• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

Doing defense on the cheap.

Carlobrand

SOC-14 1K
Marquis
For the system on a tight budget, especially nonaligned worlds who can't count on help from neighbors, the standard Subsidized Merchant makes a great anti-piracy patrol carrier. Ten 10 dT fighters can be carried in its 200-dT cargo bay with little difficulty, and the bay's large forward and rear bay doors make launch and recovery fairly straightforward. The ship's 13 staterooms provide individual quarters for the ship's captain, navigator, engineer and medic, with double-occupancy quarters for gunners, pilots, and 4-6 troops, depending on whether the ship carries its usual two turrets or is upgraded to four. The existing launch serves to deliver small boarding parties for inspections.

Overall cost is the cost of the Subsidized Merchant (possibly at discount if buying an older used model) plus MCr 180 for the 10 fighters, not much more than the cost of a patrol cruiser. The improvised carrier does not have the speed or jump range of the patrol cruiser, but it excels in the role of fixed defense for poor-starport worlds troubled by pirates, with five 6g fighters deployed at any given time to respond quickly to emergency calls or attacks while the other five rest, though launch and recovery rate are low (1 craft per turn).

At an annual cost of MCr 12 to 13 (plus crew costs, fuel costs, etc.), it is affordable for most worlds of ~20,000 population or more.
 
Yep, it's my opinion (and part of the rules as I read them) that all subsidized ships should be looked at as serving a role similar to a reservist. In MTU there are generally time savings in port because you're on a route, on a schedule, with factors working on each world. Subbies can theoretically make more paying jumps per year than Free-Traders. Subbies can probably get away with a day or two in system instead of the usual six or seven days a Free-Trader requires to do business.

What the Subbies usually do (again IMTU) with the extra time is spend a few weeks (a couple or more a year, or lumped into several each term, depending on the route) engaged in additional training and wargames, possibly even actual defense actions like Q-ship operations. Until the ship is fully paid off. After that it may still be called back for occasional exercises and expected to maintain fighting trim.

First off this keeps potential pirates on their toes and less likely to hassle any of the line's Subbies, they could be a wolf in sheep's clothing, better to go for the easier marks, the Free-Traders.

Second it keeps the crew in fighting form in case they are needed.

To this end I design my Subbies with a look at making them a little more mil spec than simple merchants. In Book 2 that meant Naval Drives (so they can run unpurified fuel), usually bis model computers (to run more concurrent programs for better combat ability), and typically a better program package. Weapons would be optional and easily added to a turret (under cover of the company slip to maintain surprise).

Later rules versions would see me adding a little armour, allowing better weapons (even small bay weapons*), and such.

...and of course, thinking out ahead different packages that could be installed, such as your Fighter Carrier idea, and having it built to make that easy. Such as you noted the Type R seems tailor made to carry some fighters :)

...or imagine the surprise of the pirate who attacks a Type R and finds the forward cargo doors swinging open to reveal the business end of a Missile Bay :devil:

* not strictly cannon in most iterations of the rules, sort of muddy canon ;)
 
One thing though...

At an annual cost of MCr 12 to 13 (plus crew costs, fuel costs, etc.), it is affordable for most worlds of ~20,000 population or more.

If you mean such a population can afford ONE subbie then that's really not enough in most cases, imo anyway.

Subbies operate routes of between 2 and 12 systems (nice that it works out to a 2D6 roll ;) :smirk: ) which imo means more than one ship. A single ship might be able to operate a basic 2 system route with reasonable turn around, but anything more than that, or for more reliable and steady service, more ships will be needed. Don't forget the 2 weeks annual maintenance and possible extra defense duties to factor in.

The actual number of ships required for full route service will vary with the number of systems and the other duties. A minimum of double the number of systems plus 1 is a good starting point.

Of course, more systems means more populations to tap for the costs, so you can afford more ships :D ...or more dangerous ships :devil: (though they have to be primarily for profit merchant ships)
 
For the system on a tight budget, especially nonaligned worlds who can't count on help from neighbors, the standard Subsidized Merchant makes a great anti-piracy patrol carrier. Ten 10 dT fighters can be carried in its 200-dT cargo bay with little difficulty, and the bay's large forward and rear bay doors make launch and recovery fairly straightforward. The ship's 13 staterooms provide individual quarters for the ship's captain, navigator, engineer and medic, with double-occupancy quarters for gunners, pilots, and 4-6 troops, depending on whether the ship carries its usual two turrets or is upgraded to four. The existing launch serves to deliver small boarding parties for inspections.

Overall cost is the cost of the Subsidized Merchant (possibly at discount if buying an older used model) plus MCr 180 for the 10 fighters, not much more than the cost of a patrol cruiser. The improvised carrier does not have the speed or jump range of the patrol cruiser, but it excels in the role of fixed defense for poor-starport worlds troubled by pirates, with five 6g fighters deployed at any given time to respond quickly to emergency calls or attacks while the other five rest, though launch and recovery rate are low (1 craft per turn).

At an annual cost of MCr 12 to 13 (plus crew costs, fuel costs, etc.), it is affordable for most worlds of ~20,000 population or more.

If I am reading this right, you are talking about using a subby as a dedicated System Defense/Customs ship not an auxiliary to your system Navy but a primary ship.
If that is the case I say cool :D and with a J1 can possibly get to some stations quicker than an SDB.
Personally I would up the M-drive to 2G and get smaller fighters like the 8 d-ton fighters from Broadsword. This might give you more configuration options. :devil:
 
If I am reading this right, you are talking about using a subby as a dedicated System Defense/Customs ship not an auxiliary to your system Navy but a primary ship.
If that is the case I say cool :D

Ah, perhaps I misread the intent. In that case, agreed, a cool option for the poor and in need of cheap defense fleet systems :)

Perhaps some of those non-aligned outsystems...

(...not pirates ;) :devil: )
 
If the system Navy is buying one (or more) of these for system defense, then you could get by with removing the Jdrive from some of them and installing more powerful Mdrives and more fuel... assign one to police around each gas giant, and another around each inhabited planet.

They can function as Customs/Police vessels, but can be a nasty surprise for light-weight opposition.

Keep a few others with Jdrives, for re-enforcement of the "station" ships as needed.
 
The other option is to construct a "dispersed structure" that allowed fighter basing, that fit into the Type R's hold.

Upon reaching station the whole structure, fighters and all, is launched; this allows all fighers to then all be launched in a (subsequent) turn.
 
If I am reading this right, you are talking about using a subby as a dedicated System Defense/Customs ship not an auxiliary to your system Navy but a primary ship. ...

Yup. Jump is there mainly to get it to the system that buys it, to go elsewhere for repair of battle damage to the ship or its brood if needed, or to go to pick up replacement fighters. Other than that, it's intended mainly to stay put in that system.

... Personally I would up the M-drive to 2G and get smaller fighters like the 8 d-ton fighters from Broadsword. This might give you more configuration options. :devil:

If the system Navy is buying one (or more) of these for system defense, then you could get by with removing the Jdrive from some of them and installing more powerful Mdrives and more fuel... assign one to police around each gas giant, and another around each inhabited planet.

They can function as Customs/Police vessels, but can be a nasty surprise for light-weight opposition.

Keep a few others with Jdrives, for re-enforcement of the "station" ships as needed.

All good options where there's a budget for it. Some systems won't have the equipment for major modification; those systems will therefore also not have the equipment for significant repairs, so pulling out the jump drive is not an option for them. However, that could work well for other worlds.

(The Book-2 design also used oversized drives - someone please explain why they needed C-drives to get PPl-1/Jump-1/Manuever-1 out of a 400 dT merchantman that was going to need to be subsidized - and left another 10 dT unaccounted for, so there's another 25 dT to throw into the cargo space if you call that errata and correct for those, not to mention bringing the cost of the subbie down. Official Errata calls that 10 dT "upgrade space", i.e. the 50-ton drive space of the standard hull is separate from the cargo bay, amounts to vacant space in the engine compartment, though I imagine the unused drive space could still be configured to stow some piecemeal cargo. There's room there to upgrade the power plant and bring the maneuver up to 3g while maintaining jump-1, or to take the whole set up to maneuver-2/jump-2.)

I'm very fond of the Broadsword fighter. (It's actually 6 dT; the Zhodani fighter comes in at 8 dT.) It would actually be my first choice for a cheap system defense fighter, but it depends on your rule system: 10 or 20 Broadsword missile fighters launching 3 missiles each under Book-2 combat rules can make a pirate very briefly unhappy - and then he'll be dead - but under High Guard rules, the fighters have to deal with the lack of a bridge, the resulting computer penalty, a size modifier and the target's agility. That can all add up quick, resulting in the little fighter needing a 12 to hit a corsair, or possibly having no chance at a hit, depending how the Corsair's armed and how much power it has available for agility.

The 10dT fighter has a bridge and computer, as far as I know. A bridgeless Book-5 TL 9 10 dT fighter has quite a bit more room (about 3dT) left for armor or other mods, a TL13 10 dT fighter can manage bridge and computer with a wee bit of space left over, and a TL15 10 dT fighter can manage bridge and computer with 0.7 tons of space left over (which is pretty close to the Book-2 version). That little edge can triple its odds from 1 in 36 to 3 in 36, or give it a small chance to hit where the Broadsword fighter had no chance.

If using Book-2 combat, the Broadsword fighter is the fighter of choice. If using Book-5, the standard 10 dT fighter is preferred.

The other option is to construct a "dispersed structure" that allowed fighter basing, that fit into the Type R's hold.

Upon reaching station the whole structure, fighters and all, is launched; this allows all fighers to then all be launched in a (subsequent) turn.

The Supplement-7/Traveller-Adventure subbie has a 7.5 meter wide, 6 meter tall bow door, a 13.5 meter wide, 6 meter tall stern door, and a 45 meter long, 6 meter tall bay. As layed out, the cargo bay actually fits 250 dT - the usual slight inaccuracies of Traveller deck plans - so one needs to be careful of going by the canon plans. Nonetheless, one can probably manage something in the neighborhood of 150 or more dT in a purpose-built construct designed to fit into the cargo bay.

"Dispersed Structure" is a Book-5 concept, so the Book-2 construction rules wouldn't apply and you'd have to figure out the base tech level of the construct to figure out how much space is available for your fighters. Still, after a bridge and a small power plant and drive (it isn't really a tender unless it has the necessary equipment), you could have something capable of launching and recovering the entire brood in a turn. Problem I can see is it's adding quite a bit of cost - MCr14 to 21, depending on tech level - for the privilege of being able to rapidly deploy the fighters. For the added cost, I think you'd do better buying a purpose-built pocket carrier rather than buying a subbie and having a tender specially built to go inside it.
 
Isn't it one of the perversities of Traveller that the best fighter for a LBB2 universe is a HG design and the best fighter for HG is a LBB2 design ;)

I wouldn't dismiss the idea of using things like the 30t ship's boat for system defence on the cheap either. There's plenty of things you could fit into that 13.5 tons of customisable space.

A computer, missile magazine, a squad of customs inspectors...
 
Modular cutter with a 'one shot' package launcher style missile bay. Without provisions for (rapid/in-place) reloading, 30DT should easily do the job of 100DT... for one volley. Reloading would of course entail re-docking with the mother ship and swapping in a fresh module.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ah, perhaps I misread the intent. In that case, agreed, a cool option for the poor and in need of cheap defense fleet systems :)

Perhaps some of those non-aligned outsystems...

(...not pirates ;) :devil: )

Hmmmm..... might have to use this idea in my ATU........ :D
 
Yes, I hadn't considered that a jump drive actually helps access to the outer system. Good show!

And for affordability, you can't go wrong with a secondhand merchant.

Makes me think there also would be secondhand unarmored defense staging platforms out there, waiting to be designed, essentially ships that are mostly LASH with a little hangar for maintenance.
 
Isn't it one of the perversities of Traveller that the best fighter for a LBB2 universe is a HG design and the best fighter for HG is a LBB2 design ;)

I wouldn't dismiss the idea of using things like the 30t ship's boat for system defence on the cheap either. There's plenty of things you could fit into that 13.5 tons of customisable space.

A computer, missile magazine, a squad of customs inspectors...

MCr16, MCr18 with a Model-1 computer - same price as a 10 dT fighter. 12.7 tons to play with AFTER you've added the computer, and a little more flexibility in weapons since you can carry a gunner, and you could add a cabin for extended operations in orbit. Yes, I love the ship's boat for customs work.

Only problem with it is that it's a bit big for the low-budget fighter role, at least as a carried craft, but you could buy ten or so of the things for your planet and have yourself a little planet-based system defense squadron, keep half of them on patrol in orbit while the other half are resting planet-side in reserve. Cost: MCr180, or MCr9 annually.

Might still be good to keep a jump-capable ship handy in case you need to take a boat over to the next system for repair, if the local port isn't up to the job. A ship's boat is 3 meters tall (and wide); maybe a second-hand free trader would do for that role.

Modular cutter with a 'one shot' package launcher style missile bay. Without provisions for (rapid/in-place) reloading, 30DT should easily do the job of 100DT... for one volley. Reloading would of course entail re-docking with the mother ship and swapping in a fresh module.

I was under the impression there was a bit more to targeting missiles than dumping an armload of them into space.
 
A number of the later treatments of tactical missiles (Striker, FF&S, etc) break down the difference between a disposable launcher and one intended for rapid reloading during combat. It seems quite reasonable that the same would apply to the larger missiles used in space combat as well. Where you are saving volume is in not providing crew (or autoloader) access space and not providing in situ magazine storage. The launcher side of a missile guidance system is usually of negligible mass and volume in comparison to the missiles and launch packaging.

Nowhere in Classic Traveller is missile targeting (even that of bays) given special treatment. That is to say, they are assumed to be using the same sensors, tactical plotting, and even fire direction subsystems used by all other weapon systems.

A real world example of this idea is found with a box launcher - a very compact launcher format that is not designed to be reloaded in place. In point of fact, many naval vertical launch systems are package launchers which can only be reloaded by removing the entire multiple tube 'box' and replacing it while in port.

PS: In the end this is yet another idea where your degree of acceptance depends on whether you view the rules and canon as a comfortable and roomy overcoat or a constraining straightjacket. Obviously I'm in the comfortable and roomy overcoat camp.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A number of the later treatments of tactical missiles (Striker, FF&S, etc) break down the difference between a disposable launcher and one intended for rapid reloading during combat. It seems quite reasonable that the same would apply to the larger missiles used in space combat as well. Where you are saving volume is in not providing crew (or autoloader) access space and not providing in situ magazine storage. The launcher side of a missile guidance system is usually of negligible mass and volume in comparison to the missiles and launch packaging.

Nowhere in Classic Traveller is missile targeting (even that of bays) given special treatment. That is to say, they are assumed to be using the same sensors, tactical plotting, and even fire direction subsystems used by all other weapon systems.

A real world example of this idea is found with a box launcher - a very compact launcher format that is not designed to be reloaded in place. In point of fact, many naval vertical launch systems are package launchers which can only be reloaded by removing the entire multiple tube 'box' and replacing it while in port.

PS: In the end this is yet another idea where your degree of acceptance depends on whether you view the rules and canon as a comfortable and roomy overcoat or a constraining straightjacket. Obviously I'm in the comfortable and roomy overcoat camp.

There is another view beyond that, "comfortable and roomy overcoat or ... constraining straightjacket," view. It's called, "play balance." When your "comfortable and roomy overcoat" imbalances combat to the point that one questions why existing ships even bother with lasers and turret missiles - indeed, why one would even get into a fight given the extreme lethality of the weapon - then your "comfortable and roomy overcoat" is most likely affecting play balance. Before one becomes too enraptured with a new idea, one should imagine how one's players would feel if it were used against them.

(I can't imagine too many players being thrilled at the prospect of seeing 40-50 missile come flying out the cargo bay of some Vargr pirate and locking onto them, even if they had the option to do it back to their tormentor. Dead is dead.)

A turret displaces 1dT and holds three missiles plus two reloads (Traveller Book 2, Space Combat, Ordnance Launch). The missiles are considered to be 50kg homing missiles (Traveller Book 2, Design and Construction, Weaponry). Even accounting for space for a gunner, that leaves quite a bit of room for stuff other than three 50kg missiles and their reload assembly.

I've no idea what all that extra space is for, but for whatever reason, there is a decided limit to the number of missiles that can be launched - one per launcher, with no more than 3 launchers in a 1dT turret - even though there appears to be no limit to the number of missiles in flight at any given time. Why, I don't know - Traveller rules very often give more weight to play balance than to technological possibilities. (See any one of several discussions on lasers and probability of hits.) However, whatever the rationale is, it works against the idea of stuffing a bunch of missiles into a Katyusha-like array and salvoing the entire lot off at once.

I gotta say, I'm a big fan of play balance. Any player who'd match his Free Trader up against a purpose-built warship with a 50-ton missile bay deserves what he gets, but I don't think I'd spend much time playing a game where I found myself rolling up a new character every time a Vargr corsair opened up his cargo bay - even though the character generation system is rather fun in itself.

I'd just love to take my ranger into a D&D game with a +10 bow of rapid missile fire, but I'm guessing the average game master's not going to be too thrilled with the idea. On the other hand, as game master, I'd have no problem handing out such goodies - and then watching the faces of my players as the implications for what they were about to confront began to dawn on them.
 
Oh quite obviously I completely ignore play balance at all times.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, I hadn't considered that a jump drive actually helps access to the outer system. Good show!

On the other hand, if the population is as low as the military budget implies, what would one of the few system defense vessels be doing in the outer system?

That's not to say that you can't make up a situation with a valuable mining colony in the outer system, but mostly a small population will not have exhausted the potential of its own homeworld.

And for affordability, you can't go wrong with a secondhand merchant.

Not until you start having rules for increased maintenance of 40 year old vessels, anyway. Not to mention greater downtime due to breakdowns.


Hans
 
...Not until you start having rules for increased maintenance of 40 year old vessels, anyway. Not to mention greater downtime due to breakdowns. ...

Well, on the negative side, it IS supposed to be able to jump, if only for repair purposes. Life could get awkward if it were the jump drive needing the repair.

On the positive side, it's reasonably useful as long as you can keep power and life support going - and get the cargo bay door to work, of course. THAT would be an awkward item to fail at the wrong time.
 
Back
Top