Fighters, Ships, Relativity and Acc

[bobpartdeux]

One thing that I didn't notice in the ship combat section was rules for relative velocity

it seems that, the higher the velocity, the longer it would take to train weapons on the object

this would give an advantage to faster moving ships (usually fighters)

also, I noticed that there were no rules taking relativity into account, while GR would probably be a little complicated, SR could probably be used quite easily

also I have never seen any ships with designs where there were more (or less) than the number of engines required

what stops you from putting in twice the engines to make there be twice the acceleration?

I also have not seen anything about direction of acceleration, therefore I assume that it can be in any direction?

if this is the case, than the AC/Dodge bonus from the acceleration scales wrong (I beleive), if the acceleration can be in any direction than the bonus from it should scale as acceleration cubed instead of acceleration

if I was to make a carrier, I would put very few engines on it and very low power supply, this would allow a 'lot' of fighters (it would stay far away because of low armor and maneuverability)

critical hits are always important (if I understand the rules), so a lot of fighters would still be useful (while noncritical hits would basically not matter, roughly 5% of attacks would result in a critical hit and there would be a lot of fighters (meaning a lot of chances for a critical hit)

Jon Miller

 

[bobpartdeux]

when you look at the % of space that are used on making the ship jump capable, I am more sure than ever that carriers (maybe of Rider instead of Fighters) should be the stronger

Jon Miller

 

[bobpartdeux]

I guess the whole Agility bonus to AC depenends on whether engines go

0 to Max Accel in one direction, Bonus would be Max Accel

-Max Accel to Max Accel in one direction, Bonus would be 2 X Max Accel

if it was 0 to Max Accel in some cone, than it would be more complicated, something like ((Max Accel X Constant) ^ 3 (where the Constant is less than 1, probably arround 1/8

if it was 0 to Max Accel in a sphere, than it would be (Max Accel)^3

if it is not in a sphere, and if there is a limit to how many Gs can be had, I still think that you sohuld be able to add engines until you reach the sphere case

JonMiller

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello bobpartdeux,

With the evolution of Traveller space combat has become more abstract for faster and easier play. When I began playing CT I tried the maneuver rules using vectors. Eventually, I dropped the system for the simple count the hexes for range, point the weapon, shoot, and roll the dice to see what happens. Since T20 is adapted from CT I am sure someone has come up with a method that can achieve what you are looking for.

 

[The Oz]

I can't speak about the other issues you raise, since I don't know T20, but relativity is not a problem for almost all TRAVELLER space combat simply because the ships are never moving fast enough to make it a serious issue.

Since ships are usually just moving from a planet surface to the safe jump limit, they aren't spending very long in normal space and so just don't reach very high speeds, relative to the speed of light, even at 6Gs.

Travelling to/from a gas giant would add more normal-space time, but still not enough to reach relativistic speeds.

 

[bobpartdeux]

the relativistic part is relatively minor

I am much more interested in the AC from agility part

(there is a big difference between MA and MA^3)

but the relativity part would matter whenever a ship got to 1x10^8 which would take at 6Gs roughly
1/18 of a year (or 2/3 of a month)

Jon Miller

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by bobpartdeux:
One thing that I didn't notice in the ship combat section was rules for relative velocity

it seems that, the higher the velocity, the longer it would take to train weapons on the object

this would give an advantage to faster moving ships (usually fighters)

The scale of ship combat is such that a lot of the detail, such as the time to train a weapon on target, is not necessary IMHO.

also, I noticed that there were no rules taking relativity into account, while GR would probably be a little complicated, SR could probably be used quite easily

I agree with Oz, Traveller ships will not get to the near c speeds required to allow SR to raise it's head.

also I have never seen any ships with designs where there were more (or less) than the number of engines required

what stops you from putting in twice the engines to make there be twice the acceleration?

Good question.
First answer - go ahead, just remember you'll need a much bigger power plant.
Second answer - ships were limited to a max acceleration of 6G in CT and it has carried over ever since. There are all sorts of handwaves for this, but the bottom line is that there is a cap on the maneuver rating cos the rules say so
(Unless you look at T4...)

I also have not seen anything about direction of acceleration, therefore I assume that it can be in any direction?

It's on page 177, ships have a heading and move like aircraft

if this is the case, than the AC/Dodge bonus from the acceleration scales wrong (I believe), if the acceleration can be in any direction than the bonus from it should scale as acceleration cubed instead of acceleration

This comes back to the scale of the combat system and it being modeled in 2 dimensions. The agility based AC bonus is a measure of the ship's ability to make random course changes in any direction to throw off the enemies future position calculations.

if I was to make a carrier, I would put very few engines on it and very low power supply, this would allow a 'lot' of fighters (it would stay far away because of low armor and maneuverability)

One of the main arguments in Traveller naval doctrine, whether to use battleships (with jump drives) or battle riders (no jump drives, more room for armour and big power plants etc.).

The main disadvantage of the BR is the vulnerability of the tender, it can't hide forever

critical hits are always important (if I understand the rules), so a lot of fighters would still be useful (while noncritical hits would basically not matter, roughly 5% of attacks would result in a critical hit and there would be a lot of fighters (meaning a lot of chances for a critical hit)

Jon Miller

The critical hit system in T20 has made fighters a bit more useful than in HG, but they have also made the meson bay armed destroyer the king of the battlefield IM(and others)HO

 

[bobpartdeux]

I can't help but noticing that you can have Riders from 2000 tons to 4000 tons with Spinal Mounts (PAs take up a lot more tonnage) and Bay weapons

you can fit a lot of them in a 100000 ton carrier (particularly one that had few maneuver drives (and maybe few weapons and armor))

you are limited to 100 launch facilities though (launch tubes don'ts eem to be worth it)

for an example, if you were tech 15 (and this is going with the standard rules for Agility)

you could (roughly) build a 2000 ton ship with
1000 ton meson spinal mount (needs 600 EP)
340 tons of 6G drive (needs 120 EP)
400 tons of fusion plant (provides 800 EP)
400/28 = 14.3 tons for fuel
you would probable want to go with either two 2 fusion 50 ton bays or missile bays

you would only need like 25 crew and no real accomodations (this is basically a big fighter, not really meant to be operational for more than 14 hours)

Jon Miller

 

[bobpartdeux]

hmm, I am going to work this through farther

1000 ton meson spinal mount
340 tons of 6G drive
400 tons of fusion plant
7.2 tons of fuel (For half a day)
40 tons of bridge
50 ton weapons bay (I think I can only have 1)
sensors + communications + computer + flight avionics will probably be on the order of 6 tons

leaving about 160 tons for armor (meaning armor of 7??)

JHon Miller

 

[bobpartdeux]

actually need smallcraft couches, probably on the order of 13 tons worth, takes down the armor by 1 (to 6, I beleive)

JOn Miller

 

[mike wightman]

Hmm, you may have hit on a nice idea here. A limited duration battle rider that would rely on its mothership for crew quarters, support crew, etc.

I'd dump the 50t bay and go with ten hardpoints instead.

Oh, and the EP requirement for a spinal meson gun of 1000t is a minimum of 700

 

[bobpartdeux]

nmore detail

crew:
12 gunnery crew
5 petty officers
6 engineering crew (maybe this could be lessened)
1 communications officer
1 gunnery officer
1 captain
1 helm officer
1 engineering officer
for a total of 28

so 14 tons of smallcraft couches

Jon Miller

 

[bobpartdeux]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Hmm, you may have hit on a nice idea here. A limited duration battle rider that would rely on its mothership for crew quarters, support crew, etc.

I'd dump the 50t bay and go with ten hardpoints instead.

Oh, and the EP requirement for a spinal meson gun of 1000t is a minimum of 700

you are right, I got confused, I will need to do this is more detail

Jon Miler

 

[bobpartdeux]

tech 15

2000 ton chasis
-1000 ton meson gun (-900 EPs)
-340 tons of 6G drive (-120 EPs)
-40 tons of bridge
-14 tons of crew support (24 hours only)
-560 tons of fusion plan (+1120 EPs)
-10 tons of fuel (enough for 12 hours of operation)
-9 tons for model number 9 sensor, communications, avionics, and computer (don't know if I need all of this) (-12 EPs)
-3 tons for an airlock
10 triple turrents

remaining tons = 24
unsused EPs = 88

suggested weaponery
30 fusion guns (4 tons left, 28 EPs left)
12 PAs, 18 Missile Racks (6 tons left, 28 EPs left)
or some mix (since the low armor, I would recommend long range weapons)

Jon Miller

 

[bobpartdeux]

+100,000 ton chasis
1,600 factors of armor = -1,600 tons (15 Armor rating)
2,000 Jump6s (-7,000 tons, -6,000 EPs)
1,000 1Gs (Max Accel .5 G) (-1,000 tons, -500 EPs)
4 sets of model 9 computers (-36 tons,-48 EPs)
main bridge and secondary bridge (-4,000 tons)
3,050 Fusion Plants (+6,100 EPs, -3,050 tons)
10 2,000 ton craft hangers (-22,000 tons)
10 launch facilities
60,000 tons of fuel
1000 hardpoints (probably mostly used with sandcasters and other light weapons, defensive, or maybe not at all unless I am screwing up on the tonnage somewhere)
crew of 280 (For the Riders)+20 (Mechanics)+22 (Officers)+50 (Petty Officers) +111 (Engineering)+3 (Medical Crew)+300 (Service Crew)
2 Airlocks (-6 tons)
4 Engineering Shops (-24 tons)
2 Sickbays (-16 tons)
280 Small Cabins (for Riders) (-560 tons)
47 Staterooms (for Officers) (-188 tons)
217 Small Cabins (for other crew) (-434 tons)

6548 total EPs used (obviously the jump drive and maneuver drive don't run at the same time)
99,914 total Tons used

It would probably be a good idea to add an a meson screen also

obviously there would need to be support craft (jump fuel is very very heavy, support craft would have supplies and the like)

Jon Miller

 

[bobpartdeux]

if I went with Jump-3 instead I would save 3,000 tons of Jdrive, 30 Engineers, 30,000 tons of fuel, and 3,000 EPs

probably a much much much better idea (it should have a meson screen, some weapons, and a troop complement, as well as having more supplies for the Riders)

Jon Miller