Big Ships in T5

[robject]

In a related thread, we're pondering RU and its uses. It seems to me like it is a budget for supporting "system infrastructure", in a general way, and that includes the maintenance of a fleet.

The question for this thread is, what does BCS then look like, if it's not governed by Megacredits, but RU? The wargaming itch requires a design system, but this appears higher level than High Guard, and Fifth Frontier War tokens are NOT worthy of a design system (yes, we've mapped FFW tokens to specific High Guard ships, but it's a very lossy process). Design has to have a level of detail. Note that ACS has a placeholder entry for spines. And yet, Marc did not take that last step and allow Big Ships to be constructed with ACS.

That means BCS in some way will be abstracted upwards a notch, but still have contact with ACS in some way.


Big Ship Construction using MCr

I have one inkling as to how this could work, and it is that ship design would be backwards: you figure out what payload you want, and what performance it should have, and from there the volume is derived.

For example, if you took a 5,000 ton Particle Accelerator spine, including its crew spaces and support elements, added on 5,000 tons of other things -- point defense, fighter wings, bay weapons, ortillery, and included crew spaces and support elements -- then you'd have a payload of 10,000 tons.

Then you decide you want to wrap that payload up in Jump-4, Maneuver-4 drives. Assuming that a Jump-4 drive array would take 10% volume, 4 parsecs of fuel would take up 40% volume, Maneuver-4 drives would take 4% volume, Power-4 would take 6% volume, and Powerplant fuel for one month would take 4% volume, then:

Drives = 10 + 40 + 4 + 6 + 4 = 64% volume.

So, Payload (10,000 tons) = 36% volume.

So, total volume = 10,000 / 0.36 = appx 28 kt.

Total cost would require a bit more math, at MCr1 per ton of J-drive and P-plant, and MCr2 per ton of M-drive, plus the payload cost.

This system still is, essentially, High Guard, even though the order may be turned around a bit.


Big Ship Construction using RU

How the heck can you abstract ship construction meaningfully away from High Guard? Here's what it STILL needs:

1. Consistent with T5 rules

Weapons, screens, armor has to interact with the rest of Traveller5. Your battleships still have armor, guns, drives, and still require fuel and crew. Sensors still work. DataCasters can be deadly, as can Size 6 Missiles. Antimatter weapons are devastating to TL13 battle riders. And so on.

The "costs" have to be "reasonable". A defense allocation of 80 RU is much more than a squadron of Gazelles.

At the same time, a defense allocation of 8 RU will have to be able to "fight" with a squadron of Gazelles, and the system has to model that. It is likely that the Gazelle squadron will first have to be profiled as a "BCS" squadron first; if so, maybe it needs an acceptable amount of loss of granularity, but that has to be clear.

2. Scalable build systems -- especially for spines

Where there are abstractions, they have to scale in the same way that ACS scales. Where there are new elements, they too have to scale. And they have to support Stage Effects.

Spines, point defenses, screens... it doesn't make sense to assign individual turrets, one at a time, to a battleship hull, but it does have to be able to mount a "point defense" network that is essentially a pile of turrets. And I want to designate them by strength or quality. Light point defense. Standard (??). Heavy. Vheavy. Or rate them simply by effectiveness, in the same manner turrets map directly to effectiveness. PD-1 thru PD-6? Not sure there...

3. Representation of the sorts of things we're used to seeing in Traveller combat.

Range. Damage. At this level of abstraction, maybe there can be a tabletop map.

 

[pendragonman]

In fact, your premise almost requires it to be a board game and not as much an RPG.

This would imply that RPG level gaming is almost a default small ship TU. Maybe big ship in a very, very abstract sense, somehow tying role playing events to board game happenings. Not like we haven't done that before...

 

[Major B]

Big Ship Construction using MCr

I have one inkling as to how this could work, and it is that ship design would be backwards: you figure out what payload you want, and what performance it should have, and from there the volume is derived.

For example, if you took a 5,000 ton Particle Accelerator spine, including its crew spaces and support elements, added on 5,000 tons of other things -- point defense, fighter wings, bay weapons, ortillery, and included crew spaces and support elements -- then you'd have a payload of 10,000 tons.

Then you decide you want to wrap that payload up in Jump-4, Maneuver-4 drives. Assuming that a Jump-4 drive array would take 10% volume, 4 parsecs of fuel would take up 40% volume, Maneuver-4 drives would take 4% volume, Power-4 would take 6% volume, and Powerplant fuel for one month would take 4% volume, then:

Drives = 10 + 40 + 4 + 6 + 4 = 64% volume.

So, Payload (10,000 tons) = 36% volume.

So, total volume = 10,000 / 0.36 = appx 28 kt.

Total cost would require a bit more math, at MCr1 per ton of J-drive and P-plant, and MCr2 per ton of M-drive, plus the payload cost.

This system still is, essentially, High Guard, even though the order may be turned around a bit.

Rob, I agree wholeheartedly with your idea to start with the critical part and then build the rest around that. Here is a suggestion to change or refine your proposed sequence:

The first consideration is Purpose: what is the main or the 2-3 main purposes this design is to fulfull and what are the means needed to do so. For a battleship it is a big spinal mount. For an escort it may be a set number of laser or sand batteries. For a carrier it will be hangars and launch tubes. For an assault ship it will be drop capsule launchers, vehicle bay space, and billeting. Lots of variation but the designer should be faced with the realization of the limits of design - the more things a ship does, the less capable it is in each so keep the primary purpose foremost and make the rest a supporting effort.

Second consideration is Performance: this is closely related to purpose and for some designs will be integral. Performance considers strategic mobility (jump) and tactical mobility (G). For an Intruder design, strategic mobility will be part of purpose as J-5 or J-6 is a priority. A Strike vessel similarly needs the extra jump fuel that allows it to execute 2 jumps without refueling. (Note those definitions of Strike and Intruder are mine and don’t necessarily match those used in any version of Traveller.) Many combatant designs developed during the time frame of the Fifth Frontier War or so will be intended to meet the J4 requirements for a fleet vessel. Others such as convoy escorts will be able to fulfill their mission with shorter strategic mobility.

Third are the Ancillary items that either enhance the design’s utility in the primary role or help it perform a secondary function better. Battleships can also have some fighters and secondary batteries for offensive and/or defensive supporting fires. Assault ships may include some ortillery or fighter hangars to support the troops after delivery to the surface. Ships designed to screen the flanks of the main fleet (in adjacent or nearby systems) may have a small flotilla of couriers carried aboard to deliver reports to the flagship. Maybe that’s a bad example – it may be important enough to bump into a higher category for a ship with that purpose, but I hope you get the idea.

Last are the Supporting items. Billets, Cargo, Life Support; whatever is required to sustain all of the people and maintain all of the stuff required to do all of the above. Just because it is the last consideration is not to say it is less important – it’s just the final step in fleshing out the overall design. For the larger ships of the fleets this step may lead to supporting designs rather to additional components of the current vessel. The Tanker and the Tender and the rest of the supporting cast are required to make the fleet function.

Well, I started trying to propose a refinement to your process but feel like I started wandering off the subject while coming up with examples. I hope it is helpful.

 

[robject]

Well you've got your priorities straight anyway: purpose really does come before all else.

 

[lostscout5]

I haven't gotten T5 yet. But from what has been said in this and other threads, RU's in T5 sound like the RU's in the board game Imperium. I've been looking for a way to translate the ships and RU's of Imperium to traveler for a while. I wanted to use the rules from Imperium to run a war as a background for a campaign set in 1248. This could be what I was looking for. If it ever arrives .

 

[BeRKA]

Are you adapting Counterstrike for Traveller5?

If so, that would be cool.

 

[Licheking]

I was under the impression that the page with all the Drive formulas would allow the construction of BCS vessels. Since all other components would be just the same if a lot more of them.

 

[warwizard]

RU's defined in pocket empires

5 billion LOCAL Credits

 

[robject]

Are you adapting Counterstrike for Traveller5?

If so, that would be cool.

You're not the first to suggest that sort of thing. First, Counterstrike isn't even a functioning game Second, someone else is using the name

But, otherwise, it would be cool.

Just talking off the top of my head:

A nice thing about Counterstrike is that counters don't have too much information. They don't require every ship be designed with High Guard, and then you've got five dozen ship sheets to track with Excel.

A bad thing with Counterstrike is that the counters don't have enough information -- and yet, I don't want twelve numbers scattered all over the counter.

So. I want more resolution than Fifth Frontier War, but less resolution than High Guard (or ACS, for that matter). I'll approach this from the FFW side, adding a little more detail, and seeing where that gets me.

A possible solution is to bring in the full range of ship mission codes (Modifier(s) + Mission), and define them in such a way as to consistently represent units separate from game size or TL. This probably means that counters have value relative to each other, rather than absolute values in the Traveller game. After all, do we need a unique counter for every battleship over a span of 25 tech levels?

By "game size", I mean a particular scenario being played. The scope in Fifth Frontier War is different than the scope in an Operational Warfare scenario, and both are different in scope from a tactical skirmish. Scope, as "size", could influence unit design.

This is probably fraught with peril, but constructing Big Ship Squadrons may become little more than (1) determining the TL, (2) determining the game size, (3) assembling the right combination of Codes, then (4) tallying up the cost into a final RU amount. The result is a unit playable with other units built at that game scope.

Mission Codes alone may not be enough. Ship design decisions need to be relevant. Whether to install 400 turrets or 401 turrets is not a relevant decision for building a 500,000 ton Tigress. Whether to install effective point defense in a Tigress IS relevant. Mission codes might not give this resolution of decision-making.

Example A Tigress squadron. It's TL15. Its size is Strategic. What's its mission? It has several hundred fighters, piles upon piles of armor, and a massive meson spine. Sounds like an Assault Battle Cruiser. It's a Squadron, not one unit. So the code could be:

ABCS-15/S       Tigress - Assault Battle Cruiser Squadron - TL15/Strategic

What's the cost? Beats me - let's make up something.

Tactical Cruiser = 10 RU.
Say 5 RU for each of Assault and Battle. Add them with Cruiser, for 20 RU.
Multiply by 10 for Squadron, for 200 RU.
Multiply by 100 for Strategic, for 20,000 RU. Now it's a Strategic Squadron.

(For an Operational squadron, multiply by 10 instead of 100, for 2,000 RU?)
(For a Colossal squadron, multiply by 1000 instead of 100, for 200,000 RU?)

But what's the performance? I don't know. What do the mission codes mean?

Tech Level is important here. If "Cruiser" says something about armor, defense, and offense, then TL is a modifier. "Cruiser" probably also says something about Jump and Maneuver, and TL definitely modifies that. But I'll have to rely heavily on secondary codes to modify performance numbers, as well. For example, "Far, Fast, Slow, Long".

TL15 = Jump-6, Maneuver-9.

I figure the codes will modify these numbers. "Cruiser" will definitely cut Jump and Maneuver way back (it trades off for armor and guns). And "Battle" may cut Jump further, but increase Maneuver. No idea.

"Assault" says something about its ability to deliver and support troops to the surface of a world.

"Battle" says something about its ability to dish out, and take, damage.

"Cruiser" means "ship of the line", more or less. Heavy weapons and armor.


Not Enough Data There's still not enough data here -- especially in the weapons and armor part. Is there enough information in the codes to differentiate a Tigress from a Plankwell?

 

[pendragonman]

You're not the first to suggest that sort of thing. First, Counterstrike isn't even a functioning game Second, someone else is using the name

But, otherwise, it would be cool.

Yep, I thought he was asking about the FPS computer game.

 

[Ishmael]

5 billion LOCAL Credits

1,000,000 MCr / ( infrastructure * tech * resources * .1 )

For Sylea year 0, it works out to 5,000 Mcr, but that's with lower tech levels, etc. than 'modern' Imperial standards.

Assuming tech 15, resources 15 and infrastructure 15, an RU generated is worth 3,000 MCrImps

The exchange rates, according to the same text section in Pocket Empires, correspond to the differences as well.
It'd take 5000 Sylea year 0 Cr to equal 3000 'modern' CrImps

 

[Vladika]

I was under the impression that the page with all the Drive formulas would allow the construction of BCS vessels. Since all other components would be just the same if a lot more of them.

There is still a problem with regards to the total number of drive or power-plants that can be ganged. According to p376 a maximum number of identical drives that can be ganged through the nexus (nexi plural) is 9. It further states that the highest drive is a "9Z9". I assume that means 9 x Z9 drive.

Next problem; the drive tables on p 338 list a maximum drive of Z2 and the rating table on p340 seems to confirm that.

So, given this, would the largest ship size be 9 x Z2? Z2 allows a 2400dton ship. 9 x that is 21,600dtons...

Hopefully Rob will weigh in on this as, from what I've seen so far, he has a better grasp of this than anyone else.

 

[robject]

There is still a problem with regards to the total number of drive or power-plants that can be ganged. According to p376 a maximum number of identical drives that can be ganged through the nexus (nexi plural) is 9. It further states that the highest drive is a "9Z9". I assume that means 9 x Z9 drive.

Next problem; the drive tables on p 338 list a maximum drive of Z2 and the rating table on p340 seems to confirm that.

So, given this, would the largest ship size be 9 x Z2? Z2 allows a 2400dton ship. 9 x that is 21,600dtons...

Hopefully Rob will weigh in on this as, from what I've seen so far, he has a better grasp of this than anyone else.

I don't have a very good grasp on Big Ships -- I am terrible at High Guard, MegaTraveller's vehicle design rules, and T4's SSDS -- but I have an idea about what Marc wants, in general ways.

And, what Marc does is usually something I did not anticipate. So make of this what you will.

Two observations, neither of which will answer the problem you've summarized above.

(1) T5 accepts that the Traveller Universe has ships much, much larger than 2400 tons. Ganged drives is one piece of evidence (p.370,376). The Tigress in the pretty color plate section at the end is another (p.642).

(2) T5 also accepts that constructs much, much larger than Big Ships exist in the Traveller Universe. The pic with the Tigress is evidence of that (p.642). The mention of Ringworlds and Dyson Spheres is more evidence. The mention of planetary jump drives is still more evidence (I've got a new thread for that subject).

Okay, three observations, then.

(3) There is yet another handwave for constructing higher-order drives. And yet, by the time we get into Big Ships, there is no longer a useful purpose for using tables. The significant parameters of the formula will dominate, and (I predict) we will end up with simple formulas for drives, along the lines of

Jump Drive = 2.5% x Jn
Maneuver Drive = 1.0% x Mn
Power Plant = 1.5% x Pn

...presuming first that the hull volume crosses some threshold. In large hulls, the overhead tonnage for drives, which influenced the designer's decision-making process with small starships, no longer matters, and can be discarded. I believe BCS will be on the other side of that threshold.

For BCS, the construction rules ("How Drives Are Built") becomes a MOARN aspect for deckplanners, rather than a design rule for ship designers.

 

[robject]

Example 2: Loeskalth Planetoid Ship

Example 2: The Loeskalth planetoid.

What it is. The Loeskalth planetoid is a Jump-1 capable planetoid starship which contains thousands of small raiding boats and scout ships. It is more like a carrier than anything else -- there is no spine, and it relies completely on its carried craft to do raiding. The ship has significant volume devoted to seemingly primitive agriculture (although it's probably not primitive; "it just looks that way").

It's a TL9 ship. It is surely armored, but it's not a battleship, so the armor is not primary.

Officially, it is a Maneuver-1 ship, but it might be NAFAL. Depends on its needs.

Its size is beyond Strategic -- it's Colossal. If that's a valid size.

Call it a TL9 Assault Carrier . I guess.

SAC-9/T           Loeskalth - Assault Carrier - TL9/Colossal

Winging it for cost again...

4 RU for Assault x 2 AU for Carrier = 8 RU.
Multiply by 1 for Single ship = 8 RU.
Multiply by 1000 for Colossal, for 8,000 RU.

Performance

TL9 = Jump 1, Maneuver (or NAFAL) 1.

Big Problem

Here's the big problem: there's no way to account for the thousands of raiders in its hangars, using my notation. BCS would have to somehow account for the ability to carry squadrons of other units.

 

[aramis]

...presuming first that the hull volume crosses some threshold. In large hulls, the overhead tonnage for drives, which influenced the designer's decision-making process with small starships, no longer matters, and can be discarded. I believe BCS will be on the other side of that threshold.

I disagree that it should be discarded.... because people will then backport it and use the BCS formulae in lieu of the ACS ones.... we've seen that happen before... CTHG wasn't intended for small ships, but was used for them a lot, and all but replaced CT Bk2.

 

[Vladika]

I disagree that it should be discarded.... because people will then backport it and use the BCS formulae in lieu of the ACS ones.... we've seen that happen before... CTHG wasn't intended for small ships, but was used for them a lot, and all but replaced CT Bk2.

Very true, and it caused several imbalances to occur.

I love the ganged drives now allowed by T5 and have used them in house rules from the publishing of HG. (Not for players but for the SSU navy, allowing for the energy requirements of HG. This kept ME as GM honest!)

I also like the way it does away with vastly oversize Bridge requirements and all-to-large computers.

Berthing is another favorite that I believe was long overdue.

 

[robject]

Ah, I just realized that I can use size classification to indicate carrying capacity.

SAC-9/T Loeskalth - Assault Carrier - TL9/Titanic

TL9 = Jump 1, Maneuver (or NAFAL) 1.

Titanic = room for (say) 10 Tactical squadrons, or something.
TL9 = halve the units carried = 5 Tactical squadrons.
Assault = units are "Assault" units = 5 Tactical Assault squadrons.
Carrier = double the units carried = 10 Tactical Assault squadrons.

That means I'd need a way to define tactical squadrons, probably in terms of (1) point defense and (2) strike capability... and in terms that work with the task system in the same way that BCS would have to work with the task system.

Or something. Needs more thought.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Why so large.

Stopping in for a sec.

Why are the multipliers for Squadrons so large? I mean the Tigress costs KRU 20, which seems a lot (and yes I understand that it is not just the Tigress, but also her auxilleries and escorts), but it seems to be a bloody huge number for one Squadron.

I can see the idea of RU are no object for polities like the OTU, but for us Pocket Empires folks that kind of cost means we can't buy anything serious.

Assuming for sake of discussion around a billion Credits/Currency units per RU that means a Tigress squadron costs around 20 trillion bucks which seems outrageous even for the economic might of the Third Imperium, but then I am not some sort of Econ major so maybe I am wrong. Still, the costs are prohibitive to everyone without the 11,000 worlds to base their RU on.

Is there any way we can make this usable by folks who aren't using the massive and RU unlimited OTU?

 

[robject]

Hey, I'm just spitballing. Please, add your spit to the ball!

 

[Spaceresearcher]

On the subject of big ships, when is a big ship, too big for gaming?

EG, you can get lost in the ship, it's that massive(Tigress and Plankwell come to mind).

Does AHL deserve a T5 update? Those deck plans were brilliant but obtain them in hard copy now.... good luck. It would be great to see a new updated set become available.

Seriously though, beyond the gigantic AHL, does anyone actually use say, the Plankwell deck plans and Tigress deck plans from the Mongoose supplement for example? I find them really cool, but for gaming... that's another matter entirely. Very curious to know on that one. I've used the Plankwell miniature and miniature states in Power Projection(it's insane. The amount of shots you can get out of one of those is hilarious. I had a third of a fleet wiped out before I'd even fired back at the on coming Plankwell. Good bye game if the Tigress ever becomes a miniature reality). Other than that, I'm trying to comprehend the adventures that could be had, entirely within just one of those starships.

Please do share if you have some great stories to tell involving large starships.