Galactica type battlestar vs McKenna class WarShip

[Eviscerator]

Just to recap TR:3075 :
The Invincible, herself badly mauled in a fierce engagement over Moore, was reduced to an orbital musuem by 2850, destined for mothballs. In 2853,however, a desperate Lyran Leadership called upon the aging ship and a shorthanded crew of equally venerable naval officers (old fogeys) to break a kurita siege over Hesperus II. Then came 5 DEC 3067 when the LCS Invincible reappeared over Tharkad with an WOB crew. Even as the vessel's guns fired on the hapless world below, ir was clear that the Word had completely refurbished the ancient vessel. Moreover the ship had been retrofitted with an lithium-fusion battery - a feature not present on any of the original Tharkad-class ships. The allied forces that reclaimed the Invincible were stunned by this discover, both because of the extent and expense of the refit.
For argument's sake, let's say that the 2853 Invincible did not have any killer whale missiles, half load of NAC ammo and 30% of the weapons were non operational, the armor still left on the vessel was 70% of specificied armor, and the crew was Veteran (short handed).
The 3067 Invincible was completely up to spec, fully crewed and had a full magazine load of killer whales and NAC ammo.

I don't know if you know this , but crew competency and crewing levels helps much in determining the effectiveness of a WarShip. better damage control, better responding to helm orders, quicker re-targeting of weapons, etc etc. Why not take the Invincible out with empty magazines and a green crew and then see how she fares then?

Furthermore, the SLS Zughoffer Weir while in Wolverine service was "battered she may be, but even her anti-fighter systems would scour a civilian ship" This leads us to hypothesize that the Weir has pre-existing damage from previous battles and the "process of repairs and upgrading" in the Titan Shipyards allowed it to be brought back up to spec and be able to engage and destroy two Comstar WarShips. Thus in this sense WOBS Blake's Sword is superior to SLS Zughoffer Weir.

[Connor MacLeod]

Eviscerator, I am going to be very polite to you, which is something I am not in the habit of doing because you are new and new folk invariably don't really grasp how the board works.

Y'see, you're not making a very good argument thus far. I've seen alot of excess verbiage, and alot of claims, but very little in the way of actual proof. and by "proof" I mean something quantifiable - ie numbers. Two people in fact (Ghost Rider and IIRC Batman) have asked numbers from you - which you apparnetly either failed to understand or ignore. We have this little rule called "burden of proof" and when someone has -as the aformentioned people have - asked for proof, it is generally expected that you put up or shut up. You have not put up, nor have you shut up, and this is hardly endearing you to anyone here. In fact you're liable to get your ass flamed off, and deservedly so, if you keep persisting as you are.

To top it off, it looks like you addressed Painrack's claims (who has provided proof after a fashion, and his BT analysis is a known commodity on this site - do a search if you don't believe me) with simply more verbiage, claims of being wrong, and alot of qualitative bluffing - but again no numbers. In fact, it looks like you decided to play semantics games with your "definition" of firepower, which (if I am being charitable) looks dishonest and probably foolish or (if I am not being charitable) is outright dishonest and likely to land you in trouble on the board. Do you seriously expect people to be impressed by the fact that you can post paragraphs and paragraphs of words but nothing else? If you are then you're going to be sorely disappointed unless you can come up with more than just words.

So, before you start expounding at length about "why painrack is wrong" - lets put it very very simply. your essentially claiming that there is a quantitative difference in firepower between two eras, whereas painrack (if I am reading him correctly) is claiming that quantitative firepower remains the same, but the overall effectiveness (how the ship is used, basically) is different. Your burden of proof in that is to demonstrate (numerically) that firepower has improved in the intervening timeframe you specify. And this does NOT mean using game stats - so don't think you can just post any old game stts to prove a point - the "stats" have to be demonstrated to be analytically relevant. We're looking at a quantitative difference in offensive capability (IE particle cannon putting out more energy as a result of technical advances, using heavier missiles, or something to that effect.)

If you CANNOt meet that burden, then concede, because if you don't you're going to have a very short stay here and deserve what is coming to you. And if you try to bluff ME with more qualitative BS the way you are with painrack, I will very quickly turn unfriendly.

[Eviscerator]

Eviscerator, I am going to be very polite to you, which is something I am not in the habit of doing because you are new and new folk invariably don't really grasp how the board works.


. your essentially claiming that there is a quantitative difference in firepower between two eras, whereas painrack (if I am reading him correctly) is claiming that quantitative firepower remains the same, but the overall effectiveness (how the ship is used, basically) is different. Your burden of proof in that is to demonstrate (numerically) that firepower has improved in the intervening timeframe you specify. And this does NOT mean using game stats - so don't think you can just post any old game stts to prove a point - the "stats" have to be demonstrated to be analytically relevant. We're looking at a quantitative difference in offensive capability (IE particle cannon putting out more energy as a result of technical advances, using heavier missiles, or something to that effect.)

If you CANNOt meet that burden, then concede, because if you don't you're going to have a very short stay here and deserve what is coming to you. And if you try to bluff ME with more qualitative BS the way you are with painrack, I will very quickly turn unfriendly.

Alright one times scenario coming up. All points value are based on readings and extrapolation on TR:3067 numbers. Also i do not possess any rule books, just sourcebooks and tech readouts. correct me if im wrong.

Mission: to prove that sustained warship bombarment is capable of replicating nuclear detonation.
Scenario: Presume that an WarShip that has just recently finished a refit, restocking has been handed a mission of obliterating a structure to its foundations.
Target: single structure with armor factor of 700 and base structure is a further 300. For the purpose of the scenario, let's say its a Clan Genetic Repository and at the following levels of destruction the structure will retain so-and-so usability.
Armor denuded, structure exposed: internal contents still usable/salvageable
Structure at half strength: building is heavy rubble, contents have been destroyed partially but some salvage is still able
Structure at one quarter strength: building is very heavy rubble, contents almost destroyed completely, salvage will be slim
Structure points depleted: burned down to the foundations.

I will presume the atmosphere imparts a base 30% reduction in energy weapon levels but missiles and NAC rounds remain at the same.
Now to continue.

[Eviscerator]

Warship: Conqueror Cruiser/carrier, full crew, full ammo levels, weapons just underwent a shipyard refit. I will presume every turn the weapons fire once.

Conqueror moves into geosync orbit above target, presents right broad side weapons which give a total sum salvo strength (adjusted for atmospheric effects) and setting the range at Long of: 317.6 damage value
6 ER LL, 3 ER ML, 6 LPL: 8.4 points damage value
4 NAC/25: 100
6 NAC/30: 180
4 Medium NPPC: 25.2
10 Barracudas: 4 each.

Salvo 1 results: 700 armor - 317.6 = 382.4
Salvo 2 results: 382.4 - 317.6 = 64.8
Salvo 3 : 64.8 - 317.6 = negative 252.8 which puts the structure at 47.2 structure value
The structure is now 15% of original value which makes it very heavy rubble
Salvo 4: 47.2 - 317.6 = negative 270.4
The structure has been burned to the ground and the foundations and surronding land is now taking the brunt of the bombardment.


Does this work?

[Eviscerator]

Thusly the total firepower capability of a WarShip by itself is a calculable number if we apply the following hypothetical caveats.

Energy weapons can fire a total of 500 shots each before shipyard refit required
Ballistic weapons can exhaust magazine 3 times before shipyard refit required to replace bores and such.

Hence if we add up the total amount of weapons, multiply by these factors and add them up, we can know how much attack strength a Warship can deal out in combat before refit is required. If the energy level required to defeat a single point of armor is supplied, by applying that value to total possible damage value gives you the sum firepower of how much energy the vessel is capable of putting out.

Does this work or am i totally wrong then

[ray245]

Warship: Conqueror Cruiser/carrier, full crew, full ammo levels, weapons just underwent a shipyard refit. I will presume every turn the weapons fire once.

Conqueror moves into geosync orbit above target, presents right broad side weapons which give a total sum salvo strength (adjusted for atmospheric effects) and setting the range at Long of: 317.6 damage value
6 ER LL, 3 ER ML, 6 LPL: 8.4 points damage value
4 NAC/25: 100
6 NAC/30: 180
4 Medium NPPC: 25.2
10 Barracudas: 4 each.

Salvo 1 results: 700 armor - 317.6 = 382.4
Salvo 2 results: 382.4 - 317.6 = 64.8
Salvo 3 : 64.8 - 317.6 = negative 252.8 which puts the structure at 47.2 structure value
The structure is now 15% of original value which makes it very heavy rubble
Salvo 4: 47.2 - 317.6 = negative 270.4
The structure has been burned to the ground and the foundations and surronding land is now taking the brunt of the bombardment.


Does this work?

When we talk about numbers, we are talking about measuring the firepower in Joules and etc.

[LaCroix]

Given a large laser with 8 standard damage points can melt/vaporize a half ton of armor grade steel, that would mean that 8 capital size points would melt 5 tons. 1 Point is therefore in the ballpark to .6 tons of steel.

melting 450 j*600 kg*1800K = 486 mJ
vaporizing 450*600*3100K = 837 mJ

That makes 1 point capital damage about 115-180 kg TNT worth, thus giving the above mentioned salvo about 40-60 kT net worth.

[Eviscerator]

That makes 1 point capital damage about 115-180 kg TNT worth, thus giving the above mentioned salvo about 40-60 kT net worth.

Finally some help. Thanks lots.

So with the given salvo energy level at range of 40 - 60 kt, the total output of that fire mission was 160 - 240kt. Hence to duplicate an megaton level nuke detonation we simply need to repeat as necessary.

[PainRack]

I don't know if you know this , but crew competency and crewing levels helps much in determining the effectiveness of a WarShip. better damage control, better responding to helm orders, quicker re-targeting of weapons, etc etc. Why not take the Invincible out with empty magazines and a green crew and then see how she fares then?

And? The definitive issue is FIREPOWER. The weapons batteries of the McKenna battleship has NOT changed.A naval PPC of the Star League Era still has the same firepower as a naval PPC of the 3072 era. Aerospace fighters gain some advantages in the form of Heavy PPC, Heavy Gauss and Plasma rifles, but they're relatively rare, especially in standard Aerospace fighters. But even if we do concede that there are heavier weapons now in play..... the scale of the firepower remains the same. Especially with regards to tonnage/damage/heat. Its not going to be definitive unless you first estimate a range for the normal Btech weapons firepower and do a comparison with nBSG.

Your constant attempts to handwave this away is annoying.

Finally some help. Thanks lots.

So with the given salvo energy level at range of 40 - 60 kt, the total output of that fire mission was 160 - 240kt. Hence to duplicate an megaton level nuke detonation we simply need to repeat as necessary.

You know, I should have known you were making a kneejerk rebuttal when you posted the APHE and HEAT are the same . Read carefully.

LaCroix calcs support MY position, not yours.
My stance is that the Outreach attack does not show a megaton level firepower for the weapons batteries, a claim made by Btech fans on SB.
To make matters worse, my original elaboration of the firepower issue was with regards to the nuke rules vs the "normal" damage rules.
The Jihad Nuke rules is this. A .5 kiloton nuke does 1 capital scale damage. Hence, cap armour is .5 kt.

Note the MASSIVE DISPARITY IN DAMAGE. The capital conversion to standard gives a full 6 orders of magnitude SMALLER damage than the nuke rules.
The orbital bombardment rules increases the damage significantly.... to making said naval PPC to be equivalent to a .5 kt nuke approximately(there's some damage differences in game mechanics, but the range is similar).
The nuke rules..... gives .5kt to a single point damage, making a naval PPC approximately 40kt. A NAC/10 is a direct match for 50kt.

This ignores the estimates made for Naval Gauss rifles and NAC, which suggest that given some assumptions about weapons speed and etc, the values are greater, reaching 1.8e15Joules. That's approaching MT level for Gauss weaponery.

I contest that based on orbital bombardment and other supporting factors, the MT ranges claimed for Btech heavy capital weapons are simply... wrong. The Huntress scenario does not display a MT event. Tikonov does not. Outreach definitely doesn't show that Btech weapons reach the MT ranges.




I utterly fail to see how you can claim that with a total weapons damage of 40-60 kt, you DARE to claim that I am wrong. If so, this has been an even more disastrous attempt at communication on my part than the previous example you brought up regarding Gunhead and FOG3.












Oh no, I'm "wrong" because although I said it must be a HEAT round because of the lower muzzle velocity....... its ok to be a HEAT round because its the size/diameter that explains penetration, not speed.
All the while ignoring that my real beef with the technology possibly being HEAT rounds is because said technology has been used by infantry for over 3 centuries and NOBODY HAS EVER ADAPTED THIS TO MECH WEAPONS BEFORE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Bah. At least I could understand their chain of logic and where the communication lines failed. Here..... I can't.

[LaCroix]

LaCroix calcs support MY position, not yours.
My stance is that the Outreach attack does not show a megaton level firepower for the weapons batteries, a claim made by Btech fans on SB.
To make matters worse, my original elaboration of the firepower issue was with regards to the nuke rules vs the "normal" damage rules.
The Jihad Nuke rules is this. A .5 kiloton nuke does 1 capital scale damage. Hence, cap armour is .5 kt.

Yeah, my calc doesn't support MT level, at all. It supports low kT firepower, for FULL broadsides!

@PainRack
How is the disparity between ~150 kg conventional damage per point and 250 tons (nukes are not shaped charges, so 50% effect is a high estimate) damage per point explained? That's about 1000% more effectiveness. To have a nuclear blast glance off like that, it would only hit with 3/100s of a percent. That's ridiculously little.

The only thing that comes to mind is that they claim that the blast would dissipate mostly into open space, and the impacting energy mostly just pushing the ship off course.

[PainRack]

BTW, to the other members of the thread, the reason why I refused to place the numbers here prior to the above post is due to the inherent contradictions between the various modes of deriving an estimate. Given the other contradictory problems(as opposed to realism problems), in my analysis for BS and AT, my operating policy is to treat all game mechanics as game mechanics and the lowest form of canon outside of explicit fluff such as launch/recovery time, speed and etc. Note that I did not post the AT game mechanic derived ranges for the weapons involved.
There are ways to generate numbers based on the known incidents of streams vapourisation from Tikonov, but the scenes are extremely vague, since no estimation of the stream is possible. The partial vapourisation of the Watchman is also difficult because no definite area/weight is definitive.

This is opposed to my BT and Mechwarrior canon policy, in which I treat everything apart from dice rolls as game fluff, placing aside the terrain rules as being problematic and a "simulation" attempt.

This is also the reasons why readers will have noted that I have refrained from using AT ranges to argue for BT weapons ranges...

And no, Operation Stilleto Battlespace conversion to Battletech counts because its a direct fluff piece regarding the ranges of mechs targeting computers.

LaCroix, I hope the elaboration of my analysis logic helps. My answer is..... I don't know. The rules simply DON"T WORK. Its gets even more idiotic when one considers the Structural damage component, as nukes which inflicts SI causes a HUGE amount of internal damage. The Alamo stands to deal 3 times the amount of structural damage as the NAC, this even though the NAC 30 is either a MT level weapon based on ke or 3 times as powerful as the Alamo.

[Eviscerator]

I don't know if you know this , but crew competency and crewing levels helps much in determining the effectiveness of a WarShip. better damage control, better responding to helm orders, quicker re-targeting of weapons, etc etc. Why not take the Invincible out with empty magazines and a green crew and then see how she fares then?

And? The definitive issue is FIREPOWER. The weapons batteries of the McKenna battleship has NOT changed. Aerospace fighters gain some advantages in the form of Heavy PPC, Heavy Gauss and Plasma rifles, but they're relatively rare, especially in standard Aerospace fighters. But even if we do concede that there are heavier weapons now in play..... the scale of the firepower remains the same. Especially with regards to tonnage/damage/heat. Its not going to be definitive unless you first estimate a range for the normal Btech weapons firepower and do a comparison with nBSG.

Your constant attempts to handwave this away is annoying.

Your constant attempts to handwave that the fighters and dropship complement DO NOT aid or must be taken into account in battle is curious.
I will now attempt to show a snippet of a typical battlespace scenario to illustrate the point that fighter/dropship complement MUST be taken into account
Scenario: 3058 Battle of trafalgar

Sample attacker warship:
ISS Invisible Truth, cameron class battlecruiser (veteran crew)
Sample given fighter sqn: 2 HCT-213 Hellcats,4 GTHA-500 Gothas

Sample defender warship: CGB shining claw, congress class (veteran crew)
sample fighter star:4 Prime config Visigoths, 2 Config A Visigoth, 4 Config-B kirghiz
sample dropship: Union-C dropship

An purely SL-vintage cameron cruiser may still have the power distribution fault that disallows weapons and life support operating at the same time (which resulted in an cruiser lost to pirates) but for the purposes here, lets presume ComStar fixed that Other than that, as ive said, the Hellcat/Gothas being used by CS/WOB today may very well b the updated versions which have different attack values. Not to nitpick a bit, but HCT-213 Hellcat is a 60 ton fighter with 1262 BV and HCT-213B Hellcat II is a 50 ton fighter at BV 1147. Both have different base stats too.

On the clan side, without access to TR:3057 upgrade i cant concretly speculate on orig SL stats so we''ll leave that be for now. Between OmniFighter configurations, presuming at any time that there is no difference between the Prime and other configs of an OmniFighter means completely discarding the whole notion that all have different weapon loads. Which would be like saying that a Koshi A has the same direct damage dealing ability as an Koshi H. Likewise a Union-C Dropship outweights the IS Union by 1,200 tons and has a compelety different weapons outfit.

If we arbitarily assign the BEST possible tech to any one side, its a clear advantage in their favour. Even a stellar pilot in a 3025 tech mech would find it hard pressed to win against SL tech Mech, not even to say Clan or IS 3072.

[Eviscerator]

I concede that the Base capital firepower of the SLS Weir did not change remarkabely after it became the WOB Blake's Sword.
However, one must take into account the differing accompanying complement will have changed drastically from the time it left the IS to the time it returned in WOB service.

Just as a point, if let accept that to outfit the Mckenna we'll roll on Random unit assignment tables.
The rolls on a hypothetical SLDF (2750) table would differ wildly from the roll on the WOB table.
The WOB random unit table of FM: Comstar is different from the one in FM:Updates and then again from the one in Jihad:blake documents.
even allowing for rolls on the non-Shadow Division table, we get units that are very different from the units in old SLDF service. Like for example that the Union might be a Union Pocket Warship which can bring its own naval class missiles to the table. Or the Gotha variant that can carry its own Alamo nuke missiles. DropShips have evolved into vessels that can now "temporarily challenge and run off" Warships such as an Fox and Aegis. Does that count for nothing in a space battle?

And if you tell me that they make no difference whatsoever, IIRC there has only been a single battle in Star Wars:EU of unsupported warship against others. SSD Lusankya vs ISD-II , light cruiser, snubfighters and missile equppied freighters. The almost complete lack of Imperial fighter cover was a key Rebel strength and Imperial downfall.

[Eviscerator]

[quote="PainRack"]
And? The definitive issue is FIREPOWER. The weapons batteries of the McKenna battleship has NOT changed.A naval PPC of the Star League Era still has the same firepower as a naval PPC of the 3072 era. But even if we do concede that there are heavier weapons now in play..... the scale of the firepower remains the same.
Your constant attempts to handwave this away is annoying.

[quote="LaCroix "]
Given a large laser with 8 standard damage points can melt/vaporize a half ton of armor grade steel, that would mean that 8 capital size points would melt 5 tons. 1 Point is therefore in the ballpark to .6 tons of steel.

I just rubbed my eyes and realised that the armor scale for ships is different from mechs as the 307pts of armor on the Atlas do not mean it can withstand a NAC blast So based on additional info from Painrack of .5kt a capital damage point that makes my broadside now 191.2 KT and a total output of 764.8 KT.


I concede YES, SL and current C-Mckenna are the same. But are you saying the same of these other vessels then

Lola 1/2/3
Riga/York
Avatar/Liberator
Quixote/Volga
Kimagure/Conqueror
Leviathan transport/ Leviathan II

Are you then saying that the original spec vessels have the same amount of quantitative or qualitative base firepower as their upgraded variants?

[Eviscerator]

some online stuff for quick reference to the fellers who may be watching and i extracted the key points relevant here that the vessel's capabilities improve based on the timeline it is employed in.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Avatar_(WarShip)
Clan Liberator - Choosing to reactivate the mothballed Avatars in preparation for Operation Revival, the renamed Liberator-class features Ferro-Carbide armor, boosting protection by 50 percent, without reducing the craft's valuable DropShip or cargo capacity. While the capital weaponry remained relatively unchanged, the anti-fighter systems were upgraded to modern Clan standards, with the fighter bays reconstructed to hold three Stars worth of OmniFighters.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Kimagure SL Pursuit Cruiser
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Conqueror CSR Carrier/Escort

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Quixote SL Frigate
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Volga SL Transport

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Riga SL Frigate, mass 750k ton, introduced 2440
York - 595,000 ton Destroyer/Carrier, introduced 2947. Lamellor ferro-carbide armor, 2 hardpoints, 50 fighters + 5 small craft. Clan refit of the older Riga class

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Lola_III
The original Lola III had several diferances from the refurbished Clan variant shown above:
Inner Sphere tech base
crew of 154
6 Fighters 4 Small Craft

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Davion_I_(WarShip) original FS specs
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Whirlwind shortly before the Reunification War, Prince Alexander Davion decided to lease (and later, sell) Block I Davion-class destroyers to the Star League Defense Forces. These vessels were stripped, rearmed, and redesignated Whirlwind-class by the Star League Navy.

[PainRack]

Your constant attempts to handwave that the fighters and dropship complement DO NOT aid or must be taken into account in battle is curious.
I will now attempt to show a snippet of a typical battlespace scenario to illustrate the point that fighter/dropship complement MUST be taken into account

Stop. No one is arguing that fighter/dropships aren't important.
And yes, the different types, especially when one discuss the existence of pocket warships which actually use capital standard weapons as opposed to standard weapons increase the Mckenna firepower substantially in a fight.

Using THIS to argue that a discussion on capital weapons firepower is not important, or that one needs to quantify the firepower range of standard weapons is wrong.

If we arbitarily assign the BEST possible tech to any one side, its a clear advantage in their favour. Even a stellar pilot in a 3025 tech mech would find it hard pressed to win against SL tech Mech, not even to say Clan or IS 3072.

Except we're talking about aerospace, not BT. Its already been explictly stated in canon that even with the massive tech and piloting advantage of the Clans, the IS aerospace arm is holding up pretty well and game mechanics show why. The main advantages Clantech has over Succession era technology is in heat sinks and construction exotics.

HOWEVER, no advantages in capital weapons existed for Clan Warships. Not even in terms of heat sink capacity. What they get are entirely in terms of armour and construction exotics. This translates over to the Jihad, their only tech advantage over SL warships are in terms of construction exotics. And even here, their superiority is questionable when compared to the Clans. Manei Domei has a definitive advantage on the ground and presumably, in aerospace fighters, but there is NOTHING to suggest that the exotic light gyro, light engines and etc has any differences in warships or assault dropships or pocket warships.

Are you then saying that the original spec vessels have the same amount of quantitative or qualitative base firepower as their upgraded variants?

No you dumbass. The whole bone of contention between eras was your argument that the tech era shows a firepower difference in WEAPONS.
A Naval PPC or even an standard PPC in 2750, 3025 and 3072 has no fucking difference in terms of damage. There are SOME minor differences in game fluff for the standard weapons such as the PPC reflected in the mechs TRO, but this doesn't differ by ANY order of magnitude.

More importantly, the firepower of capital weapons are still kiloton in nature. And Clantech/IS capital weapons are virtually identical.

For fuck sake, stop pursuing red herrings and inserting strawman arguments. You been challenging my firepower position, that warships weapons are not megaton in nature based ENTIRELY on the fact that pocket warships exist in 3072? WTF?

[Eviscerator]

the Mckenna firepower substantially in a fight.

Using THIS to argue that a discussion on capital weapons firepower is not important, or that one needs to quantify the firepower range of standard weapons is wrong.

If we arbitarily assign the BEST possible tech to any one side, its a clear advantage in their favour. Even a stellar pilot in a 3025 tech mech would find it hard pressed to win against SL tech Mech, not even to say Clan or IS 3072.

Except we're talking about aerospace, not BT. Its already been explictly stated in canon that even with the massive tech and piloting advantage of the Clans, the IS aerospace arm is holding up pretty well and game mechanics show why.

. What they get are entirely in terms of armour and construction exotics. This translates over to the Jihad, their only tech advantage over SL warships are in terms of construction exotics. And even here, their superiority is questionable when compared to the Clans. Manei Domei has a definitive advantage on the ground and presumably, in aerospace fighters, but there is NOTHING to suggest that the exotic light gyro, light engines and etc has any differences in warships or assault dropships or pocket warships.

Are you then saying that the original spec vessels have the same amount of quantitative or qualitative base firepower as their upgraded variants?

No you dumbass. The whole bone of contention between eras was your argument that the tech era shows a firepower difference in WEAPONS.
A Naval PPC or even an standard PPC in 2750, 3025 and 3072 has no fucking difference in terms of damage. There are SOME minor differences in game fluff for the standard weapons such as the PPC reflected in the mechs TRO, but this doesn't differ by ANY order of magnitude.

More importantly, the firepower of capital weapons are still kiloton in nature. And Clantech/IS capital weapons are virtually identical.
?

Lets for a moment put aside the individual capship weapon capabilities and talk about how the effectiveness of a vessel is a combination of crew, technology, and complements. I have stated Ad Nausuem that 2750 available Range of weapons/technology is certainly different from 3072 era. You'll accept this for the moment. I am not now contenting the standard or the naval ppc terms of damage, i am talking about ancillary equipment that has been introduced like heavy gauss rifles, new energy weapons, WOB super-jump KF drive, VDNI/ Enhanced imaging control systems.

It has been established in game terms that EI and VDNI systems do confer advantages to the pilots (represented in game as -1 to gunnery and to hit rolls) A Heavy Gauss deals 25/20/10 points based on range compared to a normal Gauss which has a damage of 15. The WOB Super-Jump systems confers "effectively unlimited" jump range on a vessel with the caveat that the misjump chances are increased and the jump core and batteries are automatically destroyed. A binary laser cannon delivers 18 damage across the board.

Attempting to suggest that a
Hellcat HCT 213 :60 ton, standard engine,20 single heat sinks, safe/max thrust: 6/9 3 large, 3 medium laser
Hellcat II HCT 213B:50 ton, standard engine,15 single heat sinks, safe/max thrust: 7/11 2 large laser, 1 medium laser
Hellcat II HCT 215: 50 ton, XL engine, 15 double heat sink safe/max thrust 7/11, 5 light ppc, 2 er med laser
All do the same damage and have the same heat profile is handwaving the stated published stats in the source material.

Your assertion that "Aerospace fighters gain some advantages in the form of Heavy PPC, Heavy Gauss and Plasma rifles, but they're relatively rare, especially in standard Aerospace fighters." handwaves the whole point of unit assignment tables and tech availability. Purely to illustrate, if a Clan pilot wanted to get a heavy gauss rifle he'd have to wait for battle salvage or lyran sale. If a Lyran pilot wanted a heavy gauss, he puts a request into the quartermaster system or obtains authorization to issue one from existing stores.

My statement that the crew onboard the vessel has an impact is NOT made out of thin air. To keep it simple, an artillery piece has a "book" firing rate. The "book" rate of fire cannot be accomplished if the crew are fresh out of artillery school. As an RL WarShip analog "The maximum firing rate for each gun on an Iowa-class battleship is two rounds per minute." This rate of fire cannot be achieved if the crew of the gun are not trained intensely or moving in concert with each other.

Other than crew competency, embarked troops also have a real and game effect on boarding/repelling boarders. TR:3057 base has a whole table of formula to calculate how fast and how quickly it'd take to take over or repel boarders. It makes a considerable difference when the boarder/defender are armored/unarmored Elementals, IS Power Armor, unarmored soldiers, non combat crew or even civilians.

I was told to "demonstrate (numerically) that firepower has improved in the intervening timeframe you specify" which i HAVE done by posting several links to pages that demonstrate that the SLDF vessel which left on the exodus is different from the one which returned as a Clan vessel. Ranging from complete rebuilds such as Riga Frigate to York Destroyer/Carrier with correspondingly different weapon outfits, Kimagure to Conqueror and so on. If that still isnt enough the SLDF Carrack was equipped with purely antifighter weapons, had 15.5 tons standard armor, while the Clan Carrack gains capital class NACs and Lasers and has 70 tons of standard armor .

[Eviscerator]

More importantly, the firepower of capital weapons are still kiloton in nature. And Clantech/IS capital weapons are virtually identical.

For fuck sake, stop pursuing red herrings and inserting strawman arguments. You been challenging my firepower position, that warships weapons are not megaton in nature based ENTIRELY on the fact that pocket warships exist in 3072? WTF?

I am dropping the energy levels of capship class weapons ENTIRELY and now contending the capablities of the vessel is a combination of factors which i have stated in the above post.

[Eviscerator]

Except we're talking about aerospace, not BT. Its already been explictly stated in canon that even with the massive tech and piloting advantage of the Clans, the IS aerospace arm is holding up pretty well and game mechanics show why. The main advantages Clantech has over Succession era technology is in heat sinks and construction exotics.

?

You are not taking into account that in general, CTech fighters develop and field advanced tech first when the IS fighters only catch up much later with development and fielding. As an example, in 3050 Ultra and LB-X tech is available for all classes of AC but only in recent years has the same been true for IS ACs. It also does not take into account CBT RPG information and info elsewhere that a green sibko-raised operator is at the least equal to a regular IS operator. Even if we accept that Enhanced Imaging control systems do not really confer any Real advantages, the availability of Clan-specific technology such as ATMs for example allow engagements at range different from IS tech and deal different damages. And even today, Enhanced Imaging implanted pilots require clan medical care to function at full capacity.

I concede that in recent years the differences in IS and Ctech are starting to differ quite remarkably and both sides now field unique weapons with capabilities not possible in past eras.

[LaCroix]

My statement that the crew onboard the vessel has an impact is NOT made out of thin air. To keep it simple, an artillery piece has a "book" firing rate. The "book" rate of fire cannot be accomplished if the crew are fresh out of artillery school. As an RL WarShip analog "The maximum firing rate for each gun on an Iowa-class battleship is two rounds per minute." This rate of fire cannot be achieved if the crew of the gun are not trained intensely or moving in concert with each other.

How do you improve firing rate of auto-loading weapons by training?

[PainRack]

Lets for a moment put aside the individual capship weapon capabilities and talk about how the effectiveness of a vessel is a combination of crew, technology, and complements. I have stated Ad Nausuem that 2750 available Range of weapons/technology is certainly different from 3072 era.

No one is contending that.

You'll accept this for the moment. I am not now contenting the standard or the naval ppc terms of damage, i am talking about ancillary equipment that has been introduced like heavy gauss rifles, new energy weapons, WOB super-jump KF drive, VDNI/ Enhanced imaging control systems.

So? No one is arguing otherwise.

It has been established in game terms that EI and VDNI systems do confer advantages to the pilots (represented in game as -1 to gunnery and to hit rolls) A Heavy Gauss deals 25/20/10 points based on range compared to a normal Gauss which has a damage of 15. The WOB Super-Jump systems confers "effectively unlimited" jump range on a vessel with the caveat that the misjump chances are increased and the jump core and batteries are automatically destroyed. A binary laser cannon delivers 18 damage across the board.

Attempting to suggest that a
Hellcat HCT 213 :60 ton, standard engine,20 single heat sinks, safe/max thrust: 6/9 3 large, 3 medium laser
Hellcat II HCT 213B:50 ton, standard engine,15 single heat sinks, safe/max thrust: 7/11 2 large laser, 1 medium laser
Hellcat II HCT 215: 50 ton, XL engine, 15 double heat sink safe/max thrust 7/11, 5 light ppc, 2 er med laser
All do the same damage and have the same heat profile is handwaving the stated published stats in the source material.

But here's the kicker.

Nobody was suggesting that the Hellcat II in its different incarnations are the SAME.
You took my Others would be sustained bombardment supposedly rendering planets uninhabitable. I have no knowledge about the Snow Raven dante attack though.,
replied with

i'd say Orbital Bombardment tends to mess a planet up I hear scouring a continent with Naval Lasers and other such WarShip grade weapons does the environment a power of no good.

After being pawned in terms of examples that show what I'm talking about, you THEN attempted to rebut my argument with

Hence, in this context, an F-4 being used by the Iranian Air Force on a base with inexperienced ground crew, inadequate facilities (both technical and logistical) , only a single pilot available who must be withdrawn when over-fatigued, delivers much less firepower than a USAF F-4 flying out of Da Nang AFB.

This UTTERLY ignores of course that quantitatively, no difference in weapons firepower exists between weapons from the SLDF era and the 3072 era. I have consistently pointed this out and even clarified your mistaken assumption that we're debating "types" of aircraft and that no differences exist. Nobody is claiming that. Yet, even after Connor, Batman and myself has pointed this out to you, you STILL insist on fucking this strawman.

Your assertion that "Aerospace fighters gain some advantages in the form of Heavy PPC, Heavy Gauss and Plasma rifles, but they're relatively rare, especially in standard Aerospace fighters." handwaves the whole point of unit assignment tables and tech availability. Purely to illustrate, if a Clan pilot wanted to get a heavy gauss rifle he'd have to wait for battle salvage or lyran sale. If a Lyran pilot wanted a heavy gauss, he puts a request into the quartermaster system or obtains authorization to issue one from existing stores.

Are you seriously unable to conduct an in universe analysis? A technical analysis is not unit assignment tables and RPG points!

My statement that the crew onboard the vessel has an impact is NOT made out of thin air. To keep it simple, an artillery piece has a "book" firing rate. The "book" rate of fire cannot be accomplished if the crew are fresh out of artillery school. As an RL WarShip analog "The maximum firing rate for each gun on an Iowa-class battleship is two rounds per minute." This rate of fire cannot be achieved if the crew of the gun are not trained intensely or moving in concert with each other.

Other than crew competency, embarked troops also have a real and game effect on boarding/repelling boarders. TR:3057 base has a whole table of formula to calculate how fast and how quickly it'd take to take over or repel boarders. It makes a considerable difference when the boarder/defender are armored/unarmored Elementals, IS Power Armor, unarmored soldiers, non combat crew or even civilians.

Of course, none of this actually has any impact on a duel between the McKenna and the Basestar. Hence, the fact that no one has even addressed this issue.

I was told to "demonstrate (numerically) that firepower has improved in the intervening timeframe you specify" which i HAVE done by posting several links to pages that demonstrate that the SLDF vessel which left on the exodus is different from the one which returned as a Clan vessel.

No you dipshit. You were told to demonstrate that 3072 WEAPONS are more powerful than 2750. You didn't.

This is important because you attempted to rebut my btech weapons are not megaton and are in kt range by arguing that the tech era counts. It has been clear to everyone familiar with btech that you obviously can't. Either you utterly failed to comprehend the terms involved or you're kneejerking rebutting everything and humping your own favourite point when you were ignored regarding types.

You are not taking into account that in general, CTech fighters develop and field advanced tech first when the IS fighters only catch up much later with development and fielding. As an example, in 3050 Ultra and LB-X tech is available for all classes of AC but only in recent years has the same been true for IS ACs. It also does not take into account CBT RPG information and info elsewhere that a green sibko-raised operator is at the least equal to a regular IS operator. Even if we accept that Enhanced Imaging control systems do not really confer any Real advantages, the availability of Clan-specific technology such as ATMs for example allow engagements at range different from IS tech and deal different damages. And even today, Enhanced Imaging implanted pilots require clan medical care to function at full capacity.

I concede that in recent years the differences in IS and Ctech are starting to differ quite remarkably and both sides now field unique weapons with capabilities not possible in past eras.

A seperate point here apart from the main thrust.
I'm comparing lvl 1 IS fighters with Clantech fighters. Canon evidence.
Ingame novel and game fluff that states the aerospace arm is the most "equal" of both sides, Theodore Kurita in the Stackpole trilogy along with invasion of the Clans sourcebook.
Comparing game mechanics, the technological differences are simply not as drastic as you claim it is. The key difference is in construction exotics and double heat sinks. DHS in particular makes clan AT more powerful. Remove DHS and Xl, the advantages shrink dramatically and becomes based entirely on Clan weapons are more powerful ton for ton than IS weapons, balanced by the heat requirements.
This is different compared to the ground because BT ranges confer an additional advantage to Clantech.

[Eviscerator]

My statement that the crew onboard the vessel has an impact is NOT made out of thin air. To keep it simple, an artillery piece has a "book" firing rate. The "book" rate of fire cannot be accomplished if the crew are fresh out of artillery school. As an RL WarShip analog "The maximum firing rate for each gun on an Iowa-class battleship is two rounds per minute." This rate of fire cannot be achieved if the crew of the gun are not trained intensely or moving in concert with each other.

How do you improve firing rate of auto-loading weapons by training?

the time taken to bring an artillery piece into action is markedly different when you compare the times a seasoned crew compared to a crew just beginning to learn the whole process is so different its scary. The weapons on the IOWA while yes, an rammer pushes the charges and shell into the gun, still the actions of putting the charges into the gun and selecting said charges must be manually done. and if nothing else, the actions of Steven Seagal and gang in Under Siege show clearly that a trained crew would operate the guns much faster than they would have do it.

To illustrate: in a tank
The commander calls out: gunner, T-72, left, 800 meters, SABOT!
The gunner calls out: ON!
The loader then punches the appropriate switches or manhandles the called-for round into the breech, closes the breech, and calls READY!
The gunner confirms the range, sight settings and everything else, fires, and waits for the next order.

You will recall i took an battalion of Singapore Artillery FH-2000 as an example, and FH-2000s are NOT auto loading SPHs, they are towed pieces.

[Eviscerator]

So? No one is arguing otherwise.

Nobody was suggesting that the Hellcat II in its different incarnations are the SAME.

i'd say Orbital Bombardment tends to mess a planet up I hear scouring a continent with Naval Lasers and other such WarShip grade weapons does the environment a power of no good.

After being pawned in terms of examples that show what I'm talking about, you THEN attempted to rebut my argument with

Hence, in this context, an F-4 being used by the Iranian Air Force on a base with inexperienced ground crew, inadequate facilities (both technical and logistical) , only a single pilot available who must be withdrawn when over-fatigued, delivers much less firepower than a USAF F-4 flying out of Da Nang AFB.

This UTTERLY ignores of course that quantitatively, no difference in weapons firepower exists between weapons from the SLDF era and the 3072 era. I have consistently pointed this out and even clarified your mistaken assumption that we're debating "types" of aircraft and that no differences exist.
Are you seriously unable to conduct an in universe analysis? A technical analysis is not unit assignment tables and RPG points!

Of course, none of this actually has any impact on a duel between the McKenna and the Basestar. Hence, the fact that no one has even addressed this issue.

No you dipshit. You were told to demonstrate that 3072 WEAPONS are more powerful than 2750. You didn't.

I'm comparing lvl 1 IS fighters with Clantech fighters. Canon evidence.
Ingame novel and game fluff that states the aerospace arm is the most "equal" of both sides, Theodore Kurita in the Stackpole trilogy along with invasion of the Clans sourcebook.
Comparing game mechanics, the technological differences are simply not as drastic as you claim it is. The key difference is in construction exotics and double heat sinks. DHS in particular makes clan AT more powerful. Remove DHS and Xl, the advantages shrink dramatically and becomes based entirely on Clan weapons are more powerful ton for ton than IS weapons, balanced by the heat requirements.
This is different compared to the ground because BT ranges confer an additional advantage to Clantech.

My previous arguements may have been knee-jerk and attempts at throwing chaff, but i assure you, every post i make now is done after reference to the appropriate reference books/material.

When i made my F-4 remark, i was trying to say that an Iranian F-4 will not have at its disposal the full range of weapons that are/have been available to an USAF F-4, and that the ground crew competency and pilot availability dictates how many missions said aircraft can fly in a day. Just as an example, if the F-4 drops 12 mk82 bombs a mission, and the Iranian F-4 does 3 missions a day, the USAF 5 missions a day, that is a large difference between ordnance on target.

I have proven the point that an 3072 HGR causes more damage than an 2750 basic Gauss Rifle. Even if you take the base game stats as an standard, the HGR fires a 250kg slug vs 125Kg slug, and has the ability to cause 25 points of damage at short range against a 15point across the board value for the basic Gauss. I have also proven that a vessel in SLDF service is so different in Clan service that hundreds of thousands of tons are added to the displacement and weapons outfit are radically changed. My contention was that time era dictates the available range of equipment which CAN be fitted on a vessel. If you like, i can also point out that the Clan ER PPC and ER Large Laser deals 15 and 10 damage versus IS tech which delivers 10 and 8 damage. (they've also other differences in ton, size and range) This clearly shows that even with advancements in tech, the baseline Clan weapon is still superior in both size, damage, range and weight.

You are attempting to tell me that IF the Mckenna has Manei-Dominei or WOB-tech battlearmor, any attempts of boarding or repelling boarders have no effect? Are you serious?

You are then telling me, that in an dogfight a best-cased Clan aerofighter with superior weapons like ive outlined above, heat dissipation, larger armor factor efficiency base on weight, targeting computer, Artemis IV FCS and ECM suite/NARC beacon against an equivalent IS 3025 aerofighter both piloted by pilots of equal skill, the extra tech advantage does not make a difference? Are you then discounting the advantages given by the NARC beacon, Targ Comp, and pulse lasers against a baseline IS 3025 fighter? Are you ignoring the Pulse laser -2 to hit, roll, NARC add 2 to missle hit roll, Targeting computer -1 to direct fire weapons? or the LB- autocannons "shotgun effect""? are you really serious? I will concede that the basic pilot skill may be the same, but saying that the Red Baron in his WW1 biplane is evenly matched against an WW2 late flight figther is ridiculous.

This is like saying an F-14A Tomcat equipped with AIM-7 Sparrows will fare exactly the same against an F-14D with AIM-120 AMRAAMs. For those who are not conversant with Tomcats, 14-As are first flight Tomcats, Ds are the last USN variant, and AIM-7 are semi-active radar homing which requires the fighter to continue illumination of the target with own radar to insure hit while AIM-120 is active homing and is a fire-and-forget missile.

You have consistently ignored my arguments that ancillary equipment add value to the force. Even discounting DHS and XL engines, you have ignored the superior range/damage profiles, superior ferro-fibrous armor factor among others.

You are handwaving then the Clan ability to regenerate limbs or other medical facilities do not add to the retention of valued crew. A particularly skilled Mech/Aerofighter pilot, instead of accepting an prothesis like Justin Xiang Allard could opt for a cloned replacement limb which in every way except for tattoos functions the same as the original? The mechanical prothesis on Justin's arm can be compared to an regrown limb?

[LaCroix]

My statement that the crew onboard the vessel has an impact is NOT made out of thin air. To keep it simple, an artillery piece has a "book" firing rate. The "book" rate of fire cannot be accomplished if the crew are fresh out of artillery school. As an RL WarShip analog "The maximum firing rate for each gun on an Iowa-class battleship is two rounds per minute." This rate of fire cannot be achieved if the crew of the gun are not trained intensely or moving in concert with each other.

How do you improve firing rate of auto-loading weapons by training?

the time taken to bring an artillery piece into action is markedly different when you compare the times a seasoned crew compared to a crew just beginning to learn the whole process is so different its scary. The weapons on the IOWA while yes, an rammer pushes the charges and shell into the gun, still the actions of putting the charges into the gun and selecting said charges must be manually done. and if nothing else, the actions of Steven Seagal and gang in Under Siege show clearly that a trained crew would operate the guns much faster than they would have do it.

To illustrate: in a tank
The commander calls out: gunner, T-72, left, 800 meters, SABOT!
The gunner calls out: ON!
The loader then punches the appropriate switches or manhandles the called-for round into the breech, closes the breech, and calls READY!
The gunner confirms the range, sight settings and everything else, fires, and waits for the next order.

You will recall i took an battalion of Singapore Artillery FH-2000 as an example, and FH-2000s are NOT auto loading SPHs, they are towed pieces.

We are talking about space fight. You point and shoot. Your weapons are either energy beam or propelled, but there is no real gravity effect.

Even if, the computer makes it so that the barrel is pointed at the right spot to hit - or du you think they aim with eyeball at multi-kilometer ranges? Then, the laser recharges or the new missile/grenade is put in - you just push the fire button again, since the targeting is done by the computer.

There is virtually no delay even by the most stupid operators. You could have Bob the janitor sitting there tipping on the screen to mark the target and then hit the shiny red button. Given reload times and even flight times of the projectiles, the difference is minuscule.

[Eviscerator]

Your assertion that "Aerospace fighters gain some advantages in the form of Heavy PPC, Heavy Gauss and Plasma rifles, but they're relatively rare, especially in standard Aerospace fighters." handwaves the whole point of unit assignment tables and tech availability. Purely to illustrate, if a Clan pilot wanted to get a heavy gauss rifle he'd have to wait for battle salvage or lyran sale. If a Lyran pilot wanted a heavy gauss, he puts a request into the quartermaster system or obtains authorization to issue one from existing stores.

Are you seriously unable to conduct an in universe analysis? A technical analysis is not unit assignment tables and RPG points!

Of course, none of this actually has any impact on a duel between the McKenna and the Basestar. Hence, the fact that no one has even addressed this issue.

.

'
I have consistently attempted to show that just as an example, the 1st Lyran Royal Guards fields a totally different force in the
3025, 3039, 3050, 3055, 3058, 3060,3067, 3072 time eras. By taking the random mech assignment tables as a benchmark of commonly available units in said timeline, we get a completely different force composition with accordingly different weapons capability. As an example, the Lyran unit in 3025 would not be able to employ Fenris battle armor or light engines or heavy gauss rifles. They would not also be able to use the WLF-3S Wolfhound battlemech which was produced in the Civil War era or the latest WLF-4W Wolfhound.

I have not ignored the basic idea that if "A" faction manufactures "B" type of weapon/equipment, logically then that that faction has easier access to the weapon/equipment. This is in line with RL and btech ingame rules. Which is to say if an Clan 3057 character wished to obtain a Clan Neurohelmet/weapon, all he has to do is put the appropriate request up the line for it to be delivered or to be drawn from stores. However, the Lyran character must submit the request to the QM department which will then decide whether or not to authorize a shipment from stocks of captured equipment which is dealt with according to the requester's unit, rank, position and who his parents are


Nobody has addressed the issue of boarding parties/repelling boarders because in modern 21st century naval combat, when does a boarding party even manage to get in range of the warship? This idea isnt even actively pushed around because modern Close-in Weapons Systems will make short work of any boarding parties. However in Sci-fi naval context just in Btech alone, it has been shown that troops can and do take over WarShips.

Aproxx time line of boarding parties succeeding
3055 - Gray Death Legion's battle taxi assault
3058 - DEST troops take over CGB warship
New Ronin incursions: Elementals on their own floating in Zero-g assault and capture a Kirishima cruiser,
Civil War - Avalon-cruiser over Hesperus succumbs to loyalist marines
Jihad era - LCS Invincible and Newgrange YardShip.

And as an asides, the idea of boarding is alive and well in Star Wars and WH40K as well. Even though on 21st century earth it is no longer feasible, it doesnt mean a sci-fi navy doesnt have to content with it.