Fixing High Guard... again

[BillDowns]

I agree with Tbeard's conclusions for the automatic hit and armor fixes, particularly the latter.

One thing still left out of High Guard, though, is the ability of small craft to mission kill the large warships. Tbeard is right about machine guns being unable to sink the New Jersey, but several torpedoes could have done it. There just is no real torpedo in CT.

I would like to propose a "torpedo" as

• a smallcraft of about 5 tons
• has auto-evasion capability
• auto-homing capability ignores computer ratings
• is subject to decoy devices
• uses missile tables to hit
• has a TL table for strength, and maneuver ratings

I.e. something a small ship could seriously damage a larger ship with, but having only a few limited shots with. Like a 150-ton ship with 4 torpedoes and no reloads during a battle.

 

[Whipsnade]

I think that allowing 12's to automatically hit would enable "sandblaster" tactics...

Tbeard,

Agreed.

I'll point out to any reading this thread that most of these suggested changes have at their root the continued and unexamined desire for fighters and other small craft to be more effective in all of two of HG2's nine tech levels.

I have real trouble in rewriting HG2 so that people can then use it play TL15 Battlestar Galactica when they could just as easily play TL13 Battlestar Galactica with the rules that exist now.

This is not to say that HG2 shouldn't be upgrade or improved however. GDW developed the game in the late 1970s when personal computers were kits from Radio Shack, handheld calculators were relatively expensive, and dice of more than six sides were rare to the point of vanishing. As experienced wargame designers, GDW erred on the side of caution. They published a ship design and combat system that only required pencils, paper, and six sided dice. Their result of their decisions is blatantly obvious, we're still using, playing, and discussing HG2 thirty years after it's release.

All that being said, I also believe that HG2 is due for an update.

Armor definitely needs to be addressed and your fix, while a bit of a hassle, is one of the better I've seen. Weapon selection should be expanded, with rules for real barbettes, fixed mounts, and missile magazines adopted too. The one turret per 100dTon limit should also be carefully examined; unlike most other rules changes, this one would inflict the most damage on the 30 past years of designs.

With the easy availability of different die sizes, I would like to see a new version HG adopt a percentile roll. Using percentile rolls would allow for those rare "golden shots" to occur without also encouraging "sandblasting" tactics and designs.

The game's "mapless" movement system could also be expanded with additional ranges and, perhaps, flanking boxes added.

One word of caution should be raised. HG2 was designed to handle combat between large numbers of large ships in a fairly rapid fashion and any "improved" version must keep that ability. In our desire to update the game, we should not add so many details that we make it unplayable.

There's another issue I wish to raise cautions about:

But it seems to me that a lot of the complaints (and I could be wrong) are centered on the fact that a TL15 ship can utterly paste a TL13 ship (for instance). Well, my opinion is that this is how it should be. Consider naval history for instance. (snip of excellent examples)

The results of technological progress are another fundamental aspect of the original HG2 and any update to the game must take great care not to upset that.

As I continually point out, fighters are not ineffective in HG2, they're ineffective at certain TLs in HG2 instead. Examining the effects of technological progress on ship designs and tactics is fundamental to HG2. We shouldn't scrap that part of the game merely because we want fighters in the battleline at TL15.

*Any* ship of any of these tech levels would be overwhelmed by a ship just 1 tech level away. So I don't have a problem with the same phenominon in High Guard.

Neither do I and I believe this "march of time" effect to be one of HG2's great strengths.

Thanks for your ideas.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Bob Weaver]

I agree with Tbeard's conclusions for the automatic hit and armor fixes, particularly the latter.

One thing still left out of High Guard, though, is the ability of small craft to mission kill the large warships. Tbeard is right about machine guns being unable to sink the New Jersey, but several torpedoes could have done it. There just is no real torpedo in CT.

I would like to propose a "torpedo" as

1. a small craft of about 5 tons
2. has auto-evasion capability
3. auto-homing capability ignores computer ratings
4. is subject to decoy devices
5. uses missile tables to hit
6. has a TL table for strength, and maneuver ratings

I.e. something a small ship could seriously damage a larger ship with, but having only a few limited shots with. Like a 150-ton ship with 4 torpedoes and no reloads during a battle.

Bill,
A few thoughts about your proposal and a caution. Item 2: give it a computer and the auto/evade program. Item 3: make it exempt from one of the three to-hit DMs High Guard uses? That unbalances it right there. Item 4: countermeasures are folded into the computer rating number, so how does this mesh with item 3? Item 5: missiles already have the best to-hit line so this is not a change. Item 6: 'maneuver' really isn't a factor in HG battles with the vague "short" and "long" ranges.
My caution/concern with this is by what means do you keep every ship from mounting lots of these torpedoes? Under straight HG2, the only thing that keeps a ship from mounting a particular weapon system is available tonnage. If my battlecruiser has room for a 5000-tn meson gun, why not 5000 tons worth of torpedoes instead? If the torpedo is meant to be more powerful than normal HG2 missiles, how do you keep this new weapon from unbalancing the game?

My Cr 0.02,

Bob W.

 

[tbeard1999]

I agree with Tbeard's conclusions for the automatic hit and armor fixes, particularly the latter.

One thing still left out of High Guard, though, is the ability of small craft to mission kill the large warships. Tbeard is right about machine guns being unable to sink the New Jersey, but several torpedoes could have done it. There just is no real torpedo in CT.

Agreed that HG lacks analogues to torpedoes. I wouldn't mind seeing something like PT boats in HG. They are absurd in a space battle IMHO, but they sure are cool and dramatic.

The problem with implementing torpedoes in HG is that a large ship could carry them as well, in FAR larger quantities. If you aren't careful, you could wind up with them as the main armament.

Anyhow, you could adapt the "high intensity missile fire" rules from HG1st edition (I'll post them when I get home). They allow a ship to make one missile attack at heightened firepower. Combined with nuclear missiles, they could make small craft nasty.

To replicate wet navy torpedo tactics, here are my comments:

--I agree that they should be one shot items. As an alternative to your idea, howsabout they be treated as missiles, with a +3 factor and double damage. Nukes would be favored, as they'd each do 2 radiation and 2 surface hits. Because of the range that they are fired at (see below), they are immune to defenses or screens. While torpedo racks cost and weigh the same as missiles, they are a different system. Topedo batteries are one shot items.

--I'd require them to be fired at "point blank" range. This means that the firing ship would have to be at short range and fire *after* all other ships have fired (and damage assessed). This would mean that they would have to weather enemy fire before getting in range (allowing for plenty of scope as escorts try to stop them). Point blank fire occurs before the Breakthrough step and after all normal fire is resolved. Create a "point blank fire" phase before the Breakthrough step.

--A ship attacking at point blank range declares that it is doing so at the beginning of the pre-combat decision step. For the entire turn, the ship is +2 to hit for all weapons. The benefit is that point blank fire avoids defenses and screens (spinal mounts cannot use point blank fire, though they can fire at a ship that is attacking at point blank range during the normal firing phase). This includes nuclear dampers, which don't have enough time to damage the missile's warhead. EDIT: A ship attacking at point blank range adds its Agility to all attack rolls, in addition to all normal modifiers (including subtracting target's agility).

--Point blank range is "reset" to short range at the end of the point blank fire step.

--A ship must make all attacks at point blank range (other than defensive fire and screens). EDIT -- this will make large ships less willing to use such attacks as it effectively precludes the use of spinal mounts. Helps the "torpedo boat" analogy.

Of course all this needs playtesting.

 

[Whipsnade]

There just is no real torpedo in CT.

Bill,

Why should there be? Honestly, why should there be a torpedo analog in Traveller space combat?

Real world torpedoes as a surface ship-launched ship killing weapon only existed for a few decades, roughly from 1900 to 1950, and then had only limited effect. All of one battleship in all of history was sunk by a motor torpedo boat, the Austro-Hungarian Navy's Szent Istvan in late 1918, and that was more due to the battleship's incredibly poor design and construction, plus idiotic operational decisions, than anything else. The IJN put her Long Lance design to good use for less than a year until the USN developed counter-tactics. Most times surface ships used torpedoes as a coup de grace option, sinking both enemy vessels that were too badly damaged to resist and friendly vessels that couldn't be salvaged or towed to safety.

As ship killing weapons launched from submarines and aircraft, torpedoes have had a somewhat longer life span. Missiles have eclipsed them as the weapon of choice due to their greater range. However, Traveller space combat has nothing resembling submarines and aircraft because the physics don't allow it.

So, why should there be torpedoes in Traveller?

Let me also point out that your 5dTon torpedo suggestion is just a bigger target for a warship's anti-missile defences. If those lasers, plasma/fusion guns, and sandcasters can already stop a high-gee volley from a 100dTon missile bay, potting a slower 5dTon target will be much easier.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Whipsnade]

Anyhow, you could adapt the "high intensity missile fire" rules from HG1st edition...

Tbeard,

And the HG1 rule was in turn borrowed from Imperium, a GDW wargame that predates Traveller.

I like the tactical and design options you suggested rules create. I not as happy with the additional record keeping involved however.


Regards,
Bill

 

[skyth]

I think that allowing 12's to automatically hit would enable "sandblaster" tactics, wherein hordes of lightly armored craft can defeat battleships (this would especially be the case if you made the suggested change to the damage table). At the end of the day, I don't think that I'd care for such a game. To analogize, no quantity of machinegun armed motorboats can seriously endanger the USS New Jersey.

However, the small 'motorboats' are not armed with machineguns...Closer to Miniguns, which will eventually damage parts of a BB.

Every ship should be (at least a minor) threat to any other ship.

But it seems to me that a lot of the complaints (and I could be wrong) are centered on the fact that a TL15 ship can utterly paste a TL13 ship (for instance).

Actually, my biggest complaint is that the only weapons that can damage a TL 15 ships are Spinals or Nuclear missile bays. This makes the design process rather mono-dimensional.

 

[tbeard1999]

Tbeard,

And the HG1 rule was in turn borrowed from Imperium, a GDW wargame that predates Traveller.

I like the tactical and design options you suggested rules create. I not as happy with the additional record keeping involved however.
Regards,
Bill

Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of additional record keeping either. However, single shot batteries should be pretty easy to handle --just mark them off the ship card when fired (exactly like they were destroyed).

The primary hassle (to me) is whether you want to allow ships with torpedoes to also carry missiles. There's really no principled reason to disallow this, but HG does that with other weapons -- no missile bays and turrets, for instance. (Personally, I wish HG had added a couple of extra digits on the ship UPP, but life's full of compromises). If you *do* disallow missiles and torpedoes on the same craft, you'll make it far less likely that torpedoes will be used widely on larger ships IMHO (which is a Good Thing if you're trying to recreate torpedo boats).

 

[tbeard1999]

Bill,

Why should there be? Honestly, why should there be a torpedo analog in Traveller space combat?

Only if you like the drama of torpedo boats (which I do). As a general rule, they make little sense. But I think that the same can be said of fighters (for largely the same reasons).

Agreed that torpedo boats didn't really pan out as decisive weapons (nor did their Cold War equivalent, fast attack missile boats). But they *were* taken seriously by navies and brought about the destroyer (which began as the "torpedo boat destroyer").

And they are really cool, which makes me suddenly want them in my campaigns...

Sorry Bill, as an old grognard myself, I can't help but think I'm selling you out

 

[tbeard1999]

However, the small 'motorboats' are not armed with machineguns...Closer to Miniguns, which will eventually damage parts of a BB.

Yeah, but in a fleet engagement, such weapons will have no significant effect on a battleship. At the end of the day, the battleship will obliterate them.

Every ship should be (at least a minor) threat to any other ship.

I disagree, if we are talking about a combat system that integrates everything from armed 10 ton ships boats to million ton dreadnoughts. Such a combat system has to be fairly granular (though the use of logarithmic data scales is clever and elegant) and can't dwell (IMHO) on insignificant damage.

Actually, my biggest complaint is that the only weapons that can damage a TL 15 ships are Spinals or Nuclear missile bays. This makes the design process rather mono-dimensional.

If true, then I agree (I haven't played with TL15 HG stuff in many years; my campaigns tend to be TL10-12ish). But I submit that the problem is that armor is too easy for ships to get at TL14+, a problem exacerbated by the linear armor tonnage rules in HG. With more sensible rules, Armor factor 15 becomes much more problematic for all but the largest ships.

 

[Whipsnade]

Only if you like the drama of torpedo boats (which I do). As a general rule, they make little sense.

Tbeard,

E-boats, MTBs, and PT boats are loads of fun, I've been pushing lead through various Coastal Command campaigns for years now. The technological assumptions behind them do not translate well to Traveller however.

As you point out, there's another mistaken assumption at work here: Torpedo boats are ship killers. Torpedo boats were never ship killers. Navies were worried about them sure, but technology quickly made the threat nonexistent.

But I think that the same can be said of fighters (for largely the same reasons).

Agreed, but the desire to include fighters doesn't usually include complaints about the "lack" of "one hit - one kill" weapons like torpedoes. However, the "No torpedoes" trope is always part of complaints about there being no "submarine" or "MTB" equivalents in Traveller.

Given Traveller's technological assumptions fighters do work, up to a point, and torpedo boats take up their role afterward. The problem is that the fighters and MTBs in Traveller aren't the fighters and MTBs most people mistakenly assume them to be. Folks get too hung up on labels.

People are always stating that Traveller space combat resembles the Age of Sail or the Dreadnought Era or some other historical naval warfare paradigm. In this they get things entirely "bass-ackwards". Traveller space combat resembles Traveller space combat and nothing more. Yes, certain aspects resemble certain historical aspects, but just because strategic communications resembles the Age of Sail it doesn't necessarily follow that all the rest does. People continue to try and shoehorn Traveller space combat into some preconceived notion rather than examining the game's technological assumptions and then crafting a purely Traveller naval combat paradigm.

Agreed that torpedo boats didn't really pan out as decisive weapons (nor did their Cold War equivalent, fast attack missile boats). But they *were* taken seriously by navies and brought about the destroyer (which began as the "torpedo boat destroyer").

They were taken seriously and the vessel designed to combat them did take over their role. What they never were was what too many people mistakenly assume they were; tiny ship killers carrying a "one hit - one ship" weapon.

And they are really cool, which makes me suddenly want them in my campaigns...

They are cool and they did have some use historically. What's more, that use can be easily modeled in Traveller and that use is more "player-scale" than most naval adventures. What they never did in history and what they'll never do in Traveller is routinely stand in the line of battle.


Regards,
Bill

 

[tbeard1999]

Tbeard,

What they never were was what too many people mistakenly assume they were; tiny ship killers carrying a "one hit - one ship" weapon.

Yeah, I can see that. I don't think that my suggested rules give them that capability. Rather, a squadron of them, if it got real lucky might be able to cripple a major combatant. Of course, they'd probably be wiped out regardless, given the somewhat suicidal nature of point-blank attacks.

If you wanted to add a real ship-killing capability, give them a single shot meson mount

Of course, a meson bay would be exceedingly nasty on a torpedo boat. But given the requirement for 1000 tons, such a ship would be much larger than the classic torpedo boat, seems to me. But for grins, here's a 1000 ton "torpedo boat":

Ship: Stiletto
Class: Straightrazor
Type: Torpedo Boat
Architect: tbeard1999
Tech Level: 15

USP
         PT-A106ZJ2-500000-00090-0 MCr 1,373.500 1 KTons
Bat Bear                      1    Crew: 18
Bat                           1    TL: 15

Cargo: 28.000 Fuel: 280.000 EP: 280.000 Agility: 6
Substitutions: Z = 28

Architects Fee: MCr 13.735   Cost in Quantity: MCr 1,098.800

Detailed Description

HULL
1,000.000 tons standard, 14,000.000 cubic meters, Needle/Wedge Configuration

CREW
Pilot, Navigator, 13 Engineers, Medic, 2 Gunners

ENGINEERING
Jump-0, 6G Manuever, Power plant-28, 280.000 EP, Agility 6

AVIONICS
Bridge, Model/9fib Computer

HARDPOINTS
1 100-ton bay

ARMAMENT
1 100-ton Meson Bay (Factor-9)

DEFENCES
Armoured Hull (Factor-5)

CRAFT
None

FUEL
280.000 Tons Fuel (0 parsecs jump and 28 days endurance)
No Fuel Scoops, No Fuel Purification Plant

MISCELLANEOUS
9.0 Staterooms, 28.000 Tons Cargo

USER DEFINED COMPONENTS
None

COST
MCr 1,387.235 Singly (incl. Architects fees of MCr 13.735), MCr 1,098.800 in Quantity

CONSTRUCTION TIME
120 Weeks Singly, 96 Weeks in Quantity

COMMENTS
Needle/Wedge configuration necessary for streamlining.

***

It's a pretty one-dimensional craft. But with a nasty Factor-9 meson bay, a squadron of them could do some damage to a much larger ship.

However, they have virtually no defensive weaponry (some variants replace armor with screens) and would be very vulnerable.

They are cool and they did have some use historically. What's more, that use can be easily modeled in Traveller and that use is more "player-scale" than most naval adventures. What they never did in history and what they'll never do in Traveller is routinely stand in the line of battle.

As you can see from the above design, it's highly unlikely to survive a major battle. But on the other hand, it does deploy a nasty factor-9 meson bay so a squadron could get lucky and maul an enemy ship (especially if using the point blank attack rules).

If not using the point-blank attack rules, I'd keep the Straightrazors in reserve until an enemy capital ship has its agility reduced to below 3 or so (then each one would hit on a 9+, a ~25% chance). Or its computer to level 4 or less. When a likely prey is discovered, commit them and HUZZAH!

 

[skyth]

Factor 9 mesons can't pen a decent meson screen either.

 

[Whipsnade]

Yeah, I can see that. I don't think that my suggested rules give them that capability. Rather, a squadron of them, if it got real lucky might be able to cripple a major combatant. Of course, they'd probably be wiped out regardless, given the somewhat suicidal nature of point-blank attacks.

Tbeard,

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to suggest your proposed rules changes would give any vessel that capability.

What I was trying to suggest was that too many people think HG2 and Traveller are somehow missing the presence of fighters/torpedo boats and that that belief is entirely mistaken on two levels:

1 - They ignore the technological assumptions underlying space combat in general and Traveller space combat in particular.
2 - They ignore the historical abilities and uses of fighters and torpedo boats.

The belief that torpedoes are somehow a "one hit - one ship" weapon and that torpedo boats routinely employed them to great effect is part of assumption #2.

That's a delightfully nasty design you have there and I'd employ it in much the same way you suggested.

I've often toyed with an idea from the 1880s; battleships carrying torpedo boats. It never worked in real life obviously, but it would be interesting to see how it may work in Traveller. (IIRC, one of the dreadnought designs in FSotSI(1) also carried battleriders.) While I quickly discarded any idea about carrying spinal-armed boats because they would be too big, a mixture of PAW and missile bay-armed "mini-monitors" looked interesting. I don't remember HG2's displacement tons per launch rule exactly, but I do remember figuring a battlewagon could drop 2 to 4 of these "mini-monitors" in one round.

Hmmm... let's see... (Thank you Andrew Moffatt-Vallance!)

Ship: GBA-D-SM-101
Class: GBA-D-X
Type: Boat, gunned, armored,
Architect: SpinMar BuShips
Tech Level: 13

USP
GB-B106DG2-C00300-05800-0 MCr 3,031.302 2 KTons
Bat Bear 41 Crew: 40
Bat 41 TL: 13

Cargo: 0.000 Fuel: 260.000 EP: 260.000 Agility: 6 Shipboard Security Detail: 2
Craft: 1 x 20T Launch
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops
Backups: 1 x Model/3fib Computer 1 x Bridge

Architects Fee: MCr 30.313 Cost in Quantity: MCr 2,425.042


Detailed Description

HULL
2,000.000 tons standard, 28,000.000 cubic meters, Needle/Wedge Configuration

CREW
12 Officers, 28 Ratings

ENGINEERING
Jump-0, 6G Manuever, Power plant-13, 260.000 EP, Agility 6

AVIONICS
Bridge, Model/7fib Computer
1 Backup Bridge, 1 Model/3fib Backup Computer

HARDPOINTS
1 100-ton bay, 10 Hardpoints

ARMAMENT
1 100-ton Particle Accelerator Bay (Factor-8), 10 Dual Fusion Gun Turrets organised into 4 Batteries (Factor-5)

DEFENCES
Nuclear Damper (Factor-3), Armoured Hull (Factor-12)

CRAFT
1 20.000 ton Launch (Crew of 1, Cost of MCr 0.000)

FUEL
260.000 Tons Fuel (0 parsecs jump and 28 days endurance)
On Board Fuel Scoops, No Fuel Purification Plant

MISCELLANEOUS
22.5 Staterooms, 0.000 Ton Cargo

USER DEFINED COMPONENTS
None

COST
MCr 3,061.615 Singly (incl. Architects fees of MCr 30.313), MCr 2,425.042 in Quantity

CONSTRUCTION TIME
132 Weeks Singly, 106 Weeks in Quantity

Of course, a missile armed version would be smaller due to EP requirements concerns. The launch is there because I'm a small craft "crank". I see way too many million dTon super-dreadnoughts without as much as a single launch or shuttle aboard. The name follows MTU's naming conventions. Boats get tail numbers and not names, so you have the classification, tech level, sector, and tail number in that order.


Regards,
Bill

1 - Given FSotSI's justifiably lousy reputation, I am hesitant to guess whether the dreadnought's and battlerider's designs were broken or not.

 

[tbeard1999]

Factor 9 mesons can't pen a decent meson screen either.

If you use the point blank range rule, screens have no effect. Otherwise, you'll need to hold them in reserve until a suitably weakened target presents itself. They'd be highly vulnerable to fire from escorts and fighters (1 battery pretty much makes fighting fighters impossible).

 

[tbeard1999]

Tbeard,

I've often toyed with an idea from the 1880s; battleships carrying torpedo boats. It never worked in real life obviously, but it would be interesting to see how it may work in Traveller. (IIRC, one of the dreadnought designs in FSotSI(1) also carried battleriders.) While I quickly discarded any idea about carrying spinal-armed boats because they would be too big, a mixture of PAW and missile bay-armed "mini-monitors" looked interesting. I don't remember HG2's displacement tons per launch rule exactly, but I do remember figuring a battlewagon could drop 2 to 4 of these "mini-monitors" in one round.

110% of tonnage for "big craft" (So the Straightrazor would use 1100 tons of capacity). So a 200kton dreadnought could allocate storage for a flotilla of six pretty easily.

 

[BillDowns]

Let me present the case for torpedoes.

First off, it really doesn't matter how many ships were actually sunk by torpedo boats, but that operations were. The Grand Fleet's operations were restricted by the Admiralty directly due to possible attacks by torpedo boats, as were the operations of the High Seas Fleet. In WWII, similarly, both the Japense Navy and US Navy always considered torpedo actions when planning.

Second, there were a lot more ships sunk by ship-launched torpoedoes than the Szvent Istvan. In the Russo-Turkish war of the late 1870's, 3 Turk ironclads were sunk by torpedo boats using Whiteheads. In WWI, the HMS Goliath, the Austrian Wien were also sunck by torpoedo boats. In WWII, HMS Charybdis, Manchester and Pakenham were all sunk by torpedo boats. Destroyer-launched and cruiser launched torpedoes may not have provided one-shot kills, but when combined with gun hits certainly put paid to the HMAS Canberra, USS Chicago, Quincy, and Vincennes all the one battle - Savo Island.

In more modern times, there have been few instances of naval combat. But the Eilat certainly went down after a couple of SSN-2 hits in 1967. The HMS Glamorgan certainly went down after an MM39 hit*. And more recently, the US Navy certainly put down a couple of Iranian frigates via missile in 1987.

Finally, without any kind of eveidence, I simply feel that any space-based society that has a military is going to search out all weapons possibilities, no matter how remote.


* The missiles that hit the Glamorgan were taken off an Argy destroyer, "air-mailed" to the Falklands, and mounted on a semi-trailer. I submit that the mounting should still count as "ship-launched"...

 

[Whipsnade]

110% of tonnage for "big craft" (So the Straightrazor would use 1100 tons of capacity). So a 200kton dreadnought could allocate storage for a flotilla of six pretty easily.

Tbeard,

Yup, I remembered the 110% carrying cost. There's a launch rate somewhere too.

Dispersed structures can launch everything in one round, but can't carry armor. Ships with launch tubes can be armored and those tubes can spit out 20(?) carried craft per round. In all other cases you're allowed to launch one craft per round per so many displacement tons.

I'm thinking it's one launch per 20K dTons per round or near about there, so a ~50K dTon battleship could launch ~2 "parasite mini-monitors" per round. I was thinking in multiples of two also; 2- 4 per heavy and/or battlecruiser, 4 - 6 per battleship.

Of course in reality, any such craft would have been launched well before any battle began so launch rates should be rather inconsequential. It's HG2's lack of any operational component that has us worrying about launching during battles.


Regards,
Bill

 

[tbeard1999]

Here's a "monitor" version, the Rapier class:

Ship: Kindjal
Class: Rapier
Type: Torpedo Boat
Architect: tbeard1999
Tech Level: 15

USP
         PT-A116MJ2-C00000-00095-0 MCr 1,962.750 1.5 KTons
Bat Bear                      11   Crew: 26
Bat                           11   TL: 15

Cargo: 15.000 Fuel: 465.000 EP: 315.000 Agility: 6 Shipboard Security Detail: 2
Substitutions: Z = 28

Architects Fee: MCr 19.628   Cost in Quantity: MCr 1,570.200

Detailed Description

HULL
1,500.000 tons standard, 21,000.000 cubic meters, Needle/Wedge Configuration

CREW
10 Officers, 16 Ratings

ENGINEERING
Jump-1, 6G Manuever, Power plant-21, 315.000 EP, Agility 6

AVIONICS
Bridge, Model/9fib Computer

HARDPOINTS
1 100-ton bay, 5 Hardpoints

ARMAMENT
1 100-ton Meson Bay (Factor-9), 5 Triple Missile Turrets organised into 1 Battery (Factor-5)

DEFENCES
Armoured Hull (Factor-12)

CRAFT
None

FUEL
465.000 Tons Fuel (1 parsecs jump and 28 days endurance)
No Fuel Scoops, No Fuel Purification Plant

MISCELLANEOUS
16.0 Staterooms, 15.000 Tons Cargo

USER DEFINED COMPONENTS
None

COST
MCr 1,982.378 Singly (incl. Architects fees of MCr 19.628), MCr 1,570.200 in Quantity

CONSTRUCTION TIME
127 Weeks Singly, 102 Weeks in Quantity

COMMENTS
Needle/Wedge configuration necessary for streamlining.

***

In my campaigns, "Monitors" are essentially SDBs with Jump-1 drives (which makes them self-deploying).

The Rapier can self-deploy (and has a secondary nuclear missile battery and better armor), at the cost of 500 tons more displacement, 8 more crew and MCr472 more cost. The lack of need for a carrier might be worth it.

Here's an alternate design that is smaller and cheaper:

Ship: Icepick
Class: Straightrazor-M
Ship: Archer
Class: Longbow
Type: Torpedo Boat
Architect: tbeard1999
Tech Level: 15

USP
         PT-A116YJ2-000000-00090-0 MCr 1,454.500 1.1 KTons
Bat Bear                      1    Crew: 22
Bat                           1    TL: 15

Cargo: 9.000 Fuel: 396.000 EP: 286.000 Agility: 6 Shipboard Security Detail: 1
Substitutions: Y = 26 Z = 28

Architects Fee: MCr 14.545   Cost in Quantity: MCr 1,163.600

Detailed Description

HULL
1,100.000 tons standard, 15,400.000 cubic meters, Needle/Wedge Configuration

CREW
10 Officers, 12 Ratings

ENGINEERING
Jump-1, 6G Manuever, Power plant-26, 286.000 EP, Agility 6

AVIONICS
Bridge, Model/9fib Computer

HARDPOINTS
1 100-ton bay

ARMAMENT
1 100-ton Meson Bay (Factor-9)

DEFENCES
None

CRAFT
None

FUEL
396.000 Tons Fuel (1 parsecs jump and 28 days endurance)
No Fuel Scoops, No Fuel Purification Plant

MISCELLANEOUS
13.0 Staterooms, 9.000 Tons Cargo

USER DEFINED COMPONENTS
None

COST
MCr 1,469.045 Singly (incl. Architects fees of MCr 14.545), MCr 1,163.600 in Quantity

CONSTRUCTION TIME
122 Weeks Singly, 97 Weeks in Quantity

COMMENTS
Needle/Wedge configuration necessary for streamlining.

***

100 tons extra for Jump-1...not bad.

 

[Whipsnade]

Let me present the case for torpedoes.

Bill,

Sure, go right ahead.

First off, it really doesn't matter how many ships were actually sunk by torpedo boats, but that operations were. The Grand Fleet's operations were restricted by the Admiralty directly due to possible attacks by torpedo boats, as were the operations of the High Seas Fleet. In WWII, similarly, both the Japense Navy and US Navy always considered torpedo actions when planning.

Jellico's fears regarding of torpedoes and mines were much overblown, due in part to the loss of HMS Audacious. While the operational plans and battle tactics of all navies in both world wars were impacted by the presence and capabilities of their opponents' torpedoes, those operations still took place.

Besides, I'm not arguing against operational effects, they existed. I'm arguing against the "one hit - one kill" attribute too many people assign to torpedoes and their launch platforms.

Second, there were a lot more ships sunk by ship-launched torpoedoes than the Szvent Istvan....(big snip of good google work)

All the episodes you found relied on special circumstances, the specific and special aspects of the operational environment in which they took place. They did not take place in anything resembling "normal" battles.

- HMS Goliath was a 20-year-old obsolescent pre-dreadnought with minimal torpedo protection reactivated for a shore bombardment role at Gallipoli and moored in a bay swathed with fog.
- The KuK warship Wien, another elderly pre-dreadnought design serving in a shore bombardment role, was also sunk during a harbor raid.
- HMS Charybdis was lost in littoral operations in low visibility against a German convoy steaming along the French coast. KM destroyers directed by shore based radar put sank her in massed torpedo attack.
- HMS Manchester was only damaged by Italian MTB's during littoral operations off Tunis and was scuttled by friendly forces due to fear of air attacks because she could not be withdrawn in time.
- HMS Pakenham was part of a two destroyer force sent to intercept an Italian convoy moving, you guessed it, through littoral waters off Italy. Only damaged by MTBs, she also was scuttled due to fear of air attack.

You'll notice a few common threads in nearly all the examples you found such as restricted visibility and restricted maneuvering in littoral waters. The battleships were sunk at their moorings and not underway or in battle. The CL and DDs were all sunk or damaged during times of low visibility and while their movements were restricted. Now while I can see similar operational aspects in Traveller space combat, particularly in gas giant refueling and orbital bombardment, HG2 does not model either of those activities and the canonical missile armed SDB can produce the same results.

Destroyer-launched and cruiser launched torpedoes may not have provided one-shot kills, but when combined with gun hits certainly put paid to the HMAS Canberra, USS Chicago, Quincy, and Vincennes all the one battle - Savo Island.

Again as with your examples above, the operational environment was more of a factor than the torpedoes. In fact, the operational environment was the primary determinant of the battle's outcome. At Savo on the Allied side you had split forces, absent commanders, green exhausted crews, nearly every other mistake that could be made. It isn't surprising that the IJN did is well as it did, it's surprising that they didn't do better.

In more modern times, there have been few instances of naval combat. But the Eilat certainly went down after a couple of SSN-2 hits in 1967. The HMS Glamorgan certainly went down after an MM39 hit*. And more recently, the US Navy certainly put down a couple of Iranian frigates via missile in 1987.

Those are missiles, not torpedoes, and, like the episodes you found from the world wars, also relied on special operational circumstances. Eilat was loitering north of the Egyptian coast certain it couldn't be attacked and taking no precautions, Glamorgan was operating littoral waters and lacked the latest countermeasures, and the Iranian frigates were partially "mission killed" already by years of inaction, poor maintenance, and a lack of spares. Without air cover, the Iranians couldn't have prevented the USN from sinking anything it chose.

There is no support for adding a "torpedo" to HG2's weapons list in these examples.

Finally, without any kind of eveidence, I simply feel that any space-based society that has a military is going to search out all weapons possibilities, no matter how remote.

I agree that they'll search out all weapon possibilities. I also think they'll only use those weapons that work.

Once more I'll point out the canonical effectiveness of anti-missile fire with regards to torpedoes. If warships routinely destroy or otherwise render ineffective high-gee 100dTon missile volleys, how will a much larger "torpedo" escape similar destruction?

Tbeard's suggestion about "high intensity" missile fire is probably the closest we'll get to "torpedo attacks" in Traveller space combat given the game's technological assumptions. Attempting to design a torpedo-like weapon that works within the game's technical restrictions while also not unbalancing the game is most likely futile.


Regards,
Bill