Cleon Class Battlerider
- Thread starter Matt123
- Start date
Not that I know of. Any clues about it from CTFS?
Not really, here is the quote. The context is the 200 kton Plankwell BB which has been replaced in the Marches by the 500 kton Tigress.
My guess is that it could be referring to a BB sized Battlerider in the 100-200 kton range, maybe larger, with a tender in the region of 1000 kton. Given the class is named after Cleon, I'm thinking a folly dressed up in a way that may be useful to the navy as a sledgehammer.
My guess is that it could be referring to a BB sized Battlerider in the 100-200 kton range, maybe larger, with a tender in the region of 1000 kton. Given the class is named after Cleon, I'm thinking a folly dressed up in a way that may be useful to the navy as a sledgehammer.
Taking that apart... "...as an admiral he's honored. As an emperor, *meh*. FOR EXAMPLE, these fancy new battleriders are all named after emperors, but you won't find one named Plankwell."
Now turning to your suggestion, yes. Since these are emperors, one might assume they're the biggest and bestest. But it's not necessarily the case: remember the Empress Troyhune (50kt), and the Empress Marava (200t).
It could just be a conceit. If so, however, one would still hope that the class performs well, or else the sponsoring noble (?) politician and his retinue will find themselves in exile.
So I'll easily believe it's intended to be "best in class", even if it's not quite THE best in class or THE best of all. I'll also believe there are politics involved which may meddle with or otherwise direct the architect's plans.
... and in fact, if we flip a few pages over to the Troyhune, we get another tantalizing tidbit about battleriders. Out of context from our sample above, and yet I can't help but suspect the narrator could have been talking about Cleon Battleriders:
Sounds plausible, it ties in nicely with CT assumptions around squadron size and I suspect a J4 million ton tender may have room for a few BR escorts as well. It'll be interesting to knock up a design.
The deployments hint at an interesting fleet doctrine with BBs (Tigress, 1 squadron) in the frontline Spinward Marches sector, second rate BBs (Kokirraks & Plankwells) in Corridor and heavy Battle Riders possibly held in reserve further back.
The deployments hint at an interesting fleet doctrine with BBs (Tigress, 1 squadron) in the frontline Spinward Marches sector, second rate BBs (Kokirraks & Plankwells) in Corridor and heavy Battle Riders possibly held in reserve further back.
Interesting, ta for that.
It doesn't quite fit the Fighting Ships description of the Cleon class being 'new', assumedly late TL15 and a Battlerider. But its probably not unreasonable to think there may be a succession of ships with the same name.
Out of curiousity, in the USN, are there 'rules' regards passing on a ship name? I'm picking the previous name holder has to be decomissioned?
It doesn't quite fit the Fighting Ships description of the Cleon class being 'new', assumedly late TL15 and a Battlerider. But its probably not unreasonable to think there may be a succession of ships with the same name.
Out of curiousity, in the USN, are there 'rules' regards passing on a ship name? I'm picking the previous name holder has to be decomissioned?
Generally, tho missing 7 years and presumed lost is adequate.
There are a number of confusable names; during WWII, there were even a couple where the names were the same surname, but different individuals.
And then there's the issue of cooperative navies... US vs RN, RCN and RAN. Such as the RSS intrepid (FF, Singapore Navy), USS Intrepid (CV-11, no longer in commission, but a National Historic Monument and museum), HMS Intrepid (LSD L-11)...
FAS has a good article: fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/names.htm
And a fun list of issues is on the US Naval Institute...
news.usni.org/2013/04/23/twenty-six-us-navy-ship-naming-controversies
Well, you wouldn't find a ship named after an emperor named Plankwell in any case. What you don't have would be one named Olav.
This is true according to the ship combat rules. But it makes nonsense of several other parts of canon, notably the fact that the Imperium has built 160 (or more) Tigresses instead of 640 tenders+riders, and the fact that there's an ongoing controversy over the usefulness of battleriders1. If battleriders really were four times as effective (credit for credit) as battleships, the problem that they suffer disproportionate losses when trying to escape from a losing engagement would be pretty much moot, especially if SOP was to keep riders loaded on their tenders and only deploying them if an attacker is not overwhelming.
1 IIRC there's even a statement that the Imperium is switching FROM battleriders TO battleships in 1105. I could be misremembering, though.
Hans
The problem you describe of recovering BRs, is mostly a consideration on the defence where typically your tenders have full jump tanks. Both BBs and BRs are equally recoverable, albeit the BRs may lose a few more escorts.
On the attack the BR tender is far more vulnerable to strategic errors, due to the fuel the tender requires and that the fleet cannot be divided and recovered piecemeal if there is a problem. For example, it is easier to supply 50,000 ton to a Tigress 4 parsecs away (sufficient to get it one jump closer to home), than it is to supply 100,000 ton to a million ton tender. Even with powering down in the outer system, the time pressure is still great, there is still a developing war situation and a savvy opponent may re-inforce that system to prevent a relief force. The prize of stranding a relief force as well can be much fun. In TCS, aside from attacking homeworlds, it is pretty much the only way to force an unwilling opponent into combat when you have overwhelming odds. Much fun
In rough numbers a fuel tender delivering 50,000 ton 4 parsecs away will need to be in the vicinity of a half a million ton in size, given 80% of its fuel capacity is needed just to get it there and back. To ship 100,000 ton takes a million ton of fuel tender.
Distance is a killer.
But is it four times as vulnerable? I finds that difficult to credit.
Agreed. So in order to field twice the firepower of a Tigress, you need to supply half as much fuel.
The concerns you raise would apply if battleriders were perhaps half again as effective as battleships (credit for credit). But four times?
Also, eight 50,000T riders may be four times as a effective as a 500,000T battleship, but what about eight 75,000T cruisers? (Guesstimate as to the size of ships equivalent in cost to riders+tender slice). Basically, we're back to the fundamental problem of battleship-sized ships being SAID to be more survivable than cruiser-sized ships and the fact that according to the rules they are no such thing.
What I find most interesting about Robert's quote is that it is a setting statement that proclaims the superiority of cruiser-sized ships (albeit in this case spacecraft) over battleship-sized ships, a statement at odds with the rest of the setting statements.
Hans
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Sounds like you have to mass the battle tenders and use the battleships in flanking task forces.
Thats how I would use them, the strategically flanking sledgehammer. I say would, because I prefer BB's. Campaigns, after the initial flurry, are about the long game. The slow grind and the difficulty of replacing capital ships. BR's are quicker to replace than BBs or CVs, but BB's are not as prone to total loss either in combat where you might sacrifice a perfectly good BR to enable the retreat of others or when stranded without jump fuel multiple hexes away from freindly space.
Not sure where that stat comes from, so I can't really comment on it. In game hype?
They carry four times as many spinal mounts, but correspondingly less missile batteries. Spinal mounts are only effective in the first turn unless used against opponents without effective weaponry.
Only if you over-rate the capabilities of Spinal mounts, which is the core of most debates. Take spinals out of the equation and start examining missle bays which will still be operating hours after the Spinals dropped out of action and you get a different dynamic.
That places a level of credibility on one expressed and published in setting opinion that would not stand up if you engaged with others in the setting. The authors of Fighting Ships could express any one of multiple views that will be circling through the 3I and not be wrong. For example an Imperial CV admiral will proclaim fighters are the answer, a BB admiral BBs a Cruiser admiral Cruisers (maybe) and a BR admiral BRs. While Fleet logistics will claim they are the most important element with thier milion ton fuel tenders.
As I've stated before, I'm no expert on HG combat, so I'm relying on statements made by those who are (or say they are). I'm told that spinals often mission-kill their targets in as little as a single shot, meaning that neither the spinal nor the secondaries of said targets can fire for hours. So the whole point is that spinals are in the equation and that they are the crucial part of it.
The statements in FS are held in authorial voice. The authors of those statements are the people at GDW, not Admiral von Axgrinder. It is supposed to be the objective truth. It is, after all, a game aid.
Hans
They can indeed mission kill thier targets in a single shot. But the odds of hitting, penetrating defences and getting the right result is against the owner of the spinal mount. Think of it as a musket, rather than a sniper rifle. Great en-masse against a single target, not so great in small numbers where faith put into the dice gods may prove to be mis-placed.
For example firing the ship killing T-meson against a BB with agility 6, at short range, will result in roughly one mission kill per 8 barrels. Meaning if the owner of the 8 BRs has average luck, he may kill a Tigress in the first volley. But, of course all combat starts at long range, meaning the discussion around how the escort battle plays out should be added here and its role in degrading the spinal mounts of capital ships, but continueing the tradition of assuming the BBs slug it out in isolation. At long range the number of T-meson mission kills drops to roughly 1 in 14. The BR owner has to rely on better than average luck or shetler behind escorts for the first turn.
Assuming escorts are ignored, the two Tigress have 860 factor nine missile bays to reply with, firing HE (to avoid nuclear dampers) at long range, resulting in roughly 200 weapon hits spread across 8 targets causing the 8 T-mesons to lose roughly 3 factors to Q mesons. While I am ignoring defensive fire for convenience, I'm also ignoring 40 other offensive batteries and the spinals on each Tigress.
At the end of the first turn 8 Q-mesons now face something less than 860 missle bays. Hopefully the BRs have won the roll to get to short range because now the #7 meson screens on the Tigress start impacting the results.
While I have a slight bias against BRs and the emphasis on spinals over missile bays, the combat will still be close and the result expensive to both sides. In a campaign, I would typically prefer to avoid this combat or fight it out with cheaper escorts first before commiting.
I don't see background colour as authorial. Indicative perhaps, interesting definately, but not the objective truth. Otherwise things like the Gazelle are clearly not broken and the Tigress can jump 4 parsecs on 3 parsecs of fuel (J4 is Imperial doctrine). Color, like history, is written from the perspective of the pen holder.
Interesting. I shall have to leave it to experts in HG combat to respond. Perhaps I've been misinformed. One thing: Is it fair to ignore escorts?
EDIT: Incidentally, if what you say is true, then a squadron of eight 50,000 ton battleriders in a million ton tender does not possess much greater firepower and survivability than two Tigress Class Dreadnoughts. One way or another there's a discrepancy.
I see viewpoint writing as useful, but I don't see game aids as viewpoint writing unless explicitly labeled as such. It is IMO of very great importance that game authors make sure that referees know when a statement is true or not. (Note that such precision does not prevent a referee from ignoring and treating as false any statement that he wants to so treat).
On p. 4, FS references Basic Traveller, High Guard, The Spinward Marches, Traders and Gunboats, and JTAS, not Statement by Admiral This, Statement by Admiral That and the letter column of the Imperial Navy Gazette.
So it's not just background color, it's background color in authorial voice, the author being the game company.
Hans
Last edited:
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
If you want to get semantical, monitors should be cheaper versions of battleriders that the locals can maintain and operate.
As regards naval doctrine, in this case Imperium, it probably varies region by region, because if once options become limited, like all the approaches start to funnel like in Corridor, you may want to concentrate battleriders.
The hard shell doctrine to place heavy fleet assets forward, whether or not it's correct, should place monitors in the frontier fortressed worlds, with the battleships a couple of jumps behind them as a fire brigade to dislodge or destroy any breakthroughs, and the battleriders a couple of jumps behind them, to judge the centre of mass and react.
As regards naval doctrine, in this case Imperium, it probably varies region by region, because if once options become limited, like all the approaches start to funnel like in Corridor, you may want to concentrate battleriders.
The hard shell doctrine to place heavy fleet assets forward, whether or not it's correct, should place monitors in the frontier fortressed worlds, with the battleships a couple of jumps behind them as a fire brigade to dislodge or destroy any breakthroughs, and the battleriders a couple of jumps behind them, to judge the centre of mass and react.
Very much no. A point I raise whenever I see a conversation in progress. Escorts are part of the paper scissor rock nature of High Guard, meaning no one doctrine will win against all opponents. BBs can be beaten by escorts and it takes a balanced fleet to fair well against all comers. A cursory look at Eurisko will provide an example.
Just good game balance. If BRs won all the time, BBs would not still be in use and the OTU would be that much less rich. However we are unlikely to agree on this as my view is contrary to yours on whether that text holds the same weight as a set of rules.
A cursory look at Eurisko demonstrates conclusively that the HG combat rules are skewed to the point of being fairly useless for anything other than TCS battles, ignoring, as it does, such important features as logistics and the reluctance of people to commit suicide.
(It was Eurisko that had wounded ships self-destruct for the sake of a tactical advantage, wasn't it?)
Game balance is irrelevant to setting verisimilitude. I'm not interested in fighting TCS battles; I'm interested in a self-consistent background.
And what's less rich about an OTU with battletenders instead of battleships?
That's probably true, since I realize that game rules inescapably distorts "reality" to a greater or lesser degree simply because they are simplified for the sake of gamability. For example, the cost of a missile bay ought to include the cost of the logistical train needed to keep it supplied with missiles, but the rules do not account for that.
Hans
Last edited:
Similar threads
