Remove ads

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

Reader mode
Magnificate said:
I've got no idea whether it was constructed, but at least the interest was there. It could well be that at some point we'll be asking the scientific community to lend us their specialist craft or perhaps we would be chartering our the observatories on DDSs to them. All-in-all, no reason to hog science ships for HSWS.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No one said anything about hogging the science, I just don't see a reason for us to avoid building dedicated science vessels and swearing off science as a purely civilian occupation.

As a side note, I think it's absolutely vital we start getting out Lancers if we have a potentially hostile force on our southern border.

Although maybe we can open diplomatic relations. As we're discovering, it is very hard to project force beyond a jump or two distance from our homeworld.
 
Last edited:
Rat King said:
The Lancers are combat vessels and much more combat capable than the ICs and faster to produce than monitors (and better logistically than either of those options with the 2+2).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In a war Lancers could be used as raiders to harass enemy systems, where it could operate alone and strike at soft targets. But, our doctrine calls for waging war with small vessels and to that end we've built the ICs. In case of war we'd want to build them fast and in large numbers. Lancers, even after modifications to their design, likely wouldn't make the cut. We'd likely finish the hulls that begun construction during peacetime, but we wouldn't be building new ones.
 
Yeah Lancer's are too time expensive to build during conflict unless we have a solid hold on our frontline and/or have a massive tech or numerical superiority advantage. Nothing can beat producing 8 interstellar cruisers per construction wave assuming a completely empty shipyard.
 
Magnificate said:
In a war Lancers could be used as raiders to harass enemy systems, where it could operate alone and strike at soft targets. But, our doctrine calls for waging war with small vessels and to that end we've built the ICs. In case of war we'd want to build them fast and in large numbers. Lancers, even after modifications to their design, likely wouldn't make the cut. We'd likely finish the hulls that begun construction during peacetime, but we wouldn't be building new ones.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I thought we wanted to avoid building lots of smaller vessels to make more efficient use of our pilots? :V Or that was the logic being bandied around earlier.

And if we really want nothing but efficient construction why are we investing in monitors in the first place?
 
Magnificate said:
Because we've decided on a 70:30 split between heavier defenders and light attackers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, but that distribution was to favor interstellar ships, and in any case I think the circumstances have vastly changed in these six-seven years that we should be making decisions based on practicality instead of inertia.

Maxin_inc said:
Yeah Lancer's are too time expensive to build during conflict unless we have a solid hold on our frontline and/or have a massive tech or numerical superiority advantage. Nothing can beat producing 8 interstellar cruisers per construction wave assuming a completely empty shipyard.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We aren't in conflict, though. I think that the MMV is better armed on a one-for-one basis and better suited to long-duration missions, and that we should build a few after the Monitor wraps construction. They'll be good for maintaining our presence in the southern cluster.

[X] Deep diving and Looking to Hermosa

Also, unrelated to anything else, we should probably give a name to (-01 02) if only so that I don't have to keep calling it that. My suggestion is "Shambhala," as kind of a romantic evocation of an untouched land.
 
Doubloon said:
We aren't in conflict, though. I think that the MMV is better armed on a one-for-one basis and better suited to long-duration missions, and that we should build a few after the Monitor wraps construction. They'll be good for maintaining our presence in the southern cluster.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think the revamped version has like double or triple the the particle fiepower plus four torpedo barbettes and double the point defense. So it's definitely much killier, while only having one point less of armor and the M-4 engines. And longer range thanks to the drop tanks.
 
Last edited:
I'm baffled that people want to produce worse ships because uh... doctrine I guess?

EDIT: Like, they're slow to build a replacement for in a conflict but so is a much heavier and much clumsier monitor?
 
Last edited:

I hope the Monitor/MMV vote hasn't caused any lingering animosity. :[

Both craft are worthwhile to have! The Monitor massively increases Home's defensibility and is a visible symbol of our power as a fighting force. The MMV will enable us to conduct long-duration operations with greater crew comfort, without compromising on arms!
 
The Monitors are a strategic defense asset as well as a force multiplier. Jean Ecole isn't infallible and neither is Kantai Kessen, mixed force groups are ideal for reaction rather than trying to push the envelope with multi-role craft in my opinion.
 
@4WheelSword, under the pilot system we won't ever really think of traditional carriers as worth the investment. However, would we be able to pursue semi-disposable drones, similar to Children of a Dead Earth?
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top