Vladika
SOC-14 1K
Again Hans, what about the communications time lag of years? That has to have played a major factor in this.
Rethinking Dreadnought Design
- Thread starter robject
- Start date
Again Hans, what about the communications time lag of years? That has to have played a major factor in this.
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
OK so Cruisers an BBs carry the same Weapons and die just as easily. Right or wrong, there it is and nobody has "fixed" it yet.
There is another approach to survivability; kill the guy trying to kill you first.
To that end, allow ANY ship, regardless of what you care to all it, carry multiple Spinal mounts, up to 1 per 100kdt. They all fire at the same target, but, with a much greater likelihood of a hit per volley fired.
BBs fired 2 or 3 shoots from one turret (A few had 4 per turret) at the same target, with a slight elevation difference, insuring a greater hit probability. Why not Traveller BBs?
Easy fix, doesn't change the rules much, or even the USP for that matter. It's not a complete fix, but a start.
Others in previous threads have suggested allowing Meson Screens to act as Armor. Again, any easy "fix". Go further, allow multiple Meson Screens to be in use adding their effects.
A BB size ship can adopt these. A Cruiser sized ship can not. Both are due to SIZE differences. All modify the rules but keep playability and the current USP in tact.
Now we have both BBs and Cruisers and "Size does matter".
There is another approach to survivability; kill the guy trying to kill you first.
To that end, allow ANY ship, regardless of what you care to all it, carry multiple Spinal mounts, up to 1 per 100kdt. They all fire at the same target, but, with a much greater likelihood of a hit per volley fired.
BBs fired 2 or 3 shoots from one turret (A few had 4 per turret) at the same target, with a slight elevation difference, insuring a greater hit probability. Why not Traveller BBs?
Easy fix, doesn't change the rules much, or even the USP for that matter. It's not a complete fix, but a start.
Others in previous threads have suggested allowing Meson Screens to act as Armor. Again, any easy "fix". Go further, allow multiple Meson Screens to be in use adding their effects.
A BB size ship can adopt these. A Cruiser sized ship can not. Both are due to SIZE differences. All modify the rules but keep playability and the current USP in tact.
Now we have both BBs and Cruisers and "Size does matter".
Well, what I was saying was that the Imperium should have known from its earliest days not to use ships that were any bigger than they had to be against meson guns. But what you suggest is quite true too. And let's not forget that some of the Vargr worlds are TL15 too, so there could also have been a few skirmishing lessons the other way around.
The Imperium must have been building and testing TL15 ships since several decades before Year 1000 (1000 is the somewhat arbitrary date when historians says the Imperium had enough TL15 worlds to be counted as having reached TL15). 105+ years is a long time, even with communication time lags of around 2/3 of a year (Capital-Mora is around 28 jumps with J6).
Hans
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
And that allows 157.5 round trip communications with no though or decision time. I am CERTAIN that it wouldn't be possible today to develop a major weapons system with so few communications.
Could you do it with 500? If not, are TL14 ships not yet developed either?
You simply don't depend on round trip communication to nearly the same extent for developing ships. You design a ship, you send it out there, you get feedback in 10 years time, you design a new one. Meanwhile, a dozen sector commands develop ships, try them out, and report. You base the next generation of ships on that, and after 120 years you're ironing out the last few bugs.
Well, perhaps there will be more than just a few bugs still unresolved, but the fact that 75,000T combatants are almost as good as 500,000T ships and far, far cheaper shouldn't take over than a century to become evident (As I said above, it shouldn't even take one year -- it should be a truism that ships designed to face opponents armed with meson guns shouldn't be any bigger than necessary).
Hans
That's only true in CT and MT.
TNE, well, building ships even into the 50KTd range is an exercise in annoyance, IMO, as you can't replicate the canonical designs adequately due to the surface area requirements. This makes BB's able to carry a larger PP, albeit proportionally smaller, and thus better able to field major weapons, but also able to carry better armor, which makes the lessons learned from the 3FW and 4FW (with PA armed Zhos) the wrong ones for the 5FW.
T4 more of the same.
T20 does fix it - because the combat system uses hit points as well as the step reductions in performance. Same for HT.
And MGT also uses hull damage in addition to function hits. (A BB isn't going to pop as easily as a cruiser, but both are likely to actually survive a few hits... but the biggest spinal TL15 is only 11.2KTd... which means a J4 capable "cruiser" (5%JD4, 40% JFuel, 3.25% MD6, 5% PP6, 5% PPF, 7.5%AV15 2% Command, crew about 4%. = about 71%). This puts a minimum size for a maximum TL15 single-spinal of about 40KTd. It can survive at least 2 hits from its own spinal... but will lose 2 of the 4 sections per hit. Meanwhile,a 500KTd BB can take 5 hits per section, for each of its 5 sections... The 40KTd light cruiser is destroyed by 2 hits, and loses one system; the 500KTd can wind up disabled from MG spinal D-15(VI) fire, without actually having any single section destroyed.
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
Hans, you always ask some good questions. A lot of the time though there just aren't good all round acceptable answers.
The "truth" in all of this probably isn't in anyone's purview. I think the setting was written for expediency and sales with no thought to the rules that were also written in haste and never followed.
All that aside, I've always agreed with you about a consistent setting that makes sense.
All that said, I've suggested several ways to make BBs work while at the same time acknowledging that they don't have to. I'd like to see them work for the setting. As far as HG2 is concerned it doesn't matter to me if they do at all TLs or not.
It appears to me, from your own posts, that you have little or no experience with designing, or fighting, under HG, nor the time or desire to. Not an issue, just an observation. For those of us who do, we are set in our ways on this and can't find a "solution" to this "problem" either.
For you, and others, World building is the bigger priority. For me, and others, well, we're happy to go forth and fight the Empires enemies wherever they are. We just want the best ships for the job and not using the "Political" white elephants thrust upon us.
I do think many, or most, feel we need better rules and a stable universe. Why else would we keep buying every incarnation of Traveller that comes out?
We keep hoping, buying and debating here on CotI and elsewhere. We are though starting to die of old age. Maybe, one day...
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
I like the fixes in MGT but not the extent of the changes. For me, going blind has it's own obstacles to change. MGT in it's hull sectional damage is surely on the right track.
I like HG2 for both it's simplicity and "you can't get everything" in one ship. I like Fleets. HG2 forces me to go where I want to anyway.
I wish Marc had continued to develop it. It seems many here feel that way.
T5 for it's many flaws also made some seriously good CT and, to the extent of what's come out so far, HG2 changes.
That's not true. the "truth" is firmly in Marc Miller's purview.
I've proposed a solution. Accept that the canonical statements about cruisers and battleships are in authorial voice unless explicitly viewpoint writing and adapt the wargames rules to fit.
Or adapt the setting to fit the wargames rules. But although I have little experience with fighting under HG, I do have quite a bit of experience estimating ship costs and military budgets, and one big reason why I don't like the idea of adapting the setting is that it would mean a tripling or quadrupling or more of the Imperial Navy's large combatants, and I'd much rather Imperial battleships cost a lot more than its cruisers.
So you'd prefer that those several hundred thousand tons battleships were actually fairly reasonable designs rather than white elephants?
One thing that occurs to me is that the HG2-lovers don't actually have anything to worry about. HG2 was published 35 years ago and no one can change that. No one is going to take a time machine back to 1979 and ruin HG2 by changing it. Whatever ship design and combat rules are published in the years to come, anyone is free to keep on using HG2 to their hearts' content.
Hans
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
Unfortunately the Marc "truth" changes just a bit longer than the calender.
So you'd prefer that those several hundred thousand tons battleships were actually fairly reasonable designs rather than white elephants?
Well, yeah...
This is certainly true. Unfortunately we have a harder time getting new players for the same reasons. Meanwhile newer, more errata filled, and complex books come out both diluting the field and turning people off to the game.
BTW, I in no way was trying to impugn your knowledge, expertise or experience, just pointing out a possible reason for differing priorities. I sincerely regret if I in any way offended you.
I wasn't in the least bit offended. Why should I be? You were only repeating my own statements.
Even if you had been saying something that was open to being taken amiss (which you haven't), I like to think of fellow Traveller fans as kindred spirits, and kindred spirits can take a little chaffing from each other. Or they ought to, anyway. I really don't like to take offense at anything until someone has put a lot of work into being offensive. IMO some people are far too prone to take offense when none is intended. Or at least not necessarily intended
Hans
T20 has what is, essentially, HG2.1. The D20isms can easily be worked around for the ship combat - or can be embraced without using D20 characters, even - but the general rule in T20 is that the bigger the ship, the less additional mass gains you...
| 1-9 tons | 50 + 2.5 per additional 1 ton | |
| 10-99 tons | 75 + 2.5 per additional 10 tons | |
| 100-999 tons | 100 + 15 per additional 100 tons | |
| 1000-9999 tons | 250 + 25 per additional 1000 tons | |
| 10,000-99,999 tons | 500 + 25 per additional 10,000 tons | |
| 100,000-999,999 tons | 750 + 25 per additional 100,000 tons | |
| 1,000,000+ tons | 1000 + 100 per additional 1,000,000 tons |
| Weapon Type | Damage Dice | Threat Range** | Critical Damage | Special Damage (dice) | CT Threat Std (Spin) | |
| Missile | d6 | 18 | x1 | 11 | ||
| NuclearMissile* | d6 | 17 | x2 | Radiation (d12) | 10 | |
| Mining Laser | d6 | 20 | x1 | 11 | ||
| Beam Laser | d8 | 20 | x1 | 12 | ||
| Pulse Laser | d10 | 19 | x2 | 11 | ||
| Plasma | d12 | 18 | x2 | 11 | ||
| Particle Accelerator | d12 | 17 | x1 | Radiation (d10) | 10 (8) | |
| Fusion | d20 | 16 | x5 | 10 | ||
| Meson | d20 | 15 | x10 | Radiation (d12) | 9 (7) | |
| * | ||||||
| ** |
Applying Armor or screens: Roll all the damage dice, remove the highest damage die per point of armor or screen until either (a) only one die remains or (b) all armor/screen factors are used. If any unused defenses remain, reduce the last die's roll by the remainder. Also, roll a location and if at least 1 damage was done, step the factor.
A hit in the threat range increases the number of damage dice thrown (and thus the chances of penetration), as well as ignoring Armor (but not screens), and doing a second location damage.
Mesons ignore everything but meson screens.
Radiation damage dice can only be canceled by nuclear dampers (or meson screens on meson gun induced radiation), and are a separate hit of same number of dice.
Black Globes reduce the damage after armor by 10% per UCP.
Note that the design changes in T20 HG can be summed up as:
- New computer system - won't be bigger than HG2, but might be smaller. Easiest to ignore.
- Addition of Airframe option - 5% of hull tonnage and +10% cost, applied to streamlined hull only, and allows for full hypersonic mobility in atmosphere as well as aerodynamic lift. Also increases required computer size by 1.
- reduction in the size of PP's by a factor of 3 (This wasn't intended) and PP Fuel at TL12+ to match the drive tonnage
That hits my "1-page" limit, but hey, it's there.
Now, to use it with CT/MT:
To hit use 2d+(skill or computer) vs 5+(Man/Evade Gees), and if a hit is obtained, and the natural throw is in the CT threat range, then it's a crit. If it's a miss, but is in the threat range, roll again with a further DM+5 to see if you can hit.
Note that this means sand counts its factor as a screen vs missiles and lasers, Lasers reserved for point defense count as a screen vs missiles, Nuclear Dampers count as screens against nuke missiles and all radiation hits. Meson Screens count as screens vs Meson Guns and Meson Gun Radiation damage.
Some comments
I seem to recall there being a 16 Damage die limit - yep - it's in the design sequences...
A Typical meson hit is usually a crit - so it usually is doing 16d20 + 16d12 damage, reduced by 0-9 dice by screen. No screen? 16x(10.5+6.5)= 272
THis means a 60 KTd Cruiser is able to take about 650 SI - or 2 meson hits without screens. With a factor 9 screen, close to treble that.
Meanwhile, the 500KTd has 850 SI... and can take 3 hits without screens.
Last edited:
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
First of all, thanks for putting the work into that. It was a very helpful insight to T20.
Now for the question...
That is sure to make Hans happy!:devil:
The more things change the more they stay the same?
Again, thanks. (I just can't help but see the humor in this.)
Now for the question...
That is sure to make Hans happy!:devil:
The more things change the more they stay the same?
Again, thanks. (I just can't help but see the humor in this.)
What's the justification for the declining effect of bulk on hit points?
My suggestions would be: HP proportionate to bulk and saving throws against critical hits based on bulk.
I'm quite aware that any rules would have to be playtested to guard against unintended consequences, but that's where I would start.
Hans
My suggestions would be: HP proportionate to bulk and saving throws against critical hits based on bulk.
I'm quite aware that any rules would have to be playtested to guard against unintended consequences, but that's where I would start.
Hans
3 factors...
1) UCP ratings are generally non-linear,
2) Hunter wanted to use a flat dice per UCP.
3a) any linear scale that makes sense at capital ship scales makes Adventure Class ships fragile like a gnat.
3b) any linear scale that makes sense at Adventure class scale makes UCP as dice damage worthless
The actual formula was Dr. Skull's basic breakpoints and I suggested a few tweaks to make it smooth transitions; hunter tweaked it a bit further.
It works. (Of course, it helps when I hit the right keys when typing.)
Note that the "All Spinals do 16D" was a bad choice IMO. It works far better to just use (UCP)dX.
Oh, and that 60KTd takes 4 PA spinal hits to shatter, but the 500Td takes 5, assuming no armor; with full AV 15, a PA Spinal is only getting one die on either, so the 16D cap means PA's can be ignored by either for long periods.
That sounds eminently plausible. Capital ships should be able to turn adventure class ships into dust.
Why would you need rules for battles between adventure class ships and capital ships??? Shouldn't saving throws to see if characters of interest survive the ship being blown up suffice?
Hans
You don't, per se. But since all the ratings are on the same scale, you can make use of the same rules for the whole range. That's one the issues with Traveller after CT Bk5... you go from a 1-50 size range (100 to 5000Td), to 1-10000 size (100-1000000Td) in the design ranges for ships.
With a 1-50 range, you can have a linear damage system.
With a 1-10K range, linear no longer works.
Note that Bk 2 is essentially a linear damage system.
I have no idea what THE OFFICIAL justification might be, but a justification could be the square-cube relationship ...
If we double the length of a cube ship, the volume and bulk will have increased 8 times, but the exposed area for my shot to punch through to hit the soft inner parts will only have increased 4 times. Thus the exposed 'bulk' increases slower than the total 'bulk'.
Amber Chancer
SOC-12
This is a great attitude, Hans.
I wish more people would adopt it ... although I ought perhaps to add that this site is WAY ahead of most in this respect.
Amber Chancer
SOC-12
Well, yes and no. If they can hit them, probably.
The real issue is what is your conception of the "right" outcome when a space leviathan comes up against a small, agile, lesser-armed vessel?
Do you want it to be an age-of-sail like outcome, in which a single-master with a couple of swivel-guns should pack up and go home in face of a 74? (This is what HG2 delivers)
Or do you want it to be like 20th century naval warfare, where (given the right conditions) a PT boat can make a good run and deliver a crippling or a fatal blow to a Mogami class cruiser (as depicted in They Were Expendable and Star Wars)
I rather fancy that Traveller was originally intended to be age-of-sail-in-space; but that many players prefer the possibility of blowing up the Death Star with a single shot from an X-wing fighter. And therein lies the root of much disaffection ...
