Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sadly they are very hard to come by from GW but if you can find them secondhand somewhere they are some of the best CSM books out there.

Is there any info on how many cruisers battleships have as escorts in naval battles?

Would one suffice?

Varies, but usually it is between 3 and 5. One is definitely not enough.

 Tyzarion_Kronius wrote:
Is there any info on how many cruisers battleships have as escorts in naval battles?

Would one suffice?

very roughly, at least 3 crusiers are present for each battleship, but their not really escorts so much as ships of the line in their own right.

the imperial navy, as portrayed in Battlefleet Gothic (still the go-to for 40k naval matters), is less "Royal Navy at Jutland", with the fighting strength concentrated in large numbers of the heaviest type of warship, and more "Royal Navy at Trafalgar", most of the fighting strength is in the medium sized ("cruiser") warships, with a few heavy battleships for flagships, leading the line of battle, etc.

the Imperial navy uses escorts (ie "Frigate" and "destroyer" sized ships) for actual escort duty, screening the fleet, flank protection, etc. the "three cruisers to a battleship" ratio is based on the BFG fleet lists, which required you to take three cruiser hulls for every battleship hull.


however, its not impossible for a battleship to be operating with only a single cruiser for a escort, for any number of reasons. its just not "the done thing", for lack of better way to put it. Battleships tend to spend most of thier time in port, as they are expensive to operate and if thiers no threat that needs them, its cheaper to just use a cruiser, and only bring you the BB when you need a Big Stick.

They are also extremely valuable, with the escort fleet meant to cover the weakspots of the battleship. A battleship without a sufficient escort fleet is a just a disaster waiting to happen.

So unlike a lot of real life navies, the Imperial Navy doesn't use cruisers to escort the battleships and screen them from any possible threats?

So that task is reserved for frigates and destroyers?

 Tyzarion_Kronius wrote:
So unlike a lot of real life navies, the Imperial Navy doesn't use cruisers to escort the battleships and screen them from any possible threats?

So that task is reserved for frigates and destroyers?

If battleships are present, then it is expected for them to be escorted by cruisers.

But as noted above battleships are expensive to deploy, so it is possible for a naval deployment to not include battleships. In that case cruisers can operate as ships of the line.

In an ideal scenario you will have battleships escorted by cruisers, which in turn are escorted by frigates and destroyers, but we are talking about the IoM, ideal is almost never the case.

 Tyzarion_Kronius wrote:
So unlike a lot of real life navies, the Imperial Navy doesn't use cruisers to escort the battleships and screen them from any possible threats?

So that task is reserved for frigates and destroyers?

Like I said, the Imperial navy isnt structured like a modern navy, or even a ww1/ww2 navy, but more like a Age of Sail navy. The cruisers are (battle)Ships of the Line in their own right, not just a heavy screening element to the "real" battle line.


the cruisers arent being spread out to cover threat axis, but held back in the Line of Battle with the battleships, as part of the main effort. So, while their will be cruisers operating in close proximity with the Battleship, it will be as if they were also battleships, not assets to protect that battleship.


so not:
....c
c..B..c
....c

but :

B..c..c..c..c



its also worth pointing out the ratios of warships here. A sector fleet might have only 2 or 3 battleships, but 10-15 cruisers, and 50-75 escort sized ships.

Let me then get to my final point.

Let's say a battleship with three cruisers + escorts is patrolling a sector of Imperial space. Would it be within the Imperial Navy's mode of conduct to leave only one cruiser with the battleship where as the other two cruisers go ahead to other systems, etc... and patrol them and in case of a bigger fight coalesce together into one force.

xerxeskingofking wrote:
[
Like I said, the Imperial navy isnt structured like a modern navy, or even a ww1/ww2 navy, but more like a Age of Sail navy. The cruisers are (battle)Ships of the Line in their own right, not just a heavy screening element to the "real" battle line.

the cruisers arent being spread out to cover threat axis, but held back in the Line of Battle with the battleships, as part of the main effort. So, while their will be cruisers operating in close proximity with the Battleship, it will be as if they were also battleships, not assets to protect that battleship.

Cruisers are not battleships, there is a massive size difference that translate into a massive difference in firepower. Cruisers may be able to operate as ships of the line, but battleships are still the queens of the battlefield (unless a "superbattleship" like a Gloriana is involved).

 Tyzarion_Kronius wrote:
Let me then get to my final point.

Let's say a battleship with three cruisers + escorts is patrolling a sector of Imperial space. Would it be within the Imperial Navy's mode of conduct to leave only one cruiser with the battleship where as the other two cruisers go ahead to other systems, etc... and patrol them and in case of a bigger fight coalesce together into one force.

ah, i see. the answer is "yes they could, but may not want to".

that pretty much falls down to the discretion of the admiral commanding the squadron. naval comanders, by the nature of their job, are routinely out of contact form higher command for extended periods of time, so often have much greater autonomy than army commander of equivalent rank. So, if he thought it was the best way to conduct the mission he was given, he'd normally be allowed to do it.

However, given the poor communications available in 40K, having his force split across several systems creates a level of rigidity in his available courses of action, becuase he cant reliably send astropathic messages to his detached ships, so he has to pre-plan in rendezvous with them when he dispatches them, and then add on more time to allow for warp shenanigans screwing with journey times.


So, if he sends a pair of crusers off to patrol the Boring System, if something comes up after they leave (reports of raiders or pirates in the Different System, for example), most likely he wont be able to recall them before he needs to head off to deal with the problem, or if he does wait for them, he'll be much much slower to respond becuase of the time and travel lags, maybe too slow to react in time.

So, its really a question of how likely he thinks he is going to face a enemy strong enough he wants his full strength with him to fight it. Its the classic concentration of force dilemma.

But, they gave him those Admirals rank insignia, and all the perks that go with them, explicitly so that he could make this hard decisions and shoulder the blame if they go wrong.

I would expect for the core of the fleet to remain together, while the patrolling is done by frigates.

If the frigates find some problem, then most of the fleet can be brought to bear.

 Tyran wrote:

xerxeskingofking wrote:
[
Like I said, the Imperial navy isnt structured like a modern navy, or even a ww1/ww2 navy, but more like a Age of Sail navy. The cruisers are (battle)Ships of the Line in their own right, not just a heavy screening element to the "real" battle line.

the cruisers arent being spread out to cover threat axis, but held back in the Line of Battle with the battleships, as part of the main effort. So, while their will be cruisers operating in close proximity with the Battleship, it will be as if they were also battleships, not assets to protect that battleship.

Cruisers are not battleships, there is a massive size difference that translate into a massive difference in firepower. Cruisers may be able to operate as ships of the line, but battleships are still the queens of the battlefield (unless a "superbattleship" like a Gloriana is involved).

i am aware of that, what i meant was that difference between a Retribution class battleship and a Lunar class cruiser is the difference between a 100 gun 1st rate ship of the line and a 74 gun 3rd rate ship of the line, not the different between Iowa class battleship and a Worchester class heavy cruiser. the former is a difference in scale, the latter is a difference in kind.

A 74 would lose to a 100 gunner, yes, but its still able to stand in the line, and the fleet is built around those 74's, not a line of 100 gun ships. In the same way, Imperial fleets are large numbers of cruisers, with a few battleships, and not large numbers of battleships, with a few cruisers to scout and screen for them, and that is the way they are like age of sail fleet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
I would expect for the core of the fleet to remain together, while the patrolling is done by frigates.

If the frigates find some problem, then most of the fleet can be brought to bear.

that is also an option, and certainly one to consider if your expecting serious enemy opposition, but thier is still merit in a "recce in force" with a cruiser and a 2-3 frigates, which has enough firepower to deal with small problems, and enough firepower to ensure at least one survivor if they run into something the CAN'T deal with.


its all swings and roundabouts in the absence of a detailed threat analysis, in depth knowledge of the sector and the mission, etc. these are all just possible choices and the reasons why you might, and might not, do a certain thing. if one of them happens to be what you need to happen form a storytelling perspective, then thats what the admiral in charge chose to happen, for the reasons we listed.

xerxeskingofking wrote:

i am aware of that, what i meant was that difference between a Retribution class battleship and a Lunar class cruiser is the difference between a 100 gun 1st rate ship of the line and a 74 gun 3rd rate ship of the line, not the different between Iowa class battleship and a Worchester class heavy cruiser. the former is a difference in scale, the latter is a difference in kind.

There is a massive difference between a battleship and a cruiser, at least when it comes to size. I mean, the average battleship's model in BFG was around 125 mm long, and cruisers were around 90mm long. That would make a cruiser less than three quarters the length of a battleship, which is even greater than the difference between an Iowa and a Worcester (the Worcester is slightly more than 3 quarters the Iowa's length).

And some sources make that difference in size even greater, meanwhile 100 and 74 gunners were nowhere close to being that different in size. If cruisers are 74 gunners, then the 100 gunners would be battlecruisers (which are upgunned cruiser hulls) but battleships still stand as a different class.

A 74 would lose to a 100 gunner, yes, but its still able to stand in the line, and the fleet is built around those 74's, not a line of 100 gun ships. In the same way, Imperial fleets are large numbers of cruisers, with a few battleships, and not large numbers of battleships, with a few cruisers to scout and screen for them, and that is the way they are like age of sail fleet.

In that I agree, there are too few battleships to build fleets around them.

 Tyran wrote:

There is a massive difference between a battleship and a cruiser, at least when it comes to size. I mean, the average battleship's model in BFG was around 125 mm long, and cruisers were around 90mm long. That would make a cruiser less than three quarters the length of a battleship, which is even greater than the difference between an Iowa and a Worcester (the Worcester is slightly more than 3 quarters the Iowa's length).

And some sources make that difference in size even greater, meanwhile 100 and 74 gunners were nowhere close to being that different in size. If cruisers are 74 gunners, then the 100 gunners would be battlecruisers (which are upgunned cruiser hulls) but battleships still stand as a different class.


In that I agree, there are too few battleships to build fleets around them.

size isnt everything. my point was if HMS Victory put a full broadside into a 74, it'd be pretty hurt but would reply in kind and be worn down over an extended period (barring fancy manouvering or such to get a raking shot), and 100 gunner would have suffered significant damage in the process of sinking that 74. If USS Iowa put a full broadside into a Worcester.....the cruiser would be at best crippled and mostly likely have suffered fatal damage, whereas the Worcester couldn't penetrate the Iowa main belt except at suicidally short ranges (if at all), and could only really cause light to medium damage to it (wreck the superstructure, but thats about it).


a BFG gun duel between cruiser and a BB is really going to be a mix of both of those, in that the BB has sheilding enough to come out more or less unhurt, but the cruiser isnt going to be put out of action in a few slavos of fire, but a extended gunnery duel that smashes it bit by bit. So, the result is closer to the age of sail "cruiser is a ship of the line" than a ww2 "cruiser is a heavy scout".

Ive noticed some of the BL books mention "Strike cruisers". My understanding is they are just a bigger kind of cruiser. I guess in comparing to EVE online terms that would be a battlecruiser equivalent?

xerxeskingofking wrote:

size isnt everything.

It kinda is. Above all else size determines cost, and Battleships are noted to be so much more expensive than cruisers, to the point their construction is exclusive to Forge Worlds unlike cruisers that can be build by Hive Worlds and even Civilized Worlds.

And Battleships need to be able to justify that cost, otherwise they would just be a waste.

Now sure shielding technology means a cruiser isn't necessarily immediately crippled when facing a battleship, but that is a dynamic that only exists because of shielding and cannot really be compared to any historical context.

 Argive wrote:
Ive noticed some of the BL books mention "Strike cruisers". My understanding is they are just a bigger kind of cruiser. I guess in comparing to EVE online terms that would be a battlecruiser equivalent?

Strike Cruisers are Space Marines Cruisers. Basically they (usually) have less firepower than an Imperial Cruiser, but are faster, specializing on boarding actions and fast deployment of orbit to ground forces.

 Tyran wrote:

xerxeskingofking wrote:

size isnt everything.

It kinda is. Above all else size determines cost, and Battleships are noted to be so much more expensive than cruisers, to the point their construction is exclusive to Forge Worlds unlike cruisers that can be build by Hive Worlds and even Civilized Worlds.

And Battleships need to be able to justify that cost, otherwise they would just be a waste.

Now sure shielding technology means a cruiser isn't necessarily immediately crippled when facing a battleship, but that is a dynamic that only exists because of shielding and cannot really be compared to any historical context.

 Argive wrote:
Ive noticed some of the BL books mention "Strike cruisers". My understanding is they are just a bigger kind of cruiser. I guess in comparing to EVE online terms that would be a battlecruiser equivalent?

Strike Cruisers are Space Marines Cruisers. Basically they (usually) have less firepower than an Imperial Cruiser, but are faster, specializing on boarding actions and fast deployment of orbit to ground forces.

Ahh so they are marine cruisers with boarding torpedos as opposed to navy cruiser with just normal firepower and no SM contingent. Gotcha. Makes sense.

I was under the impression that Thousand Sons sorcerers no longer suffered from the flesh change due to the rubric spell. Yet in both art and on models, we see that some of them do indeed have mutations like talons and bird heads. Is this a different form of mutation from the original flesh change, or a bait and switch from Tzeentch?

Also in regards to escorts to capital ships ratios, the SM legions were quite heavy in terms of capital ships vs. escorts.

On average each capital ship had three escorts. There were some which only had two per cap ship such as Blood Angels with 300 capitals and 600 escorts.

Then there were some that had four such as SW with 60 capital ships and 240 escorts.

And ome particularly weird example is White Scars whose fleet at Chondad had 472 capitals and 600 escorts. Quite lopsided when there is barely an escort per capital ship.

And also Sons of Horus had about a hundred heavy capital ships and thrice that in smaller lighter cruisers and escorts. So not even three escorts per capital ship.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
I was under the impression that Thousand Sons sorcerers no longer suffered from the flesh change due to the rubric spell. Yet in both art and on models, we see that some of them do indeed have mutations like talons and bird heads. Is this a different form of mutation from the original flesh change, or a bait and switch from Tzeentch?

Ahriman cures the Legion of the Flesh Change.
Ahriman gets exiled.
Legion ends up being dedicated to the God of Change.
Flesh Change happens anyway.
Tzeentch laughs.

Are Space Marines harder to take over by telepath Psykers than normal humans? As in if a Psyker telepathically manages to manipulate 10 Astartes, would he or she be able to manipulate a hundred of normies?

Yes, Astartes psykers are much better trained and have an naturally stronger willpower thanks to their hypno-conditioning as initiates. The psychic power generated by the Beast was so powerful it overwhelmed a large number of Librarians during the War of the Beast and was noted as being a serious threat to mortals both normal and psyker.

Considering Firstborn Marine chapters have been sending in gene-seed tithe for the past ten thousand years back to Adeptus Mechanicus, so they must have a lot of gene-seed reserve. Can this gene-seed reserve be modified to be used to produce Primaris instead?

The gene-seed produced specifically for the first wave of Primaris was made purer thanks to the Sangprimus Portum which contained the perfect genetic samples of all 20 Primarchs. However, despite initial success with repressing deviation such as the Red Thirst and Curse of the Wulfen, the purification has failed and each Primaris is just as likely as their Firstborn brothers to succumb to genetic instability. As for tinkering with already produced gene-seed, some of the initial wave of Primaris were recruited just after the Heresy and were in stasis as Firstborn until they were "upgraded" into Primaris. So either their original gene-seed was replaced or upgraded alongside the rest of the Primaris improvements.

I realize this is firmly in "whichever faction's book you are reading" territory but how big do Orks get?

Like old warbosses running a Waaaaagh. Ghazghkull for example. Is he like 10% bigger than a normal 6ft Ork or is he 16ft?

Kayback wrote:
I realize this is firmly in "whichever faction's book you are reading" territory but how big do Orks get?

Like old warbosses running a Waaaaagh. Ghazghkull for example. Is he like 10% bigger than a normal 6ft Ork or is he 16ft?

Orks never stop growing, so the older and more powerful an Ork is the bigger they are. The War of the Beast had house-sizes Orks, and larger...

beast_gts wrote:

Kayback wrote:
I realize this is firmly in "whichever faction's book you are reading" territory but how big do Orks get?

Like old warbosses running a Waaaaagh. Ghazghkull for example. Is he like 10% bigger than a normal 6ft Ork or is he 16ft?

Orks never stop growing, so the older and more powerful an Ork is the bigger they are. The War of the Beast had house-sizes Orks, and larger...

Orks are like lobsters, which means I need a bigger model for my warboss!

 Tyzarion_Kronius wrote:
Considering Firstborn Marine chapters have been sending in gene-seed tithe for the past ten thousand years back to Adeptus Mechanicus, so they must have a lot of gene-seed reserve. Can this gene-seed reserve be modified to be used to produce Primaris instead?

There's not as much as you'd think, as it's been used to found new Chapters and also stolen by Chaos (Storm of Iron covers an Iron Warriors gene-seed raid).

beast_gts wrote:

 Tyzarion_Kronius wrote:
Considering Firstborn Marine chapters have been sending in gene-seed tithe for the past ten thousand years back to Adeptus Mechanicus, so they must have a lot of gene-seed reserve. Can this gene-seed reserve be modified to be used to produce Primaris instead?

There's not as much as you'd think, as it's been used to found new Chapters and also stolen by Chaos (Storm of Iron covers an Iron Warriors gene-seed raid).

I recall a quote about some High Lords of Terra discussing and saying they have gene-seed reserves to create thousands of more chapters.

So taking that by its absolute high end value could be interpreted in a way that each SM chapter could be upsized from a thousand marines to ten thousans marines.