Rethinking Dreadnought Design

[robject]

Assuming the typical Traveller is not a hard-core wargamer, doesn't it seem that the way we design dreadnoughts is far too hard-core to really be useful?

Assume also that the Tigress will never be a role-playing ship in the same way that a Beowulf will. At best, players may be in charge -- in which case they do not directly operate the ship at all.

Thus, capital ship design should not be at the same level of detail as role-playing ship design. In fact it should be abstracted to some degree. On the other hand, a Traveller ship squadron is not just four numbers on a counter. From very early on, Traveller weapons inflict different kinds of damage, and defenses stop different kinds of weapons, and beyond that, ships are defined by purpose.

 

[flykiller]

Thus, capital ship design should not be at the same level of detail as role-playing ship design.

indeed. which is why I started the deckplan viginettes thread. link in signature below.

 

[Vladika]

Assuming the typical Traveller is not a hard-core wargamer, doesn't it seem that the way we design dreadnoughts is far too hard-core to really be useful?

Assume also that the Tigress will never be a role-playing ship in the same way that a Beowulf will. At best, players may be in charge -- in which case they do not directly operate the ship at all.

Thus, capital ship design should not be at the same level of detail as role-playing ship design. In fact it should be abstracted to some degree. On the other hand, a Traveller ship squadron is not just four numbers on a counter. From very early on, Traveller weapons inflict different kinds of damage, and defenses stop different kinds of weapons, and beyond that, ships are defined by purpose.

Logical. Now where is the "can of worms" emoticon?

 

[rancke]

Logical. Now where is the "can of worms" emoticon?

I think :toast: would be an adequate substitute.


Hans

 

[Condottiere]

That's one of the reasons I like messing around with smaller ships.

But unlike Kirk you probably need to be a Post Captain to get your hands on anything above fifty thousand tons.

 

[savage]

Assuming the typical Traveller is not a hard-core wargamer, doesn't it seem that the way we design dreadnoughts is far too hard-core to really be useful?

Assume also that the Tigress will never be a role-playing ship in the same way that a Beowulf will. At best, players may be in charge -- in which case they do not directly operate the ship at all.

Thus, capital ship design should not be at the same level of detail as role-playing ship design...

I disagree, but see the point. If players graduate to a "large ship universe" it can be very interesting. Nothing like having 200kdt under the feet with a Meson SM rolling into a Rebellion battle.

 

[robject]

I disagree, but see the point. If players graduate to a "large ship universe" it can be very interesting. Nothing like having 200kdt under the feet with a Meson SM rolling into a Rebellion battle.

In fact, I believe we suffer from a peculiar form of myopia when it comes to designing ships. While there's no doubt that Traveller requires a specific mixture of weapons and defenses and various components, yet the process of designing ships can benefit from seeing how other systems do it, then taking a look at what the goals are of ship design versus what's required to build them.

In fact, one of my goals is to look at a capital ship design system created by FASA (for Leviathan). Seeing as how FASA cut its teeth on High Guard, it is interesting to see that they learned some lessons that we haven't yet learned. One of those lessons goes something like this:

The primary weaponry is funnest. Therefore, things like point-defense weaponry should be designed at one level of abstraction higher than that of primary guns.

As a test of that theory: is it easier and funner to remember the spinal gun of a capital ship, or the quantity of its laser turrets?

The supporting corollary is:

It's not the number of secondaries that's important, but their total value, cost, and performance, by type and purpose.

 

[Vladika]

Originally Posted by Corollary of Abstraction
It's not the number of secondaries that's important, but their total value, cost, and performance, by type and purpose.

And therein lies the rub.

Since we ARE rethinking dreadnoughts, let's consider this: :CoW:

It is not cost effective, nor wise, to build a very large multipurpose ship.

Secondary armament should only "fill out" a hull designed just large enough for the primary weapon.

If you need more missile bays, build more special missile ships, not vastly larger targets that go boom way to quick.

Add escorts for point defense. It's long overdue and easy without messing up prior rules or (arguably) canon.

Use troop ships for dirt-side jobs.

Build a Fleet, not a space-going, white elephant, rummage sale.

There will be more ships, but, the total cost will be lower, flexibility greater and most of all, far more asset survivability.

 

[aramis]

There's really no point defense option in most editions.

The exceptions I recall:
in Bk2 & Mayday, missiles move on the map, and anyone can fire at missiles, and sand can be dropped so as to defend others.
In Brilliant Lances for TNE, missiles move on the map as well.

In CT Bk5, MT, and in TNE's Battle rider, missiles are abstracted to direct fire. only the targeted ship is expressely able to fire upon them.

I'd have to check TNE, T4, T20, and HT to be certain of them.

 

[Vladika]

There's really no point defense option in most editions.

The exceptions I recall:
in Bk2 & Mayday, missiles move on the map, and anyone can fire at missiles, and sand can be dropped so as to defend others.
In Brilliant Lances for TNE, missiles move on the map as well.

In CT Bk5, MT, and in TNE's Battle rider, missiles are abstracted to direct fire. only the targeted ship is expressely able to fire upon them.

I'd have to check TNE, T4, T20, and HT to be certain of them.

Simply add the point defense escort and treat it as if it were "part" of the targeted ship. When the target is fired on, the escort fires in it's defense. I'm aware there are no rules. That is part of the problem, but, the proposed solution really doesn't cause any ill effects. It just places AA Cruisers and Destroyers as a screen to the BBs.

We are rethinking Dreadnaughts here. We need to think further than just the capital ship alone.

 

[rancke]

Secondary armament should only "fill out" a hull designed just large enough for the primary weapon.

As I understand it, "just large enough for the primary weapon" means that there will be no battleships (200,000T+ designs) at all unless size in itself has a defensive effect. In which case secondary weapons should be as powerful as they can be designed to be (i.e. bay weapons) and the filling out would be left to tertiary weapons.


Hans

 

[Condottiere]

Dreadnoughts are supposed to be hard core; most designs and classes are compromises between mobility, fire-power, and protection, plus industrial capacity, budget and personnel available.

If you take a step back to the dawning of that particular era you will find the freedom to create anything you find viable to carry out the required mission.

The last time I checked, IN doctrine stated they preferred specialized platforms at around the 0.2Mt throw weight, with the Tigress class the only active "Dreadnought" in the Marches.

This differs from gaming the design system, where the player would have an overall concept from the outset as to composition and role, compared to the organic growth a Navy goes through.

 

[Vladika]

As I understand it, "just large enough for the primary weapon" means that there will be no battleships (200,000T+ designs) at all unless size in itself has a defensive effect. In which case secondary weapons should be as powerful as they can be designed to be (i.e. bay weapons) and the filling out would be left to tertiary weapons.


Hans

Why must a BB be so very large? Just because it can be? At less than 60kdt you can have a very potent BB.

I know we go back to the question of the rules or the setting...

Why can't the setting keep the total Crap ships designed in spite of the various design rules and allow for the better designed warships the IN surely must be using. Both the named junk, and the unnamed "real" Fleets can coexist.

We keep saying "size doesn't matter" and denying any size ranges for ship types in favor of "Mission". Why then are the massive BBs such Sacred Cows?

 

[rancke]

Why must a BB be so very large? Just because it can be?

No, of course not. So since we know for a fact that battleships ARE so large, there has to be a reason why. And from setting material we know that battleships are armed with the same kind of weapons that cruisers are but are able to survive in the line of battle where a similarily armed cruiser can't. It seems a logical deduction that the two differences between cruisers and battleships are linked.

At less than 60kdt you can have a very potent BB.

Evidently not.

Why can't the setting keep the total Crap ships designed in spite of the various design rules and allow for the better designed warships the IN surely must be using. Both the named junk, and the unnamed "real" Fleets can coexist.

Why can't the design rules conform to the setting details?

We keep saying "size doesn't matter" and denying any size ranges for ship types in favor of "Mission".

Not I. I keep saying "size seems to matter a lot".

Why then are the massive BBs such Sacred Cows?

In my own case I like the analogy between Battleships ~ Ships-of-the-Line and Cruisers ~ Frigates. Also, I usually (although admittedly not always) consider setting information to trump rules.


Hans

 

[Vladika]

As I understand it, "just large enough for the primary weapon" means that there will be no battleships (200,000T+ designs) at all unless size in itself has a defensive effect. In which case secondary weapons should be as powerful as they can be designed to be (i.e. bay weapons) and the filling out would be left to tertiary weapons.


Hans

I have a nice design for a less than 60kdt Meson N spinal with 48 50dt factor 9 missile bays "filling out" the tonnage required to Carry the Spinal Mount.

For more Missile Bays build 10kdt missile ships, nine factor 9 50dt bays each, call them what you will. (Not an "optimal" design, but not a munchkin ship either.)

 

[McPerth]

IMHO, MgT:HG achieved (at least) some of the goals told about here:

In fact, I believe we suffer from a peculiar form of myopia when it comes to designing ships. While there's no doubt that Traveller requires a specific mixture of weapons and defenses and various components, yet the process of designing ships can benefit from seeing how other systems do it, then taking a look at what the goals are of ship design versus what's required to build them.

In fact, one of my goals is to look at a capital ship design system created by FASA (for Leviathan). Seeing as how FASA cut its teeth on High Guard, it is interesting to see that they learned some lessons that we haven't yet learned. One of those lessons goes something like this:

The primary weaponry is funnest. Therefore, things like point-defense weaponry should be designed at one level of abstraction higher than that of primary guns.

As a test of that theory: is it easier and funner to remember the spinal gun of a capital ship, or the quantity of its laser turrets?

The supporting corollary is:

It's not the number of secondaries that's important, but their total value, cost, and performance, by type and purpose.

It's not that what MgT:HG tries to represent with the volleys rules to resolve most the secondaries in a single dice roll, while keeping quite more detail on the spinal mount?

As I understand it, "just large enough for the primary weapon" means that there will be no battleships (200,000T+ designs) at all unless size in itself has a defensive effect. In which case secondary weapons should be as powerful as they can be designed to be (i.e. bay weapons) and the filling out would be left to tertiary weapons.

And this is also in MgT, as the larger the ship, the more hits it can sustain, so it gives a defensive advantage to have larger ships.

 

[robject]

IMHO, MgT:HG achieved (at least) some of the goals told about here:

It's not that what MgT:HG tries to represent with the volleys rules to resolve most the secondaries in a single dice roll, while keeping quite more detail on the spinal mount?

And this is also in MgT, as the larger the ship, the more hits it can sustain, so it gives a defensive advantage to have larger ships.

That's certainly in the right direction.

 

[aramis]

T20 did so as well.

A T20 BB has more hit points than a T20 CA. Armor and other defenses matter, too, and the BB carries more turrets for defense fire, and can survive more hits through.

Same also in HT... bigger ship, more Body.

 

[savage]

In fact, one of my goals is to look at a capital ship design system created by FASA (for Leviathan). Seeing as how FASA cut its teeth on High Guard, it is interesting to see that they learned some lessons that we haven't yet learned. One of those lessons goes something like this:



As a test of that theory: is it easier and funner to remember the spinal gun of a capital ship, or the quantity of its laser turrets?

The supporting corollary is:

Perhaps. I up-weaponed spinal mount systems. This discussion occurred ages ago, but weapons platforms (dreadnaughts in this thread) need the ability to scale themselves. Suggesting 700kdt lives in the same SM structural limits as 60kdt is mind boggling if one utilizes chassis and other elements.

 

[Vladika]

Perhaps. I up-weaponed spinal mount systems. This discussion occurred ages ago, but weapons platforms (dreadnaughts in this thread) need the ability to scale themselves. Suggesting 700kdt lives in the same SM structural limits as 60kdt is mind boggling if one utilizes chassis and other elements.

And this is the problem. 700kdt are ridicules as BBs. Supertankers? Sure. BBs? No.

Under HG2 you need 711kdt to build a "Battle Cruiser" with MS T, J4, A6, Fac 9 Screens and then you only manage Armor 11 not 14 or 15.

For armor above 11 you must sacrifice Fac 9 missile bays for Fac 7 turrets. Fact of life. Fac 7 missiles are relatively useless. So why build the monstrosity if you can build in a Spinal Meson in a smaller hull? BBs are not based on tonnage, but rather weapon.

Just like Earth today BBs have no real place; it's a cruiser universe.

HG2 came about before the 3I setting. DGW never built an efficient capital ship conforming to their own published rules. No rule set to date has ever reconciled this.

The very idea of a Fleet composed of J4 capable ships (not riders and tenders) simply fails. BB Fleets can not exceed J3.

If we keep the setting (though why since none of the publishers do) we must need a new, workable, rule set. If we keep the rules so we all design accordingly the setting doesn't matter.

I like HG2 for it's simplicity. I agree with Hans that a stable, consistent, universe is desirable. Fix HG2 and keep it simple.

IMHO all other versions of Traveller after CT have over complicated things. There have been great ideas that could have augmented CT, not replaced it.

The wheel has been reinvented so many times it isn't round anymore.