StarDestroyer.Net BBS

still out of it due to being in Ohio, but Shepistan is going to be rejiggered a bit more, to be a little less pakistan-like and more indian-like. Not too sure on the back history of it in the great wars of this nation.

But I do know what I'm going to be operating for my bomber force:

83 x DRB-47R Stratojets (TF-33 engined Stratojets (four engines) with the capability of directing long range missiles).

50 x B-60G Annihilators (TF-33 engined YB-60 Peacemakers).

and probably some KB-60Hs for aerial tanking.

Fighter wise, probably:

(Couple hundred) x F-100P Super Sabres for COIN duties
(Couple hundred) x F-105K Super Thunderchiefs for Fighter Bomber Duties
(Couple Hundred) x F-106Es for Interceptor duties

phongn wrote:

Raj Ahten wrote:Got a couple of OOB battle questions: Is there any way to buy cruise anti-shipping cruise missiles for shore defense with points? That is definitely something my nation would want to invest in. Also, are we just assuming everyone has some naval mine warfare vessels, because they are not purchasable. Perhaps we should be able to get 2-4 for a point or something?

Dedicated mine warfare vessels are going out of favor these days. They're expensive, for one, and it might be better to have every ship with some equipment (along with helicopters).

And yeah, ground-based SSM batteries are something that need to be handled too.

You know, I'm thinking the points setup was a bad idea. I might go back to budget based setups. Either that, or the number of points needs to be increased again.

The only problem with budgets is some people (like me) aren't entirely sure what the hell I could actually buy for a certain budget. There are individual units cost's, but that doesn't reflect running expenses, support personnel, stockpiling spares and munitions and so forth. That said the point system certainly isn't optimum, but it is a workable system for players who don't have easy access to the information needed and the time necessary to create a realistic order of battle based on budget alone.

Well, the other issue with the point system is that it's completely abstracting away supply, maintenance, bases, C4ISR and other stuff. I suppose we could continue that, but those costs are enormous.

EDIT: Also, there's the cost issues for bombers. Proposed revision (cost per single aircraft):
Also, for helicopter AEW, proposing a unit of 4 cost one point.

phongn wrote:Well, the other issue with the point system is that it's completely abstracting away supply, maintenance, bases, C4ISR and other stuff. I suppose we could continue that, but those costs are enormous.

I'm just assuming if you buy a unit, you get pretty good logistical and other support to go with it. If the players operate in good faith, it should be alright. If we want to put logistics and the rest in though, how do we do so and keep the system fairly simple?

Militaries have General staffs and such to work out such details. How am I, just one man, supposed to do that [/halfway serious]

I'm handwaving the reason for not having nukes (yet). SSBNs are illegal because there's little point in them without having nuclear weapons. Ditto all of the larger ballistic missiles, though I can see SRBMs being in use.

Analogs are banned to keep wankers from going "Oh, this is a Kirov analog, but it's got 256 Mk41 VLS cells, and 8in guns, and, and, and." You know the drill. Keeping it to reasonable modifications of existing ships keeps that from happening.

SSMs should probably exist. Blame Ice; he made most of that section. The "standard" size of unit is a battalion, BTW.

Yes, I realize that the point system abstracts away significant portions of enormous costs. That's kinda the point. People aren't going to play if they have to actually create a budget for their OOB. It's important to note that we aren't looking for realism. We're looking for realism lite. With points, all a player needs to do is some automated number crunching. With a budget, it gets significantly more complicated.

Very nice history, PeZook!

Murderous von Schrom! And Shadow Stormtroopers! And, goddamn - it looks like PeZookia and Shroomania really love their gas

Well, heres a possible way to model Logistics and support for people, while still keeping it simple. Units would have a cost multiplier bases on the amount of service they recieve, the spare parts and ammunition availible, and so on. For x0.5 cost units are in poor repair. They do not have enough technicians or spare parts in supply. Ammunition stocks are low and wouldn't last long in battle. In the case of infantry, morale is low and the leadership sucks, and basic equipment mnay be missing. For x1 cost the units have enough technicians and other support personnell. Ammunition and spares stocks are suffiecient for peacetime and training, as well as short conflicts. This would be the level of readiness and suport the US army would likely maintain For x1.5 cost, the unit has excellent technical support. Lavish stockpiles of spares and ammunition are availible for extended conflicts. Support units such as fuel trucks are in great abundance.

Beowulf wrote:SSBNs are illegal because there's little point in them without having nuclear weapons.

I'm going to have at least 1 or 2 Golf SSB analogues floating around with sail mounted SLBMs carrying 2 tons of thickened Soman/Sarin.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Very nice history, PeZook!

Murderous von Schrom! And Shadow Stormtroopers! And, goddamn - it looks like PeZookia and Shroomania really love their gas

I expanded the chapter for that.

Of course, among us Byzantines, we regard Murderous von Schrom a man who stomps on his surbordinates, is too aggressive, and doesn't give due credit to his surbordinates.

I'm sure he was a total asshole, yeah. Probably a Large Ham played by Brian Blessed or Stephen Fry.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:I'm sure he was a total asshole, yeah. Probably a Large Ham played by Brian Blessed or Stephen Fry.

Us Byzantines sadly moaned his return after his capture by the Khitians.

"That bastard Admiral! Why did he had to survive, after paying the price for his arrogance and aggressiveness WHICH WE WARNED HIM ABOUT!"

Speaking of history, I was thinking of a greater loss, not half, more like two thirds to nearly all. Something about a Khitan Admiral trying to prove the day of the Battleship was done.. Twenty years to early.

The near total loss of the Khitan fleet and the bombardment of it's ports are the main reason it's present government exists as end of the Great War lead to the last great revoultion and the establishment of the modern Khitan system...

Which I'm still figuring out(IE:Dartboard)

Coyote wrote:I can buy the ASW helos no problem, I have the points, I just wondered about them since I saw them as weapon components to a greater system, with most of the capability being the ASW weapons of the surface ships.

How about ships come with their ASW helos, but carriers don't come with air wings? That way you'd still have to buy fixed wing aircraft for CVs, and additional helos for helocarriers, but you wouldn't have to split utility helicopters etc. between navy and army...

Mr Bean wrote:Speaking of history, I was thinking of a greater loss, not half, more like two thirds to nearly all. Something about a Khitan Admiral trying to prove the day of the Battleship was done.. Twenty years to early.

Well, losing half of all the heavy ships is still a complete catastrophe. If you include the ones damaged and stranded in port and those which would be destroyed later when the Allies began rampaging through naval bases...well, the fleet would cease to exist as a coherent fighting force.

I can easily add the bit about proving battleships obsolete: It can mesh nicely with the fact Khitan enjoyed success with cruisers and destroyers (because they avoided a grand battle) and drawing wrong conclusions from the boarding action of the SNS Killyaall (Hey, we boarded a dreadnought, they are not that nasty! Cruisers and destroyers rule!)

Mr Bean wrote:The near total loss of the Khitan fleet and the bombardment of it's ports are the main reason it's present government exists as end of the Great War lead to the last great revoultion and the establishment of the modern Khitan system...

Which I'm still figuring out(IE:Dartboard)

So Khitan is not going to be a party in WWII? I'm asking before I start writing it

Shroom Man 777 wrote:And, goddamn - it looks like PeZookia and Shroomania really love their gas Twisted Evil

Yeah, poison gas is the shit!

Man, we really were assholes during our history

MKSheppard wrote: I'm going to have at least 1 or 2 Golf SSB analogues floating around with sail mounted SLBMs carrying 2 tons of thickened Soman/Sarin.

I'm sure that's not what Beowulf intended. Stop being a dick and bending the rules just to satisfy your fetish for WMDs.

Setzer wrote:How about a World war 2 type conflict, only the A-bomb was invented by the loser? Part of the peace treaty forbid developing or deploying this new technology.

I like that spin on it.

By "analogues" I refer mostly to the visual reference:
"What does your Carrier look like?"
"Here-- looks like this, basically, an Admiral Kuznetsov, just nuclear powered."
I use it as a way to save time on things like PhotoShop, which I am bad at, and also means I don't have to hand-draw tons of stuff.


As for mine-sweepers, I was told by Shep that most surface ships have automated mine-hunting and deploying robots that deploy from the decks of ships, so any Destroyer, Frigate, etc can assume mine-sweeper/layer role. I did, howver, have a few Mine warfare ships made anyway, since at the time I had a mission that required nothing but minesweeping in a low-intensity/stability operations conflict and I didn't want to tie up a multi-million dollar Destroyer with minesweeping duties. So it's individual call.

Most Minesweepers are slow and lightly-armed, and about Corvette in size, so I'd put them at the Corvette rate of 1 point apiece. At most, a major naval power would need, maybe, 6 at max, and even that is a high estimate.

PeZook wrote: Yeah, poison gas is the shit!

Man, we really were assholes during our history

I thought I was supposed to be the bad guy.

So when will you write up WW2?

PeZook wrote:
Well, losing half of all the heavy ships is still a complete catastrophe. If you include the ones damaged and stranded in port and those which would be destroyed later when the Allies began rampaging through naval bases...well, the fleet would cease to exist as a coherent fighting force.

I can easily add the bit about proving battleships obsolete: It can mesh nicely with the fact Khitan enjoyed success with cruisers and destroyers (because they avoided a grand battle) and drawing wrong conclusions from the boarding action of the SNS Killyaall (Hey, we boarded a dreadnought, they are not that nasty! Cruisers and destroyers rule!)

It looks worse both from a historical perspective and a game perspective to show that Khitan has not yet left it's cultural status as raiders per the Great War and that they would keep on with the engagement even as Shadow ships began fleeing, convinced their superior speed and ship handling would let them withdraw at will, but simple ill luck and a well place screen of battle cruisers meant that while Heavy Cruisers and Destroyers were able to run circules around the heavy Battleships of the fleet, their reach a point while the slightly slower battle cruisers were able to "keep up" for a time and keep up the engagement or guess which way they would break after an attack on the squadron and engage them in close (for battleships) combat on the way out.

That tactic realizes on your enemy both not being able to catch you and being unable to chase you down when you reform which won't work unless they are distracted by something such as another enemy fleet draw up to meet them in battle line.

PeZook wrote:

Mr Bean wrote:The near total loss of the Khitan fleet and the bombardment of it's ports are the main reason it's present government exists as end of the Great War lead to the last great revolution and the establishment of the modern Khitan system...

Which I'm still figuring out(IE:Dartboard)

So Khitan is not going to be a party in WWII? I'm asking before I start writing it

Khitan historians insist their was only one Great War since they were in the tail end of their reconstruction following the third great rebellion. Much like Sweden however the Khitan sold weapons to both sides pre-war and you could find Khitan maker's marks on highly mobile anti-tank weapons and parts as well as parts and supplies.


I envision much like things like the Bofors and Maxim MG. Except concentrated more in the areas of high quality riferly(Shroom Snipers Prefer Khitan hand crafted 1910 Khitnaese bolt action sniper rifles), highly mobile weapon system(Khitan Artillery rocket frames) and specifically lots of equipment that could easily be made over to support paratroopers.

I see something along the lines of fledgling airborne troops searching around for light hard hitting weapons stumbling across Khitan mountain troop equipment, pack mule movable 75.5mm AT guns, harnesses design to hold large loads of gear while climbing(And thus with a bit of work useful for jumping out of planes) and planes designed to resupply remote troops/

My revised Navy points allocation:



CAPITAL WARSHIPS: 1000 points allocated from 3000 point limit.

"Triton"-class Cruiser-Carrier (Nuclear Cruiser-Carrier; "Admiral Kuznetsov" look-alike) =16 pts.
+3 flights of AV-8B (2 pts per flight = 6 pts)
+1 E2 Hawkeye-type AWACs (=1 pt.)
Ship + Planes = 23 points.

"Neptune"-class Amphib Assault (Nuclear Amphib Assault; "Wasp" look-alike) =16 pts.
+3 flights AV-8B (2 points per flight = 6 pts)
Ship + Planes = 22 points.

"Kraken"-class Cruisers (Nuclear; "Ticonderoga" look-alike) =12 pts.

"Raidaa"-class Destroyers ("Arleigh-Burke /Flight IIA" look-alike) =4 pts.

"F100"-lass Frigates ("F100" look-alike) =2 pts.

"Anuket"-class Corvettes (NATO-ized Russian "Tarantul" look-alike) =1 pt.

"Pegasus"-class Hydrofoils ("Pegasus"-class look-alike) =1 pt.

"Seahorse"-class Minesweepers ("Frankenthal"-class look-alike) =1pt.

"Victoria"-class SSKs ("Victoria"-class SSK look-alike) =2 pts.

"Seawolf"-class SSNs ("Seawolf"-class SSN look-alike) =4 pts.


"Provider"-class Replenishment ship, heavy ("Lews and Clark"-class look-alikes) =2 pts

"Sustainer"-class Replenishment ship, light ("Type-404/Elbe"-class look-alikes) =2pts

"Industrialist"-class Oiler ("Henry J. Kaiser"-class look-alike) =2pts

"Supply"-class Task Force Underway Replenishment ships ("Supply"-class look-alike) =4pts

"Onager"-class Oceangoing tug/recovery vessel ("USNS Apache T-ATF-172"-class look-alike) =2pts

"Hope"-class RO/RO Strategic Positioning ships ("USNS Bob Hope (T-AKR-300)"-class look-alike) =2pts

"Stalwart"-class Ocean surveillance ship ("Stalwart") =3pts.


CANISSIAN ROYAL NAVY:
4 "Triton"-class Carriers (92 pts)
4 "Neptune"-class Amphib Assault (92 pts)
10 "Kraken"-class Cruisers (120 pts)
40 "Raidaa"-class Destroyers (160 pts)
50 "F100"-class Frigates (100 pts)
30 "Anuket"-class Corvettes (30 pts)
30 "Pegasus"-class Corvette/Hydrofoils (30 pts)
6 "Seahorse"-class Minesweepers (6 pts)
14 "Victoria"-class SSKs (28 pts)
8 "Seawolf"-class SSNs (32 pts)

690 pts for combatants


2 "Provider"-class Supply ships (4 pts)
2 "Industrialist"-class oilers (4 pts)
4 "Supply"-class TFUR ships (16 pts)
6 "Sustainer"-class Supply ships (12 pts)
6 "Onager"-class Ocean tugs (12 pts)
6 "Hope"-class RO/RO (12 pts)
4 "Stalwart"-class Surveillance (8 pts)

68 pts for support ships


SEAL Team 1 = 4 points
SEAL Team 2 = 4 points
SEAL Team 3 = 4 points
SEAL Team 4 = 4 points


774 points spent/226 left of 1000 pts allocated.

Supply class is an AOE bro, thus 4 points. You've got the leftover points so it won't hurt you to change it, but you should for accuracy sake.

Coyote wrote: As for mine-sweepers, I was told by Shep that most surface ships have automated mine-hunting and deploying robots that deploy from the decks of ships, so any Destroyer, Frigate, etc can assume mine-sweeper/layer role. I did, howver, have a few Mine warfare ships made anyway, since at the time I had a mission that required nothing but minesweeping in a low-intensity/stability operations conflict and I didn't want to tie up a multi-million dollar Destroyer with minesweeping duties. So it's individual call.

As of 2008 very few normal warships have anti mine drones, and such drones still require specialist manpower and minehunting sonar to be effective, so they aren’t exactly cheap. A key thing is modern mine countermeasures vessels (a ship equipped to both sweep and hunt mines) is designed to have a very small signature. All efforts are made to reduce magnetic signatures, acoustical signature, and if you can hold displacement below 800 tons, the ship can’t set off pressure mines at all. This makes the ship much more survivable when operating in and around modern mines then a full sized warship that happens to have a few drones onboard. The trend towards placing drones on ships is pretty much driven by the need for strategic mobility as you mentioned, and the impracticality of maintain sufficient ‘real’ mine countermeasures ships in peacetime navies to meet wartime needs.

Just to be clear because I’m sure people don’t know, a minesweeper is a ship which uses towed mechanical sweeps to cut the mooring lines for moored contact mines. Once the mines float to the surface they are destroyed with gunfire. A minehunter meanwhile, is a ship which actually hunts for mines on the bottom using side scan and forward looking sonar. When a suspicious object is located either swimmers or on of those drone are sent down to inspect the object and if it’s a mine, blow it up with an emplaced charge. A mine countermeasures ship meanwhile, has both the mechanical sweeps and minehunting capability; most modern ‘minesweepers’ are mine countermeasures ship.

I don’t intend to be anal about the difference between these types, but I want people to be aware that not every mine can be dealt with the same way. Fixed wing aircraft can also be used to sweep magnetic mines, while acoustical and magnetic mines can be swept by helicopters, neither can sweep moored mines. However no method at all exists to sweep pressure mines, the only option is to blow them in place when and if you can locate them, or to trigger them by using an expendable ship as a mine bumper. Minesweeping aircraft a rare in the real world because of the high cost of such specialist aircraft, but they can cover really big areas.

The best dense against mines in the end is simply keeping your ships in deep water. Even the super expensive CAPTOR mine which shoots a torpedo only works down a couple thousand feet, and most mines don't work in water more then perhaps 500 feet deep.

Most Minesweepers are slow and lightly-armed, and about Corvette in size, so I'd put them at the Corvette rate of 1 point apiece. At most, a major naval power would need, maybe, 6 at max, and even that is a high estimate.

Well, 6 is fine for simply maintain a capability, but if you got faced with a major enemy minelaying offensive you’d easily need six mine countermeasure ships PER PORT you wish to maintain a mine cleared channel into. The USN estimated in the 1980s that it would need 300 minehunters to deal with a Soviet mining offensive in WW3, and that’s just to cover our own waters, no aid to NATO. Luckily for the world though, since Japanistan is going to beat the crap out of Saddamistan for building high tech mines (but hey, bottom mines don’t break free and drift away!), US trials in the 1980s also found that it’s still practical to convert trawlers and similar craft into mine hunters in wartime, provided proper mobilization plans are made and the necessary side scan sonar’s stockpiled.

Unfortunately the USN plan to prepare 66 trawlers for wartime conversion was never funded thanks to the Soviets evaporating. If anyone gets real concerned about being mined to death a plan like that would be the best way to deal with the issue.

Minelaying is really easy; all you need is a way to dump the things over the stern. Vertically any aircraft, ship or submarine can be very easily adapted to lay mines, even highly sophisticated ones.

phongn wrote: Well, everyone has guided missiles; the only thing apparently prohibited at the moment are SRBMs and larger.

SRBMs are banned? That doesn’t work, since the definition of an SRBM is simply a missile with less then 1000km range. I propose instead we just adapt a firm limit on starting ballistic missile performance; mainly a range limit of 300km and a payload limit of 500kg (same as that of the MTCR treaty). This allows for a wide range of tactical ballistic missiles and SAMs that have SSM capability like Nike-Hercules and Patriot (no mistake), without creating any real scope for strategic bombardment. Even with nerve gas you just aren’t going to kill many people with weapons this big, and it would take a long time to get nukes that weigh under 500kg. By that point people will have whole new missiles.

Missiles with this kind of performance would have the potential to put a very small payload into a very low orbit, but as I’ve said before I’m not adverse to the idea of spaceflight existing on a very limited scope. The limitation to V-2 technology is just totally illogical in a world in which allows mach 6 surface to air missiles that can be turned into SSMs at the flick of a switch.

RogueIce wrote:Supply class is an AOE bro, thus 4 points. You've got the leftover points so it won't hurt you to change it, but you should for accuracy sake.

Ah, I didn't recognize most of those acronyms so I went looking in Wiki for "Navy Auxiliary Ships" and the like.