Aslan: Battleships or Battleriders?
- Thread starter Tobias
- Start date
Yeah, I'm aware of those. I was thinking more in the 10kdton+ range. At the moment, I'm busy writing my revamp of High Guard and I'd like to convert a number of large warships from previous design systems to give them a spin. Now I have many Imperial warships from Supp9, SMC, TA7, FSSI (well... a few I did HG2 reimaginations for) and "Ships of the Black War" to pick from. I've got a few Zhodani warships on my own, including some published in PP:F. And there are a few Aslan and Vargr ships in the Rebellion sourcebook. But for the latter races especially I'm looking for more. If anybody has Sword World, Darrian or Droyne warships that'd be cool as well (limiting myself to races bordering the Deneb domain for now.)
A related topic is that I've had this idea that Aslan would prefer battle riders to battleships. The main disadvantage of the rider is that it cannot make a hasty retreat (Aslan aren't likely to do that anyway) and a secondary advantage is the vulnerability of the tender (which they are not likely to exploit) so a pure combat craft may be preferred.
Another related matter: Anyone know of illustrations of Aslan and Vargr craft, even if they are not tied to a specific design?
A related topic is that I've had this idea that Aslan would prefer battle riders to battleships. The main disadvantage of the rider is that it cannot make a hasty retreat (Aslan aren't likely to do that anyway) and a secondary advantage is the vulnerability of the tender (which they are not likely to exploit) so a pure combat craft may be preferred.
Another related matter: Anyone know of illustrations of Aslan and Vargr craft, even if they are not tied to a specific design?
I have always thought Aslan would prefer Battlecruisers to Battleships, though I can see a case for fast Battleriders as well.
Strategically, a BR is only as fast as its BT...
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
And a BT can ALWAYS be faster than a BB, and carry more firepower per dton.
Properly escorted, you can't even touch a BT.
There are some aslan designs up to 20ktn light cruiser in the Third Imperium Fanzine.
The GURPS aslan book has several aslan vessels including some new designs and a large rift-liner which could be used as a tender.
I can't think of any designs for cruisers and above for the other races.
Cheers
Richard
The GURPS aslan book has several aslan vessels including some new designs and a large rift-liner which could be used as a tender.
I can't think of any designs for cruisers and above for the other races.
Cheers
Richard
CosmicGamer
SOC-14 1K
The Mongoose Alien Module 1 - Aslan has a variety of ships with deck plans.
For example
Assault Carrier (Sakhai class)
Cruiser (Aositaoh class)
Escort (Ekawsiykua class)
Tender (Owatarl class)
as well as scout, courier, trader and more.
For example
Assault Carrier (Sakhai class)
Cruiser (Aositaoh class)
Escort (Ekawsiykua class)
Tender (Owatarl class)
as well as scout, courier, trader and more.
As far as BIG ships go, I don't know what the Aslan would prefer.
How about this for starters (and ONLY for starters): they're carnivore pouncers, so can we draw ANY inferences at all as to how they tend to conduct war and design warships?
Do humans design "omnivore hunter" warships? Is our big wargame recreation "the hunt", where we prepare and then go prowling in groups in a decided-upon area for a known quarry? Or is that just good war planning?
If so, then would "pouncer" designs tend to stake out a hunk of territory, lying in wait, and spring on their opponent when they trigger the trap? If so, maybe I could see a battle rider design being popular -- a tender dispatches the pouncing party (note how strange that sounds; whereas we have "raiding parties" do they have "pouncing parties"?), which sits in a system for a certain period of time.
But how the heck do you run a war that way and hope to win? Regular, fast, purposeful movement is required, isn't it? Or is that my Hunter instinct talking?
And then again, just because humans are Hunters doesn't mean they don't know how to Pounce. But it is possible that we tend to prefer Hunting over Pouncing. Successful pouncers are seen as clever to humaniti.
Now, compare those against vargr, who are Chasers. We all know the Chase -- it's a pinnacle of a Hunt. But to vargr, the Chase is the thing. Whereas we move based on the Hunting Plan, they move based on the Chasing Plan. If anything they'd be more mobile than us. Does that mean their ships are faster? Better sensors? Longer legs? I don't know.
How about this for starters (and ONLY for starters): they're carnivore pouncers, so can we draw ANY inferences at all as to how they tend to conduct war and design warships?
Do humans design "omnivore hunter" warships? Is our big wargame recreation "the hunt", where we prepare and then go prowling in groups in a decided-upon area for a known quarry? Or is that just good war planning?
If so, then would "pouncer" designs tend to stake out a hunk of territory, lying in wait, and spring on their opponent when they trigger the trap? If so, maybe I could see a battle rider design being popular -- a tender dispatches the pouncing party (note how strange that sounds; whereas we have "raiding parties" do they have "pouncing parties"?), which sits in a system for a certain period of time.
But how the heck do you run a war that way and hope to win? Regular, fast, purposeful movement is required, isn't it? Or is that my Hunter instinct talking?
And then again, just because humans are Hunters doesn't mean they don't know how to Pounce. But it is possible that we tend to prefer Hunting over Pouncing. Successful pouncers are seen as clever to humaniti.
Now, compare those against vargr, who are Chasers. We all know the Chase -- it's a pinnacle of a Hunt. But to vargr, the Chase is the thing. Whereas we move based on the Hunting Plan, they move based on the Chasing Plan. If anything they'd be more mobile than us. Does that mean their ships are faster? Better sensors? Longer legs? I don't know.
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
Suggestion:
They hunt in packs. Males can't seem to function alone.
Battle Riders:
Tenders commanded by Aslan Female (Possibly also the Battle Rides.)
This allows a "Pride" setting as well as hunting as an established pack. Males do the traditional Fighting, while the Females keep to the "admin" role.
BBs could work just as well, but, I like the idea that the BT is the family "den".
As I understand Aslan and its gender divided roles, I guess that would be unacceptable for them. The commander (at least fomaly) would be a male, while the executive officer a female (who is really in command it's anyone's guess, though).
I think I would look at it from the standpoint of their culture. The Aslan are warriors first and foremost, with individual/personal senses of honor. They have a warrior code when they fight among themselves. They prefer fighting one-on-one in duels. They gain honor by their personal exploits. They are impulsive/impetuous rather than calculating.
How might that cultural attitude affect how they view naval combat?
Many smaller ships each with chances for individual glory for pilots/gunners/commanders? Ships that can strike fast and hard while maneuvering - charging into battle?
That is why I mention the Battlecruiser: Heavy firepower, fast, with lighter armor using maneuver rather than staying power as its defense.
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
Good point. So, if BT/BR were used, it could present a problem. What male would want to command a tender, unless also as "flag admiral", and miss the chance for actual combat? Still, I like the "Den" model of BT/BR.
For those same reasons I'd expect Aslan to extensively use fighters (more than other races).
Off course, if this assumption is correct, MgT changes help them (when compared with CT:HG/MT where fighters were nearly useless at high TLs) :CoW:
Last edited:
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
:CoW::CoW::CoW: Fighters (BIG ones)were NEVER useless at TL15, just not front line/first strike. Use them in a traditional cavalry role and they are very well suited.
BTW, did anyone ever do an extrapolation to MT computer models 8 & 9? The original tables only went from 1-7.
Also, the MgT rules; Core or HG or...?
But I guess for Aslan fighters would be appealing even for line use for the reasons whulorigan so well explained.
Do you mean in MgT? If so in page 65 (at least in MgT LBB2:HG) the core computer table reaches up to core/9 computer.
In fact in both of them the fighters are useful, but as we're talking of big ships, I'd refer mainly to MgT:HG. You're right in asking it though, sorry.
Last edited:
Agree with ther individual battles resulting in the heavy use of fighters.
Given that the fleet is supported by a clan rather than the entire imperium and clan holdings can be spread out across a large amount of space
Small to medium clans invest heavily in fighters and light to heavy SDBs with the ocassional monitor thrown in. These would be based around clan holdings. Major clan worlds might have some tenders to carry fighters / SDBs to the battlefront escorted by cruiser class vessels.
Raids and normal patrols would be done by the small warships we have examples of.
The big clans would have the big battleships are a source of pride / honour. They would have tenders to carry SDBs and fighters but not sure if they would use full battle tenders with proper large battleriders - tender capt is not very glamourous, and individual battleships / battlecruisers give more chance of individual honour and they offer more flexibility to send 1 or 2 ships to specific targets rather than sending an entire squadron. They might also go for a battleship / carrier hydrid with lots of big guns and a large spinal + swarms of heavy fighters for warriors to earn individual honours
Given that the fleet is supported by a clan rather than the entire imperium and clan holdings can be spread out across a large amount of space
Small to medium clans invest heavily in fighters and light to heavy SDBs with the ocassional monitor thrown in. These would be based around clan holdings. Major clan worlds might have some tenders to carry fighters / SDBs to the battlefront escorted by cruiser class vessels.
Raids and normal patrols would be done by the small warships we have examples of.
The big clans would have the big battleships are a source of pride / honour. They would have tenders to carry SDBs and fighters but not sure if they would use full battle tenders with proper large battleriders - tender capt is not very glamourous, and individual battleships / battlecruisers give more chance of individual honour and they offer more flexibility to send 1 or 2 ships to specific targets rather than sending an entire squadron. They might also go for a battleship / carrier hydrid with lots of big guns and a large spinal + swarms of heavy fighters for warriors to earn individual honours
Last edited:
Thanks for all the input.
The male (nominal) BT captain is also the overall force commander of the BT/BR combination.
When combat is imminent, he embarks on one of the BRs and commands the squadron. On the BT, the female XO assumes command.
By the way, a good point has been made here about Aslan and fighter craft. As I said, my purpose here is to build ships for my HG revamp. Fighters are going to be more generally useful than they were in HG2 under these rules. So maybe I'm going to go for an Aslan naval doctrine where spinal armed capital ships above cruiser size are not used, but fighter carriers and BT/BR combinations are.
True, this might work is as follows:
The male (nominal) BT captain is also the overall force commander of the BT/BR combination.
When combat is imminent, he embarks on one of the BRs and commands the squadron. On the BT, the female XO assumes command.
By the way, a good point has been made here about Aslan and fighter craft. As I said, my purpose here is to build ships for my HG revamp. Fighters are going to be more generally useful than they were in HG2 under these rules. So maybe I'm going to go for an Aslan naval doctrine where spinal armed capital ships above cruiser size are not used, but fighter carriers and BT/BR combinations are.
