Corsair ships

[Orr]

The corsair can close and force a boarding action. on free and far traders. the target ship does not have to be at a dead stop to be boarded it just makes the task a bit trickier.

Just because Mongoose was silly enough to create that rule, it doesn't follow that you need to be equally silly and use it.

The board is full of threads going back years looking at corsairs and piracy. One of my favorite things to do here is using the search function to find and read interesting threads. I'm sure you'll find plenty to read too.

 

[whulorigan]

The corsair can close and force a boarding action. on free and far traders. the target ship does not have to be at a dead stop to be boarded it just makes the task a bit trickier.

How does one board a vessel that is still maneuvering? You either have to "hard dock" the corsair or a small craft with an airlock that is attached to a ship that is free to yaw, pitch, and roll in 3 dimensions, or you have to send individual boarders across space in Vacc-suits and explain how they can maneuver faster than a ship with operational M-Drives.

 

[Dagrill]

Also, remember another thimg Ranke said as different: in Traveller ships are assumed to be rutinely armed with anti-ship weaponry, and most those fighters will not resist a single hit. SO, where RW pirates risk losing some cheap motor boats (usually Zodiac type) if the target is armed (and, as someone said, when they find that they use to retreat), in Traveller they have to asume the ships are armed and they can lose very expensive fighters in the assault.

This aside, if the goal is to rob hem their cargo or to board the ship, in neither case the fighter is a good means to achieve it (no space for either cargo or boarders).

The cheapest Fighter in High Guard is under 10 MCr, but I take your point it's not an equal comparison.

The actual Corsair would still have room for 100 tons cargo (in theory) even with 6 Fighters in the hold.

Regards

David

 

[wbyrd]

How does one board a vessel that is still maneuvering? You either have to "hard dock" the corsair or a small craft with an airlock that is attached to a ship that is free to yaw, pitch, and roll in 3 dimensions, or you have to send individual boarders across space in Vacc-suits and explain how they can maneuver faster than a ship with operational M-Drives.

( No sarcasm intended here)
It would need technology and systems right out of science fiction to pull of a forced docking maneuver.....I've had this discussion from back in the 80s, to now.. Back in the dim and misty, I had to fall back onto.."It's future, they can do things we cant"...as an argument....but considering what modern technology can do, and projecting it forward a few centuries I can plug in a few gaps in that argument.


to execute a hard/soft dock you have to precisely match the targets acceleration, rotation yaw and pitch...that would be impossible without near instantaneous acceleration and deceleration capabilities, computer assisted fly by wire controls, and the ability to computer the required path of travel needed to bring your docking mechanisms into position.

Traveller star ships have

gravitic drives

• drives capable of generating muti-gee accelration along multiple axis of movement.
• artificial gravity and acceleration compensation for the crew( required to allow crews to move around during acceleration)
• Highly advanced fly by wire control systems. capable of making rapid highly precise alterations to a ships course without direct pilot input.
• Computer assisted controls, allowing near instantaneous inputs to maneuvering controls.
• Senors capable of precise tracking of fast moving objects.
• computers capable of making the mind numbing calculations in real time.

Simply to function ANY Traveller star ship has all of these requirements . as I understand it the gravitc systems of a starship are only capable of generating movements up to their maximum thrust rating in Gees. So a thrust one ship can generate only one gee along any axis.a ship capable of thrust 3 can generate 3 gees along any axis...

So a corsair with thrust 3 can match or exceed any maneuver a thrust 1 or thrust 2 starship can execute...

No human pilot can react fast enough to force dock two star ships, this is entirely accurate. But no human can react fast enough to pilot a vessel that relies on systems that are inconceivable to current technology. However, a fly by wire, computer controlled, maneuver systems can follow pilot commands with little or no lag time.
In addition, to allow crew to move around while accelerating a star ships own internal gravity system can nullify acceleration forces created by maneuvers. So you can safely say that the harsh acceleration forces of such maneuvers wouldn't be as debilitating to the crew of either vehicle as the forces would be on a current era vehicle.
( there is no direct statement of this ability, but since the rules/source material at no point mention any hazard, or difficulty moving, about during acceleration it can be inferred )


So, making a forced boarding of a target vessel is not out of the realm of possibility...... It simply makes it difficult.


Note:
nihil novi sub sole ........ Nothing is new under the sun
nil mortalibus ardui est... Nothing is impossible for man.

Yes know this has probably been discussed before, but So has every other aspect of the game....I've been playing this game since the 80s so the likelihood of a topic I haven't discussed with fellow gamersis slim to none.

 

[McPerth]

In any case, trying to dock on an evading ship with functioning M-drives would be not only difficult, but quite dangerous for both ships, I guess.

The corair may match any maneuver the merchant can try, but has also to guess its next movement to match, while evading uses to mean random movements and direction changes, incluiding rolls (just in case anyone points about firing some lines to help the maneuver)

 

[pendragonman]

I hate to weigh in here, but we are forgetting the obvious.

If there are repulsors, there are tractors.

 

[McPerth]

I hate to weigh in here, but we are forgetting the obvious.

If there are repulsors, there are tractors.

In fact tthat's not so obvious, as I've read no reference that I can recall to the tractors in Traveller (any versión I've read)...

As I understand, In traveller you manipulate grav forces, but only to repel or to nullify them, never to attract (grav plates are in fact in the ceiling, as I understand it, and repel you to the floor. I've seen no poen vehicles with them).

 

[mike wightman]

In fact tthat's not so obvious, as I've read no reference that I can recall to the tractors in Traveller (any versión I've read)...

As I understand, In traveller you manipulate grav forces, but only to repel or to nullify them, never to attract (grav plates are in fact in the ceiling, as I understand it, and repel you to the floor. I've seen no poen vehicles with them).

You understand it wrong.

I can't be bothered to dig out every quote to floor mounted grav plates and acceleration compensation fields, but the ceiling mounted repulser idea is fanon not canon.

Floor mounted grav plates are mentioned in just about every GDW CT adventure that features a ship write up, it is mentioned in CT S:7 and The Traveller Adventure.

Tractors are first mentioned in MT at TLs above 15, TNE switched it making tractors the low TL version and repulsers higher TL, they then added a combination called a manipulator at TLs above 15.

 

[mike wightman]

I hate to weigh in here, but we are forgetting the obvious.

If there are repulsors, there are tractors.

This is MgT - there are no repulsers or tractors.

 

[pendragonman]

This is MgT - there are no repulsers or tractors.

No repulsors or tractors---so no artificial gravity, no gravitic drives, no nuclear dampners...no hand held floaters to move cargo...

All of these things either repel or attract and hence are repulsors or tractors.


Are you sure you want to make that claim?

 

[whulorigan]

No repulsors or tractors---so no artificial gravity, no gravitic drives, no nuclear dampners...no hand held floaters to move cargo...

All of these things either repel or attract and hence are repulsors or tractors.

Currently, there are no MgT publications that detail Tractors/Repulsors. So it may mean that they simply have not been written up yet, or it may mean they do not exist in the MgT rules-canon.

However, if the latter, it may simply mean there are no weaponized tactical Tractors/Repulsors that operate at Space-Combat Ranges at TL15 or less.

(EDIT: I personally would like to see Mongoose write them up for Traveller, since they have existed in prior canon . . . )

 

[mike wightman]

No repulsors or tractors---so no artificial gravity, no gravitic drives, no nuclear dampners...no hand held floaters to move cargo...

All of these things either repel or attract and hence are repulsors or tractors.


Are you sure you want to make that claim?

Yes.

In CT the repulsor is a defensive bay weapon system which affects missiles. MgT has no repulsor batteries.

MgT does have grav plates and granitic manoeuvre drives and nuclear dampers, but no repulsors.

 

[McPerth]

You understand it wrong.

I can't be bothered to dig out every quote to floor mounted grav plates and acceleration compensation fields, but the ceiling mounted repulser idea is fanon not canon.

Floor mounted grav plates are mentioned in just about every GDW CT adventure that features a ship write up, it is mentioned in CT S:7 and The Traveller Adventure.

And yet ITTR having read somewhere (sorry, I cannot give you the exact reference, but it sure was for MT, as is the only versión I played that details them) that artificial gravity must be installed i nthe whole ship (or not installed) because it needed to affect all included space, as it neded poles in both ends (though I probably did not express myself too well, I must admit)

In fact tthat's not so obvious, as I've read no reference that I can recall to the tractors in Traveller (any versión I've read)...

Tractors are first mentioned in MT at TLs above 15, TNE switched it making tractors the low TL version and repulsers higher TL, they then added a combination called a manipulator at TLs above 15.

I never played too much attention to higher TLs in MT, but you're right, they're there, and never been into TNE

 

[wbyrd]

In any case, trying to dock on an evading ship with functioning M-drives would be not only difficult, but quite dangerous for both ships, I guess.

The corair may match any maneuver the merchant can try, but has also to guess its next movement to match, while evading uses to mean random movements and direction changes, incluiding rolls (just in case anyone points about firing some lines to help the maneuver)

Yes it's dangerous, just about as dangerous as trying to land on an aircraft carrier. but they pulled that off without electronics for years.

true, however all star ships have computer assisted fly by wire, and sensors. with those two features it is not unreasonable to think that the computer itself could respond to any changes in attitude, and maintain position.
Any technology that allows targeting a 50 meter long object at 10,000 Km has the ability to calculate and execute relatively minor corrections to maintain position and react to changes in position faster than humanly possible.
When trying to force dock, the advantage goes to the faster, higher acceleration vessel. Which mean a corsair, vs Any cargo ship is going to have a significant advantage.

and if the system can't compensate, it's just as dangerous for the target to try to evade. A 200 ton ship slamming into a 400 ton ship is likely to suffer as much damage.
It then comes down to how much risk the crew of the target vessel is willing to take to prevent boarding...unless there is a likelihood of being tossed out the nearest airlock I don't think many captains, or crews, would be willing to risk a catastrophic collision.
It is probably a safer bet to barricade the crew on the bridge and let teh pirates take the cargo...you might end up needing a loan to get another cargo. But at least the ship itself, and the crew, are intact and able to continue operation.

 

[pendragonman]

Yes.

In CT the repulsor is a defensive bay weapon system which affects missiles. MgT has no repulsor batteries.

MgT does have grav plates and granitic manoeuvre drives and nuclear dampers, but no repulsors.

In fact it is weaponized. How do you propose focusing particle accelerators without magnetic repulsion/attraction? What they don't have right now is the repulsor bay/batteries. Doesn't mean the technology doesn't exist.

But it doesn't need to be weaponized. Magnetic cables for docking can be used as "grappling lines" (loosely termed). Docking cables would not be the first non-weapon bit of kit used in a weapon-like fashion. Match vectors at about 50 meters or so, launch cables, real yourself in (or them to you depending on who is larger). Cut your way into their hull with a breaching charge.

 

[rancke]

I hate to weigh in here, but we are forgetting the obvious.

If there are repulsors, there are tractors.

If there are, you'd need to install them in turrets, reducing the pirate ship's offensive weaponry.


Hans

 

[pendragonman]

If there are, you'd need to install them in turrets, reducing the pirate ship's offensive weaponry.


Hans

****WARNING! flippant remark*****

Nah, no reduction. That is what is in the missing turret #4...

 

[McPerth]

Yes it's dangerous, just about as dangerous as trying to land on an aircraft carrier. but they pulled that off without electronics for years.

But there are several (IMHO) key differences:

• The difference in acceleration is quite greater than among sarships
• The carrier collaborates in the landing, something we assume is not the case among those starships

true, however all star ships have computer assisted fly by wire, and sensors. with those two features it is not unreasonable to think that the computer itself could respond to any changes in attitude, and maintain position.
Any technology that allows targeting a 50 meter long object at 10,000 Km has the ability to calculate and execute relatively minor corrections to maintain position and react to changes in position faster than humanly possible.
When trying to force dock, the advantage goes to the faster, higher acceleration vessel. Which mean a corsair, vs Any cargo ship is going to have a significant advantage.

Agreed in those reasonings, but the risk is quite high anyway, as any collision is likely to severely damage both ships

and if the system can't compensate, it's just as dangerous for the target to try to evade. A 200 ton ship slamming into a 400 ton ship is likely to suffer as much damage.
It then comes down to how much risk the crew of the target vessel is willing to take to prevent boarding...unless there is a likelihood of being tossed out the nearest airlock I don't think many captains, or crews, would be willing to risk a catastrophic collision.
It is probably a safer bet to barricade the crew on the bridge and let teh pirates take the cargo...you might end up needing a loan to get another cargo. But at least the ship itself, and the crew, are intact and able to continue operation.

But here we asume the merchant tries to evade, otherwise, the docking is unopposed and the discussion is moot...

 

[wbyrd]

But there are several (IMHO) key differences:

• The difference in acceleration is quite greater than among sarships
• The carrier collaborates in the landing, something we assume is not the case among those starships

Oh definitely, but if you adjust for improved technology the difficulty is roughly equivalent. An aviator from the 40s I spoke with described the deck of the carrier pitching twenty feet at random as the ship hit heavy seas.... with old style, manual controls. and nothing but colored lights to guide the approach they routinely made approaches on a moving target that was cooperating in theory only.

Agreed in those reasonings, but the risk is quite high anyway, as any collision is likely to severely damage both ships

Shhhhh never agree openly this is the internet man.... the risk is high, but then again so is lobbing missiles, and lasers at one another....

But here we asume the merchant tries to evade, otherwise, the docking is unopposed and the discussion is moot...

o fair, logic and reason are clearly against Internet etiquette.

 

[rancke]

o fair, logic and reason are clearly against Internet etiquette.

That is a little clumsily expressed. Someone who took offense easily might conclude that what you were saying here is that if we disagree with your logic and reason it couldn't possibly be because we didn't think your logic and reason were sound, there had to be some disreputable explanation.

I trust that's not what you meant to say, right?

Also, some people might resent the implication that CotI etiquette resembles average Internet etiquette. We tend to pride ourselves of maintaining a somewhat higher standard.


Hans