Cruisers in Traveller

[jawillroy]

That's a great point about operational range.

In My Non OTU Proto Traveller Universe, I've been trying to develop fleet rationale to fit the warships produced entirely from LBB2. Stung by dccarles' lauded post, I've been trying to temper ship classifications away from the 20th century, while following the guidelines that follow from the LBB2 ship construction and combat rules. Here's what I've whipped up so far:

Ships of the Line:
Fleet Carriers: The primary ships of the line. No real need for battleships to be a separate class: Any LBB2 ship between 3000 and 5000 tons will have significant space left for carried craft, even with significant fuel reserves, so fleet carriers will tend to be the primary ships of the line, with weaponry balanced between lasers, sand and missiles.
Frigate: any warship configured primarily to fight in concert with fleet carriers; heavy on missiles, with minimal defensive weaponry.

Independent Operations:
Strike Carrier: A warship configured for the long-distance projection of naval power independent of a fleet. Generally smaller and faster than fleet carriers; essentially a raider with more space given over for fighter squadrons.
Raider: A warship configured for long-range, long distance operations independent of supply. Generally carries a significant complement of marines and retrieval craft. (In another TU, this might be what we call a cruiser...)
Corvette: 400-800 tons, high performance patrol and pursuit ship. Generally lacks the Cruiser's complement of ship's troops.
Cruisers:400-800 tons, moderate performance; patrol, small force insertion. (Just following the LBB's lead, here!)

Carried Craft
Fighter squadrons work well in LBB2 combat against larger craft, so MTU has lots and lots.
Riderships and System Defense Boats: Riderships IMTU are speedy missile platforms; the SDBs are more configured for long-term operations without support, rely more on lasers, and are double-crewed to provide rotation when away from bases for long periods.

Lacking spinal mounts, LBB2 non-jump ships have less of a clear advantage over jump ships of like tonnage in High Guard. However:

I fall into the "imprecise jump duration" and "staggered jump exits for incoming fleets" school of thought; that being the case, if a ship happens to arrive at the party unfashionably early, it is to its distinct advantage to be able to launch a brace of riders and fighters as soon as possible. This gives a carrier a better chance of survival than a battleship of like tonnage.

IMTU, anyhow.

 

[R_Chance]

Interesting posts.

Just to interject my 2 credits I think the functional difference between warships is armament and mission. Armament and mission will determine size and performance. Naming conventions will continue as they have and simply grow more complex with the range and variety of missions / ship types. Ship designations will go in and out of favor / use for a variety of reasons, technical, tactical, even political. Having said that...

IMTU any ship with a spinal mount is a capital ship. Ships with bay (and turret) weapons are cruisers and ships with only turrets / barbettes are escorts. A battleship is a capital warship which can stand in the line of battle (heavy armor and screen). The presence of a spinal mount (and multiple bays and turrets) along with heavy armor and the power plants necessary to support nuclear dampners and meson screens neccesitates a large ship. (30 kdt +). Cruisers are armed with bay weapons, turrets, light screens and armor which gives a size range (typically 3-10 kdt). Cruisers can be colonial, heavy, light, strike, seige, scout types and so on depending on function. They are large enough to fill numerous roles but do not need to carry massive spinal mounts, etc. No need for them to go over 10 or (at most) 20 kdt. Escorts are small, fast (md, jump range may vary by mission) and lightly armed -- turrets / barbettes. They serve a more limited range of duties (patrol, escort) and could be classified as frigates, corvettes or destroyers. I tend to use the corvette designation on ships 400 tons and under, the frigate designation on ships up to 800 tons and the destroyer designation on ships over 800 tons, but that's just my need to pigeon hole things As an example, a fleet destroyer has to be capable of keeping up with larger warships (jump 4) and fast enough to provide quick interception of missiles, small craft etc. (5 g's +) and would probably displace 1,000 tons or so. An escort destroyer designed to protect merchant ships from pirates / raiders on the other hand could be shorter legged (say jump 3) and slower (3-4 g's) with a displacement of about 800-1,000 tons. Patrol destroyers (or frigates) would need longer endurance and jump... the exact mix of capabilities and size would depend on the mission(s). All this serves to justify my need to maintain those wet navy designations too of course I tried the line of battle / frigate system which is certainly evocative given the setting and communication constraints, but it is more limited in function. And I suspect that future interstellar navies will maintain traditional naming conventions (i.e. the current use of destroyer in the US navy as was pointed out above) and keep or increase the complexity of the system. More missions, more need to identify ships by type and function. Isn't bureaucracy wonderful?

 

[pendragonman]

I'd also like to have four shades of meaning at least for each term, too.

For example, short/far/long doesn't seem adequate. system/short/far/long? Eeek.

Slow/Fast similarly doesn't do it for me. I probably need four shades here. Lumbering/Slow/Fast/Agile? Am I combining too much, here?

Strike/Recon/Intruder seems either incomplete or unrefined. What am I trying to say about the ship using these three terms? If I can pin that down then another one or two terms may shake out.

Perhaps you can use Strike/Recon/Intruder to describe your jump range variables of short/far/long. Maybe Strike is J-4,Recon J-5 or greater, Intruder J-3 or less?

Your slow/fast problem is probably linked to whether you are talking strategic speeds (jump) or tactical speeds (manu). If strategic, slow=short=low jump number as low j number means more time getting to far away targets.

If tactical, it is easily cleared up as you connect slow to m-3 or less, fast to m4 and agile to m5 or greater.

Corvette/Destroyer/Escort/Frigate/Cruiser/Rider/Monitor/Battleship is totally dissatisfying to me, for two opposite reasons: one, Traveller doesn't use some of these terms, and two, there seem to be an awful lot of terms with too-fine differences. That's not a good thing. So maybe a reassignment is in order.

I've tried to break off "Escort" into a semi-qualifier, i.e. "Fleet Escort", "Close Escort", but haven't found a way to make it feel natural -- yet.

If I can resolve these, then I think I'll have enough descriptors to cover the broad categories of Traveller's big ships.

Take escort, rider and monitor out of your sort, leaving corvette, destroyer, cruiser, carrier and battleship/dreadnought.

Use escort to define different types of the above 5/6 classes. Perhaps by defining an escort as having more agility (not necessarily more manu, see high guard for details on agility) than the main design of that ship class. I.e. you have a Corvette with manu of 4 and J-4 with net agility of 2 for your base class corvette. This is then a Fast Strike Corvette. A similar corvette that nets agility 4 (max for that manu) would then be a Fast Strike Corvette Escort.

Since all non-jump capable ships in Traveller are by definition "boats", the rider definition and the monitor definition are superfluous. You might look closely at the ship designators list in high guard for more ideas.

 

[robject]

Endurance

Scott Martin provided me with really good rules of thumb for designating Endurance.

A Ranged ship, or a ship with high Endurance, may for all practical purposes operate indefinitely without requiring a port. The requirements are:

* four times the living space for crew (more or less 8 tons per crew member average)

* a "mobile yard" capable of maintaining the starship (or another of similar volume), provided it has access to raw materials for producing parts. Yards are rated with a starport classification, and require a given volume:

Class A: 15% (750 tons minimum)
Class B: 10% (500 tons minimum)
Class C: 5% (250 tons minimum)

Scott didn't suggest a cost for these mobile yards. I can't see them being cheaper than MCr1 per ton.

***

Cruisers, by Scott's reckoning, are Ranged; their Endurance allows them to operate without supply lines.

Frigates, by Scott's reckoning, are not ranged, and are the same size as cruisers.


Missions

This really adds a useful and playable dimension to ships. Now I can play with Reach (jump), Speed (maneuver), Firepower, Defenses, and Range/Endurance. Now I'm looking for a playable way to implement CCC (call it Intelligence). With these, I can differentiate many classes of ships, whose names are based on filling specific missions.

Even using high/low designators for these dimensions, I can define 64 classes of ships.

Or, by requiring a prioritization of these dimensions, I can define 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 = 720 classes of ships.

 

[Icosahedron]

I can see the definitions in Rob's last post being useful IMTU too.

I like the 'ranged' idea. I'd maybe alter the 'yard' though. If my interpretation of this is correct - a repair bay workshop within the ship - A, B or C class doesn't make much sense to me - Class C doesn't perform annual maintenance, so what is its purpose? And the only difference between A and B that I can see is the ability to construct new starships, which wouldn't be in the repair bay's remit anyway.

What I would do, however, is require a doubling of the engineering crew in order to staff the bay, and I'd give it a fractional size and cost of the ship, so that bigger and more complex ships need a larger and more expensive workshop.
I imagine that the workshop would contain the materials to assemble an exterior scaffold around part of the ship, if external repairs (combat damage) were needed.

When you say frigates are the same size as cruisers, are you saying same displacement, or same combat capability? If those cruisers have four times the crew space, plus a workshop, you're going to have a lot of fillable space in a frigate of the same displacement.

I like the Reach, Speed, Firepower, Defences, Endurance and Intelligence concept. I imagine Intelligence would be a function of the Computer size and sensor package - it might also depend on whether the ship has a carried scout.

 

[robject]

I can see the definitions in Rob's last post being useful IMTU too.

I like the 'ranged' idea. I'd maybe alter the 'yard' though. If my interpretation of this is correct - a repair bay workshop within the ship - A, B or C class doesn't make much sense to me - Class C doesn't perform annual maintenance, so what is its purpose? And the only difference between A and B that I can see is the ability to construct new starships, which wouldn't be in the repair bay's remit anyway.

I see your point. Here's how I thought of it: the "A" class yard lets the ship repair and replace the jump drive, plus everything else. The "B" class yard lets the ship repair and replace everything but the jump drive. And the "C" class yard lets the ship repair and replace everything but the jump drive and maneuver drive.

That doesn't necessarily make sense, but it's what I thought it meant. I'll ask Scott his opinion.

What I would do, however, is require a doubling of the engineering crew in order to staff the bay

Engineering crew... good idea. So the yard doubles as an in-battle repair center. Ship can better recover capability on an emergency basis. I like it.

When you say frigates are the same size as cruisers, are you saying same displacement, or same combat capability? If those cruisers have four times the crew space, plus a workshop, you're going to have a lot of fillable space in a frigate of the same displacement.

Same general displacement. Since it doesn't have the "mobile repair yard", it has significantly more room for firepower and defenses.

I imagine Intelligence would be a function of the Computer size and sensor package

I didn't think of it that way, but that's possible. I thought it is sort of like CIC ops or a Flagship function -- a powerful benefit to organizing tactical attacks from squadrons.


Here's the ship classes I organized, after organizing my thoughts:

(a) Battleship.
(1) Definition: A capital ship big and tough enough to take the heat of front-line combat and deliver same.
(2) Volume: 100,000+ tons
(3) Design: Firepower, Defense, [Acceleration, Range, Endurance, CCC].

(b) Monitor.
(1) Definition: A cruiser- or battleship-sized system defense boat. Usually Jump-0.
(2) Volume: 10,000+ tons
(3) Design: Defense, Firepower, [Acceleration, Endurance, CCC], Range-0.

(c) Cruiser.
(1) Definition: A capital ship not quite tough enough for the line of battle. Can operate without escorts. Shows the flag far from home. High Endurance.
(2) Volume: 10,000 – 99,999 tons
(3) Design: Endurance, Firepower, Defense, [Acceleration, Range, CCC].

(d) Frigate.
(1) Definition: A ship equipped similar to the Cruiser, with a lower Endurance. May or may have a spine.
(2) Volume: 10,000 – 99,999 tons
(3) Design: Firepower, Defense, Endurance, [Acceleration, Range, CCC].

(e) Battle Rider.
(1) Definition: Carried by a Tender. Battleship-levels of guns and armor in a Cruiser’s size. Usually Jump-0.
(2) Volume: 10,000 – 99,999 tons
(3) Design: Firepower, Defense, Acceleration, [ Endurance, CCC ], Range-0.

(f) Escort.
(1) Definition: A ship designed to protect ships from Destroyers and other threats. Extremely range limited, and not built for long duration cruises.
(2) Volume: 100 – 9,999 tons
(3) Design: Defense, Firepower, [ Acceleration, Range, CCC ], Endurance-0.

(g) Destroyer.
(1) Definition: A ship designed to defeat larger or specialized ships.
(2) Volume: 1,000 – 9,999 tons
(3) Design: Firepower, Defense, [Acceleration, Range, Endurance], CCC.

(h) Corvette.
(1) Definition: A fast, lightweight class of warship for patrol and pursuit w/o/ relying on small craft. Extremely range limited, and not built for long duration cruises.
(2) Volume: 1,000 – 9,999 tons
(3) Design: Acceleration, Range, [Firepower, Defense], CCC-0, Endurance-0.

 

[Icosahedron]

When you say frigates are the same size as cruisers, are you saying same displacement, or same combat capability? If those cruisers have four times the crew space, plus a workshop, you're going to have a lot of fillable space in a frigate of the same displacement.

Same general displacement. Since it doesn't have the "mobile repair yard", it has significantly more room for firepower and defenses.

So your frigates will significantly outgun your cruisers? Second only to battleships?
In that case, unless your cruisers are cruising solo, wouldn't a frigate task force and a repair ship fly a 'brighter' flag than a cruiser task force?

 

[robject]

So your frigates will significantly outgun your cruisers? Second only to battleships?
In that case, unless your cruisers are cruising solo, wouldn't a frigate task force and a repair ship fly a 'brighter' flag than a cruiser task force?

That's a great idea!

You're suggesting that a task force can take along repair facilities, rather than rely on supply lines. I'm sure there would be discussion about the merits of either. If you're deploying a task group, your solution sounds better. The repair ship could lay low, while the others do the work. And we hope the repair ship never gets found.

For even brighter performance, perhaps a Jump Tender can house the repair facilities, and we use Battle Riders instead of Frigates -- even more stunning. Of course, there's a severe range problem then: all the ships have to be together, and the tender must be protected, etc etc.

So I guess the answer may be: it depends on the mission.

 

[The Oz]

I think the idea of having cruisers with onboard repair facilities is that you can have a presence in as many systems as you have cruisers, while if you deploy frigates with repair ships you can only have a presence in as many places as you have repair ships.

Of course, you could park the repair ship in a central location and have the frigates fan out from there. But then to remove your presence a hostile would only have to get rid of the repair ship, not one of the heavily-armed frigates.

Probably it would depend on just how much money you have to spend on remote patrols: if you have a lot of cash you buy lots of independent cruisers, if you're short on cash you buy a few repair ships and group them with warships.

 

[dccarles]

A sample commerce raider

Wow, thanks for the kudos on the post, guys.

Here's an example of what I think a commerce raider would look like, designed for Book 5 combat.

Ship: Mirador
Class: Mirador
Type: Raiding Cruiser
Architect: Esperanza
Tech Level: 11

USP
CR-F3256E3-490000-00707-0 MCr 6,359.581 6.3 KTons
Bat Bear 2 1 3 Crew: 155
Bat 2 1 3 TL: 11

Cargo: 490.720 Frozen Watch (x2) Low: 28 Fuel: 1,638.000 EP: 378.000 Agility: 5 Marines: 92
Craft: 2 x 50T Arpida-type Armed Cutter
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops and On Board Fuel Purification, plus 378t collapsible tanks (4 extra weeks power plant fuel.)
Backups: 1 x Model/5fib Computer

Architects Fee: MCr 62.225 Cost in Quantity: MCr 5,115.081

The Mirador includes several features I think would be common on commerce-raiding cruisers:

* Lots of marines for a 6300 tons ship (a double platoon),
* 28 extra low berths for prisoners,
* lots of cargo room (for even more troops, booty, what-have-you)
* lots of crew-pops (for prize crews, and to replace casualties)
* juuuust enough acceleration to disengage from the reserve,
* a primary weapon designed to be very scary to the average civilian freighter, plus missile bays for anti-escort work,
* enough armour to avoid crippling internal damage from nuclear missiles.

About the worst flaw the thing has - besides the jump rating - is its dependence upon carried ordnance (sand and missiles.) (The Ataventa refit swapped the sandcasters for beam lasers, and two light fighters for the particle beam.)

A 3d model is available at http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=5294d1e72c4a9fccc51a532f5ef934c7. (New Home's 19,600 ton D-class is a more traditional style of cruiser, with a meson spinal mount, acceptable missile defenses and very little armour.)

--Devin

 

[Whipsnade]

Here's an example of what I think a commerce raider would look like, designed for Book 5 combat.

Dccarles,

Okay, let's look her over...

* Lots of marines for a 6300 tons ship (a double platoon)

No.

You have no need for marines. Because of changes in technology, commerce "raiding" hasn't involved the boarding and capture of vessels since the American Civil War. Every stumbling block which pirates in the OTU face when boarding and looting vessels will also be there for privateers and commerce raiders; i.e. time, damages, matching vectors, boarding, etc.

You need to think commerce "destruction" instead.

28 extra low berths for prisoners

No.

See my post above concerning marines. You aren't going to waste time taking prisoners.

lots of cargo room (for even more troops, booty, what-have-you)

No.

See both my posts above.

lots of crew-pops (for prize crews, and to replace casualties)

Yes.

Anything to help limit the effects of damage; i.e. back-up drives, extra fuel tankage, etc.

juuuust enough acceleration to disengage from the reserve

Maybe.

This is a rather odd reason for having a high agility. After all, just who is holding the Line while you disengage from the Reserve? Agility helps you avoid being hit, that's all the reason you need for making it as high as possible.

a primary weapon designed to be very scary to the average civilian freighter, plus missile bays for anti-escort work

No.

You've got it backwards, but then again you're still belaboring under the misconception that you'll be boarding vessels instead of damaging/destroying them. Nuclear missiles are what's going to "prang" the merchantmen as those merchantment are not going to have dampers or large anti-missile batteries (sand and/or lasers). Missiles will also let you shoot at a distance.

Escorts - if you have to tangle with them - will most likely have dampers and anti-missile batteries, so you'll need beam weapons to hold them off before you disengage. You will not be hunting escorts.

enough armour to avoid crippling internal damage from nuclear missiles

Yes.

Although your damper should help too. Armor will help against ALL weapons, so you should have it anyway. (Of course, dampers will depend on TL. If you can't get a 3+ damper code, you should install more anti-missile sand and beam batteries.)

The extra fuel is a good idea, but you should put the best computer you can aboard.

A 3d model is available at...

Nifty!


Have fun,
Bill

 

[pendragonman]

Dccarles,

Okay, let's look her over...



No.

You have no need for marines. Because of changes in technology, commerce "raiding" hasn't involved the boarding and capture of vessels since the American Civil War. Every stumbling block which pirates in the OTU face when boarding and looting vessels will also be there for privateers and commerce raiders; i.e. time, damages, matching vectors, boarding, etc.

You need to think commerce "destruction" instead.

I disagree. His original idea is better. Capturing ships is of higher value than destruction. You increase your merchant fleet by decreasing theirs. We have had this argument before about pirates, and I continue to believe you incorrect.

In fact, the design is just fine for use in a character/player (tactical level) dominated universe. Your comments are less incorrect for a strategic level game.

 

[Whipsnade]

We have had this argument before about pirates, and I continue to believe you incorrect.

Pendragonman,

Yes, we have had the discussion before and my offer still stands:

Pick a Traveller ship combat system, stick to it, and we'll show why your ideas don't work.

The Hobby has been wrestling with this topic for over thirty years. You will not find a loophole that hasn't already been explored, examined, and refuted a dozen times over.

Piracy primarily exists in the OTU because it is fun. It is altogether right and proper that it should exist too. However, given the technology of the OTU, piracy is nearly impossibly rare and thus should be imposed primarily by GM fiat. When talking about the OTU on a meta-game or strategic level, rationality must take center stage and rationality makes "board & loot" piracy nearly impossibly rare.


Have fun,
Bill

P.S. Missed this bit:

Capturing ships is of higher value than destruction.

So, you're going to risk the damage, destruction, and/or capture of a MCr 6,359.581 vessel in order to grab a Beowulf or two? Sorry, the books don't balance. I can land a sinngle, two-turret, missile battery hit on a merchantman, cause a critical hit that will either heavily damage or destroy the merchantman, and be on my way to damage/destroy several others every 20 minutes. Matching vectors, boarding, fighting, capturing, and looting the same Beowulf is nothing but a waste of time and money.

 

[robject]

Pendragonman,

Yes, we have had the discussion before and my offer still stands:

Pick a Traveller ship combat system, stick to it, and we'll show why your ideas don't work.

[...]

Piracy primarily exists in the OTU because it is fun. It is altogether right and proper that it should exist too. However, given the technology of the OTU, piracy is nearly impossibly rare and thus should be imposed primarily by GM fiat.

I pick "GM Fiat" as my ship combat system, and I generally do stick to it.

 

[pendragonman]

I pick "GM Fiat" as my ship combat system, and I generally do stick to it.

Exactly. Rules lawyers don't generally play in my groups long.

 

[far-trader]

So I'm wondering if this is more like what you would see as "practical" Bill...

LBB2 Commerce "Protector" (call it a Privateer or a Raider if you like):

Mission: To break the backs of those interfering Free Traders on our subsidized route.

Resources: Standard Type R Subsidized Merchant and a small fitting budget. The benefit is it can still engage in the required route service and return some money in the practice, while being able to strike and deter Free Traders throughout the route without having to upgrade every ship on the route. Private designation Type RQ.

Limitations: Civilian armament only to comply with Imperial Regulations.

Changes to the standard Type R include:

Upgrade of computer to model/1bis and addition of Maneuver/Evade 2, Target, and Launch to standard program package. Cost MCr7.0

Arming of hardpoints with two triple missile launchers. Cost MCr6.5

Upgrade of Launch as attack craft with addition of model/1bis computer with Maneuver Evade 2, Target, and Launch; addition of triple missile launcher. Cost MCr12.25

New crew requirements of adding 2 gunners and dedicated launch pilot and gunner reduce passenger allowance to 4 high passages.

Total investment in program: MCr25.75 per conversion. So for the price of

NOTES

As mentioned this is LBB2, so a small ship universe with the basic builds predominately.

In my TU the launch is actually 2G so it offers a little better chase or strike ability when hunting the Type A with it's 1G drives.

Naturally I'm presuming that the subsidized route would be granted a letter of marque to make the whole blowing up Free Traders legal. In my TU that would be allowed, even if the Free Traders are of the same polity. Subsidized routes are valued commodities and trading on them is protected from all competition, at least for the contracted duration of the subsidy and as long as the route operator maintains the required level of service. Not saying some don't mind Free Traders picking up the scraps, but they don't have to allow it.

Note to head office. Secure the contracts for insystem rescue and salvage of ships through a set of dummy corps to profit from the enforcement of the letter of marque. No sense somebody else making a profit on what we shoot.

 

[R_Chance]

Dccarles,

Okay, let's look her over...

You have no need for marines... You need to think commerce "destruction" instead.



No.

See my post above concerning marines. You aren't going to waste time taking prisoners.


Yes.

Anything to help limit the effects of damage; i.e. back-up drives, extra fuel tankage, etc.


No.

You've got it backwards, but then again you're still belaboring under the misconception that you'll be boarding vessels instead of damaging/destroying them. Nuclear missiles are what's going to "prang" the merchantmen as those merchantment are not going to have dampers or large anti-missile batteries (sand and/or lasers). Missiles will also let you shoot at a distance.

Escorts - if you have to tangle with them - will most likely have dampers and anti-missile batteries, so you'll need beam weapons to hold them off before you disengage. You will not be hunting escorts.
The extra fuel is a good idea, but you should put the best computer you can aboard.

Nifty!

Have fun,
Bill

Well actually... who said merchant ships would put up a fight against a demonstrably superior attacker? Most of them want to live. Losing a ship is painful, but surrender beats sucking vacuum. And insurance lessons the sting. So you need a ship along the lines he described. Well enough armed to intimidate merchies into surrender. Marines for boarding ops to make sure no one develops second thoughts. Extra crew to man prizes (running a pirate ship isn't cheap -- it's gotta pay). And low berths to store captured crew until release (because who is going to surrender to you if you murder everybody who does?). Piracy isn't a simple matter of combat. It's about people, not just hardware. If you look at historical piracy, that's pretty much how it worked. Of course you need other factors in an area too; thinly patrolled areas, multiple conflicting claims (warzones are great), friendly -- to pirates / privateers -- governments, etc. Of course if it's government commerce raiding they might just blow the ships away, but... there are usually treaty conventions against the slaughter of civilians and that sort of thing.

 

[PFVA63]

6300 dtons

Hi,

Recently I was messing around trying to relate modern naval vessels to Traveller dtons, to get some perspective on size.

The largest vessel I had actual volume info on right now is the US Navy's LSD 41 class, whose total enclosed volume works out to about 5150 dtons (72,100 cubic meters). As such, 6300 dtons doesn't seem all that small to me.

Regards

PF

 

[Golan2072]

Hi,

Recently I was messing around trying to relate modern naval vessels to Traveller dtons, to get some perspective on size.

The largest vessel I had actual volume info on right now is the US Navy's LSD 41 class, whose total enclosed volume works out to about 5150 dtons (72,100 cubic meters). As such, 6300 dtons doesn't seem all that small to me.

Wikipedia has quite a number of RL ship info-pages with displacement tonnages. The problem is that these are flotation displacement tonnages, and thus are a measure of weight rather than of volume - though sizes are also given. Could the ship stats such as this be converted or guesstimated into Traveller tonnages?

 

[robject]

Well actually... who said merchant ships would put up a fight against a demonstrably superior attacker? Most of them want to live. Losing a ship is painful, but surrender beats sucking vacuum.

And, probably, starship components have VINs, so unless there's a black market like along a frontier border, you'll not have ships captured. Slaughtering or enslaving crew similarly won't happen within the borders, or else the Imperium may feel the need to come down hard.

Walt Smith has summed up a nice position, which you may feel free to disagree with, but makes sense to me, outside of a tradewar that is: the pirate is just after quick cash, so all he needs is one ship's boat every once in awhile and he's set.

http://users.hartwick.edu/smithw/traveller.htm

Piracy is one of those "Done To Death" holy war subjects, by the way. Signal-to-noise ratio is low.