Remove ads

Traveller, The Rise of Empire: A Naval Design, Procurement and Command Quest

Reader mode
Pinniped said:
So is going all in on missiles, at least for bigger and slower ships. As seen in the 3x Cruiser vs MMV war game, Particle Beams are very effective at medium range. Thus, any ship not fast enough to keep its distance would benefit from Particle Beams over missiles. The same is true for missions were the ship has to stand its ground, as is the case when defending planets or stations.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yes; but I think going for faster ships armed with projectiles and particle-beam secondaries is a good mix (or we build dedicated particle beam / missile craft separately, I guess, and just make sure they're never not working together :V)

We just saw that tonnage wise, Cruisers are more effective than the MMV in straight-up combat. So why would we base our future combat fleet on the MMV and not the Cruiser?

Like the MMV is called a Multi-Mission Vessel for a reason, right? It is meant to be more flexible than a pure combat ship, and it does that job well. But it was not designed to be the workhorse of the fleet, so for that role I much prefer the Cruiser.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think a revised MMV design with an M-6 engine and more torpedo firepower (or the inclusion of multi-warhead missiles) would do better against said cruisers and could feasibly be the workhorse. I don't think continuing to rely on pure particle-beam cruisers is the way forward.

And would rather upscale to a 3kish design regardless. If you think it would be better, I can propose a new build from scratch for a new "cruiser", but part of my thought process is that if we can keep the hullform for the MMV as the basis we can save on future production costs/time.
 
Last edited:
So, considering what people have been theory crafting, using one weapon system has the advantage of being able to overwhelm enemy defences with the cost of being able to be countered in certain combat scenarios. While half-heartedly investing in a weapon system means that defences can invalidate it.

As missiles and torpedoes appear to have the same use case but allow defensive measures to apply to them separately. We really should be focusing on torpedoes or missiles. As the frigates are our most modern boats (although I feel we haven't been building enough of them) and our small craft are missile boats. I lean towards a missile force. With particle beams to cover the other use cases.

I would like to point out that another restriction when it comes to tonnage is time to build, and time before it can be built. Building bigger ships means we have to wait longer to start and increases the risk of ships being made obsolete by new technology before they are even launched. I'm also nervous of a war soon so am willing to subordinate ideal size to getting ships under construction.

As such I would like plan members to consider this write in
[ ] Other - write in. 1k-2k tonnes. Tonnage to equal free yard space next time there is over 1k tonnes free to the nearest 250 tonnes (or 1/2 yard space if more than 2k is going to become free)
 
Rat King said:
(or we build dedicated particle beam / missile craft separately, I guess, and just make sure they're never not working together :V
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean yes, this is what we have been doing so far, and what the competing Plan Steenbeck is proposing we continue doing: Particle Beam cruisers and Missile Frigates. I support this plan, since Particle Beam Cruisers bring the kind of medium-low range firepower that the fleet needs in order to stand and fight, while missile frigates do well at long range.

The Frigates can also work alone, though, as long as the mission does not require taking and holding positions. Which is why we are using them for patrol missions as well.

Rat King said:
I think a revised MMV design with an M-6 engine and more torpedo firepower (or the inclusion of multi-warhead missiles) would do better against said cruisers and could feasibly be the workhorse
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Why would the updated MMV beat the updated Cruiser? We have recently learned that missiles only have the advantage at long range: if the MMV is not fast enough to stay at long range, how would it beat the Cruisers? A ship relying heavily on missiles can also not be the work horse, since it wants to keep its distance to the enemy. The work horse has to be able to stand and fight, when necessary.
 
Pinniped said:
I mean yes, this is what we have been doing so far, and what the competing Plan Steenbeck is proposing we continue doing: Particle Beam cruisers and Missile Frigates. I support this plan, since Particle Beam Cruisers bring the kind of medium-low range firepower that the fleet needs in order to stand and fight, while missile frigates do well at long range.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Agreed. Upgrading the ICs doesn't mean we stop building Frigates.
legomithras said:
As such I would like plan members to consider this write in
[ ] Other - write in. 1k-2k tonnes. Tonnage to equal free yard space next time there is over 1k tonnes free to the nearest 250 tonnes (or 1/2 yard space if more than 2k is going to become free)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I wouldn't be doing variable tonnage. We should stick to one size and fill out the rest with building station modules.
 
Last edited:
Pinniped said:
I mean yes, this is what we have been doing so far, and what the competing Plan Steenbeck is proposing we continue doing: Particle Beam cruisers and Missile Frigates. I support this plan, since Particle Beam Cruisers bring the kind of medium-low range firepower that the fleet needs in order to stand and fight, while missile frigates do well at long range.

The Frigates can also work alone, though, as long as the mission does not require taking and holding positions. Which is why we are using them for patrol missions as well.

Why would the updated MMV beat the updated Cruiser? We have recently learned that missiles only have the advantage at long range: if the MMV is not fast enough to stay at long range, how would it beat the Cruisers? A ship relying heavily on missiles can also not be the work horse, since it wants to keep its distance to the enemy. The work horse has to be able to stand and fight, when necessary.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

"Standing and fighting" does not necessarily mean closing to a medium range brawl, so I don't think our design philosophy is going to end up being compatible here.

It's worth pointing out that our two actual combat losses (Heimdall, Suwako) were both lost to missiles, the Suwako at the "optimal" combat range for particle beams. So the idea that p-beams are the best use-case in close / medium range is not necessarily borne out.

Pinniped said:
Or they need to be accompanied by faster, missile armed vessels that can deal with kiting. That is what I am proposing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

In the case of an engagement with a faster enemy, then the enemy just has to swat the escorts and start picking apart the p-beam craft at leisure.


Revised OPLAN after some thought.

[X] OPLAN: Bombardier
-[X] A new class of 3,000 tons (Fast Attack Cruiser). Provide two design variants for review with particle beam/torpedoes and particle beam/missiles, with particle beams as secondary armament for medium ranged combat. Increase combat speed to M-6 so it can maintain range; include radiation shielding; include latest computer technology for crew assistance; include PD/sandcaster suite. Range 2+2. Munitions should be mix of standard, nuclear warhead and multi-warhead for saturating enemy PD, plus small amount of ortillery.
-[X] Provide revised MMV design (Block II) with improved sensors / computer systems, swapping particle bays for torpedo or missile bays (if torpedo bay weight cannot be brought into an acceptable limit) and replacing torpedo barbettes with p-beam barbettes or additional point defense; replace 90-ton marine shuttle with the new attack shuttle. If possible, improve speed to M-6. Include radiation shielding for new construction. Munitions should be mix of standard, nuclear warhead and multi-warhead for saturating enemy PD, plus small amount of ortillery.
-[X] It should be a purely defensive station.
 
Last edited:
Rat King said:
"Standing and fighting" does not necessarily mean closing to a medium range brawl, so I don't think our design philosophy is going to end up being compatible here.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It does mean a close to medium range brawl often enough to matter. The obvious case is one in which the fleet is defending a planet or station. At that point, fighting at long range is not an option.
Rat King said:
It's worth pointing out that our two actual combat losses (Heimdall, Suwako) were both lost to missiles, the Suwako at the "optimal" combat range for particle beams.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Come on, this is not a good argument. The Suwako was blindsided by a missile barrage from several enemy stations and positions. Blaming that loss on its offensive weapons is frankly pretty nonsensical, the outcome would have been exactly the same if it was armed with missiles.
Rat King said:
In the case of an engagement with a faster enemy, then the enemy just has to swat the escorts and start picking apart the p-beam craft at leisure.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The enemy "just has to swat the escorts"? Swat the escorts how exactly? Please note that these are the same escorts that just did critical damage to a ship 3x their tonnage at long range. The Frigates are excellent at long range combat, and if you try to fight them at shorter range, the p-beams come into play. The Cruisers and the Frigates cover each others weaknesses very well.
 
Pinniped said:
It does mean a close to medium range brawl often enough to matter. The obvious case is one in which the fleet is defending a planet or station. At that point, fighting at long range is not an option.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Why not? If the enemy wants to close on a station or orbitals, you can maintain range and hit them from a different angle while they try to engage the defense stations at closer range.

Pinniped said:
Come on, this is not a good argument. The Suwako was blindsided by a missile barrage from several enemy stations and positions. Blaming that loss on its offensive weapons is frankly pretty nonsensical, the outcome would have been exactly the same if it was armed with missiles.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

My point there is less about what the Suwako was armed with and more that the missiles were still equally capable at the medium/short engagement envelope.

The enemy "just has to swat the escorts"? Swat the escorts how exactly? Please note that these are the same escorts that just did critical damage to a ship 3x their tonnage at long range. The Frigates are excellent at long range combat, and if you try to fight them at shorter range, the p-beams come into play. The Cruisers and the Frigates cover each others weaknesses very well.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

They're excellent at long range until they get hit; they did critically damage the MMV, but they were also wiped out in the process. It's a good trade in the vacuum of the exercise (mutual mission kill on a 3k vs 3k tonnage engagement), but it does mean that if the enemy wants to fight at long range and pick apart the escorts with missile or torpedo fire, it's possible to do so. I like the frigates; I think they're good ships - but in terms of a holistic fleet package I think they can't be the only ships in the fleet to have long-range firepower.
 
[X] OPLAN: Bombardier.

A bit unfortunate that we don't have non-prototype torpedo bays, but it should be easy enough to refit missile bays to them once we do.
 
Ok, so based on the above discussion, here is my proposal.

[X] Plan Heavy Steenbeck
-[X] Cruiser Successor: 2k tonnes, 2+2 jumps, optimize for durability and firepower, principal armaments of particle beams, 2/1 split of point-defense and sandcaster defensive weapons, add extra electronic warfare stations for spoofing missiles and torpedoes, add radiation shielding, add virtual crew to replace servicemen disabled during battle.
-[X] Defense Station: pure combat design with significant armor and defenses, add a command centre.

My plan differs from Plan Steenbeck in the sense that for the cruisers, it emphasizes durability over speed. While this may seem odd given the recent learnings, the key thing to understand is that the Heavy Cruiser is never meant to operate without support from at least two Missile Frigates. The Cruiser's job is to hold a defensive line or assault enemy positionsz, not catch smaller and faster ships. Its particle beam weapons and good armor will ensure it does well at short-medium range. The Missile Frigate's job is point defense for the Cruisers, but also to use their missile armament and high speed to counteract enemy missile craft at long range.

This 3k formation is meant to be the workhorse of the fleet, a flexible unit with no bad matchups. At short-medium range the Cruisers can do lots of damage, at long range the enemy is peppered by missile fire from the Frigates, and their own missile craft have to fire either at the nimble frigates, or the heavily armored cruiser. Note also the increased amount of point defense for the Cruiser, which should make long-range missile tactics less effective as well.

Note also that in the end, this plan is not that different from Oplan Bombardier when it comes to weapons: the main difference is that here the missiles and particle beams are placed on different ships totaling 3k tonnage, instead of on one 3k ship. This is very much intentional: we already have missile frigates in the existing fleet, so this plan requires less yard space since we make good use of the existing ships. Building 2k tonne + 2x 500 tonne is also easier to fit in the yards than building one 3k tonne ship.
 
Rat King said:
Why not? If the enemy wants to close on a station or orbitals, you can maintain range and hit them from a different angle while they try to engage the defense stations at closer range.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Because in this situation "maintaining range" would mean potentially leaving the station vulnerable to the enemy. If the task is to protect a planet or station, our strategy cannot be allowing the enemy into orbit because our ships are glass cannons not built for close combat! Allowing the enemy into orbit means they can potentially glass cities, killing millions, or send down their landing craft for an invasion.

In plain term: it is very possible that we end up in a battle where the objective is not "kill the enemy" but instead "do not allow the enemy into orbit above planet X". In such a case, "maintaining range" is straight up not an option.

Rat King said:
They're excellent at long range until they get hit; they did critically damage the MMV, but they were also wiped out in the process. It's a good trade in the vacuum of the exercise (mutual mission kill on a 3k vs 3k tonnage engagement), but it does mean that if the enemy wants to fight at long range and pick apart the escorts with missile or torpedo fire, it's possible to do so. I like the frigates; I think they're good ships - but in terms of a holistic fleet package I think they can't be the only ships in the fleet to have long-range firepower.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Frigates are excellent at not getting hit, since they have a lot of point defense and are small agile targets. An enemy "picking apart the escorts" at long range requires the enemy to exclusively use small, fast missile craft that our larger ships cannot catch. Against such an enemy, we either force an engament in which they have to stand and fight, or we use more Frigates. We already have an excellent tool for such an enemy.
 
4WheelSword said:
This is not a conclusion that tracks. A large, missile or torpedo armed craft can absolutely make a frigate at distant range fuck off.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes, but such a large craft is likely not fast enough to ignore the Particle Beam-armed Cruiser gunning for it, right?

The point is that picking apart the Frigate escorts while staying out of the Cruiser's Particle beam range requires a fast ship, and thus a relatively small ship.
 
[X] OPLAN: Bombardier.

I like this plan, my only concern is the anchorage add-on for the defensive station. If we want to make a central fleet anchorage I think that should be a separate station.

I'd like for us to smash out like half a dozen purely defensive armed stations with no other amenities to focus the design.
 
Tallhart said:
[X] OPLAN: Bombardier.

I like this plan, my only concern is the anchorage add-on for the defensive station. If we want to make a central fleet anchorage I think that should be a separate station.

I'd like for us to smash out like half a dozen purely defensive armed stations with no other amenities to focus the design.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

My main thought is... hey, we want to be able to seed these around and especially for stuff we throw up in Heimdall, it might be nice to have some amenities for the crew. But I get the POV.

I would like to build a dedicated anchorage station for Heimdall so the crews on rotation out that way have somewhere to stretch their legs that isn't a frozen moon.

EDIT: I've revised to make it a pure defense station for now.
 
Last edited:
With the expansion of the Merchant Service and commercial shipping there was over twenty vessels in service, each of them over one thousand tons. These vessels would supply orbital industries with a steady stream of materials for the manufacturing of small, high value payloads like crystals, pharmaceuticals, computer chips, exotic chemicals and metals that can be only manufactured in clean facilities. The facilities could take advantage of massive amounts of solar power with no concerns about waste heat. The biggest industry that would take advantage of this stream of aluminum, ceramics, insulators, iron, and silicon would be various shipyards around Home. The effect of this growth in Space Based Industry would be felt across Home as several mines would be closed or have their activities reduced since the price for many minerals would drop. Some of these mines would be converted to alternative manufacturing or returned to nature over time.

The closure of these mines would lead to a rise of unemployment and crime in certain districts but much of it would be absorbed by industries such as consumer electronics, medical services and military and security technology. Many corporate stock owners would see an increase in profits as improvements in automation allowed smaller workforces to do the same amount of work as a larger factories ten years ago. A small growing population of contract workers would move off world to serve these various industries and their rising wages would appeal to many along with opportunities in the Merchant Service. Various levels of pollution would decrease as some heavy industry moved into orbit to take advantage of no environment to pollute...

Economics of Home
References:
en.wikipedia.org

Asteroid mining - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top