Do fighters and battleships have the same problem?

[far-trader]

...I do agree the Tigress missile bays are ridicules.

Why though? Because it doesn't fit your imagined role for her? How about looking at it the other way around if that's the case...

Given its construction what is its mission? Lots of missile bays, lots of fighters... strikes me as a planetary assault dreadnaught. With a meson spinal to soften up the defenders by taking out their deep meson sites and missile bays for planetary bombardment and heavy fighters for tactical strikes and precision bombing. No troops, so its not there to hold ground, more like burn it all.

Or, like one of its noted (and well suited) deployments in the Marches (per CT Supp 9) blockade duty. It's an instant Navy Base where ever you need one. All those fighters can put up a pretty solid screen and if anything needs to be destroyed as an example... :toast:

When I cut her down to 50K I went down to 30 bays that still seems like a lot.

50K is (in HG terms) hardly a Dreadnaught anymore Of course you'll have less weapons. They can't compare. And they will have very different deployments.

 

[Amber Chancer]

Or the setting material revised to match the rules....

That's how I approach it, Aramis

 

[Amber Chancer]

One of the british curisers (HMS Exeter) was a 8" one, not a 6", though I doubt the result would have been very different

Indeed.

But the Admiralty hadn't anticipated that in their simulation :rofl:

(Incidentally, only two of the cruisers at the River Plate were British ... the third was a New Zealander, but I can never remember whether it was the Ajax or the Achilles )

 

[Tobias]

D? 13? Surely that has to be a mistake.

Only in the tech level table, which I assume to simply be a misprint. In the actual rules it says 14. This is also supported by the text accompanying the character generation rules, which say that both the Navy and the Army operate at tech levels up to 14.

More likely an MGT-ism. DGP never did get around to writing up the Zhodani, IIRC.

Nope. Zhdant's UWP was first published in Library Data N-Z. It was confirmed and further explained in AM4:
"The tech level of Zhdant is F, the highest in the Consulate (nearly all other worlds do not exceed E)."(p.3)

But I can't think of where it might be if it isn't in the Zhodani AM.

As you can see, it is 8) in the Zhodani AM. There is also the part on Zhodani robots in Book 8:
"TL: 14, some 15. Highest tech level robots are warbots." (p.11)

 

[Tobias]

Thats a bit harsh. Bill is the only person I recognize on this forum with more actual gaming experience with HG2/TCS than myself (no disrespect intended to other gamers).

This is not the first time I got talked down to and lectured about things he was demonstrably wrong about. I don't have the nerve for this anymore, so let's leave it at that. It's got nothing to do with you anyway.

P.S.: If you want to respond, use a PM please.
P.P.S.: I don't have the nerve for this anymore, either.

 

[Matt123]

It's got nothing to do with you anyway.

*shrug* It becomes something to do with all of us when you post on a public forum.

 

[rancke]

Or the setting material revised to match the rules....

Sure, that will work too.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Is there enough evidence in the setting that the world does not work in that way. Most if not all published ship designs are widely accepted as being flawed, although I prefer, perhaps charitably, to think of Fighting Ships as deliberately inaccurate as befits a publicly available book describing state secrets.

Cruisers: Cruisers are the smallest ships to carry the large spinal mounts needed to cause serious damage to a large armored ship, although most are too lightly armored to stand in the line of battle. [...]

[...]

Battleships: As their name suggests, battleships are jump-capable vessels which are, due to their armaments and proterction capable of standing in the line of battle. While [battleships] generally have little better in the way of primary armamant than cruisers, their extensive secondary render the virtually immune to missile and and small craft attack while their bulk provides a tremendous ability to absorb damage and keep fighting.

[p. 9-10]

Two main points to extract from this:

1) The difference between cruisers and battleships is that most cruisers are not capable of standing in the line of battle[*] whereas a battleship, by virtue of its greater bulk, is.

[*] And I'm afraid I can't think of what the 'most' means. What cruisers are so much better able to survive a meson spinal blast than other cruisers that they can stand in the line of battle when the other can't?​

2) Battleships have a much greater capacity for surviving while facing an opposing line of battle than cruisers.

Please note that while it is perfectly true that battleships are better able to face missiles and small craft, the text talks about vulnerability to the damage faced while standing in the line of battle, that is to say, the damage dealt out by spinal guns.

All this would be fine if only the other side didn't have meson spinals. However, they do. And they have had merson spinals ever since the Terrans invented them 3000 years ago. Arguably, back during the Long Night, the Sylean Federation Navy may never have faced meson guns (I don't think that is the case, but I can't prove than any of their enemies were TL 12), but even so the Imperial Navy must have been up against TL12+ navies for most of its existence. If not earlier, then during the 1FW, 2FW, and Civil War.

That the Imperium chooses BB's over Cruisers is not an argument, the Imperium at a TL above its neighbors enjoys a huge advantage. BB's could be considered quite sound, at least until the neighbours catch up.

Unless you're going to tell me that a Factor S meson gun is far less dangerous than a Factor T (instead of being almost as dangerous; only one critical hit less), that is not a convincing argument.


Hans

 

[McPerth]

Incidentally, how do you arrive at 3 rolls on each table per hit, inflicting damage on 6-? A Factor T particle accelerator gets 19 rolls on each table against a completely unarmoured ship. So at armour F it would be 4 rolls on each table inflicting damage on 6-; at armour E it would be 5 rolls on each inflicting damage on 7-; and at armour D (the actual armour of my CLs) it is 6 rolls on each table inflicting damage on 8- by my reckoning.

I arrive at 3 rolls each table by forgetting about the basic roll, you're right, there would be 4 rolls per table.

Full specs for each of my ships are as follows, if you want to try them against your designs.

Light cruiser: CL - K136CJ3 - D92900 - 500J9 - 0
18,000 tons. One battery of everything. Crew = 147 (22 officers + 147 ratings) Fuel = 7,560 EP = 2,160 Agility = 6 Cargo = 28 Fuel scoops and on-board purification plant, no small craft. MCr 17,959.64 singly; MCr 14,367.712 in quantity

I think a small change on the design would make it more efficient (as rules stand) by reducing your laser battery to 4 (1 triple laser turret) and adding a single fusion turret (factor 5), so that you can distribute a little more the weaponry damage, with no more needed EPs and just 1 ton more.

Also without having run the numbers, I think that by enlarging the design to 20 Kdton you could probably uparmor it and add a repulsor bay. This will nullify the criticals received by the PA spinal (one of them due to increased size code , another for the added armor, even if only to AF 14), with its AF reduction, the extra damage rolls (one each table per AF added), probably reducing the missile damage by one roll each table too (a missile salvo nullified by the repulsor) and give you one battery more to reduce (so saving a little more damage to you spinal).

OTOH, if you then have to fight the MG armed pocket battleship instead the PA armed one, the +1 to hit will harm you to no added survivality. The paper rock and scisors game again...

 

[Dragoner]

This is not the first time I got talked down to and lectured about things he was demonstrably wrong about. I don't have the nerve for this anymore, so let's leave it at that. It's got nothing to do with you anyway.

P.S.: If you want to respond, use a PM please.
P.P.S.: I don't have the nerve for this anymore, either.

Use the ignore feature, it works wonders for the nerves.

 

[Amber Chancer]

Also without having run the numbers, I think that by enlarging the design to 20 Kdton you could probably uparmor it and add a repulsor bay.

This is probably right, McP ... but the design brief was to avoid the +1 to hit modifier if I stepped up to a size L hull. I was going all out to keep it within a K.

 

[Matt123]

Please note that while it is perfectly true that battleships are better able to face missiles and small craft, the text talks about vulnerability to the damage faced while standing in the line of battle, that is to say, the damage dealt out by spinal guns.

All this would be fine if only the other side didn't have meson spinals. However, they do. And they have had merson spinals ever since the Terrans invented them 3000 years ago.

The flaw of discussing ships in isolation rears its ugly head again.

The Admiral that starts with his Meson Guns in the line of battle loses. Period.

A HG BB, contrary to popular belief is better off without a Spinal Mount. The only reason for having one is because you can and it pads out the USP. Consider for a moment what happens to the biggest ship in the opposing line, it gets targeted by everything with a remote chance of scrubbing weapons. The first weapon hit knocks points off the Spinal Mount, every 7th after that reduces it further. They accumulate fast when the entire enemy line is focused on reducing your big ships.

The Spinal Mount gets only one turn of firing at full effect. That is it. If it gets lucky, great, but the odds are it will not make a difference. What will make a difference are the huge banks of missile bays.

So where are the effective Spinal Mounts? On Cruisers. They cannot sit in the line of battle until close to the end when the volume of fire has been much reduced, ideally close to 0 giving the Cruisers, whom also have the legs to chase stuff, the opportunity to deal out damage over multiple turns with Meson Guns that only get scrubbed slowly.

So yes, I would put the Tigress in the line of battle (after Fighters and Escorts had already had multiple rounds to soften them up and reduce any Spinals presented), but not because I think the Meson will achieve anything, its the missile batteries that will achieve the most effective results.

Unless you're going to tell me that a Factor S meson gun is far less dangerous than a Factor T (instead of being almost as dangerous; only one critical hit less), that is not a convincing argument.

Funny you should ask, that is exactly what I am saying.

Effective tactics aside, the Imperium at TL15 is qualitatively miles ahead of a TL14 opponent. As already noted, Spinals only get one turn of firing at full strength. But, lets assume for a moment we are talking that single turn of firing and both sides are mug enough to present Spinals first.

TL15 T Meson hits on 4+ (+1 for computer, -6 Agility, +2 size, +0 long range) = 7+ to hit, it penetrates TL14 Meson screen on a 3+ (+1 for computer) = 2+, so automatically and most hull types automatically. 7+ (21/36) makes ... 58% chance of a hit.

TL14 S Meson in return hits on 4+ (-1 for computer, -6 Agility, +2 size, +0 long range) = 9+ to hit, it penetrates TL15 Meson screen on 5+ (-1 for computer) so 6+ and lets call it automatically on hull type although needle types need a 4+ to penetrate. 9+ (10/36) followed by a 6+ (26/36) makes ... 20% chance of a hit.

You need more than 2.5 TL14 Spinals to get the same hit odds. So yes, TL14 S-Mesons are a lot less effective than TL15 T-Mesons.

And that is before you consider the rate the TL14 Spinal will get reduced by TL15 missile bays. Meaning that if you do not think this through, in combat you find your Spinals are reduced to be insignificant after one round.

Sadly most then assume the game is broken rather than consider they used the tools available poorly. A scalpel does not make a good hammer, little wonder that it disappoints when it gets used as one.

All food for thought.

 

[Amber Chancer]

Food for thought indeed, Matt.

Of course, the dynamics and tactics for combats between fleets with mis-matched tech levels and those of equal tech levels are inevitably going to differ somewhat.

I do wonder, also, as to your assumption that the enemy fire always gets concentrated on your biggest ship. If it does, then you may be right in your analysis that the spinal on THAT ship only gets to fire at full effectiveness on teh first round ... but the same does not necessarily apply to the other spinals in your battle line.

I have always worked on the premise that you want maximum firepower in your line of battle from the outset to reduce your enemy's firepower as quickly as possible. An enemy who can defeat you with all four of your big hitters in the line of battle to begin with will defeat you even more comprehensively if he only has to deal with three of them to begin with, and then gets to square up to the fourth on its own. If your three can chew him up sufficiently that he has nothing left to hit your fourth with when it comes out to play, then your four can do the job even more effectively.

But I like to have a line of battle which has a mix of battlewagons, cruisers and riders. I want my enemy to be left guessing, on the first turn, whether the real danger comes from the 100Kton beast at the head of the line, or those 9Ktonners half way down it. Are they riders with N meson guns? Or are they just missile cruisers with 9 bays apiece? And is the 100Kton beast toting a big meson gun? Or is it a decoy full of repulsors and sod all else?

But then, I usually fight actions between equal tech fleets (my Zhodani enjoy technological parity with the Imperium: I reckon if the Imperium want to pick on somebody, they ought to pick on somebody their own size!) and this may also influence battle tactics and thinking.

 

[rancke]

The Spinal Mount gets only one turn of firing at full effect. That is it. If it gets lucky, great, but the odds are it will not make a difference. What will make a difference are the huge banks of missile bays.

But if the ship it is on has been mission killed in the first salvo (by a bunch of criticals), what difference do all those banks of missile bays do?

So where are the effective Spinal Mounts? On Cruisers. They cannot sit in the line of battle until close to the end when the volume of fire has been much reduced, ideally close to 0 giving the Cruisers, whom also have the legs to chase stuff, the opportunity to deal out damage over multiple turns with Meson Guns that only get scrubbed slowly.

According to the description they cannot sit in the line of battle at all. That's the discrepancy between the setting material and the rules ramifications. Setting description says cruisers can't stand in the line of battle and the battleships can. Rules ramifications say cruisers do just fine in the line of battle and that its own cost in cruisers can ream a battleship.

So it appears that the rules do not match the setting material.

So yes, I would put the Tigress in the line of battle (after Fighters and Escorts had already had multiple rounds to soften them up and reduce any Spinals presented)...

Um... what are you doing with your cruisers and battleships until that moment comes? Either you're hiding them behind your fighters and escorts, in which case your opponent is presumably doing the same, keeping his cruisers and battleships just as fresh as yours, or your cruisers and battleships are in range of his cruisers and battleships before their spinals have been reduced. Leaving you back at the original situation I was talking about, battleships vs. battleships, because battleships can face other battleships and survive a lot longer, thanks to their bulk, and cruisers couldn't face battleships because of their frailty.

In talking about your combat vessels staying out of the line of fire until your fighters and missiles have softened up your opponent's battleships, you're trying to have it both ways.

but not because I think the Meson will achieve anything, its the missile batteries that will achieve the most effective results.

So why have spinal-armed ships at all? Why not have 15 5000T escorts instead of one Meson-T armed cruiser? Wait! Would that be that hampster tactics that the setting material does not so much as hint at?

Funny you should ask, that is exactly what I am saying.

Effective tactics aside, the Imperium at TL15 is qualitatively miles ahead of a TL14 opponent. As already noted, Spinals only get one turn of firing at full strength. But, lets assume for a moment we are talking that single turn of firing and both sides are mug enough to present Spinals first.

Just how would you interpret the much talked about line of battle to be if it isn't that ships that confront the other side's line of battle? And if cruisers can't stand in it, does it make sense that escorts and fighters can?

TL15 T Meson hits on 4+ (+1 for computer, -6 Agility, +2 size, +0 long range) = 7+ to hit, it penetrates TL14 Meson screen on a 3+ (+1 for computer) = 2+, so automatically and most hull types automatically. 7+ (21/36) makes ... 58% chance of a hit.

TL14 S Meson in return hits on 4+ (-1 for computer, -6 Agility, +2 size, +0 long range) = 9+ to hit, it penetrates TL15 Meson screen on 5+ (-1 for computer) so 6+ and lets call it automatically on hull type although needle types need a 4+ to penetrate. 9+ (10/36) followed by a 6+ (26/36) makes ... 20% chance of a hit.

You need more than 2.5 TL14 Spinals to get the same hit odds. So yes, TL14 S-Mesons are a lot less effective than TL15 T-Mesons.

It sound like it's the computer that makes the real difference.

Anyway, my point was that its own cost in TLX cruisers would be better than one TLX battleship, and some time in the last 1000 years, the Imperial Navy would have figured that out. So if the rules ramifications were "true", the Imperium would have had those inefficient TL15 battleships in the first place.


Hans

 

[Matt123]

But if the ship it is on has been mission killed in the first salvo (by a bunch of criticals), what difference do all those banks of missile bays do?

And therein lies the tactical challenge. How do you ensure you receive the least number of criticals. A. By avoiding exposure to those weapons. B. By reducing those weapons as quickly as possible. C. Hording key assets until the threat of criticals is gone/reduced.

According to the description they cannot sit in the line of battle at all.

lol, a completely rubbish interpretation of that "background"! Oh dear, we cannot possibly have Cruisers in the Line my dear chap, its not been done for 3000 years!

Your argument is basically that Cruisers cannot engage in HG combat, because of ummm, color text.

Um... what are you doing with your cruisers and battleships until that moment comes? Either you're hiding them behind your fighters and escorts, in which case your opponent is presumably doing the same, keeping his cruisers and battleships just as fresh as yours...

Yep. And in my experience my opponent does not on the whole do the same or loses their nerve earlier due to inexperience. Primarily because their tactics are based on discussions over TL15 BB vs TL15 BB. Meaning "of course" everything goes into the line of battle.

There are two interesting JTAS articles on Fleet tactics you might like to re-read.

Once gamers start fighting Fleets, I will have to get more savvy, but until the discussion matures that won't happen.

In talking about your combat vessels staying out of the line of fire until your fighters and missiles have softened up your opponent's battleships, you're trying to have it both ways.

Yes, thats how combined arms work.

So why have spinal-armed ships at all? Why not have 15 5000T escorts instead of one Meson-T armed cruiser? Wait! Would that be that hampster tactics that the setting material does not so much as hint at?

Hampsters, Hampsters everywhere! Big ones like the Tigress and little ones like the Rampart! How about the Strike Cruiser or Armored Cruisers at 50kton and 40 missile bays each (80% of their hardpoints).

Why have Cruisers at all if you don't intend them to engage in combat?

Just how would you interpret the much talked about line of battle to be if it isn't that ships that confront the other side's line of battle? And if cruisers can't stand in it, does it make sense that escorts and fighters can?

The Line of Battle is just that, the line of battle. No more, no less. Its where the combat happens. Little ships can fight little ships and big ships can fight big ships. And you can mix it up as well.

You are the only one I have ever come across attempting to state that Cruisers (& fighters and escorts) cannot engage in combat in HG. And quite honestly I'm surprised given your depth of knowledge.

It sound like it's the computer that makes the real difference.

It is. Thats where the bulk of the technological differance is abstracted to. Think sensors, targeting, countermeasures, c3, etc.

Anyway, my point was that its own cost in TLX cruisers would be better than one TLX battleship, and some time in the last 1000 years, the Imperial Navy would have figured that out. So if the rules ramifications were "true", the Imperium would have had those inefficient TL15 battleships in the first place.

There are a lot of assumptions in that statement.

• First that combat effectiveness was the only consideration.
• Second that Fighting Commanders get there way after a mere year or two of peace.
• Third that contractors and numerous other vested interests don't get involved to dilute what could have been, into something else.
• Forth that the two year message cycle to core doesn't impact on the quality of the decision making.

No doubt I could come up with more like for example a single Tigress is far more imposing than a flotilla of light cruisers (very handy for keeping the peace) and ensures that local commanders concentrate their forces (you cannot split a BB into penny packets, but you can a cruiser squadron). Having ships bigger than your opponent helps boost your Fleet morale and your population morale (neither of which will be aware of the frailties). This isn't an exhaustive list of why crap decisions are made in reality and I think it adds color that the same flawed processes are reflected in Traveller.

Ultimately, just because you nice BB's does not mean you use them under anything other than ideal combat winning scenarios. I'm sure you are aware of the time it takes for a BB or Cruiser to retreat, undertake repairs and return, that is a mission kill for months.

I would rather lead the fight with cheap escorts and fighters any day.

 

[Matt123]

I do wonder, also, as to your assumption that the enemy fire always gets concentrated on your biggest ship. If it does, then you may be right in your analysis that the spinal on THAT ship only gets to fire at full effectiveness on teh first round ... but the same does not necessarily apply to the other spinals in your battle line.

Crunch the numbers. Given (say) 4 large mesons, what is it better to face in turn 2. 3 large Mesons or 4 degraded mesons.

I have always worked on the premise that you want maximum firepower in your line of battle from the outset to reduce your enemy's firepower as quickly as possible.

Yes, but... If he starts with BB's and you start with escorts, on round two you have fresh BB's vs his degraded ones, for the cost of some cheap escorts. Now extend that logic.

I want my enemy to be left guessing, on the first turn, whether the real danger comes from the 100Kton beast at the head of the line, or those 9Ktonners half way down it. Are they riders with N meson guns? Or are they just missile cruisers with 9 bays apiece? And is the 100Kton beast toting a big meson gun? Or is it a decoy full of repulsors and sod all else?

That guessing game doesn't generally pan out to giving you an advantage. Near every ship over 50kton will have a spinal. Bigger ships are always more scary than little ones.

I have placed fuel tenders in the line, but its a very expensive, strategically vital asset to loose that way.

And get the house rule that intelligence is not automatically given out at the start of the game agreed before you play (or start designing fleets).

But then, I usually fight actions between equal tech fleets (my Zhodani enjoy technological parity with the Imperium: I reckon if the Imperium want to pick on somebody, they ought to pick on somebody their own size!) and this may also influence battle tactics and thinking.

My experience has generally been with TCS at TL11-13. Disparity in tech is part of the campaign, as is strategic intel, strategic movement and conservation of force.

 

[rancke]

lol, a completely rubbish interpretation of that "background"! Oh dear, we cannot possibly have Cruisers in the Line my dear chap, its not been done for 3000 years!

No, Matt, it's not being done in the Classic Era. Do you want me to quote the canonical definitions of cruisers and battleships again?

Bottom line is that unless the rules support the paradign of cruisers not being able to stand in the line of battle and battleships being able to do so for a good while, they are not compatible with the canon definition of cruisers and battleships.

Your argument is basically that Cruisers cannot engage in HG combat, because of ummm, color text.

I call it setting material, but yes, that is basically it. The 1:3 composition of BatRons to CruRons and the various canonical battleships are just corroberating evidence. The main argument is that the rules do not support the official setting description of cruisers and battleships.

And that the rules do too allow cruisers, and escorts too, to stand in what you interpret 'line of battle' to be simply confirms that.

Yep. And in my experience my opponent does not on the whole do the same or loses their nerve earlier due to inexperience. Primarily because their tactics are based on discussions over TL15 BB vs TL15 BB. Meaning "of course" everything goes into the line of battle.

What 20th Century wargamers have experienced in following a set of game rules for 30 years doesn't prove a whole lot about what the fictional navies of the OTU have experienced in 3000 years.

Why have Cruisers at all if you don't intend them to engage in combat?

"[Cruisers] form the cadre of commerce raiding task forces and provide fire support for planetary invasions". [FS:9]

And who says they don't play a part in fleet battles too? It's just a part that the combat system can't emulate very well with its highly simplistic two lines that all ships are organize in. You're not going to suggest that this is actually the way two fleets would line up when facing each other outside the wargames table?

The Line of Battle is just that, the line of battle. No more, no less. Its where the combat happens. Little ships can fight little ships and big ships can fight big ships. And you can mix it up as well.

You can under the rules. In "reality" however "[most cruisers] are too lightly armored to stand in the line of battle" [FS:9]. Proving once again a discrepancy between the rules and the setting.

You are the only one I have ever come across attempting to state that Cruisers (& fighters and escorts) cannot engage in combat in HG. And quite honestly I'm surprised given your depth of knowledge.

I'm not, since I don't attempt to state any such thing. Indeed, for a number of posts now I have been trying to state that cruisers can engage in combat in HG whereas they can't stand in the line of battle in *"reality". Which (stop me if I've said it often enough by now) shows a discrepancy between HG and the setting.


Hans

 

[Gray Pennell]

I'm not, since I don't attempt to state any such thing. Indeed, for a number of posts now I have been trying to state that cruisers can engage in combat in HG whereas they can't stand in the line of battle in *"reality". Which (stop me if I've said it often enough by now) shows a discrepancy between HG and the setting.


Hans

I am hoping you are putting "reality" like this because you mean in FS not in reality as we know it. Cruisers can fight a BB. There is no universal law set down by grandfather to stop this both in the game or in a WWII or earlier battle. Sure a single or even two might get toasted but historical three can usually seal the deal.

 

[rancke]

I am hoping you are putting "reality" like this because you mean in FS not in reality as we know it.

I'm putting 'reality' in quotes because it's a fictional reality. However, it's a fictional reality that is supposed to be every bit as complex as our reality (the real reality). Consequently I believe, very strongly, that when the HG rules says that during a battle, the opposing fleets line up opposite each other, arranged in two lines, and every twenty minutes each of the ones in the front line take a shot at a ship in the opponent's front row, it is simplifying a very complex three-dimensional situation down to an almost one-dimensional reality and that some details gets lost in the translation. That in "reality" something quite different (though with a certain amount of correlation) takes place, with ship maneuvering back and forth in three dimensions, some fleets maybe even (dare I suggest it?) arranged in three lines, one of them off to the left a little, trying to work its way around to take potshots at the enemy's rear.

Cruisers can fight a BB. There is no universal law set down by grandfather to stop this both in the game or in a WWII or earlier battle. Sure a single or even two might get toasted but historical three can usually seal the deal.

I haven't brought this up before, because I know I don't have the evidence to back it up, but I think the whole paradigm may very well be an analog of Napoleonic Sea Warfare. Three frigates had a very good shot at defeating a single line-of-battle ship in single combat (well, three on one combat) although at least one of the frigates could expect to be badly mauled in the process. But frigates never stood in the line of battle during fleet engagements, because they didn't stand a chance one on one.

So there were no physical law that said that frigates weren't allowed to stand in the line of battle. It was just a rule of thumb because it was a really bad idea.

I interpret the definitions I've quoted in the same way. Cruisers could perhaps do some good in a line of battle if the conditions were just right, but you didn't plan on them doing it on a regular basis when you built them. Hence the line about them being too lightly armored to stand in the line of battle. Which is, as Matt has so convincingly argued (not that I ever disputed it), emphatically not what actually happens when two wargamers build TCS fleets and resolve combat according to the HG rules.


Hans

 

[Gray Pennell]

In reality though cruisers or frigates often found themselves facing ships of the line. Usually its because they are scouting/raiding ahead of the main fleet and "find the enemy" In the case of WWII for the first few years the USA had to relie on its cruiser fleet because its Battleships were in dry dock after Peral Harbor. This ment they had to face Battleships.