OTU Only: Types of Big Ships

[robject]

How many elements can we subtract from ship designs and still have recognizable, differentiable OTU ships?

What's the minimum number of types of big ships sufficient to describe the fleets in the OTU?

What's the minimum number of features sufficient or necessary to distinguish the iconic, canonical big ships of the OTU from one another? A Plankwell from a Kokirrak (not easy)? A Nolikian from a Lightning-class Cruiser (easier: rider, meson spine, better maneuver)?

What are the essential differentiators in major weaponry in the OTU (Meson vs Beams vs Missile, Spine vs Bay vs Point Defense)?

Basic types, not taking some particulars into account:

CA: Armored Cruiser
CB: Battle Cruiser
CC: Close Cruiser
CD: Defense Cruiser
CT: Fleet Cruiser
CF: Frontier Cruiser
CG: Upgunned Cruiser
CL: Long Cruiser
CM: Mercenary Cruiser
CP: Patrol Cruiser
CR: Recon Cruiser
CS: Slow Cruiser
CY: Rider Cruiser
GA: Armored Frigate
GB: Battle Frigate
GC: Close Frigate
GD: Defense Frigate
GT: Fleet Frigate
GF: Frontier Frigate
GG: Upgunned Frigate
GL: Long Frigate
GM: Mercenary Frigate
GP: Patrol Frigate
GR: Recon Frigate
GS: Slow Frigate
GY: Rider Frigate
VA: Armored Corvette
VB: Battle Corvette
VC: Close Corvette
VD: Defense Corvette
VT: Fleet Corvette
VF: Frontier Corvette
VG: Upgunned Corvette
VL: Long Corvette
VM: Mercenary Corvette
VP: Patrol Corvette
VR: Recon Corvette
VS: Slow Corvette
VY: Rider Corvette
QA: Armored Ortillery
QB: Battle Ortillery
QC: Close Ortillery
QD: Defense Ortillery
QT: Fleet Ortillery
QF: Frontier Ortillery
QG: Upgunned Ortillery
QL: Long Ortillery
QM: Mercenary Ortillery
QP: Patrol Ortillery
QR: Recon Ortillery
QS: Slow Ortillery
QY: Rider Ortillery
AA: Armored Assault
AB: Battle Assault
AC: Close Assault
AD: Defense Assault
AT: Fleet Assault
AF: Frontier Assault
AG: Upgunned Assault
AL: Long Assault
AM: Mercenary Assault
AP: Patrol Assault
AR: Recon Assault
AS: Slow Assault
AY: Rider Assault
SA: Armored Sentinel
SB: Battle Sentinel
SC: Close Sentinel
SD: Defense Sentinel
ST: Fleet Sentinel
SF: Frontier Sentinel
SG: Upgunned Sentinel
SL: Long Sentinel
SM: Mercenary Sentinel
SP: Patrol Sentinel
SR: Recon Sentinel
SS: Slow Sentinel
SY: Rider Sentinel
MA: Armored Monitor
MB: Battle Monitor
MC: Close Monitor
MD: Defense Monitor
MT: Fleet Monitor
MF: Frontier Monitor
MG: Upgunned Monitor
ML: Long Monitor
MM: Mercenary Monitor
MP: Patrol Monitor
MR: Recon Monitor
MS: Slow Monitor
MY: Rider Monitor
DA: Armored Defender
DB: Battle Defender
DC: Close Defender
DD: Defense Defender
DT: Fleet Defender
DF: Frontier Defender
DG: Upgunned Defender
DL: Long Defender
DM: Mercenary Defender
DP: Patrol Defender
DR: Recon Defender
DS: Slow Defender
DY: Rider Defender
EA: Armored Escort
EB: Battle Escort
EC: Close Escort
ED: Defense Escort
ET: Fleet Escort
EF: Frontier Escort
EG: Upgunned Escort
EL: Long Escort
EM: Mercenary Escort
EP: Patrol Escort
ER: Recon Escort
ES: Slow Escort
EY: Rider Escort
TA: Armored Transport
TB: Battle Transport
TC: Close Transport
TD: Defense Transport
TT: Fleet Transport
TF: Frontier Transport
TG: Upgunned Transport
TL: Long Transport
TM: Mercenary Transport
TP: Patrol Transport
TR: Recon Transport
TS: Slow Transport
TY: Rider Transport
WA: Armored Barge
WB: Battle Barge
WC: Close Barge
WD: Defense Barge
WT: Fleet Barge
WF: Frontier Barge
WG: Upgunned Barge
WL: Long Barge
WM: Mercenary Barge
WP: Patrol Barge
WR: Recon Barge
WS: Slow Barge
WY: Rider Barge
YA: Armored Tender
YB: Battle Tender
YC: Close Tender
YD: Defense Tender
YT: Fleet Tender
YF: Frontier Tender
YG: Upgunned Tender
YL: Long Tender
YM: Mercenary Tender
YP: Patrol Tender
YR: Recon Tender
YS: Slow Tender
YY: Rider Tender

 

[Tobias]

What are the essential differentiators in major weaponry in the OTU (Meson vs Beams vs Missile, Spine vs Bay vs Point Defense)?

Speaking HG2-wise and talking about big ships, there are five principal types of weapons:
Meson Gun spines. PA spines. Missiles. Point defense (mostly repulsors, sands and beams being marginally useful as well.) And all the rest (Meson gun bays, PA bays and turrets, all turret weapons below the threshold of being marginally useful as point defense) is USP padding.

Regarding the simplification by ship type: If the types directly translate into a few numbers, you can just as well distinguish ships by those numbers directly.
(Btw, Plankwell and Kokirrak are easily distinguished if you take into account that the Kokirrak actually has only Jump-3.)

 

[Carlobrand]

That's ... a rather impressive list of designations. Me, I approach it like this:

What is the ship's job? How does it accomplish that job?

To that last, there are key questions:
How fast? (G's acceleration)
How far? (jump range)
How powerful? (firepower)
How well defended? (self-evident)

A battleship has a job: to deliver heavy sustained firepower in a platform that can in turn endure heavy sustained firepower. That calls for heavy armor, good agility, a powerful array of secondary weapons and defenses, and decent jump range to deliver that platform where it is needed in time to be useful. There are going to be compromises: one battleship emphasizes armor and agility over jump range, another sacrifices armor and firepower to achieve high jump and place itself where you don't expect to see it. The nature of those sacrifices, and the nature of what it emphasizes in order to accomplish its job, will decide how it is designated: the former might be an armored battleship, while the latter might be a strike battleship.

A cruiser has another job: to deliver heavy firepower in a less expensive platform so you can cover more territory and be in more places, whether to add weight to the battle squadron or to range the stars on their own - or to seek and destroy raiding enemy cruisers.

A destroyer has a different job: to guard the perimeter of the fleet, keep opposing light forces at bay and give adequate warning of the approach of opposing heavy forces - and sometimes to operate independently to bring light firepower to bear where it can make a strategic difference.

A frigate or corvette might guard civilian ships and ports against the depradations of independent destroyers - or might serve as a cheap and expendable platform for their own game of independent raiding.

In each case, how they accomplish that job - whether they emphasize expendability or firepower or armor or jump range and so forth, or are unusually large and therefore can deliver more of each than would otherwise be the case - will determine whether they're light or gunned or armored or strike, or "battle".

 

[Timerover51]

You have a Recon ship for every type. The purpose of a Recon ship is Reconnaissance. So why do you need a Recon Barge, Recon Corvette, Recon Frigate, etc. You might want two types of Recon ship, one with a very high jump capacity so as to make deep penetrations, the other with a very high acceleration ability to make a fast pass through a solar system without getting intercepted. Both types to have small crews and basically be expendable.

I would view Corvette and Frigate as equivalent ship types for the purposes of Traveller. Realistically, you could put Escort as equivalent as well. Same ship type, different names for different solar systems.

I figure a Barge is basically an un-powered box that gets moved as a unit from one spot to another and then is dropped off. Minimal crew and basic 1-G maneuver drives to final positioning.

Sentinel I would almost group with Recon, except it might not need Jump Drives, unless you are monitoring a system, and again, it has to be cheap, with minimal crew and cost, as you are going to loose them quickly in a war. So again, only one or two types are needed.

Defense Ortillery? Defense Assault? Defense Defender? Think about those a few seconds and then ask yourself, do these make sense?

 

[aramis]

Recon Supply Ships have been proposed to support RIF naval ops in the USN. They've never been approved, as the differences are solely about speed and spares, and the naval RIF ceased being relevant about the same time they were being pushed for (mid 70's). Think AKN...

In Traveller, they'd be variants on the standard tankers, but optimized for quick refuel and go, as opposed to maximized tankage.

 

[whulorigan]

How many elements can we subtract from ship designs and still have recognizable, differentiable OTU ships?

What's the minimum number of types of big ships sufficient to describe the fleets in the OTU?

What's the minimum number of features sufficient or necessary to distinguish the iconic, canonical big ships of the OTU from one another? A Plankwell from a Kokirrak (not easy)? A Nolikian from a Lightning-class Cruiser (easier: rider, meson spine, better maneuver)?

What are the essential differentiators in major weaponry in the OTU (Meson vs Beams vs Missile, Spine vs Bay vs Point Defense)?

Basic types, not taking some particulars into account . . .

Something else to consider:

Are the Mission Codes in the T5 Core Rules universal and exhaustive, or are they primarily intended for ACS ship-classifications?

If they are primarily ACS codes, then Cruiser, Frigate, Corvette, Escort, etc., may primarily be for "Small Ship Universe" ships, which in the OTU I would consider to be the backbone of Provincial and Colonial Navies, not necessarily the big BCS ships of the Imperial Navy and its Reserves (though there may certainly be codes that overlap if there are distinct ACS & BCS Identifiers). Note also that the example ships listed in the book which are given Identifier Codes are all under 2500 tons (including the "Cruiser" C-VS23 on p.359, which is on a similar scale to the Kinunir Class Colonial "Cruiser" at 1200 dtons, as well as the Raptor Class "Frigate-Riders" (GBS-VB50) on p.643). The BCS ships that are listed (Ghalalk Class Cruiser, p.643 & Tigress Class Dreadnought, p.642) are unique in that they are not assigned any Mission Identifier codes in their descriptions.

Note that there are no codes identifying Battleship or Dreadnought (a "BB-" would be a "Battle-Monitor"); Destroyer (though this could be a "Frigate" or "Escort"); "Light-" or "Heavy-" (although the latter may fall under "Upgunned-", "Improved-", or "Armored-"; etc).

I realize that terms such as "Battleship" and "Destroyer" may actually be colloquial designations for ships which carry a more specific "technical" identifier, but are all of the codes necessary to specify the "traditional" Imperial BCS ships present in the current list?

 

[robject]

Are the Mission Codes in the T5 Core Rules universal and exhaustive, or are they primarily intended for ACS ship-classifications?

Ah, so you see where I got those codes from. And you therefore also see where I'm coming from / where I'm going with this.

They are only ACS. So BCS will probably vary.

I used a tiny Perl script to generate potential codes from a type + modifier. As Timerover et al noted, some of those combinations don't make sense.

 

[Kilgs]

I think the differentiation with cruisers and frigates is often more a mission-package concept. I would prefer something like Light Cruiser (Escort). So the two-letter ID remains clean and there's far less of them. There are definitely models that would need specificity like Scout Cruiser or Electronic Warfare Cruiser but we can definitely cut down on the "official" titles.

 

[whulorigan]

So the two-letter ID remains clean and there's far less of them.

Note that p. 330 of T5 also specifically allows for 3-letter ID designators:

Understanding Missions. The descriptive terms for ACS ship missions have specific meanings. At the same time, they are defined to allow broad interpretation and substantial overlap.

Select a mission for the ship (or assign a mission after the ship is designed)
State the ship mission as a one- or two- (or rarely three-) letter designation.
Apply Mission Modifiers as needed. Mission is stated first; one or two modifiers follow.

 

[McPerth]

There are some tiypes of ships of the ones listed in the OP that I see quite contradictory, as the Defense Ortilelry and the Defense Assault. As I see planetary invasions, only te attacker would use ortillery and assault ships, as it has to have achieved orbital superiority or the whole invasion is suicide.

 

[whulorigan]

There are some tiypes of ships of the ones listed in the OP that I see quite contradictory, as the Defense Ortilelry and the Defense Assault. As I see planetary invasions, only te attacker would use ortillery and assault ships, as it has to have achieved orbital superiority or the whole invasion is suicide.

In the T5 Core Rulebook, there is an entire flow-chart dedicated to assigning Ship Mission Identifiers for ACS ships. I believe Rob just wrote a script to pull all possible combinations that the flowchart can generate. Some of them naturally come out nonsensical and have to be discarded by reason of common-sense.

 

[mike wightman]

Rob, you are getting awfully close to designing BCS the way Mindjammer designs ships, as characters/constructs with Aspects which define their nature (it is a Fate based game after all).

A T5 version would be mission becomes the prime aspect which provides guidelines on sub-aspects such as payload, offence, defence, strategic and tactical mobility.

You can then build a maker around these terms which, based on TL etc., would allow the final description of the ship.

Not quite HG5 but a novel way to design the big ships.

 

[robject]

Whenever I think about the things I like about Mayday, High Guard, TCS, and Fifth Frontier War, I get in this "simplify" mode. While I like designing ships, I also realize I don't have time for TCS battles any longer, and really never had the patience of a wargamer. I can't have everything, but I might be able to get a piece of everything, and it might be put together in an interesting and playable way.

But of course the way to start is to PLAY it, and not to think about it.

 

[pendragonman]

Whenever I think about the things I like about Mayday, High Guard, TCS, and Fifth Frontier War, I get in this "simplify" mode. While I like designing ships, I also realize I don't have time for TCS battles any longer, and really never had the patience of a wargamer. I can't have everything, but I might be able to get a piece of everything, and it might be put together in an interesting and playable way.

But of course the way to start is to PLAY it, and not to think about it.

Rob, this idea of simplification is why I prefer a small ship universe.

 

[mike wightman]

I think I have posted about this many years ago - one of my favourite strategic/tactical space combat games is The Company War by Mayfair Games.

The ships have ratings much like the counters used in I:E, FFW, I, DN, and there is a strategic game involving moving jump ships from system to system to capture Stations.

There is an optional tactical combat game that allows you to fight the ship to ship combats on a grid, it doesn't use vector movement but is good fun.

T5 could have a BCS maker which produces the ship counters, and a Fleet maker for building fleets from these counters.

You could then select a combat scale - strategic moving counters around a sub-sector map; operational moving them around an abstracted system map; and an optional tactical combat game invoking a greater manoeuvring element.

You would have to accept that the scale of damage dished out by these big boys is such that tracking minor damage is out of the question, damage could reduce ratings until a counter flip is required and then further damage destroys the ship.

You really have to decide how you want to model combat and then design your ship building system to produce the ratings you need for the combat system.

 

[robject]

You really have to decide how you want to model combat and then design your ship building system to produce the ratings you need for the combat system.

This is exactly what Don has said, as well. You're both right of course.

I know some of how I would like to model combat:

• A unit is one or more ships, depending on the representational strength of the unit notation.
• Attacks are unit to unit, with the result being (a) no effect, or (b) unit destroyed. There is no damage tracking. A ship is dead or alive.
• Hexmat-based.
• No vector movement.
• You can only move a few (1D?) units per turn.
• No hard-coded TLs. Capabilities and session DMs reflect TL advantages or disadvantages.
• Line-of-fire for most weapons. This allows defensive formations.
• Meson guns do not need line-of-fire: they can fire through obstacles. This emulates a TL advantage.
• Torpedo salvos are launched units. They do not need line-of-fire.... but they must move each turn after launching or be discarded.
• Squadrons permit concentrated attacks.
• Squadrons permit selective damage. This allows defensive formations.
• Units that are not in a squadron have a maneuver and attack bonus.
• Attacks are one or more 1D rolls. Maybe.
• Goals include assault, occupation, escape, neutralizing some number of units, etc.

But, no rules are meaningful until they've been tested.

 

[shadowcat20]

My first game from GDW was Imperium (still got it). I remember playing it and finding out how the different types of ships worked. Also it seemed in the game Solomani tended to go to gun heavy ships (exc the missleboat) and the Imps went for missile ships.
Some of the counters even had recognizable pictures of ships from the Sup Fighting ships. SO, I have always seem Imp ships in those roles, Flood em with missiles and close to clean up with lasers while the Solomani tended to fire missiles to distract while closing in for direct combat.

Point is, I still have a pre conceived idea how Traveller combat should work from playing that game and it's spin off Dark Nebula.

One thing I do not see in Traveller that was very common in Imperium was monitors. VERY large system defense ships without jump drives. Take a BC or BB tonnage hull and pack in all the toys you can without having to pay for Jump drives or large reserves of fuel. Any extra space could be docks for fighters and custom ships. Every planet with a class A starport should have one and more than one at subsec caps.

 

[mike wightman]

Dark Nebula and Imperium are both historical games, by the time of Invasion Earth battle squadrons consist of monitors (battle riders) carried by jump tenders (there is a description in that game of Solomani battle ship counters being unable to jump because their tenders abandoned them, while it also mentions Imperial jump tenders staying in the safety of the outer system box.
By the time of FFW battle ships can match monitors (battle riders) but have to be built bigger, whilkel there is no point building bigger monitors (battle riders) because they reach their maximum capability in a much smaller hull size.

 

[mike wightman]

Hope you don't mind the formatting - I have added comments to your list in bold (easiest way i could think to do it).

• A unit is one or more ships, depending on the representational strength of the unit notation. One counter is one BCS, one squadron of fighters or escort ships
• Attacks are unit to unit, with the result being (a) no effect, or (b) unit destroyed. There is no damage tracking. A ship is dead or alive.Too lethal, and limits the options for retreat. If the combat system is based on FLUX or the T5 task system then you can add a few extra results that degrade overall ratings - don't track individual damage to each system just apply a blanket DM based on damage. After sustaining a certain number of hits flip the counter for much reduced ratings, at this point you should be thinking of retreat to conserve assets or hope to win before final destruction. This system could be as few as - damaged - flip - dead, or you could add light damage -2, heavy damage -4, flip, dead - that sort of thing.
• Hexmat-based. I'd go with range band and add the hex mat as an option
• No vector movement.I'd have it as an option for the truly "involved"
• You can only move a few (1D?) units per turn.I don't like this.
• No hard-coded TLs. Capabilities and session DMs reflect TL advantages or disadvantages.TL is something that will have a major impact on the BCS maker, but the combat system can ignore TL - it should be rating vs rating.
• Line-of-fire for most weapons. This allows defensive formations.Agreed.
• Meson guns do not need line-of-fire: they can fire through obstacles. This emulates a TL advantage.Agreed
• Torpedo salvos are launched units. They do not need line-of-fire.... but they must move each turn after launching or be discarded.Agreed
• Squadrons permit concentrated attacks.Agreed
• Squadrons permit selective damage. This allows defensive formations.Not sure what you mean by this
• Units that are not in a squadron have a maneuver and attack bonus.Considering the coordination bonus that T5 ACS get from certain systems I would have thought it makes more sense to give a lone ship a penalty.
• Attacks are one or more 1D rolls. Maybe.And we get tot he crucial question - is it going to be a FLUX roll or a task based system or something completely different?
• Goals include assault, occupation, escape, neutralizing some number of units, etc.

But, no rules are meaningful until they've been tested.

Can't test them 'til they've been written

 

[SanDragon]

Lighten it up a bit by calling it destroyed but it being neutralized.

It reminded me of Star Fleet Battles.

After a first pass and an alpha strike, the battle was pretty much decided.