Rat King
Izutsumi-pilled
Jump-tugs are actually part of our defense scheme, since it'll let us deploy larger stations to different systems.
Traveller, The Rise of Empire: A Naval Design, Procurement and Command Quest
- Thread starter 4WheelSword
- Start date
- Original Art Quest Sci-Fi
Jump-tugs are actually part of our defense scheme, since it'll let us deploy larger stations to different systems.
M-1 thrusters are somewhat costly, and we had this exact same debate when deciding between a defensive monitor or defensive station that was only 2-5000 tons. When you're building a 50,000 ton shipyard, it might not be worth it, and instead you'd hope that you can track the incoming round and deflect it or that a hit will over-penetrate and not do a lot of damage.
There is a significant threat posed by large drones that accelerate for months then hit a planet, but getting into planet crackers is something I figure nobody wants.
I'm assuming that's at least part of what the HIC will do. I'm leaving it open ended and assuming they'll do what's needed.
Jump tugs aren't key to that, but each station will require a pair of dedicated tender craft...
Which reminds me, we should design those and that's something we can squeeze into any spare tonnage we have since the jump tug probably won't fit.
If the Jump Tug breaks, though...
[X] Plan: Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
-[X] Delay it temporarily, with an immediate focus instead on more passive intelligence gathering both around the prison planet and deeper into Lydian space.
-[X] Refuse and issue a challenge for the technology.
-[X] A 9,500 ton fleet carrier. Civilian shipyards will be contracted to construct the first cellular station section, a 3,000 ton R&R facility to reduce crew fatigue.
I think we're hitting the limits of what we can reasonably get from the Aslan without the ritual combat they expect. And we have the money for a capital ship, we have the tonnage, we have a lull in the fighting—there's never going to be a better opportunity to build one than now.
-[X] Delay it temporarily, with an immediate focus instead on more passive intelligence gathering both around the prison planet and deeper into Lydian space.
-[X] Refuse and issue a challenge for the technology.
-[X] A 9,500 ton fleet carrier. Civilian shipyards will be contracted to construct the first cellular station section, a 3,000 ton R&R facility to reduce crew fatigue.
I think we're hitting the limits of what we can reasonably get from the Aslan without the ritual combat they expect. And we have the money for a capital ship, we have the tonnage, we have a lull in the fighting—there's never going to be a better opportunity to build one than now.
Last edited:
[X] Plan: Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
[x] Plan: war with the fleet we've got
-[x] Go ahead with the prison break operation
-[x] Refuse and issue a challenge for the technology.
-[x] Build: a 9,500 dton fleet carrier; any spare budget or tonnage to be made available for garrison admirals to properly secure their systems with minefields, monitors, sensors, etc.
[x] Plan: war with the fleet we've got
-[x] Go ahead with the prison break operation
-[x] Refuse and issue a challenge for the technology.
-[x] Build: a 9,500 dton fleet carrier; any spare budget or tonnage to be made available for garrison admirals to properly secure their systems with minefields, monitors, sensors, etc.
9,500 tons is pretty awkward since it puts us right below a few key thresholds - no medium turrets (meaning we can't reuse the hull for a large cruiser/battleship), and more importantly, ships above 10,000 tons ignore critical hits* from all weapons that are not medium bay, large bay, a nd spinal weapons - this means, for example, that a 9,500 ton carrier could suffer a critical hit from a ship mounting a LMDC, but a carrier that's 500 tons more would completely ignore it. If we had 10,000 tons, I'd be all for a big ship, though.
* the wording is vague here; it's either ignoring all critical hits (which normally occur after every 10% of lost HP) or the "extra" critical hits that would happen alongside the regular crits when an enemy has a tech advantage/more skilled crew/good fire control.
* the wording is vague here; it's either ignoring all critical hits (which normally occur after every 10% of lost HP) or the "extra" critical hits that would happen alongside the regular crits when an enemy has a tech advantage/more skilled crew/good fire control.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I would highly prefer to have a slate of three patrol carriers finished before we move on to trying to make a full carrier simply so we have more experience operating them.
[X] Plan Filling out the Fleet
-[X] Delay it temporarily, with an immediate focus instead on more passive intelligence gathering both around the prison planet and deeper into Lydian space.
-[X] Refuse and issue a challenge for the technology.
-[X] A slightly-upgraded Patrol Carrier and a small defensive monitor. Civilian shipyards will be contracted to construct the first cellular station section, a 3,000 ton R&R facility to reduce crew fatigue. Use remaining tonnage on refitting additional frigates to EWAR variants.
[X] Plan Filling out the Fleet
-[X] Delay it temporarily, with an immediate focus instead on more passive intelligence gathering both around the prison planet and deeper into Lydian space.
-[X] Refuse and issue a challenge for the technology.
-[X] A slightly-upgraded Patrol Carrier and a small defensive monitor. Civilian shipyards will be contracted to construct the first cellular station section, a 3,000 ton R&R facility to reduce crew fatigue. Use remaining tonnage on refitting additional frigates to EWAR variants.
4WheelSword
The original N-body Problem
- Pronouns
- It/She/They
Vote is tied. Pain is bad. Break the tie in the next 24 hours 
[X] Plan: Building the Warpath
I don't think we currently have 10,000 tons of capacity in any single yard. I'd be down to make a fleet carrier once we get all the goodies of being in that next 'size class'.
Agree that currently having x3-4 Patrol Carriers will be more versatile to allow for multiple deployments, R&R, refits, etc.
I don't think we currently have 10,000 tons of capacity in any single yard. I'd be down to make a fleet carrier once we get all the goodies of being in that next 'size class'.
Agree that currently having x3-4 Patrol Carriers will be more versatile to allow for multiple deployments, R&R, refits, etc.
Last edited:
we probably have now (in Home system), there were ~9600 before the most recent adjustments
[X] Plan: Building the Warpath
ok, eh
Last edited:
On the topic of "carriers", I think we can get a very cheap drone that's just a M-drive, powerplant, and fixed laser mount. I think a launch tube that fires them out (sorta like Quick Kill in space) might be cost-competitive with the other PD options for use on cruisers and the like, even if we're throwing away the drones afterwards.
13-3: The Laistrygones
New
4WheelSword
The original N-body Problem
- Pronouns
- It/She/They
Given this new information, what is the HSWS position on the prison break operation? Delay it temporarily, with an immediate focus instead on more passive intelligence gathering, both around the prison planet and deeper into Lydian space.What does the HSWS make of this new offer? Refuse and counter-offer a defence treaty only. Have the HIC create a detailed report on the likely effects of issuing a challenge for the technology and the proper rituals required to invoke said challenge.
What will the HSWS lay down? A slightly-upgraded Patrol Carrier and a small defensive monitor.
Available Budget: 5,100MCr
Current Dockyard Usage: 12,000/21,500Dtons + 7,400Dtons in civilian yards
Current Pilot Usage: 85/100
New Construction
A new take on the Patrol Carrier is built, taking advantage of advanced technology in order to cut a huge amount of the crew and replace them with moderately skilled 'virtual' crew members. While these digital crew are 'skilled' enough to pass basic muster, they fail in tests against veteran crews and those that have come from the newer academies established by the HSWS. Current doctrine, however, considers them to be good enough for the massive savings in crew numbers and costs associated with supporting those crews. For example, on the block II Carrier, Escort, the non-air wing and non-marine crew is reduced from 108 to just 25, including the complete removal of the gunnery crew. Even the most basic of digitalised gunnery options can maintain a point defence screen, after all.
With a purchase cost of 3,253.975Mcr, this second patrol carrier will occupy most of the budget for the next year as well as a large chunk of the yards, but the cost is tiny compared to the increased capability of putting out so many small craft.
One point of order - there have been mentions of doctrinal changes that would see these bomber craft replaced by drone fighters, further reducing the crew aboard such a ship and perhaps allowing for an even greater air wing. Thus far there has been great resistance from pilots and officers who like having a human in the chain, though experimental data also indicates that though their attacks would be less effective on an individual basis, the greater number of deployable air frames might counter that.
What is the broader HSWS position on strike craft:
[ ] They should remain piloted - and in fact we should retain a small cadre of human crew in every position.
[ ] They should remain piloted, unlike the ships they launch from.
[ ] They should be redesigned to be drone controlled and the hangers expanded.
[ ] Other, write in.
Meanwhile, the first 'mini-rock' defensive monitor designed to be deployed by jump tug is, well. Where normally the first cut would be to lay down the spine of a ship, here it is to begin mining out an asteroid drawn from Home's trojan points. It, much like the asteroid ships of Cassalon, two decades past, will rely on thick rock for part of its protection and part of its hull. It is not, however, an offensive ship and carries no jump drive or astrogator.
What is the broader HSWS position on infantry:
[ ] We should maintain the minimum platoon on anything over a certain size.
[ ] We should reconsider the minimum viable FLF deployment, entrusting the defence of smaller ships to the command of a non-commissioned officer.
[ ] We should equip our ships with defences such as these and eliminate the FLF deployment.
[ ] Other, write in.
Available Budget: 1236.65MCr
Current Dockyard Usage: 19,700/21,500Dtons + 7,400Dtons in civilian yards
Aslan Negotiations
The MIC have observed several negotiated wars of honour and challenge in their time studying the Aslan, most of them small in scale and consequence but nonetheless insightful. Duels have been fought over mating rights, land, scientific papers and political power. Most of these are conducted on the ground between two individuals with knives or claws, though sometimes they are fought with words and deceit. At least two have been fought in space between small fighter craft.
Of course, these are all internal duels. An external duel between nations is something else entirely. The MIC considers it perfectly possible that the Aslan would engage positively with the idea of a battle for technology - a short, vicious conflict to determine exactly who gets what. The HSWS has already made clear its goal - the transfer of naval weapons technology from the Aslan to Home. The Aslan will certainly have their own prize in mind and the HSWS will learn it before they commit to anything permanently. However, the HSWS must also determine what exactly it is they are challenging the Aslan too:
What is the HSWS willing to bid? None of these will be to the death
[ ] A tournament of single combat
[ ] A series of field competitions between ground forces
[ ] A small orbital engagement between a handful of ships
[ ] A major fleet engagement in empty space
[ ] Other - write in.
Please present votes as plans. Voting closes at
- Location
- SEAsia
- Pronouns
- Thou
[ ] Other, write in. Mixed doctrine, have squadrons led by manned fighters commanding visually identical drone craft. Maybe even allow the drones to be remotely controlled. Manned craft need not go extinct, only better protected. Also teach everyone the difference between hangArs and hangErs.
No, wait, scratch that. Maybe use zero-G such that craft can be "hung" on walls and ceilings in addition to secured on the "floor", thus allowing for more hangar space. We call em hangers. 👀
Last edited:
[ ] They should be redesigned to be drone controlled and the hangers expanded.
I'm actually not pushing this from a tonnage point of view, but instead acceleration. Our R-drives can push us beyond the limit of what a human pilot can withstand (drugs give 1 g, liquid G-suits give 2 g, which means we're looking at 6 g and -2 to the pilot's abilities every minute, making them as skilled as a virtual pilot after the first minute), and I'm pretty sure that it's extremely difficult for PD or fighters to engage a bus that's moving at 15 Gs. @4WheelSword, is my understanding of the mechanics correct?
For the FLF, I think this should specifically be a thing for the defensive stations. They're inside buffered planetoids, so cutting into the internals would take a lot of time. If we're worried about someone seizing the command centres, putting a second defended airlock behind the first one will have the same effect as a bunch of FLF holding a chokepoint. Defending the rest of the spacecraft is largely academic, IMO.
For larger ships, or cruisers whose operational role includes making boarding actions, I think a FLF contingent makes sense.
Regarding size, he larger the engagement, the more it favours us IMO, but also the more it is likely that we're going to see mass casualties in accidents. Something like "a carrier and a few CFAs" would be optimal, both from the point of view of winning, and us learning more about carrier doctrine.
I'm actually not pushing this from a tonnage point of view, but instead acceleration. Our R-drives can push us beyond the limit of what a human pilot can withstand (drugs give 1 g, liquid G-suits give 2 g, which means we're looking at 6 g and -2 to the pilot's abilities every minute, making them as skilled as a virtual pilot after the first minute), and I'm pretty sure that it's extremely difficult for PD or fighters to engage a bus that's moving at 15 Gs. @4WheelSword, is my understanding of the mechanics correct?
For the FLF, I think this should specifically be a thing for the defensive stations. They're inside buffered planetoids, so cutting into the internals would take a lot of time. If we're worried about someone seizing the command centres, putting a second defended airlock behind the first one will have the same effect as a bunch of FLF holding a chokepoint. Defending the rest of the spacecraft is largely academic, IMO.
For larger ships, or cruisers whose operational role includes making boarding actions, I think a FLF contingent makes sense.
Regarding size, he larger the engagement, the more it favours us IMO, but also the more it is likely that we're going to see mass casualties in accidents. Something like "a carrier and a few CFAs" would be optimal, both from the point of view of winning, and us learning more about carrier doctrine.
- Location
- Wörms, the half continent
It's a shame we can't challenge them to a mecha fight.
Politically, the less we insert in the Citizen Council's head the idea that HSWS could be downsized and partially/fully replaced with drones/virtual crewmen, the more secure we are.
Currently we are indispensable. And the idea that "actually our corporations can manufacture a replacement HSWS and get rid of their political opinions" is potentially very dangerous.
Also we've invested quite a lot into skills of our crewmen (the Academy and so on) - it would be very inconsistent to then disregard them and not use them at all.
[ ] Other, write in: we should swap to a high/low mix of human forward drone tenders/wranglers/shepherds and elite fighters and elite bombers mixed with attritable drones in various roles supporting and being the 'quantity' to go with the human 'quality'. And in fact we should retain a small cadre of human crew in every position on the large ships, too (not to replace any job 100% with virtual crew). This would be important both for preserving and gaining experience, and for maintaining the institutional cohesion of HSWS.
Currently we are indispensable. And the idea that "actually our corporations can manufacture a replacement HSWS and get rid of their political opinions" is potentially very dangerous.
Also we've invested quite a lot into skills of our crewmen (the Academy and so on) - it would be very inconsistent to then disregard them and not use them at all.
[ ] Other, write in: we should swap to a high/low mix of human forward drone tenders/wranglers/shepherds and elite fighters and elite bombers mixed with attritable drones in various roles supporting and being the 'quantity' to go with the human 'quality'. And in fact we should retain a small cadre of human crew in every position on the large ships, too (not to replace any job 100% with virtual crew). This would be important both for preserving and gaining experience, and for maintaining the institutional cohesion of HSWS.
Last edited:
- Location
- USA
elites mean you already have humans in every position other than cannon fodder. it's implied.
The idea is more a disc of fighter bombers has a BUNCH of fighter bombers in the first disk that are all drones, then a bit behind them is a disk of drones mixed with elite fighter-bombers and some ewacs vessels and drone control vessels, with the idea that drones can be the ones hit by the point defence and first wave of interceptors in the first disc, and the second disc has enough drones in it whose job is to interpose themselves from counterfire that all of the humans in the second disc can expect to come back alive.
Last edited: