Honorverse ramblings and musings

Theemile wrote:

saber964 wrote:How about the MAC concept. Tractor a couple of LAC's to the hull of a merchant. E.g. the Hali Sowle tractored two Nat Turner FG to its hull for its raid on the Balcescu system. If you can tractor a couple of frigates to the hull of a small merchant you can certainly carry a couple of LAC's. Anything short of a BC is in a boatload of trouble.

Let's not forget, LACs are not cheap. The average Verge polity with 100s of millions of taxpayers only owns a handful of them - as the bulk of, or their entire navy.

Freighters are a usually a margin run business - most of them won't even run military components which will double their speed (which doubles the amount of cargo 1 ship can haul per year) because it will make them too expensive to operate. Who pays for the LACS - the navy or the Freighter. If they offset cargo, does the navy pay for that too?

And you have to ask yourself, what happens when the LACs are out of place and their carrier gets destroyed because it has zero defenses.

What about the polities that don't allow private warships? Do you leave the LACS at the door and cross the system without them - what is their point if you can't use them when you are most vulnerable?

I'm thinking of the RMMM paying a small fee to have equivalent of naval guard teams aboard on runs to high threat areas. As to systems that don't allow privately owned warships the LAC's are owned by the RMN and are crewed by mix of active and reservists. During WWII the Naval Guard teams manned the guns but members of the ships crew served as ammo handlers, plane spotters etc.

Theemile wrote:What about the polities that don't allow private warships? Do you leave the LACS at the door and cross the system without them - what is their point if you can't use them when you are most vulnerable?

If LACs are unable to prevent interception under those sort of circumstances, they'll obviously end up accompanying their freighter in, only stopping short of the destination by a few million klicks if they're feeling polite. I wouldn't be, if a system was known for letting pirates snap up freighters within "its" space. Either they're so corrupt you don't visit without protection or so feeble they can't secure their own space, let alone do anything about your armed vessels, however insulting they find it.

Any LACs stranded by a hijacked or destroyed freighter can head to the planet for refuge and wait for another ride out, able to bear witness in the process. Even if the local government is completely in the pirates' pocket, they can hold out for a while.

A trick that may apply for the RMMM, with its abdunance of reserve RMN officers, is to designate those LACs as navy auxilaries, along with their crews. Navy ships are allowed to visit foreign systems - possibly with the official reason of delivering messages to any embassies or consulates. Granted, this could escalate a border violation into a diplomatic incident bordering on an act of war - but it also empowers the LACs to take appropriate protective actions. You can't prosecute a cop for trespassing onto your property if they were passing by when a criminal broke in and started attacking one of your guests.

munroburton wrote:You can't prosecute a cop for trespassing onto your property if they were passing by when a criminal broke in and started attacking one of your guests.

They are a sovereign state. They can do whatever the hell they want. Good idea, bad idea, it's their call.

munroburton wrote:If LACs are unable to prevent interception under those sort of circumstances, they'll obviously end up accompanying their freighter in, only stopping short of the destination by a few million klicks if they're feeling polite. I wouldn't be, if a system was known for letting pirates snap up freighters within "its" space. Either they're so corrupt you don't visit without protection or so feeble they can't secure their own space, let alone do anything about your armed vessels, however insulting they find it.

Hmm, I wonder how many systems in the former league will be able to survive while being too feeble to mount anti-piracy patrols.

Silesia benefited from being in a balance of power where its two powerful neighbors weren't willing to let it be annexed, but were willing to let it muddle along in corrupt inefficiency and interplanetary lawlessness.

But the former League worlds aren't likely to have that strategic situation. Any anybody too weak to chase off pirates is way, way, too weak to prevent the local strongman from taking over the system (and then having the forces to chase off the pirates that are discouraging the economically beneficial internal and foreign trade.


For that matter there would also appear there will be a something of a surplus of ex-League worlds to trade with. So if one strong enough to hold off the local strongman is cooperating with pirates in their system then it shouldn't be long before no freighters come to call and the system essentially gets blacklisted as being to risky / expensive to deal with.


Something to possibly think about anyway.

munroburton wrote:

Theemile wrote:What about the polities that don't allow private warships? Do you leave the LACS at the door and cross the system without them - what is their point if you can't use them when you are most vulnerable?

If LACs are unable to prevent interception under those sort of circumstances, they'll obviously end up accompanying their freighter in, only stopping short of the destination by a few million klicks if they're feeling polite. I wouldn't be, if a system was known for letting pirates snap up freighters within "its" space. Either they're so corrupt you don't visit without protection or so feeble they can't secure their own space, let alone do anything about your armed vessels, however insulting they find it.

Any LACs stranded by a hijacked or destroyed freighter can head to the planet for refuge and wait for another ride out, able to bear witness in the process. Even if the local government is completely in the pirates' pocket, they can hold out for a while.

A trick that may apply for the RMMM, with its abdunance of reserve RMN officers, is to designate those LACs as navy auxilaries, along with their crews. Navy ships are allowed to visit foreign systems - possibly with the official reason of delivering messages to any embassies or consulates. Granted, this could escalate a border violation into a diplomatic incident bordering on an act of war - but it also empowers the LACs to take appropriate protective actions. You can't prosecute a cop for trespassing onto your property if they were passing by when a criminal broke in and started attacking one of your guests.

I suspect that the "situation" itself will resolve that conflict, i.e., if the piracy problem turns the shade of ugly that I suspect it will, certain polities that don't allow private warships will be singing a different tune. Or their ability to import and export will fizzle.

It's really simply, the GA has a responsibility to its own carrying trade. If it cannot do so, their commerce will be warned off from those areas -- akin to how American tourists are warned off from travel to certain trouble spots (out of American influence) today. Signatories of the Cherwell Convention cannot operate above the law -- however, if certain difficult systems with a "no fly zone" are suspected of harboring pirates, (skirting the ascription to a theory that that would be the case), I'm sure they will be dealt with.

At the fall of the League, we fail to question what will happen to League commerce -- the freighters currently carrying League trade. Will the dominant Manticoran trade be stepped up even further? Limiting a system's trade options.

All which brings me full circle to my question of "Isn't it time that a new Cherwell Convention be recodified?" Minus the corrupt League, polities may be more agreeable.

cthia wrote:
My intent was to build them as actual capital ships masquerading as freighters. And not used only in an emergency, but could be used incase of an emergency. A Q-ship that is effectively a bonafide ship of the wall in every respect. Built even tougher with only a sacrifice in missile throw weight and acceleration -- augmented by an Apollo loadout meant to take no prisoners.

Duckk wrote:Apollo is gross overkill for the mission. Your garden variety pirate has no capability to stand up to even a Mk-14 equipped cruiser like the Avalon and Saganami-B, let alone the Mk-16 armed ships Manticore has today. Again, you're letting the ship you want define the mission, not the other way around.

Just for the archival record of historical accuracy, mind you, my suggested use of Apollo birds were for their reach. Pirates have a habit of turning tail and running. *A couple of Apollo birds programmed to perform the same pirouette of a dance as was arranged for Tourville by Honor would convince any pirate to strike its wedge or "make your day." Greatly increasing the GA's interception zone of pirates. Further exploiting the unchartered uses of Apollo -- as a natural pirate suppressor. Like, it'd be au naturel.

A related aside:
*I was always curious regarding that display arranged for Tourville. Could those birds have been reprogrammed to actually attack while enroute? Had the fickle female in Honor had second thoughts. I realize that a second launch would have accomplished the same thing. Just curious. IOW, just trying to confirm that Apollo can be programmed or reprogrammed on-the-fly.

Likewise, while dealing with pirates, can a launch targeting a pirate be reprogrammed to self-destruct or attack absolutely nothing if a pirate strikes its wedge in time?

At the Second Battle of Manticore, after Honor's massive launch, had the SLN struck their wedge immediately after that launch, could the RMN had aborted the attack somehow? Self-destruct? I don't recall that ever being done - a salvo self-destruct -- after the fact.

The RMN used to sacrifice entire salvos to get its point across to arrogant SLN officers. But that was a premeditated preprogrammed launch, I think.

I guess I want to be sure that its a built-in capability, regardless -- unless said launch is beyond the "point of no return."

DONG! ong ong ong! Amateur hour again.

What exactly makes a Corvette more maneuverable?

cthia wrote:I suspect that the "situation" itself will resolve that conflict, i.e., if the piracy problem turns the shade of ugly that I suspect it will, certain polities that don't allow private warships will be singing a different tune. Or their ability to import and export will fizzle.

It's really simply, the GA has a responsibility to its own carrying trade. If it cannot do so, their commerce will be warned off from those areas -- akin to how American tourists are warned off from travel to certain trouble spots (out of American influence) today. Signatories of the Cherwell Convention cannot operate above the law -- however, if certain difficult systems with a "no fly zone" are suspected of harboring pirates, (skirting the ascription to a theory that that would be the case), I'm sure they will be dealt with.

At the fall of the League, we fail to question what will happen to League commerce -- the freighters currently carrying League trade. Will the dominant Manticoran trade be stepped up even further? Limiting a system's trade options.

All which brings me full circle to my question of "Isn't it time that a new Cherwell Convention be recodified?" Minus the corrupt League, polities may be more agreeable.

I don't understand what you think the problems with Cherwell are. IMO, the main three - firstly, not everyone has signed up to it. Secondly, of those who have, not all provisions and clauses were agreed to. Thirdly, actual enforcement is spotty. None of those issues are solved by starting over and all would be aggravated.

And finally, it applies to slavery. Not piracy. The honorverse has clearly agreed, a long time ago, upon the legal niceties of what constitutes piracy and what star nations are allowed or required to do about it.

cthia wrote:DONG! ong ong ong! Amateur hour again.

What exactly makes a Corvette more maneuverable?

Being smaller than any hyper-capable warship. Less mass, easier to rotate.

munroburton wrote:

cthia wrote:I suspect that the "situation" itself will resolve that conflict, i.e., if the piracy problem turns the shade of ugly that I suspect it will, certain polities that don't allow private warships will be singing a different tune. Or their ability to import and export will fizzle.

It's really simply, the GA has a responsibility to its own carrying trade. If it cannot do so, their commerce will be warned off from those areas -- akin to how American tourists are warned off from travel to certain trouble spots (out of American influence) today. Signatories of the Cherwell Convention cannot operate above the law -- however, if certain difficult systems with a "no fly zone" are suspected of harboring pirates, (skirting the ascription to a theory that that would be the case), I'm sure they will be dealt with.

At the fall of the League, we fail to question what will happen to League commerce -- the freighters currently carrying League trade. Will the dominant Manticoran trade be stepped up even further? Limiting a system's trade options.

All which brings me full circle to my question of "Isn't it time that a new Cherwell Convention be recodified?" Minus the corrupt League, polities may be more agreeable.

I don't understand what you think the problems with Cherwell are. IMO, the main three - firstly, not everyone has signed up to it. Secondly, of those who have, not all provisions and clauses were agreed to. Thirdly, actual enforcement is spotty. None of those issues are solved by starting over and all would be aggravated.

And finally, it applies to slavery. Not piracy. The honorverse has clearly agreed, a long time ago, upon the legal niceties of what constitutes piracy and what star nations are allowed or required to do about it.

cthia wrote:DONG! ong ong ong! Amateur hour again.

What exactly makes a Corvette more maneuverable?

Being smaller than any hyper-capable warship. Less mass, easier to rotate.

Ah. Thanks. I correctly assumed as much. More of a rotation about the axis from reaction thrusters. Not a complete change in vector.

Corvette's built and armed on the same general lines as Manticoran LAC's might be pretty scary customers, for a purely sublight 'customs and security' ship.


Should be just big enough you can cram upto two of the Shrike grasers, or just one and give it near Ferret or Katana levels of missiles to boot.

Would be slightly less maneuverable, but the possible trade offs on crew size for inspections and armaments, might make them better than 'mere' pinnaces. Even a Q-ship's gonna be in trouble if two or more Shrike-style corvette's approach with the generic "you have entered X space, heave to and prepare for inspection". You might nail one, but the other is going to absolutely savage you in return. Compared to two pinnaces with their itty bitty 2cm lasers versus the 1.5m graser of a Shrike. [Or at least I think Shrike's pack a 1.5m graser anyways]

Plus side:
+ much heavier armaments than mere LAC's, and depending on technology used (Grand Alliance), anything smaller than a light cruiser's may find itself undermatched
+ more crew for inspections and/or hard boarding parties, doubles for search & rescue


Cons:
- less agile than a LAC, and considerably less than a Katana
- not much room to be better armored than a LAC, so you're trading higher chance to be hit for a larger arsenel to dish it out
- speed is going to be very similar to LACs


I'm sure there's more either way, but I'll let others hop in and run with the idea of Grand Alliance "super corvette" idea, based off the same Ghost Rider-derived improvements that lead to the super-LAC programs.