Battleship and Battlerider

[Rigel Stardin]

One more point.

Science Fiction is based on science and projections of that science in the near or far future as those who write it. Mankind has learn that carriers (whether they be fighters or Battleriders) have a better chance of getting through to a target because of the numbers employed and their size.

The Battleships we see in Traveller are based on 30 year history of the Empire. Don't you think the military planners of the Imperium and the advances in technology would allow battleriders the edge? Many have comment here how they have used them to great success in their experience...

 

[Orr]

I'm quite aware of what happen to the Italian navy and the delivery system the British used to drop those torpedoes which sank their ships.

This is not the place for that discussion.

Which brings up the point of why those biplanes were able to hit the Bismark.

It's Bismarck and the "success" of the Swordfish was equal parts blind luck on the part of the British and poor preparedness on the part of the Germans. However, this is not the place for that discussion.

Technology isn't always the answer the Germans proved that in the WW II.

Technology isn't always the answer, but it always changes the question. GDW, as wargame designers and students of military history, understood that and built it into HG2. In Traveller space combat there are different "answers" at each TL with fighters "ruling" at lower TLs and ships "ruling" at higher ones.

 

[Orr]

Mankind has learn that carriers (whether they be fighters or Battleriders) have a better chance of getting through to a target because of the numbers employed and their size.

Once again, carriers NOW have a better chance of getting through to the target.

HG2 covers several tech levels and the "solution" at each is going to be different just as the "solution" has been different across historical tech levels.

 

[Rigel Stardin]

Historial data whether it be from the designer of the game or from the individuals who play the game influences the way they will run combat scenarios.

People who see the cannon as law or people who bring real world ideas into the game will debate these issues until the day we both stop writting about.

Traveller as a game is far more flexible than most others. The fact it has been rewritten 4 times proves that.

You just can't throw out one part of it because you disagree with it.

If you do that, then it isn't Traveller anymore...

That's why I stopped playing it....

 

[Orr]

Historial data whether it be from the designer of the game or from the individuals who play the game influences the way they will run combat scenarios.

GDW took care to include tech progression in the ship design rules for HG2. In that they used the example of history which saw triremes give way to sailing ships to ironclads to dreadnoughts to carriers to submarines.

The "top dog" in HG2 combat changes as TL changes, just as has occurred in history.

People who see the cannon...

It's canon. One n.

Traveller as a game is far more flexible than most others.

That flexibility has been a design feature from almost the beginning.

The fact it has been rewritten 4 times proves that.

The game as been "rewritten" more than 4 times.

You just can't throw out one part of it because you disagree with it.

No one is throwing anything out. What I'm trying to explain and what you're failing to comprehend is that changes in TL change warship design choices.

At lower TLs, fighters are proven ship killers. When TLs advance and computers, power plants, and other components change, the usefulness of fighters decrease while ships gain in prominence. As TLs continue to increase, riders begin to assert their dominance.

Nothing is thrown out, nothing is lost. TLs change and the "terrain" changes with them just as has occurred in history. Claiming that fighters or carriers or battleships or riders are "top dog" must be accompanied by a TL proviso because each are either "top dogs" or "targets" depending on the TL being examined.

 

[McPerth]

To me the answer is simple:

Superior numbers will destroy a single target no matter what the target has in weapons or defenses.

So, do you say (if you forgive me for returning to another wet navy example) that if you had enough men in canoes, armed with bows and spears, they can sink the New Jersey?

Allow me tho have my doubts about this conclusion...

And the New Jersey, unilike the ships in traveller that use many energy based weaponry, can run out ammunition...

Numbers don't always win, as only that much may be useful in the battle at once, and, once the losses begin to mount, there's a tendency to run away (the same human factor you told about).

 

[Rigel Stardin]

Science fiction is a projection of mankind technology and psychological advancement in the near or far future.

With that being said and I have never played Traveller using HG rules and Guidelines, I can still tell you what most people do when they design a battleship or battlerider. Why because its human nature for people to do it. People will design their ships around the weapons that inflict the most damage.

There is nothing wrong with that, the issue that I am trying to piont out is, you don't use a 16 inch naval gun to take out a incoming fighter. But that Battleship you design is only equipt with 16 inch naval guns. It doesn't have the ablilty to track and fire on such small targets. Why because it designed to remove ships from the feild of battle and not airplanes.

Early 20th/late 19 century warships were not equipt to handle aircraft. The importants of AA guns were not realized until the middle part of WW II. Ship's armment reflex that. Even today, the ships of the world's wet navies reflect this and are designed to take on small craft.

Nor am I suggest that a craft designed several tech level below can take out a ship from an extremely high tech level. The arsenal just isn't there. But as pointed out in the Bismark example, there is the possiblity of a warship being taken out by warship or craft one tech level below the average.

What I am trying to point out here is superior firepower maybe great against your enemy in a wargaming scenario but in an actual real world scenario those ships design around the huge guns are fatally flawed because they don't take into account the smaller ships designed around the same weapon system.

Why, agility. Then there comes the simple fact that weapon designed to fire at long and medium ranges don't do well against ships at close range. This is real world examples. Wargaming allows thoses weapons the same possiblity to hit at any range. Thus that is the major fault in any wargame system.

Wargaming simulates battles designed around the system it was created for. Orr is right Battleship in Traveller are better than Battleriders because that is the way the game was designed to react. Which brings me back to the question I asked earlier.

Do you want a wargaming scenario or a real world scenario in Traveller?

 

[McPerth]

This is not the place for that discussion.

It's Bismarck and the "success" of the Swordfish was equal parts blind luck on the part of the British and poor preparedness on the part of the Germans. However, this is not the place for that discussion.

Of course this is not the place to discuss WWII naval tactics and strategies, but (IMHO) I see no wrong on trying to illustrate the points we give with examples, and if you know better examples (that most of us could know and understand) for starship/spaceship war than earth's naval war, please, tell me and I'll gratefully try to use them.

 

[Orr]

With that being said and I have never played Traveller using HG rules and Guidelines...

The quote above explains you utter incomprehension regarding HG2, an incomprehension which is neatly illustrated by what you wrote here:

But that Battleship you design is only equipt with 16 inch naval guns.

The weapons aboard the large warships designed with HG2 fall into three categories. There are spinal mounts which are the functional equivalent to the main batteries. Next are bay weapons which are the functional equivalent of secondary batteries. Finally are turrets which are the functional equivalent of AA or small caliber weapons.

If you're going to write opinions about HG2 it would be very helpful if you were actually aware of what is in HG2.

But as pointed out in the Bismark example, there is the possiblity of a warship being taken out by warship or craft one tech level below the average.

Complete rubbish. Seriously, you should do some actual reading on that subject rather than just repeating History Channel nonsense. Your "example" is so laughable that the point you're trying to make is completely overshadowed.

The Fleet Air Arm's Swordfish biplane was an obsolescent platform but the torpedo those planes dropped were among the finest available at that time in WW2. While other powers had better specific examples for specific uses, the full range of torpedoes used by the RN throughout the war were the best.

The Swordfish were also finally able to damage Bismarck with a single torpedo at literally the last moment thanks to blind luck on the RN's part and poor preparedness/design on the KM's part. First, after failing to hit Bismarck during several earlier strikes, the planes from Ark Royal scored a single hit first because a lucky accident revealed the magnetic pistol detonators were faulty while there was still enough time to rearm the aircraft. Second, poor design left Bismarck with a uniquely vulnerable stern and two separate AA systems covering different parts of the ship. Third, the crew aboard Bismarck had not been trained sufficiently in AA operations.

What I am trying to point out here is superior firepower maybe great against your enemy in a wargaming scenario but in an actual real world scenario those ships design around the huge guns are fatally flawed because they don't take into account the smaller ships designed around the same weapon system.

What you need to realize is that HG2 designs are not what you believe them to be. Riders do not carry a spinal mount and nothing else. Read the book first and then share you opinions with us.

Why, agility.

HG2 factors agility into the combat question, something you'd know if you'd ever read it.

Then there comes the simple fact that weapon designed to fire at long and medium ranges don't do well against ships at close range.

HG2 penalizes different weapons at different ranges, something else you'd know if you'd ever read it.

Orr is right Battleship in Traveller are better than Battleriders because that is the way the game was designed to react.

WRONG.

ONCE AGAIN, HG2 inclusion of tech levels means that different types of vessels are better at different tech levels. At lower levels fighters routinely mission kill ships while at the higher levels ships can ignore fighters altogether. As tech levels change, the "solution" changes just as has occurred in history.

Do you want a wargaming scenario or a real world scenario in Traveller?

Seeing as you have no idea of what HG2 is actually about and seeing that your real world examples are nothing more than repeated History Channel fluff, your "question" is entirely moot.

Read HG2 and get back to us.

 

[Orr]

Of course this is not the place to discuss WWII naval tactics and strategies, but (IMHO) I see no wrong on trying to illustrate the points we give with examples, and if you know better examples (that most of us could know and understand) for starship/spaceship war than earth's naval war, please, tell me and I'll gratefully try to use them.

Traveller ship combat resembles the Age of Sail in some aspects, the Age of Dreadnoughts in some aspects, the Age of Carriers is some aspects, and so forth. There isn't one example which covers the entirety of Traveller ship combat and some aspects of it have no historical examples whatsoever.

The trouble with using historical examples is that they eventually take over the discussion. Instead of a specific example being used to explain a specific aspect of Traveller ship combat, people begin trying to shoehorn the entirety of Traveller ship combat into a given example. Someone decides it's Nelson in Space only to pout when light speed communications is brought up, someone decides it's all about dreadnoughts and has a fit when fighters gut his battlewagons, and someone decides it's CVN Redux and decides the rules are broken when TL15 fighters are useless against warships.

The only thing Traveller ship combat resembles is Traveller ship combat. On a strategic communication level it may resemble the Age of Sail, on a tactical level it may resemble Jutland and at certain tech levels it may resemble Midway. But the only thing it fully resembles all of the time is itself.

My advice? Play a lot of vector-based tactical ship combat and you'll begin to grasp just what a unique animal Traveller ship combat is. Only then will you be able to apply historical examples to the certain aspects on which they apply.

 

[mike wightman]

High Guard doesn't use vector movement - it uses an abstract range band system to determine range.

 

[Rigel Stardin]

Well Orr,
It would seem you've just argued the point of saying that this entire thread is pointless, and that further commentary is a waste of time. Thank you for convincing me of that.

<shakes his head and gives up>

Enough said...

 

[McPerth]

BTW, does anyone know the reasoning behind if you have a PA spinal you cant have PA bays or barbettes/turrets (or a meson spinal means no meson bays)? It seems a pretty arbitrary rule to me.

This does not apply to MT (one of the main differences among both is the craft design), but when you need only 3-4 lines do fully describe a HG design, you need a page to fully describe a MT one.

 

[McPerth]

My advice? Play a lot of vector-based tactical ship combat and you'll begin to grasp just what a unique animal Traveller ship combat is. Only then will you be able to apply historical examples to the certain aspects on which they apply.

I've played vector BB2 combats, and Mayday too.

And one of the major drawbacks in BB2 I've seen is how your starship may become a starcheese (emmetal type) due to so many holes in its hull and still be fully functional (once again I find ship destruction, or damaged beyond repair, too rare in the combat system).

But back there (in BB2) you have not to worry about BBs vs BRs... And yes, fighters were quite dangerous.

 

[aramis]

BTW, does anyone know the reasoning behind if you have a PA spinal you cant have PA bays or barbettes/turrets (or a meson spinal means no meson bays)? It seems a pretty arbitrary rule to me.

To prevent having multiple entries per weapon type in the HG USP system.

MT and T20 both allow 3 entries (1 spinal, 1 bay, 1 turret) per weapon type.

If not playing "Real" high guard, one could easily allow multiple ratings of batteries.

 

[mike wightman]

It's pretty trivial these days to modify the USP string to allow for spinal , bay and turret weapons all of the same type.

 

[McPerth]

It's pretty trivial these days to modify the USP string to allow for spinal , bay and turret weapons all of the same type.

I you must fight against armor 15 (85+ in MT) fighters, imprevious to all but nukes and spinals, having some meson bays helps you a little...

Of course I also consideer those fighters a flaw of the system...

 

[sfchbryan]

I you must fight against armor 15 (85+ in MT) fighters, imprevious to all but nukes and spinals, having some meson bays helps you a little...

Of course I also consideer those fighters a flaw of the system...

Max armor for TL 15 is 75 (15 x 5). That is what makes FSOSI so messed up. The all have BBs at a much higher level.

 

[skyth]

Just a little math...

A BB with a T PA will hit a 19k ton BR on a 6 (72% of a hit), doing 1 critical and 4 rolls on each of the Surface and Radiation (Which boils down to about 3 weapon hits). With a 1/3 chance for a mission kill from the critical (Depending on the setup of the BR. I am assuming they have Frozen Watches and extra computers), that results in about 4.2 shots per mission kill.

The BR needs a 8 to hit the BB with it's J Meson, a 9 to penetrate the Screen, then a 6 to penetrate the Configuration for a total of 8.4% chance to do damage (And 70% to get a fuel tanks shattered result. Including the mission kill criticals, each shot that does damage has a 87.3% chance to mission kill the ship. If it doesn't mission kill the ship, it will send it to reserves to repair for a couple turns likely). Roughly 12 shots per damaging hit, 13.6 shots for a mission kill.

If the Battleship had a T Meson, it would need a 10 to hit, 5 and then 3 to pen..13.5% chance to get a kill. Roughly 7.5 shots per kill.

If one empire uses J meson 19k ton riders, and the other uses T-PA BB's, the one with the Battleships will likely have an advantage. It's a game of rock paper scissors. The BB's with the T-Mesons also stand a chance, but likely the BR force will outnumber them 2-1, rendering thier advantage less. The T-PA has a 3-1 kill ratio.

For what it's worth, every 20 Nuclear missiles against a BB will do some damage, and it takes 35 Missiles to do damage to the BR. (Assuming Factor-9)

Granted, all the math on the spinals is thrown out the window if you use bigger Riders with T or N guns. When I design a fleet, I make sure I use a mix of bigger riders, with some carrying the T PA as well.


One advantage the wasn't listed for BB's over BR's is the pilot limitation. Most systems limit the total number of pilots in a force, and the BB uses half as many pilots as a BR plus Jump Shuttle. Granted, this also encourages Multi-Rider Tenders.

 

[Orr]

High Guard doesn't use vector movement - it uses an abstract range band system to determine range.

There are rules in Mayday which link that vector based game to HG2.

Any other pissantry you want to bring up?