Defense of a Solar System

[Whipsnade]

I think I could certainly shed some light here.

You cannot and all the various assumptions you've made is the reason why you cannot.

M-drives don't work in atmospheres? Ships routinely depressurize in battle? Lasers need to cool? I won't even comment on your ideas concerning jump exits.

You've made so many assumptions which only apply to YTU that the "lessons" you've "learned" only apply to YTU.

 

[Whipsnade]

There's a reason Book 5 is done the way it is. If you're using Book 5 combat in a "Mayday" style "tactical" environment with G's of maneuver, and vectors, and counting out range hexes, you'll discover maneuver pretty much doesn't matter. 3D, heck 2D, doesn't matter. Facing, speed, weapon arcs...don't really matter. Range matters...sorta.

An excellent post. Hopefully people will read and understand it.

 

[Whipsnade]

If you reduce Max weapon ranges to less than one turn's delta-V...

... you're not playing Traveller.

 

[PFVA63]

There's a reason Book 5 is done the way it is. If you're using Book 5 combat in a "Mayday" style "tactical" environment with G's of maneuver, and vectors, and counting out range hexes, you'll discover maneuver pretty much doesn't matter. 3D, heck 2D, doesn't matter. Facing, speed, weapon arcs...don't really matter. Range matters...sorta.

Imagine two guys with cannons in a bull ring. That pretty much sums up space combat, especially with Book 5, or TNE. You're either in effective range of each other (and blasting away) or you're not. It's not a game of maneuver. It's a game of "If it's in range, I can hit it. If I hit it, I can crit it. If it crits, it kills."

GDW figured this all out playing with Book 5, and basically came up with "You know, all this vectors and hexes and drawing chalk on the ground or pushing counters on empty maps isn't really fundamental to the end result. So, we'll just speed it up by making it a mutual firing squad with a conceptual reserve." Most book 5 battles are done before the first dice are rolled, the dice are there just to see how much it costs the victor.

Brilliant Lances and Battle Rider do a really good job of demonstrating how complicating the procedure by adding realistic maneuver (of which they do a really good job) doesn't really change the overall outcome. BL does add the capability of adding temporary terrain using missile nukes and whiteout to break lock. I've never played a big enough game to really see that come in to play, perhaps it does to some extent. Terrain makes maneuver relevant. As a general rule though, there's not a whole lot of terrain in space.

And it is different with small ships poking holes in each other with lasers, especially in something like BL. When it's small ship lasers vs small ship lasers, there's not a lot of crits involved, it's more like killing a watermelon with an knitting needle. But bring on the big guns, and all that pin cushion stuff goes by the wayside. It's shotguns vs watermelons. "I roll 10 hits with the knitting needles and one with the shotgun. Which damage should I roll first?"...

Hi,

Can you point me to anywhere this has been demonstrated, especially anywhere that the same battle has been run in the two systems and similar results have been obtained?

Things that I'm especially concerned with would include those battles where it isn't necessarily a slugfest to the death of one side or the other, such as convoy escort vs raiders, or attempts to prevent a strike against a planets, etc, or battles with dispersed forces.

Thanks

PF

 

[Omnivore]

Not interested in contributing to this board.

 

[BraselC5048]

You cannot and all the various assumptions you've made is the reason why you cannot.

M-drives don't work in atmospheres? Ships routinely depressurize in battle? Lasers need to cool? I won't even comment on your ideas concerning jump exits.

You've made so many assumptions which only apply to YTU that the "lessons" you've "learned" only apply to YTU.

I agree that they only apply to MTU, or any other universe using the same assumptions. They also only apply for about tech level 11.5.

Depressurizing hulls during combat is cannon, by the way. Right out of my ancient set of starter traveller. As is the heart of my ship combat system.

These "lessons" do, in fact decide the outcomes of battles. I would know - I've fought them, and there aren't any ship tactics rolls in my campaign. It's the players who have to have that skill, not the characters.

That said, it's these minor little "assumptions" that really drive operational strategy, and without a coherent set, and defining how your technological universe works, discussing operations is impossible.

For the OTU, what are the assumptions? If a fleet wants to jump together, how much is the difference in time of exiting jump? (Not answered in canon, by the way) How long can an Imperial warship sustain maximum rate if fire? What is its rate of fire (in real world units). How long can it operate with its hull depressurized? What is the maximum range of nuclear dampers and starship weapons? How long can a ship maintain maximum acceleration without cutting into jump fuel? Can cruisers outrun battleships? How difficult is it to locate a deep meson site, and at what range and how long? What are detection ranges for different types of ship? How much fire and damage can a ship withstand from another ship with the same weapons? What is the yield of a nuclear bay missile? How many rounds of missiles and sand does a ship carry? How long does a ship's consumables last, and how can they be replenished? How are prisoners from a surrendered ship dealt with. What proportion of your fleet can skim fuel? How does entering an atmosphere work? How long does it take to prepare a ship for battle?

You need to know the answers to these questions and many more to be able to really discuss operations. Canon doesn't provide many of the answers.

So really, discussing operations is hard unless everyone shares the same view of how the universe works, and many parts of that are still debated.
And each person's universe, and each ruleset, has very different operational strategy.

Besides, not a lot of people have dealt with naval operations in their campaign.

 

[Whipsnade]

I agree that they only apply to MTU, or any other universe using the same assumptions.

Because those "lessons" only apply to YTU, they have limited application elsewhere.

They also only apply for about tech level 11.5.

No, they do not.

Depressurizing hulls during combat is cannon, by the way. Right out of my ancient set of starter traveller. As is the heart of my ship combat system.

It's in my book too, along with jump torpedoes. Whether it is of any actual utility is another question.

These "lessons" do, in fact decide the outcomes of battles.

They only apply because YTU is built on them. They will not apply in other TUs or the OTU.

That said, it's these minor little "assumptions"...

They are not minor assumptions. They provide answers to questions that are fundamental to any "operational" space combat system and any answers to those questions are wholly absent in the actual rules.

...discussing operations is impossible.

Discussing operations is currently impossible because there are no answers in the actual rules. There are your assumptions, my assumptions, and thousands of other assumptions but there is no common ground.

For the OTU, what are the assumptions?

There are very few.

If a fleet wants to jump together, how much is the difference in time of exiting jump? (Not answered in canon, by the way)

Pick up MT and read why you're wrong.

How long can an Imperial warship sustain maximum rate if fire? What is its rate of fire (in real world units). How long can it operate with its hull depressurized? What is the maximum range of nuclear dampers...

These are all currently unasnwered.

...and starship weapons?

There have been answers to that as far back as LBB:2 and, even within CT, the answer differs.

How long can a ship maintain maximum acceleration without cutting into jump fuel?

LBB:2 has rules for fuel endurance.

Can cruisers outrun battleships?

You are familiar with the idea of vectors, thrust, and so forth, right?

How difficult is it to locate a deep meson site, and at what range and how long?

Unknown.

What are detection ranges for different types of ship?

CT, MT, the TNE ship combat systems, etc.

How much fire and damage can a ship withstand from another ship with the same weapons?

Seriously, you have played LBB:2, Mayday, HG2, and all the rest?

What is the yield of a nuclear bay missile? How many rounds of missiles and sand does a ship carry? How long does a ship's consumables last, and how can they be replenished?

Unknown, although there are LS costs as far back as LBB:2.

How are prisoners from a surrendered ship dealt with.

Unknown.

What proportion of your fleet can skim fuel?

HG2 and every ship design system afterwards.

How does entering an atmosphere work?

Differs according to rules set.

How long does it take to prepare a ship for battle?

TNE among others.

You need to know the answers to these questions and many more to be able to really discuss operations. Canon doesn't provide many of the answers.

No shit, Sherlock. What you're failing to understand is that many of those questions have never been answered in the rules and that your personal answers to those questions directly impact the operational "lessons" your games have produced.

So really, discussing operations is hard unless everyone shares the same view of how the universe works, and many parts of that are still debated.

Not hard, impossible.

And each person's universe, and each ruleset, has very different operational strategy.

So you do understand. Why the claim about "shedding light" then when that light depended wholly on your personal assumptions?

Besides, not a lot of people have dealt with naval operations in their campaign.

Not a lot? You'd be surprised...

 

[BraselC5048]

Because those "lessons" only apply to YTU, they have limited application elsewhere.

They only apply because YTU is built on them. They will not apply in other TUs or the OTU.

Pretty much we're in agreement here. The OTU will work completely differently. If someone else uses a sufficiently similar universe (which is very rare for mine), some of this might be useful. But mostly, only in MTU.

That said, it's these minor little "assumptions"...

They are not minor assumptions. They provide answers to questions that are fundamental to any "operational" space combat system and any answers to those questions are wholly absent in the actual rules.

Sarcasm on my part, sorry.

And yes, I'm familiar with vectors. I play with them every time. I should have asked if battleships have a lower maneuver drive acceleration. Interestingly, pursuits usually would work out so that both ships chase each other either up or down, while closing (or not) in the other 2 dimensions.
I 'think' the answer is no, in the OTU.
Also - LBB:2 doesn't give a very clear answer on fuel consumption, as to whether a ship can accelerate for the entire time or not. Jump arrivals are answered in the starship operator's manual, which I believe was a third party publication. (I use that answer IMTU). I don't have Mayday, I've played a little stock LBB:2, a ton of my heavily modified version of it, and I've played around with High Guard (spinal mount meson guns kill in one shot, bay meson guns much more slowly, and everything else is almost completely useless).

So you do understand. Why the claim about "shedding light" then when that light depended wholly on your personal assumptions?

I think we can both agree that was a poor way to start my post.

What you're failing to understand is that many of those questions have never been answered in the rules and that your personal answers to those questions directly impact the operational "lessons" your games have produced.

Actually, I do understand, although I probably phrased by posts badly.

Discussing operations is currently impossible because there are no answers in the actual rules. There are your assumptions, my assumptions, and thousands of other assumptions but there is no common ground.

Exactly!
Everyone's assumptions are different, and if there are any official answers, different rulesets differ. That's why I listed my assumptions.
We're in complete agreement here. Really, we are. Without a common set of assumptions, and with no official answers, it is impossible to discuss operations.

One of these years I'll get around to writing up my technical universe.

No shit, Sherlock.

Hey, that's my line!

 

[PFVA63]

Hi,

Its been awhile since I messed with alot of my old Traveller stuff, so I went digging through some old boxes to double check some stuff. Unfortunately I have two copies of LBB5, a 1st Edition and a later Edition, which apparently differ abit, but I was only able to locate one right now, and I'm not sure which it is.

Anyway, looking at my copy of that and my copy of LBB2, I put together a real brief (and likely incomplete) list of some of the stuff in LBB5's combat resolution system that concerns me a bit.

First off, in attacking the rules seem to allow a ship to only attack a single enemy during each 20 minute turn, whereas in LBB2 does not have this restriction (and with LBB2 turns being shorter the total number of different targets a single ship may attack would seem to be even higher). Although this may not seem to be a big deal for large actions, in actions with a lopsided number of forces on each side, it may become a fairly significant issue.

Second, LBB5 seems to treat a players entire fleet as a single monolithic block. And although the rules allow for the fact that some ships armament may be at an advantage at shorter ranges while others may have an advantage at longer ranges, the rules assume that for the player with initiative on any given turn, all ships will move to a given "range" even if tactially it might be an advantage to have some of your ships close in while other attempt to provide more distant support. Withint the rules of LBB2 there does not appear to be any such constraints, and although it would likely be very difficult to try and play out a large battle using LBB2 rules, such a tactic may well be quite usefule in such combat.

Similarly, because the LBB5 rules appear to be treating each side as a monolithic block the ability to try to exploit the G rating of different units appears to be constrianed. Rather than trying to play to your individual units strengths and weaknesses perhaps with your heavy units operating behind a screen (perhaps kind of like Napoleonic Artillery) with regular units acting maybe a bit like Napoleonic Infantry, and then using some faster/higher G units as a rapid reserve and or means of trying to exploit shifting defenses etc (maybe a little along the lines of Napoleonic Cavalry) (as you could using LBB2) LBB5 appears to just assume all units are just one big block with initiative being impacted by the slowest unit per side withthe only real attempt at segregating units being the tactic of shifting some units to the reserve for a turn or so.

LBB5 also seems to view space kind of one dimensionally to me. While it includes rules for trying to push through an enemies lines, I didn't really see anything (at least in the rules I was looking at) that made allowances for trying to either sweep around an enemies lines, or an allowance for the possibilites that you might be able to make the lines shift.

Because of things like this (and I'm sure that there are others as well) I'm just kind of left with the impression that the rules of LBB5, while trying to simplify the ability to run large battles really appears to also constrain the strategies and tactics of the forces used in running of those battles.

In the end then, I'm kind of left with the feeling that LBB5 just doesn't really do a good job of capturing the setting of Traveller as it seems to gloss over certain features of the setting (at least to me).

 

[McPerth]

First off, in attacking the rules seem to allow a ship to only attack a single enemy during each 20 minute turn, whereas in LBB2 does not have this restriction (and with LBB2 turns being shorter the total number of different targets a single ship may attack would seem to be even higher). Although this may not seem to be a big deal for large actions, in actions with a lopsided number of forces on each side, it may become a fairly significant issue.

Looking at my copy of HG (the one in FFE The Books, I think 2nd edition) I see no place where it forbids a single ship to fire more than one enemy ship. I understand that's why some battleships have so many batteries, and I also envision it as the way to defend yourself from fighters.

Rules (page 40) say that each player sequentially show up a ship and the opponet may fire with any of the batteries of any of his ships, IMHO hinting that not all batteries in a single ship must be fired then (so, some may be reserved for other ships).

Aside form this, I mostly agree with your post about HG giving no place to tactics, being mostly just stand and fire.

 

[PFVA63]

Hi,

Thanks for the info. The version of LBB5 that I am currently looking at states on pg 38, under the heading COMBAT that "Each weapon on a ship may be fired once per combat round in the attack; all fire from a single ship must be fired against a single enemy ship."

PF

 

[PFVA63]

Hi,

I found my copy of "The Golden Age of Traveler CD" with a later version of LBB5, and I see where firing at more than one target is allowed in the revision, though it does raise a few questions, especially about 'batteries bearing' and how this relates to firing on more than one target, etc.

 

[mike wightman]

You may want to dig out LBB2 and re-read that too - a ship can only attack one target per turn unless it is running the multi-target program or it may shift fire at a DM of -6 if its original target is destroyed an there are still turrets to fire.

 

[McPerth]

You may want to dig out LBB2 and re-read that too - a ship can only attack one target per turn unless it is running the multi-target program or it may shift fire at a DM of -6 if its original target is destroyed an there are still turrets to fire.

By reading LBB2 (the one given in FFE:The Books), page 29, and confirmed in TTB (page 76), what it specifically says is:

All lasers from a single turret must fire on the de same target. Lasers from different turrets may fire on different targets if a multi-target program is running and allows such activity

. I found no reference about missiles having any limitation (I guess the own target adquisition capability of the missiles allows for firing them to different targets.

In the multi-target program (LBB2 page 39, TTB page70) description you can read:

<snip> allows an attack on more than one target at one time. Each turret may still only fire one specific target, but different turrets may fire at different targets.<snip>

not specifying if talking about lasers or missiles.

See that this may seem as a little contradictory (specifying lasers in one place, and not doing it in the other), and does not allow a mixted turret (laser/missile) to use the laser as anti misile and the missile as anti-ship in the same phase.

 

[McPerth]

Hi,

I found my copy of "The Golden Age of Traveler CD" with a later version of LBB5, and I see where firing at more than one target is allowed in the revision, though it does raise a few questions, especially about 'batteries bearing' and how this relates to firing on more than one target, etc.

By looking at page 40 LBB5, I'd say that, to practical effects (and for easyness and speed of play), you can pool all equal turrets and draw from this pool to fire enemy ships as they present themselves. So each ship will contribute to this pool with its bearing turrets.

e.g.; your fleet has 2 BBs with computer 9 and 1 T rated MG and 100 Misile batteries (65 bearing) each; 4 Cruisers with computer 8 and 1 G rated MG and 40 Missile batteries (32 bearing) each in the front line.

Your battery pool would be:

2 x T MG (comp9)
130 X 9 Missile (comp9)
4 x G MG (comp8)
128 x 9 Missile (comp8)

As the enemy presents you each ship to be fired, you draw from this pool until all batteries have fired (or you decide not to fire any more, but that would be a waste of firepower).

As damage doesn't apply until next combat turn, this battery pool must be calculated each turn, but won't be diminished at the middle of each turn.

I don't believe this could be applied to defensive batteries (repulsors, beams used as anti-missiles, etc), and so I didn't list them, as each ship uses its own to deffend it.

 

[PFVA63]

By looking at page 40 LBB5, I'd say that, to practical effects (and for easyness and speed of play), you can pool all equal turrets and draw from this pool to fire enemy ships as they present themselves. So each ship will contribute to this pool with its bearing turrets.

e.g.; your fleet has 2 BBs with computer 9 and 1 T rated MG and 100 Misile batteries (65 bearing) each; 4 Cruisers with computer 8 and 1 G rated MG and 40 Missile batteries (32 bearing) each in the front line.

Your battery pool would be:

2 x T MG (comp9)
130 X 9 Missile (comp9)
4 x G MG (comp8)
128 x 9 Missile (comp8)

As the enemy presents you each ship to be fired, you draw from this pool until all batteries have fires (or you decide not to fire any more, but that would be a waste of firepower).

As damage doesn't apply until next combat turn, this battery pool must be calculated each turn, but won't be diminished at the middle of each turn.

I don't believe this could be applied to defensive batteries (repulsors, beams used as anti-missiles, etc), and so I didn't list them, as each ship uses its own to deffend it.

Hi,

That's close to what I was thinking it probably meant.

I think my confusion/concern is that High Guard seems to assume that there will always be some batteries on larger ships that can be brought to bear, (though not on smaller ones). However, when I used to play May Day I know that it wasn't uncommon that when there was more than one enemy ship, they often ended up on opposite sides of me.

As such, I'm kind of confused on why its assumed that similar situations aren't likely considered to occur for the larger ships.

 

[McPerth]

Hi,

That's close to what I was thinking it probably meant.

I think my confusion/concern is that High Guard seems to assume that there will always be some batteries on larger ships that can be brought to bear, (though not on smaller ones). However, when I used to play May Day I know that it wasn't uncommon that when there was more than one enemy ship, they often ended up on opposite sides of me.

As such, I'm kind of confused on why its assumed that similar situations aren't likely considered to occur for the larger ships.

And you have a true good point here.

But to allow that you'd need a ships' movement (or at least relative positioning) system, and, aside of HG not having it, I guess this is quite daring if you're matching large fleets against each other.

Here enters the criticism so often said about HG having no tactical representation on it, aside from keeping your ships in reserve or front line. But that's how HG works...

As I already advocated in other threads, I envision any fleet combat to become either a wild melee if both sides arrive at it at sloww speeds (so able to stop, relative to the other fleet, in a ew rounds) or (if engaging at high relative speeds)to become a passing shoot engagement more like medieval jousts, where one attack (maybe two) is given while passing and then you either trun arround for another such rounds, stop to wait your enemy and develop melee, or keep going to your target (or turn to pursue your enemy to just avoid it).

 

[Omnivore]

Not interested in contributing to this board.

 

[PFVA63]

Hi,

I'm really interested in seeing what others thoughts are on what a space battle might look like, so I'll start a new topic.

PF