Battleship and Battlerider

[AndreaV]

Can you please tell me how did you design an eight rider tender at TL 10?

The maximum computer at TL 10, IIRC, is 4, and that doesn't support a hull so large as to hold eight BRs (I don't have the books here now to check exact numbers, but IIRC not even four BRs)

And same happens at TL 11, and barely at TL 12 (depending on the interpretation of the tables)

LOL yes caught me, you can't build the multirider tenders at TL10-11 (though I think you might be able to just squeeze a two low end rider tender out at TL11). But as soon as you hit TL12 you get the linear progression and it stays all the way through. The files are all on the CT-starships list if you want to see them

 

[McPerth]

Depends on your definition of BR. Could just as easily be 10 400 dton SDBs.

Ok, when I'm talking about BRs I mean something useful in first line of battle, and so, spinal armed ships.

I guess this is the concept of BR, as they try to pich themselves against battleships and cruisers.

 

[AndreaV]

I would have to disagree. The idea of the BT/BR set up is that the tender does not leave the reserve portion of your fleet. You arrive, the dispersed structure BT launches its weight and begins refueling ops to prepare for departure. All line of battle ships arrived at the same time in the same place and can continue operations in proper position.

True right up till you have more than one tender (which most fleets will) or any escorts at all (which every fleet will). Then you have a more random distribution of arrival times as there are fewer ships

Using HG rules, with the BT in reserve, it cannot be destroyed until everything in front of it is gone, and by that time my tenders are gone. Further, I have brought a meson tube in for every rider I have arrived with. Looking at the cost, of the BT and as many as 8 BRs, how many BBs can you bring to the dance (and thus how many meson tubes?)

Using the single rider tender I can bring 99.5% the number of riders as the eight rider tender can. This puts things well within the range of random chance. At TL 12 I can bring 273.25 as against 273.75. IIRC at TL15 jump 4 it was 491 vs 493. This is essential an equal number

With your premise of the BR/oversized jump shuttle, to get 8 BRs to the fight I have 8 different arrival times to contend with, allowing the potential for my BRs to be defeated piecemeal. While the jump arrival variability is glossed over in TCS, this may not seem a big deal to you. There are campaign systems out there that move time in a more realistic manner.

Except as soon as you want to move more than one squadron you get exactly the same problem, just it has a more random dispersion. 32 single rider tenders will follow the two standard deviations rule, four eight rider tenders won't.

Lastly, there is the point that a dispersed structure tender is not restricted to carrying just those BRs that are designed for it. It could just as easily carry that dtonnage as fighter craft, assault landing craft, passenger modules and/or cargo vessels/modules or even bulk ore. Or any combo of the above. If your oversized jump shuttle carries anything other than a BR of the same tonnage, it can no longer carry the BR too.

Absolutely, except I have eight dispersed structure (the choice of config 7 is dictated by the need to defend against meson guns) tenders to carry X tonnage to one to eight different destinations and you have one to carry the same tonnage to one destination

 

[The Oz]

Andrew is quite correct: I just priced out my Defiance-class BR squadron both with the 8-ship BT and with 8 single-BR tenders, and the single-BR tender squadron comes out over MCr20,000 cheaper. Indeed, the cost difference is enough to buy another BR or BT for the squadron, although it cannot quite extend to one more of each.

I have not yet thought of any good reason for the multi-ship BT except that already mentioned; reducing the spread of a fleet from different jump times. I will point out that this effect does help explain why the Imperium might be pulling the BR squadrons back and leaving the BBs in the front lines. The reduction of fleet dispersal helps an attacking fleet more than a defending fleet, and so anything that might help the Imperial counterattack would be a good thing.

Of course, if you really want to reduce fleet dispersal, why don't you build really big BTs and have entire fleets jumping with just one huge battle tender?

One non-tactical reason for multi-ship tenders is to keep the ships under the eye of the admiral at all times, if you're worried about your warships doing something other than what you want them to.

 

[AndreaV]

Andrew is quite correct: I just priced out my Defiance-class BR squadron both with the 8-ship BT and with 8 single-BR tenders, and the single-BR tender squadron comes out over MCr20,000 cheaper. Indeed, the cost difference is enough to buy another BR or BT for the squadron, although it cannot quite extend to one more of each.

If you build 16 single rider tenders against two eight rider tenders you'll find the advantage decrease (what you're seeing is the higher start up costs for the multirider tender). Eventually if you build enough, the multirider will equalise and even pull ahead slightly (though never by very much). But you do need to build quite a few squadrons to get there.

Of course, if you really want to reduce fleet dispersal, why don't you build really big BTs and have entire fleets jumping with just one huge battle tender?

Its the only way you can, off course then try retreating

One non-tactical reason for multi-ship tenders is to keep the ships under the eye of the admiral at all times, if you're worried about your warships doing something other than what you want them to.

Must admit hadn't considered this one, though it may be the best one yet

 

[Hal]

Another reason why one might build multi-ship battle tenders is the simple fact that whether one uses them for battle riders or one uses them for freighters, the design function for a battle tender doesn't change much. Imagine being able to carry 8 1,000 dton ships into battle. Those can be four freighters and four battle riders, or they can be 8 freighters or they can be eight battle riders. Once you start building system defense boats, but want a means of transporting large numbers of them to worlds without the ability to manufacture them - and you have an instant planetary defense navy on a world where the enemy might not have expected it.

 

[pendragonman]

True right up till you have more than one tender (which most fleets will) or any escorts at all (which every fleet will). Then you have a more random distribution of arrival times as there are fewer ships

If you design right, the BRs (and fighter compliment, if so desired) are the escorts.

Using the single rider tender I can bring 99.5% the number of riders as the eight rider tender can. This puts things well within the range of random chance. At TL 12 I can bring 273.25 as against 273.75. IIRC at TL15 jump 4 it was 491 vs 493. This is essential an equal number

Still doesn't answer my question, which was how many BATTLESHIPS (BBs) can you bring to the dance?

Except as soon as you want to move more than one squadron you get exactly the same problem, just it has a more random dispersion. 32 single rider tenders will follow the two standard deviations rule, four eight rider tenders won't.

Prove to me this premise. I do not see how 32 ships can arrive between two Stdev unless it is a huge Stdev to begin with. The arrival window of separately jumping ships is the arrival window. It is the same window for 32 ships as it is for 4 ships, and as random as dice can be. Statistical probability will allow you to project, but not accurately enough to plan operations. 95% of your fleet arriving between +/- 2 standard deviations is a total spread of 4 standard deviations. This is a long time span, especially if you are the first ship to arrive. Further, this is no better than I get with 4 ships.

Absolutely, except I have eight dispersed structure (the choice of config 7 is dictated by the need to defend against meson guns) tenders to carry X tonnage to one to eight different destinations and you have one to carry the same tonnage to one destination

And if all 8 go to separate destinations carrying anything but the BR, they are leaving their main gun behind. Yes, my group goes to one point. I arrive with at least some firepower beyond fighters if I carry anything but a straight load. You do not.

Let's go further, I load half of the BRs and mix the rest. To get the same tonnage to the target all 8 of your jump shuttles have to come to the same place, and you have that dispersed arrival problem again.

 

[pendragonman]

And one final question, that I forgot to put in the previous:

Why build the oversized jump shuttle to begin with? If I am going to need a jump shuttle of that size to move one of these BRs, why not just build the BB that the combined hull volumes allow? I get space for a bigger main gun, and more batteries over all when I do that.

 

[mike wightman]

Because the battle section of your rider/shuttle already carries the largest meson gun, it is armoured, has screens and is agility 6.

The shuttle doesn't and so the rider/shuttle set up is cheaper than a BB that can do the same job.

It also has a smaller size modifier on the to hit roll (if using HG2 combat).

 

[whartung]

Because the battle section of your rider/shuttle already carries the largest meson gun, it is armoured, has screens and is agility 6.

The shuttle doesn't and so the rider/shuttle set up is cheaper than a BB that can do the same job.

It also has a smaller size modifier on the to hit roll (if using HG2 combat).

Yup, dump the shuttle, gain the agility, etc. If the rider is destroyed, the shuttle can jump to safety, so you recover "half" of your fleet (not necessarily the best half, but it's half you don't have to build again).

You also gain some deployment flexibility. Jump drive need work, no problem, mount the rider on a spare shuttle. The tube is still in play. Same with the other, if the rider is damaged, you have a spare jump drive. While they can stay together, there's no reason they have to.

The problem with the big BB issue is that small BRs can take out larger BBs. The BBs must be SUBSTANTIALLY larger to take on the smaller BRs and match them tube for tube. Why spend the money on the larger hull when you can spend it on more tubes for the fleet.

What I have not seen is the comparison price wise between the BR/Shuttle combination and a EQUALLY capable single unit (same jump, and similar tube, armor, and agility factors). Not sure how much bigger that ship would be, ostensibly it's the same size as the BR/Shuttle combo, but it may well be bigger. Ideally the BR/S combo would be more expensive, but I just don't know.

 

[AndreaV]

If you design right, the BRs (and fighter compliment, if so desired) are the escorts.

Then what do you do if you need to withdraw? Either you sacrifice some of your riders/fighters behind or expose your (fewer) tenders to fire.

Still doesn't answer my question, which was how many BATTLESHIPS (BBs) can you bring to the dance?

Not arguing for battleships, arguing for smaller tenders Battleships ALWAYS have a very significant cost disadvantage compared with ANY rider combination.

Prove to me this premise. I do not see how 32 ships can arrive between two Stdev unless it is a huge Stdev to begin with. The arrival window of separately jumping ships is the arrival window. It is the same window for 32 ships as it is for 4 ships, and as random as dice can be. Statistical probability will allow you to project, but not accurately enough to plan operations. 95% of your fleet arriving between +/- 2 standard deviations is a total spread of 4 standard deviations. This is a long time span, especially if you are the first ship to arrive. Further, this is no better than I get with 4 ships.

Four ships doesn't give enough of a sample, 32 does

And if all 8 go to separate destinations carrying anything but the BR, they are leaving their main gun behind. Yes, my group goes to one point. I arrive with at least some firepower beyond fighters if I carry anything but a straight load. You do not.

Let's go further, I load half of the BRs and mix the rest. To get the same tonnage to the target all 8 of your jump shuttles have to come to the same place, and you have that dispersed arrival problem again.

Ahhh, but I don't have to go to eight separate destinations, I can go to one if I like, or two or three... The key here is that the eight separate rider/tenders have far greater strategic flexibility than the single eight rider/tender.

Also its important to look beyond a single squadron or even combat deployments. In reality no major navy will build a fleet consisting solely of riders or solely of ships.

Lets look at two theoretical states.

State One
world 1 - Industrial, 20 Billion pop at tech level 13 with A starport
world 2 - 5 Billion pop at tech level 12 with A starport
World 3 - 5 Billion pop at tech level 12 with B starport
Misc worlds - 1 Billion pop at tech level 11 with C starport
This represents a multiworld pocket empire who's influence would be felt sector wide

State Two
Single world - Rich, 800 Million pop at tech level 13
This represents a powerful minor world who's influence would be felt subsector wide.

Now each world spends 3% of its GDP on its military budget, 60% goes to the navy. Of that it spends 40% on capital ships, one quarter of which goes on battleships. This leaves 30% for riders.

Each state projects six rider J4 fleets.
Fleet One to Three
Armour 11, Agility 6 carrying a P meson using single, four and eight rider tenders
Fleet Four to Siz
Armour 4, Agility 5 carrying a P meson using single, four and eight rider tenders

These fleets are backed by a force of J4 battleships with stats matching fleet four to six (because you can't build one matching fleet one to three).

State One has 56.776 battleships and State Two has 1.742 (in reality state two isn't going to build them)

Now to the riders...

Fleet One (high end single rider per tender)
State One - 413.506 riders, State Two - 14.148 riders
Fleet Two (high end four riders per tender)
State One - 415.244 riders, State Two - 13.806 riders
Fleet Three (high end eight riders per tender)
State One - 415.077 riders, State Two - 13.264 riders
Fleet Four (low end single rider per tender)
State One - 702.816 riders, State Two - 24.224 riders
Fleet Five (low end four riders per tender)
State One - 709.563 riders, State Two - 24.035 riders
Fleet Six (low end eight riders per tender)
State One - 710.033 riders, State Two - 23.487 riders

Any way you cut it, the multirider tenders don't have significant enough cost advantage to overcome their lower strategic flexibility. At the high end the advantage is 0.5% at the low end its 1%.

 

[aramis]

And one final question, that I forgot to put in the previous:

Why build the oversized jump shuttle to begin with? If I am going to need a jump shuttle of that size to move one of these BRs, why not just build the BB that the combined hull volumes allow? I get space for a bigger main gun, and more batteries over all when I do that.

Mike's comments are pretty close to on, but not terribly clear.

Premise 1: Bigger ships are easier to hit.
Premise 2: Jump Drives work as premised and take LARGE amounts of fuel
Premise 3: A single spinal mount is likely to break even a BB in a single hit.
Premise 4: you don't carry the rider(s) internally.

The Jump Shuttle + Single Rider of equal total tonnage to a BB:

• Is two smaller targets, each harder to hit than a single large one.
• Only one of the two is exposed to enemy fire; the other jumps out if threatened.
• Can carry the same spinal with a higher agility than the BB
• Requires two spinal hits to kill.
• is massively overtonnage for the spinal mission

Jump carrier and multiple riders, for this case, 4:

• Is 5 smaller targets, each harder to hit than a single large one.
• Only 4 of the 5 are exposed to enemy fire; the fifth jumps out if threatened.
• Can carry the 4 spinals with a higher agility each than the BB
• Requires 5 spinal hits to kill, instead of 1
• is lacking in turret based defenses due to small rider size

As long as your spinal breaks the BB's armor, it need not be the same spinal as the BB. The question becomes, which is more cost effective... and that boils down to combat effectiveness and lifespan... and whether you can keep the jump shuttle out of combat. If you can, even if the rider groups are a dead even match for the BB in killing power, not having to rebuild the J-Drives means you can build the replacements at B Ports.

 

[AndreaV]

And one final question, that I forgot to put in the previous:

Why build the oversized jump shuttle to begin with? If I am going to need a jump shuttle of that size to move one of these BRs, why not just build the BB that the combined hull volumes allow? I get space for a bigger main gun, and more batteries over all when I do that.

Because (as others have put far better than I can), the rider/tender is cheaper, smaller, requires less crew and can be built faster.

Example
TL 15 Line of battle unit: agility 6, jump 4, armour 11 spinal T
Ship 336,000 Td, MCr 231,994.850, crew 2,760 construction 221 weeks
Rider/single tender 76,600 Td, MCr 34,354.144, crew 598, construction 189 weeks
Rider/four tender 76,000 Td (per rider), MCr 33,899.748 (per rider), crew 571 (per rider), construction 213 weeks
Rider/eight tender 75,915 Td (per rider), MCr 33,830.119 (per rider), crew 568 (per rider), construction 225 weeks

 

[rancke]

Premise 3: A single spinal mount is likely to break even a BB in a single hit.

And that, IMO, is the premise most likely to be wrong.

I tossed off a suggestion some posts back that seems to've gone unnoticed. Possibly I'm wrong -- my 3D geometry is very weak -- but shouldn't you be getting thicker armor out of a given percentage of a ship's volume for bigger ships than for smaller ships?

If that is the case, then the rule that gives the same armor value to all ships for the same armor volume is flawed. And if your 25,000T battlerider is only getting a factor 5 armor out of its 15% while the 500,000T battleship is getting a factor 30 out of its 15%, then bigger ships suddenly do have a survivability factor derived from its size -- just as one would suppose from the fact that OTU navies do build many battleships.


Hans

 

[The Oz]

And that, IMO, is the premise most likely to be wrong.

I tossed off a suggestion some posts back that seems to've gone unnoticed. Possibly I'm wrong -- my 3D geometry is very weak -- but shouldn't you be getting thicker armor out of a given percentage of a ship's volume for bigger ships than for smaller ships?

If that is the case, then the rule that gives the same armor value to all ships for the same armor volume is flawed. And if your 25,000T battlerider is only getting a factor 5 armor out of its 15% while the 500,000T battleship is getting a factor 30 out of its 15%, then bigger ships suddenly do have a survivability factor derived from its size -- just as one would suppose from the fact that OTU navies do build many battleships.


Hans

This is what Mike and I did a long time ago: created HG variant rules that gave back the toughness that battleships should have. As I recall, it was mostly allowing bigger ships to absorb more damage so that a single meson gun hit usually wouldn't mission-kill a BB in one zot. These were all rules about ship combat so they didn't obsolete any canon designs.

Plus we created a "meson gun spinal turret" rule that gave BBs a lot more firepower. IMTU a Tigress has nearly the same meson gun firepower of a squadron of BRs, but costs less and arrives as a single unit.

 

[mike wightman]

And that, IMO, is the premise most likely to be wrong.

I tossed off a suggestion some posts back that seems to've gone unnoticed. Possibly I'm wrong -- my 3D geometry is very weak -- but shouldn't you be getting thicker armor out of a given percentage of a ship's volume for bigger ships than for smaller ships?

If that is the case, then the rule that gives the same armor value to all ships for the same armor volume is flawed. And if your 25,000T battlerider is only getting a factor 5 armor out of its 15% while the 500,000T battleship is getting a factor 30 out of its 15%, then bigger ships suddenly do have a survivability factor derived from its size -- just as one would suppose from the fact that OTU navies do build many battleships.


Hans

You can have all the armour in the world - doesn't stop a meson gun =)

 

[rancke]

You can have all the armour in the world - doesn't stop a meson gun =)

But it does prevent criticals. A factorT meson vs. a 25,000T ship inflicts seven extra critical hits (if it hits and penetrates) minus one per two points of armor. So if the ship has armor 15, it just shrugs those off. But if it only has armor 5...

And perhaps Really Thick Armor does shift Interior Explosions outwards to the surface. The max armor equal to tech level is another unrealistic rule; increasing the thickness of the armor is going to increase the armor factor at any tech level. Say you need an armor factor that is unrealistic for cruiser-sized ships but achievable for battleship-sized ships.

BTW, why does the Interior Explosion Damage table go to 22? How do you get a result of more than 18?


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

But it does prevent criticals. A factorT meson vs. a 25,000T ship inflicts seven extra critical hits (if it hits and penetrates) minus one per two points of armor. So if the ship has armor 15, it just shrugs those off. But if it only has armor 5...

And perhaps Really Thick Armor does shift Interior Explosions outwards to the surface. The max armor equal to tech level is another unrealistic rule; increasing the thickness of the armor is going to increase the armor factor at any tech level.

BTW, why does the Interior Explosion Damage table go to 22? How do you get a result of more than 18?


Hans

Nope, re-read the rules.

Meson crits are not reduced by armour.

As to the IED table I have no idea...

HG2 page 41, critical hits, last sentence:

"Meson gun hits are not reduced by armor."

 

[AndreaV]

And that, IMO, is the premise most likely to be wrong.

I tossed off a suggestion some posts back that seems to've gone unnoticed. Possibly I'm wrong -- my 3D geometry is very weak -- but shouldn't you be getting thicker armor out of a given percentage of a ship's volume for bigger ships than for smaller ships?

I take "Armour" to be more than just a thick skin. Armour is a total package for damage resistance. Its a thicker skin, increased subdivision, stronger internal bulkheads, damage absorbing void spaces etc (you can find some reference to this concept in HG pp28). Which if you think about means that armour should be somewhat effective against meson guns. Yes you've negated the thicker hull, but all the other factors are still working.

 

[rancke]

Nope, re-read the rules.

Meson crits are not reduced by armour.

Right you are. And I distinctly remember losing an argument about the vulnerability of smaller ships by someone pointing out the armor reduces extra critical hits rule to me. >>sigh<<.

Then maybe the meson screen rules need revising. Perhaps the energy requirement to attain a given screen factor is proportionally higher for smaller ships. Or maybe bigger ships can achieve higher screen factors. Or both. Say the maximum screen factor achievable is equal to the size factor and the energy cost is something a big ship can actually afford to pay.


Hans