Ok, What is the Role of a close Escort?

[Grav_Moped]

Different combat systems with nominally the same hardware and differing software costs, but by and large I could see justifying the HG difference.

How much CPU/storage do you need to hold everything you could plausibly use, simultaneously?
Maxing it all out:

Program  Spaces
Target     1
Launch     1
Gun-Int    1
Select-3   1
Multi-4    4
Double     4

M/E-6      3
Return     1
Anti-M     2
ECM        3

Navigation 1
Generate   1
Anti-Hi    1
Jump-n    n

Total: 24+n CPU spaces, which is a little over a Mod/7's CPU of 20. Note that you can shift Launch to Storage during laser fire phases (and vice versa), and only need to run Nav, Gen, and Jump-n at Jump-time (at which point you can shift almost everything else to storage since this happens in the interphase?).

So, a Mod/8 or higher probably doesn't gain you much in LBB2 combat over a Mod/7.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

How much CPU/storage do you need to hold everything you could plausibly use, simultaneously?

Since you can shuffle software between phases, you basically only need that in storage, not CPU.

A m/5 goes a long way in LBB2 combat, I believe...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I designed those the first day I started making ships. Wasn’t the rock one but everything else.

I didn't do optimised rocks, but barely 2 kDt size A ships with Z-drives abusing emergency agility figured heavily among my first designs.

Not quite combat optimised, but everything an adventurer wished for in a ship. With way too large crew to be useful for most adventurers, of course...

 

[kilemall]

I didn't do optimised rocks, but barely 2 kDt size A ships with Z-drives abusing emergency agility figured heavily among my first designs.

Not quite combat optimised, but everything an adventurer wished for in a ship. With way too large crew to be useful for most adventurers, of course...

Oh well I'm talking LBB5. I stopped making ships with first edition an hour later because it was so clear to me it was broken.

Most of my early LBB2 ships were souped up ACS 400 ton or less.

 

[Condottiere]

I like rocks: at five thousand starbux per usable tonne, that's cheap housing, plus artificial gravity is inherent, and organic hull armour.

As escorts, you probably never have to land, while resupply can be undetaken at an orbital base or replenishment ship.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Oh well I'm talking LBB5. I stopped making ships with first edition an hour later because it was so clear to me it was broken.

Agreed, I stopped using LBB2 when I bought LBB5. LBB2 was just too limited.

The ship I referred to is LBB5, something like:

FM-A1666J2-F72900-55009-0      MCr 1 686       1 990 Dton
bearing     1     11  1                           Crew=37
batteries   1     11  1                             TL=15
                    Cargo=301 Fuel=856 EP=119,4 Agility=0

Dual Occupancy                                      302     1 686
                                     USP    #      Dton      Cost
Hull, Streamlined   Custom             A          1 990         
Configuration       Needle/Wedge       1                      239
Scoops              Streamlined                                 2
Armour              15                 F            318       573
                                                                
Jump Drive          Z                  6    1       125       240
Manoeuvre D         Z                  6    1        47        96
Power Plant         Z                  6    1        73       192
Fuel, #J, #weeks    J-4, 4 weeks            4       856         
Purifier                                    1        13         0
                                                                
Bridge                                      1        40        10
Computer            m/9fib             J    1        26       200
                                                                
Staterooms                                  4        16         2
Staterooms, Half                           33        66         8
                                                                
Cargo                                               302         
                                                                
Bay                 Missile, 50 t      9    1        50        13
Triple Turret 2/bat Beam               5    1         2         6    2 turrets organised into 1 battery.
Single Turret       Fusion             5    1         2         2
Triple Turret 4/bat Sand               7    1         4         3    4 mounts organised into 1 battery.
                                                                
Nuclear Damper                         9    1        20        50
Meson Screen                           2    1        30        50
                                                                
Nominal Cost        MCr 1 685,74         Sum:       302     1 686
Class Cost          MCr   354,01        Valid        ≥0        ≥0
Ship Cost           MCr 1 348,59

A naive everything-and-the-kitchen-sink design.
J-4, M-6, a missile bay, max armour, max computer, screens, lots of space for small craft and marines...
No agility, but could still use missiles and screens with emergency agility.
Possibly even J-5 with more fuel.

At least that is the first ship I can remember...

 

[kilemall]

Err no I mean LBB5 first edition, never stopped using LBB2.

LBB2 to me is standardized engineering plugnplay stereo components supportable across wide TLs. I don’t worry about the fuel use, price of standardization and less tuned more supportable versions. Want that extra tonnage? Pay up and be tied to less of a support base.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Err no I mean LBB5 first edition, never stopped using LBB2.

Sorry, I never saw LBB5'79, I was late to the party and started with LBB5'80.

 

[aramis]

Sorry, I never saw LBB5'79, I was late to the party and started with LBB5'80.

The design side is pretty close to B5-80, save for 10 Td bays...
The rating system, however, is different, and combat, while using similar tables, is rather broken.
It's on more recent CT CD's...

 

[Drew]

Hurricat equivalent would be a light fighter launched from a merchantman.

Escort carriers could hold upto forty light or medium fighters, to screen the convoy, or six to twelve bombers and/or patrol craft.

Although suicidal in approach, the old-style PT boat ELCO design had some of the qualities that a close escort has. The other variant I would be thinking of was the E boat of the Kriegsmarine. Both types were moderately effective against destroyers at the time as well as inflicting damage on some cruisers. Would these boats be a cheaper and more cost-effective version? Quantity has its own virtue in war.

 

[infojunky]

Although suicidal in approach, the old-style PT boat ELCO design had some of the qualities that a close escort has. The other variant I would be thinking of was the E boat of the Kriegsmarine. Both types were moderately effective against destroyers at the time as well as inflicting damage on some cruisers. Would these boats be a cheaper and more cost-effective version? Quantity has its own virtue in war.

Remember that Destroyer is the Shortened name of Torpedo Boat Destroyers. Which started out as all gun armed ships.

 

[Rigel Stardin]

Think about what a Squadron of Close Escorts could do a single ship, destroyer or cruiser for example. I mean, didn't PT and E-boat work on that principle?

 

[Drew]

Think about what a Squadron of Close Escorts could do a single ship, destroyer or cruiser for example. I mean, didn't PT and E-boat work on that principle?

That's why they operated at night or in low visibility. The best use against a heavier force would be in an asteroid belt, I don't know how they would fare near a gravity well for refueling by their opponent, but definitely, the last resort force to delay or disrupt.

 

[Condottiere]

Apparently, asteroid belt density is somewhat exaggerated.

You can look at this from a historical perspective, from what Traveller writers think it should be in the game, or from actual design rules and game mechanics.

In theory, patrol boats, motor torpedo boats, and e boats, have very short legs, and certainly wouldn't be suited for an Atlantic crossing.

Close escorts specifically built for convoy escort don't really need speed, more endurance and enough robustness to survive the voyage.

 

[robject]

The Gazelle can't exist is a pure Bk2 universe. Bk2 has no PA barbettes...

I don't think that really matters, since even GDW (Marc, mostly) stretched, adapted, and broke Book 2 rules regularly.

1. Scout can burn raw fuel.
2. Xboat doesn't need a power plant.
3. Gazelle.
4. ANNIC NOVA.
5. Safari Ship's "capture tanks" (marginal, but it's in neither Book 2 nor HG)
6. What else?

Book 2 was not binding for GDW. They could, and did, experiment, and some of the results were unique one-offs, and others found their way into High Guard.

 

[robject]

It's still a warship, it's intended to survive a fight. Why else would you buy it?

1. Convoy escort.
2. Screen (= cruiser escort, but requires assumptions!).
3. Gunned Courier.
4. Supply Line threat (= corsair).
5. Commerce threat (=raider).
6. Facilities threat (=marauder).
7. Intelligence gathering.
8. Patrol ("Route Protector" -- Al Morai's repurposing of four CEs for anti-piracy)
9. Picket (= in-system patrol)

Possible options, but would you buy a Gazelle to do any of those? Maybe we can do better.

 

[Spinward Flow]

would you buy a Gazelle to do any of those?

Gazelles are a MONSTER ship in an LBB2 universe.
Their particle accelerators can "neutralize" most unarmored ships (crew hit or computer hit on radiation table) pretty reliably, and the model/6 computer is sufficient overmatch against most ACS to make the Gazelle a seriously dangerous encounter.

In a LBB5 universe (with fleets and spinal mounts), they're feeble and almost worthless against anything with 1000+ tons.

Maybe we can do better.

Doing better than the Gazelle isn't that difficult.
J4/6G with Agility=6 would make a pretty decent start, along with dumping the drop tanks.

Back in the early 80s, after LBB S9 was published, a friend of mine designed a class of ships he styled as Escort Destroyers ... NOT Destroyer Escorts (the difference in emphasis makes all the difference). They were basically ship designs intended to wreck the CE and DE ship designs detailed in LBB S9 and as such their purpose was to destroy the escorts. So the counter designs were styled as ED rather than CE or DE coded.

Never saw a USP for them, so I have no idea what "angle" my friend used to achieve that result, but I have no doubt as to the veracity of the claim.

 

[Condottiere]

The Imperium Navy might have a different doctrinal concept for what they term close escorts.

Cheap and cheerful, and not meant to escort capital ships and (fleet) carriers; or considering standard Traveller conceptual starwarship designs, maybe acceleration factor two carriers would apply.

 

[mike wightman]

If only we knew what it was...
here is a mash up of quotes:

Originally, the close escort was designed and produced by the lmperium for fleet operations. The small, fast close escorts were committed as the flank screens for cruisers or small fleet task forces.
Naval tactics in the Imperial Navy call for large ships to be accompanied by well-armed, small fighting craft capable of engaging the enemy at long range, before they approach the principle ships in a task force or convoy.
These small ships may be fighter craft carried by the larger ships, or they may be independent close escort vessels.
Thousands of close escorts have been built in the past several centuries, and hundreds have been built in the Gazelle Class.
The close escort, even when new, was not intended to stand up to combat vessels; rather it was envisioned as an anti-piracy and revenue patrol ship. In that role, it has performed well, but when pressed into combat duties it has invariably suffered disproportionate losses.
Their speed and size also made them ideal for naval courier and personnel transfer duties. But ultimately, they found their true niche. Many close escorts have been assigned to specific star systems or groups of systems for commerce protection.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I don't think that really matters, since even GDW (Marc, mostly) stretched, adapted, and broke Book 2 rules regularly.

1. Scout can burn raw fuel.

Perfectly correct according to LBB2 RAW.

1. Xboat doesn't need a power plant.

Arguably correct according to LBB2'77, it was a LBB2'77 design that was never redone for LBB2'81.

1. Gazelle.

Perfectly legal LBB5'79 design, slightly reskinned so the bay became two barbettes for LBB2.

1. ANNIC NOVA.

Mysterious alien design (that still used lettered drives...)

1. Safari Ship's "capture tanks" (marginal, but it's in neither Book 2 nor HG)

Perfectly legal use of space, allocate as say staterooms and draw as "staterooms" for alien fauna when doing deck plans.

Book 2 was not binding for GDW. They could, and did, experiment, and some of the results were unique one-offs, and others found their way into High Guard.

I would say it was more-or-less binding, but not limiting. LBB2 described how to do the basics, the rest was up to the referee. Even Annic Nova didn't break LBB2, it just added to the system.