A model for commerce raiders

[mike wightman]

While investigating something from another thread I came across:

http://www.bismarck-class.dk/hilfskreuzer/hilfskreuzer_introduction.html

which struck me as not a bad model for commerce raiders/corsairs to port across to Traveller.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

Outstanding! Informative!

 

[far-trader]

Absolutely, and my thanks too Sigg for the link. (Now properly accredited where I copied it thanks to Bill )

 

[Whipsnade]

Sigg,

Great site! Reading some of the accounts reminded me that I'd read a book about HK Atlantis some years back. I'll have to dig it up now!

Rogge and Atlantis were a marvel. A clapped out 7000 odd ton freighter raiding at sea for 601 days during WW2. As Frank Barone woould say; "Cheesy Lou!"

Rogge was such a cool customer that, when finally caught, he scuttled his vessel without opening fire so the Brits wouldn't know if they caught a blockade runner or a raider! Talk about nerves!

Thanks again for the link.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Madarin Dude]

Interesting read there. Thanks for the link.

 

[Badbru]

Fascinating site there Sigg. Being a West Aussie I've heard about the Kormoran v Sydney story before and have long been interested in this "style" of conflict. Q ships, disguised freigters etc etc. We did something similar with the Singapore harbour raids; Limpet mines via kiyak paddling SBS soldiers delivered in a disguised freigter.
Telling comments near the end of the main page about it being warfare of a bygone era with satelite, gps and high definition TV and radio transponders etc. Could one translate it, or something like it, to a Traveller setting....
Depends on your Traveller universe I suppose.

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by Badbru:
Being a West Aussie I've heard about the Kormoran v Sydney story before and have long been interested in this "style" of conflict.

As far as I know Kormoran is actually the only auxiliary ever to have destroyed a major warship. The battle, however, IMHO illustrates quite nicely why a converted merchantman will always be markedly inferior to a proper warship. It is neither about armaments, nor armor, nor fire control, nor speed, but the structural capacity to sustain damage. Kormoran suffered a mere four hits, but nevertheless the damage to the engine room and the fires proved too much to handle for her, in spite of having a well-trained, large military crew. OTOH Sydney needed to be basically pumped full of metal to effect her eventual sinking.
I don't think that any Traveller rules (except for 2300, but that doesnt really count ) properly take this difference, which stems from lack of damage control facilities, compartmentalization, system redundance etc., into account.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Tobias:
I don't think that any Traveller rules (except for 2300, but that doesnt really count ) properly take this difference, which stems from lack of damage control facilities, compartmentalization, system redundance etc., into account.

Regards,

Tobias

Well I can see argument for lumping that into the abstraction that is armor in CT/HG Traveller versions, since typically it's only military ships that have "armor".

Granted TNE/FF&S and T4 pretty much decided that armor was hull plating so there I'd agree, the nod to structural bracing not withstanding.

T20 has it's SI (structural integrity) rating to tell when the ship falls apart and my biggest beef with it is just that. It is the same for a civilian freighter as a military cruiser and even armor doesn't impact it. I made some suggestions somewhere about the board for a mod to beef up the SI to reflect what you're talking about. I'll have a look for the post later and bring a link back here.

So, I never played and barely looked at 2300. How does it handle it if you can put it in a few words?

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by far-trader:
So, I never played and barely looked at 2300. How does it handle it if you can put it in a few words?

1. It has "hit points" for the hull which are greatly affected by the materials used. A ship with a cheap, civilian metallic hull will for example only have half the number of HPs that a composite hull has, even if both are constructed without armor. Also, you can actually model compartmentalization by using several different hull section rather than just one big cylinder, which strengthens the design by increasing the basic material volume and therefor the hit points.
Most Traveller versions simply do not have the distinction between cheaper, civilian-grade construction and expensive military-grade materials (stealth aspects are also affected by this in 2300AD).
2. Most important: There are rules for damage control parties, and civilians ships are usually lousy in this department.
3. There is a damage result "continuing" damage, which is a real ship-killer if combined with poor damage control capacities, as it quickly gets out of hand.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[far-trader]

Thanks Tobias! The continuing damage idea is an excellent one that should be easy to slap onto any of the rules versions with a little care. I'm gonna have a think or two on that one. It would definitely make damage control a major consideration.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Sounds like an idea for CT+, Dan!

I wouldn't take the difference too far between civilian and military crews in spacecraft. Space is a lot less forgiving than the sea when problems develop - your space-going civilians are going to be more competent. I also think the differences were not so great when comparing the wooden ships of yore, rather than modern ships.

 

[mike wightman]

There's a lot to like in the T2300 ship construction/combat rules.

Perhaps basing a version of CT+ ship combat on it isn't too daft an idea...

Hmm...

 

[Badbru]

I think the Brilliant Lances starship design sequences and combat system do take this into account, to a degree, and, depending upon the respective designs. Most of the GDW designed and published merchant ships only had hull armour in the 10 to 40 range. I've seen some warships on the BARD pages with hull armour in the 500 to 1000 range. 400+ pretty much negates laser turret weapon penetration. Some of the warships in the Battle-Rider game also have armour over 500 IIRC. BL construction also has guideline rules for internal armour too, say for all bridge components, or all of engineering.

Continuing damage does sound like an interesting damage result. I'd expect to see it from either a fuel hit or perhaps a powerplant hit.

 

[far-trader]

EDIT:

We should really take this over to one of the CT+ threads I guess. I'll move my thoughts when I can get some time, unless somebody else wants to just copy them over (fine by me

)

My first thought on the continuing damage is that it would make a good replacement for the critical and/or destroyed results. Give the players a chance to get out by the skin of their teeth rather than just oops you're dead.

My simple basic idea was a continuing damage result would be the basic hit each round (when hit and each after) until repaired or perhaps two or more successful damage control attempts had been made. Or something to that effect.