Ok, I understand the concepts of Riders but how does one design a Tender for CT High Guard? Lets say I want a Tender for five 20KT riders. How big does the Tender have to be? Is it considered a 200KT ship for Jump Engine purposes and fuel? Basically how does the whole thing work?
How to design a Battle Tender
- Thread starter ddamant
- Start date
As to size, well it has to be big enough
I start by figuring the drives and fuel necessary, and backing it in.
Let's see, first thing is what jump I wanted to take my 100ktons of riders. Say 4. So my jump fuel is 40% of x.
Add a bridge
Presumably you'd want a smaller powerplant for the tender sans riders.
X = 100ktons + .4x + (percent for jdrives times x) + .02x + [anything else as as a pecentage of x]
Solve algebraically :rofl:
Other things to consider, where does the cold watch go?
Even staterooms could, potentially go on the tender rather than the rider.
I start by figuring the drives and fuel necessary, and backing it in.
Let's see, first thing is what jump I wanted to take my 100ktons of riders. Say 4. So my jump fuel is 40% of x.
Add a bridge
Presumably you'd want a smaller powerplant for the tender sans riders.
X = 100ktons + .4x + (percent for jdrives times x) + .02x + [anything else as as a pecentage of x]
Solve algebraically :rofl:
Other things to consider, where does the cold watch go?
Even staterooms could, potentially go on the tender rather than the rider.
Okay here's the formula (actually will determine minimums for any TL15 ship)
Jump Drive Jn+1%
M Drive ((Mn-1)*3)+2%
P Plant Pn%
Bridge 2%
J Fuel Jn*10%
P Plant Fuel Pn%
Fuel Purification 1.5% of total fuel tonnage
Engineering Crew 2% of total engineering tonnage + 2 tons
Command Crew 0.1% of ship tonnage + 2 tons
Service Crew 0.6% of ship tonnage + 2 tons
Add riders and weapons to taste
Assuming a J4 M1 tender with factor 9 meson screens and nuclear dampers, a model 9/fib computer and armed with as many sandcasters as you can cram in; you'll need a tender about 2.49 times the size of the tonnage of riders to be carried costing about MCr1.05 per ton (have I ever mentioned that tenders costs and size are almost exactly a linear progression
)So for five 20KTon riders, you'll need a tender in the 245-250KTon range costing about BCr 260-270.
Last edited:
Otherwise set, you must pool all the percentage based ship parts and make sure the percentage left is enough to carry the BRs you want to carry.
For a TL 15 J4 M1 ship, tonnage requires is 5% for JD, 2% for MD, 4% for PP, 44% for fuel (40% jump, 4% PP) and about 5% for crew accommodation. So you’ll have 60% tonnage used and 40% free.
You want to have 100000 ton of BRs plus 40 ton for a 9 meson screen, so the 40% free must be at least 100040 ton. So 100040/0.4= you need at least a 250000 ton BT.
As you see, numbers coincide with those given by Andrewmv
Though they are exactly equal, I've always found easier the forumula Mn*3-1%
(have I ever mentioned that tenders costs and size are almost exactly a linear progression
Yes, you’ve told us. We’ve discussed it already, and I think single BR BT vs multi BR BT discussion was quite interesting, until the thread moved to other matters
I sent you some reasons for having a multi BR tender on the post 90 (page 9) of the BB vs BR thread. I’d like to know you opinion about it, as design reasons where not among them.
Those are all good reasons. However, because the game rules address none of them in any fashion, we cannot know whether they are part of the game's "reality".
There are two advantages for multi-rider tenders that the game's rules do address. They are arrival times and flexibility of use.
Whether you're using the wider arrival window of CT or the narrower arrival window suggested for squadron jumps in MT, a force of ships do not arrive in a system at the same time unless they all happen to be carried by the same jump drive. A multi-rider tender is going to bring everyone to the party at once, while single-rider tenders are going to arrive over a period of time.
Of course, you can arrive far enough away from your objective that it's defenders cannot reach you before all of your force arrives, but that gives away any chance of surprise. While you're waiting for the rest of you force to jump in, they're getting ready for you.
A multi-rider tender like the one described in "The Spinward Marches Campaign" is going to arrive with several riders and over a hundred fighters within a few thousand kilometers of it's target all at once. That is an advantage addressed in the rules.
As for flexibility of use, a tender needn't have the same TL as it's riders or even carry the same numbers/types of riders. All it does is carry things, any things. A tender is designed to carry tonnage and nothing more.
A tender designed to carry four, TL14, 25,000 dTon riders can also carry five, TL15, 20,000 dTon riders or any combination of anything up to 100,000 dTons. The Fighting Ships supplement for CT makes mention of this when a planetoid monitor is carried between systems by an Imperial rider tender.
A multi-rider tender can be "upgraded" by upgrading it's riders much like how current carriers are "upgraded" by upgrading the aircraft they carry. A single-rider tender chances for "upgrading" are more limited because it carries a more limited amount of dTons.
There are reasons for multi-rider tenders we can only speculate about and there are reasons for multi-rider tenders which are actually expressed in the rules.
True, but if your game is only made about rules, you risk having it only as a dice roll game. It's referee's job to flourish and fill its universe and make it believable, and my reasons point to that direction, that I find as important (if not more) than following the letter of the rules.
About arriving all at once, some errata modified the formula (at least for MT) if the ships spent more time in jump calculations (BTW, I've always thought that instead of making the formula more central in the Gauss Curve, it should roll the die as usual for the flagship and have roll a difference for any other ship wich put them all in a shorter span of time, but not modify the variability of jumping as such).
EDIT: And arriving late may even be a blessing if they act as unexpected reinforcements. If a BT with 8 BRs arrive, the enemy knows what are they against, If Single BT/BR combos begin to arrive, they will be unsure for a span of time, and that may as well be an advantage.END EDIT
And about flexibility, the same flexibility you say may be used for single BR tenders (only aproximate same tonnage must be fit in), and single BR tenders are more flexible in other ways (capability to break down the squadron if needed), as are BBs and Cruisers.
Even so, you know I'm advocate of multi BR tenders, just point the reasons given by andrewmv should not be unheard, as there are many good reasons in his words.
Of course there's not such a thing as squadron cohesion, nor advantages for multi commanders conferences while in jump in the rules, but I think a little of common sense should apply here, and, while perhaps not reflected on rules, that doesn't mean it's important when translating the rules to actual play.
And yet another reason (neither with rules application, and even less deffendible than most I've given, but I think true noneless) would be the strong tendency the military has usually to centralize command, even when this is not the best option.
Last edited:
True, but the rules are the only commonalty we have. We all do things differently in our own games so, when I say I do A and you say you do B, there isn't much in common to talk about. We need to keep returning to the rules in order to keep the conversation as inclusive as possible.
That is extremely important, but how you "season" your game has nothing to do with how someone else "seasons" their game. We need to talk in commonalities and remember to label just what is personal "seasoning" and just what isn't.
That's what I mentioned. It's an option in MT and a DGP option at that. It isn't even an option in CT.
Someone using CT is going to have ships arriving across a period nearly a day long and someone using the DGP option is still going to have ships arriving hours apart. One hour is three HG2 turns and a lot of feces can hit the fan in three turns.
Don't make me laugh. Are you seriously suggesting admirals depend on "unexpected" reinforcements? It's nice when it happens, but it's nothing you plan on occurring.
The flexibility isn't the same because the tonnages are different, that's why I wrote the example in the manner I did.
A multi-rider tender has more tonnage to work with and thus more flexibility. A TL upgrade which drops rider tonnage while retaining the same combat capabilities will trigger more "tonnage savings" for a multi-rider tender. In my example, the "savings" allowed an additional rider to be carried, while with a single-rider tender those "savings" could not be used effectively.
Single-rider tenders give individual riders more flexibility while multi-rider tenders give rider squadrons more flexibility. Guess which way the Imperial Navy is organized? By ships or squadrons? Guess which is better for the Imperial Navy's new "islands of defense/counterpunch" strategic thinking? Having an entire squadron arrive at once or strung out over a dozen or more hours? Guess which ship type gives the Imperial Navy more bang for it's buck? A jump ship or a rider which can act as both the monitor and strike roles?
Multi-rider tenders also break down their squadrons. The tender described in "The Spinward Marches Campaign" does just that on at least two different occasions, first when a single rider destroys a number of Zho DEs while the rest of the squadron is elsewhere and second when the tender drops some of her riders in one system to act as monitors while retreating to another.
Although I agree with you, I'll remind you that your common sense isn't common sense to someone else. As for squadron cohesion, tell me how that works when individual squadron members arrive in the target systems randomly in time across roughly 24 hours.
I'm afraid I didn't express well my Ideas. Of course no sane commander depends on unexpected reinforcements, and they will not be so for the firendly commander, but the enemy commander will not know how many more can apear and may have a nasty surprise if he engages what he thinks it's an inferior force just to see more ships apearing, while the friendly commander knows they will apear soon.
I must concur with you in this point, this kind of flexibility is lost in single BR tenders.
True, they may break down the squadron, but that leaves some of the BRs stranded if an enemy superior force apears, having no way out.
And, I repeat, you don't have to convince me about the multi BRs tenders, I only said andrewmv was not without his part of reason (as always, reason is not fully on any side).
One thing is that a single Tender has it's own High Guard when refueling. It can have just one or two riders do the refueling operation while the rest of the riders are in High Guard position.
A jump shuttle pretty much needs it's Rider to be doing the refueling operation (Unless you make the shuttle partially streamlined so it can do the refueling itself...But then you have the most vulnerable and essential craft in a position where it's easy to ambush them).
A jump shuttle pretty much needs it's Rider to be doing the refueling operation (Unless you make the shuttle partially streamlined so it can do the refueling itself...But then you have the most vulnerable and essential craft in a position where it's easy to ambush them).
Actually, we don't need to convince each other as there are enough plausible benefits found in the rules as written to explain the presence of multi-rider tenders in the setting.
I strongly suspect we're also in agreement that the IN was never 100% ships or riders and that the shift mentioned in the setting is merely a shift in emphasis. The Imperium built battleriders and their tenders before reaching TL15 and dropping it's "crustal" (sic) defense posture and the Imperium still builds battleships and cruisers after reaching TL15 and dropping it's crustal defense posture. Each type of ship provides different benefits and, like any military organizations real or fictional, the IN cannot afford to be a one-trick pony.
It isn't a case of all or nothing. It's a case of shifting percentages.
That's another good reason, as if you make the tender steamlined it cannot be dispersed structure configuration, that is the optimal for a tender (easy to launch crafts, good meson defense, etc).
Of course a squadron of BRs, each one with its tender, would offset that (at least reduce the problem
Actually, we don't need to convince each other as there are enough plausible benefits found in the rules as written to explain the presence of multi-rider tenders in the setting.
I strongly suspect we're also in agreement that the IN was never 100% ships or riders and that the shift mentioned in the setting is merely a shift in emphasis. The Imperium built battleriders and their tenders before reaching TL15 and dropping it's "crustal" (sic) defense posture and the Imperium still builds battleships and cruisers after reaching TL15 and dropping it's crustal defense posture. Each type of ship provides different benefits and, like any military organizations real or fictional, the IN cannot afford to be a one-trick pony.
It isn't a case of all or nothing. It's a case of shifting percentages.
I concur on this too.
The IN, aside from the main defense force of the Imperium, is also its main political tool, and as such, there are missions better suited for a BB or Cruiser, enough to show the flag or a 'goodwill' mission, without tiing a whole squadron
Somewhere there's an article that mentions a shift in emphasis from battleriders to battleships[*] following the experiences of the Fourth Frontier War. Can anyone tell me where that is? I've skimmed some library data and I've skimmed "The Battle Fleets of the Marches" in JTAS9, but didn't find it.
Incidentally, there is quite a lot of interesting background information in TBFotM. All battleriders are definitely portrayed as being able to stand in the line of battle, not some of them battleship-matches and some of them cruiser-matches. However, they are not 20,000 or 25,000T vessels either.
Hans
[*] Or the other way around. I think it's this way around, but I may be misremembering.
Incidentally, there is quite a lot of interesting background information in TBFotM. All battleriders are definitely portrayed as being able to stand in the line of battle, not some of them battleship-matches and some of them cruiser-matches. However, they are not 20,000 or 25,000T vessels either.
JTAS9:43 said:
Hans
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Is it pages 5 and 9 in S9 FS that you are remembering?
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Oh, and the planetoid monitor on page 44 gives us mention of 1 million ton fleet tenders that normally deploy eight 50kt Hadrian class BRs.
That may explain some of the issues that we were trying to work out in the BB vs BR+BT discussion in the other thread.
Under High Guard rules, BT's are invulnerable in the reserve, however, in 'real life' it is unlikely that they would be that invulnerable, especially if they aren't Maneuver-6 rated. They would be easy prey to ships that flank the line, etc which can't happen under High Guard. However, having a solely BT/BR based fleet (Especially as they are designed for High Guard) would lead to that fleet being castrated by killing the Tenders.
Yes, the "jump synchronisation" argument. It falls apart as soon as there is more than one squadron of riders involved. Or if there are any escorts at all. Sadly this argument tends to fall flat too quickly.
And as to the increased flexibility argument (a 25KTon tender can carry one 25KTon, or five 5KTon). Well sadly HG and canon are somewhat silent on this one. Yes Fighting Ships says a million ton tender carried a 50Kton monitor in place of one of its (unspecified tonnage) riders. But that was a one for one swap, presumably for something of an equal or lesser tonnage. Then again you have The Spinward Marches Campaign that very clearly states that whenever the 154th got new riders it also got new tenders (also says that its first rider incarnation used three x three ridertenders).
What canon there is to me indicates that a five rider tender can't carry four of a larger tonnage, it makes more sense. Five X ton mounting points, five X ton extensions to the jump field. You can't then turn that into four X+20% extensions without major modifications (read refit as per TCS). Still I will agree that the multirider tender does have an advantage in this. You can refit it, its not a field modification, but it is possible. Still don't think this compensates for its other inflexibilities, but that's up to the individual
Finally the command and control argument. Sort of like the jump synch argument. Falls apart somewhat when there's more than one tender
And would indicate a Navy that is suspect of individual initiative in captains.Which may in fact be the best and only workable argument for the lack of ANY single rider tenders. Navies in the OTU are rather like the RN in the 16th-19th Century with its notorious "Permanent Fighting Instructions" and want to limit the amount of individual initiative captains have. Must admit it sort of fits with the feel of the setting.
In a wargame such as High Guard, the game is supposed to be strictly about the rules. It's also strictly about the rules when you design a squadron, I design a squadron, then we fight the two to see which is "better". This resolves arguments in the best possible way: by play-testing as a wargame.
But you're right when HG is used in a role-playing setting.
What canon there is to me indicates that a five rider tender can't carry four of a larger tonnage, it makes more sense. Five X ton mounting points, five X ton extensions to the jump field. You can't then turn that into four X+20% extensions without major modifications (read refit as per TCS). Still I will agree that the multirider tender does have an advantage in this. You can refit it, its not a field modification, but it is possible. Still don't think this compensates for its other inflexibilities, but that's up to the individual
I agree with this sentiment, although I doubt the jump field would be harmed unless those ships do something really wrong with the ship's structure or volume. The solution (not to be found in High Guard) is to make sure your tender has enough braces/mounting points/grapples/whatevers to carry the largest possible ship you'd want to be able to carry. Presumably the points would be placed in standardized ways so that smaller ships may be carried instead, or various sized ships in a number of configurations. Consider the Xboat tender: it must use those xboat grapples to hang on to Scouts. But I wouldn't be surprised if you can't necessarily carry a larger number of smaller craft instead of a few very large craft.
Last edited:
And it falls apart even faster as more jump-capable hulls become involved. Multi-rider tenders bring more weapons under one commander to a battle at once. It's as simple as that.
No, they are not. If you've the tonnage capacity, you can carry it. There's even a canonical jump ship design which obviates your mountings/field extensions speculation.
WRONG. Page 33, Third paragraph:
The squadron was made up of 8 battleships for nearly a century after the Civil War, changed to a three jump-3 tenders carrying three riders each configuration in 723, changed to one jump-4 tender carrying six riders configuration in 904, and upgraded it's riders to seven Nolikians after the 4th Frontier War.
Seeing as canon explicit states that the 154th upgraded from six riders of an unknown class to seven riders of the Nolikian-class after the 4th Frontier War, what you believe canon "indicates" is rather suspect.
Still don't think this compensates for its other inflexibilities, but that's up to the individual
True, I suppose it depends on whether the individual in question examines all the canonical evidence or not. Or whether the individual is examining it all with an eye towards making things work or with an eye towards making shit up.
Finally the command and control argument. Sort of like the jump synch argument. Falls apart somewhat when there's more than one tender
If I follow the canonical example I can have seven riders and 200 fighters arrive at the same time under the same command or, if I follow your suggestion, I can have one rider and ~ 30 fighters arrive at the same time under the same command.
Seeing as any sane commander wants to be the "Firstest with the mostest", which design philosophy do you think the Imperium will choose?
That's one plausible argument for the existence of multi-rider tenders. There are others too, if you bother to look for them. Of course, in order to look for them you need to have an open mind.
Similar threads
