Gionetti class Light Cruiser

[mavikfelna]

OK, I am really unhappy with this design. But for the life of me, I cannot fix it. The nearest I have come so far is more than double the cost for some minor combat gains.

So, the Gionetti from HG p177 is a 30k ton light cruiser with no armor or armored bulkheads and the official design is short about half the crew it actually should have and is 2 BCr under what it should actually cost. This is a corrected sheet for it.





And try as I might, I cannot armor the ship without making its firepower basically nil. Just fitting all the required crew, I had to put the automation to High, which doubles the cost. And I put all the gunners and small craft pilots into barracks with the marines, though the officers are all in single staterooms, to save as much space as possible. But the only thing that makes the ship even marginally useful in real combat is the meson spinal so I don't know where else to come up with savings to put even minimal armor on. Also, not sure if 3 small meson screens will be much help against attacking meson spinals but I put them on there. Since this is an Imperial warship I didn't feel like robots would be acceptable to replace the gunners and it would only free up about 270 tons from saved barracks and common area space.

This is where I'm at for now.



So how do people build useful and effective warship?

 

[Endie]

Why are you intent on putting on armour? One of the points of the Gionetti is that they’re unarmoured death traps that you never want to put up against an armoured peer.

That’s presumably part of the reason that they get handed out to minor polities: the Navy doesn’t want to serve on them and they are happy to have them serve as imposing trade protection craft that pose no threat to the Imperium.

 

[Condottiere]

Designwise, it's a compromise.

There used to be a category termed unarmoured cruiser, which I think was succeeded by third class.

 

[tomfreshwater]

I don’t think sticking to the original design really rigidly is that necessary. It’s a jump 5 light cruiser that doesn’t do very well in the of battle. And is used as the flagship of light high jump task groups. As long as it sort of fits that description from the original source does it really matter?

 

[wintertraveller]

I think that concept of this glass cannon is for a fleet to have as many cheap spinal mounts as possible.

 

[MonsterX]

With J-5, you are going to have to compromise on other things, basically weapons and armour, and the thing compromised on here is amour. You could reduce the size of the missile battery, which also means needing fewer reloads, and fewer gunners. But, aside from the meson gun, the missile battery is the ship's raison d'etre. You could strip off some of the minor capabilities, but these are all things that are likely to be essential to its various missions. It's not a ship that can stand up against other cruisers; it has to pick its battles.

I think, if you free up space, the priority should be M6 rather than armour or screens, because you won't be able to put enough armour on to really help much against large ships, but you can maybe enable it to run away from them.

Probably it is best used defensively, to raid invaders' supply lines, as it will have a tough time against SDBs in enemy systems. But raiding invaders supply lines forces them to keep back bigger ships to protect them.

 

[Sigtrygg]

When in doubt consult the original and get as close to that as you can.

Light Cruiser CL-M2559J3-060909-96057-0 MCr18.306.4 30 ktons

TL=15, Crew=211. Cargo=O. Fuel=17,700. EP-2,700. Agility=5. Marines=20. Five cutters.

Tonnage: 30,000 tons (standard). 420,000 cubic meters.
Crew: 35 officers. 176 ratings. 20 Marines.
Performance: Jump-5. 5-G. Power plant 9. 2,700 EP. Agility 5.
Electronics: Model 9/fib computer.
Hardpoints: One spinal mount. One 100-ton bay. 285 hardpoints.
Armament: One meson gun spinal mount (factor-J). 200 triple
missile turrets organized into 20 batteries. 50 triple beam laser turrets organized
into 5 batteries. 6 dual fusion gun turrets organized into 3 batteries.
Defenses: 24 triple sandcaster turrets organized into 8 batteries.
One 100-ton repulsor bay. Nuclear damper (factor-9).
Craft: Five 50-ton cutters.
Fuel Treatment: On-board fuel scoops and fuel purification plant.
Cost : MCr22.883.04 standard. MCr18,306.428 in quantity.
Construction Time: . 42 months singly; 30 months in quantity.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

OK, I am really unhappy with this design. But for the life of me, I cannot fix it. The nearest I have come so far is more than double the cost for some minor combat gains.

So, the Gionetti from HG p177 is a 30k ton light cruiser with no armor or armored bulkheads and the official design is short about half the crew it actually should have and is 2 BCr under what it should actually cost. This is a corrected sheet for it.

The Gionetti from HG'16 is a HG'16 design, obviously not a valid HG'22 design... Crew reduction for large ships was different in HG'16.

In HG'22 we have the Valiant instead with J-4 and some armour.

So how do people build useful and effective warship?

In HG'22 spinals are kind of pointless, bays are the new hotness, I believe...

J-5 does not leave enough space for weaponry, J-4 is bad enough...

A J-5, M-5 chassis without any weapons just does not have the space for a spinal (4800 Dt free):


Something like this (J-4, M-9, Armour 30) is probably more reasonable for combat, but has even less space for weapons (3000 Dt free):




I suspect smaller ships with a single sniper bay is the way forward:
6000 Dt (enough for military hull and serious armour)
Armour 30 (some survivability...)
J-4, M-8 (compromises were made...)
Large sniper bay (Range Distant, Accurate DM+1, software DM+5, Sub-Comm DM+1, High Automation DM+2, cranked gunner DM+?), eats battleships for breakfast...
Some random minor weapons.
Cramped, no screens, no craft, no marines, no funny business.

 

[Condottiere]

Probable utility depended on how many of the class were commissioned.

Since they're named after medal recipients, it could be quite a number.

Like littoral combat ships.

 

[Sigtrygg]

I don't think their ship design and combat rules are now functioning as intended. They have now been out long enough for people to discover the flaws and exploits...

The stacking of bonuses and effect number on a 2d6 resolution system appears to be breaking things...

 

[phavoc]

Mavikfelna - This is where many ship designers fail - creating a ship without first determining what it's mission is going to be. Light cruisers are hopped-up destroyers - meant to be fast scouting elements, escorts and raiders. A J-5 ship is going to be classified as a raider/scout simply because the high jump number means it's not designed to operate with a standard battle fleet.

So a meson gun, or one of size at least, is contra-indicated for the mission. It would only need a spinal mount if it were to target smaller ships, otherwise that tonnage would be better suited for other weaponry.

As a raider, making it missile-heavy may not be the best idea, as missiles are expendable munitions and require tonnage for magazines. Some missiles would be good, but most likely it would be an energy-heavy ship to allow it to stay on-station longer without needing to replenish munitions.

And, as a light cruiser, it's armor would be light, to counter destroyer-class weapons. It would be ill-advised for it to try and stand up to a heavy cruiser or greater, so since you'd never want to do that you'd not waste the tonnage.

I would go with some larger energy bays and significantly reduce the number of triple missile turrets.

For the onboard marines, is there only job to do ship boarding actions? There are no cutter modules for ground assault, and nothing specifically calls out a morgue for powered armor. A ship this size would probably have a medley of smaller craft beyond just the 5 cutters. While taking up more tonnage, a hangar may be more appropriate to store and operate a mixed-bag of smaller craft.

Anyways, just some ideas to play with.

 

[Endie]

Again, the whole point of the Gionetti is supposed to be that it is a Bad Design. That's why it is handed out to client states and trading partners. All the struggling to make it better misses the point.

This is fine. Not every ship has to be an indentikit, super-optimised design. That would be boring and monocultural.

States experiment and fail. Intra-bureau struggles yield crappy designs. Look at French pre-dreadnoughts or French Jeune Ecole designs or French (spot the theme) intra-war plane designs or top-heavy German destroyers of the 30s and 40s, or British infantry tank doctrine or US light tank designs of the cold war period etc etc. A living world has crappy projects that get shoved onto third-world states like Torpol or Umemii.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Again, the whole point of the Gionetti is supposed to be that it is a Bad Design. That's why it is handed out to client states and trading partners. All the struggling to make it better misses the point.

It is bad, but that is not the point. All small ships in CT S9 lacks armour.

CT Fighting Ships just said this:

CD S9, p28:
_ Originally intended as a fast-reacting fighting ship, its actual use has evolved with experience. The ship is currently in favor as a flagship for many minor operations. Its high jump capability make it extremely responsive to most situations, and it is possible to displace troops or service crew (or both) to provide quarters for command and staff personnel.

 

[mavikfelna]

Some really good ideas, thank you. So basically, I need to fundamentally reevaluate the design's purpose and scrap the existing framework. Got it. I was trying to avoid that but, as has been pointed out, a spinal mount on a ship this small with this high a jump rating is just silly.
I see the argument for converting to energy weapons, which is my normal preference anyway, but is there a counter argument for missiles? I don't run large ship combats so in my experience missiles are pointless, since the chance of punching 1 or 2 through a ship's defenses is pretty low and the cost to value ratio is really low compared to energy mounts. But this design can throw 480 missiles a salvo so a fair number will probably get through, right? If they are nuclear, which seems likely in a wartime scenario, that could be significant damage to something without nuke dampers. Though each nuke salvo cost as much as a corvette.

This will probably be a case of me not offering an alternate design after fixing the base design for HG22.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Mavikfelna - This is where many ship designers fail - creating a ship without first determining what it's mission is going to be.

Agreed.

As a raider, making it missile-heavy may not be the best idea, as missiles are expendable munitions and require tonnage for magazines. Some missiles would be good, but most likely it would be an energy-heavy ship to allow it to stay on-station longer without needing to replenish munitions.

Agreed.

Light cruisers are hopped-up destroyers - meant to be fast scouting elements, escorts and raiders. A J-5 ship is going to be classified as a raider/scout simply because the high jump number means it's not designed to operate with a standard battle fleet.

And, as a light cruiser, it's armor would be light, to counter destroyer-class weapons. It would be ill-advised for it to try and stand up to a heavy cruiser or greater, so since you'd never want to do that you'd not waste the tonnage.

Traveller starships are not 20th century surface ships. Traveller have never worked like that, without armour warships are just victims, regardless of size, both in CT and MgT2.

So a meson gun, or one of size at least, is contra-indicated for the mission. It would only need a spinal mount if it were to target smaller ships, otherwise that tonnage would be better suited for other weaponry.

Meson spinals are great to kill large ships, not as good against smaller ships. In CT they were the only ship-killers.
In MgT2'22 they are kind of pointless, bays are better for all targets (except fighters?).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Some really good ideas, thank you. So basically, I need to fundamentally reevaluate the design's purpose and scrap the existing framework. Got it. I was trying to avoid that but, as has been pointed out, a spinal mount on a ship this small with this high a jump rating is just silly.

Basic decision is: Should it be able to fight, is it a scout, or is it a carrier?
If it should be able to fight it needs defences (i.e. armour) and some teeth...

Perhaps it makes more sense as a fast/long range scout carrier with some subcraft for raiding as Phavoc suggests?

I see the argument for converting to energy weapons, which is my normal preference anyway, but is there a counter argument for missiles? I don't run large ship combats so in my experience missiles are pointless, since the chance of punching 1 or 2 through a ship's defenses is pretty low and the cost to value ratio is really low compared to energy mounts.

Launching a few missiles as secondary armament is generally pointless, launching a lot of missiles as primary armament can be quite lethal...

So, either skip missiles, or fill every hardpoint with missile launchers. And that should fit into your naval doctrine.

But this design can throw 480 missiles a salvo so a fair number will probably get through, right? If they are nuclear, which seems likely in a wartime scenario, that could be significant damage to something without nuke dampers. Though each nuke salvo cost as much as a corvette.

480 nukes is just MCr 18, at MCr 0.45 per 12 missiles. Not much for a MCr ~18 000 ship.

480 missiles launched at Distant range is just 120 missiles impacting, which can easily be stopped by decent EW and a few PD actions. 50 laser turrets are more than enough.

480 missiles launched at Medium range is a bigger problem, requiring very heavy armour, something like ~20 PD batteries, or 50-100 laser turrets with very good gunners to handle. At least it will keep the laser turrets busy not shooting at you...

I would say not worth it...

 

[phavoc]

Agreed.


Agreed.



Traveller starships are not 20th century surface ships. Traveller have never worked like that, without armour warships are just victims, regardless of size, both in CT and MgT2.

Form should follow function - which it has for a few thousand years of human history. It's not unreasonable to assume that ships of the future will follow ships of the current and past. After all, Traveller posits a future where humanity is basically no different than they are today - just with higher tech.

And light cruisers do actually have armor, but it's lighter than say a heavy cruiser, battle cruiser or heavier ships. That's because it's mission is different, it's opponents are different. No one builds light cruisers anymore, so we have to look to the past to come up with a light cruiser equivalent. For US ships we have the Cleveland, Brooklyn or Atlanta class light cruisers from WW2 era. For the UK we have the Town class, and the Japanese had the Mogami class. Arguably going into the war a lot of fleets were influenced by the Washington naval treaty in their designs. Light cruisers of the day mounted destroyer-class guns and had only lightly heavier armor.

Without actual information, which obviously is impossible, we can only extrapolate these things from history and apply them to the future. The game does set some baseline assumptions, though some of these are questionable. And since the game is more RPG-ish than wargame-ish, some of these design concepts are theoretical at best, in as much as you can have with a sci-fi wargame originally designed in the 70s.

Meson spinals are great to kill large ships, not as good against smaller ships. In CT they were the only ship-killers.
In MgT2'22 they are kind of pointless, bays are better for all targets (except fighters?).

I try not to argue using examples spread amongst multiple decades and revisions. It makes no sense to do so since the game itself continues to change, evolve, devolve and, at times, chase it's own tail. Conceptually any spinal mount is designed to make a killing blow, or at least a very severe one. Placing a spinal mount is smaller ships and expecting them to attack much larger ships is equivalent to having the first torpedo boats and destroyers equipped with torpedo's in order to try and sink the enemies line of battle. Which is why we saw the mix of armaments in pre-dreadnoughts - to defend against craft who, if they were successful, could cripple or sink a much larger vessel. Trading such light tonnage (and cost) for a much heavier and more expensive ship is considered a reasonable trade-off in battle. You don't see it as much today in modern navies, but the concept has been retained (look at Iranian speedboats and small suicide-type vessels against modern combatants).

I agree that bays would be better than hordes of smaller turrets, though I've often wondered why there are no bay sizes between the 100 dton and the spinal mount. I think it would be an interesting exercise to sit down and rethink the entire weapons concept for Traveller and try to model it out - would it make sense to have larger turrets that have greater range and energy requirements, and would they model well for combat to justify their existence? Players would more than likely try to make ships like the old monitor/shore bombardment ships that mounted battleship-class weapons on relatively tiny hulls. In reality these ships fared poorly against any enemy, but I wouldn't put it past players to max out the min-max concept simply because it's possible under the rules.

 

[Condottiere]

Depends very much on what roles light cruisers are supposed to fill, and if the Gionetti class is a typical example.

 

[phavoc]

Again, the whole point of the Gionetti is supposed to be that it is a Bad Design. That's why it is handed out to client states and trading partners. All the struggling to make it better misses the point.

This is fine. Not every ship has to be an indentikit, super-optimised design. That would be boring and monocultural.

States experiment and fail. Intra-bureau struggles yield crappy designs. Look at French pre-dreadnoughts or French Jeune Ecole designs or French (spot the theme) intra-war plane designs or top-heavy German destroyers of the 30s and 40s, or British infantry tank doctrine or US light tank designs of the cold war period etc etc. A living world has crappy projects that get shoved onto third-world states like Torpol or Umemii.

Historically bad designs were sometimes incorporated into the navy because the bad design didn't become known until it was actually launched and revealed its flaws. Or, in worse-case scenarios, when it was deployed in combat and revealed significant issues. Usually what would happen would be that it would get retired, updated, and follow-on classes would incorporate design changes so the flaws were reduced or eliminated.

It really makes no sense to continue to build a class of ship with fundamental flaws, and even the Imperium has a limit for it's naval budget.

Actually there is a more logical argument to see MORE designs rather than fewer. An entity as large as the Imperium having to deploy ships to multiple fronts to tackle multiple types of entities would naturally be expected to have a vast array of designs - standardized 'classic' designs against their more capable (potential) enemies, and the non-standard designs against others. One would not expect the same class of ships to deployed to fight the Solomani as they would against say the Vargr. Two different types of opponents that require two different types of ships.

You cite some very accurate historical ideas. And the French weren't the only guilty parties. The Italians, Brits, Germans, Americans and Japanese all built some stinkers that seemed good on paper, and were successfully fought for in the appropriation battles. Some designs originated with the military, some were foisted upon them by the politicians. Real-world naval designers have their stupid and brilliant times as well. Things that sound good on paper only sometimes work well in the real world. In modern times we saw the USN move to aluminium superstructures to save weight.. then the Kennedy ran over the Belknap and the Belknap basically melted above the main deck, which got the Navy out of the beer-can ship business. Not to say they still don't f*ck up their efforts after the reams of data out there to show what works and what doesn't.

 

[phavoc]

Depends very much on what roles light cruisers are supposed to fill, and if the Gionetti class is a typical example.

And what is the role it's filling?