• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

Battles within the gas giant

Carlobrand

SOC-14 1K
Marquis
There's a world of difference between HG ships spinning about and using agility to jet about and avoid nuclear warheads blasting in vacuum, and the same ships trying to maneuver through dense atmosphere when the missiles come inbound and the nukes go off. Some ideas on combat rules in/near a gas giant:

  • Atmosphere affects weapon performance and maneuver:
    • Atmosphere shortens beam weapon ranges (Striker) and presents a barrier to particle beams. Ships deep in the gas giant would be able to stay outside the effective range of beam fire from orbit while bringing scooping ships under beam fire. So, particle accelerators are not available, and beam weapons are not available for offense between deep SDBs and overwatch ships in orbit, though ships daring to go into the atmosphere to scoop (or fight) could trade shots with SDBs.
    • Assuming both parties are close enough to trade beam fire, they're fighting in Striker-style air combat. They're running on 30-second turns, firing twice per turn; they may evade under Striker rules, gaining the agility defensive bonus. So, fire is exchanged every 15 seconds, and the craft get the benefit of their agility as well as computer rating. Easiest to use the High Guard weapons tables to reflect battery fire bonuses, rather than Striker's base 8+ (which, not coincidentally, is the odds for a F1 laser to hit, so it's a convenient bridge between the two rule sets). If you're running a situation where the scoopers get ambushed in atmosphere while the overwatch fleet is fighting a space battle with attackers in orbit, the gas giant battle's likely to be resolved and one side plummeting into the depths before a single High Guard turn is completed.
    • Under Striker rules, missiles aren't affected by agility if their own agility equals or exceeds that of the target. The standard missile is either a 5G6 missile (Special Supplement 3) or a 6G6 missile (COACC). Let's assume the naval missile is a target-designated high-performance 6G missile, since a homing missile invites a chance of inadvertently hitting the forward observer and the navy'd use a better missile than civilians. So, take the High Guard missile attack table, give the missile a +4 in atmosphere (giving the F1 battery a 2+ to hit), modify only by difference in computer rating (reflecting use of ECM). Agility/evasion does not apply.
    • Spinal mounts are not available for in-atmosphere ship-to-ship combat: particle accelerators are out in the first place, and there's no way atmospheric buffeting is going to permit anything remotely like enough accuracy to manage a spinal meson shot against an evading target less than 40 Km off. Meson bays are available.
    • Under MT rules, streamlined ships hit a top speed (and therefore a maximum agility bonus?) unless they are also airframe, and the DM is based on the difference in speed between the two maneuvering craft, therefore potentially 0. Other than that, similar to Striker: the DM doesn't appear to apply to missiles, and many, many turns pass and many, many shots are traded before the standard HG turn passes. One could use the MT model for beam (and bay meson) fire instead of the Striker model, setting a maximum agility 1 for craft in atmosphere that are streamlined but not airframe, and allowing an attacker to use his agility to counter his target's agility. SDBs are most likely airframe, for obvious reasons.
    • Nukes are more effective in atmosphere. Certain kill within 15 meters, or maybe to give them a fighting chance you could go with a 97 penetration, which translates to a -47 on the HG damage table, basically any nuclear missile hit generates a crit. (Actually, it'd be rather hard for them to be less effective than the way they're presented in High Guard.) Coupled with the way missiles are handled in atmosphere, the only real defense is to kill them before they go off.
  • Atmosphere may hinder detection and tracking.
    • Under MegaTrav rules,
      • warcraft of TL14+ can detect craft hidden in gas giants (and vice versa) and lock onto them via power plant neutrino emissions. TL14+ craft in orbit fire normally (with those weapons able to be fired) on craft in the gas giant; TL14+ craft hiding in a gas giant can fire normally on craft in orbit (with those weapons able to be fired). However, this occurs under High Guard turns: once per 20 minutes. That may be a little slow if there's a friendly in there fighting for his life.
      • TL12-13 warcraft hiding in a gas giant detect and lock on craft in orbit using mass detectors.
      • Warcraft of TL13 might detect craft hidden in gas giants (8+) using neutrino sensors; if they successfully detect, they can lock on. (The gas giant's mass prevents the use of mass detectors to detect warcraft hiding there.)
      • At TL12 or less, craft cannot detect or lock onto craft hiding in gas giants.
      • At TL11 or less, craft in hiding cannot detect or lock onto craft in orbit unless they emerge from hiding. They can detect and respond to craft that descend from orbit into the gas giant's atmosphere (though, gas giants being large, one may require a roll to see how many turns it takes for them to get within range of the target).
    • Under Striker rules, orbiting ships may use forward observers to fire at planetside targets; this can also be applied to targets in a gas giant.
      • Engaging is not guaranteed. The hiding craft may descend to a depth at which forward observation is not possible due to atmospheric effects on sensors. Alternately, the hiding craft may directly attack the observer, but it is vulnerable to indirect fire while doing so.
      • Indirect fire is at the Striker rate, 1 attack every 30 second turn, so there is clear advantage in putting an observer in the atmosphere and using indirect fire. "Forward observation" in this case consists of the observing ship, at a range of under 40 Km from a target, feeding sensor data directly from its sensors to the ship in orbit, with computers making the necessary correction to address the difference in viewpoint.
      • Both meson and missile indirect fire are available, no deviation issues, just a normal to-hit roll for mesons and treat missiles as above when they arrive.
      • A craft engaged in atmospheric spotting, or scooping, or combat has nowhere to hide; hiding craft may rise to its altitude and engage it in combat, with combat going by Striker's 30-second combat turns.
      Now we have a craft in atmosphere calling missile/meson fire in from overwatch ships in orbit: each ship in orbit launches/fires once per 30-second turn, and the missiles/mesons use the computer rating of the firing ship; means the expendable fighters can do forward observation while the heavies stay up in orbit. For verisimilitude, we can require a delay of 5 30-second turns for missiles; mesons suffer no delay. Or, forgo that for simplicity sake - but having the guy sweat five turns makes things a bit more interesting.
    • For in-atmosphere craft able to fire spinal mounts or missiles up at ships in orbit, the same forward observation rule might apply, but with more space for maneuver, it's not likely an orbiting fleet's going to let them close to F.O. range. Firing occurs under High Guard rules using the High Guard turn. They also can't set range - that's entirely up to the ships in orbit. If they're at an altitude that permits missile fire, they can be fired on by missiles
  • Disengaging: no guidance here, we're on our own. Let's say a ship in atmosphere wanting to disengage to orbit needs 40 30-second turns (one HG turn) to rise out of the atmosphere and into vacuum, at which point it is at short range and under High Guard turns and rules. A ship in atmosphere wanting to disengage by descending could descend to deeper atmosphere in the same time: missiles would get crushed below a certain altitude, and let's say that forward observation becomes impossible at those depths due to atmospheric effects. That doesn't stop meson fire at TL14+, though it slows to the High Guard turn. Gives a situation where TL14+ ships in orbit are trying to slowly clear the GG of hostile SDBs by firing mesons at neutrino signatures - a slow process with low odds: assuming maximum agility and all other things being equal, the typical meson spinal needs a 9+ to hit (10/36), the meson bay an 11+ (and likely to be stopped by configuration or a very light meson screen).

Now you have a scenario where SDBs hiding deep in a gas giant are dangerous and useful, where capital ships in orbit are trying to drive them out by "depth charging".

You also have a potential to make fighters useful in this role: they're small, more expendable, have an easier time hitting with missiles if the base roll is low and the target can't use agility, and can be used as in-atmosphere forward observers. In addition, Striker allows point defenses to be used in dedicated support - in other words, escorting craft can use their defensive batteries to defend themselves or the escorted craft. To emulate the Striker point defense rules, allow the beam weapons of a squadron of fighters in the GG atmosphere to function as a single battery - factor depending on the number of guns ('cause Striker doesn't care about factor, it only cares about how many missiles get destroyed) - and don't apply a computer modifier ('cause that doesn't seem to make a difference for this purpose at Striker ranges).

Of course, we don't have to apply Strike or MT close combat rules. It's just convenient to apply the known rule set to the situation rather than go in blind and make up something entirely new, and it makes the role of the gas-giant-hiding SDB much more relevant and dramatic.
 
[*]Atmosphere may hinder detection and tracking.
  • Under MegaTrav rules,
    • warcraft of TL14+ can detect craft hidden in gas giants (and vice versa) and lock onto them via power plant neutrino emissions. TL14+ craft in orbit fire normally (with those weapons able to be fired) on craft in the gas giant; TL14+ craft hiding in a gas giant can fire normally on craft in orbit (with those weapons able to be fired). However, this occurs under High Guard turns: once per 20 minutes. That may be a little slow if there's a friendly in there fighting for his life.
    • TL12-13 warcraft hiding in a gas giant detect and lock on craft in orbit using mass detectors.
    • Warcraft of TL13 might detect craft hidden in gas giants (8+) using neutrino sensors; if they successfully detect, they can lock on. (The gas giant's mass prevents the use of mass detectors to detect warcraft hiding there.)
    • At TL12 or less, craft cannot detect or lock onto craft hiding in gas giants.
    • At TL11 or less, craft in hiding cannot detect or lock onto craft in orbit unless they emerge from hiding. They can detect and respond to craft that descend from orbit into the gas giant's atmosphere (though, gas giants being large, one may require a roll to see how many turns it takes for them to get within range of the target).


  • I'm not sure neutrino sensors would be so useful to detect ships/boats hiding in GG atmosphere:

    - GG may emit its own neutrinos (most of them are energy emisors too). More so as larger GG is.
    - Ships may be runing on batteries. The plan would be to turn off their PP when enemy is detected (probably by warning satellites powered by solar pannels fed by the GG own emissions (and so inmune themselves to neutrino detection) and in high atmosphere) and run on batteries until enemy drive into atmosphere, and then throw the nukes to them. Not unlike the WWII submarines.
    - Ships may be powered by other kinds of PP than fusion (so emiting no neutrinos). Asa they power need may be quite "low" (no energy weapons, maybe no artifical gravity if they are deployed near where gravity is 1 G, etc).
    - Nuclear tiped mines could be deployed too to the skipping zone (e.g. by lower atmosphere SDBs running on batteries). The nuclear mines would be just a nuke with a low power grav plate, batteries to keep it floating and a proximity sensor to detonate it whn a shp without correct IFF is within blast radius).

    I agree most other sensors (except all weather radar, and even so at relatively close distances) will be useless or nearly so.
 
What would the atmospheric effects be on nuclear dampers and repulsors?

Radar might not be that ineffective. I'm not sure if they've tried radar mapping a gas giant, but we have surface-mapped Venus through that muck of an atmosphere it has.
 
What would the atmospheric effects be on nuclear dampers and repulsors?

Not sure about that. Black Globe is, of course, out of question...

Radar might not be that ineffective. I'm not sure if they've tried radar mapping a gas giant, but we have surface-mapped Venus through that muck of an atmosphere it has.

I'm not sure about how the violent storms in a GG atmosphere would affect radar, nor how will the EM emissions the GG itself emits, but I guess radar performance would be quite downgraded.
 
[*]Atmosphere may hinder detection and tracking.
  • Under MegaTrav rules,
    • warcraft of TL14+ can detect craft hidden in gas giants (and vice versa) and lock onto them via power plant neutrino emissions.


    • In MT, a TL 14 Densitometer will find an SDB down there very quickly. The other way around too.
 
I'm not sure neutrino sensors would be so useful to detect ships/boats hiding in GG atmosphere:

- GG may emit its own neutrinos (most of them are energy emisors too). More so as larger GG is.

I was figuring the concentrated emissions of a ship's fusion plant might be distinguishable from the background emissions of a gas giant.

- Ships may be runing on batteries. The plan would be to turn off their PP when enemy is detected (probably by warning satellites powered by solar pannels fed by the GG own emissions (and so inmune themselves to neutrino detection) and in high atmosphere) and run on batteries until enemy drive into atmosphere, and then throw the nukes to them. Not unlike the WWII submarines.

If atmospheric conditions are right, and assuming an airframe design built for it, they could possibly glide for long distances to conserve power. I wonder if Jupiter has the kind of thermals that would support that.

- Ships may be powered by other kinds of PP than fusion (so emiting no neutrinos). Asa they power need may be quite "low" (no energy weapons, maybe no artifical gravity if they are deployed near where gravity is 1 G, etc).

Fission generates neutrinos too. Solar isn't an option down there. Chemical reactions means carrying large quantities of the chemicals and an oxidizer. Other than batteries, I haven't the slightest idea what alternative power source might serve the need.

What would the atmospheric effects be on nuclear dampers and repulsors?

Dampers, nothing. They use dampers in ground combat. Projects a field that makes the nucleus stronger or weaker, can't see how an atmosphere would intervere with that.

Repulsors - I don't know, interesting question.

Radar might not be that ineffective. I'm not sure if they've tried radar mapping a gas giant, but we have surface-mapped Venus through that muck of an atmosphere it has.

I don't know enough about Jupiter and radar, whether there might be properties of the atmosphere that might absorb or reflect radio waves, or zones where natural emissions might jam frequencies.

In MT, a TL 14 Densitometer will find an SDB down there very quickly. The other way around too.

True.
 
I was figuring the concentrated emissions of a ship's fusion plant might be distinguishable from the background emissions of a gas giant.

If atmospheric conditions are right, and assuming an airframe design built for it, they could possibly glide for long distances to conserve power. I wonder if Jupiter has the kind of thermals that would support that.

Fission generates neutrinos too. Solar isn't an option down there. Chemical reactions means carrying large quantities of the chemicals and an oxidizer. Other than batteries, I haven't the slightest idea what alternative power source might serve the need.

What I meant when I compared it with WWII submarines is you're using your fussion plant until some fllet is detected, then you run on batteries, lurking into the GG atmosphere until they begin refueling sweeps, to attack them.

In MT, a TL 14 Densitometer will find an SDB down there very quickly. The other way around too.

Not so sure. Densiometers are badly described in MT, but a pasive sensor based on gravitics, IMHO, could only work by detecting gravitons (I know today's science doesn't agree bout their existence, but as gravitics in Traveller is explained as interfering them, I understand Traveller assumes they do). While this could be possible in space (where gravitons are scarce), I'm not sure it will work in such a gravity well as a GG represents.

I know nothing about this is taold in MT, and I'm only assuming many things, but I try to put a little of logics (as far as my knowledge allows) on the densiometer working.
 
While this could be possible in space (where gravitons are scarce), I'm not sure it will work in such a gravity well as a GG represents.

I know nothing about this is taold in MT, and I'm only assuming many things, but I try to put a little of logics (as far as my knowledge allows) on the densiometer working.


yes, in MT, they work that way. A ship in atmosphere would be as obvious as a coal pile sitting in a white room. Best sensor in MT (IMO)
 
yes, in MT, they work that way. A ship in atmosphere would be as obvious as a coal pile sitting in a white room. Best sensor in MT (IMO)

also one deep in a GG atmosphere?
 
sure, but the gravity well form the GG may interfere it
 
Nope. There are designed for that kind of work. That's why you can map sub-surface density.

Not so sure about that. They are designed for space combat, were there are no gravity wells, not for land survey, and GG gravity wells are quite strong.

Anyway, as I said, they are the less described sensors in MT, and its limitations are not described (range, interferences from gravity wells, etc).
 
If combat is taking place within a solar system you are in the gravity well of the star.

Of course, but is not as strong as inside the gravity well of a GG (what gravity must be for the GG atmosphere presure to be 3-5 bar? And that's not too deep on it).

EDIT: If you use an IR vision device, it will help you even if there's some heat arround, but it will (at best) lose definition if you look at where a bonfire is. As desniometers are passive sensors, I guess they will have symilar problems inside a strong gravity well.
 
Last edited:
Current gravity sensing equipment notices changes in gravity of about 1mm/s/s without use of gravitons - it's pretty weak as a sensor, and only tests one direction, and gives a resolution cell of several meters. Works by a calibrated spring and weight system. It's good enough to find sunken ships on a smooth lake (but absolutely requires a stable platform). Orbital deflection can be used to map to about 0.01mm/s/s and 500+m cell size for resolution.

Instead, we use Ground Penetrating Radar and Ground Penetrating Sonar. (I've even seen one unit that combined them.) They effectively are densitomiters - they measure changes in ground density. Pottery doesn't show up well, but bones and knives do. Spot size is under 1cm for the first several meters.

I'd expect densitometer results to look very much like GPR an GPSonar results - a good op can tell what's noise and what isn't.

Oh, and the mass difference of a ship and the surrounding atmosphere in a GG is likely to be about 10:1 - the densitometer should show it nicely - radar and sonar would.
 
Oh, and the mass difference of a ship and the surrounding atmosphere in a GG is likely to be about 10:1 - the densitometer should show it nicely - radar and sonar would.


Yes, as densitometers can map the difference between metal & rock, the difference in density between a starship hull and atmosphere would be stark indeed.
 
Current gravity sensing equipment notices changes in gravity of about 1mm/s/s without use of gravitons - it's pretty weak as a sensor, and only tests one direction, and gives a resolution cell of several meters. Works by a calibrated spring and weight system. It's good enough to find sunken ships on a smooth lake (but absolutely requires a stable platform). Orbital deflection can be used to map to about 0.01mm/s/s and 500+m cell size for resolution.

Instead, we use Ground Penetrating Radar and Ground Penetrating Sonar. (I've even seen one unit that combined them.) They effectively are densitomiters - they measure changes in ground density. Pottery doesn't show up well, but bones and knives do. Spot size is under 1cm for the first several meters.

I'd expect densitometer results to look very much like GPR an GPSonar results - a good op can tell what's noise and what isn't.

Oh, and the mass difference of a ship and the surrounding atmosphere in a GG is likely to be about 10:1 - the densitometer should show it nicely - radar and sonar would.

I didn't know about all those sensors, but are they active or passive? I guess the yare active, as radar is active and sonar uses to be unless you try to detect a sound emiter, and I guess this is not the case for Ground Penetrating Sonar.

Densiometers in MT are described as passive sensors, and I guess the ones used for soil prospection are not the same used for space detection, as the conditions are too different.

I keep thinking a passive gravity sensor (as Densiometers are described) must be based on gravitons emmision, and quite faint level to detect ships in space, as their gravity fields are quite low, and they must be fine tuned to make tridimensional maps of the ships. Anyway I'm not a sensors specialist (to say the least), but I see no other way for a gravity passive sensor.

At this level of sensibility, my sight about using them to detect ships deep in the GG atmosphere (and graity well) sould be as pointing a parabolic microphone designed to listen at conversations by the vibrations of a window glass to a Heavy Rock concert.
 
I didn't know about all those sensors, but are they active or passive?

They are totally passive.

Densiometers in MT are described as passive sensors, and I guess the ones used for soil prospection are not the same used for space detection, as the conditions are too different.

The same sensors are used for both.

At this level of sensibility, my sight about using them to detect ships deep in the GG atmosphere (and graity well) sould be as pointing a parabolic microphone designed to listen at conversations by the vibrations of a window glass to a Heavy Rock concert.

Nope. Our sub hunting aircraft detect subs in water (MUCH denser than atmosphere) using the same sensor. No problem.
 
Last edited:
Nope. Our sub hunting aircraft detect subs in water (MUCH denser than atmosphere) using the same sensor. No problem.

Probably I'm outdated about ASW sensors, but the closest thing I remember in Harpoon was the MAD, which detected magnetic, not gravitational, anomalies, and had problems with non-ferrous (and so non magnetic) items and with non moving ones...
 
Back
Top