Big Naval Ships in the Traveller Universe

[whartung]

it is very difficult to keep tenders alive, hence riders are a much less tasty concept.

Have you tried?

I don't mean to pick on you, just using it as a sticking point.

Who has played any of these other systems to see what dynamics occur? Mechanics (including economic and political) beget doctrine. Most of the games lack the economic and political aspects (not entirely, but mostly).

So, until its been gamed out, we don't know anything.

I mean, I have my opinions like everyone else. But has someone brought in a fleet of note into a system and tried to defend that system to see what works well, and what doesn't, on either or both sides?

What if the tenders are far back. Days away? Are the defenders really going to head out to get them while the main assault force is crunching on the Targets of note? Does a picket or escort mitigate that? Send in 80% of the force, leave 20% back?

The arriving fleet already has potential fueling issues to get back out (doesn't seem like arriving tanks dry is necessarily unheard of).

And, as someone mentioned (dunno, here or else where), "bring in 3x the defending force". Nobody PLANS on going into an operation to battle to attrition. But who knows. There's always the possibility of strategic surprise, even if there's much less chance of tactical surprise.

And none of this of course addresses the real cold reality of long term action on how, win or lose, it's devastating impact on fleet health in general. Losses take a LONG TIME to get rebuilt and replenished (evidenced by the ferocity of the opening days of the Rebellion before they fell into an exhausted stalemate). How many Battle Riders and Cruisers does the Imperium have in the process of being built? Heck, how many older models does it have stashed in a graveyard somewhere? And are they even worth reviving? Dare they dig up a bunch of TL-12 ships to take on a TL-14/15 threat?

Given how costly it is, is there any value in designing a fleet around that cold truth in order to better sustain operations during times of heavy engagements?

Don't know until we game it out and see what works and what doesn't.

 

[McPerth]

Losses take a LONG TIME to get rebuilt and replenished (evidenced by the ferocity of the opening days of the Rebellion before they fell into an exhausted stalemate).

Again, narrative and rules differ here.

From narrative POV, yes, but if you try to replay it with current rules (be them CT or MT, the ones at the Rebellion times), you'll see most of losses are crippled, but easily repairable.

The main killer is lack of fuel (if mesons are used, due to Fuel Tanks Shattered), alogn with criticals resulting from other tables (again, if mesons are used, mostly the internal explosion table), but only 1 in 36 criticals resuts in full ship loss, while all other mission killed ones (if not for fuel) are due to computer or PP loss, in both cases repairable in a few weeks, according TCS (the only rules I know that adress repairs).

This means if you keep the "field", you recover most of your main combat ships (smaller ones are more subject to criticals, due to battery vssize extra criticals, so more are lost), and even capture many of the enemy's. Specifically in Rebellion, those captures are compatible with your fleet (as both are IN standard ships), so can easily be returned to line in just a few weeks, once they reach a repair base...

It's (again) more as in Age of Sail, where capturing ships was common enough as for the winner of a battle ending up reinforced, despite his own losses

I've told about this in quite a few threads, so I won't push this.

MgT rules change this, as ships are damaged beyond repair (or at least easy repair), not to say fully destroyued, and, aside from what I previously said, this also favors larger ships

 

[Carlobrand]

...Battleships can escape from unfavorable matchups by jumping away. ...

Three words: "Fuel tanks shattered". Add to that, "All spinal mount weapons which hit and penetrate inflict one extra damage roll (on each appropriate table) for each letter by which their size exceeds 9. .... Meson guns are not reduced by armor." Add to that the 1 in 6 chance per roll of a critical and, well, when a meson spinal hits that's pretty much the end of the target's story no matter how big or small. Scrap metal doesn't escape by jump. Things may be different in other versions; I was frankly shocked they kept that in for MegaTraveller. But, in CT/MT, it's pretty much a case of who brought the most meson spinals to the fight, and a 200,000 Td tender carrying two or three riders will usually beat a 200,000 Td battleship. Moreover, if it reserved fuel for a jump-1 out to rendezvous with tankers, then it brings home the jump drive and a chunk of power plant and such even if the riders lose, and riders take less time to build than battleships.

And, yes, you can build riders with a jump-1 capability to make the same rendezvous if it looks like they need to retreat.

 

[mike wightman]

You don't engage in the first place.

 

[Spinward Flow]

But, in CT/MT, it's pretty much a case of who brought the most meson spinals to the fight

In other words, what's the SMALLEST practical Meson-J/N sleds that can be built in vast(er) quantities than your (presumed) opposition?

Three words: "Fuel tanks shattered."

Well if that's your concern, make a larger quantity of smaller ships/boats. Instead of putting everything in One Basket™ and letting "Fuel Tanks Shattered" steal your One Basket™ ... try bringing a LOT of baskets with the assumption you're going to lose some to enemy fire, but not enough FAST ENOUGH to lose a battle of attrition against your superior rate of (spinal) fire because you brought a larger quantity of hulls.

"Fuel Tanks Shattered" is one of the more compelling reasons to "disperse your fighting capacity" among a larger number of hulls, rather than concentrating it all into a single big (invulnerable?) hull.

At that point, the Meson Sleds are just "fighters scaled up into spinal mounts" ... intended to be both Cannons AND Fodder through weight of numbers.

 

[Carlobrand]

Yup. Like I said, the rules as written don't support the ships as written.

 

[Carlobrand]

If you really want a big ship universe, the first thing you do is eliminate or drastically reduce the spinal mount multiple damage rolls; the more rolls there are, the more reason to have several smaller ships instead of one big one because any hit becomes a death sentence. It weakens an already weak particle beam, but that's a separate problem to fix. A setting in which an A hits as hard as a T is kinda weird so ... maybe 1 extra roll for every two starting at A, so 1-9 get their one roll but the spinal A gets two, C gets three and so on. Now subtract the meson screen rating from the number of rolls, but you always get at least one roll. Now your T hits a factor 9 meson screen and its 10 extra rolls get reduced to 1 extra roll. There's still an advantage to bringing more spinal mounts to the battle, but it's not so overwhelming and larger ships can carry more back-up systems so have a better chance of being able to limp away from the fight to get repaired. Taken with the bit about batteries whose codes exceed the targets size code causing criticals, and it favors bigger ships pretty strongly.

Also kill the freakin' "Fuel tanks shattered" result. Almost everyone is in agreement on that one; just decide which of several proposed alternatives you'd prefer.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

But, in CT/MT, it's pretty much a case of who brought the most meson spinals to the fight, ...

In other words, what's the SMALLEST practical Meson-J/N sleds that can be built in vast(er) quantities than your (presumed) opposition?

Large meson sleds are defeated by small meson sleds, that are defeated by PA sleds, that are defeated by large meson sleds...
Rock, paper, scissors. There is no single "best" design that defeats everything else.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

And, yes, you can build riders with a jump-1 capability to make the same rendezvous if it looks like they need to retreat.

At ~140% of the size and cost of the rider and the tender at TL-15.

Not worth it to fight 2:3 odds.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Also kill the freakin' "Fuel tanks shattered" result. Almost everyone is in agreement on that one; just decide which of several proposed alternatives you'd prefer.

The point of (meson) spinals are that they kill ships instantly. Otherwise why would we pay the exorbitant price? It makes single cruiser action exciting!

Do you really want an attritional slog with small weapons?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Have you tried?

As a battle, yes. As an operational campaign, no.

So, until its been gamed out, we don't know anything.

We don't know everything, but we know something.

Riders and tenders can't support each other unless we can screen them, or tenders are as well defended as battleships (and as large and expensive as battleship).

With LBB5 we can screen tenders completely, and riders rule.
With other editions we can't screen or protect tenders, so they have to be far away, so riders are far more risky.

But has someone brought in a fleet of note into a system and tried to defend that system to see what works well, and what doesn't, on either or both sides?

We have no simplified rules for that, so it has to be a refereed campaign, highly subject to personal prejudice. No two groups will reach the same result.

What if the tenders are far back. Days away? Are the defenders really going to head out to get them while the main assault force is crunching on the Targets of note? Does a picket or escort mitigate that? Send in 80% of the force, leave 20% back?

You might lose a system, but if you can destroy the tenders you have immobilised the enemy fleet, potentially for years. Unless you are a single system polity, it's worth it.

And, as someone mentioned (dunno, here or else where), "bring in 3x the defending force". Nobody PLANS on going into an operation to battle to attrition. But who knows. There's always the possibility of strategic surprise, even if there's much less chance of tactical surprise.

Quite, sometimes someone ⌧s up and you jump into a buzz-saw.

With the tenders handy, you can jump out. With the tenders far away, you die.

Dare they dig up a bunch of TL-12 ships to take on a TL-14/15 threat?

Is a current naval power going to reactivate 19th century ironclads to fight a modern battle?

With LBB5 TL-12 ships will be massacred at something to 1:100 odds against TL-15 ships. I think that is to be expected. Other editions disagree.

 

[Spinward Flow]

With LBB5 TL-12 ships will be massacred at something to 1:100 odds against TL-15 ships. I think that is to be expected. Other editions disagree.

Under LBB5.80 combat rules, the TL=12 ships can have up to model/6 computers while the TL=15 ships can have up to model/9 computers.
In a matchup that's a -3DM to "everything" for the TL=12 fleet and a +3DM to "everything" for the TL=15 fleet.

The only way a TL=12 fleet can even HOPE to win with that kind of a disadvantage (-3 vs +3) is if they can swarm to overwhelm the TL=15 through sheer weight of numbers cannon fodder.

It would by no measure of the imagination be a "fair" fight.

 

[robject]

the rules as written don't support the ships as written.

Carlo sums it up nicely.

To belatedly answer Mike Wightman's supervalid question: this is narrative analysis, since every rule system might get things right and wrong, but (I think) the setting is more likely to prove or disprove a rule (except when the narrative is impossible...).

So far I have SUPREMELY enjoyed the replies in this thread. The observations are on point and interesting.

Then Carlo suggests this, worth quoting.

If you really want a big ship universe, the first thing you do is eliminate or drastically reduce the spinal mount multiple damage rolls; the more rolls there are, the more reason to have several smaller ships instead of one big one because any hit becomes a death sentence. It weakens an already weak particle beam, but that's a separate problem to fix. A setting in which an A hits as hard as a T is kinda weird so ... maybe 1 extra roll for every two starting at A, so 1-9 get their one roll but the spinal A gets two, C gets three and so on. Now subtract the meson screen rating from the number of rolls, but you always get at least one roll. Now your T hits a factor 9 meson screen and its 10 extra rolls get reduced to 1 extra roll. There's still an advantage to bringing more spinal mounts to the battle, but it's not so overwhelming and larger ships can carry more back-up systems so have a better chance of being able to limp away from the fight to get repaired. Taken with the bit about batteries whose codes exceed the targets size code causing criticals, and it favors bigger ships pretty strongly.

Also kill the freakin' "Fuel tanks shattered" result. Almost everyone is in agreement on that one; just decide which of several proposed alternatives you'd prefer.

 

[robject]

Presumably we are talking about what we want from T5 BCS?

I'm talking about what Traveller's Narrative Canon is, regardless of ruleset, admitting that Carlo's Axoim is true.

This means that these principles CAN be used to TEST T5 BCS, because T5 BCS should ideally do no harm. But the question becomes "WHAT canon is that?" and I have to admit that every ruleset has quirks. So I fall back on the narrative stories.

 

[Carlobrand]

The point of (meson) spinals are that they kill ships instantly. Otherwise why would we pay the exorbitant price? It makes single cruiser action exciting!

Do you really want an attritional slog with small weapons?

We pay the exorbitant price because they're pretty effective weapons even if they only get one or two damage rolls. Taking one unmodified internal roll is a pretty significant event.

The point actually is that the space combat rules don't support the setting that they supposedly apply to. If you're good with that, no problem; Book 5 makes for a good game, and no one's proposing to take that away from you. It's easy to reimagine the setting as being based on good Book 5 designs instead of on the junk featured in Supplement 9. However, some people are not good with that, and there's nothing wrong with exploring alternatives that might support their vision of the setting.

...
It would by no measure of the imagination be a "fair" fight.

It's not supposed to be a fair fight. General Belgrano versus a Brit nuclear sub wasn't a fair fight. The two Gulf wars were not fair fights. There's a charming story going around online about Iranian F4's being shadowed by American stealth fighters; that would not have been a fair fight. If you take a TL12 fleet up against a TL15 opponent, you shouldn't expect any better success than if you'd taken Age of Sail wooden warships against a WW-II fleet.

 

[kilemall]

I'm talking about what Traveller's Narrative Canon is, regardless of ruleset, admitting that Carlo's Axoim is true.

This means that these principles CAN be used to TEST T5 BCS, because T5 BCS should ideally do no harm. But the question becomes "WHAT canon is that?" and I have to admit that every ruleset has quirks. So I fall back on the narrative stories.

In my case I don’t care about the stories or canon cause it’s my universe. So I rejiggered LBB2/LBB5 combo to have battles with the narratives and style I want, and make maneuver matter lots. And small or lower tech ships die in droves but can close or make high vee missile runs to heroically punch above their weight. And spinals blaze away at each other unless somebody closes.

If you want the stories to be upheld, then you need to alter the game rules to make that happen. Or maybe define settings that get optional rules to create those outcomes. Sounds like a design goal to me.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

This means that these principles CAN be used to TEST T5 BCS, because T5 BCS should ideally do no harm. But the question becomes "WHAT canon is that?" and I have to admit that every ruleset has quirks. So I fall back on the narrative stories.

So basically a requirement specification for T5 BCS.


Let's try:
Simplify: It must be simple enough to resolve a BatRon vs. BatRon fight in an hour or two, else it will not be used and quickly forgotten. So KISS. Opinion: LBB5 is about a reasonable level of complication.

Size Matter: Larger ships are easier to hit, but sturdier? There is a viable role for ships of different sizes, from battleships to fighters.

Range Matter: But simplified, perhaps Long: missiles are better, Short: beams are better, Point-blank: fighters?

TL Matter: Higher tech ships are much better than lower tech ships, perhaps five times per TL diff? The balance between weapons are different at different TLs. A TL-12 missile rock does not look like a sleek metal TL-15 meson ship, or something.

People Matter: A few outstanding individuals adds a small mod somewhere. Morale, when does fleets or ships break or give up?

Agility Matters: i.e. effective acceleration. Warships have large M-drives for a reason.

Power Matters: Simplified: Spinals cost PP-1, screens costs PP-1? Some simple choice between accel, weapons, and defences?

Tactical Stance: Some simple choice: Offensive for +1 to hit, Defensive for +1 defences?

Limited bookkeeping: Keeping a tally of ships and the state of each ship should be easy. LBB5 excelled. Ablative armour in dozens of hit locations per ship is a horror.

Operational details: from TCS Campaign: How do you refuel a fleet, how long does it take? How do repair damage, time, cost? How do you get a damaged ship to a yard?

Combat: Basically attritional, layered defences, but never immune. Mesons are fundamentally different, they cut through the bullshit and kills, but not 100%, defences mitigate the risk. Some niche for PA spinals?

Diceless combat resolution: Something like statistical combat resolution from TCS or fleet combat from MgT2. We can't roll hundreds of rolls per round, it takes way too much time. Only roll what really matters i.e. spinals or mesons. It should still give roughly the same result as rolling all the dice...

Squadron Synergy: Enough escorts give a bonus to capital ships? Fighters give a malus to enemy ships?

Protect other ships: How do we screen or escort fragile ships? Transports, carriers? Is it effective enough to keep them alive?

 

[Condottiere]

There's likely a sweetspot for hull volume.

Depending on what effect you're after, several.

For example, for jump drives, there's no economy of scale, but since there's a five tonne overhead, that overhead diminishes in percentage the larger the drive.

 

[McPerth]

It would by no measure of the imagination be a "fair" fight.

War is not about fair fights, and a good strategyst increases the unfairness to his favor...

 

[Spartan159]

War is not about fair fights, and a good strategyst increases the unfairness to his favor...

That's the thing about war-games/sims of whatever variety I have played over the years, designers bend over backwards coming up with "balanced" scenarios. As a veteran, I've felt that if you find yourself in a balanced (or worse) situation, you have screwed up to begin with.