Cruiser v Cruiser-rider

[Garyius2003]

Even in my 3I there are battle rider and cruiser rider fleets at TL15. Maybe not out in the Marches, but lots of them. At the Depots.

And in the interior there are huge half million ton DS J4 carriers with multi sized clamps, all built at (TL13?). The Imperium pays for (Half?) (Free Interest 60 year loans?) and the mega corps run them all across the Real Imperium--the interior. Plug in a 10K passenger module or three, but mostly cargo pods.

And when the Zho Mind Rapers/Horsey Nazis decide to go too far and tick off the Emperor, 1/20th of those ships are pulled off their routes and jump to a depot and pick up the cruiser and battle riders--on the way they pick up reserves and crew the riders and the fleet of (TL13?) oilers and supply ships laid up in orbital storage and they all jump together towards the Mind Raper homeworld and end the threat for good and forever.

At the cost of 1/20th of Imperial trade for six years. So the Zhos really have to do something bad to cause it to happen.

But when 20X20 Cruiser riders jump in, with 20 or 40 extra cruisers and lots of escorts and a few tankrons and cargorons--And 20X7 Battle riders--Then the party is over. In 25 jumps the Zhos will simply be done as an empire, most of their main worlds smashed.

 

[McPerth]

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.

This is what I posted on last Dec 15th on the thread 'all ships should have drop tanks'

While taking part on this thread, another use drop tanks has come to my head which I’d like to put to your disposition just to see if it has some worth or is pure garbage: jump drives equipped battle riders.

Yes, I see it seems an oxymoron, but let me analyze it before fully discarding the idea.

One of the main drawbacks of the BR/Tender system is its lack of flexibility. The whole squadron must operate together or its BR will be stranded on the system they are. This is ok in major fronts of major wars, but too rigid for other operations. Where a CruDron or BB squadron may cover several systems in a secondary front by dispersing and try to avoid the infiltration of commerce raiders (to put an example), a BR/tender squadron may only cover one, so letting more systems open.

By the same reason, replacement BRs are difficult to take to the front, unless you want to dedicate your precious tenders to this task (I assume there will be more BRs losses than tenders’ off course)

Now imagine those same BRs with built in jump drives, but without fuel tanks to make the jump, having them attached when leaved alone on a system. For jump4 capability they need only to allocate 5% tonnage (sadly at MCr 4 per ton), so they still have the 40% saved that could be used by the fuel, that can be used for combat related purposes (armor, better agility, larger weaponry, etc) and still being probably able to win over a jump ship that doubles its tonnage.

Deployment (when detached from the tender) should be in range one another, alone or in pairs and supported by fleet couriers. No more than half squadron should be out of tender’s system at any time, and, usually they have orders to destroy scouts or small intruders they could match and flee to the carrier (or nearby base) in any other encounters, for their tanks will only give them one jump.

They also could move along preplanned lines when in friendly space, thus freeing the tenders for battle operations (to put an example, on FFW a TL 15 BR damaged on the Regina subsector must go to Rhylanor for repairs that cannot be done at Regina (TL 10). To go there it could use drop tanks prepositioned on imperial bases and way stations to go there, and same for returning once repaired.

As you see, I’m insisting here on preplanning (once again, I won’t tire to). When communications are so slow, preplanning is not an option, is a must.

 

[mike wightman]

Try checking back about 3-4 years for my posts on this

More seriously. I doubt if i was the first to come up with it, no doubt the TML has similar designs going back an awful lot longer. But it does illustrate that if different people can come up with the same solution working in isolation then it stands to reason that the naval architects, admirals, engineers etc of the 3I should come to the same conclusion.

I therefore petition that if HG is a reasonable model for ship design and combat in the later years of the 3rd Imperium then such BRs should be found within the OTU

 

[McPerth]

Try checking back about 3-4 years for my posts on this

More seriously. I doubt if i was the first to come up with it, no doubt the TML has similar designs going back an awful lot longer. But it does illustrate that if different people can come up with the same solution working in isolation then it stands to reason that the naval architects, admirals, engineers etc of the 3I should come to the same conclusion.

I therefore petition that if HG is a reasonable model for ship design and combat in the later years of the 3rd Imperium then such BRs should be found within the OTU

I had not discovered this forum that back...

Neither did I pretend I was the first to have the idea, just wanted to share this with all who weren't in the other forum.

 

[rancke]

But when 20X20 Cruiser riders jump in, with 20 or 40 extra cruisers and lots of escorts and a few tankrons and cargorons--And 20X7 Battle riders--Then the party is over. In 25 jumps the Zhos will simply be done as an empire, most of their main worlds smashed.

And since that is not happening in the OTU, we can conclude that your scenario is flawed in some way. Or in several ways.

Let's see:

1a) Battleriders doesn't cost as little as the ship design system implies, becuase if they did, no one would be buying battleships.

1b) Cruisers and cruiser-sized ships are not able to stand up against battleships, because if they were, no one would be building battleships.

2) If cruisers and battleriders were as effective as the combat system implies and as cheap as the ship design system implies, the Zhodani would be building them too.



Hans

 

[mike wightman]

How do we know they aren't?

We know very little about the Zhodani fleet canonically.

We do know that being TL14 puts them at a tremendous disadvantage to the Imperium.

A Zhodani ship/rider has a power plant twice the size of an Imperial vessel of similar design specs, inferior computer and defensive screens.

 

[rancke]

How do we know they aren't?

I'll relabel my three points from a), b), and c) to 1a), 1b), and 2).


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

And since that is not happening in the OTU, we can conclude that your scenario is flawed in some way. Or in several ways.

Let's see:

1a) Battleriders doesn't cost as little as the ship design system implies, becuase if they did, no one would be buying battleships.

Those are costs as per the rules that describe ship building in the OTU during its HG2 paradigm.

1b) Cruisers and cruiser-sized ships are not able to stand up against battleships, because if they were, no one would be building battleships.

This very much depends on that old chestnut when is a cruiser a BB? Once upon a time a frigate was a line of battle ship.
Using HG a cruiser can't stand toe to toe with a BB, nor could a CruRon last against a BatRon.

However the 4 or more CruRons you can bring to bear on a cost vs cost basis will do the job.

Once again warfare comes down to economics.

2) If cruisers and battleriders were as effective as the combat system implies and as cheap as the ship design system implies, the Zhodani would be building them too.

How do we know they aren't?

We know very little about the Zhodani fleet canonically.

We do know that being TL14 puts them at a tremendous disadvantage to the Imperium.

A Zhodani ship/rider has a power plant twice the size of an Imperial vessel of similar design specs, inferior computer and defensive screens.

 

[robject]

First, I think Hans has the right idea about battleships, and it seems to agree with Marc's concept. I don't think Mike is saying anything different tho when he asks 'what is a battleship?' -- I just see that there needs to be a clear understanding of why big ships exist.

Second, of course Mike has to be correct, in that it's all about economics.

Finally, Hans is right by saying battle riders have to have significant tradeoffs, and, by implication, at any given TL there is an approximate likely distribution of ship types, due to their abilities to fulfill the military missions required of a space navy.

 

[mike wightman]

Was it Marc who described the Kinunir as a battlecruiser?

Just kidding.

I can see how the setting evolved and the rules evolved sort of hand in hand so, kicking proto-Traveller firmly into touch, we are left with one very important question for Marc.

Does HG2 apply to the OTU? Is it meant to model ship building and combat across the TLs of the OTU?

If so the setting needs to be tweaked (although not much because I think an awful lot of the problems come from the MT re-imaging).

If not then HG2 needs to be revised to beef up BBs (talk to Oz )

 

[rancke]

This very much depends on that old chestnut when is a cruiser a BB?

The canonical definition of cruisers and battleships (in FS) applies to the Classic Era. Fighting Ships is copyright 1981, which corresponds to 1107. The introduction (p. 4) says the dates for the information range from 1000 to 1107, which just happens to correspond to the period during which the Imperium has been at TL15.

To paraphrase Gilbert and Sullivan, tech levels 9 to 14 has got nothing to do with the case.


Hans

 

[Garyius2003]

Of course they havem't been used yet. The full program wasn't even started until the Lessons Learned Conference held 20 years after the Rim War was confirmed over. Until then there were just some tender/rider units in the fleet elements.

Full funding and inital production efforts for the civil reserve fleet link liners took years.

Then the production schedule at the Depots for the riders (after the 10 years design cycle) took years. Even now they are at less than 1/4 of the full planned amount.

The Emperor considered activating the civil reserve tenders (or a small part of them) but didn't since the 5th War was only a single Domain war and by the time the reserves were transported to the Depots, activated their riders, and rose to the Marches the war would have been over either way. No point in disrupting trade in the Core over a few dozen systems out on the frontier.

And since that is not happening in the OTU, we can conclude that your scenario is flawed in some way. Or in several ways.

Let's see:

1a) Battleriders doesn't cost as little as the ship design system implies, becuase if they did, no one would be buying battleships.

1b) Cruisers and cruiser-sized ships are not able to stand up against battleships, because if they were, no one would be building battleships.

2) If cruisers and battleriders were as effective as the combat system implies and as cheap as the ship design system implies, the Zhodani would be building them too.



Hans

 

[rancke]

Of course they havem't been used yet. The full program wasn't even started until the Lessons Learned Conference held 20 years after the Rim War was confirmed over. Until then there were just some tender/rider units in the fleet elements.

(So no lessons learned in the three centuries at TL14?)

The timespans just don't fit with that story. A complete replacement of the Imperial Navy wouldn't take half that time. And there's no talk of the Tigresses being obsolete and being phased out. Come to that, there's no talk about battleships as such being obsolete and being phased out. The Kokirraks specifically, yes, but not battleships as a type.

(And if you accept GT material as valid settingt material, they're still replacing lost Tigresses after the Fifth Frontier War (qv Lioness II)).


Hans

 

[Starviking]

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.

I had a similar idea a while back - but related to equipping SDBs with them and dropping them in an enemy system to act as persistent raiders.

Another advantage of your idea is that, in CT at least*, you can use your riders to refuel the tender once the heat is off.

*in TNE the riders can use their manoeuvre drive tankage to provide a similar function.

 

[robject]

Was it Marc who described the Kinunir as a battlecruiser?

Just kidding.

I can see how the setting evolved and the rules evolved sort of hand in hand so, kicking proto-Traveller firmly into touch, we are left with one very important question for Marc.

Does HG2 apply to the OTU? Is it meant to model ship building and combat across the TLs of the OTU?

If so the setting needs to be tweaked (although not much because I think an awful lot of the problems come from the MT re-imaging).

If not then HG2 needs to be revised to beef up BBs (talk to Oz )

I'm interested in hearing how MT caused problems for ship design. Wasn't it's combat model essentially unchanged from HG?

It seems to me that the battle rider concept developed AFTER high guard. I'll have to go back and read the HG rules on battle riders and drop tanks.

I'd say the rules change more easily than the setting, but I never know.

Anyway, I think HG needs reworking. So does Don McKinney, by the way, which is why he's working on HG3, or was anyway.

 

[robject]

I see no problem with riders having jump drives, drop tanks, and perhaps a bit of jump fuel -- nor battleships and cruisers having drop tanks. Why not? Altho, I don't know if drop tanks are particularly common; it may be that the various missions undertaken favor maximum or minimum flexibility. But that's still no reason to avoid mixed systems.

Anyhow, the setting isn't that well defined, 5th Frontier War and Supplement 9 notwithstanding. After all, Supplement 9 never mentioned the Nolikian.

It's an opportunity to have an interesting design space.

 

[Garyius2003]

Of course there were minor changes before the Rim War, and the fleet had battle tenders-- and of course they carried a few 50kTon riders. There just wasn't the ability to put an effective spinal mount, top line computer, lots of armor and screens, and full agility in an 8 or 25kTon package.

There also wasn't the total war needed to teach the lessons to show how the new tech could become a hammer.

Just upgrading the main line routes for commercial carriers in the Core from J3 to J4 has taken this long to be 25% done, and will take another hundred before the infrastructure and business changes fully take hold.

The fleet just doesn't change overnight. Rotating out TL13 third line battleships from the reserve fleets and scrapping them, and rotating in new TL15 riders, takes a long long time.

(So no lessons learned in the three centuries at TL14?)

The timespans just don't fit with that story. A complete replacement of the Imperial Navy wouldn't take half that time. And there's no talk of the Tigresses being obsolete and being phased out. Come to that, there's no talk about battleships as such being obsolete and being phased out. The Kokirraks specifically, yes, but not battleships as a type.

(And if you accept GT material as valid settingt material, they're still replacing lost Tigresses after the Fifth Frontier War (qv Lioness II)).


Hans

 

[Garyius2003]

Drop tanks, in my 3I, looked so good that the Imperium paid to have them added to their Close Escorts as a fielded experiment.

They cause a slightly increased risk of misjump, which was bad enough. They also meant that fleet jumps would come out missing their Close Escorts. They were way early, or way late, or so far away that they were useless for a day or so.

So no more drop tanks...

The characters don't really care about that, so they may use them. The insurance companies do care, so no one else does.

I see no problem with riders having jump drives, drop tanks, and perhaps a bit of jump fuel -- nor battleships and cruisers having drop tanks. Why not? Altho, I don't know if drop tanks are particularly common; it may be that the various missions undertaken favor maximum or minimum flexibility. But that's still no reason to avoid mixed systems.

Anyhow, the setting isn't that well defined, 5th Frontier War and Supplement 9 notwithstanding. After all, Supplement 9 never mentioned the Nolikian.

It's an opportunity to have an interesting design space.

 

[McPerth]

I'm interested in hearing how MT caused problems for ship design. Wasn't it's combat model essentially unchanged from HG?

Yes, combat model was essentially unchanged, but ship design was radically changed (I'll speak from memory, as I don't have the books with me now, so I beg your forgiving for any inexactitudes)

One of the few changes on combat system was that the modifiers for good pilot or tactician were left out. I'm not sure if it was intentional or, as too often in MT, they assumed people knew CT well enough to make it unnecessary to rewrite some things (e.g. they didn't especify what's a beam weapon in MT. Some months ago discusion arised about if energy weapons are beams or they arn't. We had to resort to HG to be sure they are).

Another small change, but in one instance with great repercussion, is that the damage tables are inverted, and weapons rated A+ have a +6 t othe tables, while the armor modifier is substracted. It seems inconsequential, till your nuke missiles attain an 'interior explosion' on the 'surface explosion' table. As the roll in the IE table is unmodified, you have no chance for a 'fuel tanks shattered', nor critical. it's the equivalent to rolling in HG with the +6 modifier for being 9- factor.

About ship design, the main changes relating to combat (IMO) are:

- armor doesn't need tonnage, so ships tend to be better armored.

- armor maximum is TLx5. As modifier is (armor-40)/3, maximum armor modifier is quite less (e.g. at TL9, armor maximum 45: DM -1; at TL 13, armor maximum 65, modifier -8; at TL 15, armor maximum 85, modifier -15).

- the lesser needs for jump fuel, cuppled with the space saved with armor (see above), makes BR to have less advantage over BBs

- all ships have 3 computers: main and two backups, so computer damage is less damaging.

- most ships have quite less agility due to energy used by almost anything and because it depends on weight of the ship, not displacement, so they are easier to hit. THis same energy use (and quite irrational fuel needs for PP) makes usually the duration of the fuel less than the four weeks assumed in HG. All theese changes give another advantage to BRs, due to their smaller needs for fuel and drives, offseting (at least partially) what I told above.

EDIT: (how could I forgot that????) - In MT you can have spinals, bays and turrets of a single weapon class (well, the only one that has all three are PAs, but in others ther may be two of the three). So your ship can have (as an example) a meson spinal and several messon bays (quite useful against heavy armored fighters).

- and I won't talk about the weapons and hardware of TL 16+...up to 21 (even Mr McKinney agrees they have to be revised, or at least so said in the errata thread on MT forum)END EDIT

I don't recall at now more changes of note, though probably there are. I hope that will help you

 

[rancke]

The fleet just doesn't change overnight. Rotating out TL13 third line battleships from the reserve fleets and scrapping them, and rotating in new TL15 riders, takes a long long time.

I didn't say it would happen overnight. I said it would happen in half a century. Going from TL13 to TL14 would have begun around Year 700; going from TL14 to TL15 would have started around 1000.


Hans