CT Only: Destroyers and other escorts

[mike wightman]

It's the swarm of hornets comparison; individually, a single hornet is literally a pain in the backside, en-mass, they can (not will: Can. There's a difference ) kill you.

I'd prefer to have a shedload of smaller warships against a bigger capital one; yes, you'd lose a few - maybe a lot - but, at the end of the battle, chances are good that the capital ship would either be combat ineffective, leaking like a sieve, burning end to end, or in a bazillion pieces.

That all said, it'd would be darn unusual to see a single capital ship all on it's todd in a warzone; it would be at least part of a flotilla of other ships acting as a screen to allow it to do what it's there for, as has been mentioned above by several.

However you cook it, war's a hot dish in a messy kitchen.

Yup, or as they have been called for a long time now hamsters - they nibble you to death.

Despite McPerth's dislike of the breakpoints in ship construction and size to hit mods, the rules of HG2 make the 1900t escort class size perfect for building hamsters.

You stick a missile bay and then fill the USP with turret weapons. Maxiumum computer, agility, screens and as much armour as you have room for depending on your jump drive fuel.

 

[McPerth]

The fleet jumps as a unit.

The time variable is a metagame consideration, not an in-universe problem.

The fleet knows when to drop its BG to attack the target - this is not possible if the fleet is scattered or the time in jump is not a know parameter for the fleet.

The time variation is in the rules (as much as the tonnage threshold points :devil, and if you jump in the vecinity of where defenders are, it can be decisive.

The fact most people don't use it and assume the whole fleet arrives at once is another thing, but if you want to play a campaign, that may have importance.

 

[McPerth]

You have to try it and see, but also don't forget there's a difference between "destroyed" and "combat ineffective".

The problem is that CT:HG does not reflect this. Unless you receive a Ship Vaporized critical, even if a ship is reduced to 0 in all its factors (excoept those that can not be reduced, as size or config, off course) it can be taked by the "battlefield" holder at the end of the battle for repairs, that won't take too long.

Both a 5K and 30K ships can be geared up to max armor, agility, computer and maximum number of turrets.

Statistically, the 5K ships cost more per ton than a 30K ship, that means for the same price, you can only show up with 5 5K ships for the price of a 30K ship, and leave money on the table. That gives the 30K ship a pretty solid advantage and it can simply bring more guns to the fight.

If you field 6 5K ships vs the 30K ship, then it's basically a wash. The 30K ship offers no real advantage, and the 5K ships aren't small enough to offer an advantage to them. The only real advantage of the 5K ships is they bring a lot more Fuel hits, so can soak up some more free hits, in the large, than the 30K ship. But I don't think the combat would last that long that it would come in to play.

OTOH the cruiser spinal would mean one hit/one kill. A J rated meson gun will hit on a 10+ (4+, -6 due to agility), and any hit will cripple a ship. And the 5 kdt ships are unlikely to have powerful meson screens...

Bring in 25-30 1K DDs vs the 30K ship, and it may very well be a different story. The 1K ships are small enough to get the -1 targeting DM, but large enough that they can't be critted by anything but a Spinal. That may be enough to turn the tide, even with a few less ships. 30 1K vs 1 30K is definitely in the 1K's favor.

(also to all similar posts)

From the Budget POV, each of those small ships will need a máximum rated computer to be efective, and, at TL 15 (that's where I doubt about the escorts usefulness) that means Mcr 140 per ship only for its computer...

And again, this can work in single engagement contests, under the rules for TCS, but not so sure in a campaign, that (IMHO) represents more the fleets needs.

In such a campaign, the ships are likely to be more dispersed, and the time dispersal on arriving to a destination should be a factor, if the destination point is defended (A GG, a Main planet, etc), though that would mean some minimal operational rules...

Another factor to take into account, and I've told about it some times, is the rule about crew quality (CT:HG page 44).

If each side can have (let's say) an OC with ship tactics 3 and a pilot with skill 3 (that I don't believe to be so rare), the cruiser will have both, with its +1 to computer and agility ratings, while only one hamster will have it, And this simple fact may well be decisive.

As I already suggested time ago for TCS contests, just where it says 100 pilots per side add 1 of them skill level 5, 3 of them skill level 3, One OC ship tactics skill 5 and 3 at 3 (I don't find those levels too high among 100 pilots), and see how it changes on a single ship (or a few of them) against swarms of hamsters.

And in a campaign the effect of those key individuals should be used...

 

[CliffBates]

From the Budget POV, each of those smal lships will need a máximum rated computer to be efective, and, at TL 15 (that's where I doubt about the escorts usefulness) that means Mcr 140 per ship only for its computer...

And again, this can work in single engagement contests, under the rules for TCS, but not so sure in a campaign, that (IMHO) represents more the fleets needs.

In such a campaign, the ships are likely to be more dispersed, and the time dispersal on arriving to a destination should be a factor, if the destination point is defended (A GG, a Main planet, etc), though that would mean some minimal operational rules...

Another factor to take into account, and I've told about it some times, is the rule about crew quality (CT:HG page 44).

If each side can have (let's say) an OC with ship tactics 3 and a pilot with skill 3 (that I don't believe to be so rare), the cruiser will have both, with its +1 to computer and agility ratings, while only one hamster will have it, And this simple fact may well be decisive.

As I already suggested time ago for TCS contests, just where it says 100 pilots per side add 1 of them skill level 5, 3 of them skill level 3, One OC ship tactics skill 5 and 3 at 3 (I don't find those levels too high among 100 pilots), and see how it changes on a single ship (or a few of them) against swarms of hamsters.

And in a campaign the effect of those key individuals should be used...

But when units operate as squadrons its the squadron's leaders skill at issue. And a leader of a fighter squadron or a wing might have Ship Tactics (as it would be necessary). Also Pilot and Ship's Boat skill of the Lead might also be counted (or perhaps the units's average skill)?

 

[McPerth]

But when units operate as squadrons its the squadron's leaders skill at issue. And a leader of a fighter squadron or a wing might have Ship Tactics (as it would be necessary). Also Pilot and Ship's Boat skill of the Lead might also be counted (or perhaps the units's average skill)?

That's not what CT:HG says. Even while acting as a squadron, each pilot evades and each crew fights by themselves, even if (hopely) in a coordinated way.

In WWII, even when one of the pilots of a flight was a great ace, it did affect little to the rest of the squadron...

For squadrons, it would be Fleet Tactic's that could effect, but that's only for the initiative resolution (and I don't feature on those changes to TCS as even if one is given per side, they whould cancell each other). On campaign games, off course, this will be different, and if some good aldmirals (good Fleet Tactics) are given per side, they should be noted where they are....

 

[whartung]

The 5kt ships are at +1 to hit the 30kt - if everything else is equal that this is quite an advantage.

You're right, my mistake. So, same arguments for the 5K as for the 1K. I don't know if the advantage of the 5K ship is enough to compensate for the loss of one 5K ship going credit to credit, however (i.e. 5 ships vs 6)

 

[Condottiere]

All the wolf pack might need to do is mission kill the cruiser, get some replacements and hunt down the next one.

 

[McPerth]

All the wolf pack might need to do is mission kill the cruiser, get some replacements and hunt down the next one.

And all the cruiser has to do is to mission kill as many wolves he can until the remaining flee and go hounting down the next ones...

The problem here is who can mission kill the other

The hamsters are mission killed in one or two hits, the cruiser needs many...

 

[mike wightman]

A factor J meson gun has a 17% chance to hit.

It then has a 72% chance to penetrate the configuration (you are daft not to build needle/wedge for this)

If the 5k ship has a meson screen (which it should) you need to penetrate that too.

Meanwhile your 5x5kt ships are launching 25 factor 9 missile swarms at you requiring 7+ to hit.

Now you have to decide the other parameters of your 30kt cruiser. How much armour does it have? How many repulsor batteries? If it has 20 the those missiles are unlikely to hit home.

The cruiser's aim is to get to short range so it has an 8+ to hit those 5k escorts.

 

[McPerth]

A factor J meson gun has a 17% chance to hit.

It then has a 72% chance to penetrate the configuration (you are daft not to build needle/wedge for this)

If the 5k ship has a meson screen (which it should) you need to penetrate that too.

Meanwhile your 5x5kt ships are launching 25 factor 9 missile swarms at you requiring 7+ to hit.

Now you have to decide the other parameters of your 30kt cruiser. How much armour does it have? How many repulsor batteries? If it has 20 the those missiles are unlikely to hit home.

The cruiser's aim is to get to short range so it has an 8+ to hit those 5k escorts.

Yes, I know your numbers, but those same 5kdt are unlike to have powerful meson screens and powerful nuclear dampers, and the cruiser is likely to have some missile bays too (after all, if it has 20 repulsors as you say, it's unlikely to have agility 6 and a meson gun, as the repulsors use power)

Yet, you keep focusing in single engagement TCS matches, while I intend to talk about the strategic picture.

Strategically, Cruisers are likely to work (at least) in pairs unless in independent actions as commerce raiding.

In what groups will those escorts be deployed?

If you have to attach 5 such escorts to each convoy due to a single cruiser raider, who is wining?

And, as said, strategically there are more factors to think about, those skilled individuals are one of it, the needs for repairs and for replacing your loses are another, etc...

 

[whartung]

Yes, I know your numbers, but those same 5kdt are unlike to have powerful meson screens and powerful nuclear dampers, and the cruiser is likely to have some missile bays too (after all, if it has 20 repulsors as you say, it's unlikely to have agility 6 and a meson gun, as the repulsors use power)

A nuclear damper is cheap, and low power, and the base model is enough to make an attacker think twice about bothering to use nuclear missiles. The configuration is an excellent defense against meson fire, and while more expensive in terms of hull cost, it's cheap in terms of resources as it doesn't take tonnage or energy, both of which work against the Agility 6.

While a meson gun may get lucky enough to actually land a hit, and possibly mission kill a ship with that hit, it also gets quickly degraded, and prevents mounting of weapons that actually have a better chance of landing damage on the opponent.

In fact, you're likely in this case better off mounting the large PA than a meson gun. Against similar size capital ships, the meson guns can potentially be more effective IF they hit, but the PA are simply more likely to hit as there are no countermeasures against them. In that case, the best defense is armor.

Yet, you keep focusing in single engagement TCS matches, while I intend to talk about the strategic picture.

Strategically, Cruisers are likely to work (at least) in pairs unless in independent actions as commerce raiding.

In what groups will those escorts be deployed?

If you have to attach 5 such escorts to each convoy due to a single cruiser raider, who is wining?

And, as said, strategically there are more factors to think about, those skilled individuals are one of it, the needs for repairs and for replacing your loses are another, etc...

The escorts suffer a couple of problems in this light. First, they require more officers. Second they are not necessarily effective alone, as their numbers reduce, obviously they lose effectiveness. Obviously the escorts, per ton, are more expensive than the cruisers - but not significantly, a few percentage points more expensive.

But at the same time, the escorts can be more nimble, cover more ground (it's not outrageous to have the escorts split up as ad hoc scouts, and then regroup to engage).

You also have faster ship replacement time in terms of outright ship loss vs a large cruiser. Repair time is the same, and you can field the other escorts while some are down. They're also a great source of spare parts -- cannibalize one ship to repair another while the original one waits for new parts.

 

[salochin999]

Capital ships have seccondaries enough to deal with fighters (that, after all, represent little danger for them, at least at higher TLs)...

That seems to be the crux of it but even if it's true I can still imagine fleets keeping small fleet escorts for extra anti-swarm insurance as a vestigial "just in case" thing.

 

[CliffBates]

Yes, I know your numbers, but those same 5kdt are unlike to have powerful meson screens and powerful nuclear dampers, and the cruiser is likely to have some missile bays too (after all, if it has 20 repulsors as you say, it's unlikely to have agility 6 and a meson gun, as the repulsors use power)

But even level 2 to 5 meson screens reduce things enough... And you can fit Level 5s on Escort class ships (I have). Sloans and Midu Agashaams have level 2 on them. Ok that is not high level but it does offer some protection against Meson guns.

Look you are right that a Cruiser and Cap Ship with its armor and spinal mounts will kill smaller ships. But at a certain level, the Fuzzy Wussy problem takes hold. Where a lot of smaller ships will very much hurt a big ship.

How would a two Cruisers do against 1000 6G Agility 6 fighters with missiles?

Back in the 80s (when I was a sophomore at college) I had a worked with an APL mainframe and I wrote a program to do battle sims using high guard rule (unfortunately this program and all my other things I wrote up when I did Traveller back then were tossed away when my sister gave my Traveller things to Charity three years back). We did 4 battleships vs 80 squadrons of 10 missile fighters fighters and the fighters took 40% casualties, but the battleships were all but floating hulks (their Jump Drives and Maneuver Drives were mostly gone, and their spinal mounts severely reduced....).

Now Escorts are not as cheep as Fighters, but they have more weapon mounts than the fighter does and if designed well, could hurt bigger ships. Yes bigger ships could swat it down with its big gun.

 

[CliffBates]

A nuclear damper is cheap, and low power, and the base model is enough to make an attacker think twice about bothering to use nuclear missiles. The configuration is an excellent defense against meson fire, and while more expensive in terms of hull cost, it's cheap in terms of resources as it doesn't take tonnage or energy, both of which work against the Agility 6.

While a meson gun may get lucky enough to actually land a hit, and possibly mission kill a ship with that hit, it also gets quickly degraded, and prevents mounting of weapons that actually have a better chance of landing damage on the opponent.

In fact, you're likely in this case better off mounting the large PA than a meson gun. Against similar size capital ships, the meson guns can potentially be more effective IF they hit, but the PA are simply more likely to hit as there are no countermeasures against them. In that case, the best defense is armor.



The escorts suffer a couple of problems in this light. First, they require more officers. Second they are not necessarily effective alone, as their numbers reduce, obviously they lose effectiveness. Obviously the escorts, per ton, are more expensive than the cruisers - but not significantly, a few percentage points more expensive.

But at the same time, the escorts can be more nimble, cover more ground (it's not outrageous to have the escorts split up as ad hoc scouts, and then regroup to engage).

You also have faster ship replacement time in terms of outright ship loss vs a large cruiser. Repair time is the same, and you can field the other escorts while some are down. They're also a great source of spare parts -- cannibalize one ship to repair another while the original one waits for new parts.

Very good points here.

 

[Condottiere]

That's why you maintain a balanced fleet structure.

Except, apparently, the modern Solomani, who may not bother building many vessels beyond two kay tonnes, but make up for it with increased numbers of capital ships.

 

[Redcap]

...unfortunately this program and all my other things I wrote up when I did Traveller back then were tossed away when my sister gave my Traveller things to Charity three years back...

Ye gods, man, what did you do to make her do that?!

 

[McPerth]

In fact, you're likely in this case better off mounting the large PA than a meson gun. Against similar size capital ships, the meson guns can potentially be more effective IF they hit, but the PA are simply more likely to hit as there are no countermeasures against them. In that case, the best defense is armor.

Probably, if the ship's intended mission is to fight those escorts, but that's unlikely...

Then, depending on the ship's mission how it will be armed. If it's mission is to engage armored ships, then mesons use to be more effective. If it is intended as commerce raider, then a PA could be enough (and, as you say, more accurate).

Nonetheless, at TL 15, the smaller spinal PA is 2500 dtons (2.5 times the J rated spinal meson gun), more expensive, and neds not too less EPs...

The escorts suffer a couple of problems in this light. First, they require more officers. Second they are not necessarily effective alone, as their numbers reduce, obviously they lose effectiveness. Obviously the escorts, per ton, are more expensive than the cruisers - but not significantly, a few percentage points more expensive.

But at the same time, the escorts can be more nimble, cover more ground (it's not outrageous to have the escorts split up as ad hoc scouts, and then regroup to engage).

A good point, but not it's intended mission. And see that to regroup they will need some weeks (while just scouts reporting to an already concentrated fleet will only take one or two)

 

[Condottiere]

Basically, it's the Graf Spee scenario; which was doable.

If the Scharnhorst turns up, you run, if possible.

 

[McPerth]

How would a two Cruisers do against 1000 6G Agility 6 fighters with missiles?

Back in the 80s (when I was a sophomore at college) I had a worked with an APL mainframe and I wrote a program to do battle sims using high guard rule (unfortunately this program and all my other things I wrote up when I did Traveller back then were tossed away when my sister gave my Traveller things to Charity three years back). We did 4 battleships vs 80 squadrons of 10 missile fighters fighters and the fighters took 40% casualties, but the battleships were all but floating hulks (their Jump Drives and Maneuver Drives were mostly gone, and their spinal mounts severely reduced....).

At which TL?

At TL 15, those fighters will mount at most (assuming squadrons of 10 fighters, each with a triple missile on it) a level 7 battery, that, once hit and bypased active defenses will need a 12 to penetrate a 9 rated nuclear damper, while the capital ships seccondaries (9 rated missile batteries) will hit fighters (and kill one of them) on a 10+ (so one in six batteries bearing), and killing one fighter mission kills the whole squadron, as it's no longer able to penetrate the damper.

And to be able to do it, I repeat, each fighter must be equiped with computer 9, at MCr 140 per fighter. How many cruisers can one build with the BCr 140 that just the computers of your 1000 fighters cost?

At lower TLs? Then fighters are more useful, as already stated in the OP, making the escorts more necessary.

 

[Matt123]

Back in the 80s (when I was a sophomore at college) I had a worked with an APL mainframe and I wrote a program to do battle sims using high guard rule ...

I'm curious, was this around the time of Doug Lenat's entry into TCS tourneys or afterwards? Early 80s or late 80's?