Imperial Navy Question

Except in Traveller, unless you are looking at J-4+ ships. System ships can have just a many hardpoints and just as much armor as SDBs. I see this written over and over again in the fluff, but it does not seem to hold up mechanically.
If you don't need to set aside space for large jump fuel tanks you can use that tonnage for more offensive and defensive armaments. I've never agreed with the rules that tiny 400tond SDB can have equivalent armor to a Tigress dreadnought. Armor and hull structure just don't work that way. The larger ship has much more plating and structure to support said plating. An SDB would be nothing but armor if it tried to mimic it.
 
Mongoose largely does that by the Hull point differences and the effect that has on critical hits between the two. They might have the same armour cap, but it will be FAR easier to get 10% of hull total crits on the SDB than the Tigress; the sample SDB takes a critical from suffering 18 points of hull damage, while the Tigress needs 36,667 hull damage done to pass the 10% threshold.

There's also a High Guard rule relating to large tonnage vessels and effect based criticals, on top of that that adds further protection.

That is, ships larger than 2000 tons ignore criticals from turrets and barbettes, those larger than 10,000 tons ignore criticals from anything other than medium and large bays, or spinal mounts, and ships above 100,000 ignore criticals from weapons tha aren't large bays or spinals.
 
Last edited:
If you don't need to set aside space for large jump fuel tanks you can use that tonnage for more offensive and defensive armaments. I've never agreed with the rules that tiny 400tond SDB can have equivalent armor to a Tigress dreadnought. Armor and hull structure just don't work that way. The larger ship has much more plating and structure to support said plating. An SDB would be nothing but armor if it tried to mimic it.
Irrelevant. You run out of available armor to add to the ship as well as running out of hardpoints, before you run out of space on the ship, so J-1 or 2 ships and SDBs of the same size, will basically be the same.
 
I love his idea for this, but his execution was horrible. Average size of an SDB is 2,000 tons? Average systems have 42 2,000-ton SDBs? Really?
I don’t know if I’ve ever seen an SDB that large in Mongoose. That’s twice the size of a destroyer. It sounds more like a monitor.
 
Monitors are just large SDBs, but yeah. Most SDBs seem to be between 10 and 400 tons.
Well, names matter. Monitors do some of the same work as SDBs but I would say they aren’t the same. All are non-jump vessels, but a destroyer isn’t a cruiser though they share some traits.
 
Last edited:
Well, names matter. Monitors some of the same work as SDBs but I would say they aren’t the same. All are non-jump vessels, but a destroyer isn’t a cruiser though they share some traits.
No, but a Destroyer and a Cruiser are both jump ships, they are both considered starwarships. A 50,000-ton freighter is still a starship, but not a starwarship. Same way 400-ton SDBs and 50,000-ton Monitors are both SDBs, but a shuttle isn't an SDB.
 
No, but a Destroyer and a Cruiser are both jump ships, they are both considered starwarships. A 50,000-ton freighter is still a starship, but not a starwarship. Same way 400-ton SDBs and 50,000-ton Monitors are both SDBs, but a shuttle isn't an SDB.
I think calling them all system defense boats is too broad. You do you, but I’ll call anything over, say, a thousand tons a monitor and let that be the demarcation.
 
I think calling them all system defense boats is too broad. You do you, but I’ll call anything over, say, a thousand tons a monitor and let that be the demarcation.
They are boats (non-jump-capable) and their only role is system defense. Seems to describe them perfectly. Or is calling all trees, trees too broad as well? Monitor is a type of SDB, like an Oak is a type of Tree. Monitors, like Oak Trees, have many different sizes and types contained within them, but they are still all Oak Trees. Yes?
 
They are boats (non-jump-capable) and their only role is system defense. Seems to describe them perfectly. Or is calling all trees, trees too broad as well? Monitor is a type of SDB, like an Oak is a type of Tree. Monitors, like Oak Trees, have many different sizes and types contained within them, but they are still all Oak Trees. Yes?
You do you. I believe having a category that encompasses 100 to infinity is too broad. They have fighters as below 100 tons, so why not have different grades for larger? Aren’t system defense boats just fighters writ large? Call them all fighters. By your logic, that would be acceptable.
 
You do you. I believe having a category that encompasses 100 to infinity is too broad. They have fighters as below 100 tons, so why not have different grades for larger? Aren’t system defense boats just fighters writ large? Call them all fighters. By your logic, that would be acceptable.
Except fighters are SDBs. They are made for space combat. So, they are a different class of SDB, just like Monitors. SDBs below are certain size are categorized as Fighters, but they are still SDBs. SDBs above a certain size are called Monitors. I am not sure why you have such an issue with this. They already have different sub-category names to describe them. Why do you object to all trees being called tress?

A Dwarf Willow is a tree that is only 1-6cm in height when fully-grown. In your mind, is this not a tree?
 
SDB - escort class and smaller carrying a maximum of bay sized weapons.
Monitor - capital ship, can often be found with a spinal mount.
Nice! Where did you find that? Official definitions are good. :) I am happy to be proven wrong if it means We get an actual official definition for something.
 
Except fighters are SDBs. They are made for space combat. So, they are a different class of SDB, just like Monitors. SDBs below are certain size are categorized as Fighters, but they are still SDBs. SDBs above a certain size are called Monitors. I am not sure why you have such an issue with this. They already have different sub-category names to describe them. Why do you object to all trees being called tress?

A Dwarf Willow is a tree that is only 1-6cm in height when fully-grown. In your mind, is this not a tree?
You’re going to argue this to death, aren’t you? As I keep saying, you do you but don’t expect a host of people to agree with such broad categories.

“Look at my 1.56429e18-ton system defense boat. Isn’t she grand?”

“That’s a Death Star, my lord. She just doesn’t have FTL.”

“I reject your subdivisions! Everything is trees! Go count them all!”
 
Back
Top