Battle Riders

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
tytalan
Weasel
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:48 pm

Re: Battle Riders

Postby tytalan » Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:04 am

Like I said the main battle fleet is tech 15 it's just that is only about a fifth of the total navy. With only somewhere between 5%and 10% of worlds being tech 15 you just can't run a all tech 15 navy the economics just don't add up
Sigtrygg
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Battle Riders

Postby Sigtrygg » Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:16 am

There is a canonical source that has been overlooked so far - the Fifth Frontier War.
All regular IN squadrons are TL15. This includes the tanker squadrons and the assault squadrons, cruiser squadrons - not just the battle squadrons.

There are enough TL15 high population worlds in the Imperium to build these ships, not to mention all the spares that have to be shipped to IN bases to repair, refit and perform maintenance.

Subsector navies and planetary navies in FFW are grouped together into colonial squadrons and are TL14 regardless of world TL - this makes sense since a subsector or planetary navy can buy ships from any world in the subsector (should be sector) and probably get ex-IN hand me downs.

Tell me of a real world navy that still builds WW1 TL ships to cut costs? Or WW2 TL planes to cut costs? Or equips its soldiers with muskets to cut costs?
Sigtrygg
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Battle Riders

Postby Sigtrygg » Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:30 am

tytalan wrote:
Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:18 am
You are both right and wrong. Fighting ships 1edition was later said to be talking about battle fleet which is tech 15 because there are enough tech 15 ind worlds to both produce and maintain them in the core systems.
If you mean CT S9 then you are wrong, the supplement is specifically about the IN ships in the Spinward Marches - a frontier sector. We are never told in CT canon what the Imperial core sectors are like, apart from a couple of vague references here and there.
But battle fleet is only about 1/5 of the total imperial navy.
And as I have already posted, the FFW shows us that every assault squadron, cruiser squadron and tanker squadron is TL15 too.
frounteer fleet was built at tech 13 so it could be maintained in the frounteer areas which do not have many tech 15 ind worlds.
Absolute tosh. Even the colonial squadrons of FFW are TL14.
Also many of the sectors fleets were also built at tech 13 because of the cost to both build and maintain the higher tech ships. The domains are also a mix bag depending on the economic strength of the individual domains. If you only have the money to build 1 tech 15 ship or 5 tech 13 ships and you main concern is policing the sector the 5 ships have the advantage so most of the sector fleets end up be tech 13. All of these are a part of the imperial navy but the first edition of fighting ships only talked about battle fleet while the mega Traveller fighting ships talked about all of the fleets.
The MT FSotSI book was a historical discussion of the IN fleet since the early days of the Imperium. The IN of 1105+ only builds at TL15.
One of the things that made the rebellion so nasty was the battle fleet was split up between the various factions giving no one the strength to over power the others. In the past civil wars battle fleet mostly determined who won but with battle fleet split up and each faction controlling most of a domain and its fleet no one could win. Frounteer fleet was mostly based in the domain of Deneb with only a few mothballed ships from battle fleet it had its hands full.
Nope, what made the Rebellion so nasty is a TL15 fleet going up against another TL15 fleet rather than the TL14 fleets they were designed to steamroller.
Flaws in those TL15 designs would become very obvious after a few TL15 vs TL15 battles.
Sigtrygg
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Battle Riders

Postby Sigtrygg » Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:32 am

tytalan wrote:
Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:04 am
Like I said the main battle fleet is tech 15 it's just that is only about a fifth of the total navy. With only somewhere between 5%and 10% of worlds being tech 15 you just can't run a all tech 15 navy the economics just don't add up
Its more to do with the population on those TL15 worlds...

the economics do add up.
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Battle Riders

Postby baithammer » Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:46 am

Well the MGT 2ed Main book lists the following.
In the Third
Imperium setting, the most advanced scientists are
probing the upper boundaries of TL 15, but most core
worlds range between 10 and 13.
And
Out on the fringes of
the Imperium in sectors like the Spinward Marches or
Trojan Reach, Technology Levels vary wildly.
Not to mention the vast majority of ships outside the military are tl12 designs.
Sigtrygg
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Battle Riders

Postby Sigtrygg » Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:07 am

The less said about MgT authors getting 3I canon wrong the better :)

For instance take that TL15 bit you quoted. In 1105 CT 3I the Imperium has been at TL15 as an empire for over 100 years, the IN began building its TL15 fleet towards the end of the Solomani Rim War. The IN has been TL15 for so long that the TL15 Atlantic class heavy cruiser is being retired due to better, more modern, TL 15 designs. Put bluntly, the IN has at least two generations of TL15 ships.

Suffice to say the MgT version of the 3I is not always completely compatible with previous canon, this may be by design or it may be due to lack of research. Either way there are differences...
don't get me wrong, MgT is a great game and their 3I setting is their interpretation of the 3I, it's much the same as the GT 3I being an ATU.

The 'true' 3I is the one detailed in MWM's novel, this also re-writes CT canon.

One of the reasons why I am a fan of the new Starter set is it allows MgT to move away from the 3I but stay inside the shared universe, in much the same way as the excellent Drinax campaign.

Mindjammer for MgT show just what you can do with the MgT rules if you move beyond the 3I.
AndrewW
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4020
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:57 pm

Re: Battle Riders

Postby AndrewW » Tue Jul 25, 2017 12:48 pm

Sigtrygg wrote:
Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:07 am
The less said about MgT authors getting 3I canon wrong the better :)
This may not be the authors fault as Third Imperium canon is subject to change. Can say some stuff being worked on now for the Great Rift boxed set canon is being considered as questions are being asked and answered, such as if this is ok, if there's previous stuff that might contradict something and so forth. (Some notables, including Marc Miller are included in this).
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Battle Riders

Postby baithammer » Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:51 am

There is one niche the older battler rider can perform with less risk to the tender, basically a Monitor Rider and would be used for shuffling defense fleets in home territory where the lack of jump capability is less of a factor.

The Hybrid Battle Rider would be more suited to follow on strikes behind an assault fleet.

The real curiosity however was the proposal of making the tender a Battleship itself.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2277
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Battle Riders

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sat Jul 29, 2017 10:21 pm

baithammer wrote:
Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:51 am
The real curiosity however was the proposal of making the tender a Battleship itself.
Putting armour and agility around the massive fuel tanks of a tender is completely uneconomical.

A TL15 100 kDt BB, J-4, 9G, Armour15, has a payload of about 24 kDt. It can either carry 24 kDt of weapons or an external Rider of ~35000 dT and no weapons. The BB+Rider combo would carry about as much weapons at greater cost (~150%).
h1ro
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:06 pm
Location: Co Front Range

Re: Battle Riders

Postby h1ro » Sun Jul 30, 2017 3:18 am

Making a perhaps hasty and poorly thought out analogy to current naval ships, perhaps a battle tender/rider is in someways comparable to a carrier and it's aircraft?

A carrier does the legwork of getting to the AO then unleashes it's aircraft to do the damage. It has a fleet to protect it and augment it's attack with cruise/stand off missiles.

It doesn't seem too far fetched to create a similar fleet around a BT/BR set up, today's carriers without their aircraft, are limited offensively and have a pretty minimal defensive array, relying on the fleet for protection.

Going back to AnotherDilbert's BR/BB comparison, how do the two ideas stack up when you build in a supporting fleet? Can a fleet of BBs operate independently or do they also need a fleet to work to their best?
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Battle Riders

Postby baithammer » Sun Jul 30, 2017 8:45 am

A TL15 100 kDt BB, J-4, 9G, Armour15, has a payload of about 24 kDt. It can either carry 24 kDt of weapons or an external Rider of ~35000 dT and no weapons. The BB+Rider combo would carry about as much weapons at greater cost (~150%).
Which would not be a good set of ships given mgt 2.

The riders need to be 100kdt+ each in order to get crit immunity benefits and this also applies to the tender if we are going for a battleship configuration.

Going to check to see what I can spec up with two 150kdt riders.
Sigtrygg
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Battle Riders

Postby Sigtrygg » Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:40 am

Not a great deal has been mentioned so far about the other reason for the BT/BR doctrine.

A 500kt tender/rider combo brings more spinals to the battlespace than one BB. (could be a 250kt-ish tender plus 2x 100kt riders, or 4x 50kt riders)

A BatRon of Tigress redesigns (I'm sorry but if the paradigm for ship construction shifts then you have to redesign your fleet) is 8 BB plus support craft.

A BatRon of tender/riders of a similar cost will have twice to four times the spinals.

What is the tender is armoured and screened to BB levels - the IN could even put black globes on the tenders to hide them.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2277
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Battle Riders

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sun Jul 30, 2017 1:27 pm

Sigtrygg wrote:
Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:40 am
A 500kt tender/rider combo brings more spinals to the battlespace than one BB. (could be a 250kt-ish tender plus 2x 100kt riders, or 4x 50kt riders)
Which matters a great deal in CT, but not much in MgT2...
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Battle Riders

Postby baithammer » Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:21 pm

I was thinking more along these lines.

Image

Image

600kdt, Jump 4, Thrust4 and 2x150kdt monitors when combined.

Decided to use the Monitor classification for the riders as that reflects better there purpose.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2277
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Battle Riders

Postby AnotherDilbert » Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:22 pm

I don't really see what you are trying to achieve.

You have a jump drive that can do J6 @ 1 MDt, but only fuel for J4 @ 600 kDt. (And only 2G while carrying craft and tanks.)

All the jump fuel is in a drop tank, but it is not large enough to bring along in the jump, hence you will arrive without any tanks and no ability to jump again.

Even if you restrict yourself to J3 to jump with the tanks, they will be shot to pieces in the first skirmish, again leaving you without ability to jump. Drop tanks on combat vessels are not a good idea, unless you use something like Chas' 2+2 concept. ( viewtopic.php?p=899216#p899216 )

Why not just have a small jump drive and drop tank on each Monitor? They cannot replace battleships or battle riders anyway.
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Battle Riders

Postby baithammer » Mon Jul 31, 2017 9:12 pm

1.) Total displacement is 600,000t with riders.
2.) The jump drive is designed to provide jump 4 while loaded, hence the over provisioned j-drive. ( 60,005t j-drive @ 600,000t is 10% of the hull, so Jump 4.)
3.) The tank is for the initial jump on to target.
4.) With tank and riders attached the thrust is 4.
5.) The tender also has a reserve internal tank capable of loaded Jump 1 or Jump 2 if unloaded.
They cannot replace battleships or battle riders anyway.
Its to replace the tender with a Battleship/tender in one package, also has both the thrust to keep up with the riders, similar defense to the riders and comparable firepower to most battleship designs in a similar displacement.

With the extra clamps, it allows for some of the tenders to bring in other support riders such as 5x 60,000t Cruisers or 4x 75,000t heavy cruisers.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2277
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Battle Riders

Postby AnotherDilbert » Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:29 pm

baithammer wrote: 1.) Total displacement is 600,000t with riders.
And 840 kDt with tanks.

baithammer wrote: 2.) The jump drive is designed to provide jump 4 while loaded, hence the over provisioned j-drive. ( 60,005t j-drive @ 600,000t is 10% of the hull, so Jump 4.)
Yes, sorry I slipped into CT mode and counted 1% per jump there. OK, J4 @ 600 kDt and J2 @ 840 kDt.

baithammer wrote: 4.) With tank and riders attached the thrust is 4.
300 Tender + 2 × 150 Riders + 240 Tank = 840 kDt would require 840 × 4% = 33.6 kDt M-Drive. The Tender has 24 kDt M-Drive giving it 24 / 840 = 0.0285 rounded to 2G. And 4G without tanks.

baithammer wrote: 5.) The tender also has a reserve internal tank capable of loaded Jump 1 or Jump 2 if unloaded.
I missed that. Together with the drop tank that would allow J5. But J1, that will not get you very far...

baithammer wrote:
They cannot replace battleships or battle riders anyway.
Its to replace the tender with a Battleship/tender in one package, also has both the thrust to keep up with the riders, similar defense to the riders and comparable firepower to most battleship designs in a similar displacement.
Yes, but no mobility. It's basically just Riders without any Tender.

You can jump once, but then you are basically stuck until a massive fleet train can deliver a new drop tank à GCr 6.

A battleship (or equivalent) should be able to jump, fight, refuel, jump, fight, &c, which it cannot do with drop tanks. Tenders, that are not supposed to fight, can use drop tanks.


With a 300 kDt drop tank (+60 kDt internal) and 90 kDt jump drive it could do J4 while retaining the tanks, so could continue to jump until the first combat, after which it would need a new tank. It would at least allow them to get into one battle...

Edit: Miscalculated jump drive again...
Last edited by AnotherDilbert on Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Battle Riders

Postby baithammer » Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:41 pm

The tank is for the jump into system ( So Jump 4 to target) while the reserve tank is for emergency jump if things go south.

Once in system the Battle/Tender has a thrust of 8 and similar load out to the riders so participates in the battle.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2277
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Battle Riders

Postby AnotherDilbert » Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:53 pm

baithammer wrote:
Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:41 pm
The tank is for the jump into system ( So Jump 4 to target) while the reserve tank is for emergency jump if things go south.
Yes, you can jump once. If the enemy is inconsiderate enough not to place his fleet within 4 Pc of your deployment base you would be unable to engage.


I fail to see what advantage this concept has over three separate 200 kDt monitors, each with a jump drive and drop tank?
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Battle Riders

Postby baithammer » Mon Jul 31, 2017 11:34 pm

Yes, you can jump once.
Twice, one jump 4 into the system and jump 1 or 2 out of system.
If the enemy is inconsiderate enough not to place his fleet within 4 Pc of your deployment base you would be unable to engage.
You wouldn't be using a conventional fleet either as Jump 4 is the standard for warships, you'd be looking at strike fleets or creating a forward operating base that is jump 4 from the overall objective.
I fail to see what advantage this concept has over three separate 200 kDt monitors, each with a jump drive and drop tank?
Those would be Battleships as monitors don't have jump drives.

The only real advantage the Rider/Tender system is the possibility of tender relay networks, where the riders are exchanged to a forward deployed tender and jumped further out. ( Made even more so with the 100+kdt required to maximize crit immunity.)

The point of this design is to explore what a battle/tender setup could look like, not really an endorsement of the concept. A potential iteration would examine the feasibility of upping carried load to 3 riders of 150kdt with a bigger battle/tender.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], shadowninja01 and 11 guests