Maximum Viable Battleship Size

[flykiller]

That was my understanding, to fit the almighty USP.

well, to fit a number of things. the 1950's-1970's electro-mechanical conception of "battery", the idea of fitting traveller data into a fortran punch card format, etc.

given modern electronics and control systems batteries should be configurable on the spur of the moment (assuming gunners and power are available, etc). it's just a good idea though to keep a memory of what the original rules are.

 

[aramis]

That was my understanding, to fit the almighty USP.

I go wild, even allowing for PA bays AND spinals on the SAME SHIP, cause gameplay and weapon design should not be in service to damn serial numbers.

I found my confusion - the T20 version of HG allows refiguring batteries outside of combat. It deletes the offending line.

 

[Whipsnade]

Yes, but HG is just as much canon as FS. (snippage)
We basically have a choice of believing HG or FS.

We can believe both IF we also remember that there are different levels of "canonicity". This happens to be exactly the issue I've been trying to address in this thread: We can only infer a certain amount of OTU canonical information from HG2 and other Traveller war games.

We all too often fall into the habit of binary thinking. It's always 1/0, yes/no, up/down, black/white, and so forth. We all too often forget about nuances.

Yes, Traveller war game are canon. War games are a special subset of canon however because, unlike purely canonical descriptions, war games must also bow to "ease of play" concerns.

Case in point, squadrons in FFW use all their jump fuel every time they jump no matter what distance they jump. If a jump4 squadron makes a one parsec hop, all it's jump fuel is used. That rule is in place to ease play; players won't have to keep a log for each squadron's fuel status. However ff you chose to ignore the real reason that rule exists, you could make a "logical" argument that jump fuel regulators hadn't been invented prior to the 5th Frontier War.

Another example of this involves HG2's sandcasters. In both LBB:2 and Mayday sand is launched in the Ordnance Launch Phase of the Turn Sequence. Sand can then interfere with an opponent's laser fire providing that the launching ship hadn't changed vectors. In HG2 however, sand seemingly isn't cast until after an opponent's laser batteries hit. Naturally, the reason for this is ease of play. Ships in HG2 don't move, so the protection from earlier launched sand cannot be lost. Letting players assign their sand defenses after laser/energy/missile hits are rolled is nothing more than a decision for ease of play.

Again, if you can't or won't understand why and when sand is deployed in HG2, you'll come up with a "solution" much like that proposed by DGP. Because they forgot the MT combat system was designed with ease of play in mind, they suggested that a weak laser "ranging" pulse would signal a subsequent weapon strike with enough time to allow the defender to launch sand.

Thus incomprehension and an inability to grasp the idea that war game designs have different needs than canonical descriptions produced a "solution" for a problem that didn't exist.

From Imperium's jump lines to FFW's "lack" of jump fuel regulators to HG2's sandcasters and "magic' missiles to many other example, it's patently obvious that Traveller's war games, while canonical, are canonical only up to certain point. Ease of play means that war games must obey a very different master. That means that we can only make canonical inferences up to a certain point and no further.

Thus S:9's ship designs are correct because HG2's combat model does not provide us with the compete story. T5 has finally given us a reason why those large battlewagons exist and there will be other solution for all the other mysteries the ship combat raises.

 

[Whipsnade]

given modern electronics and control systems batteries should be configurable on the spur of the moment (assuming gunners and power are available, etc). it's just a good idea though to keep a memory of what the original rules are.

I've posted rules for flexible battery assignments bot here and at Freelance Traveller.

I'd like to think they are both workable and minimally intrusive.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

We can believe both IF we also remember that there are different levels of "canonicity".

And I happen to not share you opinion about "different levels of canonicity".

FS is also a game product that is brutally simplified. It gives us some random ship classes, mostly without giving absolute or relative numbers of their deployment or any doctrine for the ships use or the Navy as a whole.

Maybe the battleships are space superiority craft, maybe they are gunboats to scare the natives into obedience. Maybe a good reason to build them (for the Admiralty) is that it is more prestigious to captain bigger ships, and it makes the nobles happy and compliant to have bigger toys to play with.

Ship classification is a political thing. This is not a Carrier:

DDH-183 JS Izumo


As far as I can see we make different interpretations of available data, and there are not enough data to determine if any of us are "right" or "wrong".

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Thus S:9's ship designs are correct because HG2's combat model does not provide us with the compete story.

FS has, among other things, this to say about battle riders:

"it is undeniable that a BatRon of battle riders will invariably defeat an equal tonnage squadron of jump-capable battleships"

"This design also illustrates some of the advantages possessed by battleriders versus battleships, although the cost advantages are largely eliminated when the cost of the fleet tender is included. Still, a squadron of eight 50,000-ton battleriders in a rnillion-ton tender approximates in price two Tigress class dreadnaughts, yet possesses much greater firepower and survivability."

(Yes, the quotes are "carefully chosen".)

It is correct to say that the Imperium deploys battleships, it is also correct to say that the Imperium deploys battle riders. The relative importance of the two are not given.

 

[aramis]

Ship classification is a political thing. This is not a Carrier:

DDH-183 JS Izumo

Izumo IS a carrier - that's what the H means - Helicopter Carrier. The Japanese don't have any CVA's, but everyone treates their DDH as a what it is for classification - a CVEH. (Izumo is ASW and SAR focused, but is also built on a DD hull.) And should actually be CVEHT - she's also equipped for troop transport!

If you wanted to show the political nature, the correct classe to use are the Arleigh Burke class "Frigates"... which are sized and used as CL's, and any "Battlecruiser" from WW II.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I seem to remember that the Japanese DDH could not, and cannot, be classified as CV anything, since Carriers are a symbol of an unacceptable past. So they may look like carriers, function like carriers, but they are classified as destroyers.

I call that a misclassification for political reasons.

Your other examples may work just as well.

 

[Whipsnade]

And I happen to not share you opinion about "different levels of canonicity".

Then enjoy chasing your tail explaining jump lines in Imperium, the "lack" of jump fuel regulators in FFW, the A:2 description of Capital, the jump torpedoes in A:4, how missiles can work in HG2, why sand is used after weapon hits in HG2, the broken ships designs in FSotSI, A:6], and SMC[/b], or any of the hundreds of other examples.

Canon is NOT a seamless whole because canon was not written as a seamless whole. Canon accreted. It was not planned except in the most general sense.

Even the late Hans Rancke, who forgot more canon then most of us remember, admitted that some statements in canon were more canonical than others.

 

[whartung]

Thus S:9's ship designs are correct because HG2's combat model does not provide us with the compete story.

Given the physics of the OTU as detailed in HG, the S:9 designs, with the Tigress being the Queen of Bad Designs, stink. Any polity that fields Tigresses in TL15 combat deserves to lose the battle and everything else that goes along with wasting all of the money. It's a complete waste of MCr at every measure. It's not even a good pork program, you could get more jobs building better designs since you'd build more ships thus staffing more shipyards.

T5 has finally given us a reason why those large battlewagons exist and there will be other solution for all the other mysteries the ship combat raises.

T5 canon is not CT canon.

I still want to see that whole "blotting out the sky and yanking ships out of jump space" thing that keeps coming up around these large ships better explained. I have no problem with the whole 100D thing being relevant for any larger mass, but that's at the start of jump -- once the ship is gone, it's gone. Is the suggestion that a larger ship can pull smaller ship out of jump if it gets within 100D of the smaller ships original jump point at any time during the week of jump?

So then you fly these big battleships around pulling escaping enemy fleets out of jump after a battle? Is that how it's supposed to work?

Even if that's the case, you wouldn't build something like the Tigress -- spend the money on a tug and go grab a big rock and drag it around, then stick it in the reserve while the battle rages. After the funs over, go run around vacuuming ships back out of jump space.

 

[Whipsnade]

Given the physics of the OTU as detailed in HG...

My contention is that HG2's model is incomplete. That's why...

... the S:9 designs, with the Tigress being the Queen of Bad Designs, stink.

They do stink when examined through HG2. Change the rules and those ships suddenly work. So, either HG2 is incomplete/wrong or every warship design in CT is wrong.

I'll choose the "smaller" problem.

T5 canon is not CT canon.

Take it up with Mr. Miller.

So then you fly these big battleships around pulling escaping enemy fleets out of jump after a battle? Is that how it's supposed to work?

I don't like it either and it doesn't/won't work that way IMTU. In the OTU however...

Even if that's the case, you wouldn't build something like the Tigress...

I'm not defending it. I'm just saying what Mr. Miller says is canon.

 

[flykiller]

Izumo IS a carrier

well, technically, sure, but the word "carrier" brings to mind "CVN" unless otherwise specified. the movie "2012" doesn't dump a marine LHA on the white house, it just wouldn't have the same movie effect ....

I call that a misclassification for political reasons.

more like japanese reasons. the japanese are very big on official appearances, even moreso than the chinese. for example japan requires the united states to inform it of any nuclear weapons a united states ship brings into japanese waters, but the united states never confirms nor denies, so the offical japanese position is that since they have not been notified then no nukes are present and everyone smiles.

Canon is NOT a seamless whole because canon was not written as a seamless whole. Canon accreted.

well, it's more like a collection of space wreckage with a similar vector ....

Queen of Bad Designs

(heh. love it.) think of the specifications as rhetorical rather than technical.

 

[mike wightman]

Given the physics of the OTU as detailed in HG, the S:9 designs, with the Tigress being the Queen of Bad Designs, stink. Any polity that fields Tigresses in TL15 combat deserves to lose the battle and everything else that goes along with wasting all of the money. It's a complete waste of MCr at every measure. It's not even a good pork program, you could get more jobs building better designs since you'd build more ships thus staffing more shipyards.

Agreed, and it is a broken design to boot, or at least the jump 4 performance is

T5 canon is not CT canon.

While I agree with the sentiment the fact remains that T5 describes the OTU and the OTU is what MWM says it is.

I still want to see that whole "blotting out the sky and yanking ships out of jump space" thing that keeps coming up around these large ships better explained. I have no problem with the whole 100D thing being relevant for any larger mass, but that's at the start of jump -- once the ship is gone, it's gone. Is the suggestion that a larger ship can pull smaller ship out of jump if it gets within 100D of the smaller ships original jump point at any time during the week of jump?

Yup , that's how it works. And this is the compromise rule, originally it would be any size of ship getting close enough to any point of your jump line during the time you are in jump.

So then you fly these big battleships around pulling escaping enemy fleets out of jump after a battle? Is that how it's supposed to work?

The law of unintended consequence strikes again. It changes the setting quite a bit.

Even if that's the case, you wouldn't build something like the Tigress -- spend the money on a tug and go grab a big rock and drag it around, then stick it in the reserve while the battle rages. After the funs over, go run around vacuuming ships back out of jump space.

Again yes - once you realise that this is now an allowed tactic you build the cheapest best ship to do the job.

 

[mike wightman]

My contention is that HG2's model is incomplete. That's why...

I agree with you on this point.

So, either HG2 is incomplete/wrong or every warship design in CT is wrong.

I'll choose the "smaller" problem.

Here I think the problem is the folks at GDW didn't use their own rules enough to understand that the fluff and the rules are slightly incompatible.
Take the first two ships that appeared in JTAS:
ANNIC NOVA - built using tech not in the basic rules
The Gazelle - a weird hybrid of LBB2, HG1 and HG2, with broken drop tank rules to boot

When you rebuild the S9 ships using HG2 you run into minor issues with just about every one - if they are broken designs they are wrong.

So either the OTU is right or HG2 is right - the answer is that the latest version of the OTU trumps all :devil:

I don't like it either and it doesn't/won't work that way IMTU. In the OTU however...

Again I agree, but will raise your with a :CoW:

 

[flykiller]

the answer is that the latest version of the OTU trumps all

not the referee?

 

[mike wightman]

not the referee?

The referee doesn't define the OTU, only MWM can do that.
And when we discuss the common point of reference that is the OTU then we all have to use that as our frame of reference or everyone brings IMTU stuff into things - which can be helpful at times, not so at others.

 

[aramis]

T5 canon is not CT canon.

It is the final word in OTU canon, however. It trumps ALL other editions for what is the OTU.

I still want to see that whole "blotting out the sky and yanking ships out of jump space" thing that keeps coming up around these large ships better explained. I have no problem with the whole 100D thing being relevant for any larger mass, but that's at the start of jump -- once the ship is gone, it's gone. Is the suggestion that a larger ship can pull smaller ship out of jump if it gets within 100D of the smaller ships original jump point at any time during the week of jump?

"Once they are gone" is false. The ship exists in a quantum tunnel alone the entire jump course, only collapsing after a week. If the line is blocked, at collapse, it collapses at the closest interruption to the entry point.

So then you fly these big battleships around pulling escaping enemy fleets out of jump after a battle? Is that how it's supposed to work?

You have to actually be there when their jump line decays. So each can only grab one or two. But those one or two have had a week to repair systems. They pop out 100 diameters from the ship.

Even if that's the case, you wouldn't build something like the Tigress -- spend the money on a tug and go grab a big rock and drag it around, then stick it in the reserve while the battle rages. After the funs over, go run around vacuuming ships back out of jump space.

It can only grab one, maybe two.

 

[flykiller]

The referee doesn't define the OTU, only MWM can do that.

then I wonder how many people play the otu.

come to think of it, what is "the otu"?

 

[mike wightman]

None of us play the OTU, the question is how close to the OTU do you get in your games?

OTU - Official Traveller Universe - it has changed with every rulebook and supplement and adventure and official article. It used to be the setting/universe that GDW used to showcase their rules and a place for a common background to published adventures.
Unfortunately right from the start they ignored the rules as written and added stuff to the setting which the rules didn't support.
The OTU now belongs to MWM and he is the final world on how the setting universe works, the two best guides to MWM's OTU are T5 and Agent of the Imperium.
The latter has quite an original take on Traveller battleships and the like, the former doesn't actually have rules for them yet.

Slight aside on that last point.
For 35 years we have been discussing HG2. Other ship construction rules for Traveller have coma and gone, other combat systems for those ships has come and gone. I will wager that not very many people will adopt MgT HG2 as the definitive ship construction and combat system, nor will the T5 ship construction and combat system still be being discussed in another 35 years (from its publication date).
I think 'we' will still be discussing HG2.

So why doesn't Marc just base T5 BCS design and combat on an updated HG2. I do not mean give it the T5 treatment, I mean just the minimum amount of changes to HG2 to fix some of the issues.

 

[Condottiere]

Speaking of politics, who can forget how the Admiralty slipped through through deck cruisers through a carrier adverse Parliament?

Of course, having the Harrier helped, and set the stage for pseudo attack carriers from LHDs to micro that only needed a ski ramp and one seventy metre flight decks.