Battle Riders

[phavoc]

This sounds good on paper, but I don't think it would fly in reality. It removes the advantage of a battle rider in the first place. If the attacking side is that concerned about withdrawing, then they would be better off building battleships with larger jump drives and using drop tanks and tanker to bridge the gap, thus they eliminate the need for riders/tenders.

The only purpose of having a rider is to put the displacement you are saving into more armor and weapons (more weapons these days as every ship seems to have max armor).

You would be better off dropping off your assault force near a refueling point so that your ships refueled before engaging the enemy while scouts probed and determined the defenders current status and numbers. Fleets will be stationed near mainworlds and would need, generally speaking, days to reach the attackers refueling area. And this assumes that your attacking force isn't coming with a fleet train and tanker support. But standard doctrine would have jump-capable ships refueling first before engaging so they could retreat if needed.

 

[baithammer]

If the attacking side is that concerned about withdrawing, then they would be better off building battleships with larger jump drives and using drop tanks

Attackers always need the option to withdraw, the all or nothing approach is a tournament mind frame. ( Not to mention the waste of resources in manpower/equipment.)

Larger jump drives outside of strike craft and over provisioned designs such as tenders are less efficient and reduces usable displacement per unit unless compensating with a larger overall design. ( But more flexible in deployment.)

Drop tanks are a major boon to tenders as it reduces the required size by around a third compared to smaller gains on individual hulls.

tanker to bridge the gap

Which also benefit the rider concept so not much of a gain.

while scouts probed and determined the defenders current status and numbers.

You do this before going into system which saves you a wasted jump if the defenders are already on the ball.

You would be better off dropping off your assault force near a refueling point so that your ships refueled before engaging the enemy

Which is where a good chunk of defenses will be in any system worth holding and is another point in having reserve jump capability where you can jump to system that isn't fully defended or in your sides control.

your attacking force isn't coming with a fleet train and tanker support. But standard doctrine would have jump-capable ships refueling first before engaging so they could retreat if needed.

Assuming the enemy allows you access to fuel points or having the logistics jumping in with your fleet and ending up in the same spot as unmodified tenders.

Riders do have two specific advantages, most of the fleet arrives with a smaller deviation and can setup tender relays that remove the need to refuel the tenders and thus reduce the time between jumps. ( Jump in with one tender, offload to waiting tender and so on.)

Personally I prefer to use tender/monitor for rear defense mobility where a jump reserve is unnecessary.

 

[phavoc]

Which is where a good chunk of defenses will be in any system worth holding and is another point in having reserve jump capability where you can jump to system that isn't fully defended or in your sides control.

Assuming a system with one main world and one gas giant. Nearly all of the fleet will be stationed to protect the mainworld. Not even the Imperium has the hulls to picket every gas giant or ice moon to defend it against an attacking force. The best you can hope for is to have light pickets that can harass an enemy and force them to commit sufficient forces at the gas giant to dissuade or destroy the defenders.[/quote]

Assuming the enemy allows you access to fuel points or having the logistics jumping in with your fleet and ending up in the same spot as unmodified tenders.

Assuming you are attacking an enemy system, you are going to need to bring sufficient forces to defeat known defenders. Ergo the defenders at a gas giant will be only a tiny portion of the defenders fleet. Nobody can afford to picket gas giants with enough hulls to defeat an attacking force that equals a defenders fleet strength.

In times of war your intel will be stale, so while you can try to scout the system ahead of time, all intelligence being delivered to a fleet prior to jump is two weeks old at a minimum (and that assumes your scouts jump immediately back to the fleet with the intel after obtaining it). That is always the nature of combat with jump technology as the only means of moving between the stars.

Riders do have two specific advantages, most of the fleet arrives with a smaller deviation and can setup tender relays that remove the need to refuel the tenders and thus reduce the time between jumps. ( Jump in with one tender, offload to waiting tender and so on.)

Not sure that what is supposed to mean. What "tender relays"? Ships jumping in will always need to refuel if they want the ability to jump out - assuming you aren't a ship capable of jumping multiple parsecs and your last jump was only a Jump-1 which leaves you sufficient fuel to retreat as necessary.


A defender has two choices - to use their funds to purchase mobile forces, or to invest in fixed defenses around a planet. With large states like the Imperium you can afford to add heavy static defenses to some worlds, but most have to make do with their own economic funds. Mobile forces offer the ability to project power, so they will always be the preferred choice since they offer the most bang for the credit. Some cultures/planets will prefer to turtle due to their personal or racial preferences, but that means you would not be able to respond with a larger force if an attacker came. Meaning a system with an equal size economy that invested in mobile forces might not be able to invade your world, but they could wipe out anything you had in the outer system and lay siege to your planet. I would tend to think that system-on-system attacking in the Imperium is limited to small fleet engagements, and nobody really gets to heavily raid another worlds shipping or obliterate outer-system colonies and stations. But commerce raids and the like would be permitted on a limited basis. So that makes fixed defenses for mainworlds secondary to being able to project power beyond the 100D limit.

 

[baithammer]

Assuming a system with one main world and one gas giant. Nearly all of the fleet will be stationed to protect the mainworld.

No you'd put the effort on the gas giant as that is a far more strategic advantage for creating a beach head for the attacker.

Assuming you are attacking an enemy system, you are going to need to bring sufficient forces to defeat known defenders.

As an attacker you bring as much force as you can afford if the objective is to take the system as any miscalculation of the defenders numbers and reinforcement potentials will lead to failure.

and that assumes your scouts jump immediately back to the fleet with the intel after obtaining it

Scouts wouldn't be used in this case as that potentially tips off the defender that something is about to happen, this is where spies and spy ships would be used.

What "tender relays"? Ships jumping in will always need to refuel if they want the ability to jump out

Assuming you only use a single set of tenders, you can preposition a set of tenders to take riders from inbound tenders in order carry forces further and in less time.

Also due to the tenders bringing multiple riders to the same point in space /time, it is easier to rally and coordinate the fleet when arriving.

The attacker would be smart to avoid dropping in on bodies and instead use premapped deep points to reduce the response time for the defenders.

A defender has two choices - to use their funds to purchase mobile forces, or to invest in fixed defenses around a planet. With large states like the Imperium you can afford to add heavy static defenses to some worlds, but most have to make do with their own economic funds.

This isn't an either / or situation as both system defense fleets and static weapons platforms are required to hold a system. However, the defender has multiple advantages when in home space as reinforcements are generally close by, don't require jump capable in system fleets where instead the use of system defense boats and monitors would be more advantageous. (Also far cheaper than outfitting starships.)

I would tend to think that system-on-system attacking in the Imperium is limited to small fleet engagements

Not if your taking the system as that requires a strong commitment on the attackers part to overwhelm the defender and hold the system in the face of possible reinforcement. Raiding tends to occur where the enemy has the least presence and doesn't require the resources needed for a system invasion.

 

[Jeraa]

Assuming a system with one main world and one gas giant. Nearly all of the fleet will be stationed to protect the mainworld.

No you'd put the effort on the gas giant as that is a far more strategic advantage for creating a beach head for the attacker.

No, you put it at the main world. A gas giant is nothing more than a large ball of gas. Yes, it is a fuel source. But so is literally every comet and ball of ice in the system. You can not possibly cover every potential fuel source. Our own star system contains 4 planets suitable for traditional refueling purposes (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune), not counting any icy body where you could also gather fuel.

The mainworld, on the other hand, is where most if not all of your people, industrial base, shipyard facilities, and everything important in the system is located. It is also the target the attackers are after.

So the defenders choices are to either spread out his defenses across a huge area of space, guaranteeing they won't be able to withstand a serious attack as each point would be defeated piecemeal. Or, to concentrate the defenses on the only truly valuable location in the entire system, making it that much harder to attack.

There maybe some forces dedicated to guarding a fuel source, but mostly for harassment purposes. Disrupting and delaying refueling more than outright combat.

 

[baithammer]

But so is literally every comet and ball of ice in the system.

Much smaller and not as predictable as the gas giant which can support a very large beach head.

The main world, on the other hand, is where most if not all of your people, industrial base, shipyard facilities, and everything important in the system is located. It is also the target the attackers are after.

The end target, but not the first one which is for the attacker getting a stable source of fuel and easy to use rally point for a beach head.

Further bottling the defenders near the main world allows the attacker to blockade the main world while allowing the attacker to bring in more forces if the defenders weren't already over matched.

By denying the attacker access to the gas giant, the defenders will have an easier time picking apart the attacker as smaller bodies of fuel spread the attacking force out and slow the progress of the overall invasion.

Further, the main world acts as a giant carrier and weapons platform so really doesn't require an all out concentration of the defending fleet.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

No, you put it at the main world. A gas giant is nothing more than a large ball of gas. Yes, it is a fuel source. But so is literally every comet and ball of ice in the system. You can not possibly cover every potential fuel source. Our own star system contains 4 planets suitable for traditional refueling purposes (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune), not counting any icy body where you could also gather fuel.

I completely agree.

Don't forget that the main world most often is just as good a fuel source as the gas giants (ocean skimming).

 

[baithammer]

Don't forget that the main world most often is just as good a fuel source as the gas giants (ocean skimming).

Which is why it doesn't require as much defense as the attacker will not jump on to it first and will use the gas giant to create a beach head while boxing the defender at the main world.

 

[phavoc]

Don't forget that the main world most often is just as good a fuel source as the gas giants (ocean skimming).

Which is why it doesn't require as much defense as the attacker will not jump on to it first and will use the gas giant to create a beach head while boxing the defender at the main world.

Yeah.... no. The purpose of having defenses is to protect what you want to defend - and that ain't no gas giant. While it would take more time to refuel from an ice moon, it's still a possibility. No rational defender is going to sortie his defending fleet out to stop someone from refueling. Not to mention no taxpayer is going to spend billions of credits so their fleet can go stooge around a gas giant, hoping that attackers will try to refuel first instead of simply swoop in and invade. Plus if the enemy simply wants to raid and damage / destroy the orbital infrastructure they could swoop in, knock it out and leave (tankers and drop tanks).

And if we followed your logic above, what would happen if there were more than 1 gas giant, or more than one planetary body that had a refueling source? The concept of a beachhead does not translate well when you are talking about an entire star system.

 

[baithammer]

Yeah.... no. The purpose of having defenses is to protect what you want to defend - and that ain't no gas giant.

On the contrary, gas giants are rather well suited for defense as you can park planetoid weapons platforms in orbit and fuel them. ( Also allows you to keep tabs on traffic in system.)

The attacking force will not pick smaller bodies for refueling as the force needs to consolidate and using smaller bodies simply spreads the fleet out giving the defender time to pick off the arriving fleet elements.

Not to mention no taxpayer is going to spend billions of credits so their fleet can go stooge around a gas giant, hoping that attackers will try to refuel first instead of simply swoop in and invade.

Due to the nature of jump warfare the attacker will not jump in on an occupied body as that would become death trap and would have no chance of swooping in on an occupied world.

Since the defender doesn't require j-drive ships they can afford the less expensive system boats, monitors and planetoid weapon platforms.

The concept of a beachhead does not translate well when you are talking about an entire star system.

Its not the entire system that the attacker is after, its the entry way and resource access that is the objective as the attacker wants to delay as much as possible in order to build up numbers and momentum.

Plus if the enemy simply wants to raid and damage / destroy the orbital infrastructure they could swoop in, knock it out and leave (tankers and drop tanks).

This is why you invest in orbital weapons platforms and its difficult for the attacker to simply jump in and immediately attack a target as jumping has time deviations.

 

[phavoc]

No you'd put the effort on the gas giant as that is a far more strategic advantage for creating a beach head for the attacker.

Commented elsewhere, but this isn't feasible from either a political or military point of view.

As an attacker you bring as much force as you can afford if the objective is to take the system as any miscalculation of the defenders numbers and reinforcement potentials will lead to failure.

Intelligence is rarely perfect. Commanders make plans and then adapt them as they come in contact with the enemy and fall apart.

Scouts wouldn't be used in this case as that potentially tips off the defender that something is about to happen, this is where spies and spy ships would be used.

Wasn't being literal. "Scouts" in this case takes on a number of different methods, but they would include regular military scout ships. When two systems are at war you are going to encounter scout ships in your systems from time to time - if they are within reach of the enemy system.

Assuming you only use a single set of tenders, you can preposition a set of tenders to take riders from inbound tenders in order carry forces further and in less time.

Also due to the tenders bringing multiple riders to the same point in space /time, it is easier to rally and coordinate the fleet when arriving.

It is doubtful that any enemy could afford this. There is no real need to use a relay of tenders like you do the Xboat network. Refueling from a tanker would take hours, perhaps a single day, at most.

The attacker would be smart to avoid dropping in on bodies and instead use premapped deep points to reduce the response time for the defenders.

No defender can stop an attacker from entering a system at a place and time of the attacker's choosing. Attackers have the option of dropping their fleet at the 100D limit of a defender's planet, or they can drop out at 200D, allowing time for stragglers to emerge from jump and for the fleet to receive the latest intelligence reports before engaging (or retreating to the outer system/gas giant). No defender is going to leave their home world unprotected to engage an enemy in deep space or in the outer systems unless absolutely necessary. You never know if the attack is a feint to get the defender to deploy elsewhere. An engagement in the outer system would take potentially days to get to where the enemy is, and days to get back if their homeworld / fleet base comes under attack.

This isn't an either / or situation as both system defense fleets and static weapons platforms are required to hold a system. However, the defender has multiple advantages when in home space as reinforcements are generally close by, don't require jump capable in system fleets where instead the use of system defense boats and monitors would be more advantageous. (Also far cheaper than outfitting starships.)

SDB's and monitors, while capable of deploying elsewhere in a system, are not capable of being used outside the system without additional expenses (i.e. fleet transports or carriers). Just like battle riders, without their transports, are highly effective at defense, but are incapable of offense - in this case meaning offense against an external system opponent. In a system with more than one polity, non-jump ships would, of course, be capable of projecting power within the star system and against any opponents within the system itself. But for the most part you typically only have one major space power within a system.

Not if your taking the system as that requires a strong commitment on the attackers part to overwhelm the defender and hold the system in the face of possible reinforcement. Raiding tends to occur where the enemy has the least presence and doesn't require the resources needed for a system invasion.

The Imperium doesn't allow for multi-system entities within the Imperium itself. Warfare, within reason, is allowed between worlds, but taking ownership of another world through invasion that is outside the attacker's system doesn't occur. Even commerce raiding and destruction of orbital infrastructure has to stay within boundaries and limitations. Trade is the backbone of the Imperium and they do not tolerate disruption of trade. They also don't allow mini-empires, thus the prohibition of a world claiming ownership of other worlds in other star systems.

 

[baithammer]

Commented elsewhere, but this isn't feasible from either a political or military point of view.

Then you don't control the system and most likely sharing space with other entities, in order to control a system you need the resources to exploit and defend it.

Intelligence is rarely perfect. Commanders make plans and then adapt them as they come in contact with the enemy and fall apart.

Defender has a big advantage in communications as there is very little delay for the defender to contact any point in the held system.

It is doubtful that any enemy could afford this. There is no real need to use a relay of tenders like you do the Xboat network. Refueling from a tanker would take hours, perhaps a single day, at most.

Not that hard to afford this if you control a system and not just a single body or outpost and this is done over a long period of time to make sure the attacking force has more than enough units to break into and stay on the field when deployed. Its not guaranteed to succeed but the calculation for an invasion requires a heavy investment in resources and time to accomplish. (Unless you want to end up invading russia in winter with the wrong gear and out of reach of resupply.)

If this was a multi system setup than a smart entity would invest in proper buffer systems to ramp up the resources need by the attacker to even reach held space.

 

[tytalan]

The Imperium doesn't allow for multi-system entities within the Imperium itself. Warfare, within reason, is allowed between worlds, but taking ownership of another world through invasion that is outside the attacker's system doesn't occur. Even commerce raiding and destruction of orbital infrastructure has to stay within boundaries and limitations. Trade is the backbone of the Imperium and they do not tolerate disruption of trade. They also don't allow mini-empires, thus the prohibition of a world claiming ownership of other worlds in other star systems.

Because they learned they better after the solomai district rebellion.

 

[Sigtrygg]

The Imperium does allow multi-system entities to exist within the 3I - I'll let you try and find where before I tell you...

also government type 6 says hi...

Back to system invasion. There is no possible way for a defending force to deny every refueling source to an invader. The atmosphere of Pluto could be skimmed more easily than a gas giant, then there are all those comets, moons and asteroids that have water/ammonia/methane either in frozen, liquid or gaseous form.

Your choices as a defender are to:
defend your mainworld assets
run away

A real invasion wouldn't be a carefully points balanced tournament. The invader would bring sufficient force to achieve their objective or not bother. Surprise battles occur when fleets maneuvering via jump to a battle end up unexpectedly in the same system, or an invading fleet jumps into a system and defender reinforcements arrive unexpectedly (or were hidden).
An invader suddenly encountering an equal or superior force should retreat.

T

 

[h1ro]

Something to perhaps bear in mind, while we're talking in general terms about attacking/defending system x and its components, if we look at this in context of say, the Spinward Marches, the key worlds are easy to see, where they can be attacked and defended from, where you can refuel, resupply and repair or replace fleet elements, all these things are mapped out.

With that in mind you can work out what kind of ships - BB or BT/BR etc will work best in which target systems and from where they will operate.

I like battle riders/tenders because I think they're cool, have I thought it through in enough detail? Probably not!

I'm not sure how I take this post from @MSprange as it seems to say we're all wrong to redesign the 3I ships with HG 2e. For me at least, the Traveller rules and the 3I setting are the same thing but that's a whole other can of worms.

 

[AndrewW]

I'm not sure how I take this post from @MSprange as it seems to say we're all wrong to redesign the 3I ships with HG 2e. For me at least, the Traveller rules and the 3I setting are the same thing but that's a whole other can of worms.

Nope, redesign away make it your own. Those are just examples of how the Third Imperium designs their ships, if your Third Imperium designs them differently, fine.

 

[Sigtrygg]

During and after the HG2e playtest I argued many times that there needed to be a lot more clarity over which bits of HG2e are 3I 1105 compliant, which are intentional retcons, and which bits have no place within a 3I setting.
Complicating matters is that T5 has redefined 3I era technology, so HG2e has tried to remain compliant (T5 still has no rules for BCS - battle class ships, i.e. CT HG (big)warships rather than CT LBB2 small ships).

 

[h1ro]

I'm not sure how I take this post from @MSprange as it seems to say we're all wrong to redesign the 3I ships with HG 2e. For me at least, the Traveller rules and the 3I setting are the same thing but that's a whole other can of worms.

Nope, redesign away make it your own. Those are just examples of how the Third Imperium designs their ships, if your Third Imperium designs them differently, fine.

The trouble is, the ships of the 3I can be slaughtered by the redesigned ships of HG 2e, if you're trying to play in a setting with a nod to canon there are a some elephants in the room need to be dealt with.

 

[phavoc]

Then you don't control the system and most likely sharing space with other entities, in order to control a system you need the resources to exploit and defend it.

"Control" of a system is somewhat of a misnomer. There are some balls of gas, a sun, and some rocks. Which are all relatively insignifigant size wise compared to the space in between. A star system is B-I-G. Your first order is detecting that an intrude is present, and then, depending on where they are, and where your forces are, you MIGHT be able to do something about it. But it will all take time. For example, if Mars colony contacts Earth and lets them know a raider fleet just dropped out of jumpspace and is beginning a raid it would take the fleet hours, or days, to arrive to provide relief. By then raiders could be gone and the damage done.

Defender has a big advantage in communications as there is very little delay for the defender to contact any point in the held system.

There is no inherent advantage offered to a defender communication wise. If anything a defender might be more vulnerable if they are depending on satellite relays for clear communication throughout the system. The attacker actually has an advantage in that they will have their forces all together, at least initially. But both attacker and defender are going to be limited to the speed of light in transmission times.

Not that hard to afford this if you control a system and not just a single body or outpost and this is done over a long period of time to make sure the attacking force has more than enough units to break into and stay on the field when deployed. Its not guaranteed to succeed but the calculation for an invasion requires a heavy investment in resources and time to accomplish. (Unless you want to end up invading russia in winter with the wrong gear and out of reach of resupply.)

Depends on how wealthy the system is. Even wealthy ones have a limit on how many resources can be devoted to defense. And if you have to police and protect an entire system then you will not be able to afford large fleets everywhere. Look at how the RN and USN worked - they had huge fleets but were still fairly limited based upon distance to travel and the sheer scope of the area they needed to protect. Shipping lanes in a system would be far larger in length that would need coverage. That's just one area to consider.

If this was a multi system setup than a smart entity would invest in proper buffer systems to ramp up the resources need by the attacker to even reach held space.

Yes, very much so. The frontiers of the Imperium act as a very large buffer to external threats, allowing the Imperium to trade systems for time. Look at the the history of the Frontier Wars in the Spinward Marches. Paradoxically though, a larger polity is more vulnerable because they can't be everywhere at once, so they have to pick and choose which systems to station nodal forces to respond to attacks. And important bases like naval depots are also placed far to the rear to protect them from sneak attacks - but this also means transit times for damaged ships from and back to the front are extended. There are definitely advantages and disadvantages to different system structures.

 

[phavoc]

The Imperium does allow multi-system entities to exist within the 3I - I'll let you try and find where before I tell you...

also government type 6 says hi...

Back to system invasion. There is no possible way for a defending force to deny every refueling source to an invader. The atmosphere of Pluto could be skimmed more easily than a gas giant, then there are all those comets, moons and asteroids that have water/ammonia/methane either in frozen, liquid or gaseous form.

Your choices as a defender are to:
defend your mainworld assets
run away

A real invasion wouldn't be a carefully points balanced tournament. The invader would bring sufficient force to achieve their objective or not bother. Surprise battles occur when fleets maneuvering via jump to a battle end up unexpectedly in the same system, or an invading fleet jumps into a system and defender reinforcements arrive unexpectedly (or were hidden).
An invader suddenly encountering an equal or superior force should retreat.

T

i will have to go back and look... I'm not aware of any off the top of my head.

The Spinward Marches frontier wars had this occuring, feints, attacks, sieges, etc, by the Zhodani. Even an empire of their size found that they could not just jump, jump, jump across the Marches to the worlds they wanted. With specific routes across some sectors you get natural choke points for your supply lines.

More than one invader has outrun their supply lines and paid the price (not to mention trying to winter in Russia with summer gear...)