Using captured ships

[rancke]

BOARDING
Disabled enemy ships may be captured by boarding. In order for boarding to take place, two conditions must be satisfied.
First, the ship to be boarded must be disabled; it must be incapable of maneuvering, all of its offensive weapons must be disabled, and it must not have a working black globe generator.
Second, it must be separated from protecting friendly ships; this is assumed to occur if, at any point after the ship is disabled, the owning player has the initiative and changes range from short to long (retreating, in effect).
At any time thereafter, the ship may be boarded. HG p43

Probably way late for an answer but it's habit

This pertains to capturing a ship that hasn't surrendered. If it hasn't surrendered, you have to capture it by boarding, which require that it is unable to maneuver and that your boarding party defeat the defenders in shipboard fighting.

I'm talking about capturing a ship by forcing it to surrender. You do that by threatening to destroy it (and its crew). The potential prize avoids being shot to pieces by ceasing to resist. This means not maneuvering even if it is still capable of maneuvering and not resisting the boarding party even if its crew could. If you surrender and proceed to resist boarding, the enemy ship simply shoots you to pieces. And stop giving other ships on your side the option to surrender.

You may wonder why the rules do not encompass the option to surrender. So do I.

S4: If you can take over a ship after having to fight the crew in close shipboard fighting you can certainly take over a ship that surrenders before being boarded.



Hans

 

[McPerth]

Some of you Navy guys....what would it take to take over an aircraft carrier? Is it even possible?

First of all, stating that I'm not a Navy guy, but...

Well, many countries today have carriers not built by them, but bought to other ones (Australian "carriers" are Spanish built, Brazil's carrier is ex-french, China's carier is ex-USSR...), and they can and must refit (fit in case of Australians, as they were bought new) them. I guess refiting a captured carrier would be similar, if a little more complicated as plans were not for that beforehand.

 

[McPerth]

This pertains to capturing a ship that hasn't surrendered. If it hasn't surrendered, you have to capture it by boarding, which require that it is unable to maneuver and that your boarding party defeat the defenders in shipboard fighting.

I'm talking about capturing a ship by forcing it to surrender. You do that by threatening to destroy it (and its crew). The potential prize avoids being shot to pieces by ceasing to resist. This means not maneuvering even if it is still capable of maneuvering and not resisting the boarding party even if its crew could. If you surrender and proceed to resist boarding, the enemy ship simply shoots you to pieces. And stop giving other ships on your side the option to surrender.

You may wonder why the rules do not encompass the option to surrender. So do I.

My take on this is that can be more a setting feature than a rules feature. The possibility to capture a crippled ship (vs the possibility of it being scuttled by its crew) will (IMHO) in great part depend on the war rules/traditions of the setting.

In the age of sail, the tradition (and unwritten rules) were more or less "you don't scuttle your ship and I spare its crew", and surrunding the ship was seen as a way to avoid unnecessary deaths when the combat was decided, and captured ships were rutinely serving in capturing navies. As a contrast, in WWII orders were more about scuttling to avoid capture (the obligation from the Geneva Convention to assist the castaways in any case might also be a factor on this, I let that to anyone's judging).

 

[aramis]

Let's consider - current generation of supercarrier.

Crewing: 3000 or so +airwing
(Reagan subclass of Nimitz class: 3200+2480)

Control system: secure network running commercial OS in secure mode with custom software on distributed computers. Specific control computers in related workspaces accessed via network from terminals in same workspace. Multiple redundant ring of rings network. (All this was covered in a documentary on PBS a few years back.)

Manual controls: limited to non-critical operations.

Skeleton crewing needs to be able to monitor the plant 24/7, grease the bearings on schedule for the props, monitor the weather and drive the ship 24/7.

So, in a practical way, the minimum is probably under 30 guys; it wouldn't be operational as a weapons platform nor carrier, but short port-to-port runs... Until something goes wrong.

So, hostile takeover, you need to hack the network, or replace the network.
Friendly takeover, you have your sysop meet theirs, change the root password, flush the extant passwords, and swap out crew access by copying from the billet list and requisite access lists.

Traveller should be much the same in the late 3I pre-virus.

 

[McPerth]

Just one thought:

the increased access to 3D printers since this thread was began makes me think the problems about spares and pieces told by several people (posts 16+) could be more easily solved than I thought then, just over 3 years ago...

 

[rancke]

My take on this is that can be more a setting feature tan a rules feature. The possibility to capture a crippled ship (vs the possibility of it being scuttled by its crew) will (IMHO) in great part depend on the war rules/traditions of the setting.

So much more reason for supposedly generic rules to include both options.

In the age of sail, the tradition (and unwritten rules) were more or less "you don't scuttle your ship and I spare its crew", and surrunding the ship was seen as a way to avoid unnecessary deaths when the combat was decided, and captured ships were rutinely serving in capturing navies. As a contrast, in WWII orders were more about scuttling to avoid capture (the obligation from the Geneva Convention to assist the castaways in any case might also be a factor on this, I let that to anyone's judging).

The thing is, crews that refuse to surrender and thus necessitates capturing their ships by boarding evidently do not scuttle their ship as a last ditch effort (since there are rules for repairing and using captured ships[*]). So why would crews that surrender do it? After all, the crews that fight on to the last must be assumed to be more gung-ho than crews that meekly surrender, mustn't they?

[*] Or so I seem to recall.​

Hans

 

[McPerth]

So much more reason for supposedly generic rules to include both options.

Or to leave it on the referee's and setting creator, so not talking about it not to deprive him of freedom ...

I guess that's a matter of point of view.

The thing is, crews that refuse to surrender and thus necessitates capturing their ships by boarding evidently do not scuttle their ship as a last ditch effort (since there are rules for repairing and using captured ships[*]). So why would crews that surrender do it? After all, the crews that fight on to the last must be assumed to be more gung-ho than crews that meekly surrender, mustn't they?

[*] Or so I seem to recall.​

Another thing is that I guess crews that are not to surrunder and will fight against boarding when their ship is crippled will be willing to scuttle it when they are losing the boarding, and neither is that told about in canon, AFAIK, neither in rules not in setting (I don't recall any instance in OTU whree a crew of a boarded ship scuttled it when losing the boarding action).

 

[rancke]

Or to leave it on the referee's and setting creator, so not talking about it not to deprive him of freedom ...

Providing rules does not deprive anyone of options, since they are always free to ignore them. It only provides more options.

I guess that's a matter of point of view.

It sure is and I'm constantly baffled by the kind of view you expressed above.

Another thing is that I guess crews that are not to surrunder and will fight against boarding when their ship is crippled will be willing to scuttle it when they are losing the boarding, and neither is that told about in canon, AFAIK, neither in rules not in setting (I don't recall any instance in OTU whree a crew of a boarded ship scuttled it when losing the boarding action).

I can't parse that sentence. Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me?


Hans

 

[McPerth]

It sure is and I'm constantly baffled by the kind of view you expressed above.

Then I'll try to explain myself:

Rules give us directives about how to play and (in the case of HG and likely rules) how to design things in a TU, but don't tell us about the setting we'll play in, leaving that to the referee (either to make his own setting or to use OTU). So, details as war rules/custoums used, culture, etc... are left out the rules (and explained in different modules), as many a player/referee thinks as rules as something not to break, while is willing to alter the setting, if not to make his own.

I can't parse that sentence. Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me?

Mostly agree.

Just pointing the absurdness (IMHO) about assuming crews will not scuttle their ship, but will neither surrunder it, rather resisting a boarding action (where they are likely to lose, as it will probably involve boarding Marines against defending naval crew, and Marines use to be better trained and equiped for this kind of fight), risking the ship captured anyway but the crew lost anyway, so the worst of the two options...

 

[Condottiere]

There's the case of the Bard Endeavour, a Lightning class cruiser whose managed to hold off a Solomani attempt at boarding and salvaging it (through an insystem jump), since the class represented superior Imperium technology; the ship was destroyed in a decaying orbit, being rendered immobile during an ambush.

 

[McPerth]

There's the case of the Bard Endeavour, a Lightning class cruiser whose managed to hold off a Solomani attempt at boarding and salvaging it (through an insystem jump), since the class represented superior Imperium technology; the ship was destroyed in a decaying orbit, being rendered immobile during an ambush.

Sure, but this was not the case of scuttling the ship when losing the boarding, as they were not trying to save the ship (it was on a decaying orbit against a GG, IIRC), as they were trying to evacuate the ship (that was lost anyway), and avoiding capture, and, again IIRC, the boarders didn't win the action.

EDIT:BTW, as I see it's your first post, wellcome to the board END EDIT

 

[Vladika]

How easy is it to use captured ship?

I expect it to be a major issue given a comment of McPERTH in another thread

"The true failure I've allways thought the big ships combat system in CT (and MT, wich was nearly unchanged) was the lack of ships destroyed in combat.
Most of the ship crippling in this combat system came from minor damage ...but the chance of a ship vaporized critical is minimal.
In a battle among 20 ships per side, the usual result is 1 or 2 vaporized at most, and most of the others crippled, but easly repairable. So, the 'winner' of the engagement hasa a big victory, for, even if he only has a handful of ships not crippled, most of his other ships will be combat ready on a short time with damage control, and quite easy to repair in a shipyard, and most of enemy's crippled ships can be easly captured."

I will scuttle my own ships before allowing them to be captured. I will use fighters and escorts, during the battle, to destroy your cripples before I allow you to salvage them. Either way::toast:

 

[rancke]

I will scuttle my own ships before allowing them to be captured. I will use fighters and escorts, during the battle, to destroy your cripples before I allow you to salvage them. Either way::toast:

Now Michael, do you really think it's worth being cashiered for violating the conventions of war just to make a point? :devil:


Hans

 

[Vladika]

Now Michael, do you really think it's worth being cashiered for violating the conventions of war just to make a point? :devil:


Hans

I'll take prisoners, but, I will leave NOTHING behind that WILL be used against me in the very near future.

"War is the continuation of Politics by other means" - Clausewitz

Assuming Clausewitz was correct, and I believe he was, Michael has a corollary "War should be conducted in the absence of Politics".

 

[rancke]

I'll take prisoners, but, I will leave NOTHING behind that WILL be used against me in the very near future.

You miss my point. IF a certain conduct is considered the proper way to act, your own side will relieve you of command if you violate that code of conduct. That is to say, you may not have any choice in the matter. Indeed, I suspect that if the code of conduct allowed you to do as you said you would, you probably wouldn't have a choice either, since it would probably be required of you.



Hans

 

[McPerth]

I will scuttle my own ships before allowing them to be captured.

I agree with Hans here that this will depend quite a lot about the war conventions under which you're fighting, be them written or unwritten.

in the Chaco war, the Paraguayans threatend the Bolivians by saying that if they destroy their lorry pool, the Paraguaian's won't use theirs to carry water for the prisoners.

I think this can be a widespread attitude in the space war about caturing crippled starships (this starship you're on is the one you will use to go to prisoner camp, so beware any unnecessary destruction...).

Are you sure your crew will agree in this case?

I will use fighters and escorts, during the battle, to destroy your cripples before I allow you to salvage them. Either way::toast:

If that is the case, it means you're withdrawing, and my guess is that those same fighters and escorts (what is left of them) will be needed for more urgent uses thatn to destroy crippled hulks...

 

[Vladika]

You miss my point. IF a certain conduct is considered the proper way to act, your own side will relieve you of command if you violate that code of conduct. That is to say, you may not have any choice in the matter. Indeed, I suspect that if the code of conduct allowed you to do as you said you would, you probably wouldn't have a choice either, since it would probably be required of you.
Hans

Well, at the moment, that "code of conduct" is entirely hypothetical.

 

[Vladika]

I agree with Hans here that this will depend quite a lot about the war conventions under which you're fighting, be them written or unwritten.

Scuttling has been a time honored practice. Should it change over the next 30 centuries I have no way of knowing.

Are you sure your crew will agree in this case?

Not unless they have reason to believe they will escape, or be treated well in captivity and repatriated at some point. They will be provided with every means to assure that belief.

My Fleet contains PCER - Patrol Craft Escort (Rescue) as well as ATS - Salvage and Rescue Ships & AHP - Evacuation Hospital Ships among others.

While there are no "rules" in place for their use, I'm sure they are self explanatory? (As such, there is nothing in the "rules" [HG] that would lead to the current discussion.)

If that is the case, it means you're withdrawing, and my guess is that those same fighters and escorts (what is left of them) will be needed for more urgent uses thatn to destroy crippled hulks...

If I'm withdrawing, I'll have to fight not only the fleet that just defeated me, but with the addition of the ships I leave behind? I think not.:nonono:

Those ships will of course switch missions should the need arise. Until then, they will fight relentlessly, to the very best of their design abilities. It only takes a single round to recall battle-riders and the vast majority of the well designed small fry, and other screening ships, will survive.

People swear that there are no tactics in a HG battle? I say differently. Deployment is, to a limited degree, tactical. Breaking off and withdrawing certainly is.

We are, each of us, into the hypothetical. I enjoy the academic nature of it and the dialog is fun.

BTW would there be any interest in a thread on auxiliaries and support ships? Again, hypothetical at this point, but it might be nice to share ideas on their use and what rules for use should apply.

 

[flykiller]

BTW would there be any interest in a thread on auxiliaries and support ships?

yes. if I don't see a thread started by you before I'm back then I'll start it. I'll lead with my alice-class.

 

[aramis]

Scuttling requires either nuclear warheads, or a gravity well and the ability to fall down it... neither of which is a given. (Fusion Plants are of need designed for safety, and tuning then into bombs is unlikely to work well enough to prevent reuse.