Capital Ships and How to Make Them Work

[Fred]

Design anecdote: I originally had the SP scale go on 5/10/15/20/25 instead of 10/20/30/40/50. I chose the latter as a compromise to diminish weapon lethality and it was also convenient to have the size class/average shield threshold/expected damage match the second digit.

The damage scale is on five steps because having it down from 10 steps did not have that much impact except for simplicity and it tying well with size class value. Also, the five steps seemed ideal for the Very Light, Light, Moderate, Heavy and Very Heavy damage descriptors (before then, our adverbs went all over the place with little rhyme or reason).

 

[Exhack]

There are several reasons why this fix was presented, but the essential reason is that the original SP solution was rendered non-ideal. This solution is neither ideal nor perfect, and is meant to offer a means of rescaling the way that capital ships are perceived in the setting.

Because of the way that weapons are distributed and SP is determined, there's nothing really differentiating a capital ship from an escort-type ship other than being marginally more durable and being an excuse to pack on more guns. The need to give them increased durability while increasing their rarity is meant to fill a gap left because of the non-ideal nature of the previous revision to how DR and SP were determined, not some lowly desire for oneupmanship.

Moreover, it's not that larger ships are lesser than capital ships, but that the returns for upscaling classes falls off at an insane degree. If we go by length averages, a 65 meter gunboat is half as tough as a 175 gunship, which is two thirds as durable as a 375 meter cruiser. This cruiser is in turn three quarters as strong as a 750 meter heavy cruiser, which is actually double the length!

Beyond the cruiser chassis, the diminishing returns basically represent reality in much the same way that MC Escher represented the ideal of the zoftig female. Using our science fiction materials and science fiction engineering, we should surely be able to build a ship that is actually able to correspond to square cube law in a more realistic manner. Durability doubles in correspondence to what essentially is a cubing of volume, if we double all dimensions of the vessel as it increases in size.

 

[Zack]

You're ignoring the shield rules that give larger ships much greater survivability than their smaller counterparts due to having more control over shield mitigation, and that size is only a guideline to determine SP values.

Sense there are serious survivability benefits for going with 30SP over 20, Diminishing returns is something entirely imagined.

 

[Fred]

There are several reasons why this fix was presented, but the essential reason is that the original SP solution was rendered non-ideal. This solution is neither ideal nor perfect, and is meant to offer a means of rescaling the way that capital ships are perceived in the setting.

I'd like an explanation on the first italicized part. I'd assert that I do not share Exhack's point of view on the second as well, which seems to be a point-of-view problem - this is nothing I can really argue against with something which is not tied to my own preferences... so the only rejoinder I can bring to this is asking Wes how he feels roleplay will be affected with his Plumeria-class plotship in relation to pitting the pocket battleship against real battleships in the 60SP/90SP and be left severely wanting. I don't think it's as tied to 'realism' as it is to style here.

The reason why I believe my DR system revision did not entirely pass as far as 'size class = max weapon damage' was because it reduced a Sakura's main gun to SDR2 and its twin positron railguns to SDR1... which would've been great for Size 2 ships but not great when Wes considered that the Aether Shock array was no longer the best thing ever (and that bigger battleships would be entitled to much larger weapons). This had everything to do with portrayal and the ability of smaller speed demon-style vessels Wes preferred to have a shot against the big guys; and that's why I'm putting into question Exhack's perception of how much a capital ship should be able to soak with hull-only. That idea hinges on an issue which is very similar.

I also think the 30SP to 60SP jump is just too arbitrarily severe. You could have one cruiser measure 425m in length and a carrier be at 550m, and yet the carrier is going to have twice the SP? An arbitrary range is being used to compare extremes here - and that's really not the way the length brackets for each tiers were supposed to be taken into account.

 

[Soresu]

Light-Cruiser

Heavy-Cruiser

There are significant differences that should be reflected. A 30-60 difference is entirely reasonable. The lights are lightly armored have lighter guns but as a result are faster. Heavier cruisers have heavier armor and larger guns. But are slower. How can this not be clearer? You have tradeoffs between them.

A smaller ship could damage a larger ship, but you have to take into account that larger ship has more volume. Case in point, HMS Hood vs Bismarck.

 

[Zack]

These are space ships, not naval ships. Drag from water splashing against the hull does not apply nor does displacement or length matter. It also makes sense that you'd equip similar weapon systems across all units as larger does not necessarily translate to better when small pebbles are already packing the power of several a-bombs.

Now not only does increasing the SP cap not even address mass v speed, but we already have a system to take care of that (See: Stat tables for mass V speed, and SP already representing mass/Volume not length).

Ships that have more of their mass dedicated to engines will go faster than those that weight themselves down with weapons and payload. Larger ships will be able to go faster than smaller ships pound for pound because they will be able to fit larger, more efficient, engines up to a point where the ship gets so big that gains in engine performance are offset with structural support mass.

Ontop of that cruiser means a different thing in SARP than in wet-navies, generally denoting a ship of size somewhere between gunship and battleship rather than a battleship sized craft with less armor (this is space after all).

 

[Soresu]

This isn't a discussion about your stat tables.

 

[Zack]

Stay on topic Soresu. this is not a conversation about wet-navy ships. Its about how people don't understand what capital ships can do and their attempts to solve an imagined problem.

If you want to talk about how the current rules don't cover something or can be improved feel free to keep going.

 

[Fred]

You're the one whom brought in the caveats of a lightly armored ship versus an heavily-armored one, Soresu. It appears to me that Uso's argument is contextually very well tied to yours.

...I'm agree with Uso. Uh. Strange bedfellows we make.

I don't like this. This debate isn't one that's centered on valid argument, and just the tossing of opinions. The 30-60SP difference to me isn't reasonable. I look at it and I think that's nuts. Seeing those arguments then get repeated over and over (because were at that point) isn't making matters any better as well and I also don't like the thought that Exhack and Soresu might actually win this just because they'd repeat themselves over and over. Ugh.

I'm certainly open to improvement and change, but this doesn't have a positive note I can warm up to.

 

[Soresu]

Stay on topic Soresu. this is not a conversation about wet-navy ships. Its about how people don't understand what capital ships can do and their attempts to solve an imagined problem.

If you want to talk about how the current rules don't cover something or can be improved feel free to keep going.

Calling the hypocritical kettle black again. Good man. Since we don't have working examples of actual space cruisers and ships as a whole. Guess what we can use as an example? "Wet-Navy Ships." Since they follow the same format as "Wet-Navy Ships." You should stop using terms like "Don't understand." as it is coming off as grossly egotistical.

Fred. You have repeated the same 30-60 isn't something I like mantra over and over. I even pretty much said "I'm sure no one would have problems with you increasing the SP increment between the two." In addition to bringing up the Plumeria's weaponry time and again across multiple threads. You're just as guilty as "We are." of bringing repeated arguments.

 

[Zack]

Try and stay on topic Soresu, this is supposed to be about space ships not WWII era naval ships.

 

[Soresu]

Try and stay on topic Soresu, this is supposed to be about space ships not WWII era naval ships.

Kind of have been, Uso. I don't see you providing useful examples to base anything off of.

 

[Exhack]

Frankly, I don't give a damn if the revisions go through as I've presented them. I was actually hoping to get some formal discussion to hammer out the ways we could actually tweak the SP system and make it better reflect the sort of setting the majority of the GMs would want operate their roleplays in.

I felt there were two problems in the way that large vehicles such as fighters, mecha and tanks scale up to PA, and the way that smaller vessels such as frigates and gunships stack up to the larger cruiser, carrier and battleship platforms. It's always felt uneven to me, and the only solution I've seen since it was formulated was the addition of far more firepower than should be necessary (as seen with the Super Eikan-class and Sharie-class).

I'll paraphrase Fred himself and plainly point out that because Wes wanted to have his SDR 5 gun on the Plumeria, the system ended up being broken. Because of that, we didn't end up with the fairly adequate system that Fred suggested, and wound up with the current status quo.

As a consequence, the wonder, prestige and power that a capital ship is supposed to project has been lost as they've more or less just become bigger versions of the overarmed pocket battleship, with similar frailty in the face of attack.

There only a few ways we can fix this, all of which more or less involve some sort of redacting and changes to the OOC values.

• We redraw the SP system and reballance it to the way that was initially advocated waaay back when we were first planning the SP system. Ships would have guns that have a maximum impact of 1/10th their SP class, with guns a class higher actually being a huge deal. However, Wes has already rejected this option before, so I doubt he'd be amenable to it now.
• We extend the current SP system and tweak the values to better reflect the volume and mass of ships. This has the downside of making all large (500m+) ships in the SARP quite a bit beefier, although the amount by which we beef things and the categories which will be affected by certain values is still up for grabs.
• We continue exactly as we are now, pretend nothing is wrong and assert that everyone who says otherwise is clearly not 'in the know'. (Also known as the Emperor's New Clothes argument).

I'd like to pretend that my solution was perfect, but it really isn't. It's a rough, an option and a suggestion, and I can't honestly expect a majority of GMs to accept it if they haven't actually had any input.

 

[Zack]

Or people could read the rules we already have and use their own creativity to improve their star ships instead of repeatedly asking for special rules and exceptions to make their stuff 'better'.

Things like noting that once you have shield mitigation 3, you can fully focus your shields towards the enemy to get a shield mitigation of 5 forward and 1 behind making your shields immune to weapon bleed through.

Or noting how a ship with a mitigation of only 1-2 can be destroyed without having to deplete all its shields.

Or forgoing some extra weapons and shields to get better engines instead of trying to simply have the best of everything and then ask for an exception from the tech mods so your ship can be approved.


The revisions are entirely unnecessary to solve this problem of 'capital ships not being very good' when people can simply design better ships and use those ships better than they are now. The problem isn't really the revisions, it is that the proposed problem of capital ships not measuring up to smaller ships SP for SP doesn't actually exist.

 

[Fred]

I was writing something, but Exhack's latest post either trashed my argument or attended to it. Kudos for grace under pressure, Sir. *finger salutes*

I'd add that the SP/DR thing isn't rocket science and was never meant to be. It was more for a dramatic guideline - when I first asked for it, it was because I wanted to have an idea with Kotori - on the YSS Sakura's tactical station - of what I had at my disposal was capable of.

In a forum where the tech was all 'averbed' as Very Heavy, Super Heavy and total Annihilation (shared between Mindy rifle and Sakura aether shock array) this really wasn't something that was easy to figure out. That's from where the DR system comes from. Since weapons with ratings meant something when tied up with a Hit Point style value more, that's how the SP got introduced in time, I suppose.

Yeah, the values are arbitrary but it's hardly the first inconsistency in this setting. Ships already pretty commonly have electro-magnetic railguns that propel shells with an anti-matter ordonnance core at a target at relativistic speeds which should, in all right, obliterate a planet on contact. The SPs for ships wasn't so much tied to the cumulative resilience of each cubic inch would amount to so much as 'how much abuse ends up being too much'. Though it was actually less for determining how many hits it took to destroy a ship and more to determine the worth of the weapon being fired itself.

It kind of snowballed afterwards.

I suppose that's one of the reasons the larger ships end up looking shortchanged. The crap we end up pulling off in space is dangerous, even to those giants. One other element I'd be guiltly of could be of Star Trek-ing SARP some... because I'm behind the DR/SP thing and that most of my imagery on space combat is presently kind of mixed up between Star Trek hybridized with some of the stuff I've learned/assimilated from SARP that might actually have more in common with Mass Effect.

* * *

Tangent, because Uso posted before I could post this: shields with hit points are dumb. I've kind of realized this by now - and that's been an argument Uso has been carrying for a long time now. Not to mention shields act kind of awkward in the DR/SP setup. I'm just a bit of at a loss as to how to replace it.

As I see it, most shields are composites of electro-magnetic, gravimetric and spatial distorsion. Uso talked about the DR system not being as deep as he'd like, and I was wondering about how weapon properties could perhaps serve to help breach such defenses.

* * *

To Soresu, well, maybe the way SDR is being handed out per SP point is somewhat too generous?

Then again, putting this in more details threaten to drag us dangerously closer to Battletech-like unit construction. >_>

SARP abolished character stats (back when YSS Yui was a plotship and Chiharu was alive) for good reasons. I'd like to stay clear of these.

 

[DocTomoe]

This may seem over simplified, and coming from someone as demonized as I, it may just be ignored and pushed aside. Furthermore, these points may have been made earlier, but for the moment the thread is tl;dr mostly due to the arguing, so I'll cut to the chase.

tl;dr version: Exhack's system works nice, maybe widen weapon classifications, maybe add a super-structure scale in the SP chart, and don't be scared; we have tech mods.

Weapons: Weapon DR at the moment is fine in my opinion, aside from the super-destructive weapons such as those found on Iori, Sharie, and that big-giant Mishhu battleship with the transposition maw. Larger ships, such as capital ships, could use a higher cap on their weapons, maybe extending to SDR 10 for the purpose of delivering damage to large installations or battleships of similar class. Obviously, these weapons would not be run-of-the-mill, and could require the tech mods to, I don't know, do some work and review some specific systems that would have to be submitted as an individual article, as all new weapons and ship weapons should be.

Also, on the matter of weapons needing to scale to ship SP, that is fine enough... though, in cases of vessels like torpedo bombers and gunboats there should be a degree of flexibility which would directly fall to the tech moderators to apply.

Shields: I think our current system is semi-okay, sure the threshold thing is kind of annoying, but aside from that, the system works for the time being. As for things which counter specific types of shields; such as 'Subspace shearing beams' or some such in relation to 'Distortion Shielding', that is a simple matter of either reducing the threshold of the shield by a point, or, it could simply be a matter of doubling how much SP is shaved off the shield... or both, for that matter.

Structures & Hulls: At the very core of this debate is beefy ships. As the person who is likely the cause of much of this argument, it is time for me to chime-in.

As it stands, the structure point system is unable to account for larger structures such as stations, installations, and larger battleships without numbers that stand out as unique in the current setting. As it stands, Exhack's proposed system accounts for those numbers and applies a system of checks and balances which would make such structures easily integrate into the setting.

What largely contributes to the resistance individuals are having to large battleships is the implied 'Overpowered' nature of super-beefy ships in relation to the direction that the SARP has been going as of late in regard to (for whatever reason) scaling back ships and equipment to a lesser state of destruction or capability. Though, what is unaccounted for is the matter of 'beefy' ships being a flaw in and of themselves due to the sheer amount of time and IC resources which would go into such a monumental construction feat. An investment of time and resources which can easily prove to be a waste if pitted against a sizable enemy force which could easily render such a ship moot.

Though, such a thought as 'investing resources', invokes the notions of the current ship caps, and how they do not reflect the nature of the ships in which they account for. Simply dubbing something as a 'Capital Ship', leaves a broad ambiguity which allows for even entry-level Capital Ships to be counted as the same single unit as a battleship in the style of the Sharie for example. Such a thing leaves questionable gaps in the system. Though, I would think, a simple solution would be to tweak the capital ship system to accommodate for larger vessels by simply requiring that at a certain point of size, firepower, SP, and function, a Capital Ship would have to have additional point(s) allocated to it.

Sharie-Class Battleship: 1 Capital Ship Allocation Point out of 100 per system.

20km Battle-Carrier @ 4-5 times the capability of the Sharie: 5 Capital Ship Allocation Point out of 100

Some may look at such an example, and wonder "How does that work out?" quite simply because in a theoretical situation such as that, it would take five Sharie to neutralize the single target with the capability of five Sharie... thus, it is a balance. Some may ask; "What is to keep it from becoming unbalanced?" and that question sits at the very core of this conversation, and at the very backbone of every woe that people have over technology in the SARP... and I'll tell you the solution behind it.

Setting & Technology Mods

If Setting & Technology Mods are entrusted to do the very task that they've been assigned to do, while of course being regulated by Wes since this is his sandbox, then in theory... none of us should have a concern so long as an active dialog is maintained between the moderator staff, and individuals which may have concerns, as well as with individuals submitting technology. Working together, all parties involved can undoubtedly find a compromise for questionable technologies, as well as for finding ways in which technologies can be integrated into the setting. Through such a dialog, many gripes and staff-related actions would be able to be avoided, and would promote better relations with players, GMs, moderators, and staff... well, in a perfect world at least.

 

[Wes]

Because the Sakura/Plumeria has always been "The capital ship gun with engines" in its design, it has always been an exception to the DR weapon scaling and I have always said it should never be used as a reference to what guns go on normal ships of a certain size class.

After seeing this discussion play out...

- I removed the new 60 and 70 SP entries from the ship size guidelines because they're apparently controversial enough to merit discussion.
- I will probably keep the current system instead of buffing larger ships

 

[Soresu]

I don't personally see how these 60-70 SP proportions are so controversial. There have been many complaints and personal feelings brought into this discussion, and I admit I was a part of it. However this shouldn't go overlooked, Wes. I myself have been wondering why larger ship classes are so weak despite their sizes. This could potentially reflect their sizes and provide a means of them being more of an investment then a '1' on the capital ship cap.

 

[Fred]

Okay, so Wes' favorite ship is an exception... but does that mean we actually have a weapon scale per size class thing going on?

If that's the case, I'd see it as good news. Aside from not applying to some of Wes' favored toys that would mean it'd apply to everything in the setting. That could work and solve a lot of problem - most especially on the power armor vs. giant mecha trouble we've been having.

Ok, now... well, I seem to have won my point - but I wasn't objecting to the aim of this thread so I'd like to keep brainstorming with you guys.

One blank we presently have, even with Uso's stat tables, actually seems to be armor - and that may have a key role in the sought after 'toughness' for capital vessels.

Before, we had something like 'pick durandium, and manage to go a bit faster because WHEEE, you're lighter'. Now, it no longer works that way. It's kind of in a limbo.

To this, I say: fuck material properties. I suggested that weapon damage be considered by lethal intent rather than how the intent is made - I suggest the same for armor. either it be a really thick slab of durandium, or a less thick slab of yamataium - both are pretty much going to do their jobs.

Actually, material quality might have more to do with technology-base than the materials themselves. For example, one reason why species X might have 0.8 SP access for their ship could be because they can't really manufacture the higher grade components to do so. That way, we kind of dodge that debate.

As I see it, there could be two ways armor could be implemented:

Invest construction SP, and obtain extra SPs for the ship's combat stats. It can count as extra plating, more reinforced interiors, better compartmentalization, and so forth. To favor the larger vessels (or vehicles on mecha scale), apply an increasing return to the extra armor given so that the more you can afford to invest, the more you'll gain - which will benefit the high size class more than the smaller ships (as the small ships have the belt tighter).

The second idea is actual damage reduction. Like, invest 10 Construction SP, have -1 damage to everything that hits you. small ships certainly can't afford that and it promotes the use of stronger weapons to crack that tough shell. Unfortunately, this mechanic is very much like the shield one, and having both in use at the same time is a bit convoluted. I'm also not comfortable with SDR1 weapons being made useless - most powerful mecha-tier vehicles such as fightercraft can contribute in space warfare because they have ADR5/SDR1 weaponry and this would null that.

 

[Exhack]

First off, the entire idea of applying technology restrictions on designs based on the seniority of a faction has been extremely unpopular in the past, and was probably a contributing factor as to why Uso's charts more or less lost their relevance to the designs people were outputting about a month after they were finished.

Now, at the risk of adding unnecessary complexity to the site, we can try to represent increased armor in one of several ways.

The first is to add a stacking 'AP value' to armor which basically counts as armor hardness or damage mitigation that wears down with the armor, and then balance it with a 'Pen value' which would reflect 'penetrative power', with some designs explicitly having shield or armor penetration only. This is immediately going to be unpopular because shield penetration was implemented in the past, and would require a lot of balancing and careful administration of new designs, as well as a lot of working on old ones. It would require a lot of vigilance on the part of the tech forum staff and a lot of maturity on the part of factional leaders who may have to settle for a median value on just how awesome their shield-piercing missiles and armor-ripping plasma beams can be.

Another is to actually make use of some of Uso's tables ideas (dare I say it?), do away with the armor value modifications imparted by materials and have the base SP value listed as being the 'structural value' of a hull, without armor or shields over it. Both armor and shields would then be added on by spending SP. Shields would likewise limit weapon loads, while armor would limit speed. This one would actually require much less effort on the part of everyone, but would probably work best if we actually pumped up capital ships as I have been advocating all along. Even if we restricted the increase in the basic 'structural SP' (which is probably a redundancy) to something like adding half of the current value instead of doubling it, we'd at least wind up with ships that could be configured to be very beefy carriers that can spearhead fleets or lightning-fast gun platforms bristling with missiles and beam weapons.