Battle Riders

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2248
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Battle Riders

Postby AnotherDilbert » Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:04 pm

baithammer wrote:
Thu Jul 13, 2017 1:02 pm
As to the Screens part, base rules have 1DD reduced per 5 screens with the meson topping out at 24DD.

The Fleet rules are a bit wonky with the handling of screens with the 5 per screen multiplied by crew skill compared to the 10,000 per DD for the meson even after the /10 damage.
I agree that it is not optimally phrased, but the system is somewhat balanced:
• A gunner can use any number of screens in an Angle Screens reaction.
• Each screen used reduces damage (inflicted damage, after defences) by 2D × Effect of Angle Screen action.
• If more than 5 screens are used any Radiation trait is removed from the attack.
• 10D can be rolled as 1DD.

The reduced damage is rolled separately, it does not remove dice from the attack.

This is consistent with the Capital Ship Battles system.
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Battle Riders

Postby baithammer » Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:47 pm

Main book lists each under a separate heading with the first being Critical Hits and the second being Sustained damage.

Critical hit has two basic starting requirements.

1.) An effect 6+ roll
2.) Damage applied over any damage negation. ( Armor is called out in the example.

Sustained Damage has a different set of requirements.

1.)A ship will suffer a severity 1 critical hit everytime it
loses 10% (rounded up) of its starting hull.

High Guard modifies this in two steps.

1.) Size of hull removes certain classes of weapons from causing crits.
• Ships larger than 2,000 tons ignore critical hits
from turrets and barbettes.
• Ships larger than 10,000 tons ignore critical hits
from all weapons except medium and large bay
weapons.
• Ships larger than 100,000 tons ignore critical hits
from all weapons except large bays.
2.) An addendum to the Sustained damage section which states.
The Severity of a critical hit is based on 1%
increments of the ship’s hull value (minimum 10 points
of damage).
Each occurs within its own section.
The reduced damage is rolled separately, it does not remove dice from the attack.
Really wish they'd had better layout for the screens section.

This just moves the needle to two scales, 205 meson screens to on average block the 24 DD meson and 720 mesons to ensure an even marginal screen test absorbs the 24DD meson spinal.

Which requires only in first case 2,050t / 4,100 Mcr / 6,150 Power and the second case costs 7,200t / 14,400 Mcr / 21,600 Power. :)
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3840
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Battle Riders

Postby phavoc » Thu Jul 13, 2017 3:27 pm

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Thu Jul 13, 2017 12:12 pm
phavoc wrote:
Thu Jul 13, 2017 12:27 am
Increasing the size of the ship isn't a fair comparison. To make a fair comparison you'd have to stay at 125kDt and then compare a J-1 version of it to a non-jump version.
That is precisely the fair comparison in my opinion. A warship is crammed full of components, if we want to add capability we have to make the ship bigger.

I generally design for capability, not some arbitrary size.


But sure, we can remove capability instead. The 125 kDt BR with J-1 would have an 18DD spinal, so have 25% less firepower (and some free space) if that makes you happier.
Your line of logic is valid, but the comparison was along the lines of what is lost by adding a jump drive and supporting elements to the same size hull. That's the argument for/against battle riders - how much additional firepower and capabilities you get in the same size hull by omitting a jump drive.
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Battle Riders

Postby baithammer » Thu Jul 13, 2017 3:46 pm

Its more to do with range of size than a specific one.

The first peg is trying to find the capabilities floor to keep the hull as close to 100kdt, in order to get the crit immunities and to maximize the number of riders per tender.

Second peg is increasing the survivability of the unit when things go wrong, with the first looking at removing the tender from the field after deployment of riders and looking at the option of the riders removing them selves from the field.

All or nothing attacks are to be avoided at scale as unlike a video game those assets take time / resources to replace.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2248
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Battle Riders

Postby AnotherDilbert » Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:12 pm

baithammer wrote: Main book lists each under a separate heading with the first being Critical Hits and the second being Sustained damage.

Critical hit has two basic starting requirements.

1.) An effect 6+ roll
2.) Damage applied over any damage negation. ( Armor is called out in the example.
Yes. HG modifies this to Damage > Hull × 1% for large ships.

baithammer wrote: Sustained Damage has a different set of requirements.

1.)A ship will suffer a severity 1 critical hit everytime it
loses 10% (rounded up) of its starting hull.
Yes.

baithammer wrote: High Guard modifies this in two steps.

1.) Size of hull removes certain classes of weapons from causing crits.
• Ships larger than 2,000 tons ignore critical hits
from turrets and barbettes.
• Ships larger than 10,000 tons ignore critical hits
from all weapons except medium and large bay
weapons.
• Ships larger than 100,000 tons ignore critical hits
from all weapons except large bays.
Yes. This applies to crits from weapon attacks, not to crits from sustained damage that could have come from any source. Note that we do not keep score of where damage came from, only total amount of sustained damage.

baithammer wrote: 2.) An addendum to the Sustained damage section which states.
The Severity of a critical hit is based on 1%
increments of the ship’s hull value (minimum 10 points
of damage).
No. This is a modifier to:
The Severity of the critical hit is equal to the damage the spacecraft has taken from the attack, divided by ten (rounding up).
so for large ships:
The Severity of a critical hit is based on 1% increments of the ship’s hull value (minimum 10 points of damage).

Crits from sustained damage are always Severity 1. Crits from attacks are variable Severity.

baithammer wrote:
The reduced damage is rolled separately, it does not remove dice from the attack.
Really wish they'd had better layout for the screens section.

This just moves the needle to two scales, 205 meson screens to on average block the 24 DD meson and 720 mesons to ensure an even marginal screen test absorbs the 24DD meson spinal.
With a good gunner (skill +2, Dex+1, Augment+2, Expert+1 = +6) we achieve an Effect of +5 on an average roll. Each screen prevents 2D [average 7] × 5 [effect] = 35 damage.

205 screens would on average prevent 205 × 35 ≈ 7000 damage. A 24DD meson would on average do 84000 damage.
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Battle Riders

Postby baithammer » Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:25 pm

To determine the amount of Damage delivered by a
weapon system, consult the Fleet Weapon Damage table,
totalling the Damage all the weapons within the weapon
system (so, if you have ten triple beam laser turrets, you
would count that as a total of 30 beam lasers), then
divide the total by 10
, rounding down. The result is the
Damage score for that weapon system.
Which for the meson spinal pegs its average at 8,400.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2248
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Battle Riders

Postby AnotherDilbert » Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:38 pm

In the Fleet system a 24DD meson that hit would do 24 × 10000 / 10 = 24000 damage.

200 screens prevents 200 × 5 × 2 = 2000 damage.

No rolls involved.
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Battle Riders

Postby baithammer » Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:56 pm

Or simplify the whole thing and use the Point Defense Battery rules for it would be less of a headache.
steve98052
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 6:13 am
Location: near Seattle

Re: Battle Riders

Postby steve98052 » Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:35 pm

All the discussion of whether strict battle riders (no jump), battle riders with Jump-1 escape capability, or battleships are best in a sustained war (as opposed to the single battle of the tournament Trillion Credit Squadron) is probably only resolveable with a war tournament scenario -- or really an assortment of tournaments. My guess is that the setting of the tournament would strongly influence the outcome, but that's another story.

The ancient computer game Empire offers an example of a balanced war setting: four teams start in four corners of the board, and some non-aligned worlds exist at midpoints between homeworlds. But two teams and no non-aligned worlds would likely fit the needs of a war tournament better. The key would be a balanced, symmetrical starting territory map.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3840
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Battle Riders

Postby phavoc » Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:17 pm

The question of ships designed for tournament vs. ships designed to reflect deployment realities happened after the first, then second, then third.... tournament.

Is this (http://www.classicempire.com/) the Empire of which you speak? I spent more than a few hours playing that one!
AndrewW
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:57 pm

Re: Battle Riders

Postby AndrewW » Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:18 pm

phavoc wrote:
Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:17 pm
Is this (http://www.classicempire.com/) the Empire of which you speak? I spent more than a few hours playing that one!
Have it sitting on the shelf myself, also have Empire Deluxe.
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Battle Riders

Postby baithammer » Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:04 am

Going over High Guard 2ed and started to take a hard look at Break Away Hulls.

Combined Stat
Image

Rider Carrier
Image

Rider
Image

Lets us carry a heavier Rider using a lighter Tender.

450,000t combined, 300,000t tender and 150,000t rider.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2248
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Battle Riders

Postby AnotherDilbert » Tue Jul 18, 2017 6:48 pm

You can do much better with docking clamps, with some operational disadvantages.

The drop tanks are not a part of the hull, you only need a 120 kDt hull for the tender.

You can place the breakaway connectors in any section you want. It's more economical to place the connectors in the tender rather than the densely packed BR.

Drop tank collars should be 180000 × 0,4% = 720 dT.


If you strip out everything non-essential you can get the tender down to, say, 54 kDt (+136 kDt drop tank that you never drop) and GCr 50 in quantity. The GCr 100 you save is almost enough for a spare BR...
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Battle Riders

Postby baithammer » Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:21 pm

The drop tanks are not a part of the hull, you only need a 120 kDt hull for the tender.
1.)
these are
external fuel tanks that are jettisoned just as the ship enters
jump space.
Seems to indicate the mass is part of the initial jump, kinda like the battery I use.

2.)
The jump capability of the ship does not need to be
recalculated, unless it jumps with the drop tanks
attached.
I believe this is more for a situation where the ship isn't using the drop tank for the initial jump so is carrying the tank for possible emergency jump. ( I prefer the tank for initial jump as its the largest mass required.)
Drop tank collars should be 180000 × 0,4% = 720 dT.
Good catch, I blame a bad keyboard and bad editing. :)
If you strip out everything non-essential you can get the tender down to, say, 54 kDt (+136 kDt drop tank that you never drop
At 300,000t the tender is already far more efficient than the standard tender, where the listed tl 15 battle tenders are at 1,000,000t with around 4x 50,000t riders.

But of course there are more tweaks for this as it was just trying to lay a foundation.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2248
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Battle Riders

Postby AnotherDilbert » Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:31 am

baithammer wrote: Seems to indicate the mass is part of the initial jump, kinda like the battery I use.
No, the drop tanks are not a part of the hull, they are external.
If you drop them, they don't come with you in the jump and does not count in jump performance.
If you keep them, they do come with you in the jump and does count in jump performance.

E.g. 100 Dt Scout with a 100 Dt drop tank is a 100 Dt ship with J-2 when the tanks are dropped. It arrives with internal tankage jump tankage full, since the drop tank was used to power the jump.
If it keeps the tank it counts as a 200 Dt ship and has J-1 capability. The hull is still only 100 Dt.

baithammer wrote: At 300,000t the tender is already far more efficient than the standard tender, where the listed tl 15 battle tenders are at 1,000,000t with around 4x 50,000t riders.
? I do not think I have heard of such inefficient tenders. E.g. the Lurenti class tender is 300 kDt and carries 7 Nolikian BRs of 20 kDt and 200 heavy fighters. The carried craft are 50% of the carrier.
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Battle Riders

Postby baithammer » Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:07 am

No, the drop tanks are not a part of the hull, they are external.
If you drop them, they don't come with you in the jump and does not count in jump performance.
If you keep them, they do come with you in the jump and does count in jump performance.
Never said the tank was part of the hull, but the fuel contained by the tank has mass and is used in the initial jump calculations as well as being used in the initial jump.
E.g. 100 Dt Scout with a 100 Dt drop tank is a 100 Dt ship with J-2 when the tanks are dropped.
Before the jump, if the 100 dt scout has an attached 100 dt tank its calculated as 200 dt and once the jump has occurred the tank is dropped while the fuel is spent so arrives on point as a 100 dt vessel.
I do not think I have heard of such inefficient tenders.
Gorodish Class Fleet Tender, tl 15 1,000,000t can carrier 4x Hadrian class Battle Rider each 50kdt.

Clamps take d6+3 rounds to detach while the Break Away hull only takes d6 rounds.
Jeraa
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 477
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:01 pm

Re: Battle Riders

Postby Jeraa » Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:12 am

baithammer wrote: At 300,000t the tender is already far more efficient than the standard tender, where the listed tl 15 battle tenders are at 1,000,000t with around 4x 50,000t riders.
? I do not think I have heard of such inefficient tenders. E.g. the Lurenti class tender is 300 kDt and carries 7 Nolikian BRs of 20 kDt and 200 heavy fighters. The carried craft are 50% of the carrier.
I believe he me be referencing the Gorodish fleet tender. TL 15 and 1 million tons with 4 50,000 ton riders. Also completely fan made and not official in any way.

Edit: Let me rephrase that. The Gorodish (name, no indication of what class) is a 1000000 ton tender in CT Supplement 9. It has no stats. The relevant part (Empress Troyhune is a 50k ton monitor):
An appeal to the Imperial Navy brought eventual results, and during the fleet exercise of 1104 the million-ton fleet tender Gorodish carried the Empress Troyhune to Rorise in place of one of its Hadrian class battleriders.
The very next page does have this below a picture of a planetoid monitor:
This design also illustrates some of the advantages possessed by battleriders versus battleships, although the cost advantages are largely eliminated when the cost of the fleet tender is included. Still, a squadron of eight 50,000-ton battleriders in a million-ton tender approximates in price two Tigress class dreadnaughts, yet possesses much greater firepower and survivability.
No reference to the ships being talked about (presumably the planetoid monitor on the previous page), but it does mention 8x 50,000 ton riders (400,000 tons not counting the necessary components to attach to the rider) with a 1 million ton tender. So the riders are a minimum of 40% of the tender.

In CT - Spinward Marches Campaign we have a 300,000 ton Lurenti rider with 7x 20,000 ton Nolikian riders and 200x 50 ton fighters. That is 150,000 tons of the riders 300,000 tons. 50% of the rider is carried ships.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2248
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Battle Riders

Postby AnotherDilbert » Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:15 pm

baithammer wrote: Before the jump, if the 100 dt scout has an attached 100 dt tank its calculated as 200 dt and once the jump has occurred the tank is dropped while the fuel is spent so arrives on point as a 100 dt vessel.
No, the jump calculations are made for a 100 Dt ship.

You suck in the fuel in the tank, turn it into pure energy, and drop the tanks.
Then you jump as a 100 Dt ship using the stored energy.
The tanks are dropped before you jump.

baithammer wrote: Never said the tank was part of the hull, but ...
Your tender above has a 300 kDt hull, 180 kDt of which is drop tanks. It should probably be a 120 kDt hull + 180 kDt external drop tanks.
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Battle Riders

Postby baithammer » Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:54 pm

Considering the main book describes jumping as the following.
To jump, a ship creates
a bubble of hyperspace by means of injecting highenergy
exotic particles into an artificial singularity.
The singularity is driven out of our universe, creating
a tiny parallel universe which is then blown up like a
balloon by injecting hydrogen into it
.
Which seems to indicate the hydrogen stage occurs after the initial energy dump, which also explains the warning about drop tanks.
Jumping is a delicate
procedure, greatly complicated by having big empty fuel
tanks drifting in close proximity to the jump bubble.


If the tank was dropped specifically at jump, there would be little risk of the tank interacting with the bubble.

Of course this could all be flavor text rather than a mechanics.

And would be a nice bonus to drop the booster section to 120kdt.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2248
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Battle Riders

Postby AnotherDilbert » Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:33 am

baithammer wrote:
Jumping is a delicate
procedure, greatly complicated by having big empty fuel
tanks drifting in close proximity to the jump bubble.

If the tank was dropped specifically at jump, there would be little risk of the tank interacting with the bubble.
The tank is floating free, hence dropped, as the jump bubble is expanded. The tanks are dropped just before jump, hence floating in the vicinity of the ship, hence can interfere with the jump.

If the tank was still attached there would be no risk, and not surprisingly when you jump with the tanks still attached there is no risk.


The original text from CT HG is perhaps more clear:
Disposable fuel tanks may be added to the ship to increase its range. These L-Hyd Tanks are fitted to the outside of the ship, and drop away before jump.

Or as MgT2 HG puts it:
..., these are external fuel tanks that are jettisoned just as the ship enters jump space. The virtue of a drop tank is that it allows a ship to carry a large amount of extra fuel, but jettisoning a tank so close to a jump carries a risk.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests