Cruiser v Cruiser-rider

[Garyius2003]

In honor of the recent battleship threads, I did some work in HG Shipyard and Excel.

47,000 ton TL15 cruiser. J4, M6A6, Con1, Armor5, M&D Screens 9, J meson spinal, 30 F9 missiles, 9fib computer. Rounded up cost of MCr30,000

8,000 ton TL15 cruiser rider. M6A6, Con1, Armor15, M&D Screens 9, J meson spinal, 6 F9 missile, 9fib computer. Rounded up cost of MCr8,000

Both have a small craft space. Scoops and fuel processing.

440,000 ton TL13 tender. M1, J4, DS, M&D Screens 3, some missiles and sandcasters, 7fib computer. Rounded up cost of MCr186,000. Some cargo. Needs a oiler to refuel in a decent amount of time. Holds 20 of the cruiser riders.

Tender plus 20 riders costs MCr346,000

12 cruisers costs MCr360,000.

Tonnage is also a wash, slightly higher towards the 12 cruisers. 440Kton/564Kton

By paying slightly less money (MCr14,000) I ensure that in a meeting engagement the 20 riders will almost always win against their matched 12 ship cruiser squadron.

I also give up the ability to refuel quickly, and to break up the unit, and to jump out in case of severe damage.

(IMO) Of these two choices, my 3I will pay the extra few credits, accept the loss of combat power, and buy the cruisers.

 

[sfchbryan]

In honor of the recent battleship threads, I did some work in HG Shipyard and Excel.

47,000 ton TL15 cruiser. J4, M6A6, Con1, Armor5, M&D Screens 9, J meson spinal, 30 F9 missiles, 9fib computer. Rounded up cost of MCr30,000

8,000 ton TL15 cruiser rider. M6A6, Con1, Armor15, M&D Screens 9, J meson spinal, 6 F9 missile, 9fib computer. Rounded up cost of MCr8,000

Both have a small craft space. Scoops and fuel processing.

440,000 ton TL13 tender. M1, J4, DS, M&D Screens 3, some missiles and sandcasters, 7fib computer. Rounded up cost of MCr186,000. Some cargo. Needs a oiler to refuel in a decent amount of time. Holds 20 of the cruiser riders.

Tender plus 20 riders costs MCr346,000

12 cruisers costs MCr360,000.

Tonnage is also a wash, slightly higher towards the 12 cruisers. 440Kton/564Kton

By paying slightly less money (MCr14,000) I ensure that in a meeting engagement the 20 riders will almost always win against their matched 12 ship cruiser squadron.

I also give up the ability to refuel quickly, and to break up the unit, and to jump out in case of severe damage.

(IMO) Of these two choices, my 3I will pay the extra few credits, accept the loss of combat power, and buy the cruisers.

The biggest issue with riders is the fact they can only be at one place at one time. THAT is the advantage of ships over riders.

 

[far-trader]

The biggest issue with riders is the fact they can only be at one place at one time. THAT is the advantage of ships over riders.

Your ships can be in more than one place at a time! We Demand That Technology!!



I know what you mean, but that was too tempting a mis-statement to pass up

 

[pendragonman]

Make the same designs at TL 13 and 14. Compare results

 

[McPerth]

Make the same designs at TL 13 and 14. Compare results

The basis for those cruiser riders was the J meson gun, and IIRC there's no comparable weapon before TL15. Before that they are larger, as are PP so I'm affraid that won't work, as BRs will need to be nearly twice as large (it's a guess, I didn't run the math).

 

[robject]

As eurisko taught us, the more spines you can field, the better you'll do in a set battle.

What I don't know about is how to measure the operational and strategic aspects of these two squadrons. As mentioned, a cruron can be broken up, while a rider squadron is less likely to be divided. Also a cruron has more jump drives and if necessary can cut its losses more easily.

Something else you could try is to give the riders jump-1 capability. They're still superior to the cruisers but also can escape to the Oort cloud to refuel and hide, or jump to a predetermined rendezvous where perhaps a tender awaits. I think mike wightman brought that concept to my attention.

 

[Matt123]

As eurisko taught us, the more spines you can field, the better you'll do in a set battle.

I'd challenge that notion. Missile weapons scrub spinals pretty fast, so fast you can only expect one turn of firing at the spinals full strength. How far the depletion gets in one turn will depend on the number of spinals you can field (increasing the number of targets) and whether you are armored to be immune to missile HE hits (dampers are a given).

Immune to missile HE damage, generally = few spinals (relatively speaking).

 

[rancke]

I'd challenge that notion. Missile weapons scrub spinals pretty fast, so fast you can only expect one turn of firing at the spinals full strength. How far the depletion gets in one turn will depend on the number of spinals you can field (increasing the number of targets) and whether you are armored to be immune to missile HE hits (dampers are a given).

Immune to missile HE damage, generally = few spinals (relatively speaking).

Well, all you need to do to prove that theory is to design a fleet that can beat the Eurisko fleet.


Hans

 

[skyth]

I'd challenge that notion. Missile weapons scrub spinals pretty fast, so fast you can only expect one turn of firing at the spinals full strength. How far the depletion gets in one turn will depend on the number of spinals you can field (increasing the number of targets) and whether you are armored to be immune to missile HE hits (dampers are a given).

Immune to missile HE damage, generally = few spinals (relatively speaking).

Yes, a rider will typically be armored enough that only nukes will do damage.

Also, statistically speaking, 1 in every 43.2 factor-9 nukes will do a weapon hit (And one in 172.8 nukes will do a fuel-1 hit) against a rider (You can pretty much assume a rider is armor-15, with a 9 damper).

This doesn't include any active defenses to go through (Repulors, beams, sand)

So scrubbing spinals pretty fast isn't likely to happen. You might be able to do a little damage by combining all missiles against on ship.

 

[AndreaV]

In honor of the recent battleship threads, I did some work in HG Shipyard and Excel.

As long as you're comparing like with like, the high end rider will always tactically outperform the ship by a significant margin (at the low end its a lot more uncertain), regardless of what you arm it with. Simply because you're not having to provide armour or agility for the jump fuel. You'll usually find that with a high end/high jump combination you can field an entire squadron of riders for each individual ship.

The factors counting against riders are strategic. The biggest against the traditional rider/tender combo is probably that they're pretty much good for only one thing and that's offensive operations in war. Coupled with the need for ships to cover the riders if they need to withdraw, you end up being able to spend less on your battleline because you have to buy more cruisers, escorts etc.

 

[skyth]

They work well on the defence also, as they are SDB's as well.

 

[far-trader]

As long as you're comparing like with like, the high end rider will always tactically outperform the ship by a significant margin (at the low end its a lot more uncertain), regardless of what you arm it with. Simply because you're not having to provide armour or agility for the jump fuel...

Which I've often wondered about. Why aren't there more drop-tank deployed ships? That would go a long way to making Rider/Tender fleets far less important. Even keeping a J1 of fuel aboard for strategic withdrawl will mean your ships still save a lot on that jump fuel factored deficit. And when not needing to be scrambled long range they can lumber around at reduced performance and keep the drop tanks with them, reducing the logistics of staging fuel tenders. I've taken a crack at a few ships like this since CT introduced the Gazelle and always thought they made a lot of sense. Thoughts?

 

[robject]

Oh no, you didn't. You did not just add the Drop Tank Debacle on top of the Cruiser/Rider Debacle?!

 

[far-trader]

Oh no, you didn't. You did not just add the Drop Tank Debacle on top of the Cruiser/Rider Debacle?!

Normally I wouldn't have, or I'd have done so only as a perverse tactic. In this case though I plead innocence and temporary caffeine deprived insanity

(...and to think I almost added the extra hardpoints issue in the Gazelle comparison :devil: )

 

[mike wightman]

I've posted before about the sense of fitting small jump drives to riders at TL15 to give them a tactical retreat option.

I also posted a while ago the obvious offensive tactic of using drop tanks to jump in-system leaving your tender safely elsewhere.

 

[McPerth]

I'd challenge that notion. Missile weapons scrub spinals pretty fast, so fast you can only expect one turn of firing at the spinals full strength. How far the depletion gets in one turn will depend on the number of spinals you can field (increasing the number of targets) and whether you are armored to be immune to missile HE hits (dampers are a given).

Immune to missile HE damage, generally = few spinals (relatively speaking).

One thing usually ignored when talking about the use of nukes (and missiles to a lesser extent) in battle is the price of the missiles proper.

As we talk about using fleets more or less balanced in price, I think it should be relevant.

I don't recall now the price of nuke missiles in CT. IIRC the price of HE missiles is KCr 5/each. So, a 100 ton bay salvo (usually considered about 50 missiles, at least as described in MT) would cost KCr 250. In MT it's worst, as HE missiles cost KCr 20, and a nuke KCr 150, so the cost of salvos would be MCr 1 and MCr 7.5 respectively.

If we talk about using 3 bays (30 in the case of the cruiser), we're talking about spending MCr 0.75 per turn and BR if HE, 6.375 (after bearing effects)for the Cruisers. I CT (I cannot count about CT nukes, as I don't remember its price).

In MT, each BR whould spend MCr 3 if HE, 22.5 if nukes. Cruisers, about 22.5 if HE, or 191.25 if nukes.

Which I've often wondered about. Why aren't there more drop-tank deployed ships? That would go a long way to making Rider/Tender fleets far less important. Even keeping a J1 of fuel aboard for strategic withdrawl will mean your ships still save a lot on that jump fuel factored deficit. And when not needing to be scrambled long range they can lumber around at reduced performance and keep the drop tanks with them, reducing the logistics of staging fuel tenders. I've taken a crack at a few ships like this since CT introduced the Gazelle and always thought they made a lot of sense. Thoughts?

Well, we can ressurect the thread about drop tanks, if you want...

It was quite interesting, and th first one at which I was involved, so, I won't complain

 

[robject]

I've posted before about the sense of fitting small jump drives to riders at TL15 to give them a tactical retreat option.

I also posted a while ago the obvious offensive tactic of using drop tanks to jump in-system leaving your tender safely elsewhere.

Nice. And, slightly less efficient, you could field a large jump drive, but only internally carry fuel for a jump 1. Nice.

 

[skyth]

Wouldn't that raise the price of the riders considerably though? That would take away one of the advantages of riders.

 

[mike wightman]

It's cheaper than replacing an entire rider

 

[mike wightman]

Nice. And, slightly less efficient, you could field a large jump drive, but only internally carry fuel for a jump 1. Nice.

Yup, could be done.

Which would give your riders a lot more flexibility during peacetime.

I can envisage the Imperium using a range of tenders too.

The standard would be the jump 4 version, but a really big one could be built that has a jump 6 drive. The latter would be used for rapid mobilisation of reserves and deep penetration behind the enemies advance.

Add tankrons/drop tank carriers and purpose built refuelers and you would have quite an interesting little fleet...