How to design a Battle Tender

[AndreaV]

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 it doesn't, it just means you have larger groups arriving with less predictability. Really simple, the whole jump synch argument really doesn't hold that much water. Plus it really tends to ignore that military jump drives are far more accurate than standard drives.

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.

Sigh, I would rather suggest you may want to read something before you post about it.

"In 723, the squadron was transferred to the lmperial depot at Fornast. There, it was reorganized as a Battle Rider Squadron and equipped with the early Auliaau class riders and carriers - three jump-3 carriers, each carrying three riders.

(...)

The squadron remained there until 904, when it refitted with the new Quiquilat class Battle Riders - one jump-4 carrier and six riders. In 906, it was transferred to Deneb sector to patrol the border with the Vargr states. With the outbreak of the Third Frontier War in 979, the squadron was transferred to the Spinward Marches, where it fought in the region of Lysen and Utoland. It remained stationed in the Marches at lnthe (2410).

When the Fourth Frontier War began in 1082, the 154th Battle Riders Squadron was one of the units that responded immediately. The squadron fought in the delaying actions in the Jewells, the long-range strike at Chronor, and in the war's final Battle of Two Suns.

Following the war, the squadron was transferred to the Imperial Depot at Corridor where it was equipped with the current standard Nolikian class Battle Riders. It was transferred back to the Spinward Marches in 1093 and stationed at Denotam (1413)."

The squadron upgraded from its previous battleships to Auliaau class riders (3 3 rider tenders) in 731. To Quiquilat class riders (1 tender and 6 riders) in 904. And finally to Nolikian class riders (1 tender and 7 riders) in 1094.

The text is silent on the class of tenders or if they were upgraded as well (well other than the first upgrade). Given that in 904 the Imperium was TL14 and the Lurenti is a TL15 design. I would say the "evidence" would rather strongly indicate that each time, when the squadron upgraded its riders it upgraded its tender as well (in fact that the tender class is never mentions could indicate that they are specific to the rider class).

It is possible I suppose that the squadron was equipped with a TL15 tender some 150 years before it became standard, but it seems unlikely. Also given that the time frame between refit is 190 years, which is almost exactly what numerous analysis have indicated is the expected lifetime of a Traveller ship. I would say the text rather better fits my interpretation

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.

Will ignore the insult, put it down to callow youth

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?

Again, you have no idea how many riders will be available at any given time. Seven individual riders may well arrive before the multirider tender. May not too. May have twenty arrive before it does, whole point of it being random. All you can say is the smaller the sample, the less predictable the results will be. And be they Egyptians in 2000BCE or Imperials in 5700CE, most military commanders tend to dislike things being less predictable.

Also all this jump synch argument is dependent on immediate combat on arrival and an encounter battle. Both these are rather unlikely occurrences. Most commanders will tend to wait for their full force (or at least a very significant portion of it) to arrive before risking combat and most combats will take place between a fleet jumping in and one in place.

And with that I shall bow out. When the insults start flying its time to leave

 

[rancke]

No it doesn't, it just means you have larger groups arriving with less predictability. Really simple, the whole jump synch argument really doesn't hold that much water. Plus it really tends to ignore that military jump drives are far more accurate than standard drives.

The last bit is not correct, I think. Coordinated jumps are made by spending a lot more time on the jump calculations, not by using better jump drives. (That would be a good thing to introduce, BTW; military/scout grade jump drives that cost more than civilian drives -- preferrably so much more that they aren't commercially viable, but not so much more that the military and scouts would think they weren't worth the cost).

About single-rider tenders being more economic and flexible than multi-rider tenders. I know I've argued that the Admiralty Boyz couldn't possibly be stupid enough to be building 500,000T battleships if it was actually possible to buy 75,000T heavy cruisers that had roughly the same combat effectiveness and cost five times less. But I gather the difference in this case isn't anywhere near that great. Isn't is possible that the decision makers prefer multi-rider tenders because they mistakenly believe that they are better in some significant way, and the difference is too small to prove them wrong?


Hans

 

[Orr]

No it doesn't, it just means you have larger groups arriving with less predictability.

If the larger group is being carried by one jump drive, it arrives at the same time.

Plus it really tends to ignore that military jump drives are far more accurate than standard drives.

I'd ask for a cite for that, but it's most likely just more shit you've made up. Jump's physical accuracy has always been 3,000 km per parsec jumped and the only adjustment to jump's time accuracy has been DGP's suggested squadron sync.

Sigh, I would rather suggest you may want to read something before you post about it.

Read the passage again. The 154th upgraded from six riders of one class to seven riders of another after the Fourth Frontier War and after the Imperium reached TL15.

It's right there in the text you quoted:

The squadron upgraded from its previous battleships to Auliaau class riders (3 3 rider tenders) in 731. To Quiquilat class riders (1 tender and 6 riders) in 904. And finally to Nolikian class riders (1 tender and 7 riders) in 1094.

The upgrade to the seven Nolikians occurred in 1094. The Imperium reached TL15 around the time of the Rim War circa 1000.

And with that I shall bow out. When the insults start flying its time to leave.

And nothing of value was lost.

 

[rancke]

If the larger group is being carried by one jump drive, it arrives at the same time.

And if the larger group is just exactly precisely the size of the force needed to perform the task at hand, that's all you need. However, if the task require the larger group to be accompanied by its usual escorts, or if the group needed to perform the task is larger than the larger group, or if two tasks both requiring a half-squadron in two different places need to be performed at the same time, or if the Admiral doesn't want to send the larger group to a spot in the enemy system where the defenders might have been reinforced in the last two weeks, then your single battletender is either inadequare or redundant.

It's not that a multi-rider battletender isn't better in one specific type of scenario. It's that this specific type of scenario doesn't sound like it's going to crop up all that frequently.

I can see military planners make the same mistake, though.

I'd ask for a cite for that, but it's most likely just more shit you've made up. Jump's physical accuracy has always been 3,000 km per parsec jumped and the only adjustment to jump's time accuracy has been DGP's suggested squadron sync.

When you've been arguing about the same stuff for decades, you sometimes mix up the things you read in canon sources and the things you or someone else have made up. This is not necessarily a sign of diabolical malice; it may just be a genuine mistake. And it makes for a lot better atmosphere if people didn't automatically put the worst possible interpretation on what their opponents in the discussion writes.

And nothing of value was lost.

See, I'm not going to assume...

...I'm not even going to tell you what I'm not going to assume. I'm just going to tell you that your innocent attempt at humor didn't make me laugh.


Hans

 

[AndreaV]

The last bit is not correct, I think. Coordinated jumps are made by spending a lot more time on the jump calculations, not by using better jump drives. (That would be a good thing to introduce, BTW; military/scout grade jump drives that cost more than civilian drives -- preferrably so much more that they aren't commercially viable, but not so much more that the military and scouts would think they weren't worth the cost).

Think the exact wording was "finely tuned military drives." I've always taken that to mean the drives are made and maintained to higher than civilian levels. Could be just more time on jump calculations. Still given that apparently the "finely tuned military drives" don't cost any more than the poorly tuned civilian ones, I'd give you this point

About single-rider tenders being more economic and flexible than multi-rider tenders. I know I've argued that the Admiralty Boyz couldn't possibly be stupid enough to be building 500,000T battleships if it was actually possible to buy 75,000T heavy cruisers that had roughly the same combat effectiveness and cost five times less. But I gather the difference in this case isn't anywhere near that great. Isn't is possible that the decision makers prefer multi-rider tenders because they mistakenly believe that they are better in some significant way, and the difference is too small to prove them wrong?


Hans

Quite possibly, but the discussion has already got too "heated" for my tastes and has moved sooooo far away from the original request for help that IMHO its time to leave it.

Andrew

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Keep it civil, please.

 

[McPerth]

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.

Then, as mercenary abstract system (more or less ground equivalent to HG) does not talk about fortifications, they are not used in CT, even if there is a skill (combat engineering) that specifically deals with them...

If you play only with the rules, then results may be quite absurd. See the post about Eurisko in the thread 'fighter performance', CT forum. It (and the news it relates to) talk about what happens if the only consideration is Rules. Even the rules assume some untold things.

 

[McPerth]

And nothing of value was lost.

I fully disagree in this point. Andrew has been (to now at least, nothing makes me think that will change) the best advocate of new form of thinking about BR/BT design that, though I personally don't share, has its merit, and his reasonings to defend his ideas are sound and polite.

I was liking the debate, that I found (to now) quite interesting and opens my mind to new ideas, regardless if I share them or not, and I think much is lost if the main advocate on one side leaves.

Please, remember all that in no debate one side has all the reason. Always (or nerarly so) there is reason in both sides, and so it's always interesting to listen them politely, and to challenge them with reasoning. The other part in any debate can be at least as intelligent as myself, and so I should listen them, as I surely will learn something, be it to reinforce my thinking or to doubt about it.

Think the exact wording was "finely tuned military drives." I've always taken that to mean the drives are made and maintained to higher than civilian levels. Could be just more time on jump calculations. Still given that apparently the "finely tuned military drives" don't cost any more than the poorly tuned civilian ones, I'd give you this point

As I remember, when that was told about in a Q&A section (IIRC in Traveller Digest), the answer was about spending more time coordinating the jump among the fleet, so I don't think it depends on jump drives tuning, but in coordinating them.

 

[Garyius2003]

If you are going to design a battle tender at TL 15 using High Guard...

A Cruiser level rider is 8k tons. J Meson, max damper and meson screen, 3 factor 9 missile bays, 6G A6, 15 armor, 9fib comp.

A Battleship level rider at 25K has all the same factors, only a code T Meson gun.

ETA: Just saw the other thread where this was argued out. Sorry

 

[Birdrock]

Then, as mercenary abstract system (more or less ground equivalent to HG) does not talk about fortifications, they are not used in CT, even if there is a skill (combat engineering) that specifically deals with them...

If you play only with the rules, then results may be quite absurd. See the post about Eurisko in the thread 'fighter performance', CT forum. It (and the news it relates to) talk about what happens if the only consideration is Rules. Even the rules assume some untold things.

I understand, and agree. I was just speaking my mind about the intent of the rules in High Guard. I can't speak to Mercenary... Tho I recall that its gun design section is quite gear headed iirc, which points to some degree back to the wargaming angle. Even tho fortifications are not represented.

Side note... There's a lot missing from High Guard that the OTU implies, too. And it is 'gamable', and yet is still a war-game.

 

[McPerth]

I understand, and agree. I was just speaking my mind about the intent of the rules in High Guard. I can't speak to Mercenary... Tho I recall that its gun design section is quite gear headed iirc, which points to some degree back to the wargaming angle. Even tho fortifications are not represented.

Side note... There's a lot missing from High Guard that the OTU implies, too. And it is 'gamable', and yet is still a war-game.

All rules sets assume many things that cannot be explicited on them, unless you want to have a rules set akin the British Enciclopedia, and they are yet playable.

In this aspect, HG is perfectly playable, but I think some things must be taken into account when designing ships that are not explicited there, and the points I gave about squadron cohesion and possiblity of in-jump conferences, while have no direct effect on play (after all there are not even crew quality rules), should be quite important in reality.

Of course, HG combat rules are most for wargame playing than for RP, even if they are part of a RPG. Any medium to large ship designed in HG is powerful enough for being a given match in RP. With any ship the players use to have (Unless you play a high command Navy campaign), any such combat will be 'do you sorrounder or let's begin rolling new characters?'

 

[mike wightman]

The crew quality rules are implied in the 'Individuals' section on page 44.

regular - no modifiers

veteran - +1 to effective computer model, +1 to agility, +1 initiative
(equivalent to pc skill level of 3 in fleet tactics, ship's tactics and pilot)

elite - +2 to effective computer model, +2 to agility, +2 initiative
(equivalent to pc skill level of 5 in fleet tactics, ship's tactics and pilot)

I would add:

green - -1 to effective computer model, -1 to agility, -1 initiative

 

[McPerth]

The crew quality rules are implied in the 'Individuals' section on page 44.

regular - no modifiers

veteran - +1 to effective computer model, +1 to agility, +1 initiative
(equivalent to pc skill level of 3 in fleet tactics, ship's tactics and pilot)

elite - +2 to effective computer model, +2 to agility, +2 initiative
(equivalent to pc skill level of 5 in fleet tactics, ship's tactics and pilot)

I would add:

green - -1 to effective computer model, -1 to agility, -1 initiative

True, but there are other things a good crew should be better able to do than a regular one (gunnery skill, engineering, damage control, etc...).

What you talk is about skills of key officiers (aldmiral, ship's capitain and pilot), but not the crew as a whole. Following the rule, you could have a Battleship with a crew on the thousends, where all the crew was skill 0 in their relevant skills, but a ship tactics 7 capitain and a pilot 7, and will still have a +3 to effective computer rating and +3 to agility, as the thousends of extra crew are only bodies to kill.

 

[Keep On Travellin']

This topic is DEEP. Fleets of that size would be staggering to go up against, and would OWN a system, or at least put up a huge fight with one. Would a campaign based around Battle Rider Ops be possible, or too big or restrictive?