Commerce Raiding

[whartung]

I was reading through Hard Times, where it was talking about how the war progressed.

It got on to the topic of commerce raiding, and I was thinking about how that manifests itself.

In terms of actual blowing up freighters and transports, I'm guessing that happens very little. Discounting in system travel, which would consider an edge case in terms of impact on a strategic scale, any ship to ship combat is going to happen within the 100D of the main planet in the system. I also disregard jump masked/shadowed planets, as they're an edge case as well.

But, for the majority of cases, the bulk of civilian traffic happens within 100D of the main world, either accelerating to Jump, or coming out or Jump and vectoring to the planet.

All told, this gives a very short window of actual exposure for a transport leaving the world.

From a Size 8 world, it's a 4.5hr burn at 1g to the 800K mile 100D limit. If a ship were to arrive within the system, it would basically have that much time to maneuver and start attacking ships en route to exit. But once it arrived, especially after it fired the first shot (assuming it's not immediately identified as hostile), then whatever ships are on planet or in orbit will simply not leave.

If there are any active space borne defenses, the raider may not be able to take any transports, as it will want to deal with the local defenses first.

If the raider can not defeat the local defenses, it will either linger out of range, or just leave the system. By lingering, it can keep any space borne defenses in the system (if they're Jump capable). If the local defense are just SDB, the raider will probably just leave, as lingering has no effect.

If it remains, it'll not really be a threat to the civilian traffic. Civilian traffic doesn't really need to be convoyed to the 100D limit, rather simply have the traffic funneled to a specific route that is picketed by defending forces to keep the raider at bay.

If there are no space borne defenses, then the raider can go in to embargo mode.

If the planet has defenses, they're not good enough to protect traffic all the way out to 100D, save perhaps being capable of a huge missile volley, but that's not likely. But I think we can assume that a planet has sufficient defenses to keep the raider away, protect ships in orbit, protect orbital facilities, but not protect traffic out to 100D.

Now the raider is in embargo mode. Any transport traffic will either lay waiting for the threat to pass, or maybe it can try exiting the system using the planet as a shield -- accelerating away, keeping the planet between itself and the threat. If the raider has multiple ships, this may not be possible.

The other aspect is of course that the raider will have free access to any incoming ships. This is the potential for real damage. These ships don't know what they're coming in to. Their, at best, 2 week old information is that the system was safe.

If a response fleet arrives, the raider can just leave. We have to assume that the raider is equipped and fueled to leave whenever it wants. I don't think that a raider can assume it was going to be able to fuel at the planet that it's embargoing.

Minimally, the raiding fleet can linger for 2 weeks before any potential out system relief shows up, save for a force that just happens to show up. A reaction force designed specifically to deal with the raider isn't going to be there for 2 weeks.

Also, the presence of the raider will be known within a week to at least one system, and from their traffic can start slowing down in to the embargoed system. A little wave of uncertainty will float out about the embargo as ever older information spreads. Consider that news escapes the system, a reaction force responds, and then the all clear is given. That's a 3 week process right there, and at a minimum a 2 week window of uncertainty that traffic may well simply lay idle, waiting for an all clear.

It's easy to see how a single raider encounter can snarl up a system for some time. Not all freight captains are blockade runners, many simply will not risk their ships. It's easy to see a bunch of transports making a group rush to the 100D limit, simply hoping that their ship is not the one attacked. Some will get through, but some may well not get through.

How many captains are willing to risk their MCr ships, their crews, passengers, and themselves? Arriving captains won't have the luxury of flying out in a "target rich" environment. They don't know when they're arriving, and may well be easy pickings for the raider.

If the system has a lot of traffic, then, maybe. But that traffic is the uninformed traffic. If you have 100 ships arriving per day in a system, that's a ship every 24 minutes arriving in system. The incoming ships only hope is that the raider is busy with somebody else when they arrive. Not very good odds.

So, it seems that even a small encounter can have a big impact on trade, simply by imposing the threat. Add in the time lag, and a single ship can make a pretty big wave in the intersystem trade markets.

 

[flykiller]

the bulk of civilian traffic happens within 100D of the main world

many main worlds orbit within 100d of a gas giant, and within 100d of a large star, with some very significant transit times between jump point and port. in addition many systems will have very significant in-system traffic to mining facilities and to prominent worlds that are not "main".

 

[Timerover51]

Whartung, you might want to look at how much the threat of surface commerce raiders effected the operations of British commerce in both World Wars, and the disproportionate amount of effort was required to combat them. The most effective were disguised merchant ships, hitting and sinking, and then heading for another traffic focus.

In commerce warfare, the aim is not so much ship destruction as the dislocation of commerce. Forcing commercial traffic into the use of the convoy system, which in Traveller's case would be having a large number of ships arrive at about the same time, saturating the commerce raider with targets. However, then to avoid outbound raiders, which I view as the most likely type, they all have to depart at the same time, and jump at about the same time. Can you understand the problems that causes in trade?

 

[whartung]

many main worlds orbit within 100d of a gas giant, and within 100d of a large star

How many? How do you know? Or are you just supposing? Pick a random system on Traveller Map, and none of that information is available.

And how does that affect the basic thesis of embargo after the initial surprise traffic has been attacked or fled?

in addition many systems will have very significant in-system traffic to mining facilities and to prominent worlds that are not "main".

How many? How do you know? There is no information that suggest one way or another how wide spread this is.

And, again, how does that effect the embargo thesis?

I said:

Discounting in system travel, which would consider an edge case in terms of impact on a strategic scale, any ship to ship combat is going to happen within the 100D of the main planet in the system. I also disregard jump masked/shadowed planets, as they're an edge case as well.

Nothing presented suggests that these situations are not edge cases in the Imperium.

 

[whartung]

Whartung, you might want to look at how much the threat of surface commerce raiders effected the operations of British commerce in both World Wars, and the disproportionate amount of effort was required to combat them. The most effective were disguised merchant ships, hitting and sinking, and then heading for another traffic focus.

The distinction with surface commerce raiders, or even submarine commerce raiding, is that everyone knows where everyone is. The raiders know where the ships are, the planet and traders know where the raiders are. The only people that don't know this are the ships coming in to the system.

With space craft, there is effectively 100% intelligence, which is not the case with surface sea traffic, especially during WWII. Ships can sneak by each other ("ships in the night") in surface operations, that won't happen in space scenarios. May not know what the ship holds, but they'll know where it is.

In commerce warfare, the aim is not so much ship destruction as the dislocation of commerce. Forcing commercial traffic into the use of the convoy system, which in Traveller's case would be having a large number of ships arrive at about the same time, saturating the commerce raider with targets.

Jump scatter prevents fleets from coordinating arrivals. That can only be mitigated by distance. You could have several traders arriving in the deep system, then rendezvousing as a group before making an approach to the main planet.

But they'll likely have a 3-4 day journey in from the jump point.

However, then to avoid outbound raiders, which I view as the most likely type, they all have to depart at the same time, and jump at about the same time. Can you understand the problems that causes in trade?

They don't avoid the raiders, they just provide several targets for them to shoot at, and the more targets, the more chance that they won't shoot at you.

The coordination of the convoys does not seem onerous out system. It seems more onerous in system, as they need to coordinate the jump in to the system, the arrival, and then the rendezvous. They're also potentially under fire for longer as the raider makes runs at the fleet for a couple of days. I have a feeling getting out of the system would be much easier than getting in.

Without armed escort of course. Here is where you'll potentially want some Q-ships to lure the raider in to the convoy to engage, otherwise they'll likely just leave at the first sign of armed resistance.

A small raider would be deterred by armed freighters. But a larger DD or CA, or several, likely would not, relying on their military grade sensors and computers to engage the freighters at range.

But if the raider detects serious resistance, they'll just leave. They're the ones with the initiative if they can refuel. Any weak system can be disrupted just by showing up.

 

[Condottiere]

Commerce raiders can't hide, in theory.

Neither can their prey.

You probably can't bottle up the warships to prevent a breakout whose participants go hunting after your merchant shipping.

 

[whulorigan]

Just as a note for consideration:

Remember that an in-jumping ship or ships will have an advantage due to light-lag. If a ship jumps into a star-system, and it is half a light-hour away from the nearest other vessel in the system, those other vessels in the system will not be aware of the in-jumping ship's presence for at least half-an-hour. But the in-jumping ship(s) will be aware of the positions of the ships already in-system (or at least where they were and their associated vectors a half-an-hour or more earlier) because their reflected light and emissions will have already been in continuous transit since before the in-jumping ships arrived in the system.

 

[JBRocky]

One thing I havn't seen mentioned is what about when a ship is transiting through a system from one place to another? Now if it is a major system its no big deal but if it is more of a frontier area Corsairs can be hiding in places near a Gas Giant or just take advantage of the lack of naval support near the main world.

 

[Timerover51]

About the only way of testing a theory is to game it out, using a variety of tactics and ships.

Light lag is definitely a factor that gamers need to take into account. That holds true for weapons as well.

 

[aramis]

One thing I havn't seen mentioned is what about when a ship is transiting through a system from one place to another? Now if it is a major system its no big deal but if it is more of a frontier area Corsairs can be hiding in places near a Gas Giant or just take advantage of the lack of naval support near the main world.

One of the largest problems is that there is very little chance of surprise except at the ends. Second is the very basic math of interception...

Essentially, it's pretty hard to intercept unless you are near the same ends at the same time, because crossing vectors are high power, high visibility actions to meet.

It's actually pretty easy to make a single-pass intercept... but that's also highly inefficient unless using assured kill weapons.

And, if you don't have a higher available thrust and ∆V, you can't make a stern chase. And inbound intercept is also pretty limited.

 

[kilemall]

A VERY big issue for raiding fleets, or invading fleets for that matter, is weapons engagement range.

How close can a siege ring be before the planetary defenses engage?

What is more valuable, destroying enemy hulls or disrupting commerce flow and industrial activity?

Do spinal weapons, fighters and/or missiles confer longer range thus making larger carriers/cruisers more cost effective from a ton per million kilometer perimeter perspective?

How long can a missile or a missile pack laid as an autonomous seeking weapon lay in wait, detect enemy shipping at what range, and engage without direct command?

Answers to those questions determine whether it is more profitable to have a tighter mutually supporting ring cutting off commerce flow (especially supporting in-system raw material shipments), a fast costly raid to destroy shipyards and other key facilities, strategic minelaying, or opportunity raiding at 100D.

A related issue is the nature of jump. If jumps are rendered as 'inertia retained/must be pointed at destination planet on jump', then there will be definitive 'jump lanes' for most commercial traffic, rendering the raider placement problem to be a fraction of the 100D sphere they would have to otherwise cover.

A standard wartime counter would be to jump outside the lanes either coming or going or both, but will cost precious transit time in a war where every ton-minute counts, a moderate win for the raiding navy without firing a shot.

Also, consider the effects of what the raider threat in being is, greatly disproportionate to the amount of industry and crewing committed to it in most cases.

CSS Alabama largely destroyed the US whaling fleet AND cleared entire seas of American commerce while tying up several times her tonnage in warships chasing her.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_Alabama

The submarine efforts of the two world wars at a bare minimum hurt the defending powers in carrying efficiency sacrificed to convoys, large amounts of resources tied up in defenses technology and intel work to defeat, and in the case of Japan a lack of appropriate effort until too late cost the island nation dearly in lost capacity and warmaking ability.

Don't neglect privateering as an aspect of commerce raiding. IT was an aspect of most of the sailing age conflicts, even as late as the Texas revolution.

It's a PERFECT ACS player role in time of war. Patriotic piracy with a profit margin will naturally appeal to many.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer

https://www.nps.gov/revwar/about_the_revolution/privateers.html

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/exhibits/navy/privateers.html

 

[flykiller]

About the only way of testing a theory is to game it out, using a variety of tactics and ships.

and methods!

hex-based method

vector-based method

 

[Condottiere]

Destroying the industrial base would be more valuable, though at that point it becomes strategic bombing rather than commerce raiding.

 

[flykiller]

Destroying the industrial base would be more valuable

most industrial bases depend upon imports and exports. the imports and exports necessarily are less defensible than the base.

there are interesting exceptions. for example china recently has expanded its steel manufacturing capacity to (something like) four times world-wide demand. one of their biggest initial customers were the shipyards that built the cargo carriers that brought the raw iron ore and exported the finished steel - an incestuous short-term cycle of initial supply/demand.

 

[Timerover51]

CSS Alabama largely destroyed the US whaling fleet AND cleared entire seas of American commerce while tying up several times her tonnage in warships chasing her.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_Alabama

The ship that did the most damage to the US whaling fleet was the CSS Shenandoah, when it hit the concentrated Arctic whaling fleet after the war had basically ended. The Alabama spent most of its time in the Atlantic, which was not that heavily covered by whalers.

The American ships did not disappear from the seas in the sense of being sunk or lost, the owners re-flagged them, many of them to the British flag, which Semmes did not dare to attack, as he was dependent on British ports for seamen and coal.

You might want to read Raphael Semmes, the Captain of the Alabama, memoirs for an idea of about how he operated, as they are available on Project Gutenberg. You will have to wade through a far amount of sludge to get to the useful data.

For privateers to be effective, neutral planets, in the case of Traveller, would be needed, or planets where no or few questions are asked about how the cargo was obtained. Also, you need to remember that cargo is not always high-value items. A shipload of grain bound for an asteroid belt has a considerably lower value if you attempt to sell it on an agricultural planet.

With respect to Traveller privateers, that is basically how I picture the Vargr and the Sword Worlds, with the Sword Worlds having sufficient military power that the Imperium puts up with a continual drain on shipping and the occasional planetary raid without countering. After all, a steady loss of ships means that much higher rates for the insurance companies, and more business for the shipbuilding concerns.

 

[whartung]

A VERY big issue for raiding fleets, or invading fleets for that matter, is weapons engagement range.

How close can a siege ring be before the planetary defenses engage?

This is key. My premise for the Raider force is a that it's fine taking on weak transports and freighters, but not really designed to take on line units or planetary defenses.

It's also premised on the fact that there is not local mobile defense force capable of running off the Raider. In that scenario, the Raider will either leave outright, or it will linger in order to anchor some forces already in the system. Specifically starships, since they can ostensibly be used elsewhere. But if there's a powerful SDB force, there's no reason to stay -- those ships aren't going anywhere anyway.

If the planetary defenses can cover exiting and arriving traffic to the 100D mark, then raiding becomes much more impractical save against the weakest of systems (i.e. those with few to no defenses).

TNE uses 30Kkm hexes. Against a size 8 world, 100D is 800Kkm, which is 27 hexes.

TNE has ("stock") energy weapons (lasers and PA) that have Long ranges out to 40 hexes. They also have meson weapons with range 32 extreme ranges. But even with weapons having those ranges, the chance of actually hitting is nonexistent.

So, at least with TNE, I don't think that the planetary defenses can cover traffic -- not all the way at least. Much of the way, but not on the periphery.

What is more valuable, destroying enemy hulls or disrupting commerce flow and industrial activity?

Destroying ships removes the potential for traffic to move. Blocking traffic delays traffic from moving. Both are effective, depending on the timing. Over a short time frame, blockages aren't very effective compared to ship destruction. Long term, they become more effective.

Do spinal weapons, fighters and/or missiles confer longer range thus making larger carriers/cruisers more cost effective from a ton per million kilometer perimeter perspective?

In TNE, power = range, so larger weapons (including spinals) can have more range. In other systems, there's not much distinction.

How long can a missile or a missile pack laid as an autonomous seeking weapon lay in wait, detect enemy shipping at what range, and engage without direct command?

They should be able to stay on station for years.

A related issue is the nature of jump. If jumps are rendered as 'inertia retained/must be pointed at destination planet on jump', then there will be definitive 'jump lanes' for most commercial traffic, rendering the raider placement problem to be a fraction of the 100D sphere they would have to otherwise cover.

Momentum is conserved, including system differential momentum. If you have a vector of 0 relative to the star in system A, and system A has a vector differential compared to system B, then when the ship arrives in system B, he inherits that differential vector.

But these differentials are actually pretty small, overall. Also they can be somewhat mitigated depending on where they enter the system. For example, if you're targeting the main world, if you arrive on the leading orbital side of the planet, in "front" of it, then the planets vector works in your favor, as it's heading "toward" you. If you arrive on the trailing side, then it's working against you. In the end the position you arrive in the destination system has nothing to do with the position you leave the source system.

So, that said, yes, there is an optimal vector with which you would like to leave the source system and that you'd like to maintain when entering the target system, but in the end, any vector will do -- you can always correct your course when you arrive in a safe system rather than risk your ship to get the optimal vector in the interdicted system.

A standard wartime counter would be to jump outside the lanes either coming or going or both, but will cost precious transit time in a war where every ton-minute counts, a moderate win for the raiding navy without firing a shot.

I don't think the time costs are that high between being in a "jump lane" and not.

Also, consider the effects of what the raider threat in being is, greatly disproportionate to the amount of industry and crewing committed to it in most cases.

CSS Alabama largely destroyed the US whaling fleet AND cleared entire seas of American commerce while tying up several times her tonnage in warships chasing her.

But, again, this is a ship that can not be found taking ships on the high seas in unprotected areas. The bulk of commerce in Traveller happens within spitting distance of the ports, then the ships vanish in to the safety of jump space.

It's always possible to have hit and run events, where a large ship shows up on the periphery, takes shots of opportunity, and then leaves. But I'm not sure how effective that will be considering the travel times involved. Worst case you can imagine a ship with, say, J4 capability that can wilderness refuel reliably with impunity. You can see it harassing several systems within J1 of each other. He pops in to one system at the 100D marker, takes some shots, then jumps out to another system. It's possible, but I don't know how much actual impact it will have.

Privateers etc. make sense when you have stealth. For example, today, if one ship fires upon another on the high seas, the Powers can eventually track the attacking ship via satellite and then vector in ships/aircraft to attack it. Obviously, technology enables this. Knock out the satellites, knock out the AWACS aircraft, etc. But when you have "eyes in the sky", the life of a Privateer will be brief. As the tech degrades, Privateers may well rise up.

 

[aramis]

Whartung, note that in TNEships will be arriving with 4-5 hex/turn vectors... they won't be outside the deep meson site coverage for long. The risks are minimized by the low ∆V, as well... a raider has to be able to get and stay in range; the merchant merely has to get to the defense line. Further, the raider has to stay in range and retain both mating fuel and landing fuel for the destination.

Which means, if the raider simply continues to coast to the defense line (aimed 1 hex off the planet, he can slow into it with a thru-vector... while the raider needs (for safety sake) to go wide.

 

[flykiller]

any ship to ship combat is going to happen within the 100D of the main planet in the system. I also disregard jump masked/shadowed planets, as they're an edge case as well.

many main worlds orbit within 100d of a gas giant, and within 100d of a large star

How many? How do you know? Or are you just supposing?

went home for lunch and checked. going by little black book 6 approximately .40 of all habitable zone systems will be within their star's 100d -

k5, 127 light seconds in
m0, 167 light seconds in
m5, 123 light seconds in
m9, 82 light seconds in

by comparison, terra's 100d is 4.5 ls. and that's not considering gas giant locations, didn't bother to look at those but I think it's about a third or so.

the "edge case" is looking pretty thick.

(over in the software threads I posted qbasic code for churning out little black book 6 systems - just hold down the enter key and they roll out ten per second or so. the output has the handy feature of listing where the local star's 100d is, only lists a local world's 100d if it's outside the star 100d and any orbited LGG/SGG 100d. you could do some statistical analysis if you like, take about half an hour to write the code and about a minute to generate a valid sample space.)

 

[kilemall]

The ship that did the most damage to the US whaling fleet was the CSS Shenandoah, when it hit the concentrated Arctic whaling fleet after the war had basically ended. The Alabama spent most of its time in the Atlantic, which was not that heavily covered by whalers.

I did crosshatch the two, yes Shenandoah was the whale industry killer.

The American ships did not disappear from the seas in the sense of being sunk or lost, the owners re-flagged them, many of them to the British flag, which Semmes did not dare to attack, as he was dependent on British ports for seamen and coal.

My impression from Shark of the Confederacy was that he did pull over some UK flagged ships he suspected of reflagging, with some devastating results to support.

You might want to read Raphael Semmes, the Captain of the Alabama, memoirs for an idea of about how he operated, as they are available on Project Gutenberg. You will have to wade through a far amount of sludge to get to the useful data.

If Shark cover it, I'm good, definitely focused on ops. But like anything else, choices are made by the author and there may be some nuggets he dropped or overlooked.

For privateers to be effective, neutral planets, in the case of Traveller, would be needed, or planets where no or few questions are asked about how the cargo was obtained. Also, you need to remember that cargo is not always high-value items. A shipload of grain bound for an asteroid belt has a considerably lower value if you attempt to sell it on an agricultural planet.

I'm assuming a small enough polity to risk the eventual peace by outsourcing naval raiding, and large enough to have trade to matter. So, likely a multi-world star nation with choices for the cargo to go to (unless the terms force sale at the prize court planet, which would undercut privateer numbers and be counterproductive ultimately).

With respect to Traveller privateers, that is basically how I picture the Vargr and the Sword Worlds, with the Sword Worlds having sufficient military power that the Imperium puts up with a continual drain on shipping and the occasional planetary raid without countering. After all, a steady loss of ships means that much higher rates for the insurance companies, and more business for the shipbuilding concerns.

Effectively a slight insurance cost for generating replacement economic activity- the Zorg POV of economic activity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnzzWGcdMqY

 

[kilemall]

This is key. My premise for the Raider force is a that it's fine taking on weak transports and freighters, but not really designed to take on line units or planetary defenses.

It's also premised on the fact that there is not local mobile defense force capable of running off the Raider. In that scenario, the Raider will either leave outright, or it will linger in order to anchor some forces already in the system. Specifically starships, since they can ostensibly be used elsewhere. But if there's a powerful SDB force, there's no reason to stay -- those ships aren't going anywhere anyway.

If the planetary defenses can cover exiting and arriving traffic to the 100D mark, then raiding becomes much more impractical save against the weakest of systems (i.e. those with few to no defenses).

TNE uses 30Kkm hexes. Against a size 8 world, 100D is 800Kkm, which is 27 hexes.

TNE has ("stock") energy weapons (lasers and PA) that have Long ranges out to 40 hexes. They also have meson weapons with range 32 extreme ranges. But even with weapons having those ranges, the chance of actually hitting is nonexistent.

So, at least with TNE, I don't think that the planetary defenses can cover traffic -- not all the way at least. Much of the way, but not on the periphery.

Not familiar with TNE or it's specific attractions, but you clearly have a handle on the problem set under that system. Anyone grappling with the issue and what play effect they want has to decide on this point.

Destroying ships removes the potential for traffic to move. Blocking traffic delays traffic from moving. Both are effective, depending on the timing. Over a short time frame, blockages aren't very effective compared to ship destruction. Long term, they become more effective.

I'd say part of the calculus is also how much each costs to succeed at in terms of both tons/logistics to operate the blockade/raider force, and the war material/time value.

Early on in the Atlantic WWII U-boat campaign, destroying ships was several times more damaging as the Allies lost that tonnage-years capacity for the rest of the war and had to replace it to match and ultimately build up to an offensive level. Strategically too, without the US in the war the UK was much more vulnerable earlier on.

Destroying ships with finished products such as tanks and artillery was also destroying weapons at the end of a production chain, wasting all that effort to get the weapons to that point.

Ultimately however, if the planet cannot build, equip, and/or feed itself, a total successful blockade will reduce war potential and resistance in the long run. The age-old question of the siege, who will break first?

In TNE, power = range, so larger weapons (including spinals) can have more range. In other systems, there's not much distinction.

That is my assumption for my version of CT:HG:Mayday, the corollary being spinal=battleship guns, bays=cruiser main guns, turrets/barbettes being light destroyer/AA guns.

Depending on the multiples one spinal ship might do the work of two to three cruisers.

I note you are skipping over the fighter point. I would think that fighters are an excellent raider/blockade mechanism for both wide coverage and quickly bringing force to bear on breakthrough attempts without breaking the bank or risking big hulls. Possibly can risk their loss closer to PD forces then conventional ships.

They should be able to stay on station for years.

Maybe, maybe not. Even if they do, there is the question of sensor range, autoengagement capability, and the rules surrounding 'minesweeping'.

Momentum is conserved, including system differential momentum. If you have a vector of 0 relative to the star in system A, and system A has a vector differential compared to system B, then when the ship arrives in system B, he inherits that differential vector.

I don't know anyone who is tracking on inherited system vee, nor wants to.

But these differentials are actually pretty small, overall. Also they can be somewhat mitigated depending on where they enter the system. For example, if you're targeting the main world, if you arrive on the leading orbital side of the planet, in "front" of it, then the planets vector works in your favor, as it's heading "toward" you. If you arrive on the trailing side, then it's working against you. In the end the position you arrive in the destination system has nothing to do with the position you leave the source system.

My question was oriented towards the understanding that if you jumped at 100D having been under full burn the whole time, say 5 hours at 1G, that's 180,000 km per 1000 second CT turn, you dump out of jump at that vee and assuming you aimed square at 'where the planet is going to be in 5 hours' you are still going to be turning and burning the whole way in to slow down.

That is NOT a casual vee, and that's just what Beowulf can do.

As such, that's minimal distance using the slowest speed in the game. If you have a faster M-drive and want minimal vulnerability at least outbound, you will have a faster vee to deal with at the end journey.

The closer the vee is to your maximum, the less options you have to slow it down, or take a LOT of time to correct it, giving an enemy time to maneuver optimally asw ell.

So, that said, yes, there is an optimal vector with which you would like to leave the source system and that you'd like to maintain when entering the target system, but in the end, any vector will do -- you can always correct your course when you arrive in a safe system rather than risk your ship to get the optimal vector in the interdicted system.

Whether you have safe system time or not, the maneuvers will cost total ship use time, depending on the time value of the cargo being carried that may be nothing or the loss of 5 hours here and 10 hours there may end up being an entire transport fleet's worth of effective carrying capacity.

I don't think the time costs are that high between being in a "jump lane" and not.

That depends upon how you define what a jump lane is, and what the parameters of that jump vee business is, particularly if the vee HAS to be in a straight line from point of jump to exit of jumpspace.

If so, there darn well are costs, time tactical or otherwise, ESPECIALLY jumping into a system where your information about where the enemy is deployed is at least two weeks out of date.

If not, the blockade runner has the advantage of coming out wherever they like and punching through the 100D limit at a maximum vee, maybe even faster if they can overshoot the planet a bit and still stay under PD guns.