The Close Escort: not viable?

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4326
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby phavoc » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:29 am

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:02 am
h1ro wrote:
Sun Jun 18, 2017 9:36 pm
Would ships like this form the backbone of a sector navy?
I don't think Battle Riders are a good idea in MgT2. A Battleship will have a lot more Hull points, and hence be a lot harder to kill. But I have only worked through a few simple examples.

The Battle Rider was a tactical response to the LBB5 principle that when a spinal meson hit the target was destroyed, no matter how large or well protected.

Since MgT2 combat is entirely attritional, the Battleship is now the better choice.
Nah. Gazelle's came about originally in the small ship Traveller universe. when you have 1200 ton cruisers, a 300 ton fleet escort makes sense. When you expand cruisers to 60000 tons, 300 tons is a gnat... But the same goes for all the original ship designs. They scale horribly to the naval ships in HG. But they work quite well when kept in the LBB small ship universe.

A fleet escort wouldn't be 300 tons, it should be 3,000 tons.
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 » Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:05 am

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:02 am
h1ro wrote:
Sun Jun 18, 2017 9:36 pm
Would ships like this form the backbone of a sector navy?
I don't think Battle Riders are a good idea in MgT2. A Battleship will have a lot more Hull points, and hence be a lot harder to kill. But I have only worked through a few simple examples.

The Battle Rider was a tactical response to the LBB5 principle that when a spinal meson hit the target was destroyed, no matter how large or well protected.

Since MgT2 combat is entirely attritional, the Battleship is now the better choice.
How do you define a battleship?

Size, armour, main weapons, jump and man drives? What else?

Mongoose seems determined to hold onto fighters, the odd rules in HG where DMs are placed for size of the target being immune to criticals and the difficulty of larger weapons targeting smaller ships seems odd to me. A large ship a long way away is no harder to hit than a small ship closer.

ETA: if you're to follow what I think was IN protocol (I lost my FFW a long time ago) then all front line warships are J4, and the fuel requirement severely hampers what you can fit in a ship! That's why I moved to a BR/BT idea. That and that I really like BRs!
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 724
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby baithammer » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:11 am

Smaller vessels tend to be faster than larger vessels and at closer range become harder to track, a larger vessel at any range is far easier to hit.

As for battle rider /tender, there isn't much savings on jump fuel as the combined transport mass is used to calculate fuel requirements. ( Also a good idea to operate with strike ships in order to determine enemy disposition and create a beach head.)

For crit immunity, consider the surface area of a larger vessel lessens the chance of hitting vital spots.

Fighters tend to be more useful when vessel sizes are relatively small and ship speeds at the lower end of the spectrum. Once you get to a certain size of vessel fighters become less effective as they are unable to carry effective weapons. ( Once your able to mount large missile bays and at least long range missiles fighters become very ineffective as a platform.)

Once that happens, a ship around 1,500t - 2,000t with high speed and access to large torpedo bays while operating as squadrons can make a fairly effective replacement for fighters. ( Could design a carrier vessel to bring them along.)
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3239
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby AnotherDilbert » Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:55 am

h1ro wrote: How do you define a battleship?
Loosely, a large warship that jumps for itself.

h1ro wrote: Mongoose seems determined to hold onto fighters, the odd rules in HG where DMs are placed for size of the target being immune to criticals and the difficulty of larger weapons targeting smaller ships seems odd to me. A large ship a long way away is no harder to hit than a small ship closer.
At equal range a smaller vessel is harder to hit.

If large ships are susceptible to crits, then it becomes more effective to knock them out with crits rather than wearing down their Hull points, hence making battleships unviable. It's a meta decision to make both fighters and battleships viable.

h1ro wrote: ETA: if you're to follow what I think was IN protocol (I lost my FFW a long time ago) then all front line warships are J4, and the fuel requirement severely hampers what you can fit in a ship! That's why I moved to a BR/BT idea. That and that I really like BRs!
Yes, but you also get rewarded with Hull points for encasing all that fuel into the battleships armour.
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 » Mon Jun 19, 2017 6:11 am

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:55 am
Loosely, a large warship that jumps for itself.
Larger than anything in particular? 100,000 tons?
AnotherDilbert wrote:At equal range a smaller vessel is harder to hit.
True but at the distances ships can engage at, the targets are still tiny and tracked by computers, no Mk 1 Eyeball will help you.
AnotherDilbert wrote:It's a meta decision to make both fighters and battleships viable.
Yeah, shame that ;)
AnotherDilbert wrote:Yes, but you also get rewarded with Hull points for encasing all that fuel into the battleships armour.
I need to do the number crunching to see how big a difference it makes.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3239
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby AnotherDilbert » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:52 pm

baithammer wrote: As for battle rider /tender, there isn't much savings on jump fuel as the combined transport mass is used to calculate fuel requirements. ( Also a good idea to operate with strike ships in order to determine enemy disposition and create a beach head.)
Under LBB5 a BR+Tender is reasonably much smaller than a BB with the same payload, weapons.

A tender uses ~55% of it's volume for drives, fuel, etc, leaving 45% for the payload, the BR.
A BR uses ~55% of it's volume for armour, screen, drives, etc, leaving 45% for the payload, a spinal.
A BB uses ~95% of it's volume for armour, screen, drives, fuel, etc, leaving 5% for the payload, a spinal.

So to bring a 5000 Dt payload (spinal+PP+fuel) you need a 5000 / 0.45 ≈ 11 kDt Battle Rider and a 11000 / 0.45 = 25 kDt tender.
If you instead use a battleship you need 5000 / 0.05 = 200 kDt battleship which is of course much more expensive

baithammer wrote: Fighters tend to be more useful when vessel sizes are relatively small and ship speeds at the lower end of the spectrum.
Fighters exist to abuse dogfighting, that never ceases to be effective.
Reynard
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3261
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby Reynard » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:55 pm

Going back to the original question, "I used to think of the Gazelle-class close escort as a mainstay of the Imperial Navy, but this text relegates the Gazelle to the most minor of roles. Does anyone dispute that or at least see a way to give the Gazelle a broader range of duties?". I have looked over High Guard 2e ships and AVENGER ENTERPRISES/COMSTAR GAME'S: SECTOR FLEET for sources on escorts. The final answer is obviously no except as that desperate need for replacement ships due to battle attrition or just overwhelming numbers for defense. The Chrysanthemum-class and the Fer-de-lance-class destroyer escorts or even the 2000 ton P.F. Sloan-class fleet escort are no better. The 3000 ton Midu Agasham-class destroyer at least has systems for serious escort missions in naval encounters but are deployed in forces of 10-20 to be effective. I'd say this is bare minimum.

According to Sector Fleet, fleet escorts really become viable at the 5000+ ton range. This makes sense if they are dealing with swarms of strike fighters or less. For the record, according to Sector Fleet - "Strike Fighter Another variant of the Heavy Fighter, the Strike Fighter mounts a single, powerful weapon (usually a plasma or fusion gun) capable of dealing heavy damage to even a large warship. Strike fighters represent massive overkill against conventional fighters and small merchant craft, and their armament is outranged by most other weaponry. However, if they can get close enough they can do real damage to a warship.". So escorts do need to meet such a threat kind for kind even within the shadow of the host warship's defenses and possible organic fighter support.

Question now is what would a true fleet escort look like? What does a space superiority fighter meant to hunt and kill strike fighters look like?
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 724
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby baithammer » Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:35 pm

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:52 pm
Fighters exist to abuse dogfighting, that never ceases to be effective.
Which is limited to close or adjacent range due to the firm point limitations and means the fighters need to make it through anti-fighter cover to engage the target. Which is where missile bays come in handy ( No penalty for Sub 2,000t targets ) and salvo immediately engage up to long range. Pulse laser turret / Particle barbette banks are pretty nasty.

Rather scary when facing a Large Missile bay and its 120 angry hornets.

As for the Gazelle, more likely escorting merchant fleets than a front line combat ship.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6525
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby Condottiere » Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:22 am

Battleships are capital ships able to stand in the line of battle, principally using their primary armament to inflict damage on their opposing numbers, armoured to be somewhat immune to similar primary armament they carried, able to soak up damage when they do get penetrated, and independently can power project.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3239
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby AnotherDilbert » Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:58 am

baithammer wrote: Which is limited to close or adjacent range due to the firm point limitations and means the fighters need to make it through anti-fighter cover to engage the target. Which is where missile bays come in handy ( No penalty for Sub 2,000t targets ) and salvo immediately engage up to long range. Pulse laser turret / Particle barbette banks are pretty nasty.
Quite, you will lose fighters on the way in to Close range. High acceleration is essential to make it quick.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3239
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby AnotherDilbert » Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:06 am

Reynard wrote: Question now is what would a true fleet escort look like? What does a space superiority fighter meant to hunt and kill strike fighters look like?
We tried to build some escorts during beta (thread "Escorts!"). I can't say they were very good, though.

A 1900 Dt ship filled with pulse laser turrets or missile launchers and a reasonable computer might be at least marginally useful against missiles and fighters.

A space superiority fighter would be pretty similar to my 35.5 Dt modular fighter.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 724
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby baithammer » Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:39 am

AnotherDilbert, could you post some of the designs?
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3239
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby AnotherDilbert » Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:50 pm

baithammer wrote:
Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:39 am
AnotherDilbert, could you post some of the designs?
Some designs here:
viewtopic.php?f=89&t=118688
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6525
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby Condottiere » Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:56 pm

You only start getting structural bonuses with twenty five thousand tonnes volume, which is in light cruiser territory.

Two kilotonnes is probably the border: less, torpedoes have a harder time targetting you and you can stay out of the way of spinal mounted shots, more and you ignore criticals from turrets and barbettes.
locarno24
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3036
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:46 pm
Location: Wildly Variable

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby locarno24 » Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:59 am

Makes sense. 2 kdTons was the boundary of "capital ship" rules in 1e.

But yes, Missiles have always been a bit pop-gun-ey; allowing missile bays to be capital-ship scale flak weapons gives them a function, and for that to be worth doing, fighters need to be a threat to a big ship (hence dogfighting bonus).
Understand that I'm not advocating violence.
I'm just saying that it's highly effective and I strongly recommend using it.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3239
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby AnotherDilbert » Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:54 pm

h1ro wrote:
AnotherDilbert wrote:Yes, but you also get rewarded with Hull points for encasing all that fuel into the battleships armour.
I need to do the number crunching to see how big a difference it makes.
Take a simple BB: 105 kDt, GCr 72.7, J-4, 9G, Armour 15, Hull 84700, Meson 8DD.
A BR with the same payload: 34 kDt, GCr 43.7 incl tender, J-0, 9G, Armour 15, Hull 20570, Meson 8DD.
A Docking Clamp J-4 tender is 11 kDt + 30 kDt Drop tank.

We get 1.66 BR for each BB, let's call it 5 BR vs 3 BB for equal budget.

3 BBs have Meson 24 DD and 254 100 Hull.
5 BRs have Meson 40 DD and 102 850 Hull.
BBs does 0.6 the damage and have 2.47 as much Hull. BBs win.


Perhaps we need bigger BRs with the bonus for being over 100 kDt?

A BRH would be: 101 kDt, GCr 129.2 incl J-4 tender, J-0, 9G, Armour 15, Hull 81473, Meson 24DD.

We get 1.77 BBs for each BRH.
1.77 BBs have 7 DD meson and 150 000 Hull against 24 DD and 81 500 Hull for the BRH.
BBs have 0.3 times the damage and 1.84 times the Hull. BRH wins.

Oops, I seem to have proven myself wrong.

The BBs will have more dodges available, since there are more of them; that and screens might save them. BRHs have a severe tactical problem of where to hide the tenders so that the enemy can't get to them, they cannot be close to the fighting.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6525
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby Condottiere » Wed Jun 21, 2017 11:18 pm

Swarm the tenders with smallcraft.

Vessels should be defined as to their capability to carry out their role(s).

Anything around and below two kilotonnes that has combat as a principal role would be a minor combatant.
locarno24
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3036
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:46 pm
Location: Wildly Variable

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby locarno24 » Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:08 am

True but at the distances ships can engage at, the targets are still tiny and tracked by computers, no Mk 1 Eyeball will help you.
Yes, but "size of target" still matters.

You can't 'dodge' a laser bolt, because you can't see it coming, but evasion still matters because you can 'generate a miss'.
Assume shots are being exchanged at long range at 30,000km apart. That's 0.1 light seconds (because I like making maths easier).

Therefore, where you are on my display is actually where you were 0.1 seconds ago, and I'm trying to predict where you will be in 0.1 seconds time, when speed-of-light weapons will arrive if I pull the trigger now. That means I have to guess your target point based on 0.2 seconds of unobserved acceleration.

0.2 seconds of acceleration isn't much, but it's enough for you to displace about 0.4m off your original heading for every G of acceleration you are capable of. For a 1G, tens-of-metres-across trade ship, or a multi-kilo-dton heavy cruiser, that's irrelevant, because you're not going to move the "predicted centre mass of target" outside the hull in that timeframe.

For a 15 high-spec fighter that's only a few metres across in the aspect presented to you, that's a serious issue in hitting (especially when talking about near-c weapons like particle beams rather than actual speed-of-light lasers); because now not only do you have the difficulty of hitting to start with (which computers and servo aiming can help with) but the more fundamental issue that you're aiming at the wrong place.
Understand that I'm not advocating violence.
I'm just saying that it's highly effective and I strongly recommend using it.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6525
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby Condottiere » Thu Jun 22, 2017 11:12 am

Image

You can correct a beam laser in real time.
Reynard
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3261
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby Reynard » Thu Jun 22, 2017 11:38 am

"Leading a target' has been SOP in military tactics for a long time. I'm sure they get that too when using light and near light speed weapons at huge distances and the whole reason targeting computers in conjunction to sensors exist.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 22 guests