Back-up Meson Screens, Nuclear Dampers, and Force Fields

[far-trader]

Yes, I was pondering how to do some fog-of-war in HG combat after reading the account. Nothing yet though, headache making thinking difficult. And your musing about the Zho deciding the attrition rate isn't worth the mission made me wonder about adding morale as well.

 

[mike wightman]

Careful or this is going to turn into a why there's no stealth in space thread

But just to chip in.

High Guard has virtually no manoeuvre rules what so ever - choosing range and position in the reserve or line of battle being all there is.

Fog of war would involve hiding the composition of your line of battle and reserve, unless you are going to add a more detailed movement system to HG. In which case we could add nukes to provide sensor white outs, decoys etc.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning Carlobrand,

Yup, luck and guts ... and a slight tech advantage. The U.S. ships had better fire control - and the smaller more maneuverable destroyers were simply harder for the Japanese to hit. On the luck side, the Japanese, expecting to meet a heavier force, started with armor-piercing explosive rounds which often went all the way through the destroyers and out the other side before bursting. And, given that the expectation was he should sacrifice his fleet to damage the invaders, Kurita's decision to preserve his force was rather surprising, but apparently he really thought the mission could not be achieved.

Yep, tech and improved skills were factors into the destroyers, escort carriers, and aircraft helped the US side. Wrong decisions, using AP and lack of solid intelligence on the part of the Japanese pushed the scales in the US favor.

Yesterday gremlins were out and I lost two or three replies after spell checking. One of the lost bits was about the tech advantage the US and allied forces had at the time. I'm glad you brought the point about the tech Carlobrand.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning Dan "far-trader" Burns,

Yes, I was pondering how to do some fog-of-war in HG combat after reading the account. Nothing yet though, headache making thinking difficult. And your musing about the Zho deciding the attrition rate isn't worth the mission made me wonder about adding morale as well.

Yep, adding in all the factors that affect combat is very difficult, since there are so many. I hope your headache goes away and your day gets better.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning Mike Wightman,

Careful or this is going to turn into a why there's no stealth in space thread .

Your joking right they haven't taken away the Romulan cloaking device have they?

But just to chip in.

High Guard has virtually no manoeuvre rules what so ever - choosing range and position in the reserve or line of battle being all there is.

Fog of war would involve hiding the composition of your line of battle and reserve, unless you are going to add a more detailed movement system to HG. In which case we could add nukes to provide sensor white outs, decoys etc.

Classical Traveller was designed with easy of play at the top of the list. Keeping things simply is one of the features that have kept the game around. Of course the same feature causes some of us, like me , to try to complicate the system since there are what appear to be holes in the system to us.

Thanks for chipping in.

 

[mike wightman]

The real beauty of the HG design and combat system only really comes alive when you move away from designing TL15 fleets and start experimenting with lower TLs.

It sometimes staggers me how such a relatively simple design and combat system grows in complexity as you try to balance design criteria against combat performance at the various TLs.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello again Mile Wightman,

The real beauty of the HG design and combat system only really comes alive when you move away from designing TL15 fleets and start experimenting with lower TLs.

It sometimes staggers me how such a relatively simple design and combat system grows in complexity as you try to balance design criteria against combat performance at the various TLs.

I'm not really into design fleets, just the ships. Usually I design the base model and move on to the next idea that pops in to my mind. I have one design that has four hulls assigned which are based on the dimensions of a French WWII light cruiser. The difference that stood out the most was that each hull had more armor plating than the previous one.

Of course with the increase in armor and to fit the same weapons the hull displacement tons also went up slightly.

I can believe in the complexity involved based on trying to do the something, not in Traveller however. I'll take your word though, no I don't want to buy any bridges.

 

[rancke]

Exactly and, believe it or not, that's exactly what Hans is writing too. He's just approaching things from the other end and either can't or won't see that we're all talking about the same thing.

You and I have both agreed that mission determines class. In the 57th Century and in the Imperial Navy, the mission Can carry a spinal mount and cannot stand in the line of battle means a vessel is a cruiser. Because the ability to carry a spinal and the inability to stand in the line of battle suggests a certain range of tonnages, class is strongly linked to mission and only loosely coupled to tonnage.

Ingenious, Bill, but it fails to take into account that most cruisers never go cruising and that some cruisers are, indeed, totally unsuited for cruising missions. Most cruisers are organized into CruRons and assigned to fleets, where they serve to support the BatRons. If they were actually named after their most common mission, they would be called supporters, or escorts (but 'escort' is taken by another class of ship).

And what is a ship that carries a spinal mount and cannot stand in the line of battle and has too low a jump rating to be suitable for cruising missions called? Are they scouts? No, Are they escorts? No (Well, yes, but they don't fit into the Imperial Navy's definition of an escort). Are they carriers? No. Are they battleships? No. What's left? Cruiser.

One could argue that the Imperial Navy just don't build ships like that, but planetary navies do, and the squadrons they form are called CruRons. [FFW countermix]

Historically naval powers have said "This is the mission a cruiser does therefore any vessel which performs this mission is a cruiser". In the 57th Century, the Imperial Navy has said "This is the mission a cruiser does therefore any vessel which performs this mission is a cruiser". The missions which define whether a vessel is a cruiser or not have most definitely changed, but the idea that the mission defines the ship has not.

How do you know that it hasn't? Do you have any canonical support for that notion? Is it anything more than 21st Century notions cut and pasted into the 57th Century?

Hans wants to believe that, because we're using historical analogies to support the argument of mission determining class, we're also using those historical missions.

What I want is to go with the simple assumption that the canonical description of ship classes in FS means what it says. Nothing more.

We're not, of course. We're simply using the structure of the historical mechanism along with the "details" of the 57th Century.

No, but you are using the "historical" (by which I mean current) notion of mission determining class.

I don't understand why you reject the possibility that 3000 years from now the term 'cruiser' has changed from designating mission to designating something else so categorically. It's certainly not like there aren't plenty of historical examples. Sloops didn't sloop and frigates didn't frigate; they were classified according to the number of cannon they carried. Cogs didn't cog, caravels didn't caravel, and galleons didn't galleon ("Stop galleoning about, Captain, and get on with you mission; you're supposed to caravel the Windward Islands. And no haring off cogging, d'you hear!").

In fact, they only examples of ships classified according to their mission that I can think of are contemporaneous, such as cruisers and battleships (OK, and line-of-battleships), and the principle is not applied consistently even today. Hangar ships are named after a crucial design feature, not mission (If there were, they'd be 'force projectors'). MTBs are named after a design feature. Destroyers... well, they do destroy, but any more so than many other classes of ships? If you want something destroyed, are destroyers your go-to ship in preference to cruisers and battleships?

In other words, the notion that mission determines class is very far from being universal, and there's absolutely no evidence that it applies in the Classic Era. (And some evidence that it doesn't).

EDIT: Ooops... Hangar ship is a Danish term (translated directly). You people call them carriers. Forget that example.


Hans

 

[sabredog]

Well, you have to call them something, so what do you use other than your own definition when no other one exists? Unless you are running a strict by-the-book OTU with nothing but canon (which in itself can get fuzzy).

This is why I laugh when people drag out out and dust off the old torpedo boat destroyer type of argument. Jeez, here we even have a current example of carriers called hangar ships but they do the same thing. So why couldn't that be used in Traveller?

Maybe more correctly it should be that the mission determines (in a perfect world) the ship type that should be used, but as in RL, it isn't always so. So cruisers might get escort missions for something that is important enough (or because nothing "escort-y" is available so the cruiser wins the toss.

 

[rancke]

Well, you have to call them something, so what do you use other than your own definition when no other one exists?

When no other definition exists, you use the one you are familiar with (or if you want to introduce a dash of "not in Kansas any more" to your setting, you make up something of your own).

But a definition DOES exist. On page 9-10 of Fighting Ships. Escorts are small ships of up to 5000 tons regardless of their mission; cruisers are spinal mount equipped ships of between 20,000 and 100,000 tons regardless of their mission.

That's all there is to it.


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

Wrong.

Canon defines cruisers in two main places:

Cruiser. Ship capable of independent operations and of support of the main line of battle. Cruisers are intended to fulfil two diverse missions- in battle, they support and reinforce capital ships which are present and which form the main line of battle, generally from the flanks, and they perform independent operations, often forming the center of task forces which have no capital ships. Cruisers are also put to use as independent ships.

Library data A-M

Cruisers: Cruisers are the smallest ships to carry the large spinal weapons needed to cause serious damage to a large armored ship, although most are too lightly armored to stand in the line of battle. They form the cadre of commerce raiding task forces and provide fire support for planetary invasions. Sizes range from 20,000 to 100,000 tons. Cruisers serving with a battle fleet are generally grouped in CruRons of from four to eight ships, while individual ships or pairs of cruisers are used to form the hard core of scouting or raiding groups.

S:9 Fighting ships.

Also note that S:9 does not define destroyers and yet there are destroyers in the supplement.

 

[sabredog]

I wonder why the "armored" requirement in a universe that meson guns exist in? The beasts come in many flavors and all ignore armor. Or does anyone (or say anywhere) that "armor" includes screens?

 

[rancke]

Canon defines cruisers in two main places:
Library data A-M
S:9 Fighting ships.

And the two are not mutually contradictory, so I don't see the problem with interpreting the one from FS as meaning what it says. Essentially the LDAM entry says that they are ship capable of cruising (independent operations) and of not cruising (support the main line of battle). I'm pretty sure the same can be said for at least some of the escorts. I'm also pretty sure that some cruisers are more suitable for independent operations (high jump capable and lighter armor) and some cruisers are more suitable for supporting fleets (just enough jump to keep up with the fleet and heavier armor).

Also note that S:9 does not define destroyers and yet there are destroyers in the supplement.

Destroyers are a narrower sub-group the broad type of ship known as escorts. Small ships of up to 5000 tons. Possibly small ships of from 1000 to 3000 tons; possibly defined in some other way (I can't spot any other characteristic trait shared by the three examples we know of and not by the other escorts, but perhaps there is something). Actually, there's only one destroyer in the supplement, the 3000 T Midu Agashaam. The 1000 T Chrysanthemums and Fer-de-Lances are destroyer escorts.


Hans

 

[aramis]

DE's are not DD's; the Midu isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of type as a DD.

The Fer De Lance is a DE - and that code can be interpreted in several ways:
1) escort ship intended to escort destroyers
2) a particular type of destroyer optimized for the escort role.
3) a heavy combat escort

Hard times uses the phrase "destroyers and escorts" implying them to be separate.

Note that destroyers arose as a type in the 20th Century: Dreadnought, Battleship, Battlecruiser, Cruiser, and Escort go back to the 19th C; frigate, cutter, corvette and gunboat go back further still... DD's were intended to take on uboats, not ships of the line, but had cruiser range, escort weapons, and tackled many independent missions.

 

[rancke]

Hard times uses the phrase "destroyers and escorts" implying them to be separate.

Is Hard Times acceptable to you as evidence for the Classic Era navy? :devil:

Anyway, FS states that "there are five broad types of ships in service with the Imperial Navy: Scouts, Escorts, Cruisers, Carriers, and Battleships."

Either Hard Times is confused or it is referring to narrower types. Perhaps escorts are sub-divided into destroyers, escorts, patrol ships, and, oh I don't know, picket ships. (No, I've never heard of an Imperial Navy starship type called a picket ship).


Hans

 

[sabredog]

BTW: I have pickets boats. And revenue cutters. Etc...

Now, as to my question: since "cruisers" are lightly armored, and exist in a universe with meson guns that ignore armor, then do screens count as "armor"? Or do we just vote on it because the almighty canon doesn't know?

I wouldn't consider it armor, but it might count as "armor" within the context of the world it exists in since it is designed to protect the ship from penetrating hits. Sand works away form the ship so it wouldn't be the same thing.

 

[aramis]

Is Hard Times acceptable to you as evidence for the Classic Era navy? :devil:

Anyway, FS states that "there are five broad types of ships in service with the Imperial Navy: Scouts, Escorts, Cruisers, Carriers, and Battleships."

Either Hard Times is confused or it is referring to narrower types. Perhaps escorts are sub-divided into destroyers, escorts, patrol ships, and, oh I don't know, picket ships. (No, I've never heard of an Imperial Navy starship type called a picket ship).


Hans

Not exactly, but definitely worth consideration. Far more valuable than TNE sources.

 

[SanDragon]

Spaceships and starships require a minimum amount of armor to protect the squishy beings inside from micro-meteors and radiation.

Meson screens count as defense because they disrupt the strong nuclear force of the relativistic mesons and force their decay outside of the targeted ship instead of inside.

This according to the MegaTraveller referee's manual...

Pardon me while I dig up book 5 and hope...

 

[sabredog]

Per Striker, the non-armored starship hull is rated at 40 - which is pretty dang heavy duty. Anything more than that starts getting impressive.

So ship hulls are already "armored" in a way. I guess I'm looking for definitive answer to the question of whether or not screens count as armor in the nomenclature of the 57th Century since they act that way, in a way.

For example, with a Black Globe you could get away with an armor of zero and have better protection than the heaviest "armored" battleship. So if you mounted one on a cruiser with little or no armor would that jump the cruiser to a BB?

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Aramis

DE's are not DD's; the Midu isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of type as a DD.

The Fer De Lance is a DE - and that code can be interpreted in several ways:
1) escort ship intended to escort destroyers
2) a particular type of destroyer optimized for the escort role.
3) a heavy combat escort

The class, per Fighting Ships, is intended to provide "close protection of unarmed transport craft." Of course someone in high places might order the Fer De Lance class to escort destroyers. I'll bet the destroyer sailors would be kind of upset though.

The Chrysanthemum DE would have, using USN terminology, been classified as a DDE since the class is "intended for fleet and squadron escort duties."

Hard times uses the phrase "destroyers and escorts" implying them to be separate.

Note that destroyers arose as a type in the 20th Century: Dreadnought, Battleship, Battlecruiser, Cruiser, and Escort go back to the 19th C; frigate, cutter, corvette and gunboat go back further still... DD's were intended to take on uboats, not ships of the line, but had cruiser range, escort weapons, and tackled many independent missions.

I'm not to clear on when the 20th began, however sometime around 1892 navies built hulls called torpedo boat destroyers (TBD) as a counter to the threat posed by the torpedo boat. The TBD was referred to as a torpedo boat destroyer or simply destroyer by the First World War they where simply called destroyers.

As with many weapon systems the destroyer has evolved to what we have today.