Dreadnoughts, why?

[Warshield73]

I have been reading through DB 3 PW SB and DB 13 Fleets of the Three Galaxies looking at ship capabilities and then this video on The Malevolence from Clone Wars got me thinking about the usefulness of the Dreadnought type ship in Phase World. Within the 7 or so books we only have two Dreadnoughts, 1 CAF and 1 TGE, and they are basically the same.

They are a combination carrier battleship that doesn’t really drastically improve on either. The weapons are only slightly more powerful than those on battleships with the same range and while it carries a lot more fighters and troops than a standard carrier it doesn't have anything unique that sets it apart. The shields are the same and there is no indication that either ship possess any capabilities that standard carriers or battleships don't.

Both examples we have of Dreadnoughts just seem like expensive toys that are to expensive to risk deploying so when I was creating my fleets for the CCW and TGE I modified them to, at least do something other classes couldn't.

1) Battle Titan - These were super battleships with massive amounts of guns and cruise missiles centered around a giant spinally mounted forward cannon(s) with more than triple the range of standard battleship weapons. Weapon layout was set so all weapons of frigate grade or higher could fire foreword with all other arcs being covered by just half. They had massive armor, redundant shields but poor point defense relying on it's fighter complement or escorts for anti-missile/fighter support. It was designed to smash through enemy fleets or break planetary fortifications.

2) Mobile Base - These could fly to the front with massive loads of fighters and marines and then after they were deployed pull back and have room for medical centers and massive repair facilities for everything up to battleships. They carried no weapons more powerful than frigate grade but had massive point defense. Ultimately, I don't know how useful they would be, most of this could be done with far cheaper carriers and cargo ships.

So just wondering what people think of the Dreadnoughts or if you did something else with them or just leave them as is.

Spoiler:

For the poll I go back and forth between no dreadnoughts or giant battleships but ultimately if your enemy is building something that big it is good for at least public relations and morale to do the same so I think giant battleships

[glitterboy2098]

the same reason the Japanese built the Yamato's and pretty much every major power in WW2 had plans for similar ships*. because such 'super battleships' are the penultimate result of a battleship centric arms races between major powers. are they effective? not really, a similar mass of cruisers or smaller battleships usually would have been far more useful. but they were very big sticks with which to potentially hit an opposing battleship force with, and great propaganda tools.

as for the "both battleship and carrier" bit.. that's pretty much every warship in Phase world.. they even cram fighters onto the smallest destroyers. anything bigger than a 'shuttlecraft' (which tend to fill the roles of torpedo boats, corvettes, and small frigates in their navies) will generally see at least half a squadron shoehorned aboard.



*Germany had the H-41 through H-44 classes, America had the Montana Class, Britain the Lion class, the soviet Union Project 24. only Japan actually built theirs.. and they had the A-150 "super yamato" class on paper when the war started, meant to be even bigger than the regular Yamato class.

[taalismn]

Space Opera: it's not enough to have battleships, you have to have dreadnoughts, then SUPER-dreadnoughts, then super-DUPER-dreadnoughts, until you go through mobile planets(Lensmen arms race!!!!!) and start throwing galaxies around. .
It's almost like Potlatch; you show how powerful you are economically by creating great big sinkholes of resources that would ruin your moral if they got destroyed, so you hardly ever deploy them to the front lines...

[Grazzik]

Their purpose is in their name... they dread nought, fear nothing. The Chuck Norris of ships. Nothing gets in the way of them destroying their target. Why send a fleet to destroy a fleet when you can send a dreadnought to destroy the orbital space dock the fleet is in with one shot from two systems over.

I'd say they are used all the time, but their rarity of construction given the resources required is such that a mythos arises and enemies capitulate when they show up.

Their focus on immense damage means they need to be supported with a fleet to perform the other functions needed like defense, transporting ground troops, etc.

I've never seen Chuck Norris pregnant, so I'd say no to thinking of them as "motherships" and anything more than a couple dozen fighters on a dreadnought for light defense. Really the swarms of fighters protecting the dreadnought should be coming from other carrier ships.

In essence, the dreadnought does one thing, does it very well, and moves on to the next target.

[Warshield73]

Out of order but I want to hit this first.

as for the "both battleship and carrier" bit.. that's pretty much every warship in Phase world.. they even cram fighters onto the smallest destroyers. anything bigger than a 'shuttlecraft' (which tend to fill the roles of torpedo boats, corvettes, and small frigates in their navies) will generally see at least half a squadron shoehorned aboard.

This is true...but, even compared to the BS the Dreadnoughts have much larger fighter and especially troop compliments relative to size. If you simply scaled up the protectors fighter and troop compliment to scale it would be substantially smaller. That is why both of these ships appear to be a scalled up battleship built around a scaled up carrier. Don't get me wrong lots of ships have too many fighters, the Smasher which is supposed to be a cruiser comes to mind as it is basically an escort carrier, but given how effective fighters are in setting I think it is reasonable, much how most surface ships carrier helicopters today, for those ships to carrier at least some. I think for instance the Warshield carries an about perfect number for its capabilities.

If I were to redesign starship construction in setting I would definitely change some fighter/troop compliments or change the ships types to match what they have.

the same reason the Japanese built the Yamato's and pretty much every major power in WW2 had plans for similar ships*. because such 'super battleships' are the penultimate result of a battleship centric arms races between major powers. are they effective? not really, a similar mass of cruisers or smaller battleships usually would have been far more useful. but they were very big sticks with which to potentially hit an opposing battleship force with, and great propaganda tools.

Looking back I guess I wasn't as clear as wanted to be but I was trying to be as open ended as possible. That is sort of my point. The way FotTG retcons the Doombringer is that it was the only ship of its type for almost a hundred years due to the upper limits of existing CG drives. After it was built they kept it secret, or at least didn't advertise it. The CCW developing that technology later spent hundreds of billions and even had to use AI to get it done for their own drive so they build a Dreadnought too. All makes sense, but what is the mission? All those historic ships were meant to be the biggest, baddest battleships around they didn't muddle the mission but putting a shopping mall or hospital. Even today the U.S. continues to build bigger and bigger carriers but they aren't dropping 16 inch guns on the deck these are carriers, just bigger.

I think my problem is that someone in setting would look at these designs and say "Big good. Scary, good. Now, what do we do with it?" and while most ships we have aren't really mission specific, they at least can do the jobs assigned at a reasonable cost. Dreadnoughts...you can't even build them in large enough numbers to be a deterrent. Even with the ridiculously small fleet numbers given in FotTG Dreadnoughts are a drop in the bucket.

*Germany had the H-41 through H-44 classes, America had the Montana Class, Britain the Lion class, the soviet Union Project 24. only Japan actually built theirs.. and they had the A-150 "super yamato" class on paper when the war started, meant to be even bigger than the regular Yamato class.

Actually, this really proves my point. All of these places had these plans but never tried to build them. I can see someone thinking it's a good idea have some plans drawn up and then they see the cost and quietly drop them in a drawer.

Space Opera: it's not enough to have battleships, you have to have dreadnoughts, then SUPER-dreadnoughts, then super-DUPER-dreadnoughts, until you go through mobile planets(Lensmen arms race!!!!!) and start throwing galaxies around. .
It's almost like Potlatch; you show how powerful you are economically by creating great big sinkholes of resources that would ruin your moral if they got destroyed, so you hardly ever deploy them to the front lines...

This is the reason I understand why the TGE would build them (I just think after a while they would change the design to something more useful) but the CCW just doesn't make sense. They actually have to meet some of there citizens needs where the TGE just has to keep a giant worm happy.

But this also gets to my biggest point, these giant sinkholes can't throw anything big around or take big hits. I just had a long discussion on how the Dominator Star Fortress can't be killed by any fleet in setting and that applies double for the Dreadnoughts, they are useless against a DSF. If you took the money value of one Doombringer and used that to just buy Berserkers the Berserkers last a lot longer against the DSF than the Doombringer and that goes a quadrupple for the Emancipator vs Warshileds.

That is what the post is about, if these ships brought something new to the table, like a more powerful or longer range weapon, than it makes sense so why didn't they build it that way?

I mean if a Doombringer could throw even small planets around I wouldn't have posted this poll.

Their purpose is in their name... they dread nought, fear nothing. The Chuck Norris of ships. Nothing gets in the way of them destroying their target. Why send a fleet to destroy a fleet when you can send a dreadnought to destroy the orbital space dock the fleet is in with one shot from two systems over.

Except none of this applies to the two ships we have. If you send one of these ships against an enemy fleet of equal value it will get spanked and fast.

I'd say they are used all the time, but their rarity of construction given the resources required is such that a mythos arises and enemies capitulate when they show up.

It might against smaller states, again this is why I can see the TGE purpose for the Doombringer in getting small systems or clusters to surrender, but send one of these into a CCW area and all you will get is it hunted until its flaming wreck like the Bismark or, referencing the video I posted, the Malevolence. The other problem is it can only be in one place, yeah I let this ship lumber into a system, take it apart, force a surrender. But, while my giant super ship is busy everyone else is getting away with murder.

Their focus on immense damage means they need to be supported with a fleet to perform the other functions needed like defense, transporting ground troops, etc.

There is no focus on immense damage. Again both of the examples we have are battleships wrapped around carriers. If they were like my battle titan concept then this would apply but they aren't.

I've never seen Chuck Norris pregnant, so I'd say no to thinking of them as "motherships" and anything more than a couple dozen fighters on a dreadnought for light defense. Really the swarms of fighters protecting the dreadnought should be coming from other carrier ships.

Agreed, this is my problem with the lack of focus in the design.

In essence, the dreadnought does one thing, does it very well, and moves on to the next target.

It should do one thing well, but as it is they just don't.

[taalismn]

That reminds me...I gotta get back to my Kittani-built Demon Planet-Slayer Cannon Ship. It's languished for over 12 years in WIP hell...

[Warshield73]

That reminds me...I gotta get back to my Kittani-built Demon Planet-Slayer Cannon Ship. It's languished for over 12 years in WIP hell...

Is that in Hades or Dyval?

[taalismn]

Is that in Hades or Dyval?

That may explain why I keep looking in the wrong places for the old file...

[Warshield73]

Between Baal-rog crushing your hard drive and Pandemonium stealing your passwords it's amazing any ships get built at all.

[ShadowLogan]

I think that dreadnoughts have to have another undocumented role/capabilities, because for their size they aren't necessarily that impressive (I'd go with a mobile base just for their size)

A Robotech Zentreadi Destroyer is (by canon) is approx. 2.3km long (x0.8km wide by 0.756km tall), but it sports 3x anti-ship beam cannons, 48x beam turrets (various roles), x22 torpedoes (equivalent to Cruise Missiles?), x70 missile launchers, and 1,600 mecha (1x person craft), plus auxiliary craft. If we want something in the upper size range of the 3G ships, their Flagship is 4km long (x 0.6km wide and 0.6km tall), it packs 6x anti-ship beam weapons, 200x multi-purpose beam turrets, 60x torpedo tubes, 240x missile launchers, 4k ground mecha (all of which can function as space fighters) and 2.5k fighter pods (fighters). And remember the Zentreadi are ~40ft tall giants, most races in the 3G aren't even 1/2 that size.

And just so it doesn't feel like Robotech might be an anomaly, I pulled up the stats for an Imperial-I class Star Destroyer from Star Wars (using Wookieeedia). It's 1.6km long x .985km wide x .455m tall. It sports 60x turbo lasers, 60x ion cannons, 6x and 2x respectively in dual heavy configurations, 2x quad heavy turbo lasers, and additional 5x weapon emplacements plus tractor beam projectors (10x). It carries only 72x TIE fighter. Again this is a smaller ship mounting far more guns than found in Rifts PW.

Now that's just two IPs (3 if you count RT's OSM counter part version), and feel free to add to the list, but.

Now ignoring game mechanic values (and conversions), that is a lot of firepower compared to the much larger TGE at 3.9km long (by 0.915km wide by 0.61km tall) but it only carries 16x assorted anti-ship beam weapon, 4x Cruise Missile Launchers, 48x assorted gun/missile batteries combos. There is also only 900 mecha (plus 4,000PA but those PA are smaller than anything the Zentreadi are known to use, so). The CCW version isn't much better either 4x main lasers, 8x secondary lasers, 48x missile launchers, 48x GR batteries, and 4x cruise missile launchers.

It is true that the TGE and CCW dreadnoughts pack a lot of fire power (in 15seconds the TGE can put out ~150k MDC and the CCW can put out ~330k MDC both ingoring fighter contribution, ROF w/restrictive pauses, and range consideration), but I'm not sure if that qualifies as a equal to a fleet since "fleet" is ill defined. The escort group for the TGE's dreadnought 4x cruisers (smasher-class ?) and 8x frigates (?), assuming the cruisers are smasher-class just those 4x cruisers exceed the firepower of their charge (~64k MDC each in 15seconds, though a good chunk of that is Mini-Missiles), but swapping out for the Berserker Warship outputs ~34k MDC in 15seconds (w/o the mini-missile caveat). The only two other capital ships I have for the TGE would be their Executioner Battleship (~58k MDC in 15seconds) and the prototype Etherium Destroyer (~111k MDC in 15seconds, most of which is from the Singularity weapons and might be higher due to splash damage). But as one can see, it doesn't take many ships in a battle group to outclass it in terms of firepower never mind a "fleet" (which is likely hundreds of ships).

The CCW dreadnought can also quickly be matched via the Protector-class battleship (~249k MDC in 15secons) or the Warshield Cruiser (~181k MDC in 15seconds) or their Packmaster Carrier (~110k MDC in 15seconds). Their Hunter-Class Destroyer would take a lot of ships though (~9.9k MDC in 15seconds).

Now to counter the dreadnought fighter capacity, likely takes even more ships to match but by that point you've really exceeded the firepower of what that single ship can bring.

[guardiandashi]

I am going to say the stupid thing out loud.

IMO the biggest issue with palladium "dreadnaughts" and ships in general is:
1 there are no "real" construction rules.
2 the powers that be (the people that "design" these things have no clue how these things should be built.

to use an example, I had a character that had access to 3 separate tech bases: star wars, Star trek, and battletech, plus some others.
they started with a star destroyer as the "base hull" with Ion drives, and a hyperdrive. they also crammed in a warp core, and impulse drive system
for weapons...
3 full 360 phaser arrays. (mostly under computer control)
1 spinal mount mega phaser.
10 photon torpedo launchers (the same ones a galaxy class has capable of firing 10 torpedo salvos) 6 forward firing and 4 rearward.
1 ammo magazine for each torpedo launcher. holding 500 torpedoes, with a variety of torpedoes in each magazine and cross feeds (yes a full load of ammo, was something like 5000 photon torpedoes (a galaxy class in star trek only carries something like 250)
lots (going from memory) over 100 laser cannons mostly for anti fighter and point defense

multiple shield arrays (3)
ablative hull plating (armor)
a relatively small fighter compliment between 72 and 100ish active with storage for "more"
some additional "heavy" long range missiles, and 2 launch capability (10 total) SLAMS

in addition it had a "tactical" portal generator, that would allow it to open a portal between a place inn front of the ship and elsewhere in the solar system, typically used for strategic bombardment of an area by the shipboard weapons.

unfortunately (ha) the characters "fleet" was only 2 capital ships the "star destroyer" and an interdictor cruiser

[taalismn]

I am going to say the stupid thing out loud.

IMO the biggest issue with palladium "dreadnaughts" and ships in general is:
1 there are no "real" construction rules.
2 the powers that be (the people that "design" these things have no clue how these things should be built.

to use an example, I had a character that had access to 3 separate tech bases: star wars, Star trek, and battletech, plus some others.
they started with a star destroyer as the "base hull" with Ion drives, and a hyperdrive. they also crammed in a warp core, and impulse drive system
for weapons...

Forgot the dropship collars for that extra firepower(and ablative armor) and the destroid revetments on the hull.

[Warshield73]

I think that dreadnoughts have to have another undocumented role/capabilities, because for their size they aren't necessarily that impressive (I'd go with a mobile base just for their size)

I think this gets to my point about the Dreadnoughts as described in that there is nothing they have or can do that other ships can't and can do it far cheaper.

As I said if the dreadnoughts had a a giant gun that couldn't be carried by BS's or maybe a larger landing craft that simply could not be carried by smaller carriers or a unique shield system or more powerful generators or... fill in the blank.

Again, I am approaching this from in universe and the entire reason I even thought about this was from our discussion on killing a Demon Planet or a Dominator Star Fortress and realizing that the Dreadnoughts were uniquely bad at attacking both targets. They were less effective then even battleships and carriers much less cruisers and destroyers.

A Robotech Zentreadi Destroyer is (by canon) is approx. 2.3km long (x0.8km wide by 0.756km tall), but it sports 3x anti-ship beam cannons, 48x beam turrets (various roles), x22 torpedoes (equivalent to Cruise Missiles?), x70 missile launchers, and 1,600 mecha (1x person craft), plus auxiliary craft. If we want something in the upper size range of the 3G ships, their Flagship is 4km long (x 0.6km wide and 0.6km tall), it packs 6x anti-ship beam weapons, 200x multi-purpose beam turrets, 60x torpedo tubes, 240x missile launchers, 4k ground mecha (all of which can function as space fighters) and 2.5k fighter pods (fighters). And remember the Zentreadi are ~40ft tall giants, most races in the 3G aren't even 1/2 that size.

And just so it doesn't feel like Robotech might be an anomaly, I pulled up the stats for an Imperial-I class Star Destroyer from Star Wars (using Wookieeedia). It's 1.6km long x .985km wide x .455m tall. It sports 60x turbo lasers, 60x ion cannons, 6x and 2x respectively in dual heavy configurations, 2x quad heavy turbo lasers, and additional 5x weapon emplacements plus tractor beam projectors (10x). It carries only 72x TIE fighter. Again this is a smaller ship mounting far more guns than found in Rifts PW.

Now that's just two IPs (3 if you count RT's OSM counter part version), and feel free to add to the list, but.

These are excellent examples to pull from as both fit the feel of Phase World with emphasis on personal combat and small fighters/mecha. Although I think a better Star Wars example might be the Executor Class SSD. I actually have no problem with warships in setting carrying fighters as they simply improve the ability of the ship to do it's job. I think those numbers should be limited and most ships don't need to carry troops beyond the small number needed to defend against boarding actions. This is first and foremost and TTRPG where the players need to be able to use fighters and PAs no matter how little sense that makes.

I think my problem is that both examples of Dreadnoughts just feel underpowered. You can argue in setting that the Executor is a waste of resources that would be better spent on Imperial I's or II's or even smaller cruisers and escorts. What you can't argue is it's power. That ship is a juggernaut with all the fighters and storm troopers you could need wrapped in hull with enough turbo-lasers and ion cannons to ruin everyone's day with shields that can take a massive beating. PW Dreadnoughts have none of that.

Now ignoring game mechanic values (and conversions), that is a lot of firepower compared to the much larger TGE at 3.9km long (by 0.915km wide by 0.61km tall) but it only carries 16x assorted anti-ship beam weapon, 4x Cruise Missile Launchers, 48x assorted gun/missile batteries combos. There is also only 900 mecha (plus 4,000PA but those PA are smaller than anything the Zentreadi are known to use, so). The CCW version isn't much better either 4x main lasers, 8x secondary lasers, 48x missile launchers, 48x GR batteries, and 4x cruise missile launchers.

It is true that the TGE and CCW dreadnoughts pack a lot of fire power (in 15seconds the TGE can put out ~150k MDC and the CCW can put out ~330k MDC both ingoring fighter contribution, ROF w/restrictive pauses, and range consideration), but I'm not sure if that qualifies as a equal to a fleet since "fleet" is ill defined. The escort group for the TGE's dreadnought 4x cruisers (smasher-class ?) and 8x frigates (?), assuming the cruisers are smasher-class just those 4x cruisers exceed the firepower of their charge (~64k MDC each in 15seconds, though a good chunk of that is Mini-Missiles), but swapping out for the Berserker Warship outputs ~34k MDC in 15seconds (w/o the mini-missile caveat). The only two other capital ships I have for the TGE would be their Executioner Battleship (~58k MDC in 15seconds) and the prototype Etherium Destroyer (~111k MDC in 15seconds, most of which is from the Singularity weapons and might be higher due to splash damage). But as one can see, it doesn't take many ships in a battle group to outclass it in terms of firepower never mind a "fleet" (which is likely hundreds of ships).

The CCW dreadnought can also quickly be matched via the Protector-class battleship (~249k MDC in 15secons) or the Warshield Cruiser (~181k MDC in 15seconds) or their Packmaster Carrier (~110k MDC in 15seconds). Their Hunter-Class Destroyer would take a lot of ships though (~9.9k MDC in 15seconds).

Now to counter the dreadnought fighter capacity, likely takes even more ships to match but by that point you've really exceeded the firepower of what that single ship can bring.

The CCW fleet is, if only slightly, better defined than the TGE, which is not saying much. But if you created a standard fleet from DB3 pg.98 (going with the largest) 2 Protectors, 4 Packmasters, 18 Warshields, 54 Hunters this fleet, without fighters, would cost just 316.8 billion credits, which is less than the 350 billion construction cost of the Emancipator. This isn't counting the 800 trillion in drive development or 32 trillion to build the lead ship.

Again for all that all I am saying is it should be able to do something...special...unique...powerful even. Instead it is just bigger.

I am going to say the stupid thing out loud.

Ummm I started a conversation about the effectiveness of 4 KM long warships in a fictional universe with aliens and magic but if you think you can out stupid that go for it

IMO the biggest issue with palladium "dreadnaughts" and ships in general is:
1 there are no "real" construction rules.
2 the powers that be (the people that "design" these things have no clue how these things should be built.

1 All true but it is worse than that. The basic technology of the starships, their contra-gravity drives are barely described and none of the rules for using them are really explained. The bits and pieces we get give some details but many of them are contradictory between different books with the stats for ships in FotTG given a completely different format then those in books before or since.

2 There is not only no clue as to how they should be used but the very setting seems to contradict what we get. Just in the CCW spacers are listed as less than 10% so that mean hundreds of billions of spacers. Given the crew sizes of the ships we have that mean hundreds of millions to billions of ships, civilian and military, just in the CCW. This setting is also one with actual demons and monsters in addition to being a multi-polar setting with few truly safe places.

In most respects starships and space combat are treated as the backdrops to adventures taking place on planets rather than setting for adventure themselves.

The problem is that in a setting like phase world with magic, super powers and things like fighters or power armors it is hard to create a real space combat system that incorporates those things but still allows for these large space battles. This I think is the main reason for the incredibly short range of PW weapons compared to an early PB property like Robotech 1e.

The first thing that needs to be done is define the tech
Next, how it interacts with the setting
Finally, you can build ships and fleets that, at least in the setting, make sense

to use an example, I had a character that had access to 3 separate tech bases: star wars, Star trek, and battletech, plus some others.
they started with a star destroyer as the "base hull" with Ion drives, and a hyperdrive. they also crammed in a warp core, and impulse drive system
for weapons...
3 full 360 phaser arrays. (mostly under computer control)
1 spinal mount mega phaser.
10 photon torpedo launchers (the same ones a galaxy class has capable of firing 10 torpedo salvos) 6 forward firing and 4 rearward.
1 ammo magazine for each torpedo launcher. holding 500 torpedoes, with a variety of torpedoes in each magazine and cross feeds (yes a full load of ammo, was something like 5000 photon torpedoes (a galaxy class in star trek only carries something like 250)
lots (going from memory) over 100 laser cannons mostly for anti fighter and point defense

multiple shield arrays (3)
ablative hull plating (armor)
a relatively small fighter compliment between 72 and 100ish active with storage for "more"
some additional "heavy" long range missiles, and 2 launch capability (10 total) SLAMS

in addition it had a "tactical" portal generator, that would allow it to open a portal between a place inn front of the ship and elsewhere in the solar system, typically used for strategic bombardment of an area by the shipboard weapons.

unfortunately (ha) the characters "fleet" was only 2 capital ships the "star destroyer" and an interdictor cruiser

I always allowed my characters to gain access to other tech as well, but it always had to be modified to not break the system and this is a problem with a lot of newer ships that have been added especially in DB 12 & 13. The Naruni ships in DB 12 and most of the ships in DB 13 so badly outclass the ships in older books they might as well be irrelevant. Meaning instead of having more ships that flesh out a growing and developing fleet we just have power creep. Truthfully I think this is worse with the Naruni ships in 12 than the ships in 13 but they have a cumulative effect.

I am going to say the stupid thing out loud.

IMO the biggest issue with palladium "dreadnaughts" and ships in general is:
1 there are no "real" construction rules.
2 the powers that be (the people that "design" these things have no clue how these things should be built.

to use an example, I had a character that had access to 3 separate tech bases: star wars, Star trek, and battletech, plus some others.
they started with a star destroyer as the "base hull" with Ion drives, and a hyperdrive. they also crammed in a warp core, and impulse drive system
for weapons...

Forgot the dropship collars for that extra firepower(and ablative armor) and the destroid revetments on the hull.

You joke but one thing we should see on ships is places for robot vehicles, power armor, and even mages. They are all part of this system as much as the lasers and missiles.

[ShadowLogan]

I went with treating them as a mobile base, because that IMHO is the least disruptive "fix" to the class. Altering the game stats would be the next option, but one if I did I'd still prefer to keep it simple rather that a case-by-case fix.

These are excellent examples to pull from as both fit the feel of Phase World with emphasis on personal combat and small fighters/mecha. Although I think a better Star Wars example might be the Executor Class SSD.

I was trying to keep the ships in the same general size to show how under performing the ships in PW seem to be designed just based on size. I did look up the size stats for the SSD, but at 19km long, IMHO, it'd be like bringing in a Kittani Dragon Dreadnaught Robot and comparing it to a Power Armor suit and going, Power Armor are under powered for their size in comparison though the KDDR (or even Triax Devestator I/II) is several of orders of magnitude bigger than any PA I can think of off the top of my head.

[Warshield73]

I went with treating them as a mobile base, because that IMHO is the least disruptive "fix" to the class. Altering the game stats would be the next option, but one if I did I'd still prefer to keep it simple rather that a case-by-case fix.

You're not wrong. In a mobile base set up it is more about adding existing system like C&C, space docks/repair facilities, medical/research facilities, even just more fighters and shuttles. Doesn't require a page one rewrite.

These are excellent examples to pull from as both fit the feel of Phase World with emphasis on personal combat and small fighters/mecha. Although I think a better Star Wars example might be the Executor Class SSD.

I was trying to keep the ships in the same general size to show how under performing the ships in PW seem to be designed just based on size. I did look up the size stats for the SSD, but at 19km long, IMHO, it'd be like bringing in a Kittani Dragon Dreadnaught Robot and comparing it to a Power Armor suit and going, Power Armor are under powered for their size in comparison though the KDDR (or even Triax Devestator I/II) is several of orders of magnitude bigger than any PA I can think of off the top of my head.

I see what you did. I was looking to compare withing the IP (Imperial I to SSD comparing to Protector to Emancipator) while you compared between IPs. I think your points work both ways.

[Warshield73]

New questions:
What should be added to these ships to make them work better in the setting in any of these parameters?

1) As the ships are now.
2) As a giant battleship / Battle Titan
3) As mobile base

My answers:

Spoiler:

1) More. Just more. As big as these ships are they should be tougher in setting. The main cannons should have more range. If you look at the jump in range from light to medium to heavy weapons then these giant forward mounted guns should a range of at least 300 miles maybe as much as 500 but that I think might push it in the current setting. Also need not more fighters but maybe something along the lines of flak boats or gunships. Something too large for all but carriers and Dreadnoughts to carry effectively

2) Bigger forward gun, lots of BS grade turrets and lots of armor and shields. Dial the fighters down to just escort and point defense with just enough troops for PA defenders and internal security, no assault shuttles.

3) I see this as almost an inverted CS Firestorm. A core ship that on it's own is basically carrier with giant engines and massive repair facilities but can carry premade orbital or ground fortifications to the front. The larger size allows for giant reactors that can power large weapons and defense systems and to be placed quickly without lots of set up and then when permanent structures are built it can be picked up and moved to the next target. I would also give a ship like this better sensors, maybe it is almost like a listening post when not on the move, and some of the C&C capabilities you see in the Robotech 2e books.

[Nekira Sudacne]

The reason that Palladium's Dreadnoughts suck at being Dreadnoughts is that they're not actually dreadnoughts. Littearlly.

What makes the Dreadnought a Dreadnought is the "All Big Gun" Design.

Historically, Battleships would carry a variety of weapons to deal with a variety of ship types at a variety of ranges.

The Dreadnought specifically got rid of all the secondary and tertiary (and quaternary, and...) gun to do exactly three* things:

1: Mount the largest, most powerful gun that could be practically designed and deployed
2: in as large a number as possible
3: on a platform that is armored against guns of the same power that it carries.
*Point defense guns vs enemy fighters are okay, and it should have many of these, but these are tiny and of no real consequence to fighting other warships.

That's it. that's the Dreadnaught. To be a Dreadnaught, a Doombringer would have to get rid of every gun that isn't the two main Spinal guns or a small point defense gun, pack on more of these spinal guns, at least 6 or so, and then get rid of the entire fighter hanger bay to back in more generators to make them even more powerful when fired.

Because that's what a Dreadnaught is. It's a battleship designed solely to kill other battleships, and gets rid of all versatility in the pursuit of this. They are *incredibly* vulnerable to being swarmed by large numbers of smaller cruisers. Sure their handful of super powerful main cannons will smash a corresponding number of cruisers like the fist of an angry god!

And then the dreadnaught get pounded to dust by their 800 friends. This is why they can only travel with large escorts.

This is why we stopped making battleships. They're just obsolete. But Sci Fi tropes are so deeply steeped in the imagery of World War II that authors literally don't know how to write a war consisting solely of peer carrier fleets because we've never had that happen. The battle of Midway proved that carriers could destroy Dreadnaughts without ever getting into range of the big scary guns (despite ironically not actually sinking any battleships during it).

TL:DR the reason that the Doombringer and Co suck at being Dreadnoughts is because they are not dreadnoughts. They're armed carriers. And they are this because Dreadnoughts are Obsolete and nobody needs or wants one.

[Warshield73]

The reason that Palladium's Dreadnoughts suck at being Dreadnoughts is that they're not actually dreadnoughts. Littearlly.

This is true but it is true across the board. People love the word dreadnought so they use it no matter what. In Mass Effect dreadnoughts there are all centered around massive spinal cannons sure but they have tons of other guns and missiles. No reason not to call it a Battleship. In Honor Harrington it makes no sense, you have battleships but those a replaced completely with Dreadnoughts and then they are replaced with Super Dreadnoughts and in all of these cases missiles were the primary armament but in the current books SDs carry almost exclusively pods full of missiles that they deploy and then mass fire at the other side. I will be honest this is one of the reasons I have always preferred to call them Titans as the name Dreadnought just doesn't make sense.

What makes the Dreadnought a Dreadnought is the "All Big Gun Design".

Historically, Battleships would carry a variety of weapons to deal with a variety of ship types at a variety of ranges.

The Dreadnought specifically got rid of all the secondary and tertiary (and quaternary, and...) gun to do exactly three* things:

1: Mount the largest, most powerful gun that could be practically designed and deployed
2: in as large a number as possible
3: on a platform that is armored against guns of the same power that it carries.
*Point defense guns vs enemy fighters are okay, and it should have many of these, but these are tiny and of no real consequence to fighting other warships.

That's it. that's the Dreadnaught. To be a Dreadnaught, a Doombringer would have to get rid of every gun that isn't the two main Spinal guns or a small point defense gun, pack on **more* of these spinal guns, at least 6 or so, and then get rid of the entire fighter hanger bay to back in more generators to make them even more powerful when fired.

Because that's what a Dreadnaught is. It's a battleship designed solely to kill other battleships, and gets rid of all versatility in the pursuit of this. They are *incredibly* vulnerable to being swarmed by large numbers of smaller cruisers. Sure their handful of super powerful main cannons will smash a corresponding number of cruisers like the fist of an angry god!

Yes this is what the first post-Dreadnought battleships were but to be fair by the time we get to WWII, which is the inspiration for Star Wars and to a great extent Phase World, Battleships had evolved. Look at the battleships of the world powers on the eve of WWII, the Bismark works, they have a variety of guns and are starting to mount some air defenses.

And then the dreadnaught get pounded to dust by their 800 friends. This is why they can only travel with large escorts.

This is why we stopped making battleships. They're just obsolete. But Sci Fi tropes are so deeply steeped in the imagery of World War II that authors literally don't know how to write a war consisting solely of peer carrier fleets because we've never had that happen. The battle of Midway proved that carriers could destroy Dreadnaughts without ever getting into range of the big scary guns.

TL:DR the reason that the Doombringer and Co suck at being Dreadnoughts is because they are not dreadnoughts. They're armed carriers. And they are this because Dreadnoughts are Obsolete and nobody needs or wants one.

This has as much to do with the environment, the ocean, as it does with technology. Right now in our world attacker has advantage as there is limit to strength and weight to the armor, shooting down even large missiles.

If in the future we see a hyper-sonic missile turn one of our aircraft carriers into an extremely expensive home for radioactive coral or high intensity laser burn attack jets from the sky we will probably see the carrier go the way of the battleship. Then again if we develop armor or systems that can resist damage from those missiles but we make practical rail guns and directed energy AA defenses then we could see a return of something that resembles a battleship. The same would happen in a system where missiles are easily shot down, but directed energy or rail-guns can hit their targets.

Now at the same time you have the changing environement. It wasn't just aircraft that made the battleship obsolete it was submarines and missiles. In space there is no difference in movement, there is no equivalent of underwater, surface and aircraft each with it's own domain they can all move through the same areas. That, the ability to (kind of easily) shoot down missiles at range, heavy armor that can take multiple hits and force fields mean you are more likely to see bigger and heavier ships that can slug it out. Also Battleships aren't the worst aspect of warfare in sci-fi, that honor goes to the space fighter which makes absolutely no sense in space combat.

A great example of this is the Expanse. A reliance on railguns for medium range warfare means a return of the battleship but the technological needs of life support and especially fuel completely erases the idea of space fighters. This is also a thing in settings where resources are scarce like the Sojourn. In this the resources for advanced missiles are so hard to come by that all proper ships of the line, especially first and second rate, mount lots of coil guns to fight other warships.

PW is a setting where fighters, as well as magic and super powers and power armors, are a thing so the combat tech and therefore fleet construction has to allow for that. That means close range brawls between massive gun platforms.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Battleships and Dreadnoughts are not the same. Or rather it is a subcategory: All Dreadnoughts are battleships, not all battleships are dreadnoughts.

As for the Bismark and other world war II era guns: I have. Virtually all the guns on the Bismark were primary anti-Air. WW II happened during a happy time when the 5" gun was a useful gun against Destroyer and smaller ships but also a really good heavy Anti-Air gun, and so could be deployed in a dual-role, but that's pretty much it: the Bismark you name had it's primary guns, it had some Dual-Purpose Anti-Air guns that it could theoretically use to swat Destroyers in a pinch but mostly was there as air defense, and a bunch of other Anti-Air guns of various sizes. The primary armament was always the Big Gun Battery, the rest was Anti-Air defense with a happy dual role in one case.

Now as the for the Expanse: Sure, if you posit a threat environment where carriers are not a practical ship design due to technological limitations, then Battleships will rule the roost: The early Carriers of World War I did not make much impact because the technology wasn't quite there yet.

As soon as any setting gets to the point where carriers are viable, they're going to win due to simple economics:

when each tiny Fighter can carry an antimatter or singularity warhead that can inflict potentially crippling or fatal damage, from a range longer than a Battleship can force battle, then over time they'll win.

Heck, the Honor Harrington books you slightly misremember are a good example of that. In those books, it starts with energy batteries being the primary armament of Super Dreadnoughts and Dreadnoughts (They have missiles, but they are not the primary armament in the beginning because the Laser Head is brand new technology), and then slowly over the course of the next 20-ish years of war we basically see the redevelopment of carrier fleets and missile pods.

And it also even highlights the exceptions! in any case when an Old-Style Big Gun Waller can somehow get up close and personal with a Podnaught, they wreak house. It's just those circumstances are extraordinary and hard to replicate. There's a reason they stop building regular wallers. It's not because they're not longer useful warships, it's that they have more versatile and more reliable options.

Remember: obsolete does not mean "Without use or value", it just means "I have better options".

I will say though, I think the primary problem with Doombringers is that they are aiming too low. Strategically what the Kreegor really want is a mobile base that can serve as a logistics and repair center for fleets on long term deployment pacifying new conquests in galactic backwaters where the local industrial base isn't up to servicing their needs yet. They really need it to be 10x larger and mostly focused on Command and Support. And with a main cannon that's a LOT more powerful than anything else in the galaxy. (Transforming into a giant robot functionality optional)

[Warshield73]

Battleships and Dreadnoughts are not the same. Or rather it is a subcategory: All Dreadnoughts are battleships, not all battleships are dreadnoughts.

This is kind of what I was getting to in my post. Dreadnoughts are not being used in sci-fi in the same way it was in Naval history. The term is being used to replace battleship completely, Mass Effect is a good example, because battleship has become a synonym for obsolete or it is being used for ships that have created an innovation in warfare that is on par with that of the HMS Dreadnought, Honor Harrington is probably the best example of this. Star Wars and Phase World simply go along with it being the most powerful of ships. Not sure where Star Trek fits in, I know they have dreadnoughts like in the Kelvin movies but...that IP hasn't made sense in long time.

As for the Bismark and other world war II era guns: I have. Virtually all the guns on the Bismark were primary anti-Air. WW II happened during a happy time when the 5" gun was a useful gun against Destroyer and smaller ships but also a really good heavy Anti-Air gun, and so could be deployed in a dual-role, but that's pretty much it: the Bismark you name had it's primary guns, it had some Dual-Purpose Anti-Air guns that it could theoretically use to swat Destroyers in a pinch but mostly was there as air defense, and a bunch of other Anti-Air guns of various sizes. The primary armament was always the Big Gun Battery, the rest was Anti-Air defense with a happy dual role in one case.

That is all I was getting at was that it didn't take long for the weapons loadout of a post Dreadnought battleship to diversify. I agree that any ship called a Dreadnought or even a battleship should be mainly big guns, but that is going to have lots of caveats. Most weapons in the PW universe are energy based and the bigger they are the more hungry for power they are so if you are in a threat environment dominated by smaller ships you will have smaller guns to deal with them more economically.

Now as the for the Expanse: Sure, if you posit a threat environment where carriers are not a practical ship design due to technological limitations, then Battleships will rule the roost: The early Carriers of World War I did not make much impact because the technology wasn't quite there yet.

In the expanse, and other higher realism setting, you just aren't likely to see fighters of any kind as they are not big enough to carry...well any other than a point defense class weapon, they have no space for fuel, there is no limit to speed just acceleration and all ships from battleships to shuttles have the same limits, that of the human crews onboard. Also, torpedoes work just fine on their own so no need for fighters there.

As soon as any setting gets to the point where carriers are viable, they're going to win due to simple economics:

Again just not the case. Carriers on earth are the only ones that can carry jet fighters because they require a runway, catapults and all that other fun stuff but in PW a Warshield cruiser with its average frigate/destroyer escorts can field more fighters than modern US super carrier.

As I said early, you are conflating environments. In a space setting aircraft do not have a speed, range, terrain or horizon advantage meaning they can be shot at the entire time they approach and the large ships have a magazine advantage when it comes to missiles. The other thing is the economics. IRL an F-35 is 100 mil for carrier model while an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer is about 2.1 billion so an advantage of 21 to 1 for the F-35. However, the real advantage is those 21 fighters have just 21 pilots while the ABD has about 300 crew.

In PW though fighters are in tens of millions while destroyers cost hundreds of millions so the cost advantage is not as great. Add to that most destroyers are less than 100 crew and the economics change fast.

Defenses against fighters in Rifts in general are just better than it is in the real world. One CS Mark IX missile truck is better air defense than most nation states have presently to say nothing of the massive LR missile magazines of a Protector. Try attacking that ship with fighters without destroyer support and they are just expensive coffins for highly trained pilots.

Also you have to remember this is a setting with energy shields. Fighters can come in deliver a lot of damage but they have no follow up. You need waves of fighters to achieve this or else the capital ship can just regenerate.

when each tiny Fighter can carry an antimatter or singularity warhead that can inflict potentially crippling or fatal damage, from a range longer than a Battleship can force battle, then over time they'll win.

Except they can't. Cruise Missiles fired at greater than 3 to 5 miles can be shot down so fighters typically have to get close to fire the missiles otherwise might as well have a destroyer launch them from a thousand miles out, same effect except most of them can produce a greater weight of fire.

Unless you are really interested in a far too detailed discussion of the evolution of military technology in the Honor Harrington universe I would skip the spoiler.

Spoiler:

Heck, the Honor Harrington books you slightly misremember are a good example of that. In those books, it starts with energy batteries being the primary armament of Super Dreadnoughts and Dreadnoughts (They have missiles, but they are not the primary armament in the beginning because the Laser Head is brand new technology), and then slowly over the course of the next 20-ish years of war we basically see the redevelopment of carrier fleets and missile pods.

It depends on what you mean by primary weapon. Look at the first HH book On Basalisk Station that is 1901 PD. At that time the RMN (Royal Manticorian Navy) had 5 classes of DDs (Dreadnoughts) and 7 classes of SDs (Super Dreadnoughts). The most prolific DD was the Gladiator with a broadside of 22M (Missiles), 18L (Lasers), 24G (Grazers), 18 CM (Counter Missiles) and 26 PD (Point defense lasers) per side. The most common SD was probably the Victory although it was harder to tell based on service entry and when the next class started rolling off the lines but it's broadside was 35m, 20L, 19G, 29CM, 27PD. M and CM takes up way more space than L or G so while it looks like an almost even split they both have far more space dedicated to missiles than energy armament and even more space to protect from the other sides missiles. Most of a ship armament was centered around missiles and they were the first weapon to be used in combat. 19th and 20th century battleships were centered on those 2 to 4 turrets of main guns but the DDs and SDs of the Honorverse have always had a greater variety of weapons. Also, the way Admiral Alexander describes it in the second book Honor of the Queen those energy weapons are mainly to stop destroyers, cruisers, and battlecruisers that raid the wall of battle and if two DDs exchange energy fire both sides screwed up massively.

The laser head is at least decades old being the primary ship killer when King Roger, the current Queen Elizabeth's father, began his naval build up decades before Honor joined much less before her first command, the HMS Fearless, a Courageous class light cruiser. That ship had a broadside of 7M, 2L, 2G, 3CM, 3PD so very missile heavy. 6 of those missiles were removed for the grav lance and energy torpedoes that they were experimenting with and both were shorter range then everything except point defense turrets. Harrington herself describes the process of Fearless losing those missiles as being...let's say assaulted.

The very first battle we see at the end of Basilisk Station the Havenite q-ship is just unloading missiles on her and the Fearless can't reply. In the second book most of those battles are also missile. Now, we do see missiles gain prominence as the series goes on but they were a major part from the first book and the large multi drive missiles aren't the first advancement that leads to this. One of the biggest is advancements in fire control that allows for off bore missile fire meaning tubes from all 4 sides can fire together to increase weight of fire.

And it also even highlights the exceptions! in any case when an Old-Style Big Gun Waller can somehow get up close and personal with a Podnaught, they wreak house. It's just those circumstances are extraordinary and hard to replicate. There's a reason they stop building regular wallers. It's not because they're not longer useful warships, it's that they have more versatile and more reliable options.

Yes they are kept in service but not for SD to SD fighting. They increase defenses on the wall of battle for SDPs and to stop lighter units, especially battlecruisers, from attacking the less well defended SDPs. They still have there place but they are no longer in construction with just 2 classes remaining and fewer than 100 hulls between them at the end of the war with Earth. Honor even says herself that soon non-pod DDs have no real place in a wall of battle anymore with the defensive slack being taken up by LACs.

Remember: obsolete does not mean "Without use or value", it just means "I have better options".

I would say there is a difference, in this context, between something that is no longer useful to produce, like standard SDs, but can still serve a function vs platforms that are so hopelessly obsolete that they no longer have a place, like DDs which were all retired in that setting.

I will say though, I think the primary problem with Doombringers is that they are aiming too low. Strategically what the Kreegor really want is a mobile base that can serve as a logistics and repair center for fleets on long term deployment pacifying new conquests in galactic backwaters where the local industrial base isn't up to servicing their needs yet. They really need it to be 10x larger and mostly focused on Command and Support. And with a main cannon that's a LOT more powerful than anything else in the galaxy.

Not sure if they can get any larger. It seems to be an upper limit of the current drive systems, as for everything else I can agree. If you are on are on a planet or in a space fleet that maybe tops out at cruisers or battlecruisers it can be terrifying in a way that a simple battleship can't be. But, as it is and with the way it is described as being spread out around the fleet it feels like it could be more effective.

The Emancipator is the one that makes no sense. The shear amount of money that was spent on that class vs how effective it is...The size of fleet you could build of carriers, battleships and others for that money is so huge it could conquer the Thundercloud.

(Transforming into a giant robot functionality optional)

Can it have a giant vacuum cleaner?

[ShadowLogan]

In the expanse, and other higher realism setting, you just aren't likely to see fighters of any kind as they are not big enough to carry...well any other than a point defense class weapon, they have no space for fuel, there is no limit to speed just acceleration and all ships from battleships to shuttles have the same limits, that of the human crews onboard. Also, torpedoes work just fine on their own so no need for fighters there.

I think fighters can be viable, even in a hard sci-fi setting:
1. Re-call ability. One reason we have bomber aircraft for delivery of nuclear warheads IS that we can abort and recall the craft. The only real way to do that with missile/torpedoes is self-detonation, and then you're most likely out the missile(s). They are also re-usable (which can make their higher cost vs missile attractive in the long run).
2. Fighters have evolved into multi-role platforms, something a shuttlecraft sized object could be tasked with at which point you might as well just call it a fighter
3. Fighters allow one to deploy for multi-vector attacks, sure they might not be as powerful as a fixed gun on a ship but they might also make up for it with numbers and force the enemy to be "honest" and not direct/roll to keep the most shield/armor directed toward their attacker
4. Fighters in a defensive role allow for way to reinforce a given areas' PDW. If you know a given class has fewer fixed PDWs from a given angle of attack (say the undercarriage) for whatever reason (damage, design, etc) then why wouldn't you try to target your missiles to come in on that angle of attack?. Now you could deploy Robots/PA (in setting) for this role, but interception at longer ranges is better than closer IMHO
5. You can deploy them as forward observer in certain environments that might hamper sensors (example the "classic" asteroid field trope, something like in Robotech Episode "Blind Game" where the SDF-1 is in the remains of Pamir)
6. Stealth is a technology that likely is easier/cheaper to achieve with a fighter than a capital ship (at least with some sensor types, but those sensor types might also be range restricted to in terms of resolution), while it could also be added to missiles (stealth cruise missiles are a thing)
7. Man-in-the-loop advantages. While AI might not have the same physical limitations as humans, the question does have to be considered if they can match a pilot/crew innate ability to innovate in novel situations. Examples: if an AI doesn't have data on say the Intruders (from PW), can it effectively engage them in the same way a human pilot could? What about performance that does not match up to established data because its been modified (example: Star Wars Uglies from Legends, or a new model with differing performance like Robotech's Alpha-H/I vs Z engines, or in its Macross OSM with the VF-1A/J/D having different engines than the VF-1S). While you could do this via remote, there is the possibility of jamming. What about the enemy fighters changing tactics that made the preset data less useful? etc
8. Deployed Fighters can capitalize on their "motherships" initial speed at time of launch, so if it was doing 10kps when the fighters launched those fighters start with 10kps and can build from that

Now available technology is going to be a major factor in the viability of a "fighter", but it is theoretically possible.

Again just not the case. Carriers on earth are the only ones that can carry jet fighters because they require a runway, catapults and all that other fun stuff but in PW a Warshield cruiser with its average frigate/destroyer escorts can field more fighters than modern US super carrier.

Actually it is possible for other class of vessels to carry and deploy jet fighters, it just requires jet fighters that are designed with VTOL capability, at which point you don't need a runway you could do it with basically helicopter landing pads which are present on various vessels (NOTE: these pads likely do need considerations that a helicopter doesn't). It just there aren't many viable VTOL fighter jets that reached production and deployment.

Except they can't. Cruise Missiles fired at greater than 3 to 5 miles can be shot down so fighters typically have to get close to fire the missiles otherwise might as well have a destroyer launch them from a thousand miles out, same effect except most of them can produce a greater weight of fire.

Game mechanically speaking missiles can be shot down once within range of a given weapon system, it really doesn't matter at what range the missiles are fired per say, they can be shot down. Now there is a point where flight speeds and range reach a point where it is likely impossible to shoot down a missile and it will vary with missile.

Spoiler:

Missile Speed time to cover 1,000ft/300m distance:
Mini-Missile = 0.5-1.3 seconds (vary by missile, ignoring smoke which is ~2.3 seconds)
Short Range Missiles = 1.3-3.4 seconds (vary by missile)
Medium Range Missiles = ~0.5 seconds (average)
Long Range Missiles = ~0.33 seconds (average)

I don't have cruise missile figures handy, but fire a missile close enough and even a Zebuloid isn't going to have enough time and they get 14APM.

Not sure if they can get any larger. It seems to be an upper limit of the current drive systems, as for everything else I can agree. If you are on are on a planet or in a space fleet that maybe tops out at cruisers or battlecruisers it can be terrifying in a way that a simple battleship can't be. But, as it is and with the way it is described as being spread out around the fleet it feels like it could be more effective.

I think its less the current drive systems as opposed to the favored drive system (CG). Really there isn't any reason a reaction drive system couldn't work for a large vessel it's just going to have the draw backs of being fuel/propellant hungry and likely slow which is likely why CG drives are favored.

Spoiler:

The basic premise of "Space 1999" is possible, you can move the Moon out of orbit (you're note going interstellar) with something like ~70% of the Moon's mass being ejected at 11.2kps for a delta-v of 12.88kps. Now how you eject that much mass that fast and over what time frame is of course the real issue, but by the math (and I did) it can be done meaning 3G powers don't really have an actual size limit to ships, it's just a matter of being practical.

(Transforming into a giant robot functionality optional)

Can it have a giant vacuum cleaner?

Who cares about its giant vacuum cleaner accessory, I want to know if it can punch/swat attacking ships out of commission!

[Warshield73]

I agree with most of these points, except...

I think fighters can be viable, even in a hard sci-fi setting:
1. Re-call ability. One reason we have bomber aircraft for delivery of nuclear warheads IS that we can abort and recall the craft. The only real way to do that with missile/torpedoes is self-detonation, and then you're most likely out the missile(s). They are also re-usable (which can make their higher cost vs missile attractive in the long run).

This entirely depends on the technology. In the Expanse, (as usual I highly suggest listening to them as audio books first, then watching the TV show) we see torpedoes and giant interplanetary missiles be able to change targets, be handed over to different controllers, and even placed around an unarmed craft and used as defensive drones. All were able to be recovered, refueled, and reused later.

2. Fighters have evolved into multi-role platforms, something a shuttlecraft sized object could be tasked with at which point you might as well just call it a fighter
3. Fighters allow one to deploy for multi-vector attacks, sure they might not be as powerful as a fixed gun on a ship but they might also make up for it with numbers and force the enemy to be "honest" and not direct/roll to keep the most shield/armor directed toward their attacker
4. Fighters in a defensive role allow for way to reinforce a given areas' PDW. If you know a given class has fewer fixed PDWs from a given angle of attack (say the undercarriage) for whatever reason (damage, design, etc) then why wouldn't you try to target your missiles to come in on that angle of attack?. Now you could deploy Robots/PA (in setting) for this role, but interception at longer ranges is better than closer IMHO
5. You can deploy them as forward observer in certain environments that might hamper sensors (example the "classic" asteroid field trope, something like in Robotech Episode "Blind Game" where the SDF-1 is in the remains of Pamir)
6. Stealth is a technology that likely is easier/cheaper to achieve with a fighter than a capital ship (at least with some sensor types, but those sensor types might also be range restricted to in terms of resolution), while it could also be added to missiles (stealth cruise missiles are a thing)
7. Man-in-the-loop advantages. While AI might not have the same physical limitations as humans, the question does have to be considered if they can match a pilot/crew innate ability to innovate in novel situations. Examples: if an AI doesn't have data on say the Intruders (from PW), can it effectively engage them in the same way a human pilot could? What about performance that does not match up to established data because its been modified (example: Star Wars Uglies from Legends, or a new model with differing performance like Robotech's Alpha-H/I vs Z engines, or in its Macross OSM with the VF-1A/J/D having different engines than the VF-1S). While you could do this via remote, there is the possibility of jamming. What about the enemy fighters changing tactics that made the preset data less useful? etc
8. Deployed Fighters can capitalize on their "motherships" initial speed at time of launch, so if it was doing 10kps when the fighters launched those fighters start with 10kps and can build from that

All of these are true just not what I was getting at. Every one of these is something that a setting would need its just that many of them don't fill them with what we would recognize as fighters.

Now available technology is going to be a major factor in the viability of a "fighter", but it is theoretically possible.

This is what I'm saying. In a realistic setting the ability to put any of these functions in a platform we would call a fighter is near impossible, several or most of these no. You have to contrive reason for fighters (and mages and super powers and power armors and...) to exist in a setting then build the tech around it. Settings like the expanse or Honor Harrington that tend towards the harder end of the scale just don't have them. In the Expanse the fuel needs of the Epstein drive plus the power and space needed for even the simplest weapon, plus the efficiency of torpedoes just makes them not possible. Now Honor Harrington has the LACs which is the fighter equivalent in that setting but if you look at their size and mass those ships would be destroyers in Phase World.

That is all I am saying

Actually it is possible for other class of vessels to carry and deploy jet fighters, it just requires jet fighters that are designed with VTOL capability, at which point you don't need a runway you could do it with basically helicopter landing pads which are present on various vessels (NOTE: these pads likely do need considerations that a helicopter doesn't). It just there aren't many viable VTOL fighter jets that reached production and deployment.

Yes, but not really. The facilities they have for launching and recovering helicopters are technically capable of this but in reality a vtol craft would damage the structures around it and the pad itself. Also, in an atmosphere there is a big difference in what a jet can carry in terms of ordinance and fuel between VTOL, STOL, carrier catapult. There is even a difference when you look at what these fighters can carry on a carrier launch vs a terrestrial land base. This is why often one of the first things a fighter has to do after launching off a carrier is do a midair refuel, they simply could not afford the weight on take off and had to make a trade off between fuel and ordinance and since fuel can be supplied in flight...

What I am saying is that the CG technology is such and the environment of space is such that you don't need a complex launch and retrieval system. In fact in smaller ships you could have a general bay that can be used for a small group of fighters or marines with ground vehicles or just general cargo depending on the mission. The technology and environment allow for a great deal of generalization as opposed to the specialization of a naval surface fleet.

Except they can't. Cruise Missiles fired at greater than 3 to 5 miles can be shot down so fighters typically have to get close to fire the missiles otherwise might as well have a destroyer launch them from a thousand miles out, same effect except most of them can produce a greater weight of fire.

Game mechanically speaking missiles can be shot down once within range of a given weapon system, it really doesn't matter at what range the missiles are fired per say, they can be shot down. Now there is a point where flight speeds and range reach a point where it is likely impossible to shoot down a missile and it will vary with missile.

Spoiler:

Missile Speed time to cover 1,000ft/300m distance:
Mini-Missile = 0.5-1.3 seconds (vary by missile, ignoring smoke which is ~2.3 seconds)
Short Range Missiles = 1.3-3.4 seconds (vary by missile)
Medium Range Missiles = ~0.5 seconds (average)
Long Range Missiles = ~0.33 seconds (average)

I don't have cruise missile figures handy, but fire a missile close enough and even a Zebuloid isn't going to have enough time and they get 14APM.

The books say, several times, that any cruise missile volley fired in the 1 to 3 mile range can not be shot down, that was all I was getting at. This means that fighters have to get into that close range PDW area in order to be more effective than a ship launched missile volley.

Not sure if they can get any larger. It seems to be an upper limit of the current drive systems, as for everything else I can agree. If you are on are on a planet or in a space fleet that maybe tops out at cruisers or battlecruisers it can be terrifying in a way that a simple battleship can't be. But, as it is and with the way it is described as being spread out around the fleet it feels like it could be more effective.

I think its less the current drive systems as opposed to the favored drive system (CG). Really there isn't any reason a reaction drive system couldn't work for a large vessel it's just going to have the draw backs of being fuel/propellant hungry and likely slow which is likely why CG drives are favored.

Spoiler:

The basic premise of "Space 1999" is possible, you can move the Moon out of orbit (you're note going interstellar) with something like ~70% of the Moon's mass being ejected at 11.2kps for a delta-v of 12.88kps. Now how you eject that much mass that fast and over what time frame is of course the real issue, but by the math (and I did) it can be done meaning 3G powers don't really have an actual size limit to ships, it's just a matter of being practical.

Some confusion here. There are two types of CG drive.
1) is the sub-light version and that could probably do what you are talking about. Not what I was eluding too.
2) is the FTL version which has set limits on size and the standard ones top out in the Protector/Pack-master range while the two dreadnought engines top out with those.

So the largest thing the standard races can do at FTL is to move the dreadnoughts or smaller.

(Transforming into a giant robot functionality optional)

Can it have a giant vacuum cleaner?

Who cares about its giant vacuum cleaner accessory, I want to know if it can punch/swat attacking ships out of commission!

It would give the Dreadnought a way to actually fight a demon planet instead of what they are now which are really expensive dinner plates.

[ShadowLogan]

This entirely depends on the technology. In the Expanse, (as usual I highly suggest listening to them as audio books first, then watching the TV show) we see torpedoes and giant interplanetary missiles be able to change targets, be handed over to different controllers, and even placed around an unarmed craft and used as defensive drones. All were able to be recovered, refueled, and reused later.

I agree the techncology needs to be there to support the concept of "fighters", and it is possible to construct the setting to not need them, which can in part be based on current world biases or influences.

The Epstien drive is a nuclear fusion drive, well Macross Anime also uses Fusion drives in their Variable Fighters (RT's VF-1 are said to use engines that are "based on a reactor design"), so the Expanse might not have the technology to miniaturize the fusion systems for use at the necessary scale of a "fighter" like Macross (which have grown in size over the decades, the F-86 from the Korean War era is ~4m shorter in length than the F-35 and even larger growth if we go up to twin engine aircraft like the F-15 which is still smaller than some other platforms, who knows what size new fighters might look like in another 50years, they might be the size of bombers like the B-1B or the B-21 and the latter has been suggested to take on some fighter missions IINM).

What you have just described to with the defensive drones though could be considered a "fighter", there is no requirement for a "fighter" to be manned.

And I think we're getting off topic a bit.

Yes, but not really. The facilities they have for launching and recovering helicopters are technically capable of this but in reality a vtol craft would damage the structures around it and the pad itself

I agree those are issues if you use a regular/stock helicopter pad, but it is certainly possible to design a landing pad that can handle the issues. The F-35B/Harrier-family isn't one's only option in terms of possible approaches, it is certainly the most successful approach to date (and only one to enter production), but there is the X-Wing convertible Helicopter/Jet concept (Sikorski/NASA test article that had funding cut, related to priorities not technical, before it could do transition flights but the concept was for a helicopter that could stop its rotor blades and transition to fixed wing jet powered flight) which would get around the issues of needing specialized landing pads (which I don't dispute), granted this type of aircraft is still theoretical.

The books say, several times, that any cruise missile volley fired in the 1 to 3 mile range can not be shot down, that was all I was getting at. This means that fighters have to get into that close range PDW area in order to be more effective than a ship launched missile volley.

Which is certainly possible, I don't have cruise missiles in the a previously done spreadsheet for the generic missile table. So if their speed is high enough, I could see that 5-15k ft stated being impossible to target due to trip time (which if shorter than the attacker's APM time frame to do something is, ex APM @Level 1 is 4, so 3.7seconds is the APM time frame vs Leve1 1 Zebuloid's 14, so APM time frame is 1.07seconds), even the rules mechanically only allow for like 1 attack to defend (and I would assume you'd also need the missile's trip time long enough to allow one to target and shoot, which it is possible you couldn't if fired from close enough range).

So the largest thing the standard races can do at FTL is to move the dreadnoughts or smaller.

Except we know that isn't the only option for FTL in setting, so the "standard races" could to duplicate alternate methods they know can work which would remove the size limitations ("Space Fold" is used by the Intruders, so that might spur renewed research into the technology that they've never gotten to work, Dominator Star Fortress might be another with their worm-hole drive IIRC assuming anyone knows about it).

[Warshield73]

The books say, several times, that any cruise missile volley fired in the 1 to 3 mile range can not be shot down, that was all I was getting at. This means that fighters have to get into that close range PDW area in order to be more effective than a ship launched missile volley.

Which is certainly possible, I don't have cruise missiles in the a previously done spreadsheet for the generic missile table. So if their speed is high enough, I could see that 5-15k ft stated being impossible to target due to trip time (which if shorter than the attacker's APM time frame to do something is, ex APM @Level 1 is 4, so 3.7seconds is the APM time frame vs Leve1 1 Zebuloid's 14, so APM time frame is 1.07seconds), even the rules mechanically only allow for like 1 attack to defend (and I would assume you'd also need the missile's trip time long enough to allow one to target and shoot, which it is possible you couldn't if fired from close enough range).

I think you are giving CJ too much credit. I think this was just put in as a game mechanic to make fighter-bombers deadlier, which it does very well. It does match the idea from the Expanse around railguns called "hammer-lock" which it the range for a rail-gun that is so close that it is effectively instant. In space something like a rail-gun slug will travel until it hits something so against "stationary" (and in space that term is relative) targets you can fire a massive distance out and still hit while if you try that against another ship they just move out of the way.

So the largest thing the standard races can do at FTL is to move the dreadnoughts or smaller.

Except we know that isn't the only option for FTL in setting, so the "standard races" could to duplicate alternate methods they know can work which would remove the size limitations

I am speaking of what is in the setting not what might come up later or be added. Even the rift drive is limited in size by the size of rift they can open which seems to be stuck around BC range if not smaller. Of course that could be relative to PPE expenditure so you could see massive ships or even mobile platforms use this to move around there just aren't any examples at this time.

Commercially available phase drives seem to be more limited than CG although that appears to be more about cost than anything else. We know the Promeatheans have giant ships that may be bigger than current Dreadnoughts but they aren't selling that tech and no one else can work with phase drives.

("Space Fold" is used by the Intruders, so that might spur renewed research into the technology that they've never gotten to work,

This has always been weird as DB2 pg. 152 says spacefold is more likely to malfunction in the 3G than in other dimensions so I have always assumed that the intruders drive is not true spacefold, maybe more like the jump drive of the Battlestar Galactica remake, or that it constantly malfunctions.

If they get enough samples, and it actually works in the 3G, there is no evidence that it works for cruiser sized vessels much less bigger than dreadnought sized.

Dominator Star Fortress might be another with their worm-hole drive IIRC assuming anyone knows about it).

This tech is literally tens of thousands of years beyond the current races and even then it only works thanks to the horrific power system the Dominators use.

All that said, the current dreadnought are as big as any of those races can make them.

[ShadowLogan]

I think you are giving CJ too much credit

I'm not really. Off hand I can't think of an example that cites the speed of a cruise missile(s) in PW setting. I know of numerous examples concerning their destructive power, but not their flight speed. So it is certainly possible, especially if one factors in their launch platforms starting speed.

This has always been weird as DB2 pg. 152 says spacefold is more likely to malfunction in the 3G than in other dimensions so I have always assumed that the intruders drive is not true spacefold, maybe more like the jump drive of the Battlestar Galactica remake, or that it constantly malfunctions.

If they get enough samples, and it actually works in the 3G, there is no evidence that it works for cruiser sized vessels much less bigger than dreadnought sized.

Per text though there are two caveats here:
1. we don't know why the space fold drives malfunction (or what form those take), there are suggestions presented there but nothing concrete on to why it actually malfunctions, or what those malfunctions take (it could be random speed, it could be navigational accuracy, it could be fail-safes to abort are triggered, etc).
2. we don't know why the Intruder system is insulated. It could be a psuedo-drive like you suggest, but it could be something else (like the nature of their solid energy or more accurate math* or a consequence of their stealth or etc)

My read on that statement in DB2 at least allows them to know that said technology exists even in the 3G, but is usually abandoned with later developments. I would find it hard to believe there isn't research into perfecting it, because lets face it if the drive can do 100LY per jump (it take 10hrs for a P-Drive to cover that, over 12 hours for a CG-Drive) which would make it potentially attractive for a variety of missions/roles depending on how long said jump lasts (and how economical it can be done). The arrival of the Intruders likely saw a resurgence in research on the technology since they know its possible, but also for potential avenues into how their technology might work and what limitations it might have (theoretically) that might be exploitable.

While all sublight drives pg153 also allows for the use of MiO drives, and the Traction Drive canonically allows for light speed travel (after a year of acceleration) and works similar to the theoretical Alcubierre Warp Drive (IMHO) that travels at FTL speed, opening up another option or variant option (if CG-Drives can come in FTL and non-FTL, why not Traction?, they might not be used for FTL per say because they are horribly slow at FTL)

*The Intruders might be using the equivalent of General/Special Relativity while the 3G powers are still on the equivalent of Newtonian. Or the equivalent of their use of introducing the equivalent of a "Cosmological Constant" that 3G powers haven't figured out yet, but they did, that makes it work. Real world example of this is the that Newtonian Gravity predicts the need for the planet "Vulcan" between Mercury and Sol, but G/S-R shows that the anomaly called for it doesn't exist or isn't needed (and since we haven't found "Vulcan" yet), so I can see "advanced math" being a reason for the Intruders having the tech.

This tech is literally tens of thousands of years beyond the current races and even then it only works thanks to the horrific power system the Dominators use.

All that said, the current dreadnought are as big as any of those races can make them.

I would point out that the 3G powers seem to know the Dominators use some type of Wormhole drive (Fot3G pg48). There is nothing there that says the drive itself has to be 10,000s of years more advanced or the result of their power system per say IMHO. So I would find it hard to believe that that 3G powers aren't researching them given they know its possible, even if it's out of their current reach in terms of ability to use a break through is still possible (either as a drive or other application useful in dealing with a DSF).

I agree that the dreadnoughts are as big as they can get, but per Fot3G the CG drive's limits are not a result of their dimensions, but rather their mass (pg79 "Before this advancement, ships larger than 60 million tons could not be catapulted into faster-than-light speeds.", that figure is now tripled after the TGE found a "configuration" that allows higher mass limits, and likely also means that the CCW and TGE are both looking at possible additional alternate configurations, it also means larger dimension ships are possible but they have to be keep the weight/mass off).

[Warshield73]

I think you are giving CJ too much credit

I'm not really. Off hand I can't think of an example that cites the speed of a cruise missile(s) in PW setting. I know of numerous examples concerning their destructive power, but not their flight speed. So it is certainly possible, especially if one factors in their launch platforms starting speed.

No I think you are still misunderstanding me. We don't have information about speed of these missiles in either of the first two books but we do have multiple statements of a rule that these missiles cannot be shot down if launched within the 1 to 5 mile mark, depending on which ship we are talking about. I am just saying that the speed of the missile and the physics involved was not a concern it was just story the idea that small ships, mainly fighters and destroyers, had this attack that could be deadly to capital ships to have to keep them away. That's all.

This has always been weird as DB2 pg. 152 says spacefold is more likely to malfunction in the 3G than in other dimensions so I have always assumed that the intruders drive is not true spacefold, maybe more like the jump drive of the Battlestar Galactica remake, or that it constantly malfunctions.

If they get enough samples, and it actually works in the 3G, there is no evidence that it works for cruiser sized vessels much less bigger than dreadnought sized.

Per text though there are two caveats here:
1. we don't know why the space fold drives malfunction (or what form those take), there are suggestions presented there but nothing concrete on to why it actually malfunctions, or what those malfunctions take (it could be random speed, it could be navigational accuracy, it could be fail-safes to abort are triggered, etc).
2. we don't know why the Intruder system is insulated. It could be a psuedo-drive like you suggest, but it could be something else (like the nature of their solid energy or more accurate math* or a consequence of their stealth or etc)

My read on that statement in DB2 at least allows them to know that said technology exists even in the 3G, but is usually abandoned with later developments. I would find it hard to believe there isn't research into perfecting it, because lets face it if the drive can do 100LY per jump (it take 10hrs for a P-Drive to cover that, over 12 hours for a CG-Drive) which would make it potentially attractive for a variety of missions/roles depending on how long said jump lasts (and how economical it can be done). The arrival of the Intruders likely saw a resurgence in research on the technology since they know its possible, but also for potential avenues into how their technology might work and what limitations it might have (theoretically) that might be exploitable.

I think it is clear that no one knows why space fold doesn't work, the other thing is that the intruder drive is completely undefined except for speed. If it is like a Robotech space-fold we would expect an area around which the bubble forms and all ships can be taken. If this was the case that means you could see fleets of these Intruder ships relaying it from place to place as groups with one ship using its drive to move the whole group, then the next, then the next. Instead we just get a raw speed which means at very least it is individual ship only and not an area effect like the drives we know. Now, I would imagine we would see some high level research into these types of drives if for no other reason than what you listed about speed advantage. I mean in my setting I actually have a small number of CCW, TGE and even a few freelancer destroyers and corvettes that use captured intruder drives to some effect but that would have almost no effect on dreadnought development as at the very least the drives they have couldn't move a ship even a fraction that big.

Research sure. A few testbed projects on small, relatively, cheap ships, absolutely. But again it really doesn't effect the concept of dreadnought here until they can replicate the drives and scale them up to ships this size and since they just figured out how to do this with CG drives I think it will be a while.

While all sublight drives pg153 also allows for the use of MiO drives, and the Traction Drive canonically allows for light speed travel (after a year of acceleration) and works similar to the theoretical Alcubierre Warp Drive (IMHO) that travels at FTL speed, opening up another option or variant option (if CG-Drives can come in FTL and non-FTL, why not Traction?, they might not be used for FTL per say because they are horribly slow at FTL)

*The Intruders might be using the equivalent of General/Special Relativity while the 3G powers are still on the equivalent of Newtonian. Or the equivalent of their use of introducing the equivalent of a "Cosmological Constant" that 3G powers haven't figured out yet, but they did, that makes it work. Real world example of this is the that Newtonian Gravity predicts the need for the planet "Vulcan" between Mercury and Sol, but G/S-R shows that the anomaly called for it doesn't exist or isn't needed (and since we haven't found "Vulcan" yet), so I can see "advanced math" being a reason for the Intruders having the tech.

Sure, any of this can be true maybe all of it. Just doesn't effect the development of dreadnoughts in setting.

This tech is literally tens of thousands of years beyond the current races and even then it only works thanks to the horrific power system the Dominators use.

All that said, the current dreadnought are as big as any of those races can make them.

I would point out that the 3G powers seem to know the Dominators use some type of Wormhole drive (Fot3G pg48). There is nothing there that says the drive itself has to be 10,000s of years more advanced or the result of their power system per say IMHO. So I would find it hard to believe that that 3G powers aren't researching them given they know its possible, even if it's out of their current reach in terms of ability to use a break through is still possible (either as a drive or other application useful in dealing with a DSF).

Sure again all possible just irrelevant to the current generation of dreadnoughts. I would point out that since everything about the Dominators is ahead of even the most developed races in the 3G that this is akin to 1850's America researching quantum computing. I mean most of the work at this point in the timeline would be theoretical. They doubtless have dozens, maybe hundreds, potentially thousands of technologies they would need to develop before they could create a working wormhole drive so I mean yeah high level research in the hopes that one day they get a breakthrough and you might even have some theoretical models of ship designs around those technologies, but it won't impact current development. Think of it like cold fusion now. Sure we are doing lots of research and it is theoretically possible and there are probably some concepts of aircraft and naval vessels around such a development. However, none of those are having any real impact on the design, construction, and deployment of modern aircraft carriers.

I agree that the dreadnoughts are as big as they can get, but per Fot3G the CG drive's limits are not a result of their dimensions, but rather their mass (pg79 "Before this advancement, ships larger than 60 million tons could not be catapulted into faster-than-light speeds.", that figure is now tripled after the TGE found a "configuration" that allows higher mass limits, and likely also means that the CCW and TGE are both looking at possible additional alternate configurations, it also means larger dimension ships are possible but they have to be keep the weight/mass off).

Yes technically you can get bigger dimensions without exceeding the mass limitation, but it since these ships, with cargo, come in at around 130 million tons and the maximum is 160 there may be other limiting factors like construction materials, sub-light drives, force field technology or even just a safety margin that keeps them from going bigger.

Now both sides would almost certainly be doing some research into new drives for more massive ships but I doubt it is as intensive as what was needed to get the current dreadnought drives working. The TGE has had this tech for over a century with only few dozen hulls built with three of them lost. One was captured by the FWC and two were destroyed by them, so it clearly has not been a tactical or strategic game changer in terms of warships in the three galaxies. The Emancipator is even more of a disaster with its massive costs and many members of the CCW being opposed to its construction it has massive fiscal, military, political and social impact all for what I believe were just 4 hulls (I can't find the number right now but I believe that is it) again all without any massive impact on the battlespace, at least as afar as we can tell. I would have to imagine, given the current threat environment, that building new drives that are capable of more speed would be a higher priority than larger ships and that is just drive technology. Creating longer range, higher rate of fire and more accurate weapons for these ships is likely an even bigger priority at this point too.

The other thing you have to take an accounting of are the effects of the Minion War in setting. Given the threat of the Demon/Infernal fleet plus the impact of opportunists like the Splugorth and pirates construction resources are almost certainly going to go to numbers, not size. Even standard battleships and fleet carriers are likely to be deprioritized in favor of rebuilding patrol and defensive units. Just the manpower that is needed to crew and marines of a dreadnought could be used for dozens of cruisers and destroyers plus large numbers of orbital or space based defenses.

In terms of fleet make up these ships are, at this time, just expensive oddities. Fleets on both sides are made up of thousands of BB's and CV's with only a few dozen DD's between them. If DD's become a larger part of the fleet with hundreds of them on each side and maybe some of the smaller powers fielding 1 or 2 of them I could see one or both sides prioritizing the research but at this point no other power seems to even field full sized carriers or battleships.

Taking all this into account and I just don't think there is any interest

[Marcethus]

As I am not following this conversation super closely I will comment on the one thing I noted. It is stated that the reason that Spacefold systems don't work in the 3G. It's related to the Ley Lines in space that crisscross the Galaxies. Somehow, never specifically stated, the Cosmic Ley Lines interfere with the operation of RT style space fold drives.

[ShadowLogan]

Sure, any of this can be true maybe all of it. Just doesn't effect the development of dreadnoughts in setting.

Current Generation of Dreadnaughts no, future dreadnaughts it could.

while looking for something else in DB6 I found a few tidbits.

"Fold Drive" get a description on pg131, the problem with them is related to making a stable passageway, and it has something to do with anti-matter powering the drive. So we know they are working on the technology, and they also know its possible to create a stable passage given the Intruders drive, they just haven't figured it out using their main power source (anti-matter). (Though I have to wonder why no one has tried it with Fusion engines, which are a thing in the setting).

"Quantum Worm Hole Drive" also gets a description on pg132. Its two main problems are they cannot control the exit point AND that it would require 100 anti-matter reactors. I would point out one big issue is what class of anti-matter reactor, because realistically the anit-matter reactors on a Cruiser have different outputs than say a Power Armor or Space Fighter.

Now this is speculation on my part, but it could be reason to build big, at least to allow them to power the (given) drive with available technology (and sufficient room). Remember the DSF is orders of magnitude bigger than known dreadnoughts (by a factor of ~10x in length, never mind volume), just looking at the Fot3G ships the Emancipation-Class Dreadnought has ~94x the volume of the CCW Interdictor-class in the book (this is comparing them as basic cubes, which art work shows they aren't so these are only intended as quick back of the envelope figures with a high degree of inaccuracy), and the Splugorth's Cruiser is ~113x, the TGE's Destroyer is over 23,000x and their Battleship though is ~66x. So building bigger would clearly give them room to put in more reactors, something they'd have to do anyway (not likely needing to go the the extreme suggested here, but it shows a reason to build big and might be a reason to build to the size limit of existing tech to get experience with building and operating something that big so that when you can deploy these technologies you are minimizing the "new" developments needed in researching a ship that big that can use them).

EDIT:

No I think you are still misunderstanding me. We don't have information about speed of these missiles in either of the first two books but we do have multiple statements of a rule that these missiles cannot be shot down if launched within the 1 to 5 mile mark, depending on which ship we are talking about. I am just saying that the speed of the missile and the physics involved was not a concern it was just story the idea that small ships, mainly fighters and destroyers, had this attack that could be deadly to capital ships to have to keep them away. That's all.

So I went looking for the rule statements and I found...

Dimension Book 2 Phase World (pg158) lists the Speed of a Cruise Missile at 1,800mph/2,900kph. It also states "they cover one mile in one-fifth of a second (one km in an eighth of a second). Too fast for any gunner system to react!" Now there are a few funny things here, not the least of which is that this was inside a Space Fighter's (Scorpion) description of the Cruise Missile it carries and not presented in a general sense. Still there's something even better.

Now ignoring the mph to kph conversion (I'll assume its accurate, or at least close enough).

Lets look at the 1,800mph distance covered in 1 second. Divide Speed by 60 (to put it in miles per minute) and then again by 60 (to put it in miles per second), gives us 0.5miles per second. So the time of 1/5second for 1 mile is already in error. We can even confirm this by converting 1,800mph to feet per second, which is 2640ft/s (5,280ft in a mile).

Looking at the 2,900kph figure distance covered in 1 second. Divide by 60 and the again (as above), gives us 0.8km/s. So the time to cover 1km is not 1/8 of a second. Converting to kph to m/s yields up 805m/s.

IF the 1/5 of a second is the intended speed, it requires the cruise missile to be traveling 10x faster (or 18,000mph). The metric system version requires 28,800kph which is ~105mph slower when converted to mph (call it a rounding issue, though its not noticeable if you only use one system and not cross check as done here).

[Warshield73]

As I am not following this conversation super closely...

I understand.

...I will comment on the one thing I noted. It is stated that the reason that Spacefold systems don't work in the 3G. It's related to the Ley Lines in space that crisscross the Galaxies. Somehow, never specifically stated, the Cosmic Ley Lines interfere with the operation of RT style space fold drives.

Yeah there are actually a few references like this. The problem is,

"Fold Drive" get a description on pg131 (of DB6), the problem with them is related to making a stable passageway, and it has something to do with anti-matter powering the drive. So we know they are working on the technology, and they also know its possible to create a stable passage given the Intruders drive, they just haven't figured it out using their main power source (anti-matter). (Though I have to wonder why no one has tried it with Fusion engines, which are a thing in the setting).

There are several, somewhat conflicting, explanations for this. It seemed just to be a way to neutralize Robotech/Macross II ships if people brought them over. I personally just take it as LLs effect Robotech fold drives and anti-matter is what is stopping the intruder drives. I seem to also recall a passage saying that it was interference from the cosmic forge.

Personally I prefer a Babylon 5 or Honor Harrington style hyperspace or a Robotech / Battlestar Galactica style space fold / jump to the Star Trek style FTL or even the Star Wars / Stargate style "hyperspace" that is really just another type of warp drive. I think you get a lot more interesting space options without completely breaking physics. That said, I understand why they wanted to remove the Robotech fold drives given the ranges involved.

Sure, any of this can be true maybe all of it. Just doesn't effect the development of dreadnoughts in setting.

Current Generation of Dreadnaughts no, future dreadnaughts it could.

I just don't see this as an issue. This isn't Honor Harrington where we see multiple periods of revolutionary change to ship design to the point where warships that are less than 20 years old can be considered obsolete and having no place in the wall of battle. Phase World is much more evolutionary in process. The current CG drives have been around for thousands of years getting faster and allowing for greater speed and ship mass as the centuries go on but slowly.

Given how few dreadnoughts there are and how expensive it was to create there existing drive systems I think it is unlikely we will see a push towards even more massive ships in setting, again, especially considering that neither of these ships has been as revolutionary as there namesake was. The HMS Dreadnought completely changed the warfare with all pre-dreadnought warships being considered obsolete. Over one hundred years later and new Battleships are still being designed and built. Given the description of the Protector it is likely only a few years older than the Emancipator and at no point have we seen any indication that battleships, or carriers for that matter, are being phased out in favor of dreadnoughts.

This is a setting where a carrier design, or even a tank design, can hang around for centuries so to move from a few dozen dreadnoughts to half a dozen super dreadnoughts seems out of place in the setting.

Again, I think far more interesting in setting would be taking current designs for Dreadnoughts and focusing them. We have Dominator SFs and full on demon planets tearing through our space, well lets take the next two emancipators under construction and replace all that troop and fighter space to add redundant force fields, additionally power plants, and truly powerful long range weapons that no smaller ship can power. To me this just fits the setting better, but just my opinion.

while looking for something else in DB6 I found a few tidbits.

"Quantum Worm Hole Drive" also gets a description on pg132. Its two main problems are they cannot control the exit point AND that it would require 100 anti-matter reactors. I would point out one big issue is what class of anti-matter reactor, because realistically the anit-matter reactors on a Cruiser have different outputs than say a Power Armor or Space Fighter.

First, the description in DB 6 is more about a generic wormhole drive as if you look at the description in DB 13, pg. 48 the dominator drive is really mislabeled. It is described as "ripping a hole in real space" and moving through pipes below it. This means the DQWD is a kind of hyperspace drive as as opposed to the creation of a wormhole in the terms that we see in DB 6.

As for power my assumption is that they mean capital grade reactors as that is what makes sense but they may mean that you need a reactor 100X more powerful than what they have for the size of ship they need to move. So 100 power armor reactors can create a wormhole that ould move 1 power armor.

The not being able to control exit point is the most interesting because that means you probably see fixed installations using massive numbers of reactors creating wormholes that go all over the place. Which I have used several times in my games.

Now this is speculation on my part, but it could be reason to build big, at least to allow them to power the (given) drive with available technology (and sufficient room). Remember the DSF is orders of magnitude bigger than known dreadnoughts (by a factor of ~10x in length, never mind volume), just looking at the Fot3G ships the Emancipation-Class Dreadnought has ~94x the volume of the CCW Interdictor-class in the book (this is comparing them as basic cubes, which art work shows they aren't so these are only intended as quick back of the envelope figures with a high degree of inaccuracy), and the Splugorth's Cruiser is ~113x, the TGE's Destroyer is over 23,000x and their Battleship though is ~66x. So building bigger would clearly give them room to put in more reactors, something they'd have to do anyway (not likely needing to go the the extreme suggested here, but it shows a reason to build big and might be a reason to build to the size limit of existing tech to get experience with building and operating something that big so that when you can deploy these technologies you are minimizing the "new" developments needed in researching a ship that big that can use them).

We also don't know how large these reactors are so how many could you realistically put on a ship. Also, if the wormhole drive has its own physics then they could technically do this now without worrying about FTL mass limits. Just build a giant platform with 100 reactors and go through, the problem is that the wormhole likely has its own mass limits.

Now put aside the Dominator drive and just look at the wormhole drive as described by DB 6. This could be an interesting piece of technology to play with in game. Maybe you can't control the exit point but you can give it a general direction. Imagine a giant array of lets say 100 capital reactors that you could send cruisers and destroyers through as commerce raiders during a war. Or imagine that they can link these wormholes between two gates. This might be a place for your giant ship because a dreadnought with 5 reactors might not be capable of generating a wormhole but maybe it can "catch" the end of one created somewhere else. Or, maybe a dreadnought with 5 reactors can't create a wormhole big enough for itself but could for destroyers or corvettes. This would fit with my mobile base concept and if the tech worked you could see them wanting bigger ships to fit more reactors.

There are lots of possibilities in setting for this, it just doesn't pertain to what I had in the OP.

EDIT:

No I think you are still misunderstanding me. We don't have information about speed of these missiles in either of the first two books but we do have multiple statements of a rule that these missiles cannot be shot down if launched within the 1 to 5 mile mark, depending on which ship we are talking about. I am just saying that the speed of the missile and the physics involved was not a concern it was just story the idea that small ships, mainly fighters and destroyers, had this attack that could be deadly to capital ships to have to keep them away. That's all.

So I went looking for the rule statements and I found...

Dimension Book 2 Phase World (pg158) lists the Speed of a Cruise Missile at 1,800mph/2,900kph. It also states "they cover one mile in one-fifth of a second (one km in an eighth of a second). Too fast for any gunner system to react!" Now there are a few funny things here, not the least of which is that this was inside a Space Fighter's (Scorpion) description of the Cruise Missile it carries and not presented in a general sense. Still there's something even better.

Now ignoring the mph to kph conversion (I'll assume its accurate, or at least close enough).

Lets look at the 1,800mph distance covered in 1 second. Divide Speed by 60 (to put it in miles per minute) and then again by 60 (to put it in miles per second), gives us 0.5miles per second. So the time of 1/5second for 1 mile is already in error. We can even confirm this by converting 1,800mph to feet per second, which is 2640ft/s (5,280ft in a mile).

Looking at the 2,900kph figure distance covered in 1 second. Divide by 60 and the again (as above), gives us 0.8km/s. So the time to cover 1km is not 1/8 of a second. Converting to kph to m/s yields up 805m/s.

IF the 1/5 of a second is the intended speed, it requires the cruise missile to be traveling 10x faster (or 18,000mph). The metric system version requires 28,800kph which is ~105mph slower when converted to mph (call it a rounding issue, though its not noticeable if you only use one system and not cross check as done here).

This is exactly what I was getting at with my first comment. They didn't give the CMs a speed and then say "hey this will cover this distance in less than a second let's make this a no defense attack" they simply wanted it to be an attack that large ships couldn't defend against and made it that way. They, as you pointed out, didn't even bother to do the math to make it work. That is all I was saying.

In order to make it work in my game I actually gave the CMs two modes. Standard with all the speed and range it has listed and "Sprint Mode" which could cover I think 3 miles in less than a second but had a range of less than 10 miles allowing for the attack as listed at close ranges.

My offhand comment was just meant to point out that not a lot of thought went into this and your math seems to confirm this.

EDIT to fix formatting error

[Marcethus]

As I am not following this conversation super closely...

I understand.

...I will comment on the one thing I noted. It is stated that the reason that Spacefold systems don't work in the 3G. It's related to the Ley Lines in space that crisscross the Galaxies. Somehow, never specifically stated, the Cosmic Ley Lines interfere with the operation of RT style space fold drives.

Yeah there are actually a few references like this. The problem is,

"Fold Drive" get a description on pg131 (of DB6), the problem with them is related to making a stable passageway, and it has something to do with anti-matter powering the drive. So we know they are working on the technology, and they also know its possible to create a stable passage given the Intruders drive, they just haven't figured it out using their main power source (anti-matter). (Though I have to wonder why no one has tried it with Fusion engines, which are a thing in the setting).

There are several, somewhat conflicting, explanations for this. It seemed just to be a way to neutralize Robotech/Macross II ships if people brought them over. I personally just take it as LLs effect Robotech fold drives and anti-matter is what is stopping the intruder drives. I seem to also recall a passage saying that it was interference from the cosmic forge.

Personally I prefer a Babylon 5 or Honor Harrington style hyperspace or a Robotech / Battlestar Galactica style space fold / jump to the Star Trek style FTL or even the Star Wars / Stargate style "hyperspace" that is really just another type of warp drive. I think you get a lot more interesting space options without completely breaking physics. That said, I understand why they wanted to remove the Robotech fold drives given the ranges involved.

I actually designed an alien race that used a B5 style Hyperdrive system. I feel that having differing styles of FTL drive is fitting for the setting. I never did care for the explanation regarding the Cosmic Ley Lines and possibly the Forge itself interfering with Spacefold drive tech. So in my game I had a power bloc that used RT mecha figure out a work around and redesigned their spacefold drives so that they worked properly.

[guardiandashi]

with the ftl drives there are really 3 or 4 models that I have seen

model 1 warp drives ala star trek these drives functionally compress space in front of the ship, and expand it behind the ship. to use a piece of paper analogy it pulls a wave into the paper, and then "surfs" across the tops of the waves massive oversimplification but it works.

model 2 hyperspace, this is the star wars, honor harrington model, basically there are alternate "dimensions" linked to the universe the ships transition to that compressed space and travel there then come back to the normal universe at a different location.

model 3 jump or fold drives the paper analogy is you make your start and stop locations the same (for a moment) and transition from point a to B without traversing the distance between (and let space revert to normal after the event.

the arguable 4th version is a variant of 3, the infinite improbity drive.... you convince the universe that you aren't where you are but really where you want to be... and the universe corrects to match.

[ShadowLogan]

It seemed just to be a way to neutralize Robotech/Macross II ships if people brought them over. I personally just take it as LLs effect Robotech fold drives and anti-matter is what is stopping the intruder drives. I seem to also recall a passage saying that it was interference from the cosmic forge.

Personally I just have the Space Fold system restriction to be for home grown systems, those from another galaxy/dimension work just fine. The issue is that the PW-3G powers to date haven't been able made it work, since the Intruders are not from the 3G and Robotech/Macross 2 well they're from the Milkyway and multiple dimensions.

This is hardly a method for neutralizing RT/M2 ships real advantage (gun range) in any case. Not to mention they still have the ability to get up to (low) fractions of the speed of light (0.16c, though in 1E/M2 they don't give the time to get this fast), which still makes them interstellar capable just not fast or "practical".

Again, I think far more interesting in setting would be taking current designs for Dreadnoughts and focusing them. We have Dominator SFs and full on demon planets tearing through our space, well lets take the next two emancipators under construction and replace all that troop and fighter space to add redundant force fields, additionally power plants, and truly powerful long range weapons that no smaller ship can power. To me this just fits the setting better, but just my opinion.

I agree the existing ships don't really live up to the name dreadnaught, sure their massive but that's not really a defining characteristic of the class. I'd either suggest going with a rewrite of the ships then to match their perceived hype OR simply changing their designation to something more accurate. But if you go with the rewrite, you'd also have to consider why they aren't making more of them, since these "super guns" would be useful in dealing with just about everything out there and not just DSFs or DPs.

I am mixed on the issue of building bigger ships, I think they need a reason to do so and there really isn't one per say though as I said larger ships might be the way they have to go to unlock "exotic" FTL options

[/quote="Warshield73"]This is exactly what I was getting at with my first comment. They didn't give the CMs a speed and then say "hey this will cover this distance in less than a second let's make this a no defense attack" they simply wanted it to be an attack that large ships couldn't defend against and made it that way. They, as you pointed out, didn't even bother to do the math to make it work. That is all I was saying.
[/quote]
I don't have a problem with any missile system having a range that if fired from they can't be shot down per say, the issue is if the math checks out for their speed and distance (and it does in principle, but not necessarily in accuracy). Existing missile rules already establish that this is a thing because you only get 1 or 2 (2nd subject to GM, I just worked out out the math to make it easier to make such calls) attacks to shoot down missiles, which makes sense and those missiles aren't assumed to be smart, so a smart missile that dodges an attack w/n this range is essentially going to hit.

[Northern Ranger]

Dreadnoughts as-is feel overpriced and underwhelming. Your Battle Titan idea works, give them huge forward firepower and rely on escorts for defense. That makes them unique and worth the cost.
Mobile base dreadnoughts are too niche and expensive compared to carriers plus support ships.

[Warshield73]

**SNIP**
I actually designed an alien race that used a B5 style Hyperdrive system. I feel that having differing styles of FTL drive is fitting for the setting. I never did care for the explanation regarding the Cosmic Ley Lines and possibly the Forge itself interfering with Spacefold drive tech. So in my game I had a power bloc that used RT mecha figure out a work around and redesigned their spacefold drives so that they worked properly.

with the ftl drives there are really 3 or 4 models that I have seen
**SNIP**

Personally I just have the Space Fold system restriction to be for home grown systems, those from another galaxy/dimension work just fine. The issue is that the PW-3G powers to date haven't been able made it work, since the Intruders are not from the 3G and Robotech/Macross 2 well they're from the Milkyway and multiple dimensions.
**SNIP**

I hope no one minds I moved the FTL stuff to a new thread. If I messed up your posts let me know and I will edit them.

Types of FTL drives and Alternatives for Phase World

[Warshield73]

A quick note on making ships larger than Dreadnoughts. When I was looking through some of the ships for another post I was reminded of something that came up when DB13 first came out. No battleship seems to come anywhere close to the 60 million ton limit with the Protector 15 million and the Executioner 25 million. Only carriers do even then just the Packmaster 50 (CAF) and Taskmaster 60 (Splugorth). All other ships are well below the limit so with less than 30 ships in the 3G weighing in above 60 million tons it's hard to imagine they will spend any time and definitely not resources trying to exceed what looks like 100 million ton limit we see now.

Imagine if you will a protector, scale it up from 4,000 feet to 6,000 feet and increase the mass to 60 million tons. Leave the fighter and troop compliments as is and use the mass increase for weapons, armor, and shields. You can also increase the height and width beyond the 1/3 that the length went to increase surface area. Seriously you could double the armor and weapons and have mass left to spare and you can do the same to the executioner so if they aren't building those ships I just don't see them being in a hurry to build super dreadnoughts.

Note on the note, I looked in the book for the total mass and size limits of the two dreadnought drives and I couldn't find them, but I have to admit a 40% increase in mass doesn't seem like much for the money they spent. Given this it seems likely that the current dreadnought drives could be improved to go at least a little larger, I think 130 to 140 million tons so that could be a direction for the setting.

It seemed just to be a way to neutralize Robotech/Macross II ships if people brought them over. I personally just take it as LLs effect Robotech fold drives and anti-matter is what is stopping the intruder drives. I seem to also recall a passage saying that it was interference from the cosmic forge.

Personally I just have the Space Fold system restriction to be for home grown systems, those from another galaxy/dimension work just fine. The issue is that the PW-3G powers to date haven't been able made it work, since the Intruders are not from the 3G and Robotech/Macross 2 well they're from the Milkyway and multiple dimensions.

This is hardly a method for neutralizing RT/M2 ships real advantage (gun range) in any case. Not to mention they still have the ability to get up to (low) fractions of the speed of light (0.16c, though in 1E/M2 they don't give the time to get this fast), which still makes them interstellar capable just not fast or "practical".

It is and it isn't. If a 1e Zentraedi fleet pops into your system and begins attacking you you're likely to be toast, however, if that fold-drive isn't working and they are limited to 0.2C to get to the next system you now have a decade to figure out how to deal with that problem and if they were messed up by hearing Minmei sing, and honestly who isn't then being attacked by demons and mages is reduce them to puddles.

As I mentioned several times in the Demon Planet thread in regards to the Dominator weapons ranges, it only matters in terms of the speed of the other guy. When the other guy can go FTL, 200,000 miles is of limited utility.

Again, I think far more interesting in setting would be taking current designs for Dreadnoughts and focusing them. We have Dominator SFs and full on demon planets tearing through our space, well lets take the next two emancipators under construction and replace all that troop and fighter space to add redundant force fields, additionally power plants, and truly powerful long range weapons that no smaller ship can power. To me this just fits the setting better, but just my opinion.

I agree the existing ships don't really live up to the name dreadnaught, sure their massive but that's not really a defining characteristic of the class. I'd either suggest going with a rewrite of the ships then to match their perceived hype OR simply changing their designation to something more accurate. But if you go with the rewrite, you'd also have to consider why they aren't making more of them, since these "super guns" would be useful in dealing with just about everything out there and not just DSFs or DPs.

Actually not as much as you may think. If you go with a big spinally mounted F-U gun on a Dreadnought that gun will be all but useless on anything smaller than a fleet carrier. I see it as more of anti-planet / anti-platform / anti-giant ship gun. You can try and one shot a cruiser with it but it needs to be standing still.

I am mixed on the issue of building bigger ships, I think they need a reason to do so and there really isn't one per say though as I said larger ships might be the way they have to go to unlock "exotic" FTL options

Agreed, and I think there are only two things that could get them to do it: 1) A weapon that won't work on the current ships. 2) a Drive system that won't work on the current ship.

This is exactly what I was getting at with my first comment. They didn't give the CMs a speed and then say "hey this will cover this distance in less than a second let's make this a no defense attack" they simply wanted it to be an attack that large ships couldn't defend against and made it that way. They, as you pointed out, didn't even bother to do the math to make it work. That is all I was saying.

I don't have a problem with any missile system having a range that if fired from they can't be shot down per say, the issue is if the math checks out for their speed and distance (and it does in principle, but not necessarily in accuracy). Existing missile rules already establish that this is a thing because you only get 1 or 2 (2nd subject to GM, I just worked out out the math to make it easier to make such calls) attacks to shoot down missiles, which makes sense and those missiles aren't assumed to be smart, so a smart missile that dodges an attack w/n this range is essentially going to hit.

True, that is why in my setting I had the two modes to make this work. If you were to redesign the setting I would think replacing the cruise missiles with say a fast short range torpedo for fighters and destroyers to use at close range while the bigger ships get a true capital warship missile like we saw in some of the 1e robotech stuff.

[Warshield73]

Dreadnoughts as-is feel overpriced and underwhelming. Your Battle Titan idea works, give them huge forward firepower and rely on escorts for defense. That makes them unique and worth the cost.

Thanks, I just look at other setting and when super ships are built they are either imperial wastes of resources (SD's in Star Wars) or revolutionary changes in warfare that require larger platforms to operate (Honor Harrington). In this setting even the TGE has better use for their resources. However, if you have enemies that are hard to kill with existing ships I could see building something so big or tough that it might be able to do something to it.

Mobile base dreadnoughts are too niche and expensive compared to carriers plus support ships.

The only exception I see to this is if you get some piece of tech like what Shadowlogan was talking about say a wormhole drive that required most of the ship to be a giant power plant with a drive, but could then open wormholes for a small fleet to travel with, I could see a ship of dreadnought or larger being used as a mobile base.

[ShadowLogan]

It is and it isn't. If a 1e Zentraedi fleet pops into your system and begins attacking you you're likely to be toast, however, if that fold-drive isn't working and they are limited to 0.2C to get to the next system you now have a decade to figure out how to deal with that problem and if they were messed up by hearing Minmei sing, and honestly who isn't then being attacked by demons and mages is reduce them to puddles.

As I mentioned several times in the Demon Planet thread in regards to the Dominator weapons ranges, it only matters in terms of the speed of the other guy. When the other guy can go FTL, 200,000 miles is of limited utility.

I think there is an easier way to hamstring the RT/M2 Space Folders... Navigational Data. If they just arrived in the 3G they aren't going to have much if any navigational data, which could hamstring attempts to follow any one fleeing at FTL. (It's something of a plot point that you need to know where you're going to get there)

While the DSF and Zentreadi have range advantages over everyone else, that isn't the entire advantage. Those ships can put out a lot of broadside, potentially enough to shred most 3G Captial Ships in one action. Just look at a DSF using only its retractable turrets (5000x of them) yields out 25,000,000 MDC (that's 25 MILLION MDC) on average in 15seconds (via 2x actions), now if we assume you can only focus 1/4 of that, that's still 6,250,000 MDC or 3,125,000 MDC per attack, that's enough to destroy 3-6x TGE Doombringer Dreadnoughts without even breaking a sweat (never mind "less protected ships"). So in order to use that FTL to avoid taking a hit, you'd have to win Imitative (on all ships) and then flee (or allow it to micro-hop closer)

Now the Zentreadi ships don't have 1,250x guns to play with on a single ship, but still likely would be enough to wreck someone's day. So no I don't see FTL as the "save" you think it is to get out. Now FTL might allow you to "skip" closer, but then you'd still have to contend with the stopping power of these guns which is also a factor.

Actually not as much as you may think. If you go with a big spinally mounted F-U gun on a Dreadnought that gun will be all but useless on anything smaller than a fleet carrier. I see it as more of anti-planet / anti-platform / anti-giant ship gun. You can try and one shot a cruiser with it but it needs to be standing still.

Well they do have Mass Driver Weapon Systems in two of the books for this purpose (Fot3G, generic system in IIRC DB6), and neither require a Dreadnought, though I'd suspect a Dreadnought could mount several of them and might even be able to "super charge" them for greater range. So we know that F-U terror weapons are around even among the 3G powers, but for some reason only the Splugorth/Kittani are the only ones to have a stated ship with them (though other powers have access to the tech per DB6, but mentions restrictions)

True, that is why in my setting I had the two modes to make this work. If you were to redesign the setting I would think replacing the cruise missiles with say a fast short range torpedo for fighters and destroyers to use at close range while the bigger ships get a true capital warship missile like we saw in some of the 1e robotech stuff.

I think if I was re-writing the setting/rules with space in mind I'd:
-1. treat all Mach speeds in space as Miles Per Second, and treat any coversion as such (ie speed is only in MPH then convert it to Mach), might also consider a modifier on top of that to (I might for simplicity in a pure metric unit game say that 2KM = 1 MILE, instead of the more accurate 1.6KM)
-2. redo the missile table so there is 4 or 5 generic missile bodies with a flight duration @ given speed(s), BUT have a variety of sized warheads that impact speed/time (somewhat modeled after the Heavy Hitter missile concept in Japan, where you could mount warheads from the next larger range class on to a shorter range class (so a MRM warhead on a SRM body) though taken much further. This way you don't have situations where you're you might feel like you're not using capabilities to their fullest exent (a 1,000 mile cruise missile seems like a waste to wait until 10 miles to fire)
-2a. All Missiles would add their launch platform speed to their final speed, which can further increase range
-2b. This requires have a table handly with speed vs time handy to get the distance
-2c. All Missiles are guided (contrary to RUE rule change), BUT not all missiles have a tech derived bonus to strike. If the system is called/considered a rocket and not a missile system, then it is unguided. This is to make some sense of the various conflicting systems, rules, and use of terms.
-3. I'd probably also implement a few range increment modifiers for firing "guns" beyond the listed range BUT at the expense of damage (modeled after the 1E RT ASC energy rifles), with some weapon types not losing damage but accuracy (like projectile). A default range modifier boost might also be appropriate

[Warshield73]

I think there is an easier way to hamstring the RT/M2 Space Folders... Navigational Data. If they just arrived in the 3G they aren't going to have much if any navigational data, which could hamstring attempts to follow any one fleeing at FTL. (It's something of a plot point that you need to know where you're going to get there)

There are lots of ways to do this, I just feel that since the books listed the interference of magic as a possible cause and that lines up with the problems the Arkohn had on Rifts Earth that makes a really good explanation. Like I said in the FTL chat the nav data has some good points to it just LLs and magic work.

While the DSF and Zentreadi have range advantages over everyone else, that isn't the entire advantage. Those ships can put out a lot of broadside, potentially enough to shred most 3G Captial Ships in one action. Just look at a DSF using only its retractable turrets (5000x of them) yields out 25,000,000 MDC (that's 25 MILLION MDC) on average in 15seconds (via 2x actions), now if we assume you can only focus 1/4 of that, that's still 6,250,000 MDC or 3,125,000 MDC per attack, that's enough to destroy 3-6x TGE Doombringer Dreadnoughts without even breaking a sweat (never mind "less protected ships"). So in order to use that FTL to avoid taking a hit, you'd have to win Imitative (on all ships) and then flee (or allow it to micro-hop closer)

Now the Zentreadi ships don't have 1,250x guns to play with on a single ship, but still likely would be enough to wreck someone's day. So no I don't see FTL as the "save" you think it is to get out. Now FTL might allow you to "skip" closer, but then you'd still have to contend with the stopping power of these guns which is also a factor.

Before I start a caveat, all of my comparisons for Robotech ships are based on first Edition. Second edition doesn't have as many ships and while some big ships have a main gun that can hit at 60,000 miles but everything else is Phase World ranges or worse. Only the big UUEF ships like SDF 4 having a range of 250,000miles, nothing else breaks 100,000 miles. That and the fact that 1e lines up with Macross II is why I stick to 1e. If we were to use 2e, the Zentraedi don't have a lot of advantages.

I actually made all of these points in the thread on defeating Demon Planets after it derailed into talking about a DSF. FTL in PW is poorly defined so we have no idea how it can be used in these situations. Against a DSF any force of standard 3G people will be obliterated, full stop. The have no chance due to the range and other advantages.

The 1e Zentraedi/Macross II stuff is a little different. Most of these weapons are designed to be used against giant starships, if you look at the penalties listed in the Zentraedi book the penalties for these weapons firing at anything smaller than a 3g cruiser are enormous so destroyers and fighters could escape reasonably easy. You also need to remember that larger 3G ships aren't defenseless and only the main guns of a Zent warship can one shot anything bigger than a cruiser, especially with the shields. Again this depends on how you do FTL but if it is just plot course and push button then escaping from these ships wouldn't be that tough but the FTL allows the 3G forces, once they understand the capabilities of the Zentraedi/Macross II ships, to be the ones that choose battle.

Ultimately, the ships between these two settings are just too different to put them in the same game so I never bothered.

Actually not as much as you may think. If you go with a big spinally mounted F-U gun on a Dreadnought that gun will be all but useless on anything smaller than a fleet carrier. I see it as more of anti-planet / anti-platform / anti-giant ship gun. You can try and one shot a cruiser with it but it needs to be standing still.

Well they do have Mass Driver Weapon Systems in two of the books for this purpose (Fot3G, generic system in IIRC DB6), and neither require a Dreadnought, though I'd suspect a Dreadnought could mount several of them and might even be able to "super charge" them for greater range. So we know that F-U terror weapons are around even among the 3G powers, but for some reason only the Splugorth/Kittani are the only ones to have a stated ship with them (though other powers have access to the tech per DB6, but mentions restrictions)

The mass driver isn't so much a weapon of war but a terror weapon. It is almost useless in ship to ship combat and is not a weapon of war but of terror. It says this explicitly in DB 13 so when you combine that with the +10 ships get to dodge and the fact that like any missile this can be shot down it really doesn't fit the kind of spinal mounted FU canon I am talking about. This is a gun you use on a planet you've already taken orbital supremacy of. The gun I am talking about is what you use to gain orbital supremacy.

True, that is why in my setting I had the two modes to make this work. If you were to redesign the setting I would think replacing the cruise missiles with say a fast short range torpedo for fighters and destroyers to use at close range while the bigger ships get a true capital warship missile like we saw in some of the 1e robotech stuff.

I think if I was re-writing the setting/rules with space in mind I'd:
-1. treat all Mach speeds in space as Miles Per Second, and treat any coversion as such (ie speed is only in MPH then convert it to Mach), might also consider a modifier on top of that to (I might for simplicity in a pure metric unit game say that 2KM = 1 MILE, instead of the more accurate 1.6KM)
-2. redo the missile table so there is 4 or 5 generic missile bodies with a flight duration @ given speed(s), BUT have a variety of sized warheads that impact speed/time (somewhat modeled after the Heavy Hitter missile concept in Japan, where you could mount warheads from the next larger range class on to a shorter range class (so a MRM warhead on a SRM body) though taken much further. This way you don't have situations where you're you might feel like you're not using capabilities to their fullest exent (a 1,000 mile cruise missile seems like a waste to wait until 10 miles to fire)
-2a. All Missiles would add their launch platform speed to their final speed, which can further increase range
-2b. This requires have a table handly with speed vs time handy to get the distance
-2c. All Missiles are guided (contrary to RUE rule change), BUT not all missiles have a tech derived bonus to strike. If the system is called/considered a rocket and not a missile system, then it is unguided. This is to make some sense of the various conflicting systems, rules, and use of terms.
-3. I'd probably also implement a few range increment modifiers for firing "guns" beyond the listed range BUT at the expense of damage (modeled after the 1E RT ASC energy rifles), with some weapon types not losing damage but accuracy (like projectile). A default range modifier boost might also be appropriate

I have done multiple threads on Fixing Spacecraft & Combat in PW.

I think you have some good ideas but you have to start with the foundational technologies. In this case the sub-light and FTL drives. What can they do, what are the limitations, what ships can have what drives, so on.

Then you have to look at speed and weapons ranges together while keeping in mind the need to have mages, monsters, power armors, and all that other stuff stay relevant.

Once you get this down ancillary technologies like communications, sensors and stealth can be laid out.

After you have your tech defined then fleets can be designed and then the ships that fill them.

The problem with PW always has been that everything is poorly defined and ships don't fit together into anything coherent.

[ShadowLogan]

There are lots of ways to do this, I just feel that since the books listed the interference of magic as a possible cause and that lines up with the problems the Arkohn had on Rifts Earth that makes a really good explanation. Like I said in the FTL chat the nav data has some good points to it just LLs and magic work.

Except there are two issues here:
1. The Intruders Fold System, we don't know why those work and other "visitors" don't (other than writers fiat/bias)
2. The Arkohns actually reference a dimensional anomaly as the cause in multiple places in WB9, not interference from magic (I put the citations in another post in another thread).

Ultimately, the ships between these two settings are just too different to put them in the same game so I never bothered.

I'm not a big believer in cross overs for the Palladium's licensed lines, like Robotech or Macross 2 (and even crossing these two over with each other in general can be pretty "flavor" breaking bringing one into the other's setting, and I've played in such a scenerio once and run one) in part because they have source material that can lead to "out-classing".

Still a 1E Zentreadi destoryer has 12x retractable laser turrets, which can put out 6,000MDC in 15seconds, which is likely similar to the M2 versions (Zentran and Marduk). That ignores the light lasers (which are closer to PW class ranges and Damage outputs), the main laser (which is another 2,500MDC), their missile turrets (using pre-CWC missile table), or the BFG-Heavy Particle Beam Cannon (which obliterates everything in its path and does millions of points to a planet). So yeah I can see why these guys shouldn't be brought in, but surviving one long enough to flee if you did is another matter (unless you're already at extreme range).

The mass driver isn't so much a weapon of war but a terror weapon. It is almost useless in ship to ship combat and is not a weapon of war but of terror. It says this explicitly in DB 13 so when you combine that with the +10 ships get to dodge and the fact that like any missile this can be shot down it really doesn't fit the kind of spinal mounted FU canon I am talking about. This is a gun you use on a planet you've already taken orbital supremacy of. The gun I am talking about is what you use to gain orbital supremacy.

Yes it is presented as a terror weapon, HOWEVER what it shows though is that they CAN BUILD a rail-gun like system with (relative) massive range and damage potential. While DB6 establishes the mass of the projectile (10tons/9,000kg, unfortunately no speed of projectile is listed) and they typical payload (4x shots), they could theoretically reduce the mass of the projectile for more velocity and due to the way the Kinetic Energy Equation works when you do this... (Not to mention the increase in payload).

Now I do doubt you could accurately target a moving vessel with a projectile weapon like this at the listed range of 500mile/800km (maybe with a proper gun design but not the terror design), probably why you get that +10 to dodge* (though what would that bonus look like if you closed the gap to 50% or even 25% of the maximum range listed). I'd also argue that such a weapon could be useful in gaining orbital supremacy against certain class of targets: orbital space stations (which unlike ships aren't inherently mobile) or surface emplacement/facilities.

*but it should be noted a 10ton asteroid is 4-20m (13-66ft) in diameter (IF Google's AI search results are accurate) which could explain why its so easy to detect (it might also imply a slower speed). A "lighter" but "faster" projectile might be harder to detect (I do think you're likely looking at minimum sizes) and react to.

The only other technology that I could think of to put on the spine for a massive weapon would be a particle accelerator (beam), but then you'd have to work out how much damage a particle accelerator would do and how far the beam could travel once released. Both of which would be more speculation on either of our parts.

[Warshield73]

Ultimately, the ships between these two settings are just too different to put them in the same game so I never bothered.

I'm not a big believer in cross overs for the Palladium's licensed lines, like Robotech or Macross 2 (and even crossing these two over with each other in general can be pretty "flavor" breaking bringing one into the other's setting, and I've played in such a scenerio once and run one) in part because they have source material that can lead to "out-classing".

Still a 1E Zentreadi destoryer has 12x retractable laser turrets, which can put out 6,000MDC in 15seconds, which is likely similar to the M2 versions (Zentran and Marduk). That ignores the light lasers (which are closer to PW class ranges and Damage outputs), the main laser (which is another 2,500MDC), their missile turrets (using pre-CWC missile table), or the BFG-Heavy Particle Beam Cannon (which obliterates everything in its path and does millions of points to a planet). So yeah I can see why these guys shouldn't be brought in, but surviving one long enough to flee if you did is another matter (unless you're already at extreme range).

If you are in a small ship, destroyer down, most of those weapons have such a penalty to hit that they don't do much. The threat to you, especially in a fighter or gunship sized vessel, is all those missiles and the mechs. Those fighter pods and officer pod armored vehicles are fast enough at sub-light to wreck your day, again depending on how fast you think they can jump to FTL. In my setting I say it takes 1 melee round for every LY you want to fly so if you are just looking to do a straight line out you can survive long enough to leave. Some, maybe most won't, but like I said the FTL is an advantage in that once a Zent ship screws up the system it is in you have decades before they can reach the next one.

The mass driver isn't so much a weapon of war but a terror weapon. It is almost useless in ship to ship combat and is not a weapon of war but of terror. It says this explicitly in DB 13 so when you combine that with the +10 ships get to dodge and the fact that like any missile this can be shot down it really doesn't fit the kind of spinal mounted FU canon I am talking about. This is a gun you use on a planet you've already taken orbital supremacy of. The gun I am talking about is what you use to gain orbital supremacy.

Yes it is presented as a terror weapon, HOWEVER what it shows though is that they CAN BUILD a rail-gun like system with (relative) massive range and damage potential. While DB6 establishes the mass of the projectile (10tons/9,000kg, unfortunately no speed of projectile is listed) and they typical payload (4x shots), they could theoretically reduce the mass of the projectile for more velocity and due to the way the Kinetic Energy Equation works when you do this... (Not to mention the increase in payload).

Now I do doubt you could accurately target a moving vessel with a projectile weapon like this at the listed range of 500mile/800km (maybe with a proper gun design but not the terror design), probably why you get that +10 to dodge* (though what would that bonus look like if you closed the gap to 50% or even 25% of the maximum range listed). I'd also argue that such a weapon could be useful in gaining orbital supremacy against certain class of targets: orbital space stations (which unlike ships aren't inherently mobile) or surface emplacement/facilities.

*but it should be noted a 10ton asteroid is 4-20m (13-66ft) in diameter (IF Google's AI search results are accurate) which could explain why its so easy to detect (it might also imply a slower speed). A "lighter" but "faster" projectile might be harder to detect (I do think you're likely looking at minimum sizes) and react to.

The only other technology that I could think of to put on the spine for a massive weapon would be a particle accelerator (beam), but then you'd have to work out how much damage a particle accelerator would do and how far the beam could travel once released. Both of which would be more speculation on either of our parts.

This comes back to rewriting the spacecraft and all the tech, or at least expanding it. To me the having everything "on top" in turrets is just too naval. I prefer space combat to be three-dimensional and to make use of it's medium, vacuum, so you could have a giant spinal (laser, particle-beam, rail-gun, cream pie launcher) on true warships which is what would separate them from things that are more carrier oriented ships.

[taalismn]

Modifiers to the Big Antispacecraft Rail Gun conundrum...'smart' rounds that can course-change(treat as a missile) and 'buckshot' rounds that scattershot across a ship's course. Extreme range still allows a target to potential detect and avoid the likeliest courses of an incoming projectile, but using a combination of area sensor jamming and 'black body' projectiles, you might get lucky and reduce the enemy's window of opportunity to take evasive action.

[ShadowLogan]

If you are in a small ship, destroyer down, most of those weapons have such a penalty to hit that they don't do much. The threat to you, especially in a fighter or gunship sized vessel, is all those missiles and the mechs. Those fighter pods and officer pod armored vehicles are fast enough at sub-light to wreck your day, again depending on how fast you think they can jump to FTL. In my setting I say it takes 1 melee round for every LY you want to fly so if you are just looking to do a straight line out you can survive long enough to leave. Some, maybe most won't, but like I said the FTL is an advantage in that once a Zent ship screws up the system it is in you have decades before they can reach the next one.

I do think there is a run-up to FTL in terms of time depending on the drive, but there is also that decision making process to do such (so time) not to mention time that might be required to recover any deployed assets that lack FTL (more time), plus getting into position for the FTL runup (more time). So we aren't dealing with 15seconds, probably a few minutes at best.

This comes back to rewriting the spacecraft and all the tech, or at least expanding it. To me the having everything "on top" in turrets is just too naval. I prefer space combat to be three-dimensional and to make use of it's medium, vacuum, so you could have a giant spinal (laser, particle-beam, rail-gun, cream pie launcher) on true warships which is what would separate them from things that are more carrier oriented ships.

To a point yes, but also no. We know they have rail gun tech, we know they have massive mass drivers, we know rail guns are a form of mass driver. There really isn't anything major to rewrite or invent as everything is already there, its just a matter of presentation.

I get what you are saying about "on top", but its also relative positioning. It might also make sense to only have 1x Heavy BFG (like RT's Reflex Cannons, which aside from the SDF-3 if a ship had one it only had 1x, Macross 2 wasn't any different IIRC either), now where said weapon is placed is another matter. It might also be worth considering atmospheric re-entry situations, which could push for a "shell" or "on top" configuration (just a quick glace at Fot3G shows atmospheric use is considered, though some ships can't and I'm ignoring the few shuttles and fighters in the book I haven't checked the other PW setting books), the alternative is to make them retractable (added cost) or reinforced enough to handle being on the brunt side of re-entry (added cost)

[Marcethus]

If you are in a small ship, destroyer down, most of those weapons have such a penalty to hit that they don't do much. The threat to you, especially in a fighter or gunship sized vessel, is all those missiles and the mechs. Those fighter pods and officer pod armored vehicles are fast enough at sub-light to wreck your day, again depending on how fast you think they can jump to FTL. In my setting I say it takes 1 melee round for every LY you want to fly so if you are just looking to do a straight line out you can survive long enough to leave. Some, maybe most won't, but like I said the FTL is an advantage in that once a Zent ship screws up the system it is in you have decades before they can reach the next one.

I do think there is a run-up to FTL in terms of time depending on the drive, but there is also that decision making process to do such (so time) not to mention time that might be required to recover any deployed assets that lack FTL (more time), plus getting into position for the FTL runup (more time). So we aren't dealing with 15seconds, probably a few minutes at best.

This comes back to rewriting the spacecraft and all the tech, or at least expanding it. To me the having everything "on top" in turrets is just too naval. I prefer space combat to be three-dimensional and to make use of it's medium, vacuum, so you could have a giant spinal (laser, particle-beam, rail-gun, cream pie launcher) on true warships which is what would separate them from things that are more carrier oriented ships.

To a point yes, but also no. We know they have rail gun tech, we know they have massive mass drivers, we know rail guns are a form of mass driver. There really isn't anything major to rewrite or invent as everything is already there, its just a matter of presentation.

I get what you are saying about "on top", but its also relative positioning. It might also make sense to only have 1x Heavy BFG (like RT's Reflex Cannons, which aside from the SDF-3 if a ship had one it only had 1x, Macross 2 wasn't any different IIRC either), now where said weapon is placed is another matter. It might also be worth considering atmospheric re-entry situations, which could push for a "shell" or "on top" configuration (just a quick glace at Fot3G shows atmospheric use is considered, though some ships can't and I'm ignoring the few shuttles and fighters in the book I haven't checked the other PW setting books), the alternative is to make them retractable (added cost) or reinforced enough to handle being on the brunt side of re-entry (added cost)

Fleets of the 3G lists the info on how long it takes to spin up the FTL drive. I don't have the book at hand but I recall it being about a minute or so per size class. (ie fighter/shuttle/frigate etc.)

[Warshield73]

Modifiers to the Big Antispacecraft Rail Gun conundrum...'smart' rounds that can course-change(treat as a missile) and 'buckshot' rounds that scattershot across a ship's course. Extreme range still allows a target to potential detect and avoid the likeliest courses of an incoming projectile, but using a combination of area sensor jamming and 'black body' projectiles, you might get lucky and reduce the enemy's window of opportunity to take evasive action.

Yeah you can find lots of these in Mass Effect and The Expanse which are the two franchises that I think do the best job of high powered projectile weapons. The best you can realistically get form something like this, without turning it into a missile launcher, is minor changes to trajectory over long distances otherwise you will lose momentum and damage but you could definitely do some slight course change. The flechette rounds are great for soft and stationary targets, we see this in the Exapnse, but not sure what it can do in a setting of MDC and force fields. Great for anti-missile rounds though.

Making the rounds themselves hard to detect would be the best route for something like this, I could see it having a penalty to enemy sensors and if you don't see it you can't avoid it or shoot it down. However, this is where random course changes come in when in unsecured areas.

Against mobile targets these weapons are likely to be most effective in what the Exapnse calls "hammerlock range" where the time between fire and impact is so short as to be instantaneous but when fired at "stationary" targets, or more precisely those in predictable orbits, these measures can be incredibly effective for long range bombardment.

If you are in a small ship, destroyer down, most of those weapons have such a penalty to hit that they don't do much. The threat to you, especially in a fighter or gunship sized vessel, is all those missiles and the mechs. Those fighter pods and officer pod armored vehicles are fast enough at sub-light to wreck your day, again depending on how fast you think they can jump to FTL. In my setting I say it takes 1 melee round for every LY you want to fly so if you are just looking to do a straight line out you can survive long enough to leave. Some, maybe most won't, but like I said the FTL is an advantage in that once a Zent ship screws up the system it is in you have decades before they can reach the next one.

I do think there is a run-up to FTL in terms of time depending on the drive, but there is also that decision making process to do such (so time) not to mention time that might be required to recover any deployed assets that lack FTL (more time), plus getting into position for the FTL runup (more time). So we aren't dealing with 15seconds, probably a few minutes at best.

Fleets of the 3G lists the info on how long it takes to spin up the FTL drive. I don't have the book at hand but I recall it being about a minute or so per size class. (ie fighter/shuttle/frigate etc.)

Do you have citation for that because I spent a fair bit of time looking and I couldn't find it but that sounds right. Not sure why it would take longer for larger ships with more crew and better computers but if it's what's in there. Again, regardless of how long the jump takes there will be plenty of ships to be able to take it and not just fighters and destroyers. The penalties for the Zent guns extends to even cruisers of the 3G.

All I have been saying is, regardless of the time it takes to go to FTL, ships will be able to get away from a Zentraedi ship that rifts into a 3G system. That system is likely screwed at least in the beginning but the way FTL works a number of ships will get away, how big a number depends on the scenario.

First thing to keep in mind most of the Zent firepower is forward facing so for most firing arcs only the laser turrets, which are 1D4X100 and fire twice per melee, can even fire on them. Assuming the off chance they hit even the most delicate fighter it would likely survive. A Scorpion has 450 MDC, no shields, so even max damage it is still flying around and you tag a Hunter or berserkers shields with those pop-guns and you will just P!$$ them off. Zentreadi warships also have no shields, and the MDC values are low compared to 3G ships of their size.

Now they also have missile turrets but they only fire once a round and the range of a 3G warship is the same or better so if the Zent gets into missile range they are about to have a very bad day. But, on the plus side since they have no point defense whatsoever and every 3G warship is covered with all manner of PDWs it will probably be a short day.

The range advantage of the Zent weapons is helpful, but unlike with the Dominator Star Fortress it isn't matched with damage and rate of fire these ships just have range. Once they get to within 100 miles it's all over, at close range a cruiser with destroyer escort can easily pick them off except for what is, even in Robotech, their biggest advantage a metric crap ton of mecha. Take the Flagship, which is the ship I have been looking at for this comparison, it has 2284 Fighter Pods plus 200 of the OBP-AVs both of which are a match in speed and weapons to 3G fighters. They are one hit kills but in those numbers it barely matters. Then you add in the 22,000(!) various types of TBPs which are basically the ships point defense and now it's a battle.

The thing 1e Zentraedi ships aren't like a Dominator Star Fortress. They have range but most of the big guns are forward facing only and all of them suffer penalties to fire on smaller targets and with Average MDC values, no shields and a crew that can't repair crap they just aren't as big a threat as the range might indicate.

This comes back to rewriting the spacecraft and all the tech, or at least expanding it. To me the having everything "on top" in turrets is just too naval. I prefer space combat to be three-dimensional and to make use of it's medium, vacuum, so you could have a giant spinal (laser, particle-beam, rail-gun, cream pie launcher) on true warships which is what would separate them from things that are more carrier oriented ships.

To a point yes, but also no. We know they have rail gun tech, we know they have massive mass drivers, we know rail guns are a form of mass driver. There really isn't anything major to rewrite or invent as everything is already there, its just a matter of presentation.

Not really. I mean you could just take an existing gun, scale it up and then say it has this range and this much damage but what I am talking about is different and it would mean reimagining some of the ships.

As I said about we really need to redefine some weapons but especially gravity/coil/rail guns. What are the advantages, limitations, speed of projectile and from these things you can determine what is hammerlock range and then you can start to get some combat penalties for longer range fire.

The entire point of making it a spinal gun is to make use of the length of the ship for more...whatever it is the gun uses to increase damage and range. In Mass Effect some ships have mass accelerator weapons that run almost the length of the ship and the mass effect field can get the rather large projectile they use to a significant fraction of c.

Now in Phase World we do need to keep weapons ranges shorter, I think the Expanse and Mass Effect having most battles in about 1,000 miles due to rail-gun/mass-accelerator range with anything longer being missile duels, works well as you can keep fighter and power armors and monsters and mages in the fight. Just adding a new nose gun that doesn't do anything or just adding it to one ship without making changes to the system could be a problem in game play.

I get what you are saying about "on top", but its also relative positioning. It might also make sense to only have 1x Heavy BFG (like RT's Reflex Cannons, which aside from the SDF-3 if a ship had one it only had 1x, Macross 2 wasn't any different IIRC either), now where said weapon is placed is another matter.

I just want to get away from the naval influence that is such a big part of things Star Wars, Honor Harrington and even Star Trek although since Deep Space Nine they have done a better job. B5 usually did a good job with this, especially once we got Whitestars involved.

These are spaceships, they aren't going to be lining up and firing broadsides at each other. These ships, especially cruisers and smaller are fast and reasonably maneuverable combat is going to focus on coming together and moving away so fore and aft should be the big combat aspects while the 4 sides are for secondary weapons and point defense. This also keeps all those small things relevant in battle.

It might also be worth considering atmospheric re-entry situations, which could push for a "shell" or "on top" configuration (just a quick glace at Fot3G shows atmospheric use is considered, though some ships can't and I'm ignoring the few shuttles and fighters in the book I haven't checked the other PW setting books), the alternative is to make them retractable (added cost) or reinforced enough to handle being on the brunt side of re-entry (added cost)

This would be another thing I would change. Most ships, especially big ones, have no business going into an atmosphere. I can see large carriers, especially those that carry massive numbers of marines, being able to land to load more quickly and free shuttles for other duties. I can also see cruisers and smaller, especially destroyers, having atmospheric capabilities in order to drop/retrieve personnel or attack something that is hard to get to from orbit. But battlecruisers, battleships and especially dreadnoughts no just no, they have no business even getting to far into a gravity well much less into an atmosphere and ships like these you don't want to limit how many turrets and other spikey bits you have sticking out.