Battleship and Battlerider

[rancke]

If the Traveller Universe is self-consistent with one set of rules, becomes less self-consistent with a second set of rules, and becomes even less self-consistent (ie it becomes contradictory) with a third set of rules - then the third set of rules needs to either:

A) change the history somewhat, making it an alternative timeline of sorts, but still recognizably THIRD IMPERIUM in its bent

B) Change the game rules until its rules are no longer contradictory

C) give up on the premise entirely, and create a new game background

The first set of rules wasn't consistent with the setting either.

I think of it the same way I would think of how the Wild West is portrayed in half a dozen different roleplaying games or Paris is portrayed in half a dozen different roleplaying games or any historical setting is portrayed in different roleplaying games. The overall picture is fairly consistent and the things they all portray the same way is probably fairly accurate (Except for the bits they ALL got from the same Hollywood masterpiece ). But they all have small errors and some of them have egregious errors. And when they're wrong, they're WRONG. Not "right for the universe they portray", because there IS only one universe (Well... a bunch of very closely matched alternate universes, anyway ).


Hans

 

[aramis]

Hans: the OTU setting, as a whole, didn't exist when HG was written (HG-79 was written in 1978; HG-80 is a revision, written in '80, and released in '80).

The first inklings of the OTU as we know it are all in the so-called "ProtoTraveller" era... 1979-1980.
In 79, we get the Marches. In 80, we get setting stuff handed out in seminars, and we get S5: LCC... having been developed in parallel to HG, GDW obviously had not had time to test and see if HG supported the nascent setting... especially since HG-79 was essentially the same design rules, different rating rules, and badly broken combat mechanics.

90% of what people think of as the OTU is developed in the 1980-1985 run of products... S8 LD:A-M, S11 LD:N-Z, S5 LCC, S9 FS, S10 SR...

And it was best developed in 1984, with Atlas. And Atlas really introduces some real BIG issues.

 

[Orr]

However the Ticonderoga class cruisers are actually longer and have a deeper draft than the Iowa class BB.

Ticonderoga - Length: 567ft Draft: 34ft

Iowa - Length: 887ft Draft: 37ft

Try again.

 

[Orr]

One thing I think is better in MGT than HG/MT is that most ships are destoyed, not just crippled but easily capturable and repairable, so the high casuality numbres told in the Rebellion setting are at least credible. Under HG/MT rules, most of the ships crippled would be easily captured and repaired, so those casuality numbers would be more as captures than true losses for the Imperium (quite more about this on thread 'using of captured ships').

There's a translation issue at work here, plus the misconception that capturing vessels is "easy" and that "destroyed" must always mean "blown to atoms" instead of merely "irreparable within available time". The descriptions of wholesale fleet destruction during the Rebellion is completely plausible when we remember that English is a notoriously vague language and that English words can have several different, but linked, meanings

Here's a little homework for you: Take a single Plankwell and inflict one spinal gun hit on it from another Plankwell. Next, using the repair rules in TCS, figure out how long it will take a Class A starport on a world of 1 billion sophonts to fully repair the ship. Finally, determine how many Plankwells that port could repair at a given time.

Beginning to see the problem?

When you actually look at the numbers involved, the reports of huge fleet losses during the Rebellion make sense.

 

[Orr]

Using wargames or other rules to ferret out the bedrock "reality" behind the fictional universes is utter nonsense. Rules are only rough approximations and game play must ignore large sections of reality, so both cannot be analyzed much past the starting point.

Avalon Hill's Panzer Blitz may be set on WW2's Eastern Front and may utilize vehicles, weapons, and formations from that front, but anyone believing they could correctly and actually determine the historical combined arms doctrine used by the Heer and Red Army during that conflict from game play in Panzer Blitz is delusional. The same is true with the topic of this thread.

All of [Traveller's ship combat rule sets ignore huge sections of the setting's "reality" and must do so in order to remain playable. Among topics almost too numerous to list, C3I is never touched upon, logistics completely absent, and sensors barely touched upon.

We cannot determine what too many would like us to be able to determine.

 

[Rigel Stardin]

The other point here is that Traveller has undergone several different changes since it first came. Weapon and ship construction have changed several times. Others have pointed out combat rules have changed as well. Each of us have our own understand of those rules and have our favorite version of the fleet combat rules. Understanding this, will allow you to see everyone perspective on the discussion on this issue.

From a Traveller historical point, we have to look at the time of the game's creation. Star Wars was a big hit, and the ships we saw in that movie were not small. Heck, even in the newer Verisons of Star Wars, we see captial style ships slugging it out in breath taking combat scenes on the big screen. So it would have only been natural for the creators to add this element into their game/Imperium history.

The first mention I saw of battle riders comes in in the Spinward Marches Campaign. It seems to be a response to those gamers who saw that non-starship spacecraft (monitor class) could in affect destroy a jump capable battleships. Then there could have been an element at GDW who realized Carriers are far more capable of destroying large ships with smaller craft. Just like the British and USA discovered at the outbreak of WW II.

So where does that leave us?

If you go with the orginal concept of the Battleships verses Battle Riders, We find that Battleships are the main weapon of the Imperium. Why? I tend to believe that the guys at GDW didn't realize this flaw within the game system and now with all the changes that have taken place in the game (made by the players and those who rewrote the rules)since then can't back away from their original statements on the Imperal History.

The beauty of Traveller is its ablility to adapt and change throughout the years. The game has become so flexible in it's treatment of ships and combat rules it allows players and GMs to adapt them to fullfil their vision of the Traveller Universe. And with disscussion like these, it broaden the spectrum of the game each time it happens...

 

[pendragonman]

Ticonderoga - Length: 567ft Draft: 34ft

Iowa - Length: 887ft Draft: 37ft

Try again.

That's what I get for using a Wiki. :rofl:

 

[Orr]

That's what I get for using a Wiki. :rofl:

The numbers I posted were from Wiki.

 

[pendragonman]

The numbers I posted were from Wiki.

Foolishly, I looked for Iowa-the battleship and didn't notice there was more than one. The numbers I used were from BB-4 Iowa and not BB-61 Iowa. Big difference. BB-4 was part of the Spanish American war and Teddy's Great White Fleet.

BB-61 has a much-much newer history.

 

[McPerth]

There's a translation issue at work here, plus the misconception that capturing vessels is "easy" and that "destroyed" must always mean "blown to atoms" instead of merely "irreparable within available time". The descriptions of wholesale fleet destruction during the Rebellion is completely plausible when we remember that English is a notoriously vague language and that English words can have several different, but linked, meanings

Here's a little homework for you: Take a single Plankwell and inflict one spinal gun hit on it from another Plankwell. Next, using the repair rules in TCS, figure out how long it will take a Class A starport on a world of 1 billion sophonts to fully repair the ship. Finally, determine how many Plankwells that port could repair at a given time.

Beginning to see the problem?

When you actually look at the numbers involved, the reports of huge fleet losses during the Rebellion make sense.

I know destroyed ships are not converted to space dust. They are only beyond repair (or more expensive to repair than to buid anew), but mostly salvageable (as parts or scrap metal at least, so the growth of salvage crews on HT).

The main reason your Plankwell will be mission killed with that shoot will be fuel tanks shattered and crew losses (in HG, as in MT crew losses are not so devasting), and both are easly repairable (as TCS rules) in a few weeks (well, in truth, crew would deppend on crew available, but you can train far more them than reapir ships of hi tonnage). The ones crippled by critical ships whould take a little longer.

And if the so damaged ships are 20k dton BRs instead of 200k dton BBs (IIRC that's the tonnage of the Plankwell, I canot chek it now), so many more can be repaired (even assuming that they will take more criticals due to smaller size against large spinals).

Cruisers would be somwhere in between.

Of course, that whould give you not fully functional ships at 100% capability, but would give you operational ships to keep fighting, and more time to repair more to operational status.

I think with HG/MT rules, most crippled ships, even if they would take long to repair, sould have been taken to friendly ports (friendly and enemy crippled ships alike, unless enemy's scuttled them) by the side maintaning the battle space, and from there to rearguard if at all possible. Probably that would not make a great difference while war was high tempo, due to shipyards overload, as you pointed, but since 1120, as tempo began to bogg down, many those ships would begin to apear back in the battlelines.

 

[Hal]

What Might be interesting? Why not break this thread into a "pro-Battleship" team and a "pro-Battlerider" team, and give both sides 1/2 trillion credits to design their respective fleets.

Scenario:

Two beligerant fleets with multiple battle squadrons, are poised for a meeting engagement. Side A uses Battleships, while Side B uses Battle Riders. Both fleets A and B, are about 8 parsecs from each other, and directly in between is a single star system with only one gas giant, no main worlds with water, and very little ice comets to nibble on. Both admirals of their respective fleets doesn't want to jump in with their entire fleet on the off chance that the enemy is already waiting and fueled up to where they have the advantage against the newly arriving fleet. As fate would have it, neither fleet holds this star system with a single gas giant. But, also as fate would have it, both scouting fleets (recon in force) arrive within hours of each other. One side (the battle ship side) has four "Battleship" class hulls as part of its squadron, and is determined to take the high orbit around the solitary gas giant.

Minimum jump requirepments for either side is Jump-4. Minimum Manuever Drive requirements is also 4. Of course, you may exceed the minimum manuever drive requirement if you so desire, but you may never "underperform" in that regard, and must have at least Manuever drive 4.

500,000 MCr should be sufficient to create a major Battleship fleet, and it should also be ample funds for the design of a battle rider fleet that will engage the more traditional and conventional battle ships.

Once the pro-battleship and pro-battlerider teams design their ships - post it on this thread, and everyone else can then wargame the scenario using HIGH GUARD rules.

Comments?

 

[McPerth]

Don't recall a tonnage limit on surface construction, rather a need for streamlining to get them off planet.

As I promised you, after a little research and taking off the dust of some books, that’s what I’ve found:

In library data, under Naval Base and Scout base, it says they have dirtside installations for ships up to 1000 dton, larger ships being taken care on orbit.

In JTAS 7, page 10, talking about Champa starport (class A), landing ports have shelters for ships up to 400 dton, larger ships must have temporary shelters built. He also specifies that larger ships are better served on orbit.
I think it was mostly the library data entries that gave me the (now I wonder if correct) impression ships over 1000 dton cannot land on planets.

Even so, 1000 dton are 14000 cubic meters (13500 in MT. BTW, and anyone tell me why this discrepancy in MT from all other rules sets?). That represents about a wet ship of 7000 tons displacement (assuming half of the volume is underwater). That’s a WWII large destroyer or light cruiser. DO you imagine many of them (or even BBs if we raise it to 5000 dton) flying above cities? Not to talk about 20k dton BRs or larger ships…

Anyway I’ve found no hard proof of a size limit to land on a dirtside port.

 

[Rigel Stardin]

Hal:
Read the article from the NewYorker posted in "Fighter Performance" thread in Classic Traveller section of this forum. It does not go well for the Battleship arguement...

 

[Hal]

Hal:
Read the article from the NewYorker posted in "Fighter Performance" thread in Classic Traveller section of this forum. It does not go well for the Battleship arguement...

Yup, I was remembering that facet of fighter combat. (thanks for the pointer by the by Rigel Stardin). However, What I was looking at, was combat between a Battle Rider strategy and a Dreadnaught per the original poster's thread and utilizing Meson spinal mounts for the battle riders. It isn't all too difficult to come up with a battle rider of 19,000 dtons utilizing an E meson spinal mount. The best "quick calculation" for a battle rider tender at TL 13 to carry the 19,000 dton craft was one that was 80,000 dtons costing 47,883 with Jump 4, Manuever 2 and every turret weapon fielding sandcasters (purely defensive armaments as the tender isn't expected to enter the battle line).

Net result - 6 possible battle riders with max computer, max armor, max manuever drive, max meson screens and max Nuclear Dampner screens, along with a spinal mount of E meson (plus a few odds and ends repulsor bays and missile bays)

When I looked at the odds of hitting said Battle rider with a TL 13 Dreadnaught of 200 dtons, using an R particle spinal - plus a fair number of missile bays, the results were NOT encouraging for the Battle Riders.

The particle spinal mount needs to roll a 0+ to hit its target, assuming computer models cancel each other out, we have a modified 6+ to hit due to initial agility. Due to the size modifier of 0 for the ship hull size, this is the final to hit value.

For 1/2 a trillion credits, the cost of the DN's were such that they could field 4 such beasties versus 6 of the battle riders. For E Meson spinal mounts, we have base 4+ to hit, modified by an additional +2 for hull size, for a modified 2+ to hit versus agility 0 ships. This makes it such that an 8+ is required to hit an agility 6 warship.

Problem is, if said warship carries the maximum meson screens possible, a 9+ is required to penetrate the screen after securing a hit, whereas for the R-PAWs, there is no penetration number required - all hits are automatic.

Taking it one step further...

Rolling against the R PAWS, its damage roll is 2d6 + 13 (max armor roll for non-buffered ships), giving it a range of 15 to 25 for damage rolls, averaging rolls of 20. Excluding the "critical hits" aspect of an R spinal mount hitting an L sized craft, the damage rolls would be (on average)

Weapon-1 for the surface table, and Weapon-1 for the radiation table.

Worst case scenarior hits:

Weapon-1 for the surface table, and Computer-1 for the radiation table (nullified by an optical computer).

Best case scenario (rolls of 9+ on 2d6)
No effect for either surface or radition hits.

In short? Fielding a force of Battle Tenders with 1 battle rider of 19,000 dtons versus 200 dtons Dreadnaughts armed with R-PAWS, is suicide for the Meson E Battle Riders.

I'll have to play around with this some more to see if I can find some other combination for the battle riders, but the initial idea of E spinal mounts didn't work too well

NOTE: This is all using TL 13, it may be more "doable" at later tech levels.

 

[Orr]

Once the pro-battleship and pro-battlerider teams design their ships - post it on this thread, and everyone else can then wargame the scenario using HIGH GUARD rules. Comments?

While interesting, this contest won't solve anything or reveal anything we don't already know.

In a straight HG2 battle, the rider force will win because it can bring more spinals in more agile and more armored hulls to the party than the ship force can. In TCS campaign, as many people happily realize, the ships will have a long term durability advantage because they can bug out individually once they receive a certain level of damage.

Both battleships and battleriders have advantages and disadvantages. Many of those advantages and disadvantages can only be be inferred because, as pointed out in the New Yorker "Eurisko" article, "... any finite set of rules is going to be a very incomplete approximation of reality."

There's just too much about the setting's "reality" which isn't part of any of the setting's space combat rules and nearly all of the advantages/disadvantages inherent in each design paradigm "inhabit" the "missing" parts of that "reality". For example, unlike a force of battleships, a battlerider force's main striking power arrives in a system at the same time and in the same place. That should confer some operational advantage but it is not addressed in any rule set.

Another advantage which can only be guessed at is that battleriders and monitors are essentially the same thing. When you buy one, you've also bought the other.

 

[Hal]

While interesting, this contest won't solve anything or reveal anything we don't already know.

In a straight HG2 battle, the rider force will win because it can bring more spinals in more agile and more armored hulls to the party than the ship force can. In TCS campaign, as many people happily realize, the ships will have a long term durability advantage because they can bug out individually once they receive a certain level of damage.

Both battleships and battleriders have advantages and disadvantages. Many of those advantages and disadvantages can only be be inferred because, as pointed out in the New Yorker "Eurisko" article, "... any finite set of rules is going to be a very incomplete approximation of reality."

There's just too much about the setting's "reality" which isn't part of any of the setting's space combat rules and nearly all of the advantages/disadvantages inherent in each design paradigm "inhabit" the "missing" parts of that "reality". For example, unlike a force of battleships, a battlerider force's main striking power arrives in a system at the same time and in the same place. That should confer some operational advantage but it is not addressed in any rule set.

Another advantage which can only be guessed at is that battleriders and monitors are essentially the same thing. When you buy one, you've also bought the other.

As a suggestion? Take and build a single 200,000 dton hull at TL 13, and give it a PAWS spinal weapon. Determine how much that will cost, and then divide 500,000 MCr by that value to get your fleet. Make certain that the DN has at least Jump3 possibly Jump4, and at least manuever 4 (up to Manuever 6).

Then - build a battle rider system where you have a battle rider and battle tender system. Use what ever design parameters you want for the battle Riders, but assume that the Tender has to have at least Jump-2 maybe Jump-3.

I think you'll find that an R-PAWS spinal mount will be a REAL eye opener for you. Oh, almost forgot. Make sure you take the highest Defensive screens possible for the DN when you build the "op-for" that your battle riders will be going against. As I mentioned in a thread above - I found when I built a 19,000 dton Battle Rider with an E-Meson spinal mount, that the ship was NOT all that good against the Dreadnaught.

I am used to working with TL 15 ship designs and using that critera, perhaps the smaller battle riders are more effective, but with TL 13 designs, the Battle riders looked like a losing proposition.

THAT is why I suggested that people team up and try to build the ships according to the rules and THEN discuss the relative merits rather than working in abstracts that may or may not be possible within the rules, and probably are not workable using the combat rules as written. <shrug>

 

[rancke]

90% of what people think of as the OTU is developed in the 1980-1985 run of products... S8 LD:A-M, S11 LD:N-Z, S5 LCC, S9 FS, S10 SR...

Well, I'll give you that one. And then I'll claim all the others; MT, TNE, T4, GT, T20, MGT...


Hans

 

[aramis]

Let's see

25KTD Rider/Monitor
__TD_ ___MCr__ __EP_ UCP
25000 __2000.0 ____0 _M6 Flattened Sphere Hull UCP=M6
__500 ___125.0 ____0 ___ Bridge
_4250 __2125.0 ____0 __6 MD M6 UCP
_3750 _11250.0 +3750 __F PP P15
_3750 _____0.0 ____0 __4 PP Fuel x4W
___26 ___200.0 ___26 __J Model/9fib
___40 ____60.0 __450 __9 Meson Screen 9
___20 ____50.0 ___90 __9 Nuclear Damper 9
_7000 __1000.0 _1200 T11 Meson T
__200 ____70.0 __120 922 2x PA 9
__100 ____10.0 ___10 911 1x Rep 9
__150 ____24.0 ____0 933 3x Msl 9
___10 _____7.5 ____0 911 10xTrSCTur 1xSand 9
___20 ____60.0 ___60 922 20xTrBLasTur 2xBL9
_4000 __7200.0 ____0 __F AV15
_1184 ___148.0 ____0 __3 316 SR (320 Pers, so 8 enlisted double occ.)
____0 _____0.0 _1500 __6 Agility 6
===== ======== ===== ==========
25000 ___24329 _+294 Totals

AGL 6

Sec Tot [ Of PO En ]
CS: _15 [ 10 _0 _5 ]
ES: _80 [ _8 16 56 ]
GS: 100 [ 10 20 70 ]
ST: _75 [ _4 15 56 ] Light Co, 3 PLT
SC: _50 [ _0 _5 45 ]

_32 officers
_56 PO/NCO
232 Enlisted

Smurf Class Battlerider
Smurf Battlerider BK-M606FJ3-F99909-909T9-0___25000 tons
______________________________1_____2_213_______Crew=320
______________________________1_____2_213__________TL=15
Pass=0 Low=0 Cargo=0 Fuel=3750 EP=1794 Agl=6+ Marines=75
Note: can take a 1 level PP hit without effect

Have a 25KTd Rider. The Jump carrier for 2 at J3 should be easy; at J4, pretty tight.
Note that it lacks little of a battleship's normal armament.

 

[aramis]

Well, I'll give you that one. And then I'll claim all the others; MT, TNE, T4, GT, T20, MGT...


Hans

They inherited a disconnected setting/rules situation. MT, within it's parameters (consolidate CT & striker) couldn't fix the setting, but made a valiant effort. In MT, due to the lower JFuel rates, TL15 J4 M6 spinal mesons in the 50KTd range really rule the roost. Also, the ability to have Spinal, Bay, and Turret batteries in the same types ups the nastiness of meson cruisers.

TNE is completely untennable for the OTU fluff... ships that big simply do not work as they did in the HG rules, and the CT fluff is built vaguely around HG. They can't exist, at least not at the ratings given, and wind up with lower Maneuver ratings.

T4, they have the same radiator issues, but come closer due to T-Plates.

T20, the designs in T20 are pretty similar to HG in results... despite a very un-HG-like combat system... but use a HG variant design system (which generally results in less expensive computers at the high end combat vessels, and allows batteries like MT does...

GT, due to its mandates (No obvious changes to the CT setting, and using GURPS design and combat rules) can't accurately replicate CT fluff, but supposedly comes decently close.

MGT works very differently... I know that PA's rule Adventure Class ship combats... and can strip any armor legal pretty damned quickly... A PC Operated PA armed TL12 400Td ship was able to kill a TL17 1000Td long range exploration ship with AM missiles in a 50Td bay... it was pretty narrow, and due to damned lucky rolls... but they did do it. It's an entirely different paradigm of combat.

 

[rancke]

They inherited a disconnected setting/rules situation.

Yes, and they elected to keep the setting (with a few retcons) and fiddle with the rules. They did not try to change the setting to fit the CT rules. Quite right too; setting trumps rules, because rules can't possibly be complex enough to encompass any remotely realistic setting. Who'd want an RPG setting simple enough to fit into a playable set of rules? When I want something like that, I turn to boardgames[*]. Granted, the results weren't always satisfactory (in some cases very far from it), but that's what they tried.

[*] Or TOON.​

Hans