OTU Only: Fleet Organization

[aramis]

Major disconnect, yeah, it's scifi. The work around for all of this is the future metal technology introduced in Traveller, Bonded Superdense, for example.
We can tell from our work with space structures today that the old or even new design methods are inadequate. Still predicting performance of structural scale based on fiction metals is precarious. And after all is said and done, toss in anti-gravity tech. o:

We know from other Traveller sources that BSD's structural toughness is only a certain multiple (14x) of that of steel. So, IIUC, it needs 1/14th the area per given load. Which means the maximum useful ship size using BSD is likely only 14^(2/3) that of steel - about 5x the linear dimensions, or 125x the total volume.

 

[savage]

We know from other Traveller sources that BSD's structural toughness is only a certain multiple (14x) of that of steel. So, IIUC, it needs 1/14th the area per given load. Which means the maximum useful ship size using BSD is likely only 14^(2/3) that of steel - about 5x the linear dimensions, or 125x the total volume.

I don't recall them trying to define these materials. Was it in MT?

 

[tjoneslo]

We know from other Traveller sources that BSD's structural toughness is only a certain multiple (14x) of that of steel. So, IIUC, it needs 1/14th the area per given load. Which means the maximum useful ship size using BSD is likely only 14^(2/3) that of steel - about 5x the linear dimensions, or 125x the total volume.

These materials are defined in Striker, then pulled forward into MT.

The problem is that material defined as 14x stronger than steel in use for armor may not be any stronger in terms of structural material. The forces applied are different and the material's requirements to resist the different forces becomes radically different. Especially for materials under high stress (like 6g accelerations).

If you want an analysis of structural materials in relation to hull size, I recommend this article by Chris Thrash. It does provide some hull size limitations based upon TL, and the materials available.

 

[aramis]

I don't recall them trying to define these materials. Was it in MT?

Striker (which is part of CT)
Carried forward into MT
Carried forward again into TNE and T4.

 

[aramis]

These materials are defined in Striker, then pulled forward into MT.

The problem is that material defined as 14x stronger than steel in use for armor may not be any stronger in terms of structural material. The forces applied are different and the material's requirements to resist the different forces becomes radically different. Especially for materials under high stress (like 6g accelerations).

If you want an analysis of structural materials in relation to hull size, I recommend this article by Chris Thrash. It does provide some hull size limitations based upon TL, and the materials available.

For Traveller purposes — namely required structural mass in TNE & T4 — it's established as the same. Yet another simplicity dodge... but not entirely without merit.

 

[CliffBates]

There are too many discrepancies in the Rebellion Sourcebook and the Fighting Ships of the Shattered Imperium (FSSI). And the Squ sizes FSSI suggest (as I speak about elsewhere in a different posting [if approved] seem to me to give not enough supporting and escorts for each Squ unit. Now that might make sense in terms of 18th-19th Century naval tactics but such tactics and also current naval tactics in the Seas really (which the author of FSSI seemed to be following) arn't the same as what would be needed in a space battle in System. Space is vast and units need to have escorts flanking and protecting them from various flank attacks.

Also real space ops in either Squ or Fleet level would just have way too many units involved to allow for the kind of fighting actions the normal traveller game would involve. But to impose RPG game play for how Fleets and Squ would in fact operate is rather problematic and works contra the realism that Traveller sought.... this is why the TNE/post-Virus is way too Space Opera for those who took to hear TSC ops and the realism of CT.

 

[kilemall]

Striker (which is part of CT)
Carried forward into MT
Carried forward again into TNE and T4.

I was under the impression MgT referenced them too.

 

[aramis]

I was under the impression MgT referenced them too.

Not really. MGT doesn't have the same relationships between structural materials as the others mentioned.

The relative value as armor of hard steel, composite, crystaliron, superdense and bonded superdense is identical between Striker, MT, TNE, and T4; MGT takes its cues from CT Bk 5, instead, and borrows only the labels.

Note that CT Bk 5 gives us:
TL 7-9 as 4% per step (T=x1 or x2)
TL 10-11 as 3% per step (T=4/3 or 8/3)
TL 12-13 as 2% per step (T=2 or 4 )
TL 14-15 as 1% per step (T=4 or 8)

Striker gives us:

TL	Description	T	Weight	Price
5	Soft steel	x0.8	8	1.6
6	Hard steel	x1	8	2
7-9	Composite laminates	x2	7	7
10-11	Crystaliron	x4	10	9
12 - 13	Superdense	x7	15	14
14-15	Bondedsuperdense	x14	15	28

Similar concepts, but not the same materials relationships.

 

[CliffBates]

Yeah, the whole question is a bit of a mess. Assuming one tender's worth of (average) cruiser-sized battleriders are a match for one or perhaps two battleships, each individual tender would be the equivalent of a battleship and a squadron full of tenders would be a BatRon.

What I don't believe should be the case, whatever any combat system implies, is that one tender's cargo of cruisers-sized battleriders should be a match for a full squadron of battleships, the 157th BatRon to the contrary notwithstanding. Because if it was, the choice between buying one battleship BatRon or eight battlerider squadrons would be a no-brainer rather than a subject of debate.

It would also increase the perennial problem of using up the canonical Imperial naval budget.


Hans

I completely agree with you on this point.

I even think the larger hull sizes of the J-battleships actually allow them to live longer in a battle once the meson guns are ko'ed.

I wish I was on this discussion earlier.

 

[CliffBates]

You need to broaden your view of HG/TCS away from just being a tactical combat game, at which it is so-so (as detailed extensively elsewhere). HG/TCS is better viewed as a strategic warfare game which of necessity requires a combat resolution system. Ideally this combat resolution system should result in gamer behaviours like avoiding placing escorts in front of angry BBs, as their contribution to the end result is negligible and their demise almost certain.

By utilising escorts away from the main fleets, for example raiding commerce, you force the opponent to direct resources away from their own main fleets. If their navy has limited escort class ships, it is inherently designed to dominate one system (perhaps a handful) at a time. The so-called "Alpha-strike" fleet. Meantime a fleet with many escorts can be many places, cheaply. This works because they will refuse to engage in a "stand-up fight", preferring instead to do economic damage until the political imperative (to the cries of "cowards", "not fighting fair", "our brave innocent merchant fleet", the brutalized citizens of xyz") on the other side forces the alpha-strike main fleets to disperse and respond.

So one tactic is to use escorts and attempt to influence and perhaps win, large areas of space or concentrate your forces and drive for the capital, hoping to get there before the economic and political fall-out forces a withdrawal.

HG/TCS doesn't emulate economic warfare and its political consequences particularly well (left up to the ref?), aside from the abstract 100points of weapons causing surrender rule. But it does reward using escorts as pickets in systems and hexes you are interested in and setting up communication links. An expensive task if you are only using BBs.

For example, the Imperiums use of 400tn Patrol Cruisers acting as trip-wires for the fleet and waving the flag along the borders, enabling main fleets to be concentrated and respond from a safe(ish) distance.

There are lots of variations, but essentially without escorts you lack many strategic options. Just don't waste the few escorts you have fighting main fleet battles.

Just my 2Cr, YMMV.

Matt is absolutely right.. that is why there needs to be smaller DesRon, EscortRon or Escort/Destroyer units operating at Naval Division/Floatilla sized units in such ops.. and such usually report to the SubSector Admiral/theatre commander.

In fact.. in any battle theatre... good command and control requires there be Admirals assinged to be such sub-sector heads behind enemy lines to coordinate such with Sector/Domain Fleet operations.

And also I find myself in agreement with him on this October 22nd, 2015, 01:06 AM point about the role of escorts is to protect the big boys from prediatory attacks by smaller units such has fighters, missile boats, and destroyers who are assigned to target engines and spinal weapons and/or to do such attacks on the enemy--it would all depend on what kind of mission assignement each unit type had. This is why there is a problem with the low squadron numbers [that is number of ships per squ]. Its is simplely a matter of sound operational thinking.

Look even in football game there are players who very specialied roles, and in that role their job which might not be as glamorous as the QB insure that the team scores. Thus a Naval squadron to be effective as a squadron need to look at what is its function and then divide up the resources it has to it in a way to most effectively achieve what its goal is. So to look at this only from the operational look at naval squadrons is to tie the hands greatly.

Sorry to go on like this... I am avoiding going home right now...

 

[CliffBates]

Not really. MGT doesn't have the same relationships between structural materials as the others mentioned.

The relative value as armor of hard steel, composite, crystaliron, superdense and bonded superdense is identical between Striker, MT, TNE, and T4; MGT takes its cues from CT Bk 5, instead, and borrows only the labels.

Note that CT Bk 5 gives us:
TL 7-9 as 4% per step (T=x1 or x2)
TL 10-11 as 3% per step (T=4/3 or 8/3)
TL 12-13 as 2% per step (T=2 or 4 )
TL 14-15 as 1% per step (T=4 or 8)

Striker gives us:

TL	Description	T	Weight	Price
5	Soft steel	x0.8	8	1.6
6	Hard steel	x1	8	2
7-9	Composite laminates	x2	7	7
10-11	Crystaliron	x4	10	9
12 - 13	Superdense	x7	15	14
14-15	Bondedsuperdense	x14	15	28

Similar concepts, but not the same materials relationships.

those are the data I remember from striker and high guard.. and they make sense. The designers assumed the same pattern of imporvement but the problem is that in reality there could be massive gaps before the next break through and the change between them might be incremental but a large standard deviation shift. Look at how the semiconductor and infomation revolution in the 1990/2000s led to a large standard deviation improvement in communication and infomation systems but not in space craft. (Actually we regressed in space tech since the 70s and today we would have a hard time what he acomplished 40 years ago.)

 

[Condottiere]

In theory, a coordinated anti-smallcraft defense of a battle squadron alone would make it a kamikaze run, voluntary or involuntary. If they weren't distracted and being battered to pieces by their counterparts.

That's where the fighter and escort screens come in.

 

[aramis]

Re: Aramis post of November 7th, 2015, 01:05 AM..

[m;]Cliff - don't cite posts this way[/m;]

Why? because the times/dates shown are localized to your time frame, and it doesn't reflect what the rest of us see. For example, I made no post on 7 November in this thread. I posted on the 6th.

[m;]Use the quote button.[/m;]

Note that the post numbers aren't even totally stable - they change if a post gets deleted.

 

[CliffBates]

My take on this is to handwave the names of the ship types simply mean different things in different contexts.

In the 3I 95%+ of the people, GDP, productive capacity etc is concentrated in a handful of systems so those systems and the systems which link them are the important bits and that's where you want the battle fleets.

However you still need to know what's going on in the other systems so you might also want squadrons of cheap ships that act as a light cavalry screen.

(Then on top of that you might have a commerce raider category also.)

So in theory you could have a neat division between BSU squadrons and SSU squadrons where the BSU squadrons might have 50k dton "escorts" while the SSU squadron have 400 dton "escorts".

IMTU i just add "patrol" in front of the name to designate the SSU versions.

So for example using some of the canon squadrons mentioned say it's a raider squadron with 10k to 50k ships i.e. their destroyers are 10k and the cruisers 50kmain battle squadron with 50kt to 500kt ships i.e. their escorts are 50kt say that's a patrol (aka boondocks) squadron with 1600 dton cruisers and 400 dton escorts just stick "strike" or "patrol" in front of the ship type.

When I read the High Passage item with the squ in it.. I thought that what was described was elements not the full unit..

Or that was how it read to me from what I can remember of it (my copy of that mag as of last year been given to some charity when my sister tossed out my games from the storage bin in her garage so I am relying on memory).

 

[CliffBates]

[m;]Cliff - don't cite posts this way[/m;]

Why? because the times/dates shown are localized to your time frame, and it doesn't reflect what the rest of us see. For example, I made no post on 7 November in this thread. I posted on the 6th.

[m;]Use the quote button.[/m;]

Note that the post numbers aren't even totally stable - they change if a post gets deleted.

Mea culpa. [Another member told me as well that I was doing this wrong.] I just trying to figure out this board's etiquette (as its radically different in technical operations that the online teaching/research platforms I work with so I am kinda a fish out of the water was here).

 

[CliffBates]

In theory, a coordinated anti-smallcraft defense of a battle squadron alone would make it a kamikaze run, voluntary or involuntary. If they weren't distracted and being battered to pieces by their counterparts.

That's where the fighter and escort screens come in.

Also attack/fighter squadrons attacking larger sized ships should coordinate their attacks as a squadron and their should be treated as a single batter at a figher factor vs attacking individually. Using just use the battery formation rules for each type of weapon the squadron uses.

So too with smaller sized units when coordinating their attacks as a unit. But the HG limit of 9 for such combination efforts point to the reality of deminishing marginal utility of such attempts to increase the effective power of the attacking weapon.

 

[Condottiere]

First of all, you identify any undefended thermal exhaust portals.

It's suicide, because the small ships will run into the secondary and tertiary armaments, especially if they have no greater priority targets, which should be able to take them out if they hit. And it would be a layered defence of the entire squadron.

Which tends to mean you either fire off your armament at long range, or more likely, you close in to almost touching distance, to narrow down the defensive systems that can bear on the smallcraft at any particular time.

Or you have a go at diving into the bridge.

 

[Redcap]

I have to say, this has all left me thoroughly confused, probably with the sheer size and complexity of fleet organisation.

I can follow (just about) that a fleet is made up of 3 or 4 groups, and that the make up of those groups (and the fleet as a whole) is dependent on the task for that fleet, but after that, I'm at a complete loss to follow what the hell the fleets are comprised of.

There are the descriptions of fleets, found in Supplement 9, "Fighting Ships", pp 9-10, detailing the typical classes of ship that can be found in the various Imperial Fleets (Scouts, Escorts, Cruisers, Carriers, Battleships, Other Vessels). There's no mention of Destroyers, as we find them in the real world wet navies of today, I notice. Was this an omission, or just defferent nomenclature?

Then there's the article in the Wiki, regarding the various types or classes of Fleet (http://wiki.travellerrpg.com/Imperial_Navy#TO.26E_.28Organization.29); these are assault, battle, interdiction, penetration, strike, reserve, and depot.

However, nowhere does it clearly (to my ex-army mind) state what types of ship (and how many of them) are stuck in these fleets.

Anyone got a chart, or even a listing, to help me understand this stuff, please?

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

MgT Sector fleet (and as far as I know, Grand Fleet, the equivalent book in older editions) contains a breakdown what the Spinward Marches fleet "should" contain, in the view of the author.

primary assumptions:

1000 combat ships per sector.

that 1000 ships includes the reserve fleet (mothballed and crewed by reservists). the time form mobilisation being ordered to ships being ready varies between 7, 30 and 90 days, with the spilt being about 50%/25%/25% for those three dates (ie half the reserves ready inside of a week, 75% within a month, all of the listed strength in 3 months). I'm not sure quite how the spilt between active and reserve ships goes, but going of a quick check, it seems to be between 30%-50% of the fleet is in mothballs, depending on type and location.

the paper strength of a batron/cruron is 4 capital ships, plus 6-10 escorts and auxiliary ships.

I believe some of those assumptions are debated and disputed by a few board members as "unworkable", but that's the book works on.

 

[Redcap]

This still leaves me somewhat confused, but thanks for trying