How cheap can you make a Commerce Raider?

[aramis]

Actualy, Rob, whether it's a major or minor factor depends a lot on which set of trade rules you use. If you use GT, the level of trade is pervasive to the point of being a major part of every world. If you extrapolate CT Bk2, however, only the smallest worlds show much need/desire for trade.

The best info on pack hunting is in Hard Times.

 

[robject]

whether [anything is] a major or minor factor depends a lot on which set of trade rules you use.

QFT.

And thanks for pointing me to Hard Times, Wil.

 

[Matt123]

Dabling with the idea of computer upgrades for merchants contracted by the Navy for escort work, where there are not enough escorts to go around.

I'd pick it to be an upgrade 'pack', fitting into the cargo bay. Not replacing the ships computer as the Navy will want it back when hostilities cease, instead hardwired into it, slaving the ships computer to the mainframe. It will need a navy computer tech and a junior Navy officier to manage the convoy & ensure the crew fulfill thier duties as escort. The two Navy crew occupy two passenger staterooms.

Tech 13, 14 computer pack
Computer-6, 7 ton 55 MCr, 5EP Power Plant 10 ton 30MCr, Fuel 5 ton
Total 22 ton 85MCr

Computer-7, 9 ton 80MCr, 7EP Power Plant 14 ton 42MCr, Fuel 7 ton
Total 30 ton 122MCr

I can see two major problems using civilian ships as escorts (three if you include a possible lack of dedication once laser beams & nucs start knocking chunks off the ship).
1.. The lack of military grade sensors, reducing the detection range when searching for raiders in ambush.
2.. The lack of ability to co-ordinate jump with other ships in the convoy, resulting in a wide spread of time/distance arrivals at the destination.

I'll try a combat sim tonight vs the raider, I suspect the computer-6 won't be enough of an advantage, but we will see.

 

[rancke]

Actualy, Rob, whether it's a major or minor factor depends a lot on which set of trade rules you use. If you use GT, the level of trade is pervasive to the point of being a major part of every world. If you extrapolate CT Bk2, however, only the smallest worlds show much need/desire for trade.

But if you realize that CT Bk2 only deals with Free Trader trade, you'll also realize that "The Book" doesn't say anything one way or the other about regular trade. MP does say something about regular trade, but not, alas, about volumes.

GT may or may not be wrong, but if it is, we have very little basis for estimating regular volumes of trade. There are a few bits of data in TTA, but it's rather incomplete, since it just tells us about subsector-wide companies, not single-route companies (such as between Junidy and Aramanx).


Hans

 

[Matt123]

By public perception maybe you mean where interstellar travel impacts the population as a whole, yes I agree.

That too, but what I was refering to was the fear factor in that raiding is both closer to home and impacts the population and thier representatives more directly than a more distant, less well understood threat.

During the Crimean War c1850 NZ became consumed by the Russian Threat, not helped by the occasional un-announced visit of Russian warships, viewed by NZers as being up to no good.

Keep in mind that isolated as we are, it is only in recent decades with improvements in communications technology (starting with undersea phone cables to Oz, satelite technology, internet & finally broadband) that a better public understanding of where we 'sit' in the world has emerged. Before that 'of course' NZ was the centre of the world and 'naturally' the Russians wanted our green pastures & sheep to feed thier starving hordes.

All a bit embarrising in hindsight...

But at the time this resulted in massive public works (massive on a NZ scale) to protect NZ from Russian Invasion in the 1880's onwards. Did the authorities know better? I'd put money on it that they did. Did the public know any better, of course not, it was an irrational fear born of ignorance. Was the solution education or build some defences? Probably both, but 30 years after the Crimean war, this battery (& others) was completed and used in anger against wayward fishing boats. The NZ public was finally able to sleep easy at night.

http://www.doc.govt.nz/parks-and-re...mahaanui-area/ripapa-island-historic-reserve/

More recent examples of percieved threats blown out of proportion and responded to out of all proportion to thier economic impact are plentiful.

Even expected demand tends to be more speculative than not in Traveller. By the book, that is. Aramis has explained that this is reasonable, as well.

Not sure what you mean 'by the book'. And whilst Aramis has plenty of good well developed views, quoting Aramis in this context is a little 'odd'.

Do we have info on how wartime scheduling works in Traveller?

Not to my knowledge. Best examples we have are wartime convoys US to Britian, Britian to Russia. IIRC, convoys from NZ/Oz to Britian were only escorted if they contained troopships, a very good example of prioritising!

The most current example of major wartime shipping operations was the build-up of forces in (IIRC) Egypt in preparation for Iraq II. A huge logistical operation, yet on a small scale when comparred to getting vital goods to a world in a war zone.

Risk we know a little bit about, by the book.

So what we know is a little about risk, and a little about shipping.

Its that book again, I don't follow you. Regards risk or more importantly the public perception of it, we know quite a bit. Governments have been using or reacting to public fears since the dawn of history. Regards prioritising cargos in wartime we also know quite a bit. No point shipping high value goods, when local industry needs ball bearings.

Raider successes will happen, but raiders can also be repulsed, again by the book, since it wouldn't be a very fun game otherwise. Oberlindes freighters tend to be armed, presumably to fight off raiders. Also presumably these freighters could operate independently or in convoy -- I note that a convoy of armed 1,000t vessels would not draw out a single raider, which seems to be what the book has charts for.

Agree on all points. Large convoys with several well armed merchants (without 'computer packs') stand a good chance of first, not being intercepted, second fighting/scaring off any small raiders that they do encounter.

Do we have info on "pack hunting" by raiders? For example, by Vargr corsairs?

I haven't read Hard Times, but pack hunting goes hand in hand with raiders. When pickings are good, raiders will operate independently - often in the opening phases before merchant protection is established. When pickings get tough, the raiders will gather together to co-operate, combining sensor sweeps and attacks.

Just checked, I have Hard Times on one of my new shiney CD's. Thank you Marc

 

[Matt123]

I'm assuming GT volumes of trade. Large volumes between close major worlds, getting thinner as distance grows.

Volume between Depot and the front lines, isn't taken into account tho'. Nor is a sudden local need for specific supplies on front line worlds, in response to real or percieved threats. And neither is the reduction in shipping volume when/if convoy systems are put in place.

IMHO, its the longer trip convoys (& couriers) which are both smaller and travel through risky systems, that will be at most risk.

The shipping between major worlds is likely to be unaffected by raiders, large or small, due to the system defences in place. Many will also try to protect neaby refueling points on thier multi-system trade routes (Han's 'pickets').

 

[rancke]

The shipping between major worlds is likely to be unaffected by raiders, large or small, due to the system defences in place. Many will also try to protect neaby refueling points on thier multi-system trade routes (Hans' 'pickets').

Oooh! Not 'pickets'. That's the wrong word! What I should have used was something like 'task force assigned to guard a refuelling point in an intermediate system along a trade route without its own system defence force'.


Hans

 

[Malinor]

Oooh! Not 'pickets'. That's the wrong word! What I should have used was something like 'task force assigned to guard a refuelling point in an intermediate system along a trade route without its own system defence force'.


Hans

Since refueling points usually refer to GG's, I think moon-based fortifications or weapons systems would come into play, for reasons similar to the NZ shore defenses Matt123 referred to. How often does a military/naval base pop up on a GG moon(let) during a world generating session, to cause us to wonder "what's that there for?" A fort armed with missile bays, PAWS or meson cannon in over-watch position close by a GG would give a raider something to think about.

 

[Tellon]

A fort armed with missile bays, PAWS or meson cannon in over-watch position close by a GG would give a raider something to think about.

Defense sats are an integral part of a planet, moon or GG set-up, not only will a GG have SDB's in wait -- but will have floating missile bays .. lol

So a wolf-pack will be needed with any heavily trafficked system, since the raiders will be dealing with SDB's, naval (combat ships) and defense sats ...

now the question becomes -- Do the pirates notice the busy minelayer, who has been putting mines in thier way? as the GG is slowly becoming surrounded by mines -- except for a narrow corridor -- carefully watched by SDB's .. where all refeuling has to go thru to get to the GG.

 

[rancke]

now the question becomes -- Do the pirates notice the busy minelayer, who has been putting mines in thier way? as the GG is slowly becoming surrounded by mines -- except for a narrow corridor -- carefully watched by SDB's .. where all refeuling has to go thru to get to the GG.

How many mines does it take to surround a gas giant, and how much do they cost apiece?


Hans

 

[flykiller]

How many mines does it take to surround a gas giant, and how much do they cost apiece?

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=4099&highlight=mines

 

[Matt123]

Looking at the Raiders weapons layout, I redid the design & came across some discrepancies. The corrected design follows, including the design sheet (should have done one earlier). The main changes are extra Fusion guns and agility-2. (was a spreadsheet error calculating EP's)

***** Budhyi Light Raider *****
[FONT=arial, helvetica]FR-1010___FR-6624452-030000-05002-0___MCr304___600 tons
Batteries Bearing_______3_____4___6_______________TL13
Batteries______________3_____4___6______________Crew = 14.
Fuel 144. EP = 24. Agility = 2. Size Mod = -1. Total Def Mod = 3. Computer model = 5.
Cargo = 216 tons. Staterooms = 12. Passengers = 4 (8 if bunked up). Low Berths = 20
Streamlined. Fuel Scoops. Fuel Purification Plant. 10 ton Launch
Emergency Agility = 4. Class development cost = 79.83 MCr
Backups; 2x Computer model 2[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica]
Ton MCr Component
600.0 48.00 Hull, Flattened Sphere, Streamlined
00.00 00.00 Armour-0
18.00 72.00 JD2
66.00 33.00 MD4
48.00 144.00 PP4 (24 EP's)
0.000 00.60 Fuel Scoops
05.00 00.03 Fuel Purification Plant
120.0 00.00 Jump Fuel (1x J2)
24.00 00.00 PP Fuel (28 days)
20.00 03.00 Bridge
05.00 45.00 Computer model-5 (3 EP's)[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica]04.00 18.00 backups 2x Computer model-2
01.00 00.75 1x Triple Turret, 3x Sandcaster-3 batteries
04.00 08.00 2x Double Turret, 4x Fusion-5 batteries (8 EP's)
02.00 04.50 2x Triple Turrets, 6x missile-2 batteries
48.00 06.00 12x Staterooms (14 crew, Captain, Pilot, Navigator, Medic, 4 Engineers, 6 Gunners)
10.00 00.02 Launch/Lifeboat launch facilities. (Cost of Launch not included)[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica]10.00 01.00 20x Low Berths
[/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]215.0 00.00[/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica] Cargo
600.0 383.9 less 20% class discount = MCr307.12[/FONT]

 

[Matt123]

Captain Tye had accepted the Navy escort contract with reluctance. It pays well, in essence paying for a full hold plus some every trip. But its a risky business doing the Navies work for them, especially with a young idealistic Ensign on board to ensure 'zeal'.

As the Commerce Raider Budhyi closes in on the merchants, one pulls away, a 200 ton Trader, putting itself firmly between the raider and the rest of the Convoy. Clearly escorts are at a premium.

The 200 ton Far Trader has J2, MD2, Agility-0, Computer-7, 3x Sand-3, 3x Missile-2, Size Mod -1

***** Summary *****
With a computer-7 on board (+2 on the raiders computer-5), the Far Trader clearly wins the combat, likely driving off the raider after only 20 minutes.

After doing the computer-7 combat I re-did it for a computer-6 (+1 on the raiders computer-5). The model-6 did poorly. IMHO you might fit model-6 if you could spare the merchant losses and took the view you were only aiming to wear down the raider over several combats. But thats probably not a practicle strategy once political, trade and senior military views are considered.

So the cheapest escort is a J2 Far Trader with a computer-7 'pack', Nuclear missiles, a Navy Ensign and a Navy Computer Tech.
30 tons, 122 MCr

The Far Trader however suffers from a lack of military sensors, military crew and a fleet jump co-ordinating widget.


**** Combat Simulation 1 ****
Turn 1. The Light Raider Budhyi fires at long range, 6 x missile-2 needing 6+ to hit, modified to (size mod -1, computer diff -2) 9+ (27.77%) giving 1.66 hits. 3x sand-3 battery must be defeated, needing 6+ modified to (computer diff -2) 8+ (first 0.83 hit x 41.66% twice, second 0.83 hit x 41.66%), giving 0.49 hits rounded to 0 hits.

The Far Trader has perhaps a lucky escape.

The Far Trader fires back, 3x missile-2 batteries, hits on 6+ modified to (defensive modifier -3, computer dif +2) 7+ (58.333%) giving 1.75 hits. 4x fusion-5 batteries must be defeated on 8+ modified to (computer dff +2) 6+ (each 0.875 hit x 72.2% twice) giving .912 hits. 3 sand-3 batteries must be defeated on 6+ modified to (computer dif +2) 4+ (0.912 x 91.66% three times) giving 0.702 hits, rounded to 1 hits with Navy supplied nuclear warheads.

Nuclear Missile damage, first the surface explosion table and subject to a +0 modifier (+6 for weapon factor under 9, -6 for Nucs). The range of results is from 2 to 12.
Damage (die roll - ??/36)...... hits (fractions of 1 hits)
Critical (2 – 1/36) … 0.0277
Interior Explosion (3,4,5 – 7/36)... 0.194
Maneuver-2 (6 – 5/36)..... 0.138
Fuel-3 (7 – 6/36)..... 0..166
Weapon-3 (8 – 5/36)..... 0.138
Maneuver-1 (9, 12 – 5/36)..... 0.138
Fuel-2 (10 – 3/36)..... 0.083 (fuel hits 0.249, fuel loss 0.664%)
Weapon-2 (11 – 2/36)..... 0.055 (weapon hits 0.194, factor losses 0.524)
Damage result is a fuel-3 (Fuel loss 3%, minimum 10 tons).

Nuclear Missile Damage, radiation table and subject to a +6 modifier (+6 for weapon factor under 9). the range of results is from 8 to 18.
Computer-2 (2,3,5 – 7/36)... 0.194
Weapon-4 (4 – 3/36)... 0.083
Weapon-3 (6 – 5/36)... 0.138
Computer-1 (7,9 – 10/36)... 0.277 (computer hits 0.943, factor losses 1.331)
Weapon-2 (8,10 – 8/36)... 0.222
Weapon-1 (11,12 – 3/36)... 0.083 (weapon hits 1.053, factor losses 2.55)
Damage results is Computer-1 (reduces to computer model-6).

The Raider takes a fuel hit (10 tons lost) and a computer-1 hit. Most crucial is the Computer damage, meaning that after field repairs, the raider may suffer computer degredation on future raids.

*** Is this enough to cause the raider to have second thoughts? IMHO yes, unless he has a desire to return to a friendly port for repairs (read this as a strategic win for the escort). But if he has to, or decides to stay for turn 2...

Turn 2. Initiative is won by the Raider (+1 higher agility, +1 ships tactics). Ships tactics seems more appropriate than Fleet tactics & the raider can be expected to have a higher skill than a merchant or the Navy ensign. Short range is chosen.

The Light Raider Budhyi fires, 6 x missile-2 needing 6+ to hit, modified to (size mod -1, close range -1, computer diff -3) 11+ (8.3%) giving 1 hits. 1x sand-3 battery must be defeated, needing 6+ modified to (computer diff +3) 9+ (1 hit x 27.7%), giving 0.277 hits rounded to 0 hits.

4 x Energy-5 needing 6+ to hit, modified to (size mod -1, computer diff -3) 10+ (16.6%) giving 0.666 hits. 2x sand-3 battery must be defeated, needing 4+ modified to (computer diff +3) 7+ (0.666 hit x 58.3% twice), giving 0.226 hits rounded to 0 hits.

In return our Far Trader fires 3 x missile-2 needing 6+ to hit, modified to (def mod -3, close range -1, computer diff +3) 7+ (58.33%) giving 1.75 hits. 3x sand-3 battery must be defeated, needing 6+ modified to (computer diff +3) 3+ (first 0.875 hits x 97.2% twice, second 0.875 hit x 97.2%), giving 1.677 hits rounded to 2 hits.

Nuclear Missile damage, first the surface explosion table and subject to a +0 modifier (+6 for weapon factor under 9, -6 for Nucs). The range of results is from 2 to 12.
Damage (die roll - ??/36)...... hits (fractions of 2 hits)
Critical (2 – 1/36) … 0.055
Interior Explosion (3,4,5 – 7/36)... 0.388
Maneuver-2 (6 – 5/36)..... 0.277
Fuel-3 (7 – 6/36)..... 0..333
Weapon-3 (8 – 5/36)..... 0.277
Maneuver-1 (9, 12 – 5/36)..... 0.277
Fuel-2 (10 – 3/36)..... 0.166 (fuel hits 0.5, fuel loss 1.331%)
Weapon-2 (11 – 2/36)..... 0.111 (weapon hits 0.388, factor losses 1.053)
Damage results are a fuel hit (10 tons lost) and either an interior explosion or a weapon hit.

Nuclear Missile Damage, radiation table and subject to a +6 modifier (+6 for weapon factor under 9). the range of results is from 8 to 18.
Computer-2 (2,3,5 – 7/36)... 0.388
Weapon-4 (4 – 3/36)... 0.166
Weapon-3 (6 – 5/36)... 0.277
Computer-1 (7,9 – 10/36)... 0.555 (computer hits 0.943, factor losses 1.331)
Weapon-2 (8,10 – 8/36)... 0.444
Weapon-1 (11,12 – 3/36)... 0.166 (weapon hits 1.053, factor losses 2.55)
Damage results are Computer-1 (reduces to computer model-3), Weapon-3 (1x missile battery)

At the end of Turn 2, the Far Trader has suffered no combat damage, the raider has had its butt kicked.

 

[E.D.Quibell]

Have you tried the commerce raider comming up against a convoy of say 10 to 20 Merchants all carrying missile turrets?

If they aren't enough to take out the raider by themselves (for aceptable losses (i.e. a ship)) then add the one one with an upgraded computer (and why wouldn't you put in a computer-9?).

The raider would faced a barage of missiles, and then possibily followed by a fight with the "escort" as the other break off into jump.

Just a thought.

Regards,

Ewan

 

[Matt123]

Have you tried the commerce raider comming up against a convoy of say 10 to 20 Merchants all carrying missile turrets?

I've kinda shyed away from that so far. But yes you are right, thats the next step. And arming 10 to 20 merchants is cheaper again than a computer pack.

If they aren't enough to take out the raider by themselves (for aceptable losses (i.e. a ship)) then add the one one with an upgraded computer (and why wouldn't you put in a computer-9?).

To keep costs down, aiming to see how cheaply can you nullify a cheap raider. Using computer-7 is about half the cost & should frighten off most cheap raiders.

Tech 13, 14 Computer pack
Computer-7, 9 ton 80MCr, 7EP Power Plant 14 ton 42MCr, Fuel 7 ton
Total 30 ton 122MCr

Computer-9 13 ton 140 MCr, 12EP Power Pack 24 ton 72MCr, Fuel 12 tons
Total 59 tons 212MCr

I'll have a go with arming a convoy of merchants & see how many it takes to defeat this raider. This may take a while...

 

[Mithras]

Why not place 5 autonomous MIRV launchers in orbit? Nuclear missiles and attendant sensor gear with hardened computer able to scan for friend or foe, maybe wired in to sensor satellites in wide GG orbits.

How many mines does it take to surround a gas giant, and how much do they cost apiece?


Hans

 

[Mithras]

FYI: http://www.sff.net/people/kitsune/Traveller/images/fatcorsair.png

In a LBB2 universe quite an effective 'Q-ship' can be achieved by replacing every launch on every Fat Trader in the convoy with a 20t 6g fighter of identical hull form (remember the catapult launched fighters carried by some merchants during WW2?).

I would also upgrade a couple of the FTs to have improved m-drives, computers, weaponry and carry additional 10t fighters.

 

[E.D.Quibell]

FYI: http://www.sff.net/people/kitsune/Traveller/images/fatcorsair.png

Nice.

A Modular Cutter with a figter pod would be better than the armed fast launch in the cargo deck.

Just MHO.

Regards,

Ewan

 

[Tellon]

the 600 dTon raider generally just reminds me of a military pirate -- a privateer if ya will .. and iirc, the Pirate has 2x Missile, 2x Laser -- so decent combat ability for a small vessel.

which is why I go more for a 5000 dTon radier -- packed with missile barbettes and a high ROF Spinal-PAW

but I guess there is a difference between making a cheap raider vs an effective one
---

and I'll even take a pack of those lil raiders vs a big one -- I figure a 5000 dTon raider could outdo 10 of those lil 600 dTon raiders (essentially giving up 1000 dTons) -- but I am thinking that Spinal Mount would wreak havoc against most of the small raiders.

Thus, I am looking at a real situation -- why are you going to use a pack of small raiders -- who then face off against packs of heavily armored SDB's

or use a larger raider and make the locals very nervous ...

 

[Matt123]

but I guess there is a difference between making a cheap raider vs an effective one

That depends entirely on your goal. If its to beat up large escorts, your 5000 ton raider will be a winner. If its to seed havoc and cause sub-sector wide disruption (with the cost differance, make that 2 sub-sectors), forcing major shipping changes and diversion of combat assets, you are better of with numbers.

Ones a tactical goal, the others a strategic one.

Thus, I am looking at a real situation -- why are you going to use a pack of small raiders -- who then face off against packs of heavily armored SDB's

or use a larger raider and make the locals very nervous ...

For a start you do not use them to fight combat ships! Thats the job of the battle fleets, not raiders. Use raiders vs unarmed or lightly armed merchants & infrastructure. IMHO if you want to beat up escorts, send a cruiser in.