• 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.

Big Naval Ships in the Traveller Universe

You sure?

Of course, the way to work is quite different, but their use in combat not so much, nor the reason you can have only one (they must be braced along the whole ship).

Spinals (specially meson ones) are the Rams of HG combat: short ranged, dangerous and difficult to put to bear, but decisive when hit. They are not the Battleship main batteries, that bear most of the combat (in HG, those are the missile bays)
Ah, in Mongoose 2008, they're long ranged. They do take a piloting roll to bear, which makes sense if you have to point the whole ship. But why does a meson in a dreadnaught need to be 800m long in a needle when it can be 200m long in a sphere? As far as decisive, I would argue that also, which is continued below...
Put two spinals on it and you'll have a double barreled shotgun. Put more and you'll have a gatling gun: Several barrels, but all of them aiming at the same enemy.

As you only need to hit once (at least for meson ones), what a waste...
You only need to hit small ships once. A 500,000 ton ship needs 4-5 shots in the same section (which is a 1 in 5 chance) with a spinal to take it out. From 100,000-400,000 it takes about 1 meson hit per 100,000 tons in the same section to take out a ship. That's a lot of things to line up and a lot more than one hit.
 
Ah, in Mongoose 2008, they're long ranged.

Oh, here's the missunderstanding... I thought we were talking about CT/MT, where a Spinal meson penetrating hit takes out a Tigris with all likehood...

In MgT1E, spinals are just a useless luxury. Use Bays or turrets instead and you'll have quite better results. See (again) this old post. While it talks about PA spinals, the need to line the ship and difficulty to hit still apply for meson ones...

I recall there's a particle accelerator variant in a ring configuration.

Yes, the bays. They are more or less like a cyclotron, but their main problem is any hit takes them out for good, as breaks the circle they need, while a linear one, if losses a section, just accelerates a little less, but keeps functional (taken from an old JTAS article about Spinals)
 
Last edited:
I took that T gun from HG. 7000 tons. I arbitrarily gave it a tube diameter of 20m (seems "big enough"). That gives is a tube length of 312m.

To put that on a "turret", more like a turntable, it goes from 7000 dton to almost 110K dtons.
 
Oh, here's the missunderstanding... I thought we were talking about CT/MT, where a Spinal meson penetrating hit takes out a Tigris with all likehood...

In MgT1E, spinals are just a useless luxury. Use Bays or turrets instead and you'll have quite better results. See (again) this old post. While it talks about PA spinals, the need to line the ship and difficulty to hit still apply for meson ones...
So, yeah, in Mongoose 1, the spinals are not as decisive as seems to be common understanding. But the size is the size, and I don't see why not to make a dreadnaught-sized capital gun mount. If it's proportionally the size of a barbette on a 200-ton ship, you could presumably aim them seperately on a 500,000-ton hull.
 
I'm not sure why this is an issue. We're basically in the position of arguing why someone shouldn't have the house rule they want.

Worst case for a 1000 Td spinal is to find itself in a 10,000 Td sphere, I think. Roughly a 32 meter radius sphere. Spinal's 10% of the volume, maybe 64 meters long, about 16.4 meter diameter. Maybe not, but there aren't rules for calculating a spinal's dimensions.

Now let's scale up that Kinunir to 500,000 Td. 400 times the volume, about 540 meters long and on either wing there's a 64 meter cylinder in a mount, attached to pivot like a turret. The two of them amount to 0.4% of the total volume, which is actually slightly smaller proportionally than those two particle beams on the Kinunir.

Could they be independently aimed? I don't know. I'm not a TL 15 engineer. I'm certainly not in a position to tell someone they can't be. I can only say that's not how it's done in the canon setting but, if they want to go do their own thing in their own game world, I'm cool with it.
 
Okay, getting back to big naval ships as seen in the Traveller setting:

Simplify: I'm basing on CT Book 5 since it's what I know best, is fairly simple, and I think will do the job with minor tweaks - minor being defined as a simple-to-execute change that will deliver a big-ship setting. No offense to traditionalists, the RAW are plenty fun but support a different outcome. The thread as I understand it is about coming up with a system that promotes the big ships that the setting presents as dominant.

Size Matters: We want rules that support big ships. So:
  • Drastically reduce the spinal mount multiple damage rolls: one extra roll for every OTHER rating after 9. A and B get one extra roll for a total of two, C and D get two extra, E and F get three extra ... S and T get 9 extra.
  • Reduce the number of extra rolls by the value of the meson screen; it is after all causing some of the mesons to decay prematurely. I think I miscalculated in my original post on this. S and T get 9 extra for a total of 10. Should we say you will always get at least one roll, or you will always get at least one extra roll?
  • Revise the "Fuel tanks shattered" result. No ship designer in his right mind makes a ship that will lose all of its fuel volume in one hit; they'd put fuel in multiple tanks in different parts of the ship so destruction of 1 doesn't destroy all. I've seen a lot of different ideas on this, not really wedded to any one. Maybe the craft loses a quarter of its tankage, capping at a maximum 1000 Td fuel tankage lost? Or maybe a maximum 10,000?
  • Revise the "Crew N" result. MT already proposed a workable change. Divide the crew into sections, 1 section for every 1000 Td of craft or fraction thereof (1200 Td is two sections). Upon reduction of the crew factor to less than half of the original number of sections, the craft may no longer fire its weapons or attempt repair, although it may use its passive defenses, maneuver, or jump.
I think that's adequate. I don't like the "Ship Vaporized" result, but that's mainly because I can't think of anything on a capital ship that would actually vaporize it, as opposed to simply gutting it and leaving a derelict, so that's more of a semantic quibble. Takes a huge amount of energy to vaporize that much armor.

However, we've nerfed Particle Accelerators in the process: they were always anemic because of armor, and now they get half as many damage rolls. it might be worthwhile to craft a rule to compensate them:
  • Particle accelerators receive a damage roll bonus equal to 1/100 the EP put into them: A/B/C receives a -5, D/E/F receives a -6, G/H receives a -7, J/K/L receives a -8, M/N/P receives a -9, Q+ receives a -10.

Range Matters: I don't see a need for change here, although point blank is appealing. If the Sword Worlders can't hit jack at 25,000 km, maybe let them close to point blank range and rule that computers make no difference there; it's a bloody Sicilian knife fight in which they'll be hurt badly because their armor and weapons aren't as powerful, but at least those Impies will know they've been in a fight. Makes the initiative roll very important. Might make fighters too nasty though. Needs work, I think.

TL Matters: I think we're good there, though there's an argument for never letting tech level make it completely impossible to achieve a hit. There's also an argument against it, so it needs some thought. Or, see above.

People Matter: An interesting idea. Maybe, in a TCS-style campaign game, provide a certain number of pilots, captains, and so forth of specific skill levels and let the player decide how to allocate them.

Agility Matters: Maybe too much. I've never been too thrilled about a heavily armored fighter dancing as gracefully as an unarmored one for the same EP, but resolving that conundrum may take us too far from simplicity, so probably best not to rock that boat.

Power Matters: I don't see a need for change here other than noting that the design rules make low tech merchantmen unprofitable, but that's not an issue for this. Maybe a completely different set of cheap but bulky fuel-hungry power plants?

Tactical Stance: We sort of already have that with the initiative roll. The side that has the advantage in meson weapons tries to keep at close range.

If you're playing on a hex map, it gets more interesting: playing on a hex map means you lose the initiative rule and the breaking off rule (at least I can't see a way to make them work), and you or your opponent may decide to split a fleet, bringing some to short range while leaving others to rain down missiles at long range. There's really no way to NOT let someone do that if you're on a hex map; the point of a hex map is to let people play maneuver combat. You can't stop someone from splitting their forces if they choose, there are no special rules to the situation, and nothing stops them from eventually rendezvousing and merging. Each group in its own hex functions as a line and reserve, so the craft in reserve would still receive protection regardless of the disposition of the opposing fleet, and the opposing fleet can shoot at both groups, though only able to hit craft on the line. There are several different map scales:
  • Book 2 has 1000 second turns, so 5000 km hexes; that's how far you can get at 1g in 1000 seconds. Planets may occupy a hex or even leak over into neighboring hexes; it's a good idea to assume you're flying above or below them on the hex map, (unless you specifically choose to land), because normal admirals don't crash their fleets into worlds and that's a terrible way to end a game. (Lasers are -2 beyond 250,000 km, -5 beyond 500,000 km. Missiles are on the board as little flying craft and can be shot at as such, which is not feasible for a fleet combat but might be practical if you're using CT High Guard for a 1-on-1 with smaller craft. Other weapons are not defined.)
  • Book 5 has 20 minute (1200 second) turns, so 7200 km hexes. Short and Long range are unknown values.
  • MT also has 20 minute turns but tries to use 25,000 km hexes. I have no idea how they do that, but it does give an idea of weapon ranges. ("Planetary range" is 50,000 km. Lasers are -1 beyond that, missiles are +1 beyond that, fusion and plasma weapons can't fire beyond that so within 50,000 km is Book 5 High Guard's short range. Mesons are treated differently, presumably to make them less lethal in MT, but that's not relevant to this examination.)
You could combine the values: lasers have no penalty within 50,000 km (10 hexes on the 1000 second map, 7 on the 20-minute map.), -1 from 50,000 to 250,000 (11 to 50 hexes), -2 beyond that. It's really not worth looking at ranges in excess of 250,000 km (51+ hexes) unless you're trying to do something really unusual, but you can allow the laser shot at -5, though I wouldn't allow other weapons aside from maybe a particle beam to shoot beyond 250,000 km.

However, playing on a hex map requires at best that you use that three-counter method Mayday uses to keep track of vectors, and that can be a major headache if you're doing anything but hovering over a world protecting/invading it. I much prefer abstract. On abstract, you can add some tactical flair by assuming the two fleets are hovering over a world defending/attacking it, and the world is in the defender's reserve, i.e. craft in his reserve can land and be safe from combat while they repair or break off by hiding in the ocean, but if you break through then you get to attack the planet, which may be a victory condition.
 
Limited bookkeeping: CT Book 5 is straightforward. You can consider missile reload rules for more realistic play with missiles, but that does add a heck of a lot of bookkeeping.

Operational details: I think most of this is covered in TCS. There are rules governing how to handle ships that have lost their computer, bridge, or jump drive, and a salvage tender's probably a good idea for any fleet. About the only thing I'd add would be some sort of rules on ice mining; there's a lot of ice out there and it may be the only way to get home sometimes. Just from a quick mining of the existing ice mining rules (embodied in games which may or may not be good sources for such, so still debatable), it looks like a slow process, possibly taking as much as a month to refuel that way.

Combat: I think that's what the rest of this was about. There are matters of taste that one can explore, such as different missile types and such

Diceless combat resolution: The statistical combat resolution from TCS works fine for attack rolls. You can decide with the opposing player beforehand what you'd prefer to roll on.

Squadron Synergy: Some of that is strategic rather than tactical. Fleets don't all have to appear at the same place. Carriers bring fighters which can spread out to scout the system and harry outlying settlements and merchant craft while the carriers wait in relative safety in the outer system, perhaps rendezvousing at a pre-planned coordinate timed to meet tankers scheduled to jump into the outer system to refuel them, completing the refueling with the tankers jumping out and the carriers dashing off before inner system forces can reach the rendezvous point. Defenders are prompted to shift forces to protect those settlements, creating the basis for developing combat scenarios: fighters attacking an escort that's protecting merchantmen, escorts battling each other over some remote research outpost, and so forth. Fighters can also form a picket far out to give the escorts warning of approaching contacts and enough information to decide how best to handle them. Escorts move out to support their fighters and keep the foe too far away to get actionable intelligence about the main body of the fleet. Again, separate combat scenarios: a clash of fighters and escorts against fighters and escorts as one side tries to penetrate the other side's picket force, maybe after so many turns cruisers start showing up, and eventually the heavies join the fray.

"Enough escorts give a bonus to capital ships?" That's in the initiative determination phase: larger line gets a +1 to initiative. Makes you weigh whether it's worthwhile to commit fragile escorts to the line to gain an initiative advantage.

Protect other ships: I think the canon reserve rule works. Reserve is hugging close to the line in the same hex, if you're on a hex map, active sensors off, power plant set to the minimum needed to maintain its position within the formation, while the line is loudly painting opponents with active ECM to confuse their sensors and active EM to lock on opposing warcraft. There are some problems, like how to handle breakaway on a hex map, but I don't see a way to resolve them without a lot of unwanted complexity.
 
Now let's scale up that Kinunir to 500,000 Td. 400 times the volume, about 540 meters long and on either wing there's a 64 meter cylinder in a mount, attached to pivot like a turret.
Circular particle accelerators (be them Mesons, charged particles or neutral ones) already exist in Travller. They are called bays.
 
I don't like the "Ship Vaporized" result, but that's mainly because I can't think of anything on a capital ship that would actually vaporize it, as opposed to simply gutting it and leaving a derelict, so that's more of a semantic quibble.
Or an internal explosion so large that blows it in pieces that disperse among space...

Once more I guess there was SW inflouence here, where the Death Star so explodes...
 
Okay, getting back to big naval ships as seen in the Traveller setting:

Agreed. In this way I guess we must try to mach 3 factors: narrative (setting), combat and ship design.

Narrative:

As I have already said in other threads in the past, one way (IMHO) to discriminate RPGs is among those setting dependent, where the setting is first and the game tries to represent it (examples would be the varios games based on Middel Earth, like MERP or TOR, the varios SW or ST games or Pendragon) and those independent on their setting (examples would be D&D, P&P, SWADE or GURPS).

In some rare cases the setting asnd rules were created together, as in 2300AD, but I will leave those aside for the current dicsussion...

In the first case, the rules must conform with the setting, in the second, any setting should conform with the rules (or adapt them to a specific setting, if trying to represent a specific setting in those polivalent as SWADE or GURPS).

Traveller was initially among the second, with no setting, but, when establishing an official setting, it did awfully on the conforming with the rules. The result is now we have an official setting (and many unofficial) that (I guess) you also want to conform with.

Combat rules:

Traveller (ignoring for this thread the various adaptations to other settings, as MgT2300), in its basics, give us some points more or less set in stone, as newtonian physics movement, but this leaves many things to decide.

Will we want for a high ship destruction game (as OTU narrative explains) or a more Age of Sail crippled but repairable derelicts combat (as CT/MT rules point to).

If the latter, let’s keep with CT/MT as a basis. If the former, the set of rules I most like (among those I know) is MgT1E, where you can play it with limited roll numbers (barrage rules)

There are also other points, of course. Do we want fighters to be decisive (as in BG or SW), from decisive to irrelevant depending on TL (HG) or inexistent (ST)? And sure there are others I cannot thing about now…

Design rules:

Those should support the points above, being a reflection of them. One of the key problems here is the detail level we want to have.

MgT1E, to give an example, makes quite a good job on this, but their lack of detail in power allows for multiple (probably too many) beam turrets/bays to be mounted (and those use to be quite decisive).

HG, OTOH, controls the power, but does not control the ammo for missiles, nor allows several sizes of the same weapon to be mounted (if you have a PA spinal, you cannot have PA bays or turrets)
 
If this is T5 BSC, our hands are already tied to a large extent.
Well, I don't know about T5, as I've never been involved on it...

Nonetheless, this thread is in General Traveller Discussions: The Fleet forum, not in T5 one, so I guess it's more open than that (and see I try to be quite generic, even if comparing with the systems I know and like as references)

BCS combat should give similar results as T5 ACS combat, just bigger ships and faster simpler execution to allow several large ships.
Not sure ACS and BCS combat is only a matter of scale and results should be comparable...
 
Last edited:
A destroyer vs. destroyer battle should give similar results in both systems?

Oh, I missundertood you... I udnerstood an ACS combat among non combat ships (adventure class).

Yes, they should give similar results in both cases, ideally...
 
Well, I don't know about T5, as I've never been involved on it...

Nonetheless, this thread is in GenerAl Traveller Discussions: The Fleet forum, not in T5 one, so I guess it's moer open than that (and see I try to be quite generic, even if comparing with the systems I know and like as references)

Originally the thread was basically 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.

How should BCS combat work, based on the received wisdom of Traveller canon?
 
How should BCS combat work, based on the received wisdom of Traveller canon?
Agreed, and don't forget his sentence "regardless of ruleset".

That's why I'm mostly trying to give my analysis (one of the many possibles) about the relation narrative/combat/rules, while relating it to the rulesets I know as reference and example.
 
Back
Top