Battleship and Battlerider

[Ishmael]

They fly ship's boats. Shuttles and lifeboats and launches and pinnaces and gigs (Oh My!).

In the original Book 1 description of Ship's Boat skill fighters are not even mentioned.

So the gig from a Fiery or Gazelle class ship is flown by enlisted? ...except in combat?
So fighters can't be flown with ship's_boat skill, but requires 'pilot' instead ( according to book1 )?

What does the officer with Medical and Ship's Boat do? What does the offficer with Engineering and Ship's Boat do? What do the officer with Gunnery and Ship's boat do? They all do whatever their other skills have caused them to be assigned to do.

Okay, the officers get an enlisted guy to fly them in their shuttles and lifeboats and launches and pinnaces and gigs (Oh My!).... except on combat missions? And unless its these officer's job to pilot a ship or boat, then the Imperials waste time a resources on training them for functions that they are not generally assigned to do? How inefficient.

The throw to enlist is affected only by intelligence and education. Tech level of applicant is not taken into account. So it would appear that that's exactly what the Imperial Navy (and the duchy navies and the planetary navies) do.

wrong.... at least for adv cg in MT, which I've been referencing from the beginning as I've stated a number of times. Other rulesets? Don't know, don't care.
Imperial navy needs high stellar recruits. Reserve fleets need whatever tech group the subsector capital's tech is. System fleets must be at least early stellar. Otherwise, those options are unavailable. That's just the way it is. I suppose you could wave that away so long as you impose the tech difference dm's in the task throw, but that seems over dangerous and wasteful.

........Enlisted men are turned into officers only through attendance of OCS.

Which is the Adv chargen's version of the 'commission roll' which brownie points can affect.
If basic cg is mentioned, then the commission roll might very well be battlefield commissions and pilots can be enlisted.

it would appear that basic cg is very (too?) abstract and adv cg is much less so, but borked in some ways from reasonable-ness. But then it always did bother me that the only way for a navy character to get battledress skill ( other than gunnery branches chance with the spl combat cascade ) is to be a senior officer on shore duty. The entire confusion between pilot(flight) and pilot(naval) is case in point.

 

[rancke]

So the gig from a Fiery or Gazelle class ship is flown by enlisted? ...except in combat?

You asked what enlisted men flew if they didn't fly fighters. I'd say they fly ship's boats in combat and non-combat missions alike. Just not fighters.

So fighters can't be flown with ship's_boat skill, but requires 'pilot' instead ( according to book1 )?

As far as I can tell, fighters aren't mentioned under any skill in Book 1. Space fighters, that is. Fighters as we know them are flown using the Vehicle (Jet-propelled Fixed Wing Aircraft) skill.

Okay, the officers get an enlisted guy to fly them in their shuttles and lifeboats and launches and pinnaces and gigs (Oh My!).... except on combat missions? And unless its these officer's job to pilot a ship or boat, then the Imperials waste time a resources on training them for functions that they are not generally assigned to do? How inefficient.

Inefficient seems to be the name of the game with character generation. People wind up with all sorts of barely relevant secondary skills. Some times without ever learning a primary skill.

Imperial navy needs high stellar recruits. Reserve fleets need whatever tech group the subsector capital's tech is. System fleets must be at least early stellar. Otherwise, those options are unavailable.

Wrong. PM, p. 52, repeated on p. 54. System squadrons are not available unless home system is at least Early Stellar. But Reserve Fleet and Imperial Navy are always available.

That's just the way it is. I suppose you could wave that away so long as you impose the tech difference dm's in the task throw, but that seems over dangerous and wasteful.

No such rule in any Traveller version I know, except GT.

Which is the Adv chargen's version of the 'commission roll' which brownie points can affect.

But that's not a battlefield commission. A battlefield commison makes you an officer straight away without having to go through OCS.

If basic cg is mentioned, then the commission roll might very well be battlefield commissions and pilots can be enlisted.

So it could, if it wasn't for the complete absence of battlefield commisions in the Enhanced CG system, which supposedly emulates the exact same organization.

Incidentally, both battlefield commisions and attendance of OCS turns the enlisted man into an officer, not an enlisted man doing the job of an officer.

It would appear that basic cg is very (too?) abstract and adv cg is much less so, but borked in some ways from reasonable-ness. But then it always did bother me that the only way for a navy character to get battledress skill ( other than gunnery branches chance with the spl combat cascade ) is to be a senior officer on shore duty. The entire confusion between pilot(flight) and pilot(naval) is case in point.

That at least we are in complete and total agreement about.


Hans

 

[Ishmael]

You asked what enlisted men flew if they didn't fly fighters. I'd say they fly ship's boats in combat and non-combat missions alike. Just not fighters.

<shrug> I guess its a machismo thing to be a fighter pilot then..... now all that remains is to define what a 'fighter' actually is and how its different than the other combat small craft, eh?

Wrong. PM, p. 52, repeated on p. 54. System squadrons are not available unless home system is at least Early Stellar. But Reserve Fleet and Imperial Navy are always available.

a matter of interpretation, I'd say. I feel mine is more reasonable than the idea that the navy willingly teaches anyone and everyone everything needed to function at tech 15. but we obviously have different views on that,

No such rule in any Traveller version I know, except GT.

Then you don't know MegaTraveller despite giving out page numbers from an MT rulebook

The entire battlefield commissions and ocs stuff...well...its all an abstraction that gives an identical end product; a path for enlisted to become officers without going through flight school, college or an academy. Gaining dm's to use to get it by doing 'brave' stuff and risking life/limb seems close enough to battlefield commissions to me. Make the hero an officer ( if higher ups even noticed what he did ) and then send him to learn all the officer-ing stuff in OCS once ya get a chance ( next duty assignment is the dice roll right ). Even then its not a sure thing.... maybe the admirals weren't watching or took credit for themselves... Maybe his section leader knows all about it and made the recommendations which got shot down.
Personally, I think you're being way way too literal in some of your rules interpretations, even at the cost of reasonable-ness, for my taste.

That at least we are in complete and total agreement about.

That's gotta be some kind of a first. I'm stopping before the moment is ruined by something really contentious.

 

[rancke]

<shrug> I guess its a machismo thing to be a fighter pilot then..... now all that remains is to define what a 'fighter' actually is and how its different than the other combat small craft, eh?

A vehicle designed solely for fighting, maybe? As opposed to launches, gigs, lifeboats, etc.

A matter of interpretation, I'd say. I feel mine is more reasonable than the idea that the navy willingly teaches anyone and everyone everything needed to function at tech 15. but we obviously have different views on that.

My view concerns what the rules actually say. They specify that system squadrons are not available unless the system is at least early stellar whereas reserve fleet and Imperial Navy are available in all cases. Not a lot of room for interpretation there, I believe. You may feel that there are good reasons to ignore the rules, but that's not the same thing at all.

Then you don't know MegaTraveller despite giving out page numbers from an MT rulebook.

True enough. I actually had to read the rules about enlisting in the Navy to find out what they said. Lots of other MT bits I don't know by heart either.

The entire battlefield commissions and ocs stuff...

I was talking about giving minuses to skill rolls based on tech level differences.


Hans

 

[Ishmael]

My view concerns what the rules actually say. They specify that system squadrons are not available unless the system is at least early stellar whereas reserve fleet and Imperial Navy are available in all cases. Not a lot of room for interpretation there, I believe. You may feel that there are good reasons to ignore the rules, but that's not the same thing at all.

except that the rules don't actually say that.

"A beginning naval character must be aware of two facts-- the tech code of the subsector he is in ( usually taken as the tech code of the capital of the subsector, but always no less than Early Stellar ) and the world codes of the character's homeworld. These factors influence which naval forces are available to the characters."
The italics are mine for emphasis.
At no time does it say anywhere that the reserve navy or the imperial navy are available in all cases. It also does not specifically state that a character is limited to navies that have similar or lower tech codes than the players understand. That's room for interpretation so long as you don't add extra words like 'available in all cases' to the rules.

I was talking about giving minuses to skill rolls based on tech level differences.

That bit is in the MT Ref's Manual on pg15 which discusses the UTP in detail.

 

[rancke]

except that the rules don't actually say that.

Yes, they do.

"A beginning naval character must be aware of two facts-- the tech code of the subsector he is in ( usually taken as the tech code of the capital of the subsector, but always no less than Early Stellar ) and the world codes of the character's homeworld. These factors influence which naval forces are available to the characters."

True. And below is set out the way they influence it.

Enlistment:
[...]
Throw 8+ to enlist in the Imperial Navy [...]

Throw 7+ to enlist in the Reserve Fleet [...] The Reserve Fleet has a tech code equal to the tech code of the subsector capital.

Throw 6+ to enlist in the character's homeworld's System Squadron [...] If the homeworld is less than Early Stellar, there is no System Squadron, and this option is not available.

Emphasis mine.

At no time does it say anywhere that the reserve navy or the imperial navy are available in all cases.

Yes, it does. The rules allow a character to enlist in the IN on a throw of 8+, and in the Reserve Fleet on a throw of 7+. Unlike enlistment in the System Squadron, there are no restrictions..

It also does not specifically state that a character is limited to navies that have similar or lower tech codes than the players understand.

No indeed. It specifically states that any character can enter both the IN and the Reserve Fleet provided it can make the enlistment throw.

That bit is in the MT Ref's Manual on pg15 which discusses the UTP in detail.

Interesting. I was unaware of that rule.


Hans

 

[McPerth]

Wow, two days AOK and quite more pages on the thread... And no refference to BBs or BRs... May I suggest you transfer your (otherwhise quite interesting) discussion to another specific thread, so one can follow more easily each discusion?

Any way I see several interesting things in your arguments.

About crosstraining, I see it can be interpreted several ways:

-You can cross train only in the branches you couls be on, as a way to have some pople to change branch or have skills unrelated with his branch, while keepping every one wher they belong. If so, an enlisted man cannot cross train to Flight (as he cannot be on it), nor can anyone crossrain to technical branch unless on IN.

- Cross training is a way to have people trained in any skill you may need but don't have in its job. If so, enlisted may crosstrain in Flight and non IN people can train in Technical Branch (Temporary transfer to IN for a course and training). Even so, they cannot join those branches, as they're not commisioned officiers in first case and the branch does not exist in the seccond (perhaps you may allow it to join Engineering branch as IN trained specialist. Of ourse there's not anything about it about rules, but rules must be a gide, not a Holy Book).

- Cross training is a way to have people transfer among branches and learn more slikks. If so people can cross train in any branch and then transfer to it, withoul limitations.

I think is a matter of interpretation, and so you must adapt the rules to your vision and interpretation of them.

About battlefield promotions (at least in Adv CharGen, as in basic CharGen you can assume your character promoted this way if you want), you may think if you want that they are given as temporary, subject to transfer then to OCS to confirm them. That will explain why you character may attand OCS after 34 years, albeit he must repeat the roll (he's allowed to atain it anyway, because is to confirm a battlefiled promotion). There's not anything in the rules pointing that way (don't bother to look for it), but I think it may be an explanation, if you want to include them.

 

[Ishmael]

about bb vs br, I'd simply have the idea that bb's have a strategic advantage as far as greater flexibility in strategic movement whereas br's would have tactical advantages in single battles.

I'm afraid I can't do any useful analysis because I use a thoroughly non-standard homebrew shipbuilding set-up with structural considerations ( buckling severely limits agility, fineness ratios, and thus accelerator tunnel lengths ). realistic thrusters with limited g-turns, where mass has a strong influence on performance, including jump performance and surface area limits the numbers and types of turret/bay/misc_equipment. Battles are played out using a hybrid of 'Fusion Guard' rules by B.A.MacIntosh

like so many other aspects of Traveller, I suppose the outcome would hinge on which ruleset is used and how those rules are interpreted.

 

[McPerth]

about bb vs br, I'd simply have the idea that bb's have a strategic advantage as far as greater flexibility in strategic movement whereas br's would have tactical advantages in single battles.

I'm afraid I can't do any useful analysis because I use a thoroughly non-standard homebrew shipbuilding set-up with structural considerations ( buckling severely limits agility, fineness ratios, and thus accelerator tunnel lengths ). realistic thrusters with limited g-turns, where mass has a strong influence on performance, including jump performance and surface area limits the numbers and types of turret/bay/misc_equipment. Battles are played out using a hybrid of 'Fusion Guard' rules by B.A.MacIntosh

like so many other aspects of Traveller, I suppose the outcome would hinge on which ruleset is used and how those rules are interpreted.

We forget too often that the IN has some missions, aside from defending the Imperium, for which BBs (or Cruisers) ar best suited than BR/BTs.

Aside from the main imperial defense force, IN is its main political asset too, be either by cowing restive planets, 'goodwill' visits, anti-piracy patrols and raids, etc...

For all this missions, aa BR/BT squadron may be too much, while a Cruiser may be hard pressed, mostly if marines or fighters are also needed. I think this is the main use of the BBs. They are powerful and carry ship's troops and fighters enough to resolve any such missions. About patroling the border, jump capable ships may well use its better flexibility to patrol a larger area, and jump away with the news if larger trouble than they can chew is found.

Even so, in battle, BR/BT combo is more powerful for the same price, so has a slight advantage, if the fleet is going to remain assembled for battle, not having to disperse for delaying maneovers.

I guess that's why IN uses mostly BBs and Cruisers for border patrol (also where most peacetime missions are needed) and BR/BTs for strategic reserves, and its main strategy in last wars (4FW doesn't count, as it was resolved before any steps could be taken) has been delaying action until strategic reserves are bought to bear, and then a counterattack (mostly as most NATO stategies wer thought if WP attacked).

Of course, if 3I should go to offensive war, you can expect the strategic reserves to be sent forward before the war, and so begin it with its more powerful BR/BT squadrons, that is what Zhodani have done in FFW, and presumibily the Solomani while Rebelion too.

 

[rancke]

There are two different, albeit related, problems with the setting material vis-a-vis the game rules.

The first is the smaller combat vessel vs. the bigger combat vessel, e.g. cruisers vs. battleships. There are times where it makes sense to build five or six or eight cruisers instead of one battleship, even if those cruisers represented one less effective unit in the big battles, because sometimes you need to solve problems where a big ship isn't able to do the job. But if each of those five or six or eight cruisers really was almost as effective a combat vessels as the single battleship, then it simply don't make sense to build the battleships in the first place. If bigger isn't better, why build bigger? Since the OTU navies do build bigger, bigger has to be better in some way.

The second is riders vs. ships. If riders represent a bit more bang for the buck, it makes sense that people will argue about whether the added combat power is worth strategic disadvantage of having trouble bugging out if attacked by a superior force. But if riders are vastly more effective, again, why build ships at all?

What is needed is to make bigger ships better and and to make riders better than the equivalent ship, sure, but with some sort of countervailing problem(s).

For the ship vs. cruiser, I'd suggest changing the meson screen in two ways: To make it work like armor vs. meson weapons, and to make bigger ships able to carry better screens.

I'd also suggest changing the 'Fuel Tanks Shattered' result on the Interior Explosion Damage table to 'Fuel tank shattered, up to 10,000T of fuel capacity lost'. This would make this result a mission kill for smaller ships (with less than 10,000T of fuel, but not the bigger ships with much more tankage than that. (Note: I grabbed the figure 10,000 out of thin air; perhaps another figure would be better).

For riders, one of the reasons they are so cheap is that the tender doesn't have to be armored. I wonder how that would work in "reality". Wouldn't that make them prey to the defender's smaller ships and represent a tactical problem for the attacker?


Hans

 

[McPerth]

I'd also suggest changing the 'Fuel Tanks Shattered' result on the Interior Explosion Damage table to 'Fuel tank shattered, up to 10,000T of fuel capacity lost'. This would make this result a mission kill for smaller ships (with less than 10,000T of fuel, but not the bigger ships with much more tankage than that. (Note: I grabbed the figure 10,000 out of thin air; perhaps another figure would be better).

May be that figure should depend on the rating of the meson gun firing? Let's say 250 ton + 250 ton more per factor over A (also taken from the air, it should be pondered too)?

For riders, one of the reasons they are so cheap is that the tender doesn't have to be armored. I wonder how that would work in "reality". Wouldn't that make them prey to the defender's smaller ships and represent a tactical problem for the attacker?

In reality, I guess the fighters and other small gunboats whould try to go after the Tender. That would give two battles in one: BB/BRs vs equals, and fighters/gunboats trying to attack/deffend the Tender.

How to represent that on the game, I'm not sure...

 

[aramis]

BB's are show-pieces. Humans are intimidated by big things; the bigger, the more so. Even if a large cruiser can do the same job of naval combat (and under HG, it can), BB's will have some psychological advantages in public perception.

Also, from the standpoint of the marines, a BB can easily carry a regiment; while a CA not so much... and that regiment of marines is almost completely outside the effects of the HG system.

 

[rancke]

BB's are show-pieces. Humans are intimidated by big things; the bigger, the more so. Even if a large cruiser can do the same job of naval combat (and under HG, it can), BB's will have some psychological advantages in public perception.

That's a reason to build a handful of battleships. Not hundreds or thousands of them.

And the prime evidence for the effectiveness of battleships vs. cruisers lies in the canonical description that claims that battleships are able to survive in the line of battle while cruisers are not. Which means that a ship design and combat system that makes it possible to build cruisers that are roughly as effective in the line of battle as battleships are contradicts the setting material even before we start looking into how reasonable it is to pay five or ten times more for the same combat ability.

Also, from the standpoint of the marines, a BB can easily carry a regiment; while a CA not so much... and that regiment of marines is almost completely outside the effects of the HG system.

Troops are mostly carried by troop transports arranged in assault squadrons [JTAS9:40].

Of the three battleship classes we know about, Tigresses and Plankwells don't carry troops.


Hans

 

[robject]

What is needed is to make bigger ships better and and to make riders better than the equivalent ship, sure, but with some sort of countervailing problem(s).

...

For riders, one of the reasons they are so cheap is that the tender doesn't have to be armored. I wonder how that would work in "reality". Wouldn't that make them prey to the defender's smaller ships and represent a tactical problem for the attacker?


Hans

Agreed. There must be tradeoffs directly related to the types of wars, battles fought, or missions undertaken.

...and as Hans points out, the line of battle should probably remain a point of distinction.

 

[McPerth]

That's a reason to build a handful of battleships. Not hundreds or thousands of them.

True if you have a handful of those missions to acomplish, not hundreds or thousands of them :devil:.

Probably the empire has quite a lot of those missions

 

[rancke]

True if you have a handful of those missions to acomplish, not hundreds or thousands of them :devil:.

Probably the empire has quite a lot of those missions.

Rather than question just how you figure out the probabilities involved, I'll ask you to go on and read the next paragraph of what I wrote.


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

That's a reason to build a handful of battleships. Not hundreds or thousands of them.

Where's the canon evidence that there are thousands of TL15 BSs?

The BBs are used in the frontier sectors, the BR/tenders are held in reserve.

And the prime evidence for the effectiveness of battleships vs. cruisers lies in the canonical description that claims that battleships are able to survive in the line of battle while cruisers are not. Which means that a ship design and combat system that makes it possible to build cruisers that are roughly as effective in the line of battle as battleships are contradicts the setting material even before we start looking into how reasonable it is to pay five or ten times more for the same combat ability.

Canon also gives us the Kinunir class being able to hold the vanguard at...

no point going any further


.

Of the three battleship classes we know about, Tigresses and Plankwells don't carry troops.


Hans

I'm glad you picked up on this because the write up for the Plankwell states:
'Lacking the extensive troop complement' {of the Tigress }
and yet the designers forgot to put any troops on board the Tigress class - which is jump 3 according to its USP and jump 4 according to its data block.

My point being the designers at GDW didn't think this stuff through as much as we collectively are. I doubt if they ever realised all the implications of their own design rules and combat system.

And a great deal of setting canon is written by people with their own personal bias for how things should be rather than what the rules dictate.

We have HG2 which models ship construction and combat within the OTU, the setting should be developed from there IMHO.

 

[rancke]

Where's the canon evidence that there are thousands of TL15 BSs?

I did say 'hundreds or thousands' precisely because I didn't have any hard evidence of thousands. However, "Additional Tigress class BatRons are generally assigned one per sector" [FS:38]. That's somewhere between 160 and 224 500,000T battleships depending on interpretation of 'sector'. There are four Kokirrak class BatRons among the 11 fleets in the Spinward Marches. If that's an average, there are about 900 of them among the IN's 320 fleets. Could be more, could be less, but in any case there used to be more of them; they're being phased out now.

The BBs are used in the frontier sectors, the BR/tenders are held in reserve.

Do me a favor and let me know where you read that. I don't doubt you, but I've been trying to track down the article where that was said.

My point being the designers at GDW didn't think this stuff through as much as we collectively are. I doubt if they ever realised all the implications of their own design rules and combat system.

I think that's a safe assumption.

And a great deal of setting canon is written by people with their own personal bias for how things should be rather than what the rules dictate.

We have HG2 which models ship construction and combat within the OTU, the setting should be developed from there IMHO.

Then how about starting a thread about changing the setting to fit the rules?


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

I did say 'hundreds or thousands' precisely because I didn't have any hard evidence of thousands. However, "Additional Tigress class BatRons are generally assigned one per sector" [FS:38]. That's somewhere between 160 and 224 500,000T battleships depending on interpretation of 'sector'. There are four Kokirrak class BatRons among the 11 fleets in the Spinward Marches. If that's an average, there are about 900 of them among the IN's 320 fleets. Could be more, could be less, but in any case there used to be more of them; they're being phased out now.

Ahh, but that's for frontier sectors

Do me a favor and let me know where you read that. I don't doubt you, but I've been trying to track down the article where that was said.

No probs, S:9FS pp 5 and 9 - specifically the second paragraph on page 9.

I think that's a safe assumption.

To be fair to them there are a lot more of us and we've had years to go over this.

Then how about starting a thread about changing the setting to fit the rules?


Hans

Good idea

 

[robject]

This collective wisdom can also be used to present thoughtful ideas to Marc, as he is thinking about the roles of battleships and cruisers and tenders and etc, because he is in the early stages of Battle-class Ships and fleet design and combat.