CT Only: Book2 Maneuver/Evade idea

[infojunky]

An Idea to consider about Book2’s ship combat computer program Maneuver/Evade.

The Mayday version of Maneuver/Evade requires 1g of thrust to be expended when using them.

Maneuver/Evade uses a fraction of Pilot’s skill as the source of the defensive DM.

Thus using extra thrust above the “required” 1g effectively adds 1 to 1 to the pilot’s effective skill before the fraction is applied.

In essence adding an Agility mechanic to book2. Making maneuver rating matter more.

 

[mike wightman]

I use a rule whereby the evade DM costs you m-drive g rating per point of evasion. Where pilot skill comes in is pilot skill can get you an evade DM of pilot skill at the cost of only 1g. Within a certain range it is a moot point since lasers will hit you regardless, but you can spread the beam and thus lessen the damage by rolling the ship.

 

[kilemall]

I use a rule whereby the evade DM costs you m-drive g rating per point of evasion. Where pilot skill comes in is pilot skill can get you an evade DM of pilot skill at the cost of only 1g. Within a certain range it is a moot point since lasers will hit you regardless, but you can spread the beam and thus lessen the damage by rolling the ship.

Exactly, you aren’t dodging the laser but not giving it time to burn through the hull at any given point.

I’m doing LBB2 maneuver with LBB5 hit mechanics, I let the abstraction of the computer model DM drive the competition between evade and predict. Agility DM can apply but it’s taken straight out of acceleration. Skill contests between pilot and gunner would use the average Skill-2 assumption and require the /2 divisor- so it would take Pilot-4 to beat the average gunner. Works the other way, Pilot-1 or Gunnery-1 would give an average opponent a +1.

 

[whartung]

Exactly, you aren’t dodging the laser but not giving it time to burn through the hull at any given point.

Is that how the lasers work? They sit on a spot and burn through, vs just being so high powered that they import far too much energy than the target can absorb, "all at once". I mean, the "sit on a spot and burn" laser can be (somewhat) trivially thwarted by rotating the ship on its axis, without regard to maneuver.

 

[whulorigan]

Is that how the lasers work? They sit on a spot and burn through, vs just being so high powered that they import far too much energy than the target can absorb, "all at once". I mean, the "sit on a spot and burn" laser can be (somewhat) trivially thwarted by rotating the ship on its axis, without regard to maneuver.

That's the difference between a Pulse versus a Beam Laser, and why the Pulse does 2D, and the Beam only 1D (though I am sure the "sit and burn thru" is also relatively short duration, all things considered).

OTOH, this is why the Beam has a better "to hit" roll than the Pulse, in contrast.

 

[Drakon]

That's the difference between a Pulse versus a Beam Laser, and why the Pulse does 2D, and the Beam only 1D (though I am sure the "sit and burn thru" is also relatively short duration, all things considered).

OTOH, this is why the Beam has a better "to hit" roll than the Pulse, in contrast.

This is because a constant layer beam will build up a cloud of lasered material in front of the beam point on the target. It gives the hull some shielding. By Pulsing the beam, you give the blasted material time to move away from the target

 

[whulorigan]

This is because a constant layer beam will build up a cloud of lasered material in front of the beam point on the target. It gives the hull some shielding. By Pulsing the beam, you give the blasted material time to move away from the target

Not to get too much off on a tangent, but how much of a difference do you think there would be in this effect between a beam/pulse laser operating in an atmosphere vs. one in a vacuum?

 

[Drakon]

Not to get too much off on a tangent, but how much of a difference do you think there would be in this effect between a beam/pulse laser operating in an atmosphere vs. one in a vacuum?

Atmosphere will reduce beam strength of beam at target, for both. If I remember correctly, a strong enough beam will carve a hole in the atmosphere, but I am not sure what game mechanics are required

 

[Straybow]

I don't think a ship could roll fast enough to keep a laser from burning through. Even 1/10th of a second is a long time for a laser pulse. For a continuous beam (or really a "long pulse") laser, rolling the ship is as likely to allow the laser to hole more compartments of the target ship.

 

[RogerD]

I use a rule whereby the evade DM costs you m-drive g rating per point of evasion. Where pilot skill comes in is pilot skill can get you an evade DM of pilot skill at the cost of only 1g. Within a certain range it is a moot point since lasers will hit you regardless, but you can spread the beam and thus lessen the damage by rolling the ship.

One of the most interesting programs from LBB2 to me is Double Fire. I have thought of using the same overload mechanics for the maneuver drive, perhaps as an additional program. This program would permit full maneuver for a ship with excess power at the risk of power plant damage. It would also require a bigger power plant and computer so it would mostly be for warships.

 

[kilemall]

I don't think a ship could roll fast enough to keep a laser from burning through. Even 1/10th of a second is a long time for a laser pulse. For a continuous beam (or really a "long pulse") laser, rolling the ship is as likely to allow the laser to hole more compartments of the target ship.

May want to read the atomic rockets discussion on this.

The Luke Campbell laser calculator suggests that it may take several seconds to punch through typical hull plate if we take Striker values on this, especially at the width of the beam at even relatively reduced ranges in MgT.

How to Build a Laser Death Ray: Material Response to Laser Radiation

panoptesv.com

 

[mike wightman]

One of the most interesting programs from LBB2 to me is Double Fire. I have thought of using the same overload mechanics for the maneuver drive, perhaps as an additional program. This program would permit full maneuver for a ship with excess power at the risk of power plant damage. It would also require a bigger power plant and computer so it would mostly be for warships.

Now there is a thought - and it would tie in nicely to my attempt at heat management for Traveller ships too.

More power to the drives - add 1 to maneuver rating (which can then be spent on acceleration or evade) up to double the pp or md rating whichever is lower at the time (battle damage), note the power plant must be at least one letter higher than the m-drive.
Throw 1+ to avoid power plant shutdown, DM +additional m-drive rating, +1 for each turn the drive is overloaded, -1 for each turn the drive is run at normal load.
Spaces 4, cost MCr4

 

[Straybow]

May want to read the atomic rockets discussion on this.

The Luke Campbell laser calculator suggests that it may take several seconds to punch through typical hull plate if we take Striker values on this, especially at the width of the beam at even relatively reduced ranges in MgT.

How to Build a Laser Death Ray: Material Response to Laser Radiation

panoptesv.com

Since 1 EP = 250 MW, the minimum power for a laser, I don't think discussion about kilowatt-scale weapons has much bearing on weapons thousands of times more powerful. With a combat turn being 1000 seconds, that laser could easily fire a hundred 250 MJ shots without overheating. That could be a 1-second beam sweeping to improve hit chance or a pulse to concentrate energy in the case of a hit.

I'm fairly sure that laser weapons in the early 2000s were already micropulsed to allow vaporized metal to disperse. Not a problem for Traveller tech.

 

[mike wightman]

Do you know where the 250MW number comes from? They made it up for Striker.

The bit that no one talks about is they also give the efficiency of laser weapons.

No mention of magic heat sinks though...

 

[Straybow]

250 MW makes sense for maneuver drive. I did a rough calc somewhere...
found it

Going Pirate

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra: Not many merchant designs carry fuel purifiers as standard; a bit silly IMHO since they pay for themselves so quickly. How many are going to run the risk of misjump? Well, since there's no source for refined fuel in-system, ships without fuel purifiers will...

www.travellerrpg.com

 

[infojunky]

250 MW makes sense for maneuver drive. I did a rough calc somewhere...
found it

Ball park is in the neighborhood of 1 MW per 100 tons of hull, so off by around a order of magnitude....

 

[Straybow]

Didn't look at my calc?

 

[infojunky]

Didn't look at my calc?

I did, then did the calculation from the required Joules... In traveller terms 1 ton at 1 g is 10,000 joules or post conversion 10 kilowatts, thus for 100 dton ship with a assumed mass of 1,000 tonnes gives a required energy of 10mw, which would set the base EP at 1 in a 100 dton ship with a power plant 1.

Now going from there and factoring the energy needs of internal compensation and inefficiencies of the system the 25 MW per EP looks much more reasonable.

Now 25Mw is still a HUGE amount of power, but looks to be much more reasonable than 250 Mw...

 

[aramis]

I did, then did the calculation from the required Joules... In traveller terms 1 ton at 1 g is 10,000 joules or post conversion 10 kilowatts, thus for 100 dton ship with a assumed mass of 1,000 tonnes gives a required energy of 10mw, which would set the base EP at 1 in a 100 dton ship with a power plant 1.

You're missing the real world constraint of inefficiency.
You're also making a canonically false assumption of 1 tonnes mass per Td; in looking at Striker, MT, TNE & T4 designs, mass is closer to 10 tonnes per Td. Knocks it up a factor of 10.

Now going from there and factoring the energy needs of internal compensation and inefficiencies of the system the 25 MW per EP looks much more reasonable.

Now 25Mw is still a HUGE amount of power, but looks to be much more reasonable than 250 Mw...

Note that the fuel rates given would be something astonishingly low recovery by book rates. 1 tonne of Hydrogen should be enough for multiple megawatt months.

Ty Beard and a couple others have done the math, and either the fuel is used mostly (around 98%) as working fluid rather than actual power, or the 250 MW is a recovery of under 10% of energy released... or both.

 

[infojunky]

You're missing the real world constraint of inefficiency.
You're also making a canonically false assumption of 1 tonnes mass per Td; in looking at Striker, MT, TNE & T4 designs, mass is closer to 10 tonnes per Td. Knocks it up a factor of 10.

Note you might want to reread what I said... I.e. I took that into account.