Remove ads

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

Reader mode
Historically, countries playing catch-up which have invited foreign experts to take up permanent or near-permanent residency and picked them clean over time have done better than those which merely bought foreign technologies and hired their military experts to meet short-term needs.

We want to be Meiji Japan or modern South Korea, not Mysore, Ethiopia or the Ottoman Empire.

[ ] Offer local land and other incentives on Home in limited quantities for technical experts and manufacturing enterprises, not just mercenary companies and renowned warriors. Make offering land to Aslan warrior clans conditional on the Aslan also permitting technical experts to emigrate and encouraging private FDI in Home's productive capacity.
 
Last edited:
Probably misreading the sheet, but are the tug's drives sized for M-1 & J-1 at a total volume of 6kdT or with an attached load of 6kdT? The wording on the spreadsheet looks more like the former to me.

It has been a long day.
 
The ships being finished are the three Multi-Mission Surveyors, one Modular Merchant and one Flotilla Supply Ship Flight II all at 19y06m00w. I believe that should be 9,400 tons freed up. After that the EWAR frigate will be completed in 19y09m02, one CFA, the Heimdall diplomatic station and the MDS in Aslan yards will be finished in 20y06m00w and these will be swiftly followed by the two CFAs and the jump tug just laid down coming off the yards in 20y08m00w.

We very much cannot use all of our freed up dockyard space for ships, but our new strategy calls for the construction of many stations. This seems as good a time as any to start making them as well as more modular merchants to both carry the stations and lay mines for distant fortifications. I think we have just enough budget for three MDS' and one modular merchant, with us getting enough space when the EWAR frigate is finished with each MDS costing around 414MCr. and the modular merchant being around 479MCr.
 
Last edited:
Plan: MODERNIZATION DRIVE
[ ] We should make another, different offer: Offer local land and other incentives on Home in limited quantities for technical experts and manufacturing enterprises, not just mercenary companies and renowned warriors. Make offering land to Asian warrior clans conditional on the Asian also permitting technical experts to emigrate and encouraging private FDI in Home's productive capacity.

[ ] Other - write in: 2x modern cruisers and 2X EWAR frigates
 
Fireiy said:
but our new strategy calls for the construction of many stations.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'd agree except that we're very likely to lay hands on an enemy hull soon and the stations represent a much larger sunken cost than further cruisers which should be able to be retrofitted with any uncovered technologies partway through their service lives. Let's wait on those until we've got at least some sensor and EW upgrades that increase the survivability of a stationary defense platform.

Frankly I wonder if we can devote excess yard space to expanding yard capacity either at Home or for deployment to turn Heimdall or Deep Hope into a full fleet base.
 
4WheelSword said:
New specifications call for a jump tug, a recovery and deployment vehicle that can transit a parsec of space at a time with a craft docked or towed behind it. It can be built in the already busy civilian yards, and will hardly take two years to complete. It is a masterpiece of functional design, stripped down to absolute utilitarianism.

​
It even costs less than a billion credits despite its marvellous size compared to our cruiser force. The only thing it would not be able to recover would be the Marine Assault Transport, the as yet undeployed, underutilised massive flagship of the FLF. Meanwhile, the CFA-B also gets the flight II treatment, with a pair of this class laid down in the space freed up by the completion of the Patrol Carrier;

​
Finally, at a cost of just over 50 million credits, one of the flight II frigates will be refit into the Frigate, Fast EWAR. This new development on the platform adds additional sensor technologies and more sensor operators in order to expand the platforms utility as a picket and defence ship. The trade for this is a halving of the hulls missile tubes, making it a less effective offensive weapon. HSWS Neit is the hull selected for the conversion. A fair price? Time will tell;
​
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Some comments/questions/thoughts:
  • Shouldn't the J and M drives of the first be scaled to 8,000 tons (the mass of the tug plus the mass of the towed ship)?
  • I would cut it down to only 1 parsec of jump fuel carried onboard on the first ship. With 6000 tons of cargo capacity and 6 docking clamps, we can always haul around a ~50 ton external fuel tank, then use it as an ersatz drop tank.
  • I think it's worth spending on a holo bridge on the first ship. I'm also not sure if reduced size is worth it, since means maluses to the kinds of checks that this ship will be doing, if I understand the rules correctly? I want the least risk when docking or jumping.
  • Can we double bunk on the transport ship? According to the rulebook, double-bunking is usually used on commercial craft, so the crew should be used to it.
  • Are re-entry capsules useful on ships not meant to be in orbit around friendly inhabitable planets for 90% of their life, like the jump tug? They're fairly heavy, and the use case is pretty niche (i.e., cases where dropping from orbit around wherever you are is less likely to kill you than bunkering up in the bridge).
  • Can we divide up the powerplant so that a failure of one plant doesn't knock the whole thing offline? For the jump tug specifically, it has a grossly excess plant capacity for just running life support in a power-down emergency, so splitting the one plant into three smaller plants that combine their output seems like a good way of having redundancy that's more durable than the emergency power plant.
  • Is there enough spare tonnage on the CFA for better sensors?
  • Why do we use twin laser turrets instead of triples? If power draw is an issue, can we combine a laser turret with a point defence missile rack or sandcaster, since those don't have a power draw? I'm imagining something like this:
  • As best practices, I think we should switch to using predominantly Hardened components on our combat craft. Per the rules:
    Hardened Systems: If a system is listed as being hardened (as with /fib computers, for example), the crew may choose to allocate any Power to it before any deductions for Ion weapons are applied. This ensures a hardened system will always have enough Power to function (so long as the Power was available before the Ion attack!).
    [...]
    Hardened Systems:
    Any system that draws power from the power plant can be Hardened to render it immune to Ion weapons. A Hardened system has its cost increased by +50%.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    While we haven't seen anyone throwing around EMP torpedoes, a 50% cost increase of the various subsystems that draw power during a combat round in exchange for being functionally immune to ion weapons is, IMO, worth it as a measure of future-proofing.
4WheelSword said:
A report from Menorb arrives in Home on 19y03m01w. In it, Vice-Marshall Omarov writes:
Have engaged several enemy ships in the last days while fighting in Menorb. My findings are as follows:
- The enemy is generally able to close to contact on their own terms. They approach after a burn outside the range of effective sensors, running passively in towards a task force. They are difficult to detect as they simply look like a sun-warmed rock until they are close enough to activate their systems and fire the first shots. However it is my understanding that an effectively staffed sensor platform or capital ship would theoretically be capable of detecting the enemy on the approach.
- The enemy is not particularly well-armed for their tonnage. We estimate the principal enemy combat unit to be 3k tons volume while only mounted two to three of their principal radiological weapon systems. They are highly capable and extremely dangerous weapons, that is certainly true, but with so few of them it is difficult for the enemy to effectively disable a larger vessel, such as my own Maha Sona.
- I question the range of the enemy weapon systems. In all engagements thus far the enemy has closed to within 100,000 kilometres before firing, allowing their targets (us) to engage with impunity. Despite attempts to disengage under chemical rocket power, I have yet to see an enemy successfully disengage without taking at least some damage. 9G's of thrust cannot outrun a mass accelerator round.
- Finally, BDA. We successfully disabled an enemy ship, well enough that it couldn't jump away. Unfortunately, it moved into orbit around the Menorb main-world before self-destructing. We can only assume the enemy crew has found a haven there.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So, we can detect them as warm rocks, but can't tell that they're warships. That's good, because it means the frigate might be able to detect them further out, and if we adopt a policy of "fire a couple of rounds at every rock that approaches us", we'll be able to hopefully catch a few ships before they can fire.
(Say the line, Bart) I think a small minefield would be useful here once we establish a forward anchorage. They have to get within 100,000 kilometres, which means a shell of mines orbiting 100,000 km from our forward anchorage are very likely to be able to hit badly enough that we can chase it down and finish it off. That said, we finally won an engagement!
I'd like to try and capture one of these ships. There's a wealth of knowledge to be learnt.
 
Aged_Urbanist said:
Historically, countries playing catch-up which have invited foreign experts to take up permanent or near-permanent residency and picked them clean over time have done better than those which merely bought foreign technologies and hired their military experts to meet short-term needs.

We want to be Meiji Japan or modern South Korea, not Mysore, Ethiopia or the Ottoman Empire.

[ ] Offer local land and other incentives on Home in limited quantities for technical experts and manufacturing enterprises, not just mercenary companies and renowned warriors. Make offering land to Asian warrior clans conditional on the Asian also permitting technical experts to emigrate and encouraging private FDI in Home's productive capacity.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The offer is land for technology / technology experts, essentially, not "just" mercenaries - our credits can buy mercenaries just fine, but for wholesale tech transfer and experts they want land.
 
C_Z said:
Some comments/questions/thoughts:
  • Shouldn't the J and M drives of the first be scaled to 8,000 tons (the mass of the tug plus the mass of the towed ship)?
  • I would cut it down to only 1 parsec of jump fuel carried onboard on the first ship. With 6000 tons of cargo capacity and 6 docking clamps, we can always haul around a ~50 ton external fuel tank, then use it as an ersatz drop tank.
  • I think it's worth spending on a holo bridge on the first ship. I'm also not sure if reduced size is worth it, since means maluses to the kinds of checks that this ship will be doing, if I understand the rules correctly? I want the least risk when docking or jumping.
  • Can we double bunk on the transport ship? According to the rulebook, double-bunking is usually used on commercial craft, so the crew should be used to it.
  • Are re-entry capsules useful on ships not meant to be in orbit around friendly inhabitable planets for 90% of their life, like the jump tug? They're fairly heavy, and the use case is pretty niche (i.e., cases where dropping from orbit around wherever you are is less likely to kill you than bunkering up in the bridge).
  • Can we divide up the powerplant so that a failure of one plant doesn't knock the whole thing offline? For the jump tug specifically, it has a grossly excess plant capacity for just running life support in a power-down emergency, so splitting the one plant into three smaller plants that combine their output seems like a good way of having redundancy that's more durable than the emergency power plant.
  • Is there enough spare tonnage on the CFA for better sensors?
  • Why do we use twin laser turrets instead of triples? If power draw is an issue, can we combine a laser turret with a point defence missile rack or sandcaster, since those don't have a power draw? I'm imagining something like this:
  • As best practices, I think we should switch to using predominantly Hardened components on our combat craft. Per the rules: While we haven't seen anyone throwing around EMP torpedoes, a 50% cost increase of the various subsystems that draw power during a combat round in exchange for being functionally immune to ion weapons is, IMO, worth it as a measure of future-proofing
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm gonna mcfucking get you (thank you for the questions).
1. They are, it's a typo.
2. It only has 1 jump, it's a typo.
3. Sure, I can go back in and rejigger it.
4. They are, everyone except the captain and officers is doubled up.
5. I consider them survival capsules as much as they are for re-entry. If you're in space and don't have something to drop onto, you just float around, and it lets you decentralise survival measures.
6. It can literally be drawn up as three seperate smaller plants, but it doesn't change the mechanical outcome. Also it has an EPP.
7. probably. Like what.
8. I forgor.
9. Fair argument.
 
Build-wise, I support additional defense stations so we can free up mobile forces from "garrison" duty; next year we lay down another patrol carrier.

Also need to push what we can forward; let's get the carrier in there, maybe their smallcraft can do some stealth jaunts into the inner system for recce.

Put the MAT on standby a system or so away so they can call it in when the inner orbitals have been sufficiently reduced.
 
Last edited:
4WheelSword said:
I'm gonna mcfucking get you (thank you for the questions).
3. Sure, I can go back in and rejigger it.
4. They are, everyone except the captain and officers is doubled up.
5. I consider them survival capsules as much as they are for re-entry. If you're in space and don't have something to drop onto, you just float around, and it lets you decentralise survival measures.
6. It can literally be drawn up as three seperate smaller plants, but it doesn't change the mechanical outcome. Also it has an EPP.
7. probably. Like what.
8. I forgor.
9. Fair argument.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
3. I'm actually not sure how the skill checks work, I really need to read up on that...
5. Ah, okay.
6. I was hoping to replace the EPP, since that only works for 5 rounds and after that you're dead. Once again, need to look at how critical hits and mechanical breakdowns affect power plants...
7. Prototype extended arrays, extension net, prototype hardened improved signal processing, hardened shallow penetration suite. I don't think we can fit all of them, but maybe one or two?
8. (okay but now I really want to mount fragmentation missile racks onto the sides of our twin laser turrets, can we do that?)
9. I will include it in a plan!

Rat King said:
Build-wise, I support additional defense stations so we can free up mobile forces from "garrison" duty; next year we lay down another patrol carrier.

Also need to push what we can forward; let's get the carrier in there, maybe their smallcraft can do some stealth jaunts into the inner system for recce.

Put the MAT on standby a system or so away so they can call it in when the inner orbitals have been sufficiently reduced.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If we can't build a carrier, then yeah, we should build defence stations. I'm leaning towards a clean-sheet design that uses a buffered planetoid as the base for the extra armour and hull points and reduced cost, and offloading the offensive weapons into a minefield so that the station's hardpoints can be used for massed point defence. I think the plan should ask for three designs to be prepared that we can pick between - a 2,600 ton "minimal" design, a 3,000 ton "max on a modular conveyor" design, and a >5,000 ton "maximal" design. If build times are short, then we'll want to pick the smaller designs, but if the build times are comparable to the time it takes to build our jump tug, then going for the maximal design might be better, since that allows for distributed arrays, a command bridge, and around a thousand tons of extra "stuff" inside.
 
Last edited:
C_Z said:
If we can't build a carrier, then yeah, we should build defence stations. I'm leaning towards a clean-sheet design that uses a buffered planetoid as the base for the extra armour and hull points and reduced cost, and offloading the offensive weapons into a minefield so that the station's hardpoints can be used for massed point defence.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We're still working on minelayers, of course, but they should be done by the time these guys finish up. Still feel like they should have some innate armament because eventually something is gonna get through...
 
C_Z said:
Why do we use twin laser turrets instead of triples? If power draw is an issue, can we combine a laser turret with a point defence missile rack or sandcaster, since those don't have a power draw? I'm imagining something like this:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
As far back as Classic, ye olde traditionale turrette designs have been single, dual, triple, or a laser/sandcaster/missile combo with one of each. Long heritage on that loadout, even if it may be a bit inefficient when your ship isn't a detached scout with one turret and a notoriously smelly air system.
 
Rat King said:
We're still working on minelayers, of course, but they should be done by the time these guys finish up. Still feel like they should have some innate armament because eventually something is gonna get through...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean, can't the PD lasers be turned on an enemy that gets that close?

If we go for a 5,000 ton station, fitting it with a spinal railgun would be really funny; that is a moon!

Edit: spinal railguns are really bad, wow. Let's not do that.
 
Last edited:
C_Z said:
3. I'm actually not sure how the skill checks work, I really need to read up on that...
5. Ah, okay.
6. I was hoping to replace the EPP, since that only works for 5 rounds and after that you're dead. Once again, need to look at how critical hits and mechanical breakdowns affect power plants...
7. Prototype extended arrays, extension net, prototype hardened improved signal processing, hardened shallow penetration suite. I don't think we can fit all of them, but maybe one or two?
8. (okay but now I really want to mount fragmentation missile racks onto the sides of our twin laser turrets, can we do that?)
9. I will include it in a plan!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
7. You only have like... 2 of those. You don't actually have TL 10 sensor tech, you have TL 9 tech and production model Military sensors because of copying them from an enemy.
8. You can put a missile rack on a triple turret with two lasers in it!
 
4WheelSword said:
7. You only have like... 2 of those. You don't actually have TL 10 sensor tech, you have TL 9 tech and production model Military sensors because of copying them from an enemy.
8. You can put a missile rack on a triple turret with two lasers in it!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Gotcha.
And yes please let's do that. It has good vibes.
 
We would need to specifically add RadProtection to the defence stations, if that's what we are going to build.

But I still propose to lay down the "skirmisher frigate squads" - they would be quick to build, and would be able to lurk at the edges of battlefield, with best sensor equipment. So ideally they would be able to see the enemy from afar and to keep themselves out of range of their mesons, instead harrassing them with their torpedoes.
 
Last edited:
4WheelSword said:
it's ~16 tons of missile space the CFA just doesn't really have *unless* it's one of the missile CFA's.

Also I'd note the vice-marshalls opinions of her LMDC's :p
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Oooo, next one should be a C or D variant than.

EDIT: Admiral's flagship is a D variant; revised D variant could rock an additional LMDC at the cost of a turret somewhere (making it 3xLMDCs, 4xMissile bays for a total volley strength of three mass driver rounds and 48 missiles, with the missile bays potentially be swapped to large bays to keep turret firepower up).

Would still leave about 59 tons of free space to use, but could just throw that at cargo or add more ammo storage for longer combat legs.

C variant would need to drop a barbette or a turret, but would end up with 4xLMDC and 6xmissile barbettes. OR we say fuck it we ball and make the C-II a pure LMDC truck without any missile armament, 5xLMDC, and up the turret firepower with another five turrets.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top