Looking for a resource on Capital Ships

[mike wightman]

Hi Rob.

The battle rider/battle tender combo is designed for only one thing - standing in the line of battle and destroying enemy battleships and battle riders. Hence the mission and designation BatRon.

In the fictional setting of the OTU the 3rd Imperium has fought recent wars as a TL14/15 navy and has finally upgraded to full TL15 by the time of the FFW. The admirals and architects have learned the lessons of the Fourth Frontier War and Solomani Rim War and noticed that TL15 battle riders are more than capable of defeating their usual opponents.

To this end the Imperium enjoys a tremendous advantage over its foes in that it is a whole TL above them, the principle advantage of which is a power plant half the size of the lower TL opponent, having more powerful and smaller spinals and better screens doesn't come amiss either

So the battle rider can carry a battleship sized meson gun, screens and enough armour to make the massive secondary battery fire available to the battleships so much more ineffective. This has lead to the IN designating battle riders/tender as BatRons because they are more than capable of defeating Solomani or Zhodani battleships.

The context is everything.

I believe that this is deliberate on the part of the game designers.

I agree with your appraisal of battleships.

A battle rider lacks the extensive secondary weaponry of the BB and doesn't really need them. It's high agility, armour and screen value make it much more survivable than the BBs, and its main gun can mission kill any ship in 1 hit.

Remember though that this is because of the TL advantage.

Build riders and tenders at TL14 and they have to be much larger, so much so that the difference between them and battleships is not so pronounced, and maxing out armour is more difficult so the rider takes a lot more damage from secondary weapons.

This is all assuming that the High Guard 2 rules are used, and the folks at GDW meant them to model large ship combat at evert TL over the span encountered in the OTU.

Until you actually build ships at every TL, fight a lot of battles, and critically evaluate your designs, a lot of mistakes will be made.

 

[robject]

The context is everything.

I believe that this is deliberate on the part of the game designers.

I agree with your appraisal of battleships.

A battle rider lacks the extensive secondary weaponry of the BB and doesn't really need them. It's high agility, armour and screen value make it much more survivable than the BBs, and its main gun can mission kill any ship in 1 hit.

Remember though that this is because of the TL advantage.

Very specifically, this covers the difference between TL 14 and TL 15. Presumably, there are also tactical (and strategic?) gaps represented between other TL pairs.

In Traveller5, I think the reality is not much changed.

 

[rancke]

The battle rider/battle tender combo is designed for only one thing - standing in the line of battle and destroying enemy battleships and battle riders. Hence the mission and designation BatRon.

Unfortunately, since they are much smaller than battleships they must be unable to absorb the tremendous amount of damage that battleships can and thus unable to stand up to them. Whatever the combat system implies.

In the fictional setting of the OTU the 3rd Imperium has fought recent wars as a TL14/15 navy and has finally upgraded to full TL15 by the time of the FFW. The admirals and architects have learned the lessons of the Fourth Frontier War and Solomani Rim War and noticed that TL15 battle riders are more than capable of defeating their usual opponents.

According to FS, the Imperium mostly used battleriders instead of battleships. After the 4FW they are switching to more battleships.

To this end the Imperium enjoys a tremendous advantage over its foes in that it is a whole TL above them, the principle advantage of which is a power plant half the size of the lower TL opponent, having more powerful and smaller spinals and better screens doesn't come amiss either

So the battle rider can carry a battleship sized meson gun, screens and enough armour to make the massive secondary battery fire available to the battleships so much more ineffective. This has lead to the IN designating battle riders/tender as BatRons because they are more than capable of defeating Solomani or Zhodani battleships.

And they would likewise be perfectly capable of defeating Imperial battleships. Which is the crucial point that your argument fails to address. Yes, battleriders are portrayed as being more than adequate to deal with battleships. So why build battleships? And just where does the controversy over the efficiency of battleriders vs. battleships come from? So what if batteriders are vulnerable to attacks by overwhelming forces (which, incidentally, a simple change of doctrine to being loadedup when stationed in a system would change), if your opponent needs to muster eight times as many ships to achieve overwhelming odds?

A battle rider lacks the extensive secondary weaponry of the BB and doesn't really need them. It's high agility, armour and screen value make it much more survivable than the BBs, and its main gun can mission kill any ship in 1 hit.

So why build more expensive and less efficient ships at all? That's what you have to explain to make sense and that's what you haven't explained.

Remember though that this is because of the TL advantage.

Build riders and tenders at TL14 and they have to be much larger, so much so that the difference between them and battleships is not so pronounced, and maxing out armour is more difficult so the rider takes a lot more damage from secondary weapons.

It's not about what the Zhodani build. It's about why the Imperium keep building battleships when anything over a well-designed heavy cruiser is a complete waste of money and why they build ships instead of riders at all.

This is all assuming that the High Guard 2 rules are used, and the folks at GDW meant them to model large ship combat at evert TL over the span encountered in the OTU.

No, it's assuming that the HG2 rules are use AND make sense.

BTW, it just struck me that while a squadron of 50,000T Hadrians may be capable of standing in the line of battle, at least according to the combat rulers, does the same actually apply to the Nolikans?

EDIT: To expand a bit on my last question: How does a squadron of Nolikans fare in a fight with a squadron of Atlantics? How do they fare against a squadron of Plankwells?


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

Unfortunately, since they are much smaller than battleships they must be unable to absorb the tremendous amount of damage that battleships can and thus unable to stand up to them. Whatever the combat system implies.

I usually think that the game designers know their intent.

And their intent is that a battle rider can stand up to a battleship in the line of battle, after all they say as much is Library data and Fighting Ships.

According to FS, the Imperium mostly used battleriders instead of battleships. After the 4FW they are switching to more battleships.

Read it again.

They are switching to battleships for forward defence, that is ships that need to retreat from the initial Zhodani thrust, while using tenders and riders to equip the BatRons in reserve that will actually drive the invader back.

And they would likewise be perfectly capable of defeating Imperial battleships. Which is the crucial point that your argument fails to address. Yes, battleriders are portrayed as being more than adequate to deal with battleships. So why build battleships? And just where does the controversy over the efficiency of battleriders vs. battleships come from? So what if batteriders are vulnerable to attacks by overwhelming forces (which, incidentally, a simple change of doctrine to being loadedup when stationed in a system would change), if your opponent needs to muster eight times as many ships to achieve overwhelming odds?

The Imperial Navy is designed to fight foreign threats, not a civil war. And 1 vs 1 a TL15 BB BatRon will utterly destroy a rider/tender BatRon.

The actual way to give tactical flexibility to riders is to make them jump capable with a jump 1 drive and put the tender is a nearby system or the out system of the contested world.

So why build more expensive and less efficient ships at all? That's what you have to explain to make sense and that's what you haven't explained.

I don't have to explain it. The setting states that that's how it is. If you don't like it don't play in the OTU.

And let's face it - here in the real world western militaries have been building white elephants for years.

It's not about what the Zhodani build. It's about why the Imperium keep building battleships when anything over a well-designed heavy cruiser is a complete waste of money and why they build ships instead of riders at all.

Because they can, because the politicians want them, because of naval inertia, and more importantly to equip the front line BatRons that need to be able to escape from the Zhodani initial thrust.

No, it's assuming that the HG2 rules are use AND make sense.

The designers intended them to model large ship combat in the OTU - hell, they retconned the OTU to bring in HG large ships.

Try actually designing ships with HG and fighting the battles sometime.

BTW, it just struck me that while a squadron of 50,000T Hadrians may be capable of standing in the line of battle, at least according to the combat rulers, does the same actually apply to the Nolikans?

Are you so ignorant of the HG combat system you have to ask - go play it.

[/quote]EDIT: To expand a bit on my last question: How does a squadron of Nolikans fare in a fight with a squadron of Atlantics? How do they fare against a squadron of Plankwells?[/quote]
Dig out HG, fix the broken designs, then fight out the battles and see.

 

[rancke]

I usually think that the game designers know their intent.

And their intent is that a battle rider can stand up to a battleship in the line of battle, after all they say as much is Library data and Fighting Ships.

And their intent is that battleships have a tremendous ability to absorb damage and keep fighting. Yet you yourself claim that they can be oneshotted by a much cheaper vessel. Do you really not see any contradiction there?

The Imperial Navy is designed to fight foreign threats, not a civil war.

So what? It would still be designed to be as efficient as possible.

And 1 vs 1 a TL15 BB BatRon will utterly destroy a rider/tender BatRon.

But as you point out, they're not facing TL 15 BB BatRons. So why build battleships instead of several times as many tender/riders?

I don't have to explain it. The setting states that that's how it is. If you don't like it don't play in the OTU.

That's dodging the question. I didn't say the canon wasn't there. I said the canon didn't make sense. If you want to refute that, you do have to show that I'm wrong and it does make sense. "Shut up or go away" is a pitiful argument.

Are you so ignorant of the HG combat system you have to ask - go play it.

Wow, that's a mature line of argument.

EDIT: To expand a bit on my last question: How does a squadron of Nolikans fare in a fight with a squadron of Atlantics? How do they fare against a squadron of Plankwells?

Dig out HG, fix the broken designs, then fight out the battles and see.

I'll take that as confirmation that the 154th so-called BatRon would make a poor showing against many CruRons, let alone BatRons.


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

And their intent is that battleships have a tremendous ability to absorb damage and keep fighting. Yet you yourself claim that they can be oneshotted by a much cheaper vessel. Do you really not see any contradiction there?

No, because the chance of being 1 shotted is pretty low if you maintain the initiative in a battle and stay at missile range.

So what? It would still be designed to be as efficient as possible.

As efficiently as possible to fight the perceived threat i.e. Zhodani and Solomani.
Sadly we have no evidence of these efficient designs since the majority of the large ships in S9 are broken and we only have the one example of a rider.

But as you point out, they're not facing TL 15 BB BatRons. So why build battleships instead of several times as many tender/riders?

Because as S9 points out their tactical doctrine is to place battleships in the way of the initial thrust.

That's dodging the question. I didn't say the canon wasn't there. I said the canon didn't make sense. If you want to refute that, you do have to show that I'm wrong and it does make sense. "Shut up or go away" is a pitiful argument.

Who's arguing.
The OTU vs you.

Wow, that's a mature line of argument.

Oh - and just when I thought you'd learned to play nice.

I'll take that as confirmation that the 154th so-called BatRon would make a poor showing against many CruRons, let alone BatRons.


Hans

Put another way you haven't got a clue because you don't play High Guard.

Try playing Traveller by its rules as intended and you may just learn something about the setting.

Remember, the setting is a sandbox for the rules.

 

[rancke]

No, because the chance of being 1 shotted is pretty low if you maintain the initiative in a battle and stay at missile range.

So all the side with the more expensive ships has to do to make his battleships derive advantage from their bulk is to make sure he always has at least +5 on the initiative die. Like having the fastest ships, the most ships and a fleet commander with a fleet tactics skill 3 higher than the enemy fleet commander.

Meanwhile, I repeat the question for any universe where the battleship-builder can't be sure he'll ever get the initiative.

Sadly we have no evidence of these efficient designs since the majority of the large ships in S9 are broken and we only have the one example of a rider.

A broken example, perhaps?

But as you point out, they're not facing TL 15 BB BatRons. So why build battleships instead of several times as many tender/riders?

Because as S9 points out their tactical doctrine is to place battleships in the way of the initial thrust.

You're begging the question. Why have a tactical doctrine that requires building battleships instead of several times as many tender/riders?

Who's arguing.

You are. Or at least you started out that way.

Oh - and just when I thought you'd learned to play nice.

So your definition of 'playing nice' allows you to be rude, but I'm not allowed to call you on it when you are?

Put another way you haven't got a clue because you don't play High Guard.

I don't play High Guard, true enough, but I don't have to. I just have to trust that the people who do are honest with me. I have a lot of clues because you (and others) have been perfectly happy to provide me with them.

If you've never bothered to work out how effective the 154th is as compared to other squadrons and don't know enough about High Guard to answer my question off-hand, then it's perfectly understandable and in no way discreditable that you don't want to spend the time it would take for you to come up with the answer.

If you know the answer, you're being disingenious if it supports my side of argument and just plain not playing nice if it supports your side. If you're ignorant of the answer, just say so. Perhaps some other HG expert will do us both a favor and tell us the answer.


Hans

 

[robject]

Okay, let's tune it back a little bit and boil it down into the issues. A nice list of bullets, summarizing the salient points, then we can move on.

 

[Carlobrand]

I usually think that the game designers know their intent.

Sometimes. Sometimes not. As I recall, some of the results coming out of Trillion Credit Squadron tournaments were a bit of a surprise to the designers - and a whole lot of the contestants. I was under the impression the Battlerider concept arose from that.

All other things being equal, a battlerider/battletender squadron of equal tonnage has significant advantages over a battleship squadron. It brings more spinal mounts to the field - therefore more chances to score a spinal hit. It's a bit harder to hit while the battleship opponent is an easier target. With numerical superiority, it has a slight advantage in determining engagement range.

On the disadvantage side, as a smaller ship it tends to take more criticals when hit - but the meson spinal does an extra damage roll for every factor past 9, and that's not affected by armor or target size. As the spinal mount size increases, the probability of scoring a crew hit or a fuel-tanks-shattered result - effectively a one-hit-k.o. - get high enough that the size of the target gets less and less relevant. An N meson spinal, with 13 extra rolls, has about an 80% chance of shattering fuel tanks on a single hit and a 99% chance of taking out the target's crew.

The battlerider has a problem disengaging - that was noted in some of the TCS campaign games. It's doable, but it requires taking along a group of escorts who can hold the enemy at bay while the battleriders withdraw to reserve and dock, which means sacrificing a part of the battlerider's advantage by taking a weight of ships that don't participate in the battle unless you're actually losing, and of course those escorts tend to suffer rather badly, and of course the maneuver's more than a little chancy since you never know quite what you're going to be facing in a campaign game battle. The extra crits taken by the smaller battleriders also means they're more likely to suffer complete destruction or a damage result that might leave them separated from their squadron at an inopportune moment (bridge destroyed, maneuver disabled, power disabled followed by a withdrawal to long range and a decision to retreat), where the battleships are more likely to be able to limp home.

Since construction time is a factor in the campaign game, this quickly becomes an issue - the battleship player repairs and redeploys before the battlerider player can construct replacements. So, while weight for weight the battlerider's more likely to win the battle, over the course of a long campaign the battleship will tend to weather attrition better and win the war.

Another consideration is that the battlerider is a special-role ship, intended to kill battleships. With part of its squadron mass as a tender in the rear, the squadron as a group and the ships individually have fewer defenses against swarms of missiles. A single Kokirrak, for example, brings fifty fusion bays (??), 20 repulsor bays and 400 triple turrets of lasers and sandcasters to its defense, as well as fifty missile bays for offense. A squadron of Nolikians collectively brings 7 fusion - somethings, probably batteries but equivalent to the Kokirrak's fusion bays - 7 repulsors and 140 triple (?) turrets of lasers and sandcasters, as well as 84 missile bays; half the squadron's potential hardpoints are hiding in the rear.

Neither class is the best representative of type, but the basic equation remains the same: the batlerider leaves about half its defensive hardpoints in the rear in the course of bringing more spinal mounts to the fore. As a result, while it is deadly against large opponents, it can be more vulnerable to small agile opponents like 1300-1400 dTon missile SDBs. The battlerider is thus best suited as a reserve punch to counter an invasion force, rather than as an invader that might have to confront light defenders.