[MC+SS] Alternate TS Calculation

[OldSam]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

And there's a very simple way to handle this formula too: Just multiply the TS calculated using the original formula by the ship's length divided by some constant, probably 20 (so a SM+6 fighter keeps it's original TS, the smaller fighters drop a bit, and everything above gets a boost). So that Battle-Class Frigate from the article would go from TS 68,580 to about 240,000. Capital Ships would still be more expensive than the same TS of Naval vessels, and larger ships would still be proportionally more expensive than smaller ones, but it's a bit less jarring a discrepancy, and it keeps Carriers in the ring.

With original formula you mean the one David Pulver used in the article, don't you?
If so, that sounds like a very good upgrade for me! :) Good job!

It would be really strange to have fleets with large ships being much too expensive and thus not cost-effective. On the other hand it would be boring to have big fleets without any fighters, just because simple weapon batteries are cheaper, I think the flexibility offered by fighters should make them useful, too.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by OldSam

With original formula you mean the one David Pulver used in the article, don't you?
If so, that sounds like a very good upgrade for me! :) Good job!

Yeah, I meant David's original formula.

It would be really strange to have fleets with large ships being much too expensive and thus not cost-effective. On the other hand it's boring to have big fleets without any fighters, just because simple weapon batteries are cheaper, I think the flexibility offered by fighters should make them useful, too.

One advantage that fighters have, even if their TS is lower, is superior Air mobility. This can extend a space-bound fleet's influence into a gravity well. Additionally, winged fighters gain around +40% TS in an atmosphere due to their Handling bonus, making them even better suited for this role compared to the clumsy atmosphere-capable capital ships.

[Tyneras]

There are also a number of design switches and specific systems that should be included in that calculation. Having Hardened Armor or Shields, or IT:DR would improve the TS of a ship, or maybe give it the Armor class. I'd look for more, but I'm away from my books right now.

I don't know about you guys, but I would love a Spaceships #: Fleet Warfare supplement that covered everything in worked detail.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by Tyneras

There are also a number of design switches and specific systems that should be included in that calculation. Having Hardened Armor or Shields, or IT:DR would improve the TS of a ship, or maybe give it the Armor class. I'd look for more, but I'm away from my books right now.

I don't know about you guys, but I would love a Spaceships #: Fleet Warfare supplement that covered everything in worked detail.

Definitely. I've been adding Force Screen DR to the average, but it would make sense for Hardened to have an impact too. Perhaps a x1.5 to the armor DR on that facing? I like the idea of giving it the Armor class, but perhaps that should be based on a ship having an exceptional average DR instead (ie, twice hull HP). Recon and Cav classes would make sense in a space opera setting where FTL travel, dense asteroid belts and short engagement ranges make detection and tactical maneuvering more of a concern. Artillery could represent a ship with long-range missiles, especially if it lacks heavy armor or close-in weapons. Neutralize C3I for ships with jammers, and Neutralize Armor for weapons like Graviton beams and Disintegrators.

Most of the classes don't make sense for a realistic sci fi battle, but space opera tends to be "Naval Battles IN SPACE" so I think a little divergence could suit the genre well.

[vierasmarius]

Okay, I ran some comparisons of capital ships and fighter-equipped carriers using David's formula and the two alternates we've been discussing. Got some interesting results, based on several combinations of Carrier and Fighter at a couple TLs. (The top line, 2*SM X-3 etc, indicates the number and relative size of fighters carried in a 2-hangar ship)

Relative TS of SM X Carrier + Fighters vs SM X Capital Ship
Formula		2*SM X-3	20*SM X-5	200*SM X-7	2K*SM X-9
Linear		x1 - x1.5	x2 - x3		x10		x30
Area		x2/3		x2/3 - x1	x1		x1
Mass		x1/2 - x1/3	x1/2 - x1/3	x1/2 - x1/3	x1/2 - x1/3

Based on this, I really like the Area-based formula, since it makes carriers and other capital ships pretty equal in terms of overall power.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

Okay, I ran some comparisons of capital ships and fighter-equipped carriers using David's formula and the two alternates we've been discussing. Got some interesting results, based on several combinations of Carrier and Fighter at a couple TLs. (The top line, 2*SM X-3 etc, indicates the number and relative size of fighters carried in a 2-hangar ship)

Relative TS of SM X Carrier + Fighters vs SM X Capital Ship
Formula		2*SM X-3	20*SM X-5	200*SM X-7	2K*SM X-9
Linear		x1 - x1.5	x2 - x3		x10		x30
Area		x2/3		x2/3 - x1	x1		x1
Mass		x1/2 - x1/3	x1/2 - x1/3	x1/2 - x1/3	x1/2 - x1/3

Based on this, I really like the Area-based formula, since it makes carriers and other capital ships pretty equal in terms of overall power.

I don't have the article, but anyway, shouldn't there be a case of an extended rock-paper-scissors setup? E.g. Fighters beat bombers, bombers beat capitals, capitals beat gunboats, gunboats beat fighters?

Fighters should probably somehow be similar to infantry/motorcycle infantry, while gunboats to capitals somewhat near tanks, missileboats = arty etc.

[Langy]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I don't have the article, but anyway, shouldn't there be a case of an extended rock-paper-scissors setup? E.g. Fighters beat bombers, bombers beat capitals, capitals beat gunboats, gunboats beat fighters?

Fighters should probably somehow be similar to infantry/motorcycle infantry, while gunboats to capitals somewhat near tanks, missileboats = arty etc.

I suppose you could do this by making Bombers have (Arm) and capital ships have Arm, while Fighters and Bombers might have some new class like SSup (Space Superiority), while gunboats would have (SSup). The problem is defining what is a Fighter, Bomber, Gunboat, or Capital Ship.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Langy

I suppose you could do this by making Bombers have (Arm) and capital ships have Arm, while Fighters and Bombers might have some new class like SSup (Space Superiority), while gunboats would have (SSup). The problem is defining what is a Fighter, Bomber, Gunboat, or Capital Ship.

The problem with this approach is that it arbitrarily assigns classes with dependence on relative size. Here's the vaguely-Homeworld-ish breakdown:

Interceptor: small (Fighter-sized) ship with normal (Major) beam/gun batteries. Neutralizes all fighters. Usually has high mobility and average range.
Bomber: Fighter-sized ship with Major or Spinal Bomb (or missile...) Batteries. Neutralize Capital-class ships and bases. Typically less mobile than interceptors, and very short ranged.
Lancer: small ship with Spinal beam/gun batteries. Neutralizes ships one size larger. Might or might not be long-ranged.
Gunboats, Flak Frigates etc.: various corvetter/frigate sized ships with Minor/Medium batteries, meant for neutralizing Fighter-sized craft.
Torpedo boats, ion cruisers etc.: Frigate/cruiser-sized ships armed with mid-range Major Missile or Spinal Beam batteries, intended to counter their size or slightly larger.
Battlecruisers, battleships: Heavily armed and armoured ships with various Major/Medium batteries, intended to counter themselves and stuff a bit smaller. Good against bases too.
Siege craft/dreadnoughts: mid-sized ships armed with very long-ranged missiles, rockets, or other weapons, typically spinal. These are MC Art elements, typically capable of countering Battlecruisers/battleships, and countered by Bombers, Torpedo boats etc.

How are categories applied according to Pyramid?

I'd try doing something like this:
Long-ranged missiles -> Art
Point-Defense dedication -> (Art) and ('Air')
Many engines and relatively small size/high Hnd -> 'Air' (used to denote fighter superiority)
Lots of shields, HP or armour -> Arm.
Armor-piercing weapons, or dedicated weapons suitable for taking on much larger opponents -> (Arm)
Tactical Arrays -> C3I
Scientific Arrays -> Rec
Lots of wide-area ECM -> (C3I), (Art)
Stealth Hull, Cloaking Devices -> (Rec), (C3I)
Utility and logistics craft with special systems -> Eng

[Langy]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

The problem with this approach is that it arbitrarily assigns classes with dependence on relative size. Here's the vaguely-Homeworld-ish breakdown:

The approach you quoted had nothing to do with relative size, or even how classes were assigned, just how you could have a 'rock-paper-scissors' mechanic if you wished. I wouldn't have made them dependent on size, anyways - dependent upon amount of DR for Arm, sure, but nothing else would likely be size-dependent.

How are categories applied according to Pyramid?

Most aren't used in space combat - Spaceships in general can't have Arm, Art, Rec, F, or Cv, except during an orbital landing operation (when most ships gain Art, for representing orbital bombardment).

The classes that are used are Space (which all spaceships get), C3I (depending on sensor arrays), Air (for ships with an air speed), and Engineering (depending on factory/mining systems).

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by Langy

Most aren't used in space combat - Spaceships in general can't have Arm, Art, Rec, F, or Cv, except during an orbital landing operation (when most ships gain Art, for representing orbital bombardment).

The classes that are used are Space (which all spaceships get), C3I (depending on sensor arrays), Air (for ships with an air speed), and Engineering (depending on factory/mining systems).

I think what we're assuming for this exercise is a Space Opera treatment of space battles, where it makes sense to have tiny "Air" craft, fast "Cavalry" ships, long-range "Artillery" and rugged "Armor". In a Space Opera battle these distinctions would come in to play, making it resemble WWII Naval operation - complete with Interceptors and Divebombers, Battleships and Submarines. This is as much a genre convention of Space Opera as Force Swords, Psychic Powers and sexy green-skinned aliens. For a realistic setting you'd drop all these cinematic features, and probably use Mass-scaled TS, despite what that means about the usefulness of Carriers.