I see three issues with this. 1) this supposes a full tanker dedicated to each major combatant. is this an efficient use of resources? 2) the combatant may be refueled, but now the tanker is empty. if the combatant is to be refueled to allow a withdrawal, what about the tanker? 3) if the tanker can loiter and refuel, surely the combatant can as well?
tankers and refuelling
- Thread starter flykiller
- Start date
I see three issues with this. 1) this supposes a full tanker dedicated to each major combatant. is this an efficient use of resources? 2) the combatant may be refueled, but now the tanker is empty. if the combatant is to be refueled to allow a withdrawal, what about the tanker? 3) if the tanker can loiter and refuel, surely the combatant can as well?
greendragonking
SOC-11
The purpose of a tanker is to carry fuel so the fighting ships dont have to spend space on carrying fuel making a cheaper faster spacecraft .
Its the Same reason battle riders are more effective they dont need the extra 11%space wasted per jump number
Its the Same reason battle riders are more effective they dont need the extra 11%space wasted per jump number
JDrives give the fleet strategic speed, tankers can't help that. J1 ships with 4J of fuel are not the same as J4 ships in terms of strategic speed. Battle Riders get their speed from their carriers.
Tankers help fleets cross deep space, and refuel in hostile systems. They can also provide a strategic retreat mechanism for a fleet. Tankers however don't help much if they can't reserve enough fuel for themselves to escape a system, since they're basically defenseless.
Truth is on larger ships, they can be just as worthy a turret and bay platform as most any other ship, but they tend to lack armor.
While a strategic move across deep space can be important, how important is strategic retreat capability.
If a fleet can consistently and reliably refuel from an asteroid belt or the Kuiper belt, there is little need for tankers. A fleet can jump in to even an enemy system and refuel at the asteroid/Kuiper belt and engage any internal system targets long before a reinforcing fleet can be notified and arrive. This then reduces tankers solely to need to cross voids of space.
If they can consistently and reliably refuel from the Oort cloud, then there's nothing to stop an invading fleet from penetrating deep into enemy territory, since the Oort cloud is effectively impossible to defend. Its similar for the asteroid/Kuiper belt, but asteroid belts are closer to defending fleets. The enemy will see the fleet jump in, maybe get scout near it to get some sensor readings, but that's about it.
Tankers help fleets cross deep space, and refuel in hostile systems. They can also provide a strategic retreat mechanism for a fleet. Tankers however don't help much if they can't reserve enough fuel for themselves to escape a system, since they're basically defenseless.
Truth is on larger ships, they can be just as worthy a turret and bay platform as most any other ship, but they tend to lack armor.
While a strategic move across deep space can be important, how important is strategic retreat capability.
If a fleet can consistently and reliably refuel from an asteroid belt or the Kuiper belt, there is little need for tankers. A fleet can jump in to even an enemy system and refuel at the asteroid/Kuiper belt and engage any internal system targets long before a reinforcing fleet can be notified and arrive. This then reduces tankers solely to need to cross voids of space.
If they can consistently and reliably refuel from the Oort cloud, then there's nothing to stop an invading fleet from penetrating deep into enemy territory, since the Oort cloud is effectively impossible to defend. Its similar for the asteroid/Kuiper belt, but asteroid belts are closer to defending fleets. The enemy will see the fleet jump in, maybe get scout near it to get some sensor readings, but that's about it.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
While the point about asteroid and Oort refueling is well taken and I am going to be exploring the full ramifications of that (essentially you can never get rid of pirates and outlaw weirdos/tech/orgs), there is an element to those that good ol water/gas giant refueling is superior to.
Time.
You're going to have to break down the ice/slushballs into enough liquid/gaseous form to refine, a sort of smelter, and in the case of asteroids dig the water out, using even more time.
And time is something most fleets do not have to waste.
From a time perspective, you would be better served by a tanker that pulls from stellar gas, such tankers would be heavily armored and would be problematic for most light raiding forces to engage given the environment.
As to the battle rider bit, don't forget the fuel tank option of HG2, for a price one can have strategic flexibility in fueling/design options.
Also don't forget strategic fuel dumps, both attacker and defender can prepare years in advance by having fuel in place ahead of time in deep space or at otherwise nondescript rock/ice facilities far from detection.
Time.
You're going to have to break down the ice/slushballs into enough liquid/gaseous form to refine, a sort of smelter, and in the case of asteroids dig the water out, using even more time.
And time is something most fleets do not have to waste.
From a time perspective, you would be better served by a tanker that pulls from stellar gas, such tankers would be heavily armored and would be problematic for most light raiding forces to engage given the environment.
As to the battle rider bit, don't forget the fuel tank option of HG2, for a price one can have strategic flexibility in fueling/design options.
Also don't forget strategic fuel dumps, both attacker and defender can prepare years in advance by having fuel in place ahead of time in deep space or at otherwise nondescript rock/ice facilities far from detection.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Jump 1 battleships carried strategically by tenders. Oilers carry spare drop tanks and lots of fuel purification plant.
pendragonman
Absent Friends Margrave
That is what I would prefer, yes. But your proposed "hanger bay" rules make them even more prohibitive than a tanker system.
Further, the logistics train for any fleet is always much larger than one tanker. In fact, to resupply Halsey's Fleet in the Pacific took upwards of 50 Liberty ships alone per resupply.
My proposed tanker would take a couple of days to refill itself AND the 5000 tons of donor fuel. It takes about half a day to resupply its own jump needs. The couple of days is to fill ~7000 dtons of fuel, it only needs 1000 to jump 1 away, 2000 for jump 2.
not the right subject for this thread, but I'll address it. just did a quick review of my hg2 fleet, the carrier/assembly is .28 rider vs .72 carrier by volume, and .35 rider vs .65 carrier by cost, roughly. your ruleset and construction configuration may vary - but I doubt by much. the rule I propose is less costly than this.
in comparison with the real world a modern aircraft carrier and modern air wing cost roughly the same, the ship has little function other than aircraft support, and approximately 3/5 of the ship by volume is devoted to that tasking.
pendragonman
Absent Friends Margrave
Well, one of those and one that is a regular cargo hauler make a pretty good Base, Mobile Logistic (BLM). Just attach a squadron of Gazelles to keep the riffraff away. Add a liner and you have a mobile R and R location.
Flykiller, the problem is that not every system comes with a place to refuel or one that an assaulting fleet wants to deal with before they have to deal with the defending fleet. Your design rules don't allow for us to put in just plain extra tankage without paying an incredible cost for that extra space, when if we just used HG2 it would just be the same cost as empty cargo hold.
Further, you have prohibitive rules for Battleriders/fighters, so that option actually costs more than building tankers.
As to you question, do I want 10 warships and 10 tankers, or 15 warships I ask you this:
If all of the warships are max sized battlewagons and that is all the other guy has as well, then what are we actually accomplishing?
If all the warships are not the max sized battlewagon, then how do you shove more combat capability into smaller hulls without shortchanging something critical, like loiter capability due to a lack of fuel tankage?
If all we are ever going to do is play one off single system combats, then logistics are unnecessary and I will of course take the 15 warships. On the other hand, if we are playing a campaign game then resupply becomes important and who wants to dedicate a warship to hauling spare parts, or replacement crew, or extra expendable ordnance?
Flykiller, the problem is that not every system comes with a place to refuel or one that an assaulting fleet wants to deal with before they have to deal with the defending fleet. Your design rules don't allow for us to put in just plain extra tankage without paying an incredible cost for that extra space, when if we just used HG2 it would just be the same cost as empty cargo hold.
Further, you have prohibitive rules for Battleriders/fighters, so that option actually costs more than building tankers.
As to you question, do I want 10 warships and 10 tankers, or 15 warships I ask you this:
If all of the warships are max sized battlewagons and that is all the other guy has as well, then what are we actually accomplishing?
If all the warships are not the max sized battlewagon, then how do you shove more combat capability into smaller hulls without shortchanging something critical, like loiter capability due to a lack of fuel tankage?
If all we are ever going to do is play one off single system combats, then logistics are unnecessary and I will of course take the 15 warships. On the other hand, if we are playing a campaign game then resupply becomes important and who wants to dedicate a warship to hauling spare parts, or replacement crew, or extra expendable ordnance?
hg2 goes by volume. extra tankage is not just tankage, it requires hull, jump drives, maneuver drives, and power plant. a 10k dton hull requires equal hull, equal jump drive for equal jump, equal maneuver drive for equal maneuver, and equal power plant for those drives - this constitutes the bulk of any ship's cost. again, in hg2. if you want a fuel tank that can fill a 10k warship's jump drive tanks, you'll have to have and equal volume tanker fuel tank - and that means hull, jump drive, maneuver drive, and power plant. can't get around it. again, in hg2.
is it "prohibitive"? welcome to the world of admiralty and fleet design.
when the nimitz finally was built congress balked at how much the ship cost to operate and minimized its budget. admiral rickover retaliated by docking the ship and sent most of its crew to other ships, leaving a skeleton crew. he told congress, look, it costs this much, pay it or it's not worth it to have the ship. congress wanted the ship, so they paid.
up to you guys. I'm learning a lot.
it's a problem admirals have been wrestling with for centuries.
pendragonman
Absent Friends Margrave
Yep, because every ship EVER has always had all the spare parts, replacement crew, groceries, fuel AND ordnance it will ever need for everything it has to do at all times.
Yep. Really, really accurate.
Greendragonking and Warwizard, I cede you the table. Enjoy the very restrictive environment you are in.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
For the Pacific War, the USN had vast logistical assets and therefore the ability to pick and choose when and where to fight. The IJN was reduced to raids and defensive reaction.
A Traveller war analogy would be having the refuel capability, getting behind an enemy and raiding their shipyards while the defending fleets are limited to either defending everywhere or nowhere, hoping to catch the raiders away from their refuelers, or going for a raid themselves but being limited to narrow known paths subject to cutoff.
A lot of the value of a fueling fleet would be the convention surrounding starports. Do starports surrender as a rule to preserve civilian life/infrastructure and as a price have to provide their fuel reserves, or do they destroy the fuel and starport in a sort of logistical scorched earth policy?
If the latter is likely it is best to have your own capacity.
Finally, a reread of TCS reminds one of the unstreamlined/partially/streamlined dynamic- a fleet that spent the hull money to be able to skim a giant or land directly on water/ice for fuel may have a lot more options then a penny wise/pound foolish unstreamlined fleet.
Fuel transfer between ships is just 2 turns, which may seem incredible until you consider what pump capacity has to exist for jump drives to consume fuel as they do.
Refueling in gas giants is 7 turns, or less then 2.5 hours. I would assume you have to be making a goodly run at higher vees to be able to climb out of the giant's gravity that quickly.
The rules allow for just 10% of the fleet to be streamlined enough to do that. So figure more like 6-30 hours, depending on what percentage of your force is streamlined enough to scoop and transfer as to how many times through the giant.
It would be best if you are not going to invest in tankers for the whole fleet to do it, or perhaps something like distributed hull carriers only to not be capable.
A Traveller war analogy would be having the refuel capability, getting behind an enemy and raiding their shipyards while the defending fleets are limited to either defending everywhere or nowhere, hoping to catch the raiders away from their refuelers, or going for a raid themselves but being limited to narrow known paths subject to cutoff.
A lot of the value of a fueling fleet would be the convention surrounding starports. Do starports surrender as a rule to preserve civilian life/infrastructure and as a price have to provide their fuel reserves, or do they destroy the fuel and starport in a sort of logistical scorched earth policy?
If the latter is likely it is best to have your own capacity.
Finally, a reread of TCS reminds one of the unstreamlined/partially/streamlined dynamic- a fleet that spent the hull money to be able to skim a giant or land directly on water/ice for fuel may have a lot more options then a penny wise/pound foolish unstreamlined fleet.
Fuel transfer between ships is just 2 turns, which may seem incredible until you consider what pump capacity has to exist for jump drives to consume fuel as they do.
Refueling in gas giants is 7 turns, or less then 2.5 hours. I would assume you have to be making a goodly run at higher vees to be able to climb out of the giant's gravity that quickly.
The rules allow for just 10% of the fleet to be streamlined enough to do that. So figure more like 6-30 hours, depending on what percentage of your force is streamlined enough to scoop and transfer as to how many times through the giant.
It would be best if you are not going to invest in tankers for the whole fleet to do it, or perhaps something like distributed hull carriers only to not be capable.
it would be. the problem is sheer volume. the cost of a tanker able to refuel an equivilant warship is not much less than that of the warship.
unless one has an unlimited budget then tankers would be restricted to high-impact task forces for missions where it was absolutely required. even in my hg2 fleet where porozlo builds nothing but support ships, there's just not enough except for a single task force, and even then there's not enough to refuel jump capacity.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Given the expense of computers defenses and weapons I highly doubt that, unless we are talking my proposed class of armored stellar refueling tankers. Those would be aimed at very specific circumstances with no hydrography or gas giants, a system that is 'impossible' to refuel at and therefore one to execute a surprise through.
Yes the fleets in Traveller certainly do have the 'diminishing returns' problem akin to fodder hauling that bedeviled pre-steam/IC armies but it's not impossible to solve.
The right answer is probably the USN one- build a B starport out in the middle of nowhere for a few months such as Ulithi harbor. That gives you a million tons plus of fuel per week plus repair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulithi#Second_World_War
That's a design and strategic choice, not an absolute.
For instance, your main fleet probably shouldn't bother with anything higher then J-3 or J-4. Only raiders should get into the higher brackets.
Another option is drop tanks- design the ship to be J-4 capable but only J-2 tankage normally. When the need for long range strat jump is on, out comes the drop tanks already fueled up by the tankers- attach them, go, the tankers pick them up for the next usage and still retain their jump fuel for their escape.
Finally, prepped fuel dumps out in deep space away from any system is not only advantageous from making a smaller tanker force be able to support a large movement over and above their single trip capacity, but also provide strategic surprise and reduce in-transit vulnerability, possibly a rally point in case of disaster.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Why not just assume that at the moment you are only designing the combatants. The logistic chain is off board - either in the outsytem or an adjacent system.
You could write a scenario where a raiding force comes across the supply ships (the supply ships become the 'planet') and it is up to the escorts to hold off the raiders or risk losing a large amount of expensive shipping/spares.
You could write a scenario where a raiding force comes across the supply ships (the supply ships become the 'planet') and it is up to the escorts to hold off the raiders or risk losing a large amount of expensive shipping/spares.
hulll is .1MCr / dton. a 10k dton ship hull, alone, is 1000MCr. at tech 15 j4 drives would cost 2000MCr and the associated pp4 would be 1500MCr. a model 9 is only, what, 100MCr? hull and engineering are definitely the major expense, weapons are secondary, everything else is almost an afterthought.
sure, if budget is not an issue. if budget is an issue then it most certainly is an absolute.
Similar threads
