The Close Escort: not viable?

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby baithammer » Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:26 pm

Two of the biggest concerns would be the requirement for a minimum tech level for medical facilities equal to the implants tech level ( Otherwise your looking at penalties.) and the threat posed by augmentations to the rule of law. ( Equipment is much easier to regulate than an implant.)
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5182
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby Condottiere » Tue Jun 27, 2017 12:44 am

Artificially augmented human crew is a logical development, if you consider how minuscule a percentage of the entire population of the Imperium is enlisted in the Navy, but it would break the game.

The elite gunners would be mostly posted to the capital ships.

Assuming you still have human pilots in the fighters, a tactic would be to keep them committed and tire them out, without actually allowing them to close.
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby baithammer » Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:06 am

The biggest reason for not equipping the whole military outside of specialists is the following.
Augments can interfere with medical treatment. All long-term care or surgery Medic checks treating an
augmented Traveller suffer a negative DM equal to the difference in Technology Level between the medical
facility and the highest relevant implant. For example, a Traveller with TL15 Endurance Augmentation implants
being treated in a TL10 hospital would give DM-5 to the surgeon’s Medic skill checks
Which puts the augmentated at risk in field operations where the required tech level facilities may not be available or evacuation may not be an option.
h1ro
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:06 pm
Location: Co Front Range

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby h1ro » Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:37 am

Not if you're on a TL15 Imperial Navy hospital ship...
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby baithammer » Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:47 am

Which there are a limited number of and not every area of operation would have one. ( Also pitty most system defense fleets/mercs.)

Its more useful for specialist use where risks are weighted less than the objective and more likely to have dedicated logistics to deal with medical issues.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2320
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby AnotherDilbert » Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:00 am

baithammer wrote: Full hangar facilities require x2 the tonnage of the craft they support and doesn't include the tonnage of the craft in the hangar. ( Allows for repair/maintenance of the vehicles as well as faster launch/recovery.)
No, the Full Hangar includes the craft. See the Light Carrier on p173, it has hangars and fighters specified, but the fighters take no space only cost.

baithammer wrote: Would have to play around a bit more for the sensor stations but could add a few, just have to make sure accommodations are calculated into the setup.
You can let "a few" sensor operators work on the bridge, if you need many operators you need additional workstations. You need staterooms, of course.
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby baithammer » Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:17 am

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:00 am
baithammer wrote: Full hangar facilities require x2 the tonnage of the craft they support and doesn't include the tonnage of the craft in the hangar. ( Allows for repair/maintenance of the vehicles as well as faster launch/recovery.)
No, the Full Hangar includes the craft. See the Light Carrier on p173, it has hangars and fighters specified, but the fighters take no space only cost.
Really needs to have the wording changed if including craft in the calculations.

Also noticed really inefficient launch and recovery setups on the carrier ships.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2320
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby AnotherDilbert » Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:31 am

baithammer wrote: Really needs to have the wording changed if including craft in the calculations.
A full hangar consumes an amount of tonnage equal
to twice that of the craft it contains (round up to the nearest ton).
Remember displacement tonnes are space, not mass.

baithammer wrote: Also noticed really inefficient launch and recovery setups on the carrier ships.
it can launch or recover it's entire complement in 3 rounds (18 min), that is remarkably efficient for so little effort... There were heated discussions during beta...
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby baithammer » Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:56 am

Once more unto the breach.

Image
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3886
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby phavoc » Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:22 pm

This seems more like an FFG (using USN classification) than an FFE. I would think an escort ship would have a different load-out to provide more defenses to capital ships. As a generic frigate the weapons mix allows it to do a number of missions, including the escort one - especially things like convoy escort where it's not expecting to engage capital class vessels.

But for pure escort I'd think it trade out it's heavier missile armament and pack more lasers (to engage missiles and fighters and smaller craft) and some sandcasters for defense. Have you thought about using the basic hull and changing out the weapons mix? Sort of like your modular fighter design, but where this ship is not modular.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2320
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby AnotherDilbert » Tue Jun 27, 2017 6:23 pm

baithammer wrote:
Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:56 am
Once more unto the breach.
Looks good.

Not quite as I would have designed it, but why would it be?
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby baithammer » Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:30 pm

baithammer wrote:
Also noticed really inefficient launch and recovery setups on the carrier ships.
it can launch or recover it's entire complement in 3 rounds (18 min), that is remarkably efficient for so little effort... There were heated discussions during beta...
Then there is the note.
during which time neither ship can
expand any Thrust or make any attack rolls. Larger ships
take 1D rounds.
This seems more like an FFG (using USN classification) than an FFE. I would think an escort ship would have a different load-out to provide more defenses to capital ships. As a generic frigate the weapons mix allows it to do a number of missions, including the escort one - especially things like convoy escort where it's not expecting to engage capital class vessels.
The missiles and pulse lasers are multi-purpose with the missiles capable of using frag warhead to swat fighters or missiles/torpedoes. The torpedo bay allows the ship to add fire to the fleet. The point defense combined with the point defense software allows the escort frigate to cover the fleet.

Its sole mission is to provide close escort duties and not designed to operate alone in fleet situations, only time you'd consider one of these operating alone would be in low threat areas.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5182
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby Condottiere » Wed Jun 28, 2017 12:23 am

Unless they're ambushed or taken by surprise, most carriers will be able to launch most of their air wing.

Recovery would likely be them dribbling back, when convenient, since one presumes fuel and endurance isn't that much of an issue.
h1ro
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:06 pm
Location: Co Front Range

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby h1ro » Wed Jun 28, 2017 5:01 am

Condottiere wrote:
Wed Jun 28, 2017 12:23 am
Unless they're ambushed or taken by surprise, most carriers will be able to launch most of their air wing.
"Air"?

hahahaha

:P
h1ro
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:06 pm
Location: Co Front Range

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby h1ro » Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:08 pm

Oh, and back on the topic the thread has steered to, if the means to gain an advantage are there, only an irresponsible navy wouldn't take them. Augmenting the crew to gain an advantage makes perfect sense. This being science fiction and all, it seems appropriate.
Reynard
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 2873
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby Reynard » Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:30 pm

From High Guard 2e, "Frigate: A small but powerful warship, the role of a frigate is to roam space away from a fleet, patrolling borders and attacking commerce.", "Destroyer: Similar to frigates, a destroyer’s main role is in acting as picket defence for a fleet, eliminating small ships and fighters before they can threaten larger ships.". The Gazelle sounds more like a frigate in both size and mission.

T5 also expands on terms we're using, "Close. Operates closely with other ships (typically the same Space Range). Escort. For defense missions.".

I'm reviewing Third Imperium: Sector Fleets which lists every sector, subsector and colonial fleet for the 12 Spinward Marches subsectors and what ships are in each grouping. I see fleet escorts, escort destroyers and close escorts but no class names. That suggests this particular designation is a placeholder filled by a specific ship type. In peacetime and at the start of war, the best or at least the most available will fill the slot and that means for the sector and subsector fleets the best available escorts. As the war goes on and assets are lost, the next most available units replace them. The Gazelle would serve mostly in colonial fleet and maybe subsector as part of support or escort groups or escort flotillas but not front line BatRons or CruRons UNLESS those are suffering losses and need anything until replacements can arrive. So the Gazelle can have it's place in wartime yet suffer when things don't go well.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2320
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby AnotherDilbert » Wed Jun 28, 2017 6:28 pm

baithammer wrote:
Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:06 am
The biggest reason for not equipping the whole military outside of specialists is the following.
Augments can interfere with medical treatment. All long-term care or surgery Medic checks treating an
augmented Traveller suffer a negative DM equal to the difference in Technology Level between the medical
facility and the highest relevant implant. For example, a Traveller with TL15 Endurance Augmentation implants
being treated in a TL10 hospital would give DM-5 to the surgeon’s Medic skill checks
Which puts the augmentated at risk in field operations where the required tech level facilities may not be available or evacuation may not be an option.
This is a perhaps a problem for the Imperial Army, much less so for the Imperial Navy that presumably carries their own basic medical facilities with them. Even the Army is likely to treat acute trauma in their intrinsic medical units.

Coincidentally I generally include Med Bays for 10% of the crew on warships. A fleet has substantial hospital capacity.

It is worth noting that most augmentation that would be used is about TL12, such as skill augmentation. The only augmentation discussed here that would require TL15 is characteristic augmentation 3, but that is too expensive to be distributed to every turret gunner, but certainly cheap for capital ship helmsmen and spinal gunners.
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby baithammer » Wed Jun 28, 2017 10:19 pm

An average gunner is paid 2,000 Cr per month

Characteristic Augment +2/1Mcr, Skill Augment/50,000 cr, Wafer Jack/10,000 and Expert +2/10,000cr for a total of 1,070,000 cr per Gunner or the equivalent of 535 Mos of salary per gunner.

Some of the larger ships have around 800+ gunners, which will cost 856,000,000+ cr per ship.

Really only should be used for special forces as those units budgets can justify that level of expense.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3886
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby phavoc » Wed Jun 28, 2017 10:26 pm

Augmentation seems like it breas the overall feel of the game. And while there is certainly a percentage of a population that likes body mods, statistics tell us it's a small percentage and I would argue it's a percentage whow would not be interested in joining a regimented organization lime the military. These types of people would more likely be outcasts and exist on the fringe.
Reynard
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 2873
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby Reynard » Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:46 am

Or ex naval pilot jockeys looking for the edge over all those other jocks looking for the same employment. Same for army and marine mercs.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests