Of Battle Tenders and Battle Riders....

[Jeff M. Hopper]

OK, got a High Guard question for the OTU about Battle Riders and carried craft.

Lets say that you've got a 200,000 ton Battle Tender with 4 20,000 ton Battle Riders attached. In combat, assuming that they are still attached, can they use their weapons to supplement the Battle Tender's weapons? Yeah, there may only be 25% of batteries bearing, but what about Meson Guns that can fire through obstacles to hit their targets?

Assuming you have the same 200,000 ton Battle Tender with 4 20,000 ton Battle Riders attached. Can the Battle Riders use their maneuver drives to help push the Battle Tender?

I'd like to hear what ya'lls thoughts are on this.

 

[McPerth]

OK, got a High Guard question for the OTU about Battle Riders and carried craft.

Lets say that you've got a 200,000 ton Battle Tender with 4 20,000 ton Battle Riders attached. In combat, assuming that they are still attached, can they use their weapons to supplement the Battle Tender's weapons? Yeah, there may only be 25% of batteries bearing, but what about Meson Guns that can fire through obstacles to hit their targets?

Assuming you have the same 200,000 ton Battle Tender with 4 20,000 ton Battle Riders attached. Can the Battle Riders use their maneuver drives to help push the Battle Tender?

I'd like to hear what ya'lls thoughts are on this.

I don't know if there is any oficial answer, but I'd say not to both questions.

I guess attached ships are so by clamps that won't resist the attempt by the BRs (that use to have higher agility and MDs tan hte Tender) to move the tender. They are not the shuttles of the Annic Nova, that are attached just for this. Remember most BTs are dispersed configuration to quickly detach the BRs, and this structure uses to be quite fragile, and I guess won't resist this attempt to assist in agility either.

ANd about the BRs' Spinals, to fire them the whole ship must be manuered for them to aim the target, and I see this as imposible on attached ships, for the same reasons I don't believe they can assit te BR wiht their Maneuver Drives.

Of course, YMMV...

 

[Major B]

I'd like to hear what ya'lls thoughts are on this.

I would say yes to the first question with a caveat: Firing the meson gun should be possible though I don't know for sure if it is allowed. Firing smaller batteries should also be possible if they bear on a target. Depending on how the rider is carried, some batteries may be between the rider and the tender and so could not be used. The caveat has to do with sensors and understanding how the rider is carried. I wouldn't allow the rider to fire the meson gun unless it has a target - either acquired by its own sensors or targeting data fed to it by the tender's sensors.

I would say probably no to the second question because it depends on how the rider is carried. I recall a picture of a tender with long boom arms and the riders are carried by attaching points at the end of the booms. It was in a CT book but I don't remember which. Those riders probably couldn't use their drives because the booms probably couldn't take the stress. If the rider is carried in a more structurally sound way, like a hull niche that it settles into, it may be able to use its drives. If you are assuming thrust plates or thrusters on the stern of the ship (as in MT) then a rider in a hanger probably can't use their drives but much depends on how you assume drives work and different versions answer that differently. I don't know if there is a single "OTU" answer on how drives work.

 

[Grav_Moped]

And part of the problem is that it can be a munchkin solution to the hardpoint/bay/spinal mount constraints (1 per 100Td, 1 per 1000Td, 1 per hull).

Example: 100Td Type S with 12 tons fuel replaced by two 6Td fighters (carried at their own displacement since it's under 1000Td). If they could fire while carried, you have a 100Td ship with three turrets.

 

[Ex_Pendable]

As far as boosting the tender's drive, yes, it's possible.

With the battle riders a tenth of the mass of the tender, expect at 1 g per battle rider to provide a 0.1 g boost to the acceleration of the tender. However, the battle riders would need to be braced in the bay with the drive plate pointing out an open hatch, or securely clamped in a heavy duty docking cradle rated for testing engines at maximum performance, without any obstruction aft.

Aircraft carriers maneuvering into Tokyo Bay following WW2 would use ranks of fighter planes secured on the main deck to help the massive ship to maneuver by providing side-thrust, but shortening the effective life of the plane's engine.


Meson guns are unaffected by armor or rock, so you could in theory fire them while the battle riders were inside a bay, assuming you had access to tactical data. However, you risk damaging any circuitry and equipment in the meson's beam path, irradiating those areas due to premature degrading of the meson beam, and may shorten your effective range. You don't want to cripple your own ship for a dubious tactical advantage. Captains have been cashiered for less.

The idea behind the battle riders is they're a smaller, harder to hit target that can strike along multiple vectors - they're better deployed than clumped into one large target.

 

[mike wightman]

Lets say that you've got a 200,000 ton Battle Tender with 4 20,000 ton Battle Riders attached. In combat, assuming that they are still attached, can they use their weapons to supplement the Battle Tender's weapons? Yeah, there may only be 25% of batteries bearing, but what about Meson Guns that can fire through obstacles to hit their targets?

In a High Guard wargame engagement I would have to disallow this for the spinals as it opens up a major can of worms - why not build a 200kt ship with four spinal mesons in the first place?
That said if the tender is a dispersed structure then some of the riders' secondary batteries could be fired but I would double the batteries bearing penalty.

In a role played encounter or as part of a novel I would allow it (the spinals) as a one off with lots of handwaving.

Assuming you have the same 200,000 ton Battle Tender with 4 20,000 ton Battle Riders attached. Can the Battle Riders use their maneuver drives to help push the Battle Tender?

I'd like to hear what ya'lls thoughts are on this.

If you consider the rider drives as a percentage of the whole 200kt ship you get an extra 6% of maneuver drive (assuming 6g drives for the riders), this is enough to increase the drive performance of the combined ship by 2g

 

[kilemall]

I would say absolutely no to the meson gun ploy, but that's because I'm into the actual meson particle generation (effectively two crossed PA streams near the target, so from the firing ship perspective they are literally PA weapons) rather then the inventor name retrocon.

Thrust, eh, I could see it with some form of reaction thrust, but the BRs are likely 'not balanced' in terms of their maneuver drives being aligned along the whole construct's spine and center of gravity. As a result I would probably rule any thrust they attempt to provide is effectively halved and as noted would require that the tender is designed to support that thrust.

If we are talking gravitics, a lot would depend on the conception of what that sort of drive is actually functioning. Under most conceptions, I would say the BR drives would be interfering with the tender drive and not be worth much.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I would not allow it for gamey reasons, but I don't think it matters much for battle squadrons (it would be too inefficient).

It would be much worse with small ships, as Grav_Moped points out.

 

[Condottiere]

In spirit, no, for the firing of meson spinal mounts while clamped; though speaking of the spirit, they would penetrate any barriers if they happen to be there.

Now, I objected when the possibility of multiple spinal mounts would be embedded in the same hull in MongosianSpace, and suggested the reason for that would be the recoil.

If recoil could be identified as the reason spinal mounts remain unique, it should also tear them off the battle tender clamps, unless they were heavily reinforced.

Which would be the same requirement if the battle riders used the full thrust of their manoeuvre drive.

 

[robject]

I think the implications of the design and combat system for HG, along with setting assumptions drawn from other GDW Traveller sources, are such that:

The answer for both questions is probably "no" when designs are used in a wargame;

But "it depends on the game, the setting, the referee, and the players" when used in the role-playing game.

 

[Matt123]

Lots pf good points already made. I'll add that even if possible, this action would be against Standard Operating Procedures as it risks the carrier in combat and threatens the ability of the combat unit to move strategically if the carrier suffers damage.


Rules wise, in addition to rules against having more than one spinal mount, critical hits on the unamoured carrier will occur quite often. Interestingly there are no rules to account for damaging large carried craft. As a ref I would look to assume the ship is a single entity, perhaps with many bridges and a unified crew, meaning perhaps some benefits, but crew hits would be particularly nasty.



Personally I would look to maybe use such desperate tactics in "Captain Kirk" style Role Play sessions, while for any Naval engagement the Captains involved should expect several boards of enquiry and possible court martial for endangering a strategic asset. Captain Kirk of course would talk his way out of these and likely be given a new ship, just not a BR or Carrier.

 

[Grav_Moped]

In spirit, no, for the firing of meson spinal mounts while clamped; though speaking of the spirit, they would penetrate any barriers if they happen to be there.

Now, I objected when the possibility of multiple spinal mounts would be embedded in the same hull in MongosianSpace, and suggested the reason for that would be the recoil.

If recoil could be identified as the reason spinal mounts remain unique, it should also tear them off the battle tender clamps, unless they were heavily reinforced.

Which would be the same requirement if the battle riders used the full thrust of their manoeuvre drive.

Recoil wouldn't be much of an issue. Electrical charge transferred from the spinal weapons to the rest of the hull (serving as the ground plane) would be...

Normally this could be dissipated through the same handwave-o-tron that disposes of waste heat, but if you've got several ships in physical contact firing simultaneously, the spinal mounts will interfere with each others ability to impart a sufficient charge to the particles in the weapons beams.

They could alternate between positively and negatively charged beams (and probably would) but there'd still be synchronization issues with multiple large particle accelerators (ordinary or meson) on a single hull or between tender and carried craft.

 

[McPerth]

Lots pf good points already made. I'll add that even if possible, this action would be against Standard Operating Procedures as it risks the carrier in combat and threatens the ability of the combat unit to move strategically if the carrier suffers damage.

Well, I undertand the question jsut i ncase they have not had time to deploy the RIders, and so with the tender already in danger...

Rules wise, in addition to rules against having more than one spinal mount, critical hits on the unamoured carrier will occur quite often. Interestingly there are no rules to account for damaging large carried craft. As a ref I would look to assume the ship is a single entity, perhaps with many bridges and a unified crew, meaning perhaps some benefits, but crew hits would be particularly nasty.

Well, I disagree in that no rules acount for large carried craft...

LBB5:HG, Critical damage explanation (page 49):

HangarsIBoat Deck Destroyed: Craft carried by the ship are destroyed, up to
600 tons in aggregate displacement of small craft, or one craft of 600 tons or more.One launch facility or launch tube is also destroyed

As I undertand this, each such hit (and being a result of 8 in the critical table it's not an unlike result if the Tender receives several) can destroy one BR or several fighters.

Add to this that the tender uses to be unarmored (As config 7) and not to have too much agility (as it's not intended to be in first line), and this situation is by no means a desirable one (and I restate I believe they could not fire the spinals, as the BRs cannot maneuver to aim them while attached).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Well, I undertand the question jsut i ncase they have not had time to deploy the RIders, and so with the tender already in danger...

Craft are launched in the battle formation step, before any actual combat can occur, so in the HG combat system it would always be a choice.

Add to this that the tender uses to be unarmored (As config 7) ...

Note that dispersed tenders are ineffective as they cannot refuel. When you have accounted for the necessary fuel skimmers they are bigger and more expensive than streamlined tenders.

But I agree tenders would generally be unarmoured.

 

[McPerth]

Craft are launched in the battle formation step, before any actual combat can occur, so in the HG combat system it would always be a choice.

Unless surprised, I guess (e.g. leaving jump in the middle of an enemy fleet).

Though I know this event would be quite rare (to say the least), so wil lbe keeping the Riders attached for any more time tan stricly necessary (I guess the first thing Tenders do when exiting jump is to detach them).

Note that dispersed tenders are ineffective as they cannot refuel. When you have accounted for the necessary fuel skimmers they are bigger and more expensive than streamlined tenders.

But I agree tenders would generally be unarmoured.

OTOH Riders in dispersed structure Tenders don't need hangar, as are externally carried (so saving 10% Riders' tonnage) and can be launched all at once without any extra launching facility...

And as Riders use to be config 1 (for Meson defense), they can also act as fuelling shuttles (as well as any of them the Tender carries, but Riders use to get more fuel per sun, as they use to be larger).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Unless surprised, I guess (e.g. leaving jump in the middle of an enemy fleet).

That is perhaps reasonable, but not covered by the rules. By RAW, you always get a battle formation step in the beginning of each turn.

If you jump in in the middle of an enemy fleet both parties would be surprised, but the defending fleet would be more surprised since the ship breaking out of jump knows it is about to happen. You can't keep the crew at battle stations permanently, but you can send the crew to battle stations for jump breakout. But if you are not the first ship to break out of jump space and in range of an enemy squadron you wold have a problem...

OTOH Riders in dispersed structure Tenders don't need hangar, as are externally carried (so saving 10% Riders' tonnage) and can be launched all at once without any extra launching facility...

And as Riders use to be config 1 (for Meson defense), they can also act as fuelling shuttles (as well as any of them the Tender carries, but Riders use to get more fuel per sun, as they use to be larger).

Tenders can launch one craft per 10 kDt hull, so has no problem launching all riders in one round from hangars.


By TCS you need skimmers of at least 50% of the required jump fuel to refuel fast (0 weeks), otherwise refuelling is slow (1 week).

An unstreamlined J-4 tender of 100 kDt carrying five 7.5 kDt riders (1.7 kDt fuel) has a fuel tankage of 44 kDt and would need 50% or 22 kDt fuel capacity in skimmers to refuel fast. It does not have that (5 × 1.7 kDt = 8.5 kDt) so would refuel slowly. So, in the best case, it would jump every second week, where a streamlined tender would jump every week.

You also have corner cases, such as carrying damaged riders from battle to a shipyard where the riders would not be available to act as skimmers.


To carry the five riders in my example, we would need a dispersed tender of 100 kDt and GCr 40, a streamlined tender of 109.3 kDt and GCr 47, or a dispersed tender with skimmers of 325 kDt and GCr 153 also carrying 80 kDt worth of skimmers. Combined with the cost of the riders, about GCr 10 each, we get total costs of:
GCr 90: Dispersed tender, slow refuelling.
GCr 97: Streamlined tender, fast refuelling.
GCr 200: Dispersed tender, fast refuelling [clearly unreasonable].
I would, however reluctantly, always pay the 7 GCr (~8%) extra for a streamlined tender and jump every week, instead of every other week.


While we have an example we can calculate the achieved acceleration if we allow the riders to add their thrust to the tender: 5 riders à 6 g + 1 tender à 1 g is 5 × 7.5 kDt × 17% (6 g) + 1 × 109.3 kDt × 2% (1 g) = 6375 + 2186 = 8561 Dt M-drives, which divided by 109.3 kDt is 7.83% giving us 2 g. Increasing the total M-drives by 183 Dt would give us 8% M-drives and 3 g.

 

[whartung]

Not to utterly derail this, it's curious that its requires 50% skimmer capacity for "0 turn" refueling.

As good a rule as any, but I'm pretty sure if I had a 10DTon gig, "fleet equipped with a fuel skimmer", I'm not going to be able to refuel the fleet in a week. (Which, RAW, is what is suggested).

As far as I know there's never been a comprehensive exploration of the mechanics, dangers, and durations of gas giant refueling.

I think at best we have some numbers on purification rates. But nothing on yield (i.e. 1 dTon of unrefined fuel == ?? dTon refined fuel)

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Not to utterly derail this, it's curious that its requires 50% skimmer capacity for "0 turn" refueling.

As good a rule as any, but I'm pretty sure if I had a 10DTon gig, "fleet equipped with a fuel skimmer", I'm not going to be able to refuel the fleet in a week. (Which, RAW, is what is suggested).

If you have less than 10% skim capability you can't refuel at all according to TCS.

As far as I know there's never been a comprehensive exploration of the mechanics, dangers, and durations of gas giant refueling.

I think MT had some tasks for this, with implied durations.

I think at best we have some numbers on purification rates. But nothing on yield (i.e. 1 dTon of unrefined fuel == ?? dTon refined fuel)

I've alway assumed 1 Dt unrefined fuel gives 1 Dt refined fuel for simplicity. That is not completely unreasonable for water or slightly impure hydrogen.

Jupiter and Saturn has 90% hydrogen or more in their atmosphere.

 

[martletsquire]

I can see having some diminished capacity of the 'riders to act as part of the defensive net, due to the lack of maneuvering capabilities of a fully loaded battle tender (no fast jinking or rolling maneuvers by the parent ship when carrying her 'chicks'.) And even some offensive capability towards a reasonably immobile target (like, say a moon or planet or a non-maneuvering/non accelerating ship.) Maybe 50% of potentially bearing batteries being able to fire.

And using the riders as emergency or maneuvering thrusters seems cool to me. If the connection is strong enough for a 500kt tender to carry 8x50kt riders (not an actual ship, just an example off the top of my head) through basic acceleration of the whole host structure as powered by the tender's maneuver drives, then the structure should be strong enough to handle the opposite stresses, at least for a limited time. Toss in a repair requirement and future failure penalty, and that seems reasonable. Call it 'emergency power' and allow the whole structure to accelerate at the rate of the tender and riders' maneuver drives can push the total mass. But if we are only dealing with whole number acceleration factors, then in the macro-sense this is a non-viable alternative, but in a micro-sense to use the combined mess to escape a gravity well, or just the riders to slowly move the mothership?, you know, game play and fun, that works for me.

But, hmmmm, what if you design a battle tender, maybe as a dodecahedron, and latch battle riders (with their primary offensive weapons pointed out) onto the facets - still technically a dispersed structure but not really, and the riders can actively serve as part of the offensive and defensive net, and also as 'armor' for the underlying tender... hmmmm… hmmmmmm…

That would be interesting, and violating the spirit of the rules, but... interesting. Though it would open up the game for a 'ship' to be made of 5 ships that fit together, 1 jump battleship with 4 parasite 'cruiser riders' all carrying the same spinal mount... and there we go violating the spirit of the rules again, or not, maybe.

Hmmm. On that note, so how, exactly, does a smaller ship 'tow' or 'tug' or 'push/pull' another ship in space? I don't remember if there are explicit rules for this. Probably buried in some 'mining' or 'salvage' rules I can't remember right now.

 

[kilemall]

5 ships that fit together?

I signed up for space opera, not Voltron.