Quote:
There are three major problems with this design that would prevent me from using it:

1) Short ranged. It has no weapons that can match the reach of capital missiles, nor can it prevent "high speed closing engagements" as detailed in Strategic Operations. It's a sitting duck.

2) No tactical mobility. While it can putter around a star system at 0.1G, it cannot effectively avoid tactical threats like high speed closing engagements, space bombing (which is easy to avoid with even 2/3 thrust), and ramming. It also cannot counter tactical movements of enemies around it, which is a useful feature of DropShip and WarShip fighter carriers - they have much greater endurance than their fighters and can do things like skirting a battlefield to pick up their fighters on the other side, or follow combat aerospace patrols to provide continuous resupply.

3) Expensive. I can get a good WarShip for this price and with none of two above drawbacks. In eras where WarShips are not available, it is still worth a flotilla of DropShips.

There are a few minor issues, too.

1) Big NACs. By using the NAC/30 in pairs (a pre-StratOps standard weapon arrangement), you cannot fully exploit bracketing fire of StratOps. That works best with numerous weapons in a bay.

2) No capital missiles. These could partly plug the drawbacks of this design and offer a lot of unique engagement opportunities (bearings-only launch, off-arc launches, teleoperated missiles for very, very long shots, etc.) and weapon effects (automatic crit rolls, good anti-fighter performance).

This is the spacegoing equivalent of one of your 1/2, 200-ton tanks. Big, beautiful, and yet ultimately vulnerable to much lighter, cheaper opponents.

1. Capital Missiles certainly have a longer range than other capital weapons but the ammunition weighs a lot and could be put to better alternatives in my opinion. Capital Missiles work O.K. against fighters but personally I think fighters are a better solution against other fighters. Moreover, a small amount of weight dedicated to AMS (like in the Phoenix II) can effectively nullify a much larger weight dedicated to Capital Missiles.

I don't see how the weapons and/or their placement make the Phoenix II a "sitting duck" in "high speed closing engagements" compared to canon designs in general. I'll grant you that designs with four Capital Weapons in a bay potentially will be able to have more accurate shots with bracket fire than ones with only two Capital Weapons, like in the Phoenix, but the damage will be substancially less, only half as much (assuming equally damaging bays to start with) if both are using maximum accuracy for bracket fire.

2. The speed of the Phoenix II is 3/5, which is extremely common speed among canon Warships, so I don't see how its speed puts it at such a tactical disadvantage as you suggest. In addition, the Phoenix II can carry up to 5 Dropships, 108 Fighters and 10 Small Craft, so it can easily project a large amount of force, far beyond its Capital Weapon ranges if needed.

3. The Phoenix II costs around 15 Billion C-Bills which is pretty cheap as far as warships go which is especially true for a 2.5 million ton warship. The design costs about as much as canon designs like the 750,000 ton Aegis, 810,000 ton Black Lion or the 820,000 ton Agamemnon. It costs less than canon designs like the 1,930,000 ton McKenna, 1,560,000 ton Texas or even the 970,000 ton Feng Huang. It is debateable how much cost is a factor for a Clan or Major power in the Battletech universe and most people don't seem to use it as a way to balance forces for their games.


Ultimately though, it is up to you regarding what designs and rules to use

Quote:
Your design will probably get raped by aerospace swarms and 400 ton dropships.