CT Only: CT & Starfire

[McPerth]

It is if you say "200 dTon = 16 Hull spaces". That's the beauty of this stuff -- you can make it up and change it as you like! You can also say that a missile has an implicit load of 3/6/9/100000 missiles, a Magazine just Adds More.

Well, if 16 hulls are 200 dtons, then the 200 hull MT (the largest ship SF allows) is 2500 dtons... So we're on a small ship universe...

And the Magazines are a must for any missile armed ship in SF if they are to launch any missiles. You can rule out they are not necessary, of course, but it's no longer a SF valid design.

Batteries? What are batteries. SF doesn't have batteries. We're not making "Canonical Traveller Ships", we're making SF ships to fly around in a Traveller universe. Our only "burden" of compatibility is to make a Free Trader economically viable. Every thing else is up for grabs. There's no "balance" to be maintained anywhere else. The Free Trader doesn't even have to be 200 dTons, rather it needs 75 dTons free space of cargo (since that's the money maker).

The star port doesn't care how big your ship is, nobody else cares how big the ship is (within reason, naturally). The Captain cares how much stuff he can carry, how much fuel he needs to buy each trip, how many crew he needs, and annual maintenance. THOSE are important, but other than that, not much else matters.

Someone suggested that SF weapons would be the equivalent to HG full batteries (a bay in the case of missiles, etc...). I see some logic on it (as long as we accept the conversions are posible, off course), and so I talked about batteries.

If you don't need a balance, then why to have a starship design system? And, if you need it, how can 2 holds (so 2 hulls) be 75 dtons if 16 hulls are 200 dtons?

You have to refuel when you add the brand new "Jump Drive (Jd)" system that requires dedicated "Jump Fuel (Jf)" systems to perform jump. You can make the Jd systems scale with size (like ion drives and drive rooms do), and you can consume as much a percentage of the ship as you like for "Jf".

After that, ships just get built and designed. There's no need or effort to be "compatible" with Traveller ships. Folks can whip up a "Scout Ship" (i.e. a small ship with Jump 2, Speed 2 and laser) or a "Mercenary Cruiser" or a "Battleship", but they don't necessary have to be anything at all like what is in Traveller.

Don't conflate "3 laser turret == 3 L systems in SF" or anything like that. It's unimportant to the game fantasy. You have an "armed merchant" with 75 dTons of space to fill with cargo. That's enough.

Were we talking about using SF combat system for Traveller fleet combats by adapting the designs or are we talking about a game where those "trivial details" are "unimportant for game fantasy"?

Both approaches are valid, but if I'm folloing the first one and you are folloing the second one, then I'm afraid any discussion among us is moot...

Yes they do. Traveller is historically extremely weak on operations. FFW is the best thing we've got to go by, and it's ostensibly a bit too high level.

FFW (or TCS campaign) simply obviate in-system opperations...

The fleet arrives, at Jupiter, 100D away. The fleet takes 4 hours to assemble. There was a post that says a coordinated fleet will have it's arrival scattered over a 100 minute window. So 2 hours for the fleet to arrive, 2 hours to assemble and get coffee.

Fleet heads to Jupiter. 3G fleet, 4 hour trip.

Now, how long does it take for the fleet to refuel?

If the fleet can skim, in FFW, the fleet can refuel before combat. If not, it has to refuel the next turn (next week). For the sake of discussion, we'll assume the fleet can skim.

Is there a defending force at Jupiter? If not, things go apace. If there is, the fleet destroys and/or routs the defenders (otherwise the game is, as they say, over). How long does that combat take? If it's High Guard, with 20 minute turns, a 4 hour battle is 12 rounds. In Starfire, 4 hours is an eternity. Either way, the battle will likely be decided within 4 hours (i.e. the defenders will know they can't stop the fleet, so they can either crash themselves upon the rocks, being as costly as they can, or they can withdraw.) Heck, we'll give them 8 hours for combat.

So, now we're at 14 hours time in system for the attacking fleet.

How long does it take for the fleet to refuel? 24 hours? Think they can scoop up and process enough in 24 hours? Is that too little? This is the big unknown. 48 Hours?

We'll call it 48 hours. 62 hours in system, the fleet all fueled, more coffee poured, damage control parties putting their kits away, the fleet heads toward earth.

Average distance, 588Mkm. 3G Drives. Full burn, that's a 78 hour flight.

ETA to Earth: T+140 hours. So if they arrived at Sunday Midnight, it's now 8pm on Friday. And they're at Earth. The fleet then defeats the defending space forces in another 8 hour onslaught, ending at 4am on Saturday.

Thus ends "Turn 1", the first week. "Turn 2", the troops can start landing, for Sunday they rest.

If a defender jumped as soon as they saw the incoming fleet, then reinforcements can begin arriving on "Turn 3".

If the fleet decided to not make the pit stop at Jupiter, it would have arrived directly at Earth, defeated the defending force and started landing operations on Monday in "Turn 1".

Much of this hinges on the refueling step. If it only took 24 hours, the landings may well have started on Saturday.

Nice explanation. The only problem is that that's not FFW, as in FFW the attacking fleet could start Turn 1 in Barnard Star, jump to Sol and do all you say (plus landing troops) before the ending of it. And it does not care about if the defending fleet is in earth, in Júpiter or in Plute, it must be confronted as a whole, as the whole system is just one "hex".

 

[whartung]

Fun to think of substituting a different space combat system with CT. Starfire would be fun and simple, just some simple adaptions needed. I wouldn't try to replicate the iconic Traveller starships. I would homebrew in the idea that ships have vector movement from Mayday and that they have a Jump engine which takes up space onboard the ship.

Seems like the OP was looking for an SF like damage system to use in his Traveller game. He was going to add Jump drives and even give them vector movement.

Well, if 16 hulls are 200 dtons, then the 200 hull MT (the largest ship SF allows) is 2500 dtons... So we're on a small ship universe…

Yup. So?

And the Magazines are a must for any missile armed ship in SF if they are to launch any missiles. You can rule out they are not necessary, of course, but it's no longer a SF valid design.

SF1 had no magazines. I don't think they were added in SF2, but they were certainly there by 3rd Edition (because missiles were already dominant in 3rd Ed.)

The ships are already no longer valid as soon as you bolt Jump Drives on to the frame, handwaving the magazine requirement for a limited load (1, 2, 3 combat round of ammunition in the launcher, no reload in combat) is not really a stretch.

If you don't need a balance, then why to have a starship design system?

Mind I've argued against a detailed ship design system in an RPG anyway (vs just a List of Ships).

You need balance within the system. Actually, you just need consistency. There's no need to balance the Starfire hybrid system against Traveller ships or designs or economics (outside of making the Free Trader economy work).

I have not seen any study done on whether HG, for example, is actually a balanced system when you do a Bang/Credit analysis. I imagine that it actually isn't, since higher TL brings benefits without necessarily adding costs. Are Meson Guns economically balanced against PAs? At TL 13? or TL 15? I dunno. I doubt it.

And, if you need it, how can 2 holds (so 2 hulls) be 75 dtons if 16 hulls are 200 dtons?

Because I just made a ship up on the fly as to what I think a Free Trader might look like. Think it needs more holds? great! Add them in. Arguably, with 75 tons of hold, then that should be 40% of the ship. But, as mentioned, all the really matter is that the ship have 75 Tons of free space and be economically viable. 100 tons, 200tons, 500 tons. That's not really as important. A Traveller Free Trader with 75 free tons of space is 200 tons, I don't know how big a StarTravellerFire Free Trader will be.

Were we talking about using SF combat system for Traveller fleet combats by adapting the designs or are we talking about a game where those "trivial details" are "unimportant for game fantasy"?

Both approaches are valid, but if I'm folloing the first one and you are folloing the second one, then I'm afraid any discussion among us is moot…

Seems like OP was talking about Starfire ships with Jump drives orbiting Regina.

FFW (or TCS campaign) simply obviate in-system opperations...

Nice explanation. The only problem is that that's not FFW, as in FFW the attacking fleet could start Turn 1 in Barnard Star, jump to Sol and do all you say (plus landing troops) before the ending of it. And it does not care about if the defending fleet is in earth, in Júpiter or in Plute, it must be confronted as a whole, as the whole system is just one "hex".

Well, actually, as I recall, FFW at the start of a turn, you can either Jump or Fight. So, your Jump consumes the entire week, then you arrive next turn where you can, again, Jump or Fight. So, the Jump and Fight process takes "two weeks", 1 week jumping, 1 week fighting. Streamlined fleets get to Fuel and Jump in the same turn, and can choose to not engage in combat. So they can Jump, Jump, Jump (and you, as a defender, can not stop them). Whereas unstreamlined fleets do not, they have to stay and fight and fuel.

Actually an interesting idea for FFW is to plot your jump. Write down the destination of the fleet, then remove the counters from the board. Next turn, you the place the counters at the destination, revealing the pre-written order. Just one less bit of "I can see the entire board" intelligence.

Also the real problem FFW is modeling is command and control and operational pace, system operations are secondary. Once a fleet has arrived in system, they pretty much have free reign for 2 weeks before anyone can respond to it (more likely worse with the command lag). So, may as well lump everything together to make game play simpler.

A more detailed plan would be put a "destination" for each gas giant and main planet, and let the fleets fight it out there (based on the premise that while there may be more than one fleet in the system, they can't aid each other during an attack). But that requires the defender to split their defenses to the point where the gas giants are likely indefensible.

Finally, this is an advantage, as splitting forces in space combat is pretty much never a good idea. A basic fundamental is numbers win. Splitting the fleet means less numbers.

 

[Otto Harkaman]

Seems like the OP was looking for an SF like damage system to use in his Traveller game. He was going to add Jump drives and even give them vector movement.

Yes exactly! I wasn't trying to take in all the minutia. I just thought it might be a fun and simple way to resolve combat.

Mayday movement + Starfire combat & damage + Traveller system jump + Traveller Character skills modifiers

:CoW::rant:

 

[whartung]

Yes exactly! I wasn't trying to take in all the minutia. I just thought it might be a fun and simple way to resolve combat.

Mayday movement + Starfire combat & damage + Traveller system jump

:CoW::rant:

Yea, just do it.

Come up with some Jump system that "feels" right, use the Ion drives directly (i.e. if a ship has speed 3 in Starfire, it has a 3G drive). So, big ships had drive rooms with several "I" systems.

Heck, just mimic it for Jump Drives, see how it feels. Add Jump Fuel to taste. Treat them as Holds, add bulkheads if you end up with a lot of them.

SF doesn't really work well with things like Battle Riders, so, those are out…no big deal.

Then…hop to it.

I expect you will have a lot of missile and laser boats in the end, but that's just a guess.