SDB's vs. Warships

[phavoc]

I'd think there would be a number of traffic control/scan sats in orbit. Some defense sats, but unless they were in a position to be attacked with no warning, most would probably sit on a station or a warehouse simply because its far cheaper to do that than deploy them and then have to pay the maintenance costs.

If you are not deep in settled area, you keep them deployed. You only have a few hours notice if you are invaded. Too short of a period to drag them out of storage, test, and deploy.

Yes. Unless you were French. Then you'd have the most kick-ass version of anti-ship satellites on any drawing board around! And your orbital fortresses would be able to stop any attack... on an arc of 30 degrees towards the outer system perimeter at 200 diameters. The rest of the frontier is protected by impenetrable forests, err the vacuum of space!

 

[Condottiere]

You have to assess the threats.

Mostly it will be Space Patrol, SAR, chasing down criminals and people who don't want any Imperial entanglements. I remember coming across some analysis on the economics of piracy. Using a skiff to hijack a megafreighter has got be the best return on invest; unfortunately, it will be very hard to make it disappear, let alone ransom it.

Then you have the construction of a purpose built pirate galleon. It's unlikely that any shipyard within Imperium borders will oblige you, and they probably keep track of all decommissioned Destroyer Escorts and above, so that they suddenly can't be remilitarized. You could hijack one from a lackadaisical planetary navy, but even if they don't notice it's missing, again it will be hard to make it disappear.

So, we're back to the skiffs and either a stealthy, fast mothership, or a hole in the wall hideout either on a remote moon or in the asteroid belt. Likely targets would be small valuables and cargoes and passengers held for ransom.

 

[Reynard]

I'm beginning to suspect monitors are built using High Guard while those relatively cheap System Defense Boats, and I stress the boat there, are built with typical off the shelf components as for the Core rules. By extension, a battle rider is a type of monitor just as SDBs can be transported between systems in large cargo transports.

Essentially, ask ten people what an system defense boat is and they'll give a hundred viable descriptions depending on the need, resources and, of course, tech level. All are built specifically to guard a particular star system whether from mundane space traffic violators to actual fleets as a lower cost, lower maintenance vehicle.

It boils down to what is its mission design? It sounds like the vast majority, especially the examples out there, are really not meant to handle warships which typically are part of squadrons and fleets (and created from High Guard) except in the most dire last ditch situation. Any system deemed important enough to need real protection without tying up a Jump fleet will have mobile monitors and stationary armed bases with SDBs as harassing forces not involving capital ships.

 

[F33D]

So, we're back to the skiffs and either a stealthy, fast mothership, or a hole in the wall hideout either on a remote moon or in the asteroid belt. Likely targets would be small valuables and cargoes and passengers held for ransom.

Even that won't work if in an inhabited system (TL 9+) as you can't hid your in system movements. You have to find an "empty hex" hide out.

 

[phavoc]

The only issue I have with the "you can't hide in space" comments is that, thus far at least, we really haven't tried to do it. Granted we ain't exactly out there just yet... but here on earth we are certainly constantly battling the other side in hiding in plain sight.

If trends hold out the way they have with every other tracking technology, there will be ways to defeat or spoof every other tracking technique.

Say, for example, you could not ever hide in the IR band. Ok. So what would a defender do if you could spoof his IR tracking? So instead of an invasion fleet of 26 ships inbound, you've got 18,000 targets englobing you and you can't tell which is real and which isn't until you close to say 150,000 KM? In that case you have "warning", but if you cannot isolate the real from the decoy, your tracking isn't going to be worth too much. Knowledge is one thing, useful knowledge is far different.

 

[GypsyComet]

The idea that every world will have a huge assortment of astronomy instrumentation and always be looking at every arc second of sky is overly Terra-centric, IMO. In a time when you can just go and look at stuff close up, astronomy is going to evolve into a deep sky science, likely only pursued on a few worlds. Even ports are going to be more worried about close in traffic control.

Piracy in the Imperium depends on a couple of assumptions and some understanding of the economic model. Very few people really get the economics, and many contest the assumptions, which are:
-backwater systems really are *backwater*; when the mainworld only has 400 people in residence, it is simply not going to have the infrastructure for high security or the attention of the Navy.
-"Piracy" follows a much broader definition that just ship-to-ship boarding actions

If piracy was just boarding actions, the career in CT/MT would have a *much* nastier Survival roll.

 

[Infojunky]

If piracy was just boarding actions, the career in CT/MT would have a *much* nastier Survival roll.

Yep.

Consider this the "Pirates" we see in Films generally didn't exist in the swashbuckling sense, Mostly the used small fast boats and ships to close rapidly on relatively unarmed and unsuspecting ships taking them with surprise and speed. Look at how the pirates in the Western Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia operate right now.

 

[locarno24]

Even that won't work if in an inhabited system (TL 9+) as you can't hid your in system movements. You have to find an "empty hex" hide out.

Or an inhabited system which doesn't give a monkeys where your credits came from as long as they're good. Which is why piracy is more relevant in regions like the trojan reach, with a large area of space populated by one- and two-system powers, than either core imperial space (nowhere to operate from unless you find the aforementioned uninhabited or low-tech system or similar well-hidden operational base) or the imperial borders (because that's a natural gathering point for light warships and patrol vessels which are massively out of your class).

 

[rust]

Very few people really get the economics, and many contest the assumptions, which are:
-backwater systems really are *backwater*; when the mainworld only has 400 people in residence, it is simply not going to have the infrastructure for high security or the attention of the Navy.

True, but the huge majority of such backwater systems are unlikely to export
or import enough goods with enough value to pay even for the maintenance
of a pirate ship. These systems are not the Spanish Main with treasure fleets
full of Aztec and Inca gold and silver, what pirates could find here would be
more like livestock in cold sleep, spare parts for mining equipment and such,
transported on tramp ships several decades old and in bad repair. Over the
years I have played a lot of backwater / frontier colony settings with detailed
economy systems, and every one of them would have starved any pirate who
would have attempted to survive in the region.

 

[F33D]

The only issue I have with the "you can't hide in space" comments is that, thus far at least, we really haven't tried to do it.

Not relevant. Physics works the same out in the asteroid belt as it does in Earth orbit. It isn't a point of real argument. Only one of science education.

 

[F33D]

The idea that every world will have a huge assortment of astronomy instrumentation and always be looking at every arc second of sky is overly Terra-centric, IMO.

With a SIMPLE, SIMPLE TL 7 computer & camera, it can be set up on a CHEAP satellite to scan the ENTIRE system in a few hours.

You may not like the idea but, that has ZERO bearing on whether or not it is SO simple that no world of a certain TL range would NOT do it.

The people working planetary gov would ll have to have lobotomies to NOT do it. You can house rule that only those with 3 Int or less work those gov positions...

The question for a GM is then, why would there NOT be a constant scan when it is basically child's play.

 

[phavoc]

The only issue I have with the "you can't hide in space" comments is that, thus far at least, we really haven't tried to do it.

Not relevant. Physics works the same out in the asteroid belt as it does in Earth orbit. It isn't a point of real argument. Only one of science education.

You are being overly dismissive and missing the point. I never said anything about changing the underlying physical model of the universe. All I said was that nobody yet has worked on this because we aren't out in space yet. Plus nobody has done this in reality either, so I was extrapolating from current tech to future tech. That is, I believe, how Traveller itself came about. And that (extrapolation) is pretty much how every conversation about future tech is based upon. Unless Grandfather brought you back through time to lecture us on what's impossible vs. improbable.

40 years ago people said you couldn't build a cloaking device, but they are working on that now (and have a semi-working model). Physics used to say black holes couldn't exist, then they said they captured everything, then it was oh, some things escape, but only as energy particles, then it was, oh some matter does escape, and just recently an article in Nature magazine there's a black hole that is spewing out iron and nickel. So our understanding of the physics continues to change as we continue to expand our knowledge base.

It's rather arrogant to state things like this can never exist when we have yet to fully define and understand all the laws of the universe. I'll cut you some slack if Grandfather sends me the memo you know everything there is and all that will ever be. But until then, I'll continue to speculate that shit can change as we learn more and figure out ways to do stuff that used to be "impossible".

 

[F33D]

In my experience most players do not care that this scanning can be done IRL. Even less so when they want to play a pirat campaign. Neither do most GMs.

It's is even in the MRB. So, house rule away. But, if you have a player that passed 7th grade Physical Science class he's going to have a ball end running you by using the non physics in your game. It would be almost as massive a change as if you said that gravity doesn't exist in your game...

 

[F33D]

You are being overly dismissive and missing the point.

No. I'm being 100% accurate.

 

[Condottiere]

So that;s why the Planetary Security Agency was photographing the night sky and keeping it all in a database.

 

[Infojunky]

I always love it when someone pompously states "You can't hide in Space" then just as cluelessly supports their point of view with an oblique statement about physics. It really demonstrates that they have no idea about what the question really is.

1st off, what is or isn't detectable is less a question about physics but more about what level of engineering you are willing throw at it. Which in itself is a turns into a cost/benefit equation. In that 360 degree volumetric surveillance of space requires exponentially more hardware and manpower with each incremental increase in range. So the question not what you can theoretically do but how much it will cost to do it.

2nd back to the cost/benefit part, merchants are going to have only what is minimally necessary to safely operate in terms of their entire physical plant. Ergo, insurance is cheaper than military grade sensors, and that is how they are going to manage their risk.

 

[phavoc]

You are being overly dismissive and missing the point.

No. I'm being 100% accurate.

Lulz. The response of someone who clearly can't debate or defend their point. I'm still waiting on that memo that says you know everything there is and ever will be in science.

Anti-gravity is against the current laws of physics too. As is a jump drive. And meson guns, and making collapsed matter armor. And space-faring dolphins (well, that's more biological than physics).

It was physically impossible to hide against radar... till they figured out a way to do it.

Wanna come back with a one liner on that one?

 

[dragoner]

Lulz. The response of someone who clearly can't debate or defend their point. I'm still waiting on that memo that says you know everything there is and ever will be in science.

Anti-gravity is against the current laws of physics too. As is a jump drive. And meson guns, and making collapsed matter armor. And space-faring dolphins (well, that's more biological than physics).

It was physically impossible to hide against radar... till they figured out a way to do it.

Wanna come back with a one liner on that one?

It's just trolling, anybody who has read current stuff on m-theory and such knows we don't have a clue how the anything really works. Billions of universes? Eleven dimensions? Why doesn't general and quantum physics match? A while back I read a paper on how they think that gravity is interacting with multiple other universes (some where even the basic laws of physics are different); so if the best minds in science don't know, I'm 100% positive he doesn't. For all we know, anti-gravity is simple and obvious, but we don't have the frame of reference to see it. Stealth in space as well, hide in another dimension or wrap space around your ship.

Dream big, the worst that can happen is that it's wrong, which isn't a big deal.

 

[F33D]

I always love it when someone pompously states "You can't hide in Space"

So do I because it is true. If you are looking for a grammar school level tutor to teach you WHY, it'll be $200/hour...

 

[F33D]

But there is "Games"

Correct. See GAME rule in MRB