Do fighters and battleships have the same problem?

[Matt123]

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?

Yes please, as your interpretation of that color text relegates Cruisers to non-combatants.

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.

um, yes the rules allow Cruisers to engage in combat, but you feel they shouldn't.

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.

clearly the rules are wrong. Cruisers are non-combatants.

"[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?

So Cruisers aren't non-combatants?

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.

Obviously the Captain of the ship cannot make that judgement call, nor the Admiral. One should expect a Cruiser to withdraw hastily from a raucous Beowolf.

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.

No. For several posts you have been stating that "clearly" according to the setting Cruisers cannot enter the Line of Battle and the rules are wrong for allowing it. You have shown no "reality" to support it, no notes from Strephon claiming all Cruisers to be non-combatents or to flee if the opposing ships start lining up. No combat reports. Just a phrase of color text intended to give gamers a rough idea what to expect of a Cruisers capabilities in the general scheme of things. Historical analogies aside I find it laughable that Cruisers cannot engage in combat nor that the Captain cannot be trusted to make a judgement call and chase down a crippled BB or a feisty pirate in a free trader.

 

[aramis]

Hans' claims that cruisers are not ships of the line is especially onerous given that Cruisers are ships of the line per common use of the term.

 

[Carlobrand]

um, yes the rules allow Cruisers to engage in combat, but you feel they shouldn't.

Correction: the rules allow cruisers to engage in combat, but certain canon milieu references say they shouldn't - or more accurately, those canon milieu references say, "most are too lightly armored to stand in the line of battle." (Supplement 9 - Fighting Ships, page 9. There, I said it!) Same reference clearly says they're engaging in lighter combat: commerce raiding and orbital fire support are mentioned. So it isn't what he feels, it's what the game supplements say.

I see no great victory in blaming the messenger for what the game itself is saying. The point he's making is the same point you're making - those canon references about what the cruiser can and can't do are in conflict with High Guard rules. Depending on your point of view, that means either High Guard is broken for creating circumstances that contradict the role-playing milieu's realities, or the milieu's broken for saying things like cruisers "are too lightly armored to stand in the line of battle" when High Guard makes them more cost effective than battleships in that role.

Which view is "right" depends on whether you're more interested in preserving the role-play setting established in such game aids as Supplement 9, or are more interested in preserving the naval combat rules embodied in Book 5. That argument strikes me as a little like arguing whether mustard or mayonnaise is best on ham sandwiches - except of course that mustard and mayonnaise manage to coexist in the same universe, while Book 5 and the canon milieu seem to occupy entirely different universes, which is a wee bit frustrating when both are in fact supposed to be describing the same game universe.

 

[Gray Pennell]

Carloband I think that mayonnaise mustard analogy is the best description I have ever seen concerning discussions of Ranke, Aramis and Free-Trader and Matt. I think its hard to put the two together when the sandwich is created by 2 or people. I say put cruisers etc on the line and dont worry about Supplement 9 as the statement is rather simplistic. A more accurate statement would be "As cruisers are designed for mobility they are less armed and armored than Battleships, so are used as raiders, but on occasions they find themselves on-the-line with heavier ships."

 

[mike wightman]

Cruiser. Ship capable of independent operations and of support of the main line of battle. Cruisers are intended to fulfil two diverse missions- in battle, they support and reinforce capital ships which are present and which form the main line of battle, generally from the flanks, and they perform independent operations, often forming the center of task forces which have no capital ships. Cruisers are also put to use as independent ships.

Library data, which supports the concept of cruisers being in the line of battle in High Guard terms.

 

[mike wightman]

High Guard ship construction and combat is not for 1 vs 1 engagements. Build a squadron and fight it out with a squadron built by someone else.

Once you are ready try building squadrons at different TLs and see how it plays out.

Then try building a fleet and fighting it out with another fleet.

You will learn many things.

First, a good squadron/fleet combines different types of ship.

Second, there is always a counter to what you think is an unbeatable ship.

Third, the HIgh Guard rules do actually produce the setting described in the OTU.

 

[rancke]

Yes please, as your interpretation of that color text relegates Cruisers to non-combatants.

No, the setting material relegate cruisers to not going up against battleships directly. Your interpretation of the game rules turns that into cruisers being non-combattant.

See, the game rules only have two places for a ship to be in combat: the line of battle and the reserve. 'Reality' would have more. The van, the flanks, the rear, behind the main fleet, out on the side.

Um, yes the rules allow Cruisers to engage in combat, but you feel they shouldn't.

No, I feel that cruisers shouldn't confront battleships directly, but rather should support and reinforce capital ships which are present and which form the main line of battle, generally from the flanks[*].

[*] And thanks to Mike for coming up with that quote despite our recent controversy.​

And if you ask "what flanks", I'm glad you did. The flanks that the HG rules are unable to model, but which do exist in "reality", as mentioned in setting material.

Clearly the rules are wrong. Cruisers are non-combatants.

Clearly the rules are unable to model all the subtleties of fleet combat accurately. Cruisers are combattant, but they don't fight in the line of battle, they fight along the flanks.

No. For several posts you have been stating that "clearly" according to the setting Cruisers cannot enter the Line of Battle and the rules are wrong for allowing it. You have shown no "reality" to support it, no notes from Strephon claiming all Cruisers to be non-combatents or to flee if the opposing ships start lining up. No combat reports. Just a phrase of color text intended to give gamers a rough idea what to expect of a Cruisers capabilities in the general scheme of things. Historical analogies aside I find it laughable that Cruisers cannot engage in combat nor that the Captain cannot be trusted to make a judgement call and chase down a crippled BB or a feisty pirate in a free trader.

It is laughable. It's also not what I've been arguing. Here's the problem. You think the line of battle referred to in the setting material is identical to the line of battle referred to in the HG rules. Hence you see cruisers being barred from the line of battle as barring them from fighting at all, since by the rules there are only two places a ship can be, the line of battle and the reserve. I never meant to imply that. I didn't even realize that the rules writers had referred to the combattant line as the line of battle. Obviously the 'line of battle' that even fighters can enter is not the same as the line of battle that cruisers aren't armored enough to stand in. (I really should submit this as an errata/clarification needed).

A cruiser facing a slew of escorts isn't in a line of battle (setting term) even if the event is being emulated using the HG rules. Doesn't mean it's unable to enter the line of battle (game term).


Hans

 

[rancke]

Hans' claims that cruisers are not ships of the line is especially onerous given that Cruisers are ships of the line per common use of the term.

What common use? There is no common use of the term as applied to Classic Era combat vessels.

There's a common use of the term for 20th Century (wet) naval vessels, but that could be completely irrelevant. At the most there may be some analogy between the two terms (although I believe the analogy to 18th Century frigates is much closer than to 20th Century cruisers).


Hans

 

[Tobias]

There's a common use of the term for 20th Century (wet) naval vessels, but that could be completely irrelevant.

And if it was not irrelevant, it would 100% support your position, which I naturally agree with, and not aramis', which is patently wrong.

Historically, the defining characteristic of ships which were designated "cruisers" was that they were not ships of the line/battleships.

 

[atpollard]

Since this is in the FLEET section of the board and not the CLASSIC TRAVELLER section, I would respectfully submit that any later Traveller rule system (*cough* MgT) that allows individual components (like a spinal mount) to be armored might buy a battleship a lot more rounds of fighting with the big guns than a cruiser could afford (in dTons).

[... and I like mustard]

 

[atpollard]

Historically, the defining characteristic of ships which were designated "cruisers" was that they were not ships of the line/battleships.

As a non-wargamer and, therefore, only passingly familiar with 18th century naval warfare ...

... Why wasn't the US Colonial Navy (of Frigates) utterly crushed by the British Ships-of-the-Line?
(since Frigates/Cruisers cannot stand against Ships-of-the-Line/Battleships - if I correctly understand your point)

 

[mike wightman]

Because during the war of 1812 the RN had only one ship of the line in the region and the USN frigates were probably the best ships of that class ever built.

The USN frigates never encountered that battleship by the way, they scored considerable success agains RN frigates and cruiser class brigs until the Admiralty learned their lessons and ordered that a USN frigate would only be engaged by a ship of the line or smaller vessels only in squadron strength.

 

[rancke]

Since this is in the FLEET section of the board and not the CLASSIC TRAVELLER section, I would respectfully submit that any later Traveller rule system (*cough* MgT) that allows individual components (like a spinal mount) to be armored might buy a battleship a lot more rounds of fighting with the big guns than a cruiser could afford (in dTons).

A couple of suggestions along those lines have been made to fix the problem. One is to change a fuel hit to only destroying X thousand tons of fuel tankage instead of shattering all the fuel tanks. That way cruisers and riders get mission killed by a single fuel hit whereas battleships can survive a number of them. Another is to increase the efficiency of meson screens with the size of a ship, perhaps allowing them to reduce the number of critical hits taken from meson guns in a manner similar to the way armor reduces critical hits from PA spinals.


Hans

 

[rancke]

... Why wasn't the US Colonial Navy (of Frigates) utterly crushed by the British Ships-of-the-Line?

It was. By the end of the War of 1812, almost the entire US Navy had been taken, burnt, or was blockaded in harbor. The biggest USN ship at large was a sloop on the other side of the world (I don't know if any smaller vessels such as brigs and cutters were at large).


Hans

 

[BillDowns]

Because during the war of 1812 the RN had only one ship of the line in the region and the USN frigates were probably the best ships of that class ever built.

The USN frigates never encountered that battleship by the way, they scored considerable success agains RN frigates and cruiser class brigs until the Admiralty learned their lessons and ordered that a USN frigate would only be engaged by a ship of the line or smaller vessels only in squadron strength.

On top of what Mike said, don't forget that the bulk of the Royal Navy was blockading Europe, and suppressing the French Navy, etc.

In addition, the 44-gun "Humphries frigates" - the Constitution, President, Congress, and United States were able to out-run anything they couldn't outfight. They were truly outstanding ships.

 

[BillDowns]

It was. By the end of the War of 1812, almost the entire US Navy had been taken, burnt, or was blockaded in harbor. The biggest USN ship at large was a sloop on the other side of the world (I don't know if any smaller vessels such as brigs and cutters were at large).

Hans

Actually, not completely correct. The Constitution fought the last battle of the War of 1812 more than a month after the treaty. She took on 2 British frigates (28 & 22 guns IIRC) and whomped them thoroughly. After the battle, on board the American vessel, the British Captains began to argue with each other over who lost it. Commodore Stewart offered to put them back aboard their ships and do it again, but they declined

 

[Tobias]

As a non-wargamer and, therefore, only passingly familiar with 18th century naval warfare ...

... Why wasn't the US Colonial Navy (of Frigates) utterly crushed by the British Ships-of-the-Line?

'Cause they didn't fight them.
As far as I know, and I'm pretty certain of this, there were no SoL-Frigate engagements in the war of 1812, and it's quite unlikely that any US frigate would have survived such an engagement, unless it was against a small and massively obsolete SoL. But such a scenario is extremely unlikely because a) in most cases, an SoL did not operate alone and b) a sane Frigate commander would utilize his ship's generally better mobility to avoid such a fight.

US frigates scored some impressive victories against British frigates because a) they were much better crewed and commanded than the British's former French and Spanish opponents and b) they were often much better armed than British frigates.

But consider: The larger American frigates had 30 24-pounders as their main armament, which made them quite superior to older frigates usually armed with 18-pounders.
A typical British Ship of the Line of the time (a "large" 74) would often also carry the same number of 24-pounders... as their secondary armament on the upper gun deck, in addition to their main armament of 32-pounders.

This kind of firepower difference would have made any engagement of a frigate versus a typical SoL a losing proposition, and the SoL's considerably larger crew complement would have made a boarding action - which probably most engagements ended with - similarly foolhardy.

As an aside: In the 20th century I can think only of one instance in which cruisers fought a same-era* battleship and won: The loss of Hiei at Guadalcanal. And this does not really count either since they were aided by destroyers using torpedoes for which there is no equivalent in Traveller and the conditions (close range night battle, Hiei surprised with shore bombardment ammunition prepared etc.) were quite exceptional.
The only possible example of a cruiser destroying a battleship* in a straight-up, line-of-battle affair is the unlikely, but not 100% disproven theory that Hood received her fatal hit from Prinz Eugen instead of Bismarck.

* For sake of argument, counting the refitted WW1 era battlecruisers as such. There was something wrong with those bloody ships alright.

 

[Tobias]

A couple of suggestions along those lines have been made to fix the problem. One is to change a fuel hit to only destroying X thousand tons of fuel tankage instead of shattering all the fuel tanks.

You could do that, but IMHO, it's inelegant game design. You would essentially introduce size-based hit points for one type of hit (two if you use the optional crew damage rules), and retain size-independent, performance-based hit points for the rest of them. And it only solves this one particular problem.

That way cruisers and riders get mission killed by a single fuel hit whereas battleships can survive a number of them. Another is to increase the efficiency of meson screens with the size of a ship, perhaps allowing them to reduce the number of critical hits taken from meson guns in a manner similar to the way armor reduces critical hits from PA spinals.

You mean the extra hits, not the crits. Size criticals aren't that important, and they are one of the few areas where being big actually helps. The problem is that even a modest factor J meson spinal mount will get 9 unmodified rolls on both the radiation table and the interior explosion table.

 

[Tobias]

Since this is in the FLEET section of the board and not the CLASSIC TRAVELLER section, I would respectfully submit that any later Traveller rule system (*cough* MgT) that allows individual components (like a spinal mount) to be armored might buy a battleship a lot more rounds of fighting with the big guns than a cruiser could afford (in dTons).

[... and I like mustard]

I absolutely support the idea of looking at various Traveller rule sets to approach these problems (for those of use who perceive them as such, including myself) in HG2. I've concentrated on HG1 and Battle Rider, never having played MgT. How does capital ship combat work in that system?

 

[rancke]

Actually, not completely correct. The Constitution fought the last battle of the War of 1812 more than a month after the treaty. She took on 2 British frigates (28 & 22 guns IIRC) and whomped them thoroughly.

You're right. I must have misremembered.


Hans