Tethys Bluewater Pocket Warship and Thetis Spotter Craft

Pages: 1
Shadrak
11/24/15 12:44 AM
173.88.45.54

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The lack of naval combat vehicles in Battletech inventory is surprising to me given the advantages these designs have using the current rules. The Tethys/Thetis is probably not a particularly good design, but I wanted to sketch something out that could fill a role that I though a combat naval vessel would be great for, especially in the 31st/32nd century: Killing large naval support vehicles and supporting battle-armor equipped special operations/naval forces


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The Tethys and Thetis Naval Vessels were developed by the the Terran Hegemony in the early 2600's as a dropship-deployable system that could be used to neutralize member state bluewater assets without resorting to naval bombardment or diverting other aerospace assets from close air support or air superiority missions.
These units were also used for ship-to-shore bombardment, naval artillery support, and infiltration of special operations units.
The Tethys utilized an enclosed, 5-ton cargo bay that could be used to transport infantry or a special operations team, but was normally used by the crew as temporary quarters and for storage of enough supplies to support a week long mission.
Each Tethys carried a 3-ton Thetis spotter craft that is used to designate targets. Standard protocol is that the Tethys launches the Thetis well ahead of any expected engagement and the Thetis moves to designate enemy targets. After damaging or destroying the intended target(s), both the Tethys and Thetis would move from the engagement area at high speed and the Thetis would be recovered when the vehicles were no longer within danger of enemy fire.
The Thetis becomes extremely difficult to pilot at high speeds. When the Thetis travels at faster than 14 MP in any given turn, the Thetis must make a piloting skill roll with a +4 modifier each time the vehicle makes a facing change or the vehicle will suffer the effects of skidding. Additionally, all Piloting Skill Rolls made when the Thetis travels at more than 14 MP in a given turn suffer a +4 penalty. Because of this, Thetis pilots normally travel at high speed parallel to the target while engaging the target once or twice with the TAG unit, then accelerating at maximum speed away from the target until well out of range of the target's defensive weapons. The Thetis then returns to engage the target again.
Some variants of the Tethys included a drone-carrier variant, a variant that carried Nighthawk Power Armor a 10-ton hydrofoil, ECM and Stealth Armor, and a pure attack variant that removed all equipment and replaced them with 3 Guass Rifles in the turret, 3 tons of Ammo, and an additional .5 tons of Armor added to the turret.
Most Tethys were destroyed early on in the Amaris Civil War by Aerospace Fighters (refinements in Arrow IV technologies in thie 31st century would make vehicles like the Tethys less susceptible to ASF attack), and most that remained were converted to a lower-tech version of the attack version of the vessel with 3 AC-10s and additional armor and ammunition.
By the end of Third Succession War there was no Successor State military force that retained a Tethys in its active inventory, though almost 300 demilitarized Tethys could be found on several water worlds. Most of these Tethys were converted to private yachts, but some were converted to para-military, contingency, and customs operations variants.

Type/Model: Tethys
Tech: Unknown
Config: Hydrofoil
Rules: Unknown

Mass: 100 tons
Power Plant: 120 Fusion (IS)
Cruise Speed: 66.5 km/h
Maximum Speed: 95.1 km/h
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
1 PPC (Turret)
2 Arrow IV (Front)
1 Lift Hoist (Rear)
Manufacturer: (Unknown)
Location: (Unknown)
Communications System: (Unknown)
Targeting & Tracking System: (Unknown)

--------------------------------------------------------
Type/Model: Tethys
Mass: 100 tons

Equipment: Items Mass
Int. Struct.: 100 pts Standard 0 10.00
Engine: 120 Fusion Standard 0 4.00
Shielding & Transmission Equipment: 0 0.00
Cruise MP: 6
Flank MP: 9
Heat Sinks: 10 Single 0 .00
Cockpit & Controls: 0 5.00
Turret 0 1.00
Crew: ? Members 0 .00
Lift Equipment: 0 10.00
Armor Factor: 288 pts Standard (IS) 0 18.00

Internal Armor
Structure Value
Front: 10 66
Left / Right Sides: 10 66/66
Rear: 10 40
Turret 10 50

Weapons and Equipment Loc Heat Ammo Items Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
1 PPC* (IS) Turret 10 0 1 7
2 Arrow IV Front 20 5 2 30
Ammo (Arrow IV) 4 tons Body NA NA 1 4
Lift Hoist Rear NA NA 1 3
Thetis Spotter Craft Rear NA NA 1 3
Cargo Bay Body NA NA 1 5
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: 0 4 100.00
Items & Tons Left: 4 .00

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost: ? C-Bills
Battle Value: ?
Cost per BV: ?
Weapon Value: ?
Damage Factors: SRDmg = 1; MRDmg = 1; LRDmg = 0
BattleForce2: MP: ?, Armor/Structure: ?
Damage PB/M/L: -/-/-, Overheat: ?
Class: ? Point Value: ?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type/Model: Thetis
Tech: Unknown
Config: Displacement Hull
Rules: Unknown

Mass: 3 tons
Power Plant: 25 Fusion (IS)
Cruise Speed: 194 km/h
Maximum Speed: ?? km/h
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
1 Target Acquisition Gear (TAG)
Manufacturer: (Unknown)
Location: (Unknown)
Communications System: (Unknown)
Targeting & Tracking System: (Unknown)

--------------------------------------------------------
Type/Model: Thetis
Mass: 3 tons

Equipment: Items Mass
Int. Struct.: 4 pts Standard 0 0.50
Engine: 25 Fusion Standard 0 0.50
Shielding & Transmission Equipment: 0 0.00
Cruise MP: 12
Flank MP: 18
Heat Sinks: 10 Single 0 0.00
Cockpit & Controls: 0 0.50
Turret 0 0.00
Crew: ? Members 0 0.00
Lift Equipment: 0 0.00
Armor Factor: 8 pts Standard (IS) 0 0.50

Internal Armor
Structure Value
Front: 1 5
Left / Right Sides: 1 1/1
Rear: 1 1

Weapons and Equipment Loc Heat Ammo Items Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
TAG Turret 1 0 1 1
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: 0 1 .00
Items & Tons Left: ? .00

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost: ? C-Bills
Battle Value: ?
Cost per BV: ?
Weapon Value: ?
Damage Factors: SRDmg = 1; MRDmg = 1; LRDmg = 0
BattleForce2: MP: ?, Armor/Structure: ?
Damage PB/M/L: -/-/-, Overheat: ?
Class: ? Point Value: ?
CrayModerator
11/24/15 05:55 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I like both designs. The Tethys might work a little better with turret-mounted Arrow IVs so you can engage without charging the target (thus forcing you to turn at some point to disengage), but it works well as is.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
Shadrak
11/27/15 12:34 AM
173.88.45.54

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Cray writes:

I like both designs. The Tethys might work a little better with turret-mounted Arrow IVs so you can engage without charging the target (thus forcing you to turn at some point to disengage), but it works well as is.



Thanks, Cray...

I created these designs in about 30 minutes and placing the Arrow IV in the turret was the initial intent, but I started with a 5 ton Thetis, so I needed to free up the 3 tons of turret structure...once I cut the Thetis to 3 tons, I could have put them back in the turret, but I didn't.


Anyway, I put these designs together to exploit what I see is a weakness in the Heavy Naval Support Vehicle construction rules...I will be posting a fan TRO with 2 separate adventure packs to allow people to experiment with military weapon systems that represent locally produced designs using normal automotive and ship building capacities. The Tethys is the higher-tech answer to large naval support vessels like aircraft carriers...

Now to try to post this reply after 5 tries now.
Akirapryde2006
11/28/15 01:18 PM
74.209.29.138

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I will give you this, it shows the amount of time that you put in to the design and you were correct in stating that they are poor designs.

The 'Pocket Warship' design completely ignores traditional naval tactics and continues to forward a Gamer Mindset when creating this warship.

First and foremost, the writing reflects the ship intended for a week long tours at a time. This is far short for a Blue Water navel ship. During the Vietnam era war, the Patrol Craft-Fast of the United State's Brown Water Navy were expected to be on patrol during the same period of time and came in far less in tonnage.

Your weapons are a joke for a blue water ship. Your mindset in the design is clearly shown as one of balancing this ship against its mech counterparts. Which is the reason why I am sure that Cray is so willing to accept the design as workable. Ask yourself, why create it knowing that Battlemechs can match it. You would be sending your crews to their deaths and wasting valuable resources in deploying the unit to the battlefield. Compare your ship to the 1942 Elco 80' Patrol Torpedo (PT) Boat of WWII. Nearly the same weight but I would bet that the WWII PT Boat could out fight your "blue water pocket warship". Look at the Armament, 1942 Elco 80' Patrol Torpedo (PT) Boat .

In the writing you leave the suggestion that this ship is designed to operate independent of other support vessels, yet you limit its capabilities by setting the tonnage too low. Remember that this is a naval ship, not a mech. Please don't misunderstand what I am saying. While my words are harsh, I only speak the truth. And my desire here is to give you the support you need to create a ship that would actually be a asset on the battlefield and not a waist of resources.

You are looking for a dropship deployable naval ship that is suppose to operate on its own. You don't need to limit its tonnage at 100 tons. Remember you are creating this ship from the same House that created the Battlemech in the first place. Don't think in traditional terms. Let loose your imagination.

IF the Terran Hegemony built these ships for this role, then they would have create special dropships to fairy them from world to world. These dropships would have vast open bays that these ships could move in to and out of. These bays would mostly be able to operate as repair bays much like Mech bays on dropships do. These ships would also operate as forward supply and support vessels for the pocket warships.

Think of what your dropships could carry. A Union Class dropship can carry up to 1,200 tons worth of mechs to and from orbit. This can play in to your favor. You can use a similar design as the Union and this gives you an idea of what kind of naval ship you can make. 12 ships at a 100 tons all the way up to 2 ships at 600 tons each. This is what really limits the weight of your ships.

For the weight of our pocket ships. As I showed you above, they don't have to be 100 Tons. You could increase their tonnage to 300 Tonnage and give these ships some real bite. Add some direct fire artillery such as the Thumpers or even Long Toms. Remember that these ships are designed to go after other naval units. Ships that were built on world and don't have a limitations of transports. Your ships have to be able to stand on their own or else you are only throwing fodder in to the waters. So give them the fire power they need in combat. The Arrow system is nice system but you can get more bang for the cost in direct fire artillery systems.

Akirapryde
ghostrider
11/28/15 02:01 PM
98.150.102.177

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Akira. From the looks of this, the main ship is not for direct contact with the enemy, but to use the arrow IV to support forces close to a body of water it is deployed on. Asking why create it would be asking why have the mobile artillery. At ranges mechs are effective, artillery normally isn't.

Now I would suggest having a turreted tag on the main ship so it could use the homing missiles if needed. I know the secondary craft has it, but there are times when it might be out and about when the ship gets engaged. Also the secondary craft could have been destroyed. Been a while, so not sure if there is infantry carrier tag units.
Now with this thought, it might be an option to change the Thetis to a hover craft, so they could move further inland, then just on the coast or body of water. Even a vtol might work as well.

As for deployment, they could be locally made on worlds with alot of water. House Davion might use it to protect their underwater CIC's. Granted, there are other units better suited for this when the location is known, but otherwise, mobile artillery support from oceans can be usable.
And with this in mind, you can built a shuttle that can deploy or retrieve the ship without having to modify a drop ship. A drop shuttle comes to mind there.
Also alot of vehicles seem to be partially disassembled for transport in non vehicle dedicated drop ships, so there is no reason why this couldn't be moved like that as well. Even mechs get that treatment on some civilian ships.

This is a niche ship, not something that I would see as a generally deployed ship. But it does have it's uses. The Sea Skimmer hydrofoil in the original 3026 doesn't really seem like a ship most would use, much less the commonwealth. If you follow the fluff, then it makes sense. Basically a militarized yacht.
CrayModerator
11/28/15 03:16 PM
184.89.66.202

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Akirapryde2006 writes:

Your weapons are a joke for a blue water ship. Your mindset in the design is clearly shown as one of balancing this ship against its mech counterparts. Which is the reason why I am sure that Cray is so willing to accept the design as workable.



Your suppositions about what I'm thinking are incorrect. Further, it is not cool to build arguments by putting words in peoples' mouths, such as trying to state their thought processes when they haven't been shared yet.

Why I endorsed the Tethys: I've used artillery platforms and spotter drones extensively in the game, until they were banned by my gaming group because, far from being balanced, they guaranteed victory for some trivial losses of expendable drones. I also reviewed and playtested the support vehicle rules, and have reviewed most of the naval support vessels published.

The Tethys and Thetis were posed as killers of naval support vehicles. The disadvantage of naval support vessels is that they are multi-hex targets highly vulnerable to guided artillery munitions or bombs. A high mobility TAG drone has high target numbers to hit (I preferred VTOLs), enabling them rather surprising survival periods within 15 hexes (TAG's range) of a support vehicle or other target. A platoon of Tethys' can start a stream of artillery shells that will wear down viable support vehicle armor rather rapidly, even of the biggest cruisers and other aquatic support vehicles published to date.

The Tethys, meanwhile, is not similarly vulnerable. A 6/9 hydrofoil is an excellent platform for avoiding return artillery fire from support vehicles because of the multi-turn time of flight of artillery shells. A platoon of them, due to their numbers, can survive several hits because one or two Long Tom or Arrow IV hits will not sink them all - just one, if they're unlucky.

Quote:
The 'Pocket Warship' design completely ignores traditional naval tactics and continues to forward a Gamer Mindset when creating this warship.



The designs work within the limits of the game's weapons and rules, which shape the underlying setting. Trying to apply real world comparisons to a setting that functions differently than the real world is fruitless.

In this case, the Tethys has weapons few 'Mechs can match, especially when disposable Thetis' are guiding in the munitions. Further, it wasn't meant to kill 'Mechs. As stated in the original post, they were designed to kill large naval support vessels.

Quote:
First and foremost, the writing reflects the ship intended for a week long tours at a time. This is far short for a Blue Water navel ship. During the Vietnam era war, the Patrol Craft-Fast of the United State's Brown Water Navy were expected to be on patrol during the same period of time and came in far less in tonnage.



Far less tonnage? Well, that's not wrong, but that's sort of like comparing a Kia to an Abrams tank, because...

Quote:
Nearly the same weight but I would bet that the WWII PT Boat could out fight your "blue water pocket warship". Look at the Armament, 1942 Elco 80' Patrol Torpedo (PT) Boat .



...You just compared a boat with no armor (literally none: 2 inches of mahogany offers no protection on BT damage scales), 6/9 movement, and weapons that traveled slower than the target to a fusion-powered boat with 40 to 66 points of armor, 6/9 movement, and supersonic munitions with about 5km range.

66 points of armor will shrug off 4 hits from 125kg Gauss projectiles traveling at 30,000m/s, or 3 Arrow IV hits. 2 inches of mahogany will not.

Quote:
Think of what your dropships could carry. A Union Class dropship can carry up to 1,200 tons worth of mechs to and from orbit. This can play in to your favor. You can use a similar design as the Union and this gives you an idea of what kind of naval ship you can make. 12 ships at a 100 tons all the way up to 2 ships at 600 tons each. This is what really limits the weight of your ships.

For the weight of our pocket ships. As I showed you above, they don't have to be 100 Tons. You could increase their tonnage to 300 Tonnage and give these ships some real bite. Add some direct fire artillery such as the Thumpers or even Long Toms.



Several points:

1) A 300-ton naval vessel will move at 1/2 when built under combat vehicle rules. Meanwhile - just browsing TR:Vehicle Annex - a Meabh-class cruiser is 10,000 tons and moves at 8/12. A Luftenberg super carrier is 100,000 tons and moves 3/5. The 12,000-ton Triton missile submarine is 2/3. Now, they can't be so easily delivered between planets, but whatever is delivered by a DropShip to hunt them needs to keep their capabilities in mind.

2) A 300-ton naval vessel does not carry "real bite." It's smaller than the turrets of a Meabh, and the Triton carries nearly 300 tons of Arrow IVs. With such limited tonnage for weapons, you need to select weapons that reasonably have a chance of hitting the target while hopefully staying out of the way of the awesome return firepower. For example, a pair of Arrow IVs on a 6/9 platform.

3) The 1/2 movement limit of 300-ton combat vehicle displacement hulls is death for them in artillery duels with support vehicles, never mind the perpetual risk of them being simply ignored by 100,000-ton ships that could have 4 to 6 times their speed.

A 6/9 100-ton hydrofoil like the Tethys can get the heck out of Dodge before counterbattery fire arrives, and can chase down many commercial and naval support vessels.

Quote:
The Arrow system is nice system but you can get more bang for the cost in direct fire artillery systems.



The Arrow IV can fire directly.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.


Edited by Cray (11/28/15 03:30 PM)
Shadrak
11/28/15 03:18 PM
70.194.218.232

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Akirapryde2006 writes:

I will give you this, it shows the amount of time that you put in to the design and you were correct in stating that they are poor designs.

The 'Pocket Warship' design completely ignores traditional naval tactics and continues to forward a Gamer Mindset when creating this warship.

First and foremost, the writing reflects the ship intended for a week long tours at a time. This is far short for a Blue Water navel ship. During the Vietnam era war, the Patrol Craft-Fast of the United State's Brown Water Navy were expected to be on patrol during the same period of time and came in far less in tonnage.

Your weapons are a joke for a blue water ship. Your mindset in the design is clearly shown as one of balancing this ship against its mech counterparts. Which is the reason why I am sure that Cray is so willing to accept the design as workable. Ask yourself, why create it knowing that Battlemechs can match it. You would be sending your crews to their deaths and wasting valuable resources in deploying the unit to the battlefield. Compare your ship to the 1942 Elco 80' Patrol Torpedo (PT) Boat of WWII. Nearly the same weight but I would bet that the WWII PT Boat could out fight your "blue water pocket warship". Look at the Armament, 1942 Elco 80' Patrol Torpedo (PT) Boat .

In the writing you leave the suggestion that this ship is designed to operate independent of other support vessels, yet you limit its capabilities by setting the tonnage too low. Remember that this is a naval ship, not a mech. Please don't misunderstand what I am saying. While my words are harsh, I only speak the truth. And my desire here is to give you the support you need to create a ship that would actually be a asset on the battlefield and not a waist of resources.

You are looking for a dropship deployable naval ship that is suppose to operate on its own. You don't need to limit its tonnage at 100 tons. Remember you are creating this ship from the same House that created the Battlemech in the first place. Don't think in traditional terms. Let loose your imagination.

IF the Terran Hegemony built these ships for this role, then they would have create special dropships to fairy them from world to world. These dropships would have vast open bays that these ships could move in to and out of. These bays would mostly be able to operate as repair bays much like Mech bays on dropships do. These ships would also operate as forward supply and support vessels for the pocket warships.

Think of what your dropships could carry. A Union Class dropship can carry up to 1,200 tons worth of mechs to and from orbit. This can play in to your favor. You can use a similar design as the Union and this gives you an idea of what kind of naval ship you can make. 12 ships at a 100 tons all the way up to 2 ships at 600 tons each. This is what really limits the weight of your ships.

For the weight of our pocket ships. As I showed you above, they don't have to be 100 Tons. You could increase their tonnage to 300 Tonnage and give these ships some real bite. Add some direct fire artillery such as the Thumpers or even Long Toms. Remember that these ships are designed to go after other naval units. Ships that were built on world and don't have a limitations of transports. Your ships have to be able to stand on their own or else you are only throwing fodder in to the waters. So give them the fire power they need in combat. The Arrow system is nice system but you can get more bang for the cost in direct fire artillery systems.

Akirapryde



Akira, I can see you are very weak on your understanding of the construction rules and the difference between a combat vehicle and a support vehicle as well ad what is tournament legal and what isn't

You arr conflating the real world with a fictional tabletop game...something you did in your last thread as well...it not uncommon, though, a lot of players do it...

The maximum size of a combat vehicle hydrofoil is 100 tons. The rules require 5-10 tons per crew member for extended stay quartering...don't argue with me, argue with the game developers...

Now, heavy naval support vehicles have a maximum armor of 89+5% of total weight and must cover a minimum of 6 facings...so the total armor coverage of a 300.5 ton support vessel is 104 points (about 50 fewer points than a vessel .5 tons lighter...this equates to about 18 points per facing)...in fact, a 100 ton combat vessel can carry as much armor as a 6000 ton support vessel with 2 fewer facings...and, as a hydrofoil, can travel at a much higher speed than normal displacement hulls (+4.8 MP for 10 tons).

Now, this design contains a 5 ton cargo bay...now, in the game, both at an operation level and a strategic level, this doesn't allow for much...in the real life you are enamored with, an open bay with 5 tons of capacity is far more than enough to support a 6-8 man crew.
Shadrak
11/28/15 03:20 PM
70.194.218.232

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Also, Akira, please tell me what sized engine your hypothetical 300 ton vehicle will carry at and how fast it will move


Edited by Shadrak (11/28/15 03:21 PM)
Akirapryde2006
11/28/15 03:56 PM
74.209.29.138

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Shadrak writes:

Akira, I can see you are very weak on your understanding of the construction rules and the difference between a combat vehicle and a support vehicle as well ad what is tournament legal and what isn't

You arr conflating the real world with a fictional tabletop game...something you did in your last thread as well...it not uncommon, though, a lot of players do it...



I will not deny that I am weak in terms of understanding what is Tournament Legal and what isn't.

Nor will I deny that I have issues ignoring the basic inherited flaws within the rules of this fictional table table game. Yes I admit that this is a problem with me. I have done this in my post here as well as in other threads.

Quote:
Shadrak writes:

Now, heavy naval support vehicles have a maximum armor of 89+5% of total weight and must cover a minimum of 6 facings...so the total armor coverage of a 300.5 ton support vessel is 104 points (about 50 fewer points than a vessel .5 tons lighter...this equates to about 18 points per facing)...in fact, a 100 ton combat vessel can carry as much armor as a 6000 ton support vessel with 2 fewer facings...and, as a hydrofoil, can travel at a much higher speed than normal displacement hulls (+4.8 MP for 10 tons).



While I don't have my books while up here in MA, I have to relay only on what you posted. Look at your own words and ask yourself, does that make any sense? How could a 100 ton Hydrofoil have as much armor as a vessel sixty times its size. Now I might be misunderstanding something in your example, but it really just doesn't make any sense.



Quote:
Cray writes:

Your suppositions about what I'm thinking are incorrect. Further, it is not cool to build arguments by putting words in peoples' mouths, such as trying to state their thought processes when they haven't been shared yet.



While I accept that my assumptions regarding why you would endorsed the design could be incorrect, I deny any attempt to put words in your mouth.

To everyone,

I didn't mean to offend anyone with my posts. If my post offended, than accept my humble apologies.

Nor do I intend to argue with anyone.

I felt that I was merely pointing the flaws in the design. Which I know and accept are flaws within the system as a whole. And offering ideas that could make the design/delivering system (which was overlooked in presentation) better.

If need be, I ask Cray to delete this post as well my other post. I will leave that choice to the creator of the thread without further arguments.

Akirapryde
CrayModerator
11/28/15 04:43 PM
184.89.66.202

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Akirapryde2006 writes:

While I don't have my books while up here in MA, I have to relay only on what you posted. Look at your own words and ask yourself, does that make any sense? How could a 100 ton Hydrofoil have as much armor as a vessel sixty times its size. Now I might be misunderstanding something in your example, but it really just doesn't make any sense.



In BattleTech, notice that it is not impossible for small combat vehicles to have armor levels similar to DropShips or even WarShips - the Vincent's armor coverage is within the range of possibility for a 100-ton tank. I could offer some handwaving about the amount of area a tank's armor covers compared to a battleship, but naval support vehicles can carry pretty thick armor.

Support vehicles have a tonnage-related max armor:

Large Naval: 89 points + (0.05 points per ton)
Locations: Front, Front-Left/Right, Rear-Left/Right, Rear (plus possible turrets)

A 100,000-ton turretless naval vessel may have 5,089 standard armor points, or up to 848 points per arc. That's nicely comparable to DropShips and other units of 100,000 tons.

Quote:
I didn't mean to offend anyone with my posts. If my post offended, than accept my humble apologies.



The internet teaches us to score zingers and apply rhetorical flourishes in our debates. This is misleading instruction, since internet debates are a lot better received when you don't do such things. It's hard, though, and sometimes even statements meant as innocuous - like, "Which is the reason why I am sure that Cray is..." - can irritate the recipient.

There's probably no need to delete your posts. You apologized, which is more than usually happens in internet debates. If you had violated a posting rule, I would've sent a private nastygram.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
Shadrak
11/28/15 05:50 PM
173.88.45.54

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:


Now with this thought, it might be an option to change the Thetis to a hover craft, so they could move further inland, then just on the coast or body of water. Even a vtol might work as well.




I agree, ghostrider...when I decided to reduce the size of the Thetis I was thinking about making a 5-ton Hovercraft and 5-ton displacement hull...instead, I just did the dispacement hull...the VTOL would work if it was aquatic...

My only fear with the VTOL and Hovercraft is if they were disabled at sea, but at 5 tons or less this isn't really a legit fear since any disabling hit is probably a killing hit...

What would probably be the best of all possibilities would be to have an aquatic WiGE...fast and able to traverse a variety of terrains.
Shadrak
11/28/15 05:52 PM
173.88.45.54

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Bottom line...don't call someone's design crap and them lazy and then not know the rules of the game.
ghostrider
11/28/15 06:42 PM
98.150.102.177

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Just curious, but unless fuel is a concern, why would it have to be aquatic?
What is the difference? Do you need something that goes underwater? Just never heard of this situation.
Fly until it lands on the ship, unless you have it set up like an amphibious assault vehicle. Launches directly into the sea.

For some reason, I was thinking the unit was to support land battles, not just sea. A boat will not be able to help anything outside of a 15 hex range for the tag, though I guess they can send coordinates to anything they can see.
Shadrak
11/28/15 08:01 PM
173.88.45.54

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
You are right, my only thought was the vehicle might suffer failure in the motive system and sink, which is not a fear that is legitmate...

You might need an aquatic system to allow for loading and unloading at sea.

Other than that, you are probably right, a hovercraft, WiGE, or VTOL might be better.
Akirapryde2006
11/28/15 08:38 PM
74.209.29.138

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Shadrak writes:

Bottom line...don't call someone's design crap and them lazy and then not know the rules of the game.



Please keep in mind that I never said the design was crap. I agreed with you in what you said.

"The Tethys/Thetis is probably not a particularly good design"

and

"I created these designs in about 30 minutes"

My statement was, "it shows the amount of time that you put in to the design and you were correct in stating that they are poor designs"

Nor did I question the rules that were used in creating either design. I only pointed out that your intention of creating a Blue Water warship failed to meet the concepts of a Blue Water ship.

Look I have apologized for any offense that I imposed on you. I am sorry that my intention to be helpful failed so horribly.

The design is more in line with a short range patrol craft. But even in that, I think that the weapons are light. Could your ship out run a larger ship. I am sure it can. But could your ship survive a counter attack? Remember both sides are going to be firing large scale weapons. during the time period of the modern rules, you could see other Blue Water ships mounting SubCap weapons. Your ship couldn't survive more than a couple of shots.

Blue Water ships are designed to operate independently for weeks if not months at a time without support. Your craft only carries enough Arrow for twenty shots between two launchers. That's ten shots per launcher. The TAG is a great addition to your twin units, but once your ship is out of ammo, it is a 100 ton PPC platform. How long do you think ten rounds will last in an engagement for a world? Your ship will demand long term supply and support that is in theater to be successful.

This is why I am saying you have limited the ship in both scope and ability. I may not know the rules as well as you do. I still have to go to the books and research things. Hack, I don't even know the new rules that have been published under the Tactical Operations book. But I am learning them.

But what I don't know in rules I more than make up in military logic. Just cause the rules between modern "real" world and this game world differ, doesn't mean concepts differ. You are pitting a fast moving attack ship (much like its WWII counterparts as stated above) to take on full scale warships. But those WWII ships fought in full squadrons and their losses were generally high.

Akirapryde
Shadrak
11/28/15 09:26 PM
173.88.45.54

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Akira,

Stop...you clearly have not looked at the rules...


What is the largest weapon that can be used against a ground target? A cruise missile which didn't exist until the late 3000s...and this is a design from the 2600s. Subcapital weapons, again, come from the late 3000s, 400 years AFTER this design was introduced. Not to mention Subcapital direct fire weapons can't be used in surface to surface combat. This leaves only capital missile systems which can only be mounted on a mobile structure, not on a naval support vehicle...so that is a no go, too.

After this, it is a Long Tom--this is the LARGEST weapon system that can be mounted on a ground vehicle that can target another ground vehicle (Capital Direct Fire Weapons are used against Aerospace targets). The Long Tom damage is 25/15...guess what the damage is for an Arrow? 20/10...

So we have a 100 ton craft with a weapon system that is roughly the same power as the LARGEST weapon a large naval support craft can carry. Additionally, this 100 ton craft carries approximately the SAME amount of armor as the large naval support craft. Finally, the 100 ton craft travels at 6/9 while the larger naval craft travels at 3/5 or 4/6.

As I pointed out earlier, support naval craft tend to have significantly less armor than a combat vehicle and it is often of lower quality that combat systems. Example:

Compare this 100 ton vessel to the 8,500 ton Rapier Destroyer...29 tons of BAR 10 Armor spread evenly across 9 facings...I don't have Handbook: House Davion, but I am going to assume a Tech Rating of D since it comes into play as a late-Succession Wars craft (which would be roughly equivalent to systems fielded by non-SLDF groups in the early 2600s).

That means the Rapier has about 52 points of armor spread across the various facings.
Weapons for the Rapier:
8x ER PPCs
2x LRM-20s
2x Arrow IV Launchers
2x LRT-20s
2x ER Larger Lasers
2x TAG

So my 100 ton craft is horribly in adequate with its higher speed and higher armor than the 8500 ton vessel that carries the same Beyond-LOS weapons capability as my 100 ton vessel...


Look at the naval designs that exist in canon publications and take a look at the rules for a Tech Rating C or Tech Rating D (D being Succession Wars/non-SLDF Star League).
Shadrak
11/28/15 09:57 PM
173.88.45.54

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Lets assume a hypothetical 10,000 ton craft with a single turret and maximum armor as the ideal naval target (this is ideal, as most opponents would have more turrets, thus reducing the protection of an individual facing) and that it carries maximum BAR 10 armor (this is also unusual, as it requires armoring the chassis).

This craft will have about 84 points of armor per facing (reduce to 73 points at 2 turrets or 65 at 3 turrets)...

That means that one of the 3 hexes the 10,000 ton craft occupies needs to be hit, which, with a spotter, is entirely feasible.

How many hits from the Arrow IV will it take to damage the 10,000 ton ship? Where will it go to be repaired? Can it chase the Tethys down when the Tethys high tails it back to its resupply area?

And what if the 10,000 ton Naval Support Vehicle is attacked by 3 or 4 Tethys?


Oh...and by the way



Quote:
Akirapryde2006 writes:

To everyone,

I didn't mean to offend anyone with my posts. If my post offended, than accept my humble apologies.




Is not an apology, not when it is so qualified, and certainly not to me...

After all, this is a borderline ad hominim argument against the design:

Quote:
Akirapryde2006 writes:

I will give you this, it shows the amount of time that you put in to the design and you were correct in stating that they are poor designs.




A design that meets the requirements of the game far better than you understand.

If you haven't bought it, purchase the Tech Manual and Tactical Operations...you really need them.


Edited by Shadrak (11/28/15 10:05 PM)
ghostrider
11/29/15 12:32 AM
98.150.102.177

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
What is the largest object you can use against a ground target?
An meteor.

Now with the homing missile and tag gear the arrow system is better then the long tom as it has a better chance of hitting a moving target.


Now your fear of losing the spotter unit is legit, though I don't know if a hover sinks without the fan going, or if they have pontoons to keep it afloat, but then losing an engine bites no matter what unit you have.

Not sure if they fixed it, but a single point of damage can destroy normal vehicles, so having this huge floating city may not be the best idea. Costs is another factor.

There is one question I do have. Doesn't navy vessels need a drive system, or did they remove that from the vehicle construction. I noticed the fusion engine and no motive system for the thetis. I see a lift for the thetys.
Shadrak
11/29/15 04:25 PM
173.88.45.54

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

There is one question I do have. Doesn't navy vessels need a drive system, or did they remove that from the vehicle construction. I noticed the fusion engine and no motive system for the thetis. I see a lift for the thetys.



There is lift gear for hydrofoils, hovercraft, VTOLs, and WiGE vehicles, but not for tracked, wheeled, and displacement hull vehicles.
ghostrider
11/30/15 02:43 AM
98.150.102.177

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The thetis has no transmission and shielding. I hope that is a typo, and not something that will change the vehicle.

I thought naval vessels needed this as much as normal vehicles, even displacement hulls.

This is why I asked about the newer rules.
Shadrak
11/30/15 08:10 AM
70.194.216.116

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

The thetis has no transmission and shielding. I hope that is a typo, and not something that will change the vehicle.

I thought naval vessels needed this as much as normal vehicles, even displacement hulls.

This is why I asked about the newer rules.



I'm afraid I can't find anything in it in my Tech Manual...dcan you tell me what page it is on?
ghostrider
11/30/15 02:02 PM
98.150.102.177

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I don't have the tech manual, but both master rules and compendium both say a vehicle with a fusion engine requires shielding and transmission under vehicle construction.

It is under add engine in the construction area for vehicles.

Since I don't have the updated rules, I was asking if that had changed.
Shadrak
11/30/15 04:39 PM
70.194.216.116

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Master rules? Is that A Time of War? I didn't know there was construction rules there.

I don't remember those being in the rules for combat vehicle construction under previous construction rules...is the compendium the one with the Rockmill protomech? I have an old copy...I will check
Shadrak
11/30/15 04:42 PM
70.194.216.116

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Can you give me a page or a section? I am not finding it in the digital copy on my phone, but I can check it on my hard copy at home if I know where to look
CrayModerator
11/30/15 05:58 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

The thetis has no transmission and shielding. I hope that is a typo, and not something that will change the vehicle.

I thought naval vessels needed this as much as normal vehicles, even displacement hulls.

This is why I asked about the newer rules.



That's correct. All construction rules, be they Citytech, the BattleTech Compendium, BattleTech Master Rules, or the most recent Tech Manual require that fusion-powered combat vehicles add 50% to the base weight of their fusion engines.

In Tech Manual, the rule is:

p. 101, Step 2: Install Engines and Control systems: "Furthermore, when installing any form of fusion engine (including Compact, Standard, Light or XL engines), the listed weight must be increased by 50 percent multiply the engine�s weight on the table by 1.5, rounding up to the nearest half-ton). This reflects the weight of additional shielding and such."

This 50% weight increase for fusion engines first appeared in the 1986 publication CityTech, page 31.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
CrayModerator
11/30/15 06:01 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Shadrak writes:

Master rules? Is that A Time of War? I didn't know there was construction rules there.



BattleTech Master Rules is the core rulebook preceding A Time of War / Tech Manual / etc.
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/BattleTech_Master_Rules
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Classic_BattleTech_Master_Rules,_Revised
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
ghostrider
11/30/15 11:50 PM
98.150.102.177

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Tells you how far behind the times I am. I think I have rules of warfare. I believe that was the first book they combined all the rules from the assorted games/books into one book.

Thanks for clearing that up cray.
As I said. I don't know what they changed in the newer books. Learning it as things get posted.
Shadrak
12/01/15 11:15 PM
173.88.45.54

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I don't know why, but my phone doesn't like posting...

Thank you ghostrider. ..that is actually a rule I hadn't been tracking...I've always preferred support vehicles, but there are timea when a combat vehicle is better...

Guess this thing is going to look more like a 100 ton torpedo boat...Fuel Cell engine, machineguns, and Arrow IV. .

Looks like the Tethys will need to have the weight increased and a fusion engine set up to refuel the Thetis...probably change the Tethys to a Wige based on your previous suggestion
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
12/08/15 12:29 PM
71.170.162.49

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I dont know if any one has pointed it out I did not read the following posts I just looked at the original post but your designs are illegal. You need to go back and redo them to make them legal designs.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
Shadrak
12/08/15 08:37 PM
173.88.45.54

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Yes...I did not add the weight of shielding...the designs need to be adjusted slightly to account for the weight increase
Pages: 1
Extra information
0 registered and 105 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Topic views: 10784


Contact Admins Sarna.net