Reading a history of naval warfare in the 19th Century today (Rolf Hobson, "Imperialism at Sea", Boston & Leiden, 2002) I started wondering about the role of cruisers as a class in the Traveller universe. To my mind a clearer distinction could have been made between them and battleships/battleriders in canon designs. Why not have cruisers as they were intended in the 19th Century ideas of the 'French school'. The key point being that cruisers are differentiated from battlewagons by their range and speed: unlike battleships whose range and speed were limited, cruisers were capable of both showing the flag in distant ports in peacetime, and roving far and wide in commerce raiding in wartime.
Cruisers in Traveller
- Thread starter jec10
- Start date
Renaissance Man
SOC-12
So... cruisers would have more space alotted to jump drives and fuel, and less to outright killing power. Makes sense.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Unfortunately most of the Traveller ship design rules don't support such a premise of smaller is faster and goes farther. That's why battlewagons can go as fast and as far (or farther) than a cruiser.
Personally I also prefer the lumbering limited battlewagon and quick independant cruiser model, there's just little in the rules to support such a concept in Traveller, in the OTU at least
Personally I also prefer the lumbering limited battlewagon and quick independant cruiser model, there's just little in the rules to support such a concept in Traveller, in the OTU at least
pendragonman
Absent Friends Margrave
I have Cruisers in the sense defined by jec10 in MTU. I let Battlewagons and Battleriders have much heavier armor.
Using the priority of high armor for BBs and high strategic (jump) range for CA/BC vessels allows me to do this in much the same way as the turn of the 19/20th century British and German fleets. Examining those for ideas lead me to these design priorities. This tends to let cruisers have one higher jump number than battleships, along with one higher g of manu.
Using the priority of high armor for BBs and high strategic (jump) range for CA/BC vessels allows me to do this in much the same way as the turn of the 19/20th century British and German fleets. Examining those for ideas lead me to these design priorities. This tends to let cruisers have one higher jump number than battleships, along with one higher g of manu.
The Third Imperium's definition of a cruiser goes back to Supplement 9. It's not a ship that is designed for cruising. It's a ship that is smaller than a battleship but still big enough to carry a spinal mount. I think that the smallest that has been mentioned is 30,000 T and the largest is 75,000 T, but I believe the official range is from 20,000 T to 100,000 T.
Note that some cruisers are, indeed, used for cruising (i.e. commerce raiding).
Hans
Theophilus
SOC-13
Add in the fact that a battleline is only a deterent while it remains in existance. Battleships are a valuable asset not frivilously wasted.
During WWI only three capital ship actions were fought, and only one, Jutland, was a major action involving both battlelines.
Cruiser's. however, fought in actions all around the globe.
During WWI only three capital ship actions were fought, and only one, Jutland, was a major action involving both battlelines.
Cruiser's. however, fought in actions all around the globe.
Major B
SOC-14 1K
My take on cruiser-class ships matches Jec10's post and it is the design priorities that makes the difference, as Pendragonman said.
Cruisers have lighter armor that the BBs but longer jump range or at least additional fuel stores for multiple jumps, and greater speed and more important greater agility.
The slower but heavier (in terms of armor and armament) BBs add more character to the fleet engagements by raising the importance of other fleet arms such as carriers, fighters, and escorts. The slower speeds also gives the BBs some vulnerability, breaking the paradigm of "bigger is always better."
Cruisers have lighter armor that the BBs but longer jump range or at least additional fuel stores for multiple jumps, and greater speed and more important greater agility.
The slower but heavier (in terms of armor and armament) BBs add more character to the fleet engagements by raising the importance of other fleet arms such as carriers, fighters, and escorts. The slower speeds also gives the BBs some vulnerability, breaking the paradigm of "bigger is always better."
The modern (C20/21) usage is for a cruiser just to be a big warship. Originally the term was applied to 4th-rate warships bigger than frigates but not of the 3 'battle' rates. 'Cruisers' were designed to undertake long cruises...
I favour the idea that battle ships remain concentrated to fight battles while cruisers cruise about dealing with stuff. Anything short of a major warship can be handled by a cruiser easily enough and they're significantly cheaper than capital ships so you can afford more of them to cover ground.
The standard cruisers are therefore workhorses, though there are some speicalist types like strike cruisers etc in existence.
For the average opponent it makes little difference if you're annihilated by a spinal battlehship weapon or a 'mere' cruiser version. And if the balloon goes up, you can afford to have a few cruisers off station but the fleet has to be available to repel the enemy battle line.
Battleship command is important and presdigious, but cruisers are more interesting........
I favour the idea that battle ships remain concentrated to fight battles while cruisers cruise about dealing with stuff. Anything short of a major warship can be handled by a cruiser easily enough and they're significantly cheaper than capital ships so you can afford more of them to cover ground.
The standard cruisers are therefore workhorses, though there are some speicalist types like strike cruisers etc in existence.
For the average opponent it makes little difference if you're annihilated by a spinal battlehship weapon or a 'mere' cruiser version. And if the balloon goes up, you can afford to have a few cruisers off station but the fleet has to be available to repel the enemy battle line.
Battleship command is important and presdigious, but cruisers are more interesting........
Outside of the smaller OT designs I never used other published designs. I broke my warships into three basic classifications based on the weapons they carried. Capitol ships had spinal mounts (along with bay / turret weapons for secondary / tertiary use) and usually massed 30,000 Dt and up. I never had huge capitol ships (i.e. 1 million tons) because in general I found it more effective to have more capital ships / spinal mounts with maximun armor and screens rather than fewer larger ships. I also never went for everything having to do 6 Gs and jump 6. Tended to be a waste of credits. I also like my battlewagons to lumber a bit 
Cruisers were characterized by bay weaponry (with turrets for point defense) and massed anywhere from 2,000 to 20,000 tons. Faster than capitol ships but about the same jump capabilities. Cruisers also had the mass to cary troops and deal with colonial issues without commiting line of battle ships. In any event my battleships tended to be space superiority ships. I brought in the transports and assault cruisers for planetary seiges / landings. Escorts (destroyers, frigates, etc.) generally massed under 2,000 tons and relied on turret weaponry. They were the fastest, but had about the same jump capabilities. This worked for me. Gave me the flavor I wanted and kept the distinctions between ship types clear.
Cruisers were characterized by bay weaponry (with turrets for point defense) and massed anywhere from 2,000 to 20,000 tons. Faster than capitol ships but about the same jump capabilities. Cruisers also had the mass to cary troops and deal with colonial issues without commiting line of battle ships. In any event my battleships tended to be space superiority ships. I brought in the transports and assault cruisers for planetary seiges / landings. Escorts (destroyers, frigates, etc.) generally massed under 2,000 tons and relied on turret weaponry. They were the fastest, but had about the same jump capabilities. This worked for me. Gave me the flavor I wanted and kept the distinctions between ship types clear.
Last edited:
Wasn't the concept for the cruiser that it could outfight anything smaller and outrun anything larger? In Traveller, that sounds like MD-6 and JD-4 with a spinal mount. A Battlesip might outgun her, but it could not run her down. A Traveller Cruiser should be able to clear out the SDBs and Escorts, requiring the enemy to deploy precious Battleships hunting it down or chasing it away.
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
The original "outrun what it can't outgun" was the Frigate of the Age of Sail. This was also when there was only about two orders of magnitude between the smallest and largest ocean going vessels. As such, the allocation of available displacement and mass was more significant compared to raw size when differentiating between the ships of the line and the "also carries guns". Frigates were often quite large with fast lines and as many guns as they could manage, but they weren't in the same class of gun-carrier as the Line.
The concept has become diluted in modern wet navies, and with hydrodynamics being what they are, smaller does not mean faster, just potentially more maneuverable. Modern military ships are, however, a poor model, as there has been no protracted conflict at sea in 60 years to shake out the "looked good on paper" designs. Every warship is as dangerous as it can be. Trade-offs are illusory to a large extent, carriers and other highly specialized designs being the notable exceptions.
In space, and using the freely scalable drives of Traveller, most editions' combination of weapons-per-volume and a relatively flat lethality curve for the various weapon technologies means that the true Line of Battle must be the biggest hulls available packed with all the guns that will fit.
Altering either the lethality curve OR removing hardpoints leads to smaller warships.
Major B
SOC-14 1K
MJD and R_Chance stated the employment considerations better than I could have.
My only difference with R_Chance though is I think Cruisers as a class should still mount spinal weapons, just smaller than those found in the BB class.
And it is economics and employment that characterize the class and justify their existence. It is not purely ship capabilities, as GypsyComet points out. The smaller ship allows more to be built which allows for greater "presence" over a broader area.
In peacetime the Cruisers show the flag and respond to whatever crisis might occur, preserving the battle line to remain in reserve to deter anyone from being rash.
In wartime, the Cruisers take on scouting missions for the main fleet to find the enemy main force, because they can usually avoid an engagement they can't win. Then the battle lines meet (Mahan in space). If your battle line loses, then the Cruisers will screen the retirement of the survivors. If your line wins, then they will soon go elsewhere, leaving the Cruisers to clear out the rest of the enemy remnants in the system (as atpollard pointed out). The Cruisers also support the planetary invasion forces, because Cruisers can provide the bombardment and free up the BBs for fleet engagements.
And all of this is primarily due to the economics of construction - there will not be enough cash available to build and then maintain as many of the big ships as you want, so the less expensive medium ships will be needed to do the rest.
My only difference with R_Chance though is I think Cruisers as a class should still mount spinal weapons, just smaller than those found in the BB class.
And it is economics and employment that characterize the class and justify their existence. It is not purely ship capabilities, as GypsyComet points out. The smaller ship allows more to be built which allows for greater "presence" over a broader area.
In peacetime the Cruisers show the flag and respond to whatever crisis might occur, preserving the battle line to remain in reserve to deter anyone from being rash.
In wartime, the Cruisers take on scouting missions for the main fleet to find the enemy main force, because they can usually avoid an engagement they can't win. Then the battle lines meet (Mahan in space). If your battle line loses, then the Cruisers will screen the retirement of the survivors. If your line wins, then they will soon go elsewhere, leaving the Cruisers to clear out the rest of the enemy remnants in the system (as atpollard pointed out). The Cruisers also support the planetary invasion forces, because Cruisers can provide the bombardment and free up the BBs for fleet engagements.
And all of this is primarily due to the economics of construction - there will not be enough cash available to build and then maintain as many of the big ships as you want, so the less expensive medium ships will be needed to do the rest.
Your points are taken.
I was thinking of something closer to the American 'Super Frigate' like the USS Constitution.
The breaks in Traveller weapons are significant at 1) the introduction of Bay Weapons and 2) the introduction of Spinal Mounts.
I would view the 'Traveller Frigate' or Escort as a Bay Weapon Ship able to beat up on Turret-only ships.
I would view the 'Traveller Cruiser' as a Spinal Mount Ship able to beat up on Bay Weapon-only ships.
I would view the 'Traveller Battleship' as the largest Spinal Mount Ships able to outgun lesser Spinal Mount ships.
[unfortunately for my world view, the TCS 'olympics' was routinely won by a fleet of missile armed 30,000 dTon craft.]
There was a question some time ago about J5 and 6 ships. I took a quick look through Supplements 7 and 9 and most IN warships were J4. The J5 ships were all cruisers. So there may be something to the cruisers having longer legs to carry out their assigned tasks.
One other cruiser mission is commerce raiding and convoy defense. They're cheap enough to be used to get behind the lines and cause trouble. On the other hand, they are also cheap enough to be used for rear area defense that would be a waste of a battleship.
One other cruiser mission is commerce raiding and convoy defense. They're cheap enough to be used to get behind the lines and cause trouble. On the other hand, they are also cheap enough to be used for rear area defense that would be a waste of a battleship.
Thunderbolt
SOC-12
Joining this one late, but one thing that has always bugged me is how immense ships have a comparable agility to a little space fighter, which has me imagining a Tigress turning on a sixpence. Given the apparent distance that combat takes place, I do wonder if a mobile office block trying to do some fancy moves is that much harder to hit given that your technology has already solved the problem of hitting stuff at such huge distances already.
Thunderbolt,
Don't forget to factor in time. Turns in Traveller space combat are either 16.67 or 20 minutes depending on the rules set. Plenty of time for that Tigress to "dance".
Don't forget that you get a rather healthy DM when trying to hit that "office block". A +2 DM on a 2D6 roll is nothing to sneeze at.
Whether an office block can actually "dance" is another question entirely. Chris Thrash did some interesting work with the structural strength of very large objects which suggests that big ships can't "dance" like the OTU assumes without buckling and/or folding up. It's yet another argument in favor of a "Small Ship" OTU.
As for any cruiser versus battleship definition, Hans has already posted the canonical version. The canonical version also works as well as anythng. For those of you who get hung-up over the "speed" angle, think strategic speed (i.e. jump) as opposed to tactical speed (i.e. maneuver). Cruisers are generally faster in a strategic sense while still carrying a spinal mount.
Have fun,
Bill
P.S. For those with a size hang-up, there have been cruisers constructed which were larger than battleships of the same era. The cruisers were bigger so they could carry enough in the way of engines and fuel to be 1) faster tactically and B) have a larger steaming range.
AT,
That occurs because you can bring more "weapons" to the "party" on a given budget. Whether the "weapon of decision" is missile bays or meson spinals, there'll be an upper tonnage limit for the ships that carry them. Observe that upper limit and you'll have more hulls carrying more copies of the Most Effective Weapon at Tech Level X.
Why do navies in the OTU build vessels that are larger than those weapon-derived upper limits? As with many Traveller questions there's an in-game and a meta-game reason for it.
First, in-game: We tend to forget that the fictional naval architects of the fictional OTU do not have copies of LBB:5 High Guard sitting on their desks from which to design near-perfect ships. We can parse the numbers from weapons, screens, and drives tables they have no inkling of. We can also analyze the to-hit, to-penetrate, and damaage matrices they also have no knowledge of.
(In the Real World we have a similar problem. There has been no appreciable naval combat for over 60 years, so none of our current designs have really been tested. Sure, Israel and various opponents have "proved" the utility of SSMs several times since 1967, but only with small numbers of attacks featuring small numbers of missiles launched from small numbers of ships. The RN's experience off the Falklands only "proved" that a lack of true air cover - instead of a handful of subsonic jump jets operating from laughably sized "carriers" sparring with an equally small handful of supersonic jets operating at the bleeding edge of their bingo limit - can potentially prevent a naval force from operating at all. A real naval war will "teach" many lesssons and find many designs lacking.)
Second, meta-game: Huge ships are "kewl" and "scary". Players want to see a Death Star every now and then, so the rules need to provide one.
Have fun,
Bill
Last edited:
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
A major house-rule of mine allows multiple Spinal mounts. This creates another weapon break and gives my Imperium 'really kewl' and 'really scary' capital ships.
I also allow very small ships to close range until they're too close to be fired upon by anything other than turrets, and the large ship is also restricted in the number of turrets it can bring to bear.
I also designed a spinal meson ship of only 5000dT. Unfortunately I've not done much space combat to playtest these ideas.
I also allow very small ships to close range until they're too close to be fired upon by anything other than turrets, and the large ship is also restricted in the number of turrets it can bring to bear.
I also designed a spinal meson ship of only 5000dT. Unfortunately I've not done much space combat to playtest these ideas.
