Capital Ships
- Thread starter Jame
- Start date
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
I think the OTU called a vessel a "capital ship" if it carried a spinal mount, no matter the tonnage.
"Capital Ship" is one of the those phrases in nautical history that often has a nebulous meaning. In general it refers to those ships expected to do most of the work of destroying enemy warships, especially the big enemy warships.
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
IMTU I refer to a vessel as a "capital ship" if it carries a spinal meson gun or spinal particle accelerator. There are several sub-groups in the "capital ship" category, however.
Cruisers are capital ships that are starships (they have jump drives and internal jump fuel) and they are smaller in tonnage than other capital starships (30k to 80k dtons).
Battleriders are capital ships that are not starships. They are usually about the size of cruisers, although they can be even smaller (my smallest battlerider is 8000 dtons).
Battlecruisers are capital ships that are starships and that displace about 80k to 150k dtons. They are often designed for independent operations and carry fighters and Marine contingents with landing craft. To get all this they often carry a smaller spinal mount than you would think, and might have less armor than expected at their tonnage.
Battleships are capital ships that are starships and displace 200k dtons and up. They usually do not carry fighters or large Marine contingents.
YTU may vary.
Cruisers are capital ships that are starships (they have jump drives and internal jump fuel) and they are smaller in tonnage than other capital starships (30k to 80k dtons).
Battleriders are capital ships that are not starships. They are usually about the size of cruisers, although they can be even smaller (my smallest battlerider is 8000 dtons).
Battlecruisers are capital ships that are starships and that displace about 80k to 150k dtons. They are often designed for independent operations and carry fighters and Marine contingents with landing craft. To get all this they often carry a smaller spinal mount than you would think, and might have less armor than expected at their tonnage.
Battleships are capital ships that are starships and displace 200k dtons and up. They usually do not carry fighters or large Marine contingents.
YTU may vary.
Richard Saunders
SOC-12
Hello.
Oz you can delete all those double entries by using the icon at the top of the double entry it looks like a piece of paper with a pencil.
Aramis - so the three types of ship could be called.
1 - Pickets = Scouts.
2 - Small = Targets of opertunity.
3 - Capital = Big targets.
Using T20 ship design i tried to design a battle rider and carrier and i found that for the same tonnage 100000 tons i could get three 20000 ton riders or four 25000 ton warships and the four ships where no worse than the riders, if anything the riders where a little lighter on armour but not enough to count.
With T20 only having one spinal mount and this being the auto kill weapon you dont need much else.
Bye.
Oz you can delete all those double entries by using the icon at the top of the double entry it looks like a piece of paper with a pencil.
Aramis - so the three types of ship could be called.
1 - Pickets = Scouts.
2 - Small = Targets of opertunity.
3 - Capital = Big targets.
Using T20 ship design i tried to design a battle rider and carrier and i found that for the same tonnage 100000 tons i could get three 20000 ton riders or four 25000 ton warships and the four ships where no worse than the riders, if anything the riders where a little lighter on armour but not enough to count.
With T20 only having one spinal mount and this being the auto kill weapon you dont need much else.
Bye.
IMTU, I have triads of ships.
The largest of them is the battleship, battlecruiser, and large transport.
The next size down is destroyer, cruiser, and transport.
Smallest size is corvette, frigate, and small transport.
The profile of each triad is the same. I.e., they're built on similarly appearing hulls, so it's not possible to tell by a simple scan if you're looking at a cruiser, a destroyer, or a transport. (Germany did the same thing with the Bismark and the Prinz Eugen, for example). To be sure of what they are, you have to watch them. Which gives the scouts something to do when they're not looking for new planets.
The battleship and battlecruiser have the same armament, but the former has heavier armor, and the latter has bigger drives for more speed. The large transport has minimal armor and weapons, and big honkin' holds.
The next three do the same thing--the destroyer has the guns and armor and the cruiser has the guns and drives. And the transport just carries stuff.
The last one is, well, you get the idea.
I worked up full specs on all of these many years ago, when I was younger and had more free time on my hands. I always liked the concept, and have used it a few times.
Oh, and the tonnages were rather small. I like the small ships. So they are, hmm, I think 7,500, 5,000, and 2,500 tons. But this is from memory, so I'm not positive. No 100,000 ton dreadnaughts IMTU, however.
carl
The largest of them is the battleship, battlecruiser, and large transport.
The next size down is destroyer, cruiser, and transport.
Smallest size is corvette, frigate, and small transport.
The profile of each triad is the same. I.e., they're built on similarly appearing hulls, so it's not possible to tell by a simple scan if you're looking at a cruiser, a destroyer, or a transport. (Germany did the same thing with the Bismark and the Prinz Eugen, for example). To be sure of what they are, you have to watch them. Which gives the scouts something to do when they're not looking for new planets.
The battleship and battlecruiser have the same armament, but the former has heavier armor, and the latter has bigger drives for more speed. The large transport has minimal armor and weapons, and big honkin' holds.
The next three do the same thing--the destroyer has the guns and armor and the cruiser has the guns and drives. And the transport just carries stuff.
The last one is, well, you get the idea.
I worked up full specs on all of these many years ago, when I was younger and had more free time on my hands. I always liked the concept, and have used it a few times.
Oh, and the tonnages were rather small. I like the small ships. So they are, hmm, I think 7,500, 5,000, and 2,500 tons. But this is from memory, so I'm not positive. No 100,000 ton dreadnaughts IMTU, however.
carl
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
That is the Cr64,000 question, Jame. We know such ships exist; in canon they're all over the place. But study of the combat statistics tell us that such ships are just not economically viable; these eggs are too big without being too tough and the sledgehammers to crush them are too cheap (8,000 dton riders with factor-J spinal meson guns).
The only reasons I can see for building capital ships (as opposed to capital riders) are:
</font>
- Building ships gives you strategic flexibility: you can send one ship to each star system, while a battlerider squadron has to stay together to keep any strategic mobility.</font>
- Since capital ships have to be bigger (to carry all that jump fuel) they get a bonus of more secondary weapons, which makes them useable for secondary missions like planetary bombardment or commerce raiding. Ironically, this also makes them more resistant to attacks by low-tech enemies using turret or bay weapons, since low-tech enemies (TL-7 to 11) won't have the spinal meson guns to threaten them.</font>
- Big capital ships just look more impressive to the local yokels (imagine a Tigress-class ship over some TL-8 planet). A visit by a million-ton battle tender and a squadron of 50,000 dton riders would be pretty impressive as well, but that tender can only be in one place at one time, while a BB squadron can be in lots of places making impressions at one time (see the first advantage above).</font>
- Ships can make strategic withdrawals on their own, unlike riders which have to rejoin their tender, therefore ships are more suitable to operations where they might have to fall back.</font>
In canon they touched on the last point more than once; it was said to be Imperial policy that forward squadrons and colonial squadrons were mostly ships so they could run if they had to, while the rider squadrons were kept as the reserve to make counterattacks.
IMTU I have slightly increased the effectiveness of meson screens to make big ships a little less vulnerable and I strongly emphasize the strategic flexibility of capital ships. Most importantly, I try to keep such things in the background. I don't want my PCs thinking about such things too much; I want them worried about making a living.
But it is fun to talk about it with others, isn't it?
Woo hoo, I'm rich!
Kinda what I thought, the list. If the meson screens are beefed up. It would make battlecruisers excellent commerce raiders, esp. against lower-tech opponents (i.e. Vargr, Aslan and K'kree, but less so against Hivers and Zhodani).Originally posted by The Oz:
The only reasons I can see for building capital ships (as opposed to capital riders) are:
</font>
- Building ships gives you strategic flexibility: you can send one ship to each star system, while a battlerider squadron has to stay together to keep any strategic mobility.</font>
- Since capital ships have to be bigger (to carry all that jump fuel) they get a bonus of more secondary weapons, which makes them useable for secondary missions like planetary bombardment or commerce raiding. Ironically, this also makes them more resistant to attacks by low-tech enemies using turret or bay weapons, since low-tech enemies (TL-7 to 11) won't have the spinal meson guns to threaten them.</font>
- Big capital ships just look more impressive to the local yokels (imagine a Tigress-class ship over some TL-8 planet). A visit by a million-ton battle tender and a squadron of 50,000 dton riders would be pretty impressive as well, but that tender can only be in one place at one time, while a BB squadron can be in lots of places making impressions at one time (see the first advantage above).</font>
- Ships can make strategic withdrawals on their own, unlike riders which have to rejoin their tender, therefore ships are more suitable to operations where they might have to fall back.</font>
In canon they touched on the last point more than once; it was said to be Imperial policy that forward squadrons and colonial squadrons were mostly ships so they could run if they had to, while the rider squadrons were kept as the reserve to make counterattacks.
IMTU I have slightly increased the effectiveness of meson screens to make big ships a little less vulnerable and I strongly emphasize the strategic flexibility of capital ships. Most importantly, I try to keep such things in the background. I don't want my PCs thinking about such things too much; I want them worried about making a living.
But it is fun to talk about it with others, isn't it?
And yes, it is fun to talk about.
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
Woo hoo, I'm rich!
</font>[/QUOTE]But you have to answer the question to get the money....
As I said earlier, IMTU a "battlecruiser" is a capital starship in the 80,000 to 150,000 dton range, carrying a Marine battalion and a fighter wing, along with a reduced ship's armament and defenses, plus the supplies to stay on duty for several months. BC's aren't capable of fighting other capital ships their own size, they can deal with ships one size class smaller (heavy cruisers) or a couple tech levels lower. Their real mission is to be the subsector "fire brigade," able to get places quickly and do almost anything when they get there, from humanitarian assistance to scientific research to Marine assaults to capital ship combat.
They do serve excellently in the role you describe, dealing with the Vargr or Aslani. K'kree are a bit tougher, since their ships are always so d*mn big and full of K'kree soldiers.
Woo hoo, I'm rich!
</font>[/QUOTE]But you have to answer the question to get the money....
No, no, no. I had the sense to ask, therefore I get it for asking.
As I said earlier, IMTU a "battlecruiser" is a capital starship in the 80,000 to 150,000 dton range, carrying a Marine battalion and a fighter wing, along with a reduced ship's armament and defenses, plus the supplies to stay on duty for several months. BC's aren't capable of fighting other capital ships their own size, they can deal with ships one size class smaller (heavy cruisers) or a couple tech levels lower. Their real mission is to be the subsector "fire brigade," able to get places quickly and do almost anything when they get there, from humanitarian assistance to scientific research to Marine assaults to capital ship combat.
They do serve excellently in the role you describe, dealing with the Vargr or Aslani. K'kree are a bit tougher, since their ships are always so d*mn big and full of K'kree soldiers. [/QB][/QUOTE]
So ye use more battlecruisers.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
In T20 there is no sense in the bigger ships. In CT the bigger ships do tend to hit much harder and survive longer than the smaller ships. In T20 there isn't much sense in building anything bigger than a Destroyer. (4-8KTon range) with a 100T meson Bay or two. With a 30% chance of a crit (Not quite as good as a Spinal 55% chance.) a factor 8 or 9 Meson bay will vaporize any ship up to around 300KTon and take the SI to 0 on virtually anything you can reasonably build. (Though I think when you get up to around 8 million tons it doesn't get it outright without an above average roll.) In general you can build these destroyers at a rate of more than 50-1 cost vs Drednaughts. (About MCr3500 vs about MCr200,000) Back in High Guard Meson Bays were only useful against non-screened ships. And then they didn't do that much damage. (The +6 damage modifier was a bear.)
See the thread on T20 Drednaughts, what's the point?
See the thread on T20 Drednaughts, what's the point?
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Actually in MT the ship design and construction setup made ships (especially capital ships bigger. (Fighting Ships of the Shattered Imperium) As I recall you had to have bigger ships to not compromise on what it carried and Two capital ships would beat each other up but not outright. It would take a while.
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
As I read MT the ship rules make it easier to build bigger ships, but they don't make bigger ships any more survivable against the major threat: the extra damage rolls spinal meson guns get against any target they can hit and penetrate. Meson screens either stop all the damage or none of it, and aren't very good at stopping the bigger spinal meson guns, so a hit by a good-sized weapon (say, factor-J or better) has a pretty good chance of rolling enough critical hits from the interior explosion table to cripple or kill the target.
This is how TRAVELLER big-ship combat has been since HG. TNE changed things with FF&S so that meson screens could be built to any desired size and meson screens then also subtracted damage from incoming meson guns, making bigger ships more survivable. I know nothing of T4, but T20 seems to have made meson guns even more lethal than HG had them.
T4 combat differed frm TNE, but not terribly much, and the design considerations are exactly the same (FF&S II was very much FF&S with additions).
And TNE made big ships impractical for prior canonical designs: you don't have enough surface area!
So TNE & T4 big ships are quite different.
And as far as it goes, while I may be a major "MT was the last True Traveller" heretic, I still think FSotSI should NOT be considered canon... the designs don't meet the design system!
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Even if you don'tlike Fighting Ships of the Shattered Imperium the point is still valid. The ships had to be bigger under the Mega Traveller rules to accomplish the same results under the High Guard design rules. Even the Patrol Cruiser was bigger. 440 vs 400.
