenses and sensors.
Top
Re: Logic behind splitting Lacoon?
Post by SharkHunter   » Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:30 am

SharkHunter
Vice Admiral

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

I just had an interesting thought. Let's assume that wonderful wormhole junction YabbaDabba has just been seized, and within a fairly short period of time... you've got a whole bunch of SLN and other hulls arriving in the YabbaDabba system with no-place to go and no instructions for what to do from their tran-stellar bosses.

Mixed into that, you've got say, 1/5 of the ships who are independent operators, headed towards systems that the GA might want to be nice to, and enough marines to do inspections...

What ya gonna do? Interesting question or no....?
---------------------
All my posts are YMMV, IMHO, and welcoming polite discussion, extension, and rebuttal. This is the HonorVerse, after all
Top
Re: Logic behind splitting Lacoon?
Post by fallsfromtrees   » Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:41 am

fallsfromtrees
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1960
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 10:51 am
Location: Mesa, Arizona

SharkHunter wrote:I just had an interesting thought. Let's assume that wonderful wormhole junction YabbaDabba has just been seized, and within a fairly short period of time... you've got a whole bunch of SLN and other hulls arriving in the YabbaDabba system with no-place to go and no instructions for what to do from their tran-stellar bosses.

Mixed into that, you've got say, 1/5 of the ships who are independent operators, headed towards systems that the GA might want to be nice to, and enough marines to do inspections...

What ya gonna do? Interesting question or no....?

If you are in Lacoon II you seize the SL ships as prizes. You search the other ships, verify their papers, and assuming they pass, let them through the junction. If they are SLN ships, you give them the option to surrender or die. Most will surrender, but a few will pick the die option, depending on their assessment of the odds (likely to be excessively faulty at the beginning).
========================

The only problem with quotes on the internet is that you can't authenticate them -- Abraham Lincoln
Top
Re: Logic behind splitting Lacoon?
Post by SharkHunter   » Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:02 am

SharkHunter
Vice Admiral

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

fallsfromtrees wrote:
SharkHunter wrote:I just had an interesting thought. Let's assume that wonderful wormhole junction YabbaDabba has just been seized, and within a fairly short period of time... you've got a whole bunch of SLN and other hulls arriving in the YabbaDabba system with no-place to go and no instructions for what to do from their tran-stellar bosses.

Mixed into that, you've got say, 1/5 of the ships who are independent operators, headed towards systems that the GA might want to be nice to, and enough marines to do inspections...

What ya gonna do? Interesting question or no....?

If you are in Lacoon II you seize the SL ships as prizes. You search the other ships, verify their papers, and assuming they pass, let them through the junction. If they are SLN ships, you give them the option to surrender or die. Most will surrender, but a few will pick the die option, depending on their assessment of the odds (likely to be excessively faulty at the beginning).


That was my thought also, because it hits the most corrupt folks right in their pocketbooks and pinches the SL's carrying capacity even more. Better send back to the Home System and order up a bunch of prize crews and boarding parties. I think the Talbott Sector and eventually some GA friendly systems may be in line for a windfall...
---------------------
All my posts are YMMV, IMHO, and welcoming polite discussion, extension, and rebuttal. This is the HonorVerse, after all
Top
Re: Logic behind splitting Lacoon?
Post by lyonheart   » Thu Dec 11, 2014 5:16 am

lyonheart
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4853
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:27 pm

Hi Vince,

Except the Courvosier II BCP was described in War of Honor as being only ~1.3 MT not 1.75 [the IAN's BCP's were in the 1.1 MT range], but Bu9 decided to disregard almost all such numeric details through out the series without any attempt to explain any of their decisions by getting RFC to approve their fiat figures in HoS despite all the obvious conflicts.

L


Vince wrote:
Theemile wrote:*quote="Vince"* <snip> I would expect that the same would be even more true for the GSN's Courvosiers with only half the mass and volume. *quote*

Agree with the rest, but I think you are confusing the GSN BCs.

The Courvosier class BC is a Reliant clone without lasers and a few extra missile launchers massing ~900Ktons. The Courvosier II class BC(p) masses almost the same as the Agamemnon class and has both a pod bay AND some broadside launchers.

I wish we had some more data on the 3rd existing BC(p) - The IAN Blucher class.

Personally, I see the BC(p)s on the front lines for the forseeable future. Despite their hull's fragility, their active defenses are superior to many Dreadnaughts - coupled with Keyhole's ability to roll wedge and still have active defenses, they can probably routinely withstand fire that would destroy a DN, just with a MUCH higher probability of a golden BB.

Even after they are deemed a 2nd tier ship, I can see them being used as a fast ammo carrier in hot zones - after all, if you have to risk an ammo carrier - wouldn't it be better if it was one the opponent feared messing with WITHOUT using a proponderance of capitol ships?

Actually I had 3 oopsies:

1) Forgot to add the II to the Courvosier ship class name
and
2) Didn't check to see if the mass/volume was increased, as it was by the GSN. House of Steel lists the Courvosier
II-class pod battlecruiser with Mass: 1,763,500 tons.
and
3) Didn't check the Agammenon class for the mass. House of Steel lists the Agamemnon-class pod battlecruiser with Mass: 1,750,750 tons.
Any snippet or post from RFC is good if not great!
Top

Return to Honorverse