| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 6:56 am Post subject: Capital Ship Roles in Naval Tactics |
 |
|
Okay, so this is the second in a two-topic series about naval tactics. The first one is about starfighters.
Basically, what I want to get at is to understand the basics of naval tactics. So, I'm basically putting out there the way I think it works, and how things are usefully classified. Maybe I'm a dunce about this, and you can correct my idiocy, but maybe I'm on to something and you can help me flesh this concept out.
The roles I imagine are bolded in the text below. I already addressed what I see as the roles/types of starfighters in the starfighter thread. Also, while we have terms like destroyers, corvettes, frigates and cruisers, it doesn't seem to me that they make the necessary distinctions. Also, destroyers in the RW are small craft which can hunt submarines. I don't know why GL made 'Star Destroyer' the name for a large vessel rather than a small one, but it's not like we're going to repurpose the name at this stage.
Among capital ships, some capitals ships only really serve a transport function of bringing troops to a planet. These need to hang back while the more combat-capable ships establish space superiority around a planet.
Other ships perform a carrier function of carrying fighters/bombers into combat situation, where these fighters are not hyperspace capable, or it's simply easier to carry them in.
Anti-Starfighter Warfare (ASW - based off Anti-Submarine Warfare from RL navies, but you can also think of it as anti-aircraft in a naval setting. It comes down to the same thing, in my mind.) These are ships with good point-defense lasers, which may not be high in damage, but they do have high fire control scores. Lancer Frigates seem to specialize in this function. These ships can also be called having a picket/escort function - shielding the bigger ships from the fighters. Given that the best thing against fighters/bombers are other fighters, these might be somewhat less useful than carriers.
Anti-Capital ship Warfare Not much mystery here: platforms to have big guns to pound away at big ships. There are variations and trade-offs between size/speed/shields, but these are variations on a theme.
Blockade running The main purpose of these is to be fast and shielded, so that they can get past naval blockades.
Patrol these should be ships that have good sensors and have decent speeds, in addition to decent weaponry.
Interdiction - imposing a blockade. Obviously, interdictor cruisers are the vessel of choice for this, but navies should have had means of carrying out blockades before their introduction.
Bombard - Heavy weaponry, including the ability to deliver ordnance of varying types for attacking planetary bodies, either in support of ground operations or as a punitive measure. May be slower than Superiority units (planets aren't running away, after all), and may have lower consumables, but will tend to be more heavily armed and armored. [h/t crmcneill]
Any of you have supplementary ideas, or reasons for a different function classification?
Last edited by Mikael Hasselstein on Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:13 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lane Arroway
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 02 Feb 2013
Posts: 153
Location: Taris, Outer Rim
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
The term Star Destroyer does not indicate the vessel's class but rather its combat ability. To quote Saga's Starships of the Galaxy:
"This misunderstanding is based in the fact that the term Star Destroyer does not indicate a Destroyer-class vessel that happens to be a starship (unlike the terms star cruiser and star dreadnaught). A Star Destroyer is named after the idea of a ship that has the power needed to destroy entire star systems, an ominous naming convention that goes back to the days of the Old Republic. Any ship that follows the design basics of those early ships (including a combination of massive firepower and a dagger shape to focus that firepower forward) can be a class of Star Destroyer. For this reason, the term Star Destroyer is always capitalized, unlike star frigate or star cruiser. A typical Star Destroyer qualifies as a star cruiser, and a Super Star Destroyer qualifies as a star dreadnaught."
_________________
"This job is 90% talking to people and 10% shooting at them." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This morning I also recalled:
Interdiction - imposing a blockade. Obviously, interdictor cruisers are the vessel of choice for this, but navies should have had means of carrying out blockades before their introduction.
Edit: I'm putting this in the OP, so that these are all collected in one place.
| Lane Arroway wrote: | The term Star Destroyer does not indicate the vessel's class but rather its combat ability. To quote Saga's Starships of the Galaxy:
"This misunderstanding is based in the fact that the term Star Destroyer does not indicate a Destroyer-class vessel that happens to be a starship (unlike the terms star cruiser and star dreadnaught). A Star Destroyer is named after the idea of a ship that has the power needed to destroy entire star systems, an ominous naming convention that goes back to the days of the Old Republic. Any ship that follows the design basics of those early ships (including a combination of massive firepower and a dagger shape to focus that firepower forward) can be a class of Star Destroyer. For this reason, the term Star Destroyer is always capitalized, unlike star frigate or star cruiser. A typical Star Destroyer qualifies as a star cruiser, and a Super Star Destroyer qualifies as a star dreadnaught." |
Thanks!
Given all the citations that I see to this book on Wookieepedia, I really should pick it up.
Edit: That said, $40 on Amazon, even used copies, that's a bit stiff.
Last edited by Mikael Hasselstein on Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:11 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bombard - Heavy weaponry, including the ability to deliver ordnance of varying types for attacking planetary bodies, either in support of ground operations or as a punitive measure. May be slower than Superiority units (planets aren't running away, after all), and may have lower consumables, but will tend to be more heavily armed and armored.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As far as Star Destroyer, I'm okay with ship classification not directly paralleling the RW. AFAIAC, a Star Destroyer in the SWU is the designation for any capital ship that is equipped to function as a dreadnought, carrier and transport.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Imperial Sourcebook folds anti-starfighter and anti-capital ship warfare into a single category called Superiority, which means, in general, the exercise of control over space. Local superiority (i.e. control over a solar system) is generally a prerequisite for other operations, such as bombard, transport or interdiction.
Also, the concept of destroyers (at least as we understand it) has become the assault frigate or assault cruiser, which (as near as I can tell) indicates a vessel equipped with weaponry normally too large to mount on such a small platform. An assault vessel might be equipped with heavy torpedo launchers or heavy turbolaser cannon that are normally found only on capital ships like star cruisers and star destroyers.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Bombard - Heavy weaponry, including the ability to deliver ordnance of varying types for attacking planetary bodies, either in support of ground operations or as a punitive measure. May be slower than Superiority units (planets aren't running away, after all), and may have lower consumables, but will tend to be more heavily armed and armored. |
Oh... duh! Yes, I've added it to the OP.
Also, as I'm thinking more about this (and also adding to the Imperial Sector Fleet thread - coming soon), I think it's useful to distinguish between levels of analysis (not to be confused with levels of OoB). So, quite right, bombard is a tactical function of the 'ground attack' strategic objective.
It's probably good for us to share these foundational ideas/terms as we move forward. Also, I'm happy to adjust terminology where the terms I'm using are inadequate.
So, tactical level is where specific units attempt to defeat one another.
| crmcneill wrote: | | The Imperial Sourcebook folds anti-starfighter and anti-capital ship warfare into a single category called Superiority, which means, in general, the exercise of control over space. Local superiority (i.e. control over a solar system) is generally a prerequisite for other operations, such as bombard, transport or interdiction. |
Yes, so we're talking about three different fields of superiority:
1) One is superiority of the small scale - ie. the ability to control/deny the movement of small spacecraft - fighters/bombers/etc.
2) Another is, as you say, local superiority - control over a solar system.
3) Third is general control over space, which also includes hyperroutes between systems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | It's probably good for us to share these foundational ideas/terms as we move forward. Also, I'm happy to adjust terminology where the terms I'm using are inadequate.
So, tactical level is where specific units attempt to defeat one another. |
If you could expand upon the concept of analysis, I'm not quite sure what you meant.
I've said my piece on the Imperial Sector Fleet thread, as I have tried on multiple occasions to make my own, and have come up against too many brick walls and unknown factors. I consider making up an Imperial Sector Group OB to be an entertaining mental exercise, and that's about it.
What I can suggest is making the distinction between organizational and tactical units for the purposes of the OB. Specifically, rather than having three Attack Lines composed of varying types of vessels, have three separate Lines based on type (1 Heavy Cruiser Line, 1 Medium Cruiser Line, and 1 Frigate Line), which then deploy sub-line units which form up in combat lines for tactical operations.
I would also maintain the System Force assets and use them organizationally to organize support units. In my most recent attempt at a Sector Fleet, the core of the fleet was a Battle Squadron, built around a single Imperial Star Destroyer, with 5 cruisers and 28 frigates and corvettes as its entourage (with escort, pursuit, interdiction, strike and reconnaissance craft thrown into the mix). The Systems Force (Superiority) was the organizational level that contained all of the units of a specific type, which were then distributed into the tactical units (the Battle Squadrons), which were, in turn, used as the big stick for the Sector Navy. System Force (Escort) was composed of more numerous small craft which were primarily deployed in line units or on solo missions. A Superiority Fleet would include 2 each of Superiority and Escort System Forces, supplemented by 1 each of Replenishment and Technical Forces. The difference between support units at the fleet level and the sector group level was that the System Force Support units performed the support missions that could be performed while ships were underway (or at least not in space dockl), while the Support Fleet handled the more detailed and intensive overhauls, heavy logistics transport, etc.
Anyway, that's me rambling...
| Quote: | Yes, so we're talking about three different fields of superiority:
1) One is superiority of the small scale - ie. the ability to control/deny the movement of small spacecraft - fighters/bombers/etc.
2) Another is, as you say, local superiority - control over a solar system.
3) Third is general control over space, which also includes hyperroutes between systems. |
My understanding of superiority was that any force who wished to operate in an area over which you exercised superiority could only do so by your permission. It didn't mean they couldn't operate, but that to do so they would have to dispute you for it. The ImpSB states that, while the Imperial Navy has vastly expanded in size, that expansion has barely kept pace with the expansion of the Empire itself, so they were actually further from their goal of superiority than they had been when they started.
The next step above superiority would be supremacy, under which you exercise so great a control over a given area that your enemy is incapable of contesting it. Just as an example, even during the first Gulf War, the Allies never claimed air supremacy (in spite of their near total control of the airspace over Iraq) because so long as the Iraqi air force had aircraft available to it, it could still theoretically come up to challenge the Allies' air superiority. IMO, superiority indicates that your opponent lacks the will to challenge you, while supremacy indicates that they lack the ability to challenge you. I could be misinformed...
As far as your three levels, they would seem to fall in line with the distinction between the tactical, operational and strategic levels. General control of space would be a strategic concern (likely one in which even a Sector Fleet is only a bit player), while local control would be Operational (referring specifically to control over an area of operations which is not necessarily a single planet or system), while tactical superiority would be control of space in the immediate area of a battle squadron, combat line or any individual ships.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Another space strategy (in many ways the opposite of superiority) is space denial. A space denial strategy eschews attempting to exercise superiority in favor of denying it to one's opponent.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RexMundiAbu
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 17 Feb 2014
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| What about covert Intel and counter Intel ? I'm thinking like cloaked ships ( I know these are super rare ) or sensor baffled/masked ships sent into enemy space to gather intel . And counter Intel ships like the A-wing has a sensor jammor , why not a freighter sized vessel or bigger with the same thing which activates during a battle to mask fighters ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RexMundiAbu
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 17 Feb 2014
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Also what about boarding ships ? for example the assault shuttle with its cargo of spacetroopers used to board enemy ships ? and assault shuttles in general filled with normal troops for the same purpose ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RexMundiAbu wrote: | | What about covert Intel and counter Intel ? I'm thinking like cloaked ships ( I know these are super rare ) or sensor baffled/masked ships sent into enemy space to gather intel . |
For my Sector Fleet attempt, I included a separate Reconnaissance Fleet which incorporated reconnaissance and surveillance, trailblazing of new hyperspace routes, special operations support, as well as a small contingent of cloaked combat vessels. A Reconnaissance or Intel unit makes a good cover for naval support of covert activities...
| Quote: | | And counter Intel ships like the A-wing has a sensor jammor , why not a freighter sized vessel or bigger with the same thing which activates during a battle to mask fighters ? |
| RexMundiAbu wrote: | | Also what about boarding ships ? for example the assault shuttle with its cargo of spacetroopers used to board enemy ships ? and assault shuttles in general filled with normal troops for the same purpose ? |
These are probably more appropriate for the other conversation about starfighter rolls in combat.
A dedicated fire control jamming platform is likely overly specialized, but a multi-role electronic warfare platform is certainly an option. Modern air units have dedicated jamming support that can disrupt fire control, sensors and communications, as well as carrying anti-emitter missiles.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RexMundiAbu
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 17 Feb 2014
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well Assault shuttles are capital scale , due to their size I don't think they should be but thats just me . Boarding vessels in gereral are a part of capital ship combat I think ? Isnt there a larger version the vibre or something like that ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RexMundiAbu wrote: | | Well Assault shuttles are capital scale , due to their size I don't think they should be but thats just me . |
I agree up to a point. The mission of the assault shuttle is (apparently) to be a flying bunker that delivers a platoon of spacetroopers for a boarding action. A ship designed to fly directly through the firing solution of a capital ship's main batteries needs to be able to take a lot of damage, so to make the stats, you could either give high dice numbers to a Starfighter-Scale shuttle or make it Capital-Scale. I use my own scale system and that tempers the Gamma somewhat.
| Quote: | | Boarding vessels in gereral are a part of capital ship combat I think ? Isnt there a larger version the vibre or something like that ? |
For the purposes of this discussion, boarding is more of a tactical subset of superiority, in that it is one of the methods used to maintain control of a given area of space.
The Imperial Vibre-Class is actually more of a commerce raider than a dedicated boarding craft. Commerce raiding has similarities to piracy and privateering, but it is generally performed by vessels that are part of the fleet registry (as opposed to private vessels) and its primary purpose is to deny commerce and support to the enemy (as opposed to turning a profit, although it is just as capable of capturing ships as destroying them). From a strategic POV, submarine warfare during WWI and II was considered commerce raiding, as the primary targets of most submarines were merchant ships.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RexMundiAbu
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 17 Feb 2014
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For me boarding is a part of capital ship combat - now do I think it could be a subset of superiority , yes .
The Vibre is used as a commerce raider but the method it uses to capture ships is boarding parties so again I think it cannot be discounted and is in fact a ship with more than one class description of use . I could see it getting used in a fleet action , maybe staying at the edge of the combat going un-noticed until it has the chance to send out the space troopers to capture any isolated or damaged enemy capital ships .
Also I'm thinking that commerce raiding and privateering are parts of capital ship combat and could be subsets of superiority as they both deny the enemy ships and material |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
