True, but still better than fuel for 3 J4 was to have collapsible fuel tanks on the hold, allowing the ship do make more jumps or carrying more cargo, depending on the environment they worked
Last edited:
All Warships Should Have Drop Tanks
- Thread starter Theophilus
- Start date
True, but still better than fuel for 3 J4 was to have collapsible fuel tanks on the hold, allowing the ship do make more jumps or carrying more cargo, depending on the environment they worked
Theophilus
SOC-13
Over 100 post's, lets keep going:
I like what Whartung said: The overall cost is incidental, and the tanks offer flexibility, should it be needed. Which was my original premise.
However, I disagree with the use of the term "runaway", after all was it Cortez who burnt his ships behind him? Taking away the option of retreat, leaving only death or surrender as viable options seems callow to me. Since no plan of battle survives first contact with your enemy, and your intelligence on any system is, by the constraints of jump travel, dated. Know what you'll face when you get there is at best, uncertain.
For those who have TA9 Solomani ships, the description on Solomani fleet movements specifically mentions one instance where a Solomani fleet jumped insystem, only to find a full Imperial Batron in system, leading to the loss of the Confederation fleet. It happens.
Also, as a system defender, I know you need to refuel, so I will defend refuelling points. I also know that skimming fuel from a gas giant is a vulnerable time "in the well". Thus High Guard, guarding the refuelling ships.
Given the option of moving straight on the main world, or other targets in system, then jumping out without having to refuel adds flexibility to the attacker. And complicates the defense.
Again, should all ships USE drop tanks, probably not. Should the necessary fittings for use be included in a design? Maybe.
While it was not my plan to speak to Merchant ships, the same arguement would apply to fleet auxillaries.
Lets consider again the "fuel tanker". A 1million ton jump 4 tanker, using CT rules needs 45% of the ships tonnage just for it's own fuel, add maneuver 1 Pn4, and a bridge and you've already consumed 53% of your tonnage, Since the Kokirraks class needs 60,000 tons of fuel for their J3 drives you can only refuel 7, assuming max fuel in the tanker. (60,000x7=420,000 or 42% of ship)
Now I need a tanker for my tanker, which again has only 470,000 tons left after all other system are installed.
So, how to I use Tankers if they use their fuel refueling my battleline? Do I build massive numbers of tankers, say 3 Battleships per million ton tanker? So I'd need three one million ton tankers for a Batron of 8 Kokirraks? And what about those Plankwells with their J4 drives, Two per tanker?
Now, equiping tankers with drop tanks so they enter the system with Full fuel loads of 870,000 tons seems reasonable. They refuel the Batron and Jump out. One Batron, One Tanker.
Discussion on Tankers please.
When you're crossing a major rift.... J9 is needed in some places.
The problem with MT was that many of my players couldn't grok that the Islands were, in fact, isolated, since it's only J7 off major inhabited areas...
On that note, how does T5 do it?
I don't know; It's a section in need of a lot of work. I THINK it's Jn*10%
If the fleet you jump in with is so outmatched that a quick retreat is your only option, then the other guy will probably just jump after you to mop you up on the other side... I imagine that given the relative finality of committing a jump fleet to war that the various 'war colleges' where officers are trained make a point of teaching better alternatives. Of course, its also probable in the default assumptions (no drop tanks/tankers) that you can't plan on being able to jump out anyway, unless you plan to limit your strategic window to J1 in any direction...
Actually: This is arguing for near mandatory ability to use external fueling. A ship committing its own fuel reserves to get in system can't jump out, and any ship that can is that much less capable, being almost all fuel at that point (at least in Mongoose. Two J4 is 80% of your ship's tonnage... doesn't leave much for guns...)
Catagorical error. The best way to have a fleet tender 'tanker' to extend your offensive line is to use non-jump skimming/refining external cargo support ships, carried by a larger tender. The larger vessel carries a number of the smaller skimmer/refiners in cargo, takes them to the system they are needed in and drops them off. Depending upon how anal you want to be about the ability of the Imperium (or whomever...) to build expandable tanks, the Tender can remain in system, converting its now empty cargobay/hanger into a giant tank, or it can move along the proposed route of advance, leaving as many ships as the doctrine calls for. I'll get to that...
The logistics tail can make a very interesting discussion, as this is something I have some familiarity with... logistics that is, not Traveller military doctrines.
Typically there will be a simple lookup table available to the logistics planners for any operation, be it a real war situation, a training exercise, standard patrol and so forth. The officer with that responsibility will ensure that the requisite materials... to include fuel... are available, frequently months before any operation (90-180 planning cycles, minimum). For 'emergency' use, such as responding to hostile invaders, natural catastrophies and other unplanned 'right faaking now!' events will fall upon the higher headquarters responsible for the entire sector, and will come from existing stocks etc.
That table will specify, among other things, the amount of what sorts of food, based on the numbers of personnel, down to sundries (such as sun screen for marines deploying to bright worlds...), and up to repair parts and, yes, fuel.
Presuming reasonably standardized ships, which from the numbers of times I've seen the word Korikkaks in this thread seems likely, then the fuel calculations will be determined by said types of ships. In all probability each ship in a given fleet will have their own quartermaster who will submit their own ship's needs to the quartermaster of the fleet, who is then responsible for ensuring that both the numbers are good, and that the requisite drop tanks/fuelers or friendly starports are all available. The quartermaster is also responsible for reporting any delays to his boss, the Captain or Admiral (I'm assuming...) or what have you so that the commander doesn't wind up stranded in System XYZ-123 because the local starport doesn't have any fuel on hand, or what have you. Or at least, if he does he knew it was going to happen and told HIS bosses that told him to take his ship/fleet through said system.
Obviously, we can't say how many tankers must be on hand given how many ships without knowing the designs of the tankers, as you pointed out. I can suggest that my observation is that, in general terms, fuel tankers tend to be far larger than the vehicles they support. They also tend to be more fuel than anything else.. though the MongTrav jump fuel mechanics are almost painfully inflexible (seriously: In how many tech level improvements have they had without a single improvement in fuel efficiency? It boggles the mind!), and I suspect that holds true for most versions. Seriously: When you are measuring fuel in tens of thousands of tons, even incremental improvements are vast.
As I said, I personally nominate non-jump flying fuel tank/refiners that are supported by a larger jump capable Tender. Frankly, giving the punishing nature of jump fuel its the only thing that makes sense...
Hi
Hi,
I would suppose that a Tanker in Traveller would likely be like a tanker in the modern world. That is, it wouldn't be capable of full fleet speeds, or in the case of Traveller it probably wouldn't be capable of Jump 4 nor Maneuver 4, as it is an auxiliary vessel.
As such, I also wouldn't expect them to always operate with the combat elements of a fleet, but would instead be kept back from harms way.
Operationally then, if you are considering a time and ruleset that allows jump governors, etc I would possibly expect that when jumping into an area where there is the potential for strong opposition the combat fleets would likely limit themselves to a jump at least one less than the notional max, so that if necessary they could jump out again. The tankers (with escorts) would likely be jumping at even a lower number, but could be set on a course to pass through a set of given hexes so as to eventually pass through notional emergency retreat hexes for the fleet (or something like that). Similarly you could also try and preposition some vessels in certain locations as well.
One thing I don't fully understand about the drop tank concept is, how are they to be moved about in the setup outlined in your post. Are you assuming a tender to transport them if needed. For instance if a fleet jumps out on a mission, do the drop tanks just stay in this system until the fleet returns, or is a tender to be used to transport the drop tanks to another hex to allow then to meet up with the fleet elsewhere at a leter time? If so, how will these tenders compare to the tankers?
Just some thoughts.
Regards
PF
Hi,
I would suppose that a Tanker in Traveller would likely be like a tanker in the modern world. That is, it wouldn't be capable of full fleet speeds, or in the case of Traveller it probably wouldn't be capable of Jump 4 nor Maneuver 4, as it is an auxiliary vessel.
As such, I also wouldn't expect them to always operate with the combat elements of a fleet, but would instead be kept back from harms way.
Operationally then, if you are considering a time and ruleset that allows jump governors, etc I would possibly expect that when jumping into an area where there is the potential for strong opposition the combat fleets would likely limit themselves to a jump at least one less than the notional max, so that if necessary they could jump out again. The tankers (with escorts) would likely be jumping at even a lower number, but could be set on a course to pass through a set of given hexes so as to eventually pass through notional emergency retreat hexes for the fleet (or something like that). Similarly you could also try and preposition some vessels in certain locations as well.
One thing I don't fully understand about the drop tank concept is, how are they to be moved about in the setup outlined in your post. Are you assuming a tender to transport them if needed. For instance if a fleet jumps out on a mission, do the drop tanks just stay in this system until the fleet returns, or is a tender to be used to transport the drop tanks to another hex to allow then to meet up with the fleet elsewhere at a leter time? If so, how will these tenders compare to the tankers?
Just some thoughts.
Regards
PF
Starviking
SOC-13
Leaving aside the fact that you may be jumping in from less than maximum jump range, and so have more option for retreat, any strategist who jumps out after an outmatched fleet is leaving themselves open to either being ambushed on the other side by a fleet waiting for this purpose - or perhaps finding that the enemy's plan involved two fleets, one that jumped to the target system 4 days after the first, taking the now lightly-defended system.
Theophilus
SOC-13
Assume's the other guy is ready to jump, has the same jump capability as me, and know's where I'm jumping too.
I hadn't planned on moving them, just using them to extend the jump range of my ships.
This brings up another topic. Tank Tenders. Which we may discuss after tankers.
I'd like to see some designs for tankers, drop tanks, tank tenders etc. Just so we see how we'd work out the bugs, doctrines, etc.
Batrons in FFW are jump-3. Both the Kokirraks 200kton, and Tigress 500kton, in Supp9 are Jump-3. Only the Plankwell class, also the newest, is jump-4.
I would infer from this that the older line ship, and the Imp navy in general was still at J-3 standard in the Marches. Reserve units in Deneb would have the longer ranged jump drives, allowing them to respond to attack.
Now the 154th Batron from Spinward Marches Campaign has a J4 Lurenti class carrier with 7 Nolikian class riders. However, this is a broken design, since at 300kton, it requires 30kton of fuel for each J1, and only has 75,000 tons of fuel, 15,000 of which is for PN. So the remaining 60,000 tons only allows J2. Of course the use of drop tanks would allow the J4 range, but are not mentioned in SMC!
Hi
When first reading this my first thoughts were of the Run to the South in the opeing phases of the WWI Battle of Jutland where the German Scouting force tried to lure the RN Scouting force to chase after them and into range of the waiting German High Seas Fleet.
Perhaps a traveller type version of such tactics would be to have a Zhodani raiding force jump in system ostensibly to attack an outlying Imperial planet (but where they know the Imperium has recently posted some ships) in the hopes that if they quickly rejump back out of system, the Imperium fleet commander may be enticed to try and pursue (to the most likely retreat hex for the Zhodani player), only to find a larger Zhodani force waiting for him.
Just some random thoughts.
Regards
PF
When first reading this my first thoughts were of the Run to the South in the opeing phases of the WWI Battle of Jutland where the German Scouting force tried to lure the RN Scouting force to chase after them and into range of the waiting German High Seas Fleet.
Perhaps a traveller type version of such tactics would be to have a Zhodani raiding force jump in system ostensibly to attack an outlying Imperial planet (but where they know the Imperium has recently posted some ships) in the hopes that if they quickly rejump back out of system, the Imperium fleet commander may be enticed to try and pursue (to the most likely retreat hex for the Zhodani player), only to find a larger Zhodani force waiting for him.
Just some random thoughts.
Regards
PF
Two things I see is that support fleets would probably be 5-10 times the tonnage of the ships on the line. Ships like tankers, cargo, habitat for families and replacement crews, hospital, repair and recovery section, etc. . With an economy of scale, plus the likely commercial subsidization, supertankers would probably be cheaper than drop tanks for the Imperial fleet.
Second, the overall strategy of fleet engagements would tend towards the decisive battle. If attritionary, the power with higher production would win, thus the secondary power would move to force a decisive engagment before the others productive capacity could be brought to bear. Not to lose initiative, this then would move even the power with higher productive capacity to seek the decisive engagement on it's own terms.
The support elements would be most likely be attached at a general fleet HQ and not at a lower Batron/Cruron level.
Second, the overall strategy of fleet engagements would tend towards the decisive battle. If attritionary, the power with higher production would win, thus the secondary power would move to force a decisive engagment before the others productive capacity could be brought to bear. Not to lose initiative, this then would move even the power with higher productive capacity to seek the decisive engagement on it's own terms.
The support elements would be most likely be attached at a general fleet HQ and not at a lower Batron/Cruron level.
I used to have a file with the complete countermix of FFW listed, but I can't find it, so I've had to browse through the physical counters and can't be sure I've got them all. And the FFW rules seems to've gone walkabout from my FFW box. All very annoying.
However, IIRC, it is impossible to establish much of a correlation between the counters in FFW and the ship classes featured in FS. One of the classes has black globes and is generally believed to be supposed to be the Kokirraks, but going with that assumption creates various problems. There is no counter that is a good match for the Tigress class, and which one, if any, represent Plankwells is anybody's guess. What is certain is that there are far more battleship classes in the Imperial Navy than the three we know from FS. There are 11 different BatRons in FFW, of which seven are jump-4, three are jump-3 and one is jump-2 (Note that I'm not counting the colonial units). In terms of number, 16 are jump-4, 14 are jump-3, and two are jump-2.
Could be. OTOH, I really wouldn't read too much into what FFW implies. All I really meant was that there is no evidence of any jump-4 tankers (unless there are some mentioned in FSotSI, which I don't have), so you can't infer the existence of drop tanks on the basis of how well a jump-4 tanker would or would not work. And that's before we go into doctrine. I can think of ways to use J4 tankers other than to jump four parsecs out and four parsecs back. (Use four parsec jumps for rapid deployment along interior lines of communication, then use the to jump one or two parsecs out and one or two parsecs back on operational use). After all, the difference between a J3 tanker and a J4 tanker is only 1% less fuel space. Plus the cost of the drive, so maybe there are few or no J4 tankers after all.
The 154th is also broken as a BatRon design, since its combat part consists of seven cruiser-sized vessels. Sure, 20,000T riders are tougher than 20,000T cruisers, but if seven of them really were tough enough to go toe-to-toe with 4 to 8 200,000T battleships, no one would be buying battleships at 6-8 times the cost of a Nolikan plus 1/7th of a Lurenti. The brokenness is increased when one considers that the counter that represents the 154th belongs to a class that is arguably the toughest one in the countermix.
Hans
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
As a slight aside - the Imperium getting to TL15 makes the battlerider/tender combo trump individual battleships, mainly due to smaller power plants and more powerful meson guns
But only if you accept that HG 2nd edition models ship combat within the third Imperium setting (which TCS flat out states by including the Islands campaign IMHO).
The only way to redress the balance would be to allow 200kt+ battleships to mount more than one spinal weapon. Otherwise the % based construction system + fixed tonnage components means that in a 200kt package you can have a tender + a few 19kt riders, each of which carries a spinal mount that can mission kill any ship in space.
Which is probably the reason the TL15 Imperial navy has gone with the battlerider/tender batron
But only if you accept that HG 2nd edition models ship combat within the third Imperium setting (which TCS flat out states by including the Islands campaign IMHO).
The only way to redress the balance would be to allow 200kt+ battleships to mount more than one spinal weapon. Otherwise the % based construction system + fixed tonnage components means that in a 200kt package you can have a tender + a few 19kt riders, each of which carries a spinal mount that can mission kill any ship in space.
Which is probably the reason the TL15 Imperial navy has gone with the battlerider/tender batron
And that's the rub. When the rules contradicts the setting, don't change the setting (at least not drastically), change the rules (or at least acknowledge that the rules are "unrealistic" even if they work beautifully game-wise).
I don't think it's quite that bad, though most of my knowledge about TCS combat is second-hand, so I could be wrong. As I understand it, the real killer are those automatic criticals you get when your spinal's factor exceeds the size factor of the target, and you can't get the really big spinals into 20,000T vessels. IIRC you need something like 75,000T for the biggest spinal. But even if you're right, it just emphasizes my point.
That doesn't explain the Tigresses and Kokirraks and Plankwells (Oh my!), all of them TL15 designs that each costs the same as one of those battlerider/tender BatRons (or over twice as much for the Tigresses). The very fact that the Imperium does build 500,000T TL15 battleships proves that they can't be taken out by a single 20,000T rider apiece, whatever any combat system implies.
Hans
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
It's not the lack of spinal firepower that makes battleships so unviable in HG2/TCS combat; it's the lack of defensive capacity against spinal meson guns. In strict HG2/TCS rules, any spinal meson gun of factor-E and up is almost certain to at least mission-kill any ship that it hits (and penetrates), thanks to the "Fuel tanks shattered" hit on the Internal Explosions table. What's the point to building 200kton BBs that are as easy to kill as a 5kton fleet escort?
Hi
I guess a couple things that I'm just not getting from some of the discussions in favor of drop tanks are that:
a) without tenders they seem to be very limited in their usefulness, and
b) its unclear what their impact would be on the ship that they are attached to.
Specifically, with reference to a) above, if tenders are not available then it would seem thay the only way these items can be gotten into a system would be if they are attached to a ship and once you use them they will stay in the system that you jumped from until you return to collect them (unless damaged or captured, etc). As such, say in a FFW type setting, if the front is fluid, then once you drop these tanks you may never see them again.
Additionally, for the example that someone gave previously for an Azhanti High Lightning raid into Zhodani space, when attached the tanks will decrease your jump and maneuvering rating, but once dropped, your ship is no better off than a standard AHL.
As such, they would seem to be limited to only allowing you to jump into a system within the range of your encumbered jump rating (ie your jump rating with the tanks attached) and then refueling from the tanks, dropping them and then quickly jumping out again without having to refuel from a gas giant, etc.
I guess alternatively, you could also use the fuel from the tanks to make your first jump, drop the tanks in your starting system, arrive in your next system fully fueled and then operate as a standard AHL from there.
Either way though, they seem like a "use it only once" per mission (until you return to the point where you dropped them) type idea if you don't have tenders.
With respect to b) above, unless I'm mistaken the rules as written for the versions I'm familiar with (I haven't messed around with T20, T4 or TNE that much) don't seem to address how having drop tanks onboard may block the line of sight of some of your weapons etc. I think I had noted previously that since with the drop tanks attached your ship is technically larger and hance may be able to bring fewer batteris to bear according to the rules, but this doesn't really seem to fully address how having something attached to your ship that can be up to 50% of the size of your normal vessel may restrict fire and/or block/mask some hardpoints. Realistically if a ship were to carry such large external tanks then I would think that hopefully the rules would be adjusted if needed to address how they may impact the abilities of the shio in this area.
Anyway, just some additional thoughts.
Regards
PF
I guess a couple things that I'm just not getting from some of the discussions in favor of drop tanks are that:
a) without tenders they seem to be very limited in their usefulness, and
b) its unclear what their impact would be on the ship that they are attached to.
Specifically, with reference to a) above, if tenders are not available then it would seem thay the only way these items can be gotten into a system would be if they are attached to a ship and once you use them they will stay in the system that you jumped from until you return to collect them (unless damaged or captured, etc). As such, say in a FFW type setting, if the front is fluid, then once you drop these tanks you may never see them again.
Additionally, for the example that someone gave previously for an Azhanti High Lightning raid into Zhodani space, when attached the tanks will decrease your jump and maneuvering rating, but once dropped, your ship is no better off than a standard AHL.
As such, they would seem to be limited to only allowing you to jump into a system within the range of your encumbered jump rating (ie your jump rating with the tanks attached) and then refueling from the tanks, dropping them and then quickly jumping out again without having to refuel from a gas giant, etc.
I guess alternatively, you could also use the fuel from the tanks to make your first jump, drop the tanks in your starting system, arrive in your next system fully fueled and then operate as a standard AHL from there.
Either way though, they seem like a "use it only once" per mission (until you return to the point where you dropped them) type idea if you don't have tenders.
With respect to b) above, unless I'm mistaken the rules as written for the versions I'm familiar with (I haven't messed around with T20, T4 or TNE that much) don't seem to address how having drop tanks onboard may block the line of sight of some of your weapons etc. I think I had noted previously that since with the drop tanks attached your ship is technically larger and hance may be able to bring fewer batteris to bear according to the rules, but this doesn't really seem to fully address how having something attached to your ship that can be up to 50% of the size of your normal vessel may restrict fire and/or block/mask some hardpoints. Realistically if a ship were to carry such large external tanks then I would think that hopefully the rules would be adjusted if needed to address how they may impact the abilities of the shio in this area.
Anyway, just some additional thoughts.
Regards
PF
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I agree, problem is which setting? Those folks at GDW didn't stick to one paradigm.
Spinal mesons get enough normal hits that they don't need crits to mission kill, the size difference crits don't matter when you are rolling 10+ internal explosions.
All of them broken designs and wouldn't last one turn of fire from a rider.
They make sense as TL14 refits - prior to TL15 you can make a case for battleships as the premier spinal carriers.
The saving in taking a TL14 battleship and installing a new power plant, computer, screens and spinal give you huge savings on ship building where the jump drive remains the single most expensive component, which is probably why the Imperium is so keen to refit TL14 ships.
As to why the Imperium builds the Tigress and the Plankwell still is probably as flagships for admirals and fleet command and contol.
And the original library entry data supports the Imperium's shift to a rider/tender based battle fleet.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I agree.
Easiest fix would have been to have meson screens reduce the number of extra hits a spinal gets on the interior explosion table.
And move fuel tanks shattered to the critical hit table where it belongs.
The one where the Imperium built thousands of battleships for over a century and is still only beginning to shift to battleriders and where the controversy over the relative merit of battleships vs. tender/riders is still going on.
Eh? Where does it say that a spinal meson gets more than one hit per shot that hits and penetrates as long as the size factor of the target is bigger than the size factor of the spinal?
Exactly my point. The game rules are obviously broken if a 500,000T battleship wouldn't last one turn against a 20,000T rider.
No, they don't. See my analysis of the alleged Kokirrak refit above. Putting in a better spinal would make sense. Spending the cost of several riders on an upgrade that wouldn't last one turn of fire from a rider doesn't.
A new power plant represents about 1/3rd of the cost of the whole ship.
No, it's not. FS is quite clear about that. All of them are deployed in squadrons. The Tigresses are specifically "generally assigned one per sector", which means somewhere between 160 and 224 of them, depending on how you interpret 'sector'.
Not really. There's an article somewhere that does support it, but I can't remember where it was. JTAS? The library data merely state that there are two opposite views extant. As in, after more than a century of building TL15 vessels, they still haven't figured out for sure that cruisers and riders beat several times their own weight in battleships like a big bass drum every time. And the reason given in that article for the current shift makes absolutely no mention of half a dozen small vessels being superior to one big one. The big debate is about putting your jump drive into the front line or not.
Hans
EDIT: It occurs to me that the whole battlerider thing is a distraction. The fundamental problem remains even if we postulate that no one had ever thought of the concept. Why is the Imperium building anything bigger than cruisers if a cruiser can stand up to a battleship? "Should we build a Tigress or ten AHLs? Gee, that's a toughie." The description on p. 9 of FS even makes the point that battleships can stand in the line of battle and cruisers can't. Obviously any combat system that allows cruisers to outfight battleships has to be flawed.
Last edited:
Similar threads
