Big Naval Ships in the Traveller Universe

[RossWinn]

I am of the opinion that most of the starships larger than 10ktons is pretty poorly designed, and primarily because the metaphor breaks down. It wasn't until Brilliant Lances that the scope of naval warfare in the Traveller universe was really explored. Most dreadnoughts are, in my opinion, really designed more for intimidation and "showing the flag" than real line of battle performance. Of course that is just my opinion.

 

[TamsinP]

That's a silly thing.

They're not ceremonial. They're combat vessels.

And as combat vessels, they have to operate. This is a hidden aspect of what makes them expensive.

Training is constant, because personnel change is constant. These vessels are complicated beasts. Ships and crews do not sit idle well.

There's no conflict between "showing the flag and being combat-effective. Quite the opposite in fact. There's also the fact that a capital ship arriving with its escorts in a system for a week or two can be a significant boost to the local economy (if the population is low) from crew on shore leave spending in bars, restaurants, etc. There are also the political/diplomatic aspects of doing this - reminding planets that they are part of the polity, showing off the might of the fleet to existing or potential client states, among other things.

The major fleet assets spending most of their time at (or near) their bases is simple common sense in a universe where news travels at the speed of jump - those ships are the local strategic reserve. They won't be sitting idle - they'll be constantly training and refitting.

 

[Condottiere]

Depends on the message you're trying to send.

Sometimes, sending a single frigate is far more effective.

 

[McPerth]

What can we say generally about Big Navy Ships in Traveller?

From RPG/narrative POV:

IMHO, even in a large ship universe, most IN ships would be relatively small ones (on the corvette/destroyer range at most), even if the larger ships keep most combat power and a big share of the total tonnage.

As in most navies, while the perceived main mission of the Fleet is to fight naval battles, in fact its true mission is to allow the naval traffic to flow (or to deny enemy traffic to). As most of the time the Navy (and in fact the whole Imperium) is in peace footing, this means it spends more time in anti-piracy patrols than in war actions, and this is done with those small ships, not with Cruisers or BatDrons.

Large ships main mission in those peaceful times would be to show the flag and to keep subject planets in line (also known as gunboat diplomacy), so being more a diplomatic tool than a true military one. In this way, large ships like the Tigris, even with all their flaws in combat, are quite good.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Battleships are not built because they are effective, but because they can run away, and already S9 pointed that out:

CT S9, p9:
While it is undeniable that a BatRon of battle riders will invariably defeat an equal tonnage squadron of jump-capable battleships, the early weeks of the Fourth Frontier War uncovered a serious design weakness. When faced with superior numbers, the riders were unable to withdraw and jump out-systemdue to the time required to secure them in their tenders. Thus, rider BatRons suffered disproportionate losses in the early stages of the war.
The solution arrived at was to concentrate all rider BatRons in the strategic reserves while manning the frontier delaying forces exclusively with ships.

Most of the IN BatRons are riders, battleships are just frontier delaying forces.

 

[McPerth]

From rules/metagaming POV:

Here, Mike’s question is the key

Which edition and which setting? At what TL?

I’ll try to give my POV from the CT/MT and MgT1E rules (the ones I know), and mostly about the Big ships (Battle fleets), ignoring the small/patrol ships

CT/MT

The main point here is TL, and, IMHO, the “big threshold” is TL 12. Not only (as IW comments say) because of increased jump or the appearance of mesons, but also because ships may finally reach size above 75000 dton (up to 199999 dtons), so making the BT/BR concept practical. This allows for better spinal mounts, increasing their numbers, while not reducing the missile batteries (the main eroding weapons) in a significant number. See that there’s a big difference among CT and MT in the agility expected for those large ships, and so for their suvivalty…

Before TL12, the size limit would make the main ships be Cruiser size and Carriers, with the fighters being important, while, at TL 12+ the BT/BR combos would begin to appear, dominating more the battlefield as TL raises. Cruisers/Dreadnoughts will still be built, as they may better disperse, be it for diplomatic missions or for frontier patrol, keeping the BT/BR BatDrons, with their concentrated power, as reserves (IN doctrine, according several sources).

As for Planetary Defense Fleets, I’ll keep with the taxonomy I already suggested years ago, based on main weaponry (akin cruisers in World Wars):

• Light SDBs: armed only with turrets. Mostly anti pirate and customs patrols. Includes fighters in most cases.
• Heavy SDBs: armed with bays. Able to fight large ships if in masse
• Monitors: armed with spinals, and able to fight large ships at equal terms. Mainly BRs In planetary defense roles.

As an aside, the fact PB defense batteries are managed as battery vs battery, instead than as a protective layer, makes them less effective

MgT1E.

Here rules change quite a lot, mostly due to:

• Computer rules change
• Barrage rules (and point defense) making energy bays quite more powerful than missiles or spinals
• Loss of importance of Agility
• Changes in fuel needs

Computer rules change reduce the critical importance of TL, though maintain some size limits at lower TLs

Here, the BT/BR concept is less important. Though it still keeps better armoured ships in combat, the effect, as spinals lose importance, are less felt. Also, BRs may be smaller, as fuel needs are smaller, and most combat ships will be armed with many energy bays (or even turrets), as they are quite effective, Missiles, while they may be quite effective with a lucky shoot, are useless more often than not against a well armoured ship with PB defense.

Another key change of the barrage rules is that fighters kept being effective, even at high TLs, so making the Carriers again an important factor.

See this old post as why I consider missiles and spinals to have lost most of their power, and this old thread about the effects of rules changes from CT/MT to MgT1E could have had from a narrative POV.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I am of the opinion that most of the starships larger than 10ktons is pretty poorly designed, and primarily because the metaphor breaks down. It wasn't until Brilliant Lances that the scope of naval warfare in the Traveller universe was really explored. Most dreadnoughts are, in my opinion, really designed more for intimidation and "showing the flag" than real line of battle performance. Of course that is just my opinion.

They are all silly, because they are not designed to be combat effective. They are designed to be cool, to resemble WWI-WWII surface ships, hence "cruisers" and smaller are basically unarmoured and therefore road-kill.

The chosen standard of J-4 battleships are impossible under LBB5 as they require almost 100% of the ship just for drives, fuel and armour. Most of the battleships in S9 are highly compromised, and still only J-3.


Ships designed to be competitive looks completely different. And it is a very well-travelled trope, especially after TCS was published.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

CT/MT

The main point here is TL, and, IMHO, the “big threshold” is TL 12. Not only (as IW comments say) because of increased jump or the appearance of mesons, but also because ships may finally reach size above 75000 dton (up to 199999 dtons), so making the BT/BR concept practical.

There is no real limitation, just make smaller tenders that carries fewer riders. One tender per rider is no real problem and much more flexible than artificially limiting to one tender per batron. There is very little reason to build a rider larger than 20 000 Dt.

Before TL12, the size limit would make the main ships be Cruiser size and Carriers, with the fighters being important, while, at TL 12+ the BT/BR combos would begin to appear, dominating more the battlefield as TL raises. Cruisers/Dreadnoughts will still be built, as they may better disperse, be it for diplomatic missions or for frontier patrol, keeping the BT/BR BatDrons, with their concentrated power, as reserves (IN doctrine, according several sources).

The big-bang is TL-13 (at least for CT). The cheaper power plants makes mesons and agility a lot more competitive.
TL-12 is dominated by missile rocks with a few spinals for destruction.

MgT1E.

Here rules change quite a lot, mostly due to:

Yes, MgT1 is a completely different game. The barrage table has bizarre effects...

IIRC, why would you ever build a ship larger than 5000 Dt (minimum "capital" ship)?
IIRC, fighters destroys everything, even at long range.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

MY GOAL: A list of generalizations, restrictions, and expectations for Big Ship combat.

Which edition and which setting? At what TL?

Presumably we are talking about what we want from T5 BCS?

 

[mike wightman]

I wouldn't like to presume.
T5 kills a lot of the sacred cows of HG80, especially when AotI is taken into account.

A TNE or T4 FF&S capital ship with several spinal lasers? Multiple spinal or parallel mounts as they called them throw another spanner in the works.

 

[McPerth]

There is no real limitation, just make smaller tenders that carries fewer riders. One tender per rider is no real problem and much more flexible than artificially limiting to one tender per batron. There is very little reason to build a rider larger than 20 000 Dt.

Rules POV:

You're right. Smaller tenders are a little more expensive (due to computers and larger command crews), but the extra cost is not significant with the numbers we're maneaging in Big Ships.

The only other other inconvenient for single rider tenders is the span of arrival. While single tender squadrons make sure all your squadron arrives at once, single BR tenders are more difficult in this way.

RPG/narrative POV:

Squadron integrity would advise single tender squadrons, where the squadron crews may meet along the tender (that also acts as "spacemoveing city") along jump. Also some other services (repair, hopsital, etc) that the Tender performs are more centralized.

 

[Spinward Flow]

As far as the BatRon concept and philosophy is concerned, once you go above a certain displacement threshold, you're not really "saving" all that much tonnage (and therefore, cost) by consolidating tender services into a single craft rather than distributing those tender services out to multiple craft. There will be "nibble round the edges" savings (less command crew needed total, fewer computers needed total, etc.) but those benefits are marginal at best.

Looking at the problem from a "percent allocation" perspective, the main benefit of the BatRon design is that the tender(s) can be "non-combat junky" using Dispersed Structure hulls (which are cheaper and can launch+recover everything in a single combat turn) which by configuration choice cannot be armored along with limited self-defense capability (tenders are supposed to remain in the Reserves relative to the line of engagement, so the tenders don't come under fire). The Battle Rider is then (basically) an "overgrown System Defense Boat" organized around delivering CONCENTRATED firepower. Protection schemes for Battle Riders can be a combination of computer (always MAX for TL), agility, screens (preferably best for TL), configuration+armor and weapons (repulsors, sandcasters, etc.).

One BIG advantage of the BatRon concept is that meson screens require a lot less EPs ... because the meson screens mainly need to protect the Riders, not the Tenders (because the tenders are supposed to remain in the Reserve where they can't take fire). This makes the BatRon slightly more efficient in its use of tonnage (and therefore costs) than going the battle starship (all in one) route, but again ... the benefits are a bit marginal.

Battleships are not built because they are effective, but because they can run away, and already S9 pointed that out:

Most of the IN BatRons are riders, battleships are just frontier delaying forces.

BatRons exchange their slight efficiency advantage for a reduced retreat mobility factor.
Therefore, it makes sense (as a matter of doctrine) to use battleships as the outer "crust defense" that an invader engages first ... to "entangle" enemy fleet movements. That then creates an opportunity for the BatRons in the reserves moving forward to the front lines to know where to strike most effectively, bringing their superior firepower to bear most effectively.

Battleships can escape from unfavorable matchups by jumping away.
BatRons cannot quite so easily retreat from unfavorable matchups, so they really need intel directing them towards encounters/engagements that will be more favorable to the BatRons (they win the battle rather than lose). The problem with BatRons is that once they're committed to the fight, it's hard to pull them back without sacrifices (or losses that may be unacceptable).

When BatRons are winning, they're wonderful!
As soon as BatRons start losing ... it gets really ugly, really fast ... with very limited options for escape by retreat.

 

[mike wightman]

HG80 - TL15 put a jump 1 drive in your "battle rider". Tenders (J6 10Mt) carries riders and drop tanks.

Two types of BR - missile bay maxed out and spinal meson.

Never fight a battle without a minimum 3 to 1 advantage in capital ship hulls (points balanced warfare lol)

 

[Condottiere]

I always thought that whoever wrote the narrative of the Imperium Navy using battleships to provide cover for the battle riders to retreat to the tenders and depart, fundamentally misunderstood warfare.

Not that it matters at present, since neither the Imperium nor Confederation Navies utilize battle tenders as the central foundation of the line of battle, more as an afterthought.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

RPG/narrative POV:

Squadron integrity would advise single tender squadrons, where the squadron crews may meet along the tender (that also acts as "spacemoveing city") along jump. Also some othr services (repair, hopsital, etc) that the Tender performs are more centralized.

Agreed, but some riders will have to shipped off to a shipyard after each engagement.

With a single tender you will have to send all of them, or none...

You can also not split the squadron into divisions to cover more ground.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

HG80 - TL15 put a jump 1 drive in your "battle rider". Tenders (J6 10Mt) carries riders and drop tanks.

I don't believe in infinite resources, I'd rather take a lot more cheaper riders with J-4 tenders. Thus achieving the numerical superiority needed...

Two types of BR - missile bay maxed out and spinal meson.

Don't forget the PA spinal rider to punish craft that are too small or insufficiently armoured.

Never fight a battle without a minimum 3 to 1 advantage in capital ship hulls (points balanced warfare lol)

Agreed, unless pinned to a strategic position, don't fight battles you will lose.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

As far as the BatRon concept and philosophy is concerned, once you go above a certain displacement threshold, you're not really "saving" all that much tonnage (and therefore, cost) by consolidating tender services into a single craft rather than distributing those tender services out to multiple craft. There will be "nibble round the edges" savings (less command crew needed total, fewer computers needed total, etc.) but those benefits are marginal at best.

Looking at the problem from a "percent allocation" perspective, the main benefit of the BatRon design is that the tender(s) can be "non-combat junky" using Dispersed Structure hulls (which are cheaper and can launch+recover everything in a single combat turn) which by configuration choice cannot be armored along with limited self-defense capability (tenders are supposed to remain in the Reserves relative to the line of engagement, so the tenders don't come under fire). The Battle Rider is then (basically) an "overgrown System Defense Boat" organized around delivering CONCENTRATED firepower. Protection schemes for Battle Riders can be a combination of computer (always MAX for TL), agility, screens (preferably best for TL), configuration+armor and weapons (repulsors, sandcasters, etc.).

One BIG advantage of the BatRon concept is that meson screens require a lot less EPs ... because the meson screens mainly need to protect the Riders, not the Tenders (because the tenders are supposed to remain in the Reserve where they can't take fire). This makes the BatRon slightly more efficient in its use of tonnage (and therefore costs) than going the battle starship (all in one) route, but again ... the benefits are a bit marginal.

The benefit of the tender+rider is massive, the same as a two stage rocket.

LBB5 (see JTAS#15, "TCS Squadron Design II"):
A battleship (J-4, M-6, Armour 15, screens) is about 98% machinery.
A tender (J-4, M-1, Armour 0) is about 59% machinery.
A rider (J-0, M-6, Armour 15, screens) is about 53% machinery.

To fit a Meson-N (4000 Dt with PP and fuel) you need a 4000/(1-0.98) ≈ 200 000 Dt battleship.
In a rider you need a 4000/(1-0.53) ≈ 9000 Dt rider.
To fit a 9000 Dt rider you need a 9000/(1-0.59) ≈ 22 000 Dt tender.

Effectively a 9000 Dt rider with a 22 000 Dt tender has almost the same combat power as a 200 000 Dt battleship, but is far cheaper and uses far less crew.

Whether you have a 220 000 Dt tender with ten riders or ten tenders of 22 000 Dt with a rider each is a very small difference in cost.

... main benefit of the BatRon design is that the tender(s) can be "non-combat junky" using Dispersed Structure hulls (which are cheaper and can launch+recover everything in a single combat turn) which by configuration choice cannot be armored along with limited self-defense capability ...

Dispersed ships are unstreamlined, so cannot refuel. When you add the added tankers they are bigger and more expensive than a streamlined ship.

Agreed, the tender belongs in the Reserve, so any defences are a waste.

At rider scale launch facilities are not a problem since the tender can launch one craft per 10 000 Dt by default. Fighter carriers is another matter.

BatRons exchange their slight efficiency advantage for a reduced retreat mobility factor.

Yes, by the story, but not by the rules in LBB5.

Rules:
A "damaged" battleship (i.e. hit by meson) will likely have the computer, PP, and/or fuel destroyed, so can't jump.
A "damaged" rider (i.e. hit by meson) can be screened in the reserve, picked up by a tender, and jumped out.

Just have some sacrificial fighters or missile frigates handy to cover the retreat. That is needed by both, as you don't want to jump a battleship from the battle line, withstanding fire with compromised defences (as the power is allocated to the jump).



BatRon = Battle Squadron, whether ship or rider,
CruRon = Cruiser Squadron,
etc.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I wouldn't like to presume.

Agreed, assume starts with ass.

T5 kills a lot of the sacred cows of HG80, especially when AotI is taken into account.

Every edition after CT changed combat significantly.

Without the inviolable reserve of LBB5, it is very difficult to keep tenders alive, hence riders are a much less tasty concept.

 

[McPerth]

With a single tender you will have to send all of them, or none...

That depends on the facilities the tender has. Unless I'm wrong, the word Tender hints a mobile base, not just a "battle taxi".

See also that, if it was a major Fleet engagement with several squadrons, you can use some Tenders for this, gropuing the damaged BRs on them. That will have some effect on Squadron Integrity, but less than each ship going on its own.

Considering a military unit as just an amount of subunits taht are interchageable uses to lead to poor performance. As Errol Flyn (as Custer) says in They died with their boots on: "a Regiment is more than just 600 men" (talking from memory, the quote might not be exact).

Unfortunately, there are no rules for Squadron Integrity in any Traveller version (at least, none that I know about)

 

[Condottiere]

In theory, resupply, rest, recreation, and repairs.