What battleship classes do we know of?

[Matt123]

How's this:
...

Very interesting overview. Can you provide a reference? Or if its your own work, how much is based on cannon references? (in this case, would be good to have references noted on the list)

Either way, consider it "borrowed"

Cheers!

 

[Uxi]

Primary sources:
Supplement 9: Fighting Ships (CT) for the TL15 battleships like Tigress, Kokirrak, Plankwell
Battle Rider (TNE) for the Sylea, Voroshilief, Triumph/Gallant, Cleon/Admiral
Fighting Ships of the Shattered Imperium (MT) for the relationships (and any designations of BB/BI/BM-XX) and the lineage/descent of the various designs

Some of the designs are conjectural (TL14 precursor to Kokirrak as well as the BH-14 Panthera as a more precursos to the Tigress, which is based on the lineage of BH-14 to BH-15 in FSOSI, for example).

 

[McPerth]

I'm more inclined to use TNE Battle Rider, which has most capital ships dying by critical hit in decently sized fleet actions.

I didn't get involved in TNE. In fact I hated the whole idea on the setting on it and changing so much the game mechanics. As good as it could be the idea about standarizing all systems, for me traveller will always be a 2d6 game (with all due respect to those not sharing my opinion, it's only personal thought).

Nevertheless, the ship combat system seemed more what I expected, in the fact that ships get really destroyed, not just holed until they became strainers without sensible efects on its performance (CT B2) or just disabled but easily repairable (HG/MT)

Primary sources:
Supplement 9: Fighting Ships (CT) for the TL15 battleships like Tigress, Kokirrak, Plankwell
Battle Rider (TNE) for the Sylea, Voroshilief, Triumph/Gallant, Cleon/Admiral
Fighting Ships of the Shattered Imperium (MT) for the relationships (and any designations of BB/BI/BM-XX) and the lineage/descent of the various designs

Some of the designs are conjectural (TL14 precursor to Kokirrak as well as the BH-14 Panthera as a more precursos to the Tigress, which is based on the lineage of BH-14 to BH-15 in FSOSI, for example).

There's also a version of the Voroshilef in MT (rebellion book), upgraded somewhat to TL 15 (with a desintegrator TL 17-18 spinal). Its upgrade made little sense in MT rules, though (told about that on earlier post, this same thread).

 

[aramis]

As good as it could be the idea about standarizing all systems, for me traveller will always be a 2d6 game (with all due respect to those not sharing my opinion, it's only personal thought).

Consider that Marc Miller is (since 1996) fixated on his Xd6 vs Stat+Skill where X is determined by difficulty AND skill... it's obvious that Marc doesn't agree with you. (I tend to agree that 2d6 for tasks is better, but I really don't matter much.)

Also, in going through various CT adventures, you'll find hints of Xd6 vs Stat + Skill buried in them. One is a 3d6 vs Strength, for example. GDW never limited it to 2D6... and book 0 included probabilities from 1d6 to 5d6.

 

[McPerth]

Consider that Marc Miller is (since 1996) fixated on his Xd6 vs Stat+Skill where X is determined by difficulty AND skill... it's obvious that Marc doesn't agree with you. (I tend to agree that 2d6 for tasks is better, but I really don't matter much.)

Also, in going through various CT adventures, you'll find hints of Xd6 vs Stat + Skill buried in them. One is a 3d6 vs Strength, for example. GDW never limited it to 2D6... and book 0 included probabilities from 1d6 to 5d6.

And he formalized it on T4, which was a big disapointment to me (sorry if I am a heretic).

IMHO this gave too much power to stats against skills. One of the things I've always liked from Traveller was the fact that what you were skilled in was quite more important that high stats. This view of the game was (IMHO again) betrayed in TNE and T4, where a high stats character was nearly always superior to a better skilled, but lower stats character.

My thoughts about it were given in another thread (in T4 forum): http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showpost.php?p=363619&postcount=35

 

[Uxi]

Very interesting overview. Can you provide a reference? Or if its your own work, how much is based on cannon references? (in this case, would be good to have references noted on the list)

Good idea. I put references. Except for the ships from Supplement 9: Fighting Ships, most of the prose is pure conjecture on my part and probably limited to MTU. The lineage of the ships (ex: BB-13 descended from BB-12, descended from BB-11 and BI-14 descended from BI-13 with BI-15 being a new design is straight from FSOSI).

 

[Uxi]

I didn't get involved in TNE. In fact I hated the whole idea on the setting on it and changing so much the game mechanics. As good as it could be the idea about standarizing all systems, for me traveller will always be a 2d6 game (with all due respect to those not sharing my opinion, it's only personal thought).

No problem. We're both consigned to the fringes of the dustbin of gaming these days.

And I loved the evolution of the setting.

There's also a version of the Voroshilef in MT (rebellion book), upgraded somewhat to TL 15 (with a desintegrator TL 17-18 spinal). Its upgrade made little sense in MT rules, though (told about that on earlier post, this same thread).

Indeed, I have it and think we're better off assigning this oddball as a one-off.

IMHO this gave too much power to stats against skills. One of the things I've always liked from Traveller was the fact that what you were skilled in was quite more important that high stats. This view of the game was (IMHO again) betrayed in TNE and T4, where a high stats character was nearly always superior to a better skilled, but lower stats character.

Nature vs nuture is an argument as old as time, and I find TNE's system much more consistent and even realistic, if you will, but it's the top-down integration of the skill and design system along with PMCS, etc which is the appeal of TNE. Definitely straying from the course, though. If you really like skill to outweigh stat, something like WEG's D6 is supreme (buy a bucket of dice, though unless you really like rolling those 2D6 multiple times!).

Battle Rider is a simplified version of Brilliant Lances, of course, which isn't workable for large fleet actions (though I continually entertain the idea of computerizing it but keep wanting to expand the scope to 3D and then can't decide what I'll change the hexes to (leaning on dodecahedrons), but was great for PC ships in a conventional campaign.

 

[Antony]

I always found it interesting that the ship designs in FSOSI worked better using TNE's construction rules than their own systems. Though try not to serve on a spherical configuration battleship in the TNE universe, simply not enough hull area for everything that should be there.

 

[McPerth]

Indeed, I have it and think we're better off assigning this oddball as a one-off.

Not necessarily so if you use it as TL 13 design. Nonetheless its defenses are far from adecuate for a 200 kdton battleship.

 

[Uxi]

Not necessarily so if you use it as TL 13 design. Nonetheless its defenses are far from adecuate for a 200 kdton battleship.

I meant the upgrade version.

 

[aramis]

Battle Rider is a simplified version of Brilliant Lances, of course, which isn't workable for large fleet actions (though I continually entertain the idea of computerizing it but keep wanting to expand the scope to 3D and then can't decide what I'll change the hexes to (leaning on dodecahedrons), but was great for PC ships in a conventional campaign.

you just ditch hexes altogether, and instead simply use vector addition and degrees of turn. Weapon ranges are in hexes, but those convert straight to distances, anyway.

 

[McPerth]

I meant the upgrade version.

I agree this upgraded version shuld be one in a kind, and (IMHO)is not worth the effort, as MT treatment of disintegrators was not worth them.

I made a more extensive analysis about it:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showpost.php?p=370038&postcount=525

 

[Tobias]

I would think twice before rely on FSOSI designs, as is probably one of the most flawed books in all traveller literature. I wonder if any one design is correct on it, and some flaws are so obvious that makes clear no one reviewed it before publishing (as saying a 30 kdton ship carries 300 kdton of fuel to refuel other ships...)

FYI, if it's still of interest: The large ships are all illegal under the MT design rules due to their illegally (and ridiculously) high armor factors. These, in turn, also made the ships extremely expensive which under MT rules meant they required extremely large crews. The only legal designs in the battleship section are the tenders.
Most of the cruisers are illegal for the same reason, but not as blatantly so.

Even if they were legal under MT rules, they would not be compatible with HG though. The different handling of fuel use, agility and armor in the two rule sets meant you could not reproduce HG performance in MT designs.

FWIW, I redesigned several of the ships in FSSI for HG. These are not really conversions, as these were impossible, but more redesigns 'in the spirit of the original'. I had originally uploaded them in the ct-starships yahoogroup, but I'll put them up here as well:
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?p=385153#post385153

(Yes, I know most of them suck. But as I said, I redesigned them "in the spirit of the originals", and on top of being illegal and incompatible, they weren't very well thought out.)

 

[Murph]

High Guard made more sense if you changed the numbers on the "to hit" my guys min/maxed 19,999 ton cruisers with spinal mounts "J" which killed pretty much anything, and then 74,999 ton Battleships as the ultimate destructive force in the known Universe, there was no reason to go bigger based on the "to Hit" charts. Spinal mount "T", and you are done. I think a 10,000-100,000-1,000,000 ton or similar might be better for larger ships.

The rules just made it silly to go for ships other than at 19,999 tons, or 74,999 tons. All other sizes just could not match up.

 

[dean]

High Guard made more sense if you changed the numbers on the "to hit" my guys min/maxed 19,999 ton cruisers with spinal mounts "J" which killed pretty much anything, and then 74,999 ton Battleships as the ultimate destructive force in the known Universe, there was no reason to go bigger based on the "to Hit" charts. Spinal mount "T", and you are done. I think a 10,000-100,000-1,000,000 ton or similar might be better for larger ships.

The rules just made it silly to go for ships other than at 19,999 tons, or 74,999 tons. All other sizes just could not match up.

Except you make Carriers with 74999 dton riders that are 350,000 dtons + (4 riders and the carrier hull).

 

[mike wightman]

What's the point to making a 74,999t rider when you can have 3 19,999t riders which are just as capable yet give you 2 more spinal mounts?

 

[dean]

What's the point to making a 74,999t rider when you can have 3 19,999t riders which are just as capable yet give you 2 more spinal mounts?

I was simply basing it upon what he said were the breakpoints.

Most of the rest of it is far to gearheady for me. : )

 

[Theophilus]

Don't forget the Sarandon class battleship. One of the gaming magazines mentioned this class in a fighter article which included the Hornet class fighter IIRC.

 

[robject]

OK, sounds like it's time to re-read this thread and compile a list.

 

[savage]

Perisher dreadnought is actually classified as a BB in T20:FS
TL14 Agility 4, J4 Accel 4 AC11, Meson SM

There may be others with mixed classifications. Old Dreadnoughts are tomorrows battleships.