Cruisers in Traveller
- Thread starter jec10
- Start date
IMTU (MT rules, Gurps Timeline), the navy is rational & the Imperium uses every credit that TCS allows them, i.e. the Imperium is quite militarized. The Imperial Fleet (TL15) runs as follows:
Main Fleet requirements: J4, M3 (above 200k), otherwise M4.
Strike Fleet requirements: J5 or J6, M2. (We have a nickname for a M1 ship – Target)
Ships below the J4, M3 or M4 standard are considered 2nd line units & not used (except to beat up the Swordworlders and Vargr. hehehehehe…)
Weapons are powered for 24 hours. (If you can’t kill your target with 1,440 shots from a spinal mount, you have no business engaging it.)
Endurance is between 25 – 30 days.
DN & BB:
Loco: J4, M3,
Defense: Meson Screens & NucDamper=9, Max Armor, 50 bay repulsors & turrets are for sandcasters only.
Offense: Type T spinal mount, 100-ton bays for offensive weapons.
Size: 300k - 700K.
BC (Not that many IMTU):
Loco: J4, M4,
Defense: A little less armor, but the rest of the defenses are the same as a BB.
Offense: Type R Meson or Type T Particle Accelerator spinal mount & 100 ton Bays.
Size: BL (200K)
(Note: here the Imperial Navy follows the “German BC” philosophy: Cruiser speed, BB armor, & slightly less than BB firepower. The Solomani follow the “British BC” philosophy: Cruiser speed, Cruiser armor, BB firepower. In wartime, the Solomani quote Admiral Beatty a lot……)
Battle Riders (like BCs, not that many IMTU):
Loco: M6
Defense: as BB
Offense: as BB
Size: 30k
Battle Tender: See Carrier below
Armored Cruisers: Loco: J4, M4,
Defense: Plenty o' Armor, Max screens, Dampers, repulsors & sandcaster turrets
Offense: Type N Meson or Type P Particle Accelerator, 100 ton bays
Size: 100K
Heavy & Light Cruisers:
Loco: J4, M4
Defense: Armor, Max screens, & sandcasters
Offense: Type J Meson or Type H particle Accelerator, 50 ton bays
Size: 20K - 75K
Escorts:
Loco: J4, M4
Defense: Screens, Dampers & Armor & sandcasters
Offense: 50 ton Bays, Turret weapons
Size: 5k - 15K
Carriers & Battle Tenders:
Loco: J4 M3
Defense, Screens, Dampers, Armor & Sandcasters
Offense: Fighters or Battle Riders
Size: 100K
Tankers, Dromedarys, & other Auxilaries:
Loco: J4, M3
Defense Screens, Dampers, Light Armor & Sandcasters
Offense: 50 bay weapons & Turrets
Size: 200k - 700K
Reserve squadrons are the same but at TL 14. i.e. Type T mesons are replaced with Type Q meson etc.
Colonial squadrons are at TL 13 & have nothing above a CruRon. TL 13 capital class ships belong to the Imperial navy and are mothballed with power plants, spinal mounts, & computers removed. When they are recommissioned, the removed systems are upgraded to TL 15. This allows the Imperial navy to quickly swap out ships that are destroyed or in the repair yards.
Not "Closer", but "Is" a capital ship. It's merely renamed to allow more cruisers in the line, by calling the missile armed ones destroyers instead of cruisers.
Actually, I was wondering about the evolution of names ... a Frigate used to be a man-of-war smaller than a line-of-batle ship, but still a Captains command. Now it is a lightly armed escort vessel barely worthy of a commander.
The Torpedo boat destroyer of WWI was a small escort vessel commanded by a relatively junior Commander. Now a Destroyer is as big as many cruisers, and in some ways more versitile.
I have played with the idea of naming my capital ships destroyers instead of battleships ... just to mess with peoples minds.
The Torpedo boat destroyer of WWI was a small escort vessel commanded by a relatively junior Commander. Now a Destroyer is as big as many cruisers, and in some ways more versitile.
I have played with the idea of naming my capital ships destroyers instead of battleships ... just to mess with peoples minds.
Major B,
Your confusion arises from what is the largest "fault line" in the Traveller setting and not from any failure on your part. You see, when you compare FSotSI's 1000dTon destroyers and A:1's 1250dTon battlecruisers, you're really comparing apples and oranges.
The changes between CT and MT or CT and TNE or CT and any other rules version is miniscule when compared to the change that occurred within CT itself. Up through LBB:4 Mercenary, the Imperium and it's warships were one thing and, after LBB:5 High Guard, the Imperium and it's warships were something completely different. LBB:5 High Guard is when the "large ship" setting came into being and blasted everything that came before.
The Kinunir lays on one side of this "fault line", the FSotSI destroyers lay on the other, and there's no real way to reconcile one with the other. We can handwave like mad - and we've being doing so ever since 1981 - but's there no real way to make each side "fit" with the other.
You still don't understand that size is only an indicator at one remove. A ship's function determines it's class, a given function requires certain "tools", those "tools" will require a certain amount of space, and that space will require a certain size. However, function is still the driving force and not hull size.
Follow the link Deniable provided and you'll see that each of the classes listed had a primary role or function envisioned for it. That "job" determines the class and not the size of the vessel.
Have fun,
Bill
And to show that size doesn't matter:
all use the same hull and plant. [1] It's definitely a case of function over form.
Another way to look at it, elected representatives 'know' a couple of things:
Cynical? Me? Never.
[1] The Ticonderoga is stretched about 5 feet.
- Spruance Class Destroyer (DD)
- Kidd Class Destroyer (DDG)
- [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga_class_cruiser]Ticonderoga Class Cruiser[/url] (CG)
all use the same hull and plant. [1] It's definitely a case of function over form.
Another way to look at it, elected representatives 'know' a couple of things:
- Cruisers are better than destroyers.
- Destroyers are cheaper than cruisers.
Cynical? Me? Never.
[1] The Ticonderoga is stretched about 5 feet.
Last edited:
Abit late in this but...
It is a little silly to assume the wet navy classifications from the 20th century will hold any water in any form of Traveller.
Going by CT HG...the classic destroyer or escort mission is gone. There is only big ships with little need for screening. Any screening or recon roles would be by the more numerous cruiser type.
The Cruiser function is there big time, I would expect a larger range of cruiser hulls (roles) than Sup 9 talks about. Infact, I would see the typical cruiser a small 1-10kt ship that is needed in massive numbers.
It is a little silly to assume the wet navy classifications from the 20th century will hold any water in any form of Traveller.
Going by CT HG...the classic destroyer or escort mission is gone. There is only big ships with little need for screening. Any screening or recon roles would be by the more numerous cruiser type.
The Cruiser function is there big time, I would expect a larger range of cruiser hulls (roles) than Sup 9 talks about. Infact, I would see the typical cruiser a small 1-10kt ship that is needed in massive numbers.
I was thinking about this and realized that there might be distinctions that are not covered by the simplifications of the game mechanics. Even if we accept Traveller JD, PP and MD ‘as is’ and assume that all warships will have about the same performance, there are ‘logical’ hull differences that could come into play but are not covered by the rules. Assume two ships of 1000 dTons (13,500 to 14,000 cubic meters), one is a cube and the other is a long box.
The SS CUBE is 24 meters on all sides, has a volume of 13,824 cubic meters and a surface area of 3456 square meters. Let us assume that this is the base ‘normal’ design. Allowing for 10 turrets (1 per 100 dtons), means that each ‘turret’ requires 346 square meters of surface area (3456/10). If we assume that the ship is covered in 1 meter thick ‘armor plating’ then the armor plating will require 3176 cubic meters of ship volume (24 m cube – 22 m cube).
The SS BOX is 11m x 11m x 114.25 meters, has a volume of 13,824 cubic meters and a surface area of 5269 square meters. If we assume that each ‘turret’ requires the same 346 square meters of surface area, then the SS BOX can accommodate 15 turrets (5269/346=15.2, rounded to 15). If we assume that the ship is also covered in 3176 cubic meters of armor, then the ‘armor plating’ will be about 0.645 meters thick (11x11x114.25m – 9.71x9.71x112.96m = 3174 cubic meters, close enough).
Comparing these two ships, the SS CUBE and SS BOX both displace about 1000 dTons, have 3176 cubic meters of armor plating (23% of the ship), and have 10,648 cubic meters available for internal fittings. However, the SS BOX has 50% more turrets and only about 65% as thick of armor as the SS CUBE.
For the same displacement, is there a potential classification/mission difference between these two ships that is not reflected in the simplified assumptions of the starship construction rules.
The SS CUBE is 24 meters on all sides, has a volume of 13,824 cubic meters and a surface area of 3456 square meters. Let us assume that this is the base ‘normal’ design. Allowing for 10 turrets (1 per 100 dtons), means that each ‘turret’ requires 346 square meters of surface area (3456/10). If we assume that the ship is covered in 1 meter thick ‘armor plating’ then the armor plating will require 3176 cubic meters of ship volume (24 m cube – 22 m cube).
The SS BOX is 11m x 11m x 114.25 meters, has a volume of 13,824 cubic meters and a surface area of 5269 square meters. If we assume that each ‘turret’ requires the same 346 square meters of surface area, then the SS BOX can accommodate 15 turrets (5269/346=15.2, rounded to 15). If we assume that the ship is also covered in 3176 cubic meters of armor, then the ‘armor plating’ will be about 0.645 meters thick (11x11x114.25m – 9.71x9.71x112.96m = 3174 cubic meters, close enough).
Comparing these two ships, the SS CUBE and SS BOX both displace about 1000 dTons, have 3176 cubic meters of armor plating (23% of the ship), and have 10,648 cubic meters available for internal fittings. However, the SS BOX has 50% more turrets and only about 65% as thick of armor as the SS CUBE.
For the same displacement, is there a potential classification/mission difference between these two ships that is not reflected in the simplified assumptions of the starship construction rules.
Well, duh. We also ignore the effects of configuration on maneuvering.
And we ignore the effect of scaling on armor (i.e., 10% armor mass on a 100 ton ship really gives the same protection as 5% on a 800 ton ship). Which is why, in the real world 30,000 ton battleships had 25cm armor and a 1500 ton destroyer had none.
And we ignore the effect of scaling on armor (i.e., 10% armor mass on a 100 ton ship really gives the same protection as 5% on a 800 ton ship). Which is why, in the real world 30,000 ton battleships had 25cm armor and a 1500 ton destroyer had none.
How are the reserve and colonial squadrons raised and funded IYTU? High Guard says that subsector navies can procure ships from any shipyard in the subsector and planetary navies may also be purchased from any shipyard in the planet's subsector. It seems to me, however, that the logical ramification of that is that subsector navies would be the TL of its most advanced world and that planetary navies would be a mix of their own TL (cheaper and politically necessary) and the most advanced world in the subsector (more capable).
So IMTU the Duchy of Lunion Navy is mostly TL14 and the Duchy of Regina Navy mostly TL13 (with a leavening of obsolescent TL15 IN hand-me-downs). But the navies of Rhylanor, Mora, Trin's Veil, and Glisten are all TL 15, just as the IN is. And so are the planetary navies of the four TL15 worlds.
As for IN reserve fleets, they'd be composed of obsolescent ships, so they probably have a sizable percentage of TL14 ships, but by now the IN should be retiring some TL15 ships too. It is, after all, a century since they began building TL15 ships.
Hans
One more time, since I failed to communicate my point.
Generally speaking, in THE AGE OF SAIL the speed of a ship is primarily influenced by Length, and length was limited by Construction Technology. For ‘battleships, cruisers and destroyers’ of the era that meant that the class of the ship was determined primarily by the number of gun decks that could be stacked on hulls of similar performance. This is not the case in the CT starship design rules.
Generally speaking, in the EARLY 20TH CENTURY the performance of a warship was determined by balancing Guns and Armor. For ‘battleships, cruisers and destroyers’ of the era that meant that the class of the ship was determined primarily by the number/size of guns and the amount of armor – all warships had similar proportions, bigger is better, and design function is a tradeoff between weapon/armor/speed. This is not the case in the CT starship design rules.
In CLASSIC TRAVELLER, ships scale almost perfectly, so Armor, Speed and Weapons all improve based on TL with the ability to mount a spinal weapon the only factor actually impacted by size. In other words, there is almost no practical difference between 2 x 50,000 dTon ships and 1 x 100,000 dTon ship. Given the dynamics of Armor, Weapons and Performance in CT, I propose that CONFIGURATION IS THE DOMINANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ‘battleships, cruisers and destroyers’ of the Classic Traveller Era. This is completely different from wet navies of Earth history and has not been explored as a concept. I propose that battleship/cruiser/destroyer should not be determined by size but by the ship’s proportions. This 'rules-invisible' aspect of starships (about which much has been written and house ruled) could mean that a ‘battleship’ is a starship with about a 1:1:1 ratio which balances weapons and armor per the standard rules. A ‘Cruiser’ could be a starship with about a 10:1:1 ratio which has 1.5 times as many weapons as a comparable displacement battleship (15 hard points on a 1000 dTon hull) but only 2/3 the armor factor indicated by the official starship design rules (install 3 points of armor, but only get Armor Factor 2).
This might be a bad idea, but it is probably not a ‘duh’ (I assume that you intended ‘duh’ to mean ‘self-evident’).
Why would TL 15 ships be retired? Other than technolgical obsolescence, what would be the other cause?
100 years wouldnt be much, there are US B52s with a lot of years (50ish) & hours on their airframes.
They get old and worn. Admiral wants some new ones, important member world wants to sell some new ships to the IN, so they retire some old ones to make room. Some are mothballed, some are transferred to the reserves (who in turn mothball or scrap some of their oldest ships).
Hans
www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3as.html
Link to a great site with the specific link on warship types.
Link to a great site with the specific link on warship types.
Captain Midnight
SOC-12
Here's an article with lots of links discussing F-15s with structural issues that are around 25 years old; while some airframes can last a long, long time, others don't hold up as well. GT has rules for aging of ships, and I believe TNE has "Wear Value" rules that reflect how ships get less reliable as they get older.
All of these sorts of rules add significant bookkeeping to keeping track of ships as they age; the extra complication may not be worth the verisimilitude provided to your game if you adopt those rules or something like them.
There might also be other reasons for retiring functional vessels of the best available TL -- perhaps there has been a change in design philosophy, or available manpower of a specific sort (e.g., fighter pilots) has changed. If a navy has decided that its probable opponent is changing, it may need ships of a different kind or with a different capability (J-4 instead of J-3, for instance).
Major B
SOC-14 1K
Was digging through some of the MT threads and found this related discussion.
The thoughts there might generate some additional comment on this thread.
The thoughts there might generate some additional comment on this thread.
I guess this means I should get back to work on it. Good news is I have finally finished updating my copy of the RM to 4th Edition. Of course, I also expect Don to release an updated version of errata any day now.....
Major B
SOC-14 1K
Do you have a copy posted somewhere where I could see it? I'd love to take a look as I'm about to get into some larger ship designs.
I immediately disregarded your advice in the linked thread and tried to reverse engineer the CT 400 ton SDB, just because I wanted to see how close I could come to the CT specifications (that thread is in the MT forum). What I learned from the attempt made me more eager to start designing some fleet vessels from scratch.
Problem with commerce raiding
There is a grave flaw in the assumptions of some Traveller universes: if ships coming out of jump arrive at the 100-diameter limit, then commerce raiding (and its little sister, piracy) become impossible.
Earth's diameter is about 12800 km. 100 times that is 1,280,000 - one light-second is about 300,000 km, so the 100-diameter limit for an Earth-sized planet is about 40 hexes in Brilliant Lances. In other words, any commerce raiders would have to lurk ~20 hexes or so from the edge, well within sensor range of any patrolling defensive at TL 10-12.
(I'm assuming that the patrolling TL 10 squadron is circling the world at 30-50 hexes distance, and has its active sensors radiating.)
A raider, then, would have to be significantly more powerful than the defensive fleet to raid it. And if it is, why isn't it bombarding the world's ports? (Maybe the world has very tough defenses. But it would be odd to have defenses capable of scotching a cruiser when the defensive fleet is weak enough to be overwhelmed.)
IMTU, jump drive is very precise but not accurate. In other words, a convoy jumping together using the same navigation plan will tend to arrive together - but it could arrive just about anywhere in the destination system. Raiders typically lurk near common jump and refuelling points. Given the volume of space, it takes a significant number of raiders to catch any incoming traffic, but losses add up over time. (In my Islands Campaign, Esperanza often uses this tactic against Serendip Belt by interdicting Gloire.)
-Devin
There is a grave flaw in the assumptions of some Traveller universes: if ships coming out of jump arrive at the 100-diameter limit, then commerce raiding (and its little sister, piracy) become impossible.
Earth's diameter is about 12800 km. 100 times that is 1,280,000 - one light-second is about 300,000 km, so the 100-diameter limit for an Earth-sized planet is about 40 hexes in Brilliant Lances. In other words, any commerce raiders would have to lurk ~20 hexes or so from the edge, well within sensor range of any patrolling defensive at TL 10-12.
(I'm assuming that the patrolling TL 10 squadron is circling the world at 30-50 hexes distance, and has its active sensors radiating.)
A raider, then, would have to be significantly more powerful than the defensive fleet to raid it. And if it is, why isn't it bombarding the world's ports? (Maybe the world has very tough defenses. But it would be odd to have defenses capable of scotching a cruiser when the defensive fleet is weak enough to be overwhelmed.)
IMTU, jump drive is very precise but not accurate. In other words, a convoy jumping together using the same navigation plan will tend to arrive together - but it could arrive just about anywhere in the destination system. Raiders typically lurk near common jump and refuelling points. Given the volume of space, it takes a significant number of raiders to catch any incoming traffic, but losses add up over time. (In my Islands Campaign, Esperanza often uses this tactic against Serendip Belt by interdicting Gloire.)
-Devin
Bob Weaver
SOC-12
But remember, it's not only Interstellar trade that can be interdicted. Interplanetary trade within the system can also be targeted. While the distance a Type A has to cover to make the jump limit from Earth may only take 6 hours, it can take days or weeks to get to the mining facility on Io. Many systems, especially ones with Hi-Pop worlds, will have colonies on planets and moons around the system which can only be reached by travelling the distance between them, which can be HUGE.
Cheers,
Bob W.
