Cleon Class Battlerider

[Matt123]

... anything other than TCS battles, ignoring, as it does, such important features as logistics and the reluctance of people to commit suicide.

A criticism that can be leveled at most games without a campaign element. It is the nature of tournament games, not a reflection on either High Guard or the gamers that entered expecting to fight to the death. Of course TCS rectifies this by including campaign elements, meaning concepts like force preservation, repairs, patience and fuel logistics play a major roll.

(It was Eurisko that had wounded ships self-destruct for the sake of a tactical advantage, wasn't it?)

Alegedly. However we don't have the fleet that apparently utilizes this and alegedly no engagements got to the point this was needed (IIRC it was claimed by Lenat years after the event). I will also add that it is fairly common practise in the real world to destroy good combat equipment if its on-going survival may compromise your forces. For example the US do it in Iraq after Iraqi retreats leave behind loaned heavy equipment.

There is a good arguement for lifeboats in here somewhere. Perhaps another day.

Game balance is irrelevant to setting verisimilitude. I'm not interested in fighting TCS battles; I'm interested in a self-consistent background.

It is consistent. You are applying a view on this one piece of text that the authors did not intend the entire background to be limited to.

And what's less rich about an OTU with battletenders instead of battleships?

Adopting BRs only is clearly less rich than an OTU with both BRs and BBs.

The point I am making is if BRs are 8 times better than BBs, you would have an OTU without BBs. That they are not better, is consistent with an OTU that has both. If I followed your logic I would be holding Fighting Ships up as evidence BRs do not exist. Numerous ships detailed over 50 kton, 3 CVs, 3 BBs, 1 monitor and no BRs. Do BRs exist in the OTU, undoubtedly yes. Are they overwhelmingly better than the vessels the authorial voice took the time to detail in Fighting Ships, I suspect not. On par perhaps, but don't believe all the hype you read.

I like BRs, they provide variety, options, alternative tactics, interesting conversations and differing strategic advantages. I do not for one moment believe they are inherently superior to BBs, but they do offer interesting options that can lead to tactical and strategic advantage. Both BRs and BBs offer depth and add rich detail to the OTU.

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.

Also true. I'm happy to concede the rules have flaws as does the color text that implies oddities that do not gell with other known 'facts'. Color text however, has the advantage of only having to represent one version of the truth. The authorial voice does not have to be constrained. Neither do free thinking gamers.

 

[rancke]

A criticism that can be leveled at most games without a campaign element. It is the nature of tournament games, not a reflection on either High Guard or the gamers that entered expecting to fight to the death. Of course TCS rectifies this by including campaign elements, meaning concepts like force preservation, repairs, patience and fuel logistics play a major roll.

I don't mean it as a reflection on TCS. I mean it as a reflection on using HG and TCS as more autoritative sources for the OTU than setting descriptions held in authorial voice.

It is consistent. You are applying a view on this one piece of text that the authors did not intend the entire background to be limited to.

What evidence do you have that the authors didn't intend their text to be autoritative? I've listed my evidence: That FS references game material rather than in-game material and that there's no indication anywhere that the information provided is not true.

Adopting BRs only is clearly less rich than an OTU with both BRs and BBs.

Not in any practical sense. At the PC level the difference between a squadron of battleships and a squadron of battleriders is pretty moot. Plus, it's not a question of battleships/no battleships; it's a question of more battleships/less battleships.

The point I am making is if BRs are 8 times better than BBs, you would have an OTU without BBs. That they are not better, is consistent with an OTU that has both. If I followed your logic I would be holding Fighting Ships up as evidence BRs do not exist. Numerous ships detailed over 50 kton, 3 CVs, 3 BBs, 1 monitor and no BRs. Do BRs exist in the OTU, undoubtedly yes.

That's just what I've been arguing. If battleriders really were so much better than battleships, there wouldn't be so many battleships. Much less would Imperial doctrine be switching FROM battleriders TO battleships.

Are they overwhelmingly better than the vessels the authorial voice took the time to detail in Fighting Ships, I suspect not. On par perhaps, but don't believe all the hype you read.

You're missing something here. Yes, the passage that Robert quoted do say outright that battleriders are, credit for credit, better than battleships. But that was merely a bit of new information (or rather, information I hadn't been aware of before -- it's hardly new ). My original argument has for many years been based on information provided by TCS experts who told me that battleriders were, according to the rules, much, much better than battleships.

Now you tell me that this is not the case; that according to the rules battleriders are only a bit better that battleships. That leaves me with the problem of who to believe. Someone clearly has to be mistaken.

Also true. I'm happy to concede the rules have flaws as does the color text that implies oddities that do not gell with other known 'facts'. Color text however, has the advantage of only having to represent one version of the truth. The authorial voice does not have to be constrained. Neither do free thinking gamers.

They do when they are talking about a single specific game background. Assuming identical tech levels, battleriders can not both be much, much better than battleships AND only a bit better than battleships IN THE SAME UNIVERSE. It's one or the other. Pick one. But don't say that, in the name of referee free thinking, both can be true at the same time, because that is arrant nonsens.

Of course, each referee is free to pick whichever truth he wants for his own TU. I'm only talking about the OTU, the single universe that is our common game reference.


Hans

 

[Matt123]

lol, each to thier own

 

[robject]

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

In other words, when the intent of the game designer doesn't sync with ship design and combat rules, which is wrong? Obviously creating a ship design and combat system is more difficult, so the bug, subtle as it is, is with the system, not the intent.

Granted, the two often influence each other, and original intent can change too.

 

[robject]

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?

You're letting the tail wag the dog. Game balance is critical to good game design, and the intent is that this be a set of games.

But richness of background probably has something to do with it, too. If GDW and/or Marc wants a universe where the BB-versus-BR question is never settled, then the rules should bear thus out.

That we still discuss this might mean they did it right. Although Eurisko is still there.

 

[samuelvss]

..... My original argument has for many years been based on information provided by TCS experts who told me that battleriders were, according to the rules, much, much better than battleships.

Now you tell me that this is not the case; that according to the rules battleriders are only a bit better that battleships. That leaves me with the problem of who to believe. Someone clearly has to be mistaken.

They do when they are talking about a single specific game background. Assuming identical tech levels, battleriders can not both be much, much better than battleships AND only a bit better than battleships IN THE SAME UNIVERSE.

Maybe you could quantify "much, much better" and "only a bit better." TCS gives a single measure of tactical utility, at a single scale. Experts in the applications of such measure (I used the word! ) should be able to quantify this advantage. The rest of us may indeed have a different view of this and other measures. Some might think that tactical matters tend, even with a great deal of data, to get real fuzzy. That capital ships are strategic weapons systems, and strategy gets fuzzier still (especially where it overlaps with the operational and even tactical) may make this tactical measure less clear.

If 2% better is decisive, is it just a little bit better? Or much much better? How much more than decisive is needed to be much, much better?

To the extent that our canon makes these truths seem fuzzy, bravo for our canon. That has been the nature of the interpretations of warfare throughout history.

 

[mike wightman]

What was the TL cap of the Eurisko fleet?

Doctrine changes at different TLs.

 

[Matt123]

What was the TL cap of the Eurisko fleet?

Doctrine changes at different TLs.

TL 12 and I'd agreen that doctrine changes with TL.

 

[mike wightman]

Yup.

One day the TL15 Imperium is going to realise that a BR with a jump engine is going to give them maximum tactical flexibility.

Especially if integrated with a jump 6 strategic tender network and drop tank caches in Imperial controlled systems.

You can build a 70kt battlerider with maximum everything and a jump engine but only enough internal fuel for jump 1. The tender network and fuel caches allow for tactical /strategic mobility.

HG does an excellent job of providing rules for ship construction and combat across the TL range, the folks at GDW didn't notice the consequences of their own rules for the setting.

The big ship designs in S9 are broken and wrong.

 

[rancke]

To the extent that our canon makes these truths seem fuzzy, bravo for our canon. That has been the nature of the interpretations of warfare throughout history.

To the extent that game material leaves the referee confused and unsure of the truth, phooey on canon. The nature of the interpretation of warfare throughout history has always lacked the benefit of the Word of God that is (or at least ought to be) available in a RPG setting.

And to the extent that in-game military "experts" are sufficiently moronic to miss, for an entire century, the implication of being able to build four or five cruiser-sized battle vessels capable of standing in the line of battle for every battleship, or believe that anything bigger than a 75,000T heavy cruiser is worth building at TL15, phooey on canon likewise.


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

And once again - the TL15 Imperial BB is very effective against the TL14 Zhodani BB or BR - if properly designed.

It's flaws will only show up when a TL15 fleet engages a TL15 fleet - something the CT IN has not revealed to the public. (and probably something the folks at GDW failed to spot in their own rules since the ships they designed as state of the art TL15 are totally inadequate, and broken).

Which goes a long way to explain the carnage of the MT Rebellion era.

 

[rancke]

And once again - the TL15 Imperial BB is very effective against the TL14 Zhodani BB or BR - if properly designed.

But is it substantially more effective than a heavy cruiser?

Is Matt right about the importance of the battleship-mounted secondaries that outnumber those battlerider-mounted secondaries? Is a (properly designed) 500,000T battleship able to hold its own against four 50,000T battleriders?

It's flaws will only show up when a TL15 fleet engages a TL15 fleet - something the CT IN has not revealed to the public.

And the IN hasn't held a war game any time this last century?


Hans

 

[samuelvss]

To the extent that game material leaves the referee confused and unsure of the truth, phooey on canon. The nature of the interpretation of warfare throughout history has always lacked the benefit of the Word of God that is (or at least ought to be) available in a RPG setting.

And to the extent that in-game military "experts" are sufficiently moronic to miss, for an entire century, the implication of being able to build four or five cruiser-sized battle vessels capable of standing in the line of battle for every battleship, or believe that anything bigger than a 75,000T heavy cruiser is worth building at TL15, phooey on canon likewise.


Hans

Your obscenities shock me, sir, but I shall endeavor to reply civilly.

Well, we could hash out the various intellectual and doctrinal foibles of "experts" throughout the centuries, where one camp (or both) just got it horribly wrong. IIRC correctly, flag officer incompetence was a factor in the FFW. Could some of them have been in the camp writing the doctrine?

Often it is not that no one gets it, but rather that those who do lose out to the camp that does not get it, but thinks it does. In retrospect, it is often easy to identify the "morons," but sometimes not. Prospectively, it is hard to see who is right until the right (or wrong) fight comes along.

So if we expect our LBB's to be better than the professional ( I won't say "expert") materials written by those devoting their adult lives to their subject, then maybe we expect too much.

 

[samuelvss]

And the IN hasn't held a war game any time this last century?

These things get rigged and suppressed. Or, the assumptions may be based on the current doctrine, and thus flawed.

LeMay's B-17's found the Utah in a wargame in 1937, and the results of the exercise were classified because the U.S. Navy did not like them.

Our wargames prior to OEF/OIF focused on the invasions and big battles, and ended before that pesky stability phase.

 

[rancke]

Well, we could hash out the various intellectual and doctrinal foibles of "experts" throughout the centuries, where one camp (or both) just got it horribly wrong. IIRC correctly, flag officer incompetence was a factor in the FFW. Could some of them have been in the camp writing the doctrine?

No, they couldn't, because Supplement 9 wasn't written by them. I don't mean not for real, which goes without saying, but not ostensibly either. It was written by GDW writers and thus qualifies as Word of God (or his minions).

Compare that with much of the text in Solomani & Aslan and Vilani and Vargr, which is explicitly viewpoint writing by in-universe writers.


Hans

 

[rancke]

These things get rigged and suppressed. Or, the assumptions may be based on the current doctrine, and thus flawed.

Not for a full century from one end of the Imperium to the other. That's simply not credible. All it takes is one duchy navy or TL15 planetary navy to figure out the truth and it will spread from there.

Besides, all this assumes that at TL14 there isn't a maximum size beyond which any further increase in size is counterproductive. If there is, the Imperium would have known in 1000 that something similar would apply at TL15 and the IN never would have developed TL15 battleships in preference to cruisers and battleriders in the first place.

And indeed, we know that the IN did build cruisers and battleriders prior to the 4FW, so it's sheer nonsense to posit that it is building battleships because it doesn't know any better. If it's building battleships it's because it believes that battleships are a better use of its budget than heavy cruisers and battleriders.


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

But is it substantially more effective than a heavy cruiser?

Yes, very much so.
The additional weapon batteries soak up damage, while the screens prevent Zho meson fire from being much of a threat, their nuke missiles are similarly scuppered by TL15 nuclear dampers.
So the sheer size of the BB allows it to take much more damage.

Is Matt right about the importance of the battleship-mounted secondaries that outnumber those battlerider-mounted secondaries? Is a (properly designed) 500,000T battleship able to hold its own against four 50,000T battleriders?

Due to the batteries bearing rule the BR swarm will have a similar number of secondary batteries to the BB

And the IN hasn't held a war game any time this last century?


Hans

Yes, but if they used the broken and wrong design choices for their BBs as evident in S9 they obviously haven't learned their lesson yet.

 

[rancke]

Yes, very much so.
The additional weapon batteries soak up damage, while the screens prevent Zho meson fire from being much of a threat, their nuke missiles are similarly scuppered by TL15 nuclear dampers.
So the sheer size of the BB allows it to take much more damage.

Ah, I see. So why did the IN concentrate on tenders and battleriders prior to 4FW? And when those battleriders were trapped by Zhodani attacks, they would have inflicted disproportionate losses before being defeated, right? How come no one took any notice of that?

Side issue that just occurred to me: A patch of hull with a weapon turret is not affected as long as the turret is there to soak up the damage. Is that a reflection of what actually happens in "reality", or a game artifact? You'd think the attack would inflict the same sort of damage as against a bit without any turrets and just destroy the turrets along with the rest.


Hans

 

[Condottiere]

You can assume that naval architects learnt their lessons to place safety buffers between the interior and the external weapon systems to prevent flashfires, especially if they reach into the missile magazines.

 

[mike wightman]

Ah, I see. So why did the IN concentrate on tenders and battleriders prior to 4FW? And when those battleriders were trapped by Zhodani attacks, they would have inflicted disproportionate losses before being defeated, right? How come no one took any notice of that?

They did - it even says so in S9. After the 4FW the Imperium moved the BR to the fleets held in Corridor for counter attack, while deploying BBs in the SM to allow for retreat if necessary.

Side issue that just occurred to me: A patch of hull with a weapon turret is not affected as long as the turret is there to soak up the damage. Is that a reflection of what actually happens in "reality", or a game artifact? You'd think the attack would inflict the same sort of damage as against a bit without any turrets and just destroy the turrets along with the rest.


Hans

It's a level of abstraction you have to accept if you choose to use those rules. You can always use FF&S to build these ships and use Battle Rider to fight out the engagement. In point of fact as you move from HG2 to the different ship combat systems the outcomes of engagements differ due to the rules used to model them.