Looking for Commonalities

[pshrynk]

Honor Harrington ship combat, at least through book 5, is pretty much Starfire through HT 5... which should be no surprise, since David was the line developer for Starfire.

I'll have to look into that. Thanks!

 

[Archangel620]

Space warfare in Traveller is defined by the rules set you use to model it.
CT small ship universe can use Mayday, LBB2, Starter Edition range bands, even High Guard2
High Guard 2 has got to be the base standard - it is lacking in its abstract movement but it does some things much better than others.
MT is similar to HG2
TNE started as a small ship setting with Brilliant Lances but then introduced big ship battled with Battle Rider.
T4 ship combat is something that is never mentioned...

So - a discussion about space warfare in Traveller will usually be described using terms and paradigms established by High Guard.

High Guard models ship construction and combat at every TL from 7 to 15 (using MT and a bit of extrapolation of HG tables you can get it up to TL22).
Main points.
The nature of space warfare is very different to conventional air/land/sea warfare - there is no stealth in space, adversaries must choose to fight or one side has to be at a system chokepoint (defending a world, high guard for a refuelling operation), weapons have ranges measured in light seconds.
The nature of battleships changes from TL to TL - as you increase in TL the maximum size you can build a ship increase, the main armament shifts from missile bays to a combination of spinal mounts (PA are preferred at lower TLs, meson guns can win you the battle but are limited by a poor chance to hit, at higher TLs your fleet will usually have a mix of PA and meson spinals available).
The value of non-capital ships changes as you go up the TL scale - they are quite useful at low TLs, at high TLs they are useful as a screening force.
There is no Traveller equivalent of the aircraft or torpedo in space warfare - small craft are like MTBs (but without the torpedoes) rather than aircraft to use an air/sea warfare analogue.

So it sounds like Space Combat is equivalent to Pre-Submarine, but post-Sea Lines of Communication. Meaning that apparently cloaking isn't a thing, or jamming of information, but one can and must protect vital Space Lines of Communication to either preserve structure of command or supply. Is that correct?

 

[Archangel620]

• CT Bk2 is essentially age of sail in feel.
• CT Bk5 and MT is essentially Age of Ironclad Battleships; roughly 1870 to 1960.
• CT Starter Traveller is kind of a radio-play of age of sail in feel.
• TNE is an attempt to mesh modern understandings of weapons and armor with reduced weapons ranges. It has no historical comparison.
• T4 is burdened by using TNE's FF&S as the core, and expanding outward, while at the same time subsetting for simpler design systems, and a combat system that works with all three planned levels of design...
• MGT 1E is a slightly more robust weapons set, call it an ironclads era (pre-HMS Dreadnought) kind of feel.
• CT Mayday is almost the same feel as Bk2, except for scale.
• CT Mayday movement with Bk5 combat is very much it's own unique feel. Kind of "tanks on ice skates"

The Canon never actually discusses the tactics and their historical effects, but does mention the late 3I several competing tactical trends...
1) Riders vs Battleships
2) Fighter Carriers vs Battleships
3) Escorts vs destroyers.

Much of this is best gleaned from reading the various entries in CT Sup 8 & 11, and their parallels in MT's Imperial Encyclopedia.

For the detailed implications of the High Guard ruleset...
http://members.pcug.org.au/~davidjw...ofessor Lenat and EURISKO's Winning Fleet.htm

(David - if you're watching, would you add that to the wiki, please?)

Eurisco, a computer program, was used to devise the winning strategy. Which was lots of sacrificable smaller (destroyer sized) units with just main guns and defenses... due to quirks of the rules, the spinal meson gun is like the guided torpedo barrage of the Circum-Dreadnought era - one hit, usually one mission kill.

So this sounds like Human Wave Doctrine, with the idea that superior numbers and more bodies spent efficiently win wars. Interesting cross-section here on the theories of Space Combat. It's like comparing the Soviet bulk-matter strategy versus the US-efficiency strategy from the Cold War. Not to get political, but both nations build VERY different space programs, and I guess the Traveller universe hasn't had a clear cut victory for one side or the other?

 

[Archangel620]

No. to my knowledge, there isn't really a good canon book for that. The T20 Gateway to Destiny book, however, probably has the best overview of combat in the Traveller universe though.

The SJG GURPS Interstellar Wars book describes one of the most celebrated conflicts of the Traveller universe.

I would start with those two.

I'm 100% sure that your Dad had those books.



Keagan is very much a Brit academic who is very full of himself. Sandhurst, anyone? Still, he is no slouch and I think there is value in reading him. I did in the USAF and found some value in it. I can agree with the post-US Civil War assessment though, but basic strategy is really timeless. Sun Tzu has proven that for millennia.



The USAF definitely has a game plan, even a Space Command. the civilian echelon may not have one, but the military echelon does.

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.

When I wrote the paper, the USAF was not willing to provide me, one who lacks a sizeable security clearance, with the information they deemed relevant to my question. NASA answered some, and my professor, Joseph R. Wood, gave me contact information to pester NASA for questions. But in the end, everything that was available to the public suggested no evident or specified, even if silent, strategy.

 

[robject]

Space warfare is definitely a kind of Naval warfare.

Our concept of how squadron and fleets actually duke it out are varied and sketchy. But there are some main concepts that have percolated up, starting with High Guard's dry combat tables.


(1) Big expensive ships are needed to take out big expensive heavily armored ships. No thermal vents that only require T-16 bush pilots to destroy them.

(1a) The Big, Main, "Spinal" weapon on capital ships is the king of Big Expensive Squadron and Fleet combat.

(1b) For smaller ships, missiles and lasers are king and queen of combat. There are a plethora of other weapon types to fill various niche missions.

(2) Mass is not a consideration for most Traveller rules. Big expensive heavily armored ships are not typically slow and ponderous. Agility is part of survival.

(3) Greater range can win battles.

(4) One step up in technology is half an order of magnitude advantage. TL14 active defenses are significantly, but perhaps not devastatingly, less effective against TL15 weapons.

(4a) One step up in technology may bring paradigm changes. Meson guns, which ignore ship armor, are game changers. Black globes, which are Traveller's version of energy shields, are also game changers. And so on.

(5) Hunting in packs has advantages.

(6) It is hard to hide in space, but it is also hard to get a weapons lock.

(7) Design and combat are influenced by rock-scissors-paper style concepts. If you want to win against meson guns, you need a different design strategy (and perhaps a different combat strategy?) than if you want to win against particle accelerators.

 

[Archangel620]

You are essentially talking about three kinds of warfare in addition to a fourth of spacebourne warfare.

* Planetary Warfare (World):

** 1. Aerial Warfare (COACC): COACC extends into the near atmosphere so it contains a space element. There is a book called COACC.

** 2. Ground (Surface): Traveller ground combat is dominated by two elements: grav armor and battledress (power infantry armor). Other forces support these two primary arms. GURPS Ground Forces is one of the best for this study.

** 3. Maritime (Fluidic Naval): Wet navies are really out of vogue in the Traveller universe. They exist, but in an age of gravitic vehicles, the differences between ground, air, and water vehicles have been largely erased.

There are a number of sources about 4. Spacebourne combat. I think others would know that better than I would. Many of the sources disagree or conflict with each other.

As to your central question of whether Space Warfare mirrored Air, Land, or Water Warfare in Traveller. I would say not. Planetary combat would be a very different duck than interstellar (spacebourne) combat.

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.

The original question was centered around this problem I had looking at the map of the setting my father has. How the heck do Empires hold territory, and can I get a map of Space Lines of Communication, or are we in a setting where Lines are everywhere? Are there planetary and system chokepoints, and if so, how often do Empires trade these chokepoints?

For instance, in RL, the Singapore Strait, the Panama Canal, Gibraltar, and the Suez Canal are all chokepoints. These are not traded often, but in terms of wars and political events, they have been traded willingly or not. Knowing how Space Lines of Communication determines how Empires fight to hold territory of vital importance, and how diplomacy works.

But then again, my Mahan bias is leaking through. But I love studying Empires in RL, and part of a good Empire is holding a vital trade and movement route by land and by sea that forces enemies and friends to pay and move through you, or oppose you. The other part of a good empire is a force that can match any type of threat.

Sure these are things that may not matter to a player, but to a GM, that could mean not suffering through an over-smart player during a planetary invasion scenario, or having illogical modules written that discuss planetary invasions.

Its a question that starts in Space Combat and how fleets function, and to me, at least permeates the entire setting of Traveller. But I am a history and political nerd, so maybe my question is not so important to the fun of the game. It was just curiosity though. Thanks!

Also, I will go look at those books. For me, planets and empires falling have to be explained somehow, outside of a hand-wavey "bad emperor, bad government" or "corruption, instability, revolt."

 

[robject]

The original question was centered around this problem I had looking at the map of the setting my father has. How the heck do Empires hold territory, and can I get a map of Space Lines of Communication, or are we in a setting where Lines are everywhere? Are there planetary and system chokepoints, and if so, how often do Empires trade these chokepoints?

[...] part of a good Empire is holding a vital trade and movement route by land and by sea that forces enemies and friends to pay and move through you, or oppose you. The other part of a good empire is a force that can match any type of threat.

[...]

Its a question that starts in Space Combat and how fleets function, and to me, at least permeates the entire setting of Traveller. [...]

Yeah. Welcome to the party. You've come to the right place for information. But, also, you're in the right place to make suggestions, too.

There are few true chokepoints: space here has only a little topography, and is mostly plains (or sea?) warfare. Everything is island warfare, with planetary systems being the islands, and space is the endless sea. Scary, I know.

Typically the way to find answers is to see how the empire is envisioned, then draw some possible conclusions, and then you get more questions than you originally had.

I might suggest looking at The Spinward Marches Campaign booklet, which has a rather brief account of the Fifth Frontier War. That will at least give you a feel for how big empires fight each other (and perhaps why).

 

[Archangel620]

Space warfare is definitely a kind of Naval warfare.

Our concept of how squadron and fleets actually duke it out are varied and sketchy. But there are some main concepts that have percolated up, starting with High Guard's dry combat tables.


(1) Big expensive ships are needed to take out big expensive heavily armored ships. No thermal vents that only require T-16 bush pilots to destroy them.

(1a) The Big, Main, "Spinal" weapon on capital ships is the king of Big Expensive Squadron and Fleet combat.

(1b) For smaller ships, missiles and lasers are king and queen of combat. There are a plethora of other weapon types to fill various niche missions.

(2) Mass is not a consideration for most Traveller rules. Big expensive heavily armored ships are not typically slow and ponderous. Agility is part of survival.

(3) Greater range can win battles.

(4) One step up in technology is half an order of magnitude advantage. TL14 active defenses are significantly, but perhaps not devastatingly, less effective against TL15 weapons.

(4a) One step up in technology may bring paradigm changes. Meson guns, which ignore ship armor, are game changers. Black globes, which are Traveller's version of energy shields, are also game changers. And so on.

(5) Hunting in packs has advantages.

(6) It is hard to hide in space, but it is also hard to get a weapons lock.

(7) Design and combat are influenced by rock-scissors-paper style concepts. If you want to win against meson guns, you need a different design strategy (and perhaps a different combat strategy?) than if you want to win against particle accelerators.

Now this is nitty gritty I need to know. The fact that Tech levels can bring even a margin of victory closer to one side in a "fair fight" is important. It's not unexpected, but knowing that technology can, but isn't always decisive is important.

When you are hiding in space, so to say, how is it hard? Do we not have at the higher tech levels a device that makes a ship read as being Dark Mass, instead of 'Mass'. If you had a device that could simply make you look and read as background noise, until you fired or were hit by a crash, you would be invisible? Or is this the case of "there are no submarines in Space yet".

 

[robject]

When you are hiding in space, so to say, how is it hard? Do we not have at the higher tech levels a device that makes a ship read as being Dark Mass, instead of 'Mass'. If you had a device that could simply make you look and read as background noise, until you fired or were hit by a crash, you would be invisible? Or is this the case of "there are no submarines in Space yet".

Officially murky. When dealing with single ships, there are early hints of submarine warfare (the game Mayday, formerly mentioned in this thread, is a rather fun game with simple rules). Even with squadrons, very high tech (the "Black Globe") can apparently render a ship as background noise to sensors (referenced in High Guard, also mentioned in this thread), with caveats.

A ship on the surface of a planet is essentially hidden.

In other words "maybe".

The other end is hard science: it is frightfully hard for us today to understand how a fusion energy source in space cannot be detected. But that's not an argument from the needs of the game, and therefore is not a primary argument one way or the other.

 

[Selandia]

it is sea warfare circa 1900,

No submarine
there is no running underwater in space to gain stealth

No air power
Traveller's "Fighters" are the equiv of Torpedo boat, later Motor Torpedo Boat or Fast attack Craft. They do not project power at 10 or 40 time the speed of their carrier thanks to operating in a different element

Therefore: No requirement for specialized AS or AA weapons, tactics, formations, combined arm doctrine...etc...

T5 Main Gun Mount permit design strategy of Dreadhought or pre-dread era. Battle are Russo-Japanese war or WWI: Coronel, Falkland, Jutland (although air and subs do play a role in the North Sea theater, they are not always counted in the sluggers)Traveller's

While ship's design might be early 30 (before significant AA gets fitted on battlewagons), the need to rely on despatch boat for inter-system deployment and strategy would be more indicative of a pre global communication set-up (hence the 1900 ref)

have fun

Selandia

 

[robject]

A note on ship sizes.

In-system ships can be as small as a car. There are single-seat fighters, squad deployment craft, escape pods, and so on.

Interstellar ships ("starships") start at about the size of a house. A bit smaller than Serenity from Firefly, or maybe very approximately the size of the Millennium Falcon. The smallest starships can be flown by one person with the right skills.

Ship sizes and missions typically focus on those requiring a handful of crew -- i.e. the optimal number of players in a game of Traveller.

Ships "never" get as big as a small moon. (Mega-structures like ringworlds or Dyson spheres are possible, but rare or absent or based on forgotten technology. The best starports have orbital components which are probably quite large indeed, and orbital habitats are not unexpected. Surface-to-orbit has been conquered by gravitics and cheap energy.)

Ships rarely get as big as an asteroid (and then are typically just hollowed-out asteroids).

The most common big capital ships -- the ones with a big central main gun -- have a crew of thousands (I think).

 

[Archangel620]

So basically, all an Empire needs to do is cloak the radiation output from their fusion source, and boom, surprise attacks in space? I mean, it's rather easy to cloak heat detection, and even movement. I would assume an enterprising merchant could generate or pay for a computer virus that disables radiation detection.

I mean sonar is usable against submarines, but it's not perfect, and submarines can use computer attacks to prevent a clear reading from occurring. Maybe it isn't perfect cloaking, but in a setting where one assume technological superiority creates knowledge gaps, it doesn't have to be perfect cloaking. It just has to be good enough to get by a large fleet, or the planetary defenses.

You would never hide the 5th Fleet successfully against a comparable fighting force ready for it. But the 5th Fleet should be able to make a surprise attack against a nearby Fleet, if it wants to. Whether it wins or not, is not my questioning. Surprise attacks do not always end successfully.

 

[robject]

Yes, surprise attacks, I believe, are largely dependent on whether or not technology can hide (or sink) energy, heat, and whatever other signatures may be emitted by a ship.

All this means is that capability is dependent on how the game should balance out these various considerations.



Planetary assault, by the way, is another interesting problem. Consider the place and effectiveness of the siege in warfare, then consider the resources available to an entire planet versus what an incoming fleet would have to bring, what insystem resources are available for that fleet to secure, and so on.

 

[Archangel620]

Well if the planet relies on goods from the outside to survive or the system or imperial economy to survive, then yes, sieges are still worthwhile. The bulk cost is higher, but I am sure there is more than one weakened Constantinople in the Traveller setting, waiting to be blockaded from the outside universe and starved of economic, informational, and military powers. And in some cases, deprive the rest of the Empre of a particular good or service necessary for function of the Empire.

Sieges were something that lost prestige by the First World War, but Second World War and more recent battles still have sieges as being important for the sake of a successful war.

 

[robject]

I hadn't considered information starvation. I also hadn't considered that a siege has diplomatic repercussions. Or, rather, that war is waged on more than just a military front.

 

[Archangel620]

On sieges, remind yourself that the French aided the Turks in sieging Vienna, while the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Spanish, and the HRE fought to stem the Turkish tide.

Sieges are one of the biggest diplomatic-military moments in a war. They usually are decisive and brutal, they cost both sides exhaustion to the war, the loser has morale issues, and finally, they begin with a parlay for mercy and surrender, implying neither side wants brutality if it can be stopped.

 

[Adam Dray]

I make no claims about Traveller canon in this matter, but hiding in space (while moving) is not really a thing. You can hide behind a planetary body if you stay still, but there is no effective way to dump heat in a way that it can't be spotted from 100 million miles out, even with 21st century tech. With the advanced tech of TL14 or whatever, every starship is going to be able to spot you all the way across a solar system, as soon as the EM finishes its trip at light speed.

And there is no FTL communication or FTL sensor, so there's no way in Traveller (AFAIK) to detect a fleet jumping into your system. You just spot them when they arrive and send your fleet to intercept them.

 

[Archangel620]

I guess then the question is, "what Empire doesn't have sensors on all available worlds and a bunch of satellites?

Information, if we go to Sun Tzu, is the really the art of war, either deceiving or depriving it, you don't win unless you control the information.

Are there not jump signatures created from FTL? And aren't there locations best for jumping every empire could know? Now I am hitting technical probably. But, information is always vital to controlling territory. The borders in Traveller are either vigilantly guarded or loose to prevent acquisitions by surprise FTL.

That would be the epitome of pre-World War I Europe though. Hilarious, more confirmation of the pre-Submarine in Space idea.

 

[agorski]

I might suggest looking at The Spinward Marches Campaign booklet, which has a rather brief account of the Fifth Frontier War. That will at least give you a feel for how big empires fight each other (and perhaps why).

It also gives you a nice TO&E for an Imperial Navy BattleRider fleet and a lift infantry regiment.

 

[robject]

Information, if we go to Sun Tzu, is the really the art of war, either deceiving or depriving it, you don't win unless you control the information.

While I have read The Art of War, I don't remember much from it (except perhaps "attack from the high ground").

A zillion signatures could be created -- fusion chaff, in their own formations.

Are there not jump signatures created from FTL?

Indeed, a large signal is generated when jumping out of a system and entering it. Under at least one uncommon circumstance it might be absorbable. Otherwise, I suspect every planet and every orbit has pickets or tripwires in place.

And aren't there locations best for jumping every empire could know?

Yes: the oort cloud is one location. Even if the jump flash was not absorbed, they'd never find you -- they'd just know a large number of ships, size and capability unknown, have arrived.

Alternately, jump straight into the Mainworld's orbit. If you're going to lay siege, that is.

Alternately, a gas giant. You'll probably have to fight for it, but it's a resource.

The borders in Traveller are either vigilantly guarded or loose to prevent acquisitions by surprise FTL.

"Land war in Asia" springs to mind.