A different paradigm for naval warfare (and maybe even piracy?)

[tater]

I posted this on the ct-starships list, and thought it might be of some interest.

I was thinking about the age of sail one night when a buddy who plays traveller and I were talking (I'm a big Patrick O'Brian fan, in addition to real histories of the era) and I suggested a slightly different take on starship combat for his TU. Thought I'd bounce it off you.

We always used the alternate HG crew damage rules (JTAS 14)—dividing crew into sections instead of the standard USP so it wasn't so bloody. "Who would join the navy when every action is characterized by the utter slaughter of most crews?" we had always asked after playing HG (or any of several other combat systems for traveller).

So I was thinking about "striking colors," prizes, parole, and piracy in relation to his game (he's running an email leviathan game right now).

Where our conversation went was this way: it might be interesting to consider treaties/agreements that characterize how to "strike colors." Warships unable to continue the fight would strike to avoid utter destruction. Striking ships would be honor-bound to not radically maneuver away, or risk being re-targeted. They'd be able to jump, however, they are not truely captured until a prize crew is put aboard, until then they can try to slip away, but an overt 6G maneuver, etc, too early will likey result in them getting spanked (and a future surrender not taken). This would have the effect of reducing the level of slaughter, and seems like it fits the courtly traveller universe.

Prizes taken would be dealt with by the admiralty prize court with the admiral (if applicable), captain, officers, and crew getting shares after the fashion of the Royal Navy. Given the battle logs of combatants, any other ships involved in the action would receive shares as well. This provides a mechanism for the creation of wealth in the Navy, intrigue, etc. Warship prizes might be sold into the service for use by the Navy itself (possible covert ops?), or might be sold to subsector or planetary navies.

Parole for the captured officers is another concept. Your ship could be lost/taken, at which point the men would be locked up in the enemies port, but the officers might walk free having "given their parole," all waiting to be traded back for enemy crews, they still might try to escape, etc. More role playing fun. Sometimes, they might even be dropped off in one of their own ports, honor bound to not resume hostilities themselves until traded back into their navy via a prisoner exchange (which might be "virtual" if the prisoners in question were all parled in friendly ports.

And now to piracy. Piracy just doesn't work well in traveller, never has (yeah, I know that is a topic up there with near-c rocks, I'm an old TML junkie . But if you cripple a ship to the point you can board it, it's crippled, and the cargo is probably in none too good shape, either. In order to have any reasonable chance for boarding, you have to be certain the target cannot maneuver at all. Now assuming pirates followed similar rules to the navies—for their own benefit—they'd attack by hailing the target, and demanding the merchant strike. Should the merchant elect to fight, they fight, not caring primarily about boarding, more about hitting you and taking minimal damage. They fight until you are no longer able to maneuver/fight, then if they even bother to board, they murder everyone aboard. A ship-based "your money or your life!"

If the merchant surrenders, the cargo is usually looted along with the crew/passengers, and they are turned on their way unless the ship is particularly valuable, in which case the crew/passengers are released in a port and sent on their way. Armed merchants would be to keep away small-fry pirates, not an attempt to fight serious pirates/privateers.

The point for piracy is that the possible victims need to have the sense that if taken, they will probably be well treated, if they fight, they will very likely be murdered.

Privateers would be commercial warships used for sanctioned piracy, and a "letter of marque," while also litteraly carried by a privateer, would be an armed merchant, open to taking prizes of opportunity.

For my friend's campaign, we came up with the notion that in "trade warfare," the various corporate ships would attack the other companies ships with the primary aim of delay. They'd make all efforts to minimize the loss of life which would make the practice more politically palatable.

Anyway, that's a quick overview of what 2 traveller geeks and several beers came up with.

merrick

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by tater:
We always used the alternate HG crew damage rules (JTAS 14)—dividing crew into sections instead of the standard USP so it wasn't so bloody.

Merrick,

So did we after we learned of it.

... it might be interesting to consider treaties/agreements that characterize how to "strike colors."

The trouble is that such agreements only work as long as every possible party all play by the same rules. Once one party opts out, everyone else must follow suit or operate at a disadvantage. History is littered with examples of similar 'pacts', 'bans', 'codes', and whatnot all being ditched as soon as the participants damn well pleased.

This is the same argument that dooms the otherwise nifty 'dynastic' model for the Imperial Navy. If the IN was organised on a 'dynastic' basis; nobles owed ships to higher nobles and so forth, a lot of problems would be solved. The trouble arises when you factor in the Imperium's neighbors. The dynasitc model only works if all of them use a dynastic model too. As soon as one potential opponent switchs to a 'national mass army' model (cough cough Solomani cough cough), the dynastic model is going to get it's ass kicked up between it's ears.

Your 'striking the colors' ideas are nice. Coming up with even barely rational reasons for everyone in the setting to use them is the insurmountable problem however.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Scott Martin]

The "Striking the flag" model works as long as *enough* folks play by those rules.

Even in the age of sail there were those that didn't "play by the rules". They were often singled out for particularly aggressive "enforcement" later (which is where the USMC gets "The shores of Tripoli" from in the U.S. Marine Corps Hymn.

Not everyone needs to play by the rules, as long as there are appropriate means for dealing with transgressors

Scott Martin

 

[tater]

Good points, but anyone who's tried to shoehorn various traveller canon into reality is adept at messing around a little anyway. :-D

Besides, it worked for hundreds of years with the navies, privateers, and merchants in the age of sail.

It needn't be treaties, per se, either, though I sugegsted it thinking of some of the major players who tend to go to war time and again. They all have something to gain by war fought in a less "total" manner.

If an enemy strikes to you, what possible negative is there in taking the prize? I suppose you could murder the crews, but assuming the Solomani (or anyone else) actually ever takes POWs, then there is no reason to expect that treatment.

Also, every navy needn't use it, and the fact that you might use it would certainly be a negative in the first engagements, but after that you'd learn. A perfect historical example is the troops that surrendered to the Empire of Japan. Pretty much universally a mistake, they were brutally treated, and given the mortality in the camps, they'd have been smart to fight a lot longer than they did. They learned, and the war in the PTO/CBI was foght with particular ferocity by all sides, the allies didn't take many prisoners, strafed lifeboats and parachutes, etc.

So there are plenty of rational arguments in favor of "rules" to interstellar warfare as the rule (with the constant threat and reality of exceptions). For one, near-c rocks. If you argue in favor of naught but total war (thinking WW2 as a model), then there is really no reason not to just obliterate any foe. Such wars might still happen, in fact.

The Imperium and the Solomani is also a great example. Say the Imperium fought in the manner of the British in Napoleonic times, and the Solomani fought in the 20th century way. The fact that sides would acknowlege a surrender, and treat the enemy as POWs would change nothing. The Imperial ships striking when mission killed would change nothing, either. Warships don't strike because they think they might lose (usually), they strike because they are incapable of contributing to the battle any longer. They are de facto no longer combatants anyway, all striking does is prevent secondary ships from finishing them off. After the first realization that the Solomani are feigning surrender, then attacking, etc, the Imperium would hold no quarter.

So yeah, it would never be 100%, but it might be the norm for certain conflicts.

Note that even if the Navy fights to the death at all times, there is no reason why elements of this would not work in terms of piracy and privateering, or naval units taking prizes (commerce raiding consisting of taking prizes and sometimes destroying them instead of just destroying shipping). So when presented with a small warship, be she a commerce raiding naval unit, a privateer, or a pirate, most lightly armed merchants have no choice but to strike and be taken as a prize.

tater

 

[Scott Martin]

Also remember that a navy has a different mission than a privateer. A privateer needs to capture ships to complete its mission, since its resupply and maintenance are predicated on "turning a profit" while a regular navy has the mission to deny supplies to the enemy: capture is a "bonus" but destruction is sufficient (and easier) to successfully complete this mission.

IMO this might make merchants more likely to surrender to "regular navy" warships than privateers, but might result in privateers flying "false transponders"...

Scott Martin

 

[atpollard]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
Your 'striking the colors' ideas are nice. Coming up with even barely rational reasons for everyone in the setting to use them is the insurmountable problem however.

I have found greed to be a very good source of motivation. If a captured crewman can be easily redeemed for 1 year of salary for his position, a captured pilot is worth Cr 60,000 while a dead pilot is worth nothing. For the Navy or Merchant corporation, Cr 60,000 costs less than 2 years of Pilot School to replace him.

If the prize money is divided into shares for the crew, a ship that follows the rules can make a nice bonus (like the Mercenary rules). Assuming two equally matched ships, each crewman on the winning ship could earn about 6 months pay for capturing a crew instead of killing them. Any captain who regularly ignores the chance to earn a bonus, will earn a bad reputation and could be in danger of a mutiny.

The TAS could act as middleman for merchant crews (and TAS members). For privateers, who will fight harder: a merchant ship that knows capture will hit the company right in the pocket book or one that can expect no quarter? Think how much more important those patrons suddenly become (if there really is no one willing to pay your ransom, then ... ).

 

[tater]

Obviously such systems could become quite complicated. The major powers, basically any 2 empires that have fought at least one war with a negotiated peace, have the possiblitiy, indeed likelyhood of some sort of "rules of war."

Clearly they do, or the library data on disputed regions like the Spinward Marches would be full of information about the massive planetary destructions of the 3d Frontier War, etc. Since that didn't happen, clearly there are SOME rules already. No massive LeMay/Harris style attacks on whole worlds. No "total war." No near-c rocks.

What exactly happens in the canon to ships on the losing side of a battle with their mission kill "fuel tanks shattered" results. Any HG fleet action is filled the drifting hulks of both sides, presumably the winner renders assistance, takes the surviving crews on as POWs, and tows any useful ships back to th e docks already. I don't believe the Imperium or Zhodani practice summary execution of POWs, for example.

All the "prize" notion does is to give credit to the ships that fought the action, rewarding the crew—POWs are already taken anyway. Clearly more egalitarian societies might simply divide the prize value evenly among the crew, or perhaps evenly with a simple weight for rank (or psi status for the zhodani). This makes far more sense in a navy where the captain is not as responsible for the finances of the ship. In the age of sail a captain might spend quite a bit out of pocket to train and victualize.

Naval ships would likely dole out shares after some standard amount is taken by the admiralty—perhaps even prize money is profit left after the cost of repair to the ship that fought the action (as an incentive not to wreck the navy's ship to take a prize).

Privateers would reserve a decent share for the owner, since the crew has a choice to join, the prize share % would be part of their pay package.

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by tater:
Besides, it worked for hundreds of years with the navies, privateers, and merchants in the age of sail.

Merrick,

Says who? Hollywood?

As another poster pointed out, merchants were more likely to surrender to a navy warship, a privateer, and a pirate in that order. There were levels of trust involved here.

Your library will have any number of books on actual historical piracy. Look for one written by Daniel Dafoe under the penname of 'Charles Johnson'. It's titled A General History of the Pyrates. Centuries later, historians and researchers find Dafoe's book amazingly accurate. Believe me, the book will open your eyes as to what piracy was all about.

Some points:

- Pirates operating in the Indian Ocean during the 'golden age' routinely butchered entire Mughal crews because, as Muslims and Hindus, those people didn't count. Even Mughal nobilbity was killed despite the enormous ransoms they would bring. Pirates operated extensively in this region, there was even a long term pirate 'kingdom' on Madagascar.

- In similar behavior to that above, English pirates butchered Spaniards, Spaniards butchered English, North African Muslims butchered everyone and were butchered in return because each side saw their captives as something less than human. Privateers and naval crews were little better. England and Spain even went war over the alleged mutilation of an English captain by a Spanish naval crew; the War of Jenkin's Ear.

- There was a French pirate whose name was something like L'appollonaire who gleefully murdered anyone and everyone regardless of their ransomable status. He 're-invented' the Viking 'blood eagle' and came up with several other stomach churning practices of his own. While various countries had previously encouraged or turned a blind eye towards pirates attacking their enemies, everyone worked together to kill this bastard and he still had a lengthy career.

- Ransoms were the exception and not the rule. Ransoms mean that captives must be kept alive, contact must be made with those who can pay, and arrangements made to transfer the money. Remember, this was well before cell phones, ATMs, and wire transfers. Ransoming someone could take years. Instead, captives were sold as slaves. The slaveholder would then have their labor as either the captive themselves arranged for a ransom or officials from European nations ransomed captives wholesale.

- Pirates raided ashore as often if not more often than they took vessels. It's debated whether or not Sir Henry Morgan, the most successful pirate of the era, ever took a single ship in his entire career. Instead, he made his name by raiding and looting Spanish settlements and cities.

As I and other posters have pointed out, your idea about a 'pact' or 'code' handling surrenders will only work as long as each side believes the other will honor it, or about 33 seconds. As soon as someone knows or believes or hears that the other side did not honor the rules somewhere or sometime, the 'deal' will be broken. And some won't require an excuse, they'll break the deal simply because they want to.

Can it work in a limited area for a limited period? Sure, maybe. Can it work across Chartered Space for centuries? Hell no.

If you're going to cite historical examples, make sure you have actual historical examples and not Hollywood, Rafael Sabatini, and Patrick O'Brien historical examples.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[princelian]

You can look at the Honor Harrington universe for some good examples of when navies do and don't accept surrenders. In the Honorverse, when a starship surrenders, they shut down their impellers, which means the ships are no longer accelerating at 1000's of meters per second squared (yes, >100G, in some cases >>100G) and they're suddenly totally vulnerable to direct and indirect fire.

But Bill's point is well taken - such a system only works for a time, and then one side, for some expedient reason or another, decides to violate it. It might even have been a good reason from the point of view of the violator, but nonetheless, once violated, both sides will start regularly violating it.

And that's because it's bloody dangerous to capture a ship. They've got space marines. They've still got weapon turrets. They could even ram you once you get close. Or overload their fusion plant and take you with them.

As far as pirates, how they fight depends entirely on the punishment for piracy in YTU. If pirates are usually incarcerated, sometimes paroled or exchanged, and only rarely executed, then they have a motivation to surrender. For most pirates in MTU, that's how it is.

If the pirates, on the other hand, have only summary executions to look forward to, then they'll fight to the death every time. It is, after all, their only chance.

In MTU, if the pirates do not deliberately cause the loss of life (casualties during space combat make the sentence worse but still not "Imperial Death Warrant") they are going to be tried and imprisoned. (Can you say "Convict" career terms?)

If the pirates either kill everyone so there won't be any witnesses or capture everyone to sell in the fringeworld slave markets, then they will eventually have IDWs filed against them. This is a shoot-on-sight kind of order, and the IN loves them because it makes the tactical puzzle much simpler.

Both types of pirates operate in my Spinward Marches, and the jury's out on which method is more successful. So long as no one gets away to report your slaughter of the crew, and no one ever finds the wrecked corpse-filled ship, then the kill-them-all approach is more profitable.

This is why the pirate base the party stumbled across (okay, were hijacked into) fought tooth-and-nail to render the Princess Iolanthe incapable of escaping. If the liner escaped back to Aramis to tell the tale, then the Imperial Navy would be back in 2-3 weeks, depending on how quickly they mobilized.

My players, of course, fought tooth-and-nail to prevent the pirates from succeeding, and were victorious, bringing an end to the evil nasty pirates' activities in the Aramis region.

Until the ones who escaped (at least one ship got away from the base) and/or weren't there at the time find another suitable location for a secret pirate base, of course.

 

[tater]

My principal post was about naval units, NOT piracy. Pirates are a whole different can of worms, they were brutal (and it was the smallest part of my post).

So in saying it did work for hundreds of years, I was refering to striking colors,m and the taking of prizes, principally by naval and quasi-naval units (privateers, letters of marque, the semi-private Dutch units of the 1600s).

My post regarding piracy in traveller, was that:

1. any notion of a pirate disabling them boarding a starship is pretty sketchy. A fusion drive that works at all would make short work of a boarding party floating across. Note also that any rules which allow a small pirate vessel to specifically target the small drive area on small merchants means that warships can pick out euqally (or even smaller) target areas on their targets as well. You'd get less random hitting as each battery on a CA aiming at a particular weapon on the target.

2. in TRAVELLER, not RL, a "your money or your life" mechanism for piracy might be more successful than any other mechanism if you insist on having pirates in traveller.

Privateers, as mostly purpose built warships would indeed be far more likely to get a plain surrender, as would naval units. This would be because the merchants would have some reasonable expectation of proper treatment. Piracy would always be hit or miss, you'd get some that were decent to their victims—assuming it was a successful tactic on their part—and other that were just murdering bastards.

So before the baby gets chucked away with the bathwater, the principal concern here is naval units, or other units sanctioned by governments.

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by tater:
The Imperium and the Solomani is also a great example.

Merrick,

Yes it is, just not as an example for what you think.

I broached the 'dynastic' Imperium versus 'mass army' Solomani model as an example of another seemingly good idea that fails when all the applicable parties are brought into the picture. I was not using it as example regarding your idea.

One very large problem in reconciling canon has to do with the size of the Imperial Navy. It's simply too large to allow those kinds of things we know that players are allowed to do. One idea to fix this was to make the IN a 'dynastic' organisation. That would make the IN much smaller.

The trouble arise when you realise that the Imperium is surrounded by other powers, has fought wars against two of them in the last century, and is currently facing off against one of those across a DMZ with only a ceasefire in place. A small 'dynastic' Imperial navy would be mincemeat in the hands of the large 'mass army' Solomani navy, therefore the IN cannot operate at dynastic force levels.

A seemingly good idea brought down by mundane facts, just like your's.

(commerce raiding consisting of taking prizes and sometimes destroying them instead of just destroying shipping).

Bullfeces. I'm the guy who wrote Convoys and Commerce Raiders remember?

Commerce raiding has consisted of deestroying ships since before the American Civil War. Advances in technology demanded it. Technology in the OTU demands it also. A raider simply does not have the time to force a surrender, dispatch a prize crew, board the prize, make the necessary repairs, and jump the captured prize away.

Can all that happen on rare occasions? Sure. Can all that be normal operating procedure? Hell no..


Have fun,
Bill

 

[tater]

I guess the only possible escalating negative to accepting a surrender—any surrender— is when a side surrenders, but reneges on it and attacks. Ie: a zho DD fights and Imperial DD until the Imperial one is apparently crippled, and surrenders.

When the zho gets closer and sends boats across, the imp DD opens up with a missile bay and wrecks the zho. The imp DD would now fire at the zho until there was nothing left of the zho, all hands lost.

Simple question, in traveller canon do ships in major navies ever surrender, or do they always fight to the death?

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by tater:
My principal post was about naval units, NOT piracy.

Tater,

Really?

Your first post, paragraph four, first sentence, emphasis mine, and I quote:

So I was thinking about "striking colors," prizes, parole, and piracy...

Explanation?


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by tater:
Simple question, in traveller canon do ships in major navies ever surrender, or do they always fight to the death?

Tater,

Of course they surrender.

But that's not what your original post was about, was it? First post, paragraph four, sentence one...


Have fun,
Bill

 

[tater]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tater:
[qb] My principal post was about naval units, NOT piracy.

Tater,

Really?

Your first post, paragraph four, first sentence, emphasis mine, and I quote:

So I was thinking about "striking colors," prizes, parole, and piracy...

Explanation?</font>[/QUOTE]Simple, I was thinking about 4 related subjects.

The bulk of the post was the first three, piracy was a 4th subject that was related.

 

[tater]

Striking colors IS surrendering for a ship.

That's the age of sail version, anyway. In the modern/SF world it would be sending a transmission, likely. "We surrender."

Prizes, and selling a prize is just a mechanism for the creation of wealth in the navy. It's also an incentive to treat possible POWs humanely (in the WW2 PTO, such incentives were required to get marines to take any prisoners at all, for example, though it was cheaper, a 3 day pass).

Regardless, it's a self-enforcing code. You surrender, and act the part, and you will be well treated. You surrender, and attack instead, you won't.

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by tater:
Striking colors IS surrendering for a ship.

Tater,

Of course the two are the same. I don't think anyone here wasn't aware of that!

Now, answer the question you've so far evaded: Will people strike the colors/surrender to pirates?

It doesn't matter what your intentions were when you wrote your first post and, after re-reading that post several times, I can confindently say your intentions can still be debated no matter what you say now.

This thread is about pirates forcing ships to surrender. No one seriously believes that naval vessels in the OTU do not surrender and always fight to death. This thread is about your idea's relationship to piracy, a relationship you broached in your first post.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[tater]

Fine, argue what you THINK was in my head. I edited the title for clarity.

My principal concern was naval units. In terms of piracy I suggested that it might be in a pirate's best interest to take a "your money or your life" strategy since the notion of disabling a ship in such a way it is worth anything (and not getting badly worked over in the process) is dubious at best.

In a universe where that was a common practice in terms of piracy, people WOULD strike to a pirate. If it was uncommon, then they would NEVER surrender, but fight to the death. In fact, I'd blow up my ship as they were trying to board since surrender would equal death.

I'm not sure piracy in traveller makes any sense at all, but since people want it, It was an attempt at a possible way to justify it.

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by tater:
Fine, argue what you THINK was in my head. I edited the title for clarity.

Tater,

The fact that you felt it necessary to edit the title speaks volumes.

On to naval surrenders...

Of course they happen. And, of course, the powers involved have agreements on various levels reaching all the way up to signed treaties on how surrenders occur and how surrendered ships/personnel are subsequently treated. There has never been any doubt of that.

What a surrender consists of will depend on time and place. As you previously suggested, it would most likely involve on the surrendering vessel's part things like no vector changes, retracting sensor arrays, no turret movements, no launching of small craft, realtime vid/audio feeds from important locations aboard like the bridge and engineering, open airlocks, and other gestures. The victorious vessel will most likely add specific, but reasonable, demands to a surrender request too, demands necessitated by the situation.

Check out Pournelle and Niven's expanded version of The Mote in God's Eye for some ideas on surrendering spacecraft. How does an expendable officer with a large bomb strapped to his back taking control of the surrendered vessel's bridge grab you?


Have fun,
Bill

P.S. Oh, and it isn't a different paradigm because everyone has assumed the very thing you're suggesting for close to 30 years now.

 

[tater]

You can count the words expended on pirates vs non-pirates in the 1st post, I'll leave that as an exercise for anyone interested. It's less than 25% gauging by blackspace. Whatever.

I'd have to look at mote in god's eye again, I read it when it came out in hardcover, and haven't revisited it. As for it not being a new paradigm, there are no real statements in the canon about surrenders that I clearly recall, though I admit most of my material is CT stuff, and a little T4. Naval career generation doesn't mention prize money, for example, and without alternate rules for HG, naval combat is virtual suicide.

BTW, I'm not at all familiar with Convoys and Commerce Raiders, who published it, I'd like to take a look. (is it traveller, or is it a history?)

<edited for gross typos induced by typing 1-handed while holding a 5 month old