Fixing High Guard... again

[Matt123]

Interesting thread. 4 themes seem to come through in discussion.

Making fighters more effective, fighter squadrons & short range
The unhitable ship conundrum
Re-rolling critical hits that result in destroying 'empty' space
Torpedo boats with one shot weapons

Fighters. I like fighters. And I like the imagery of squadron action and point blank ranges. I'd argue tho' that combining fire doesn't improve fighter capabilities as most would appear to expect. The effect of sacrificing multiple shots for one doesn't stack up, unless you are talking about unhitable enemy ships (more below on this). In addition carrying 10 #9 computers to get a single #7 missile volley tends to limit the advantages. But as I say, I like squadron rules & mine are a slight variation on the optional rules printed in JTASS.

Unhitable ships. This is a fleet design consideration! Get over it! If you design a squadron that is not capable of dealing with all comers, including ships that fighters cannot hit, you deserve to get toasted. If you don't include a ship design that will give your opponent headaches, again you deserve to get toasted. HG is more than one ship vs one ship, its about designing ships to fight in squadrons, making the squadron more powerful than the sum of its parts.

Re-rolling criticals. The concept you are trying to 'fix', is one called 'ventilating'. It was observed during WW2 (desert war Honeys spring to mind) where very large, powerful weapons (German Flak 88's) would pentrate so well, it penetrated _both_ walls of the tank, doing no harm to the tank or the crew (well, sometimes!). Despite tanks being built to use all available space, it turns out there are plenty of non-vital places to get hit. I should mention that it was considered good practise to exit the tank after 'ventilation', but I wouldn't apply this to fighters, WW2 fighters got ventilated far more often than tanks & it generally took a crew, PP, MD (including control surfaces) or bridge (flight controls) hit to incapacitate the fighter.

Torpedo boats. I'm with Whipsnade on this. I see little point to adding a one shot weapon that destroys game balance & I believe the game as a whole. A one shot ship killing torpedo would kill the use of traveller battleships in games. Unlike real life where a lot of other factors come into fleet construction (eg: legacy doctrines, country status symbols, politics, shipyard lobbying, industry support, etc, etc) a HG architect starts with a sheet of paper & no history. Two ships would result, torpedo boats - with one shot, capable of killing anything & redundent after they fire and cruisers armed with volleys of one shot weapons using up cargo space. Armour is redundent (else your torpedo is not a ship killer...), the side with the most launch platforms will win. Other weapon systems will be redundent except as active defences & even then they will be overwhelmed.

So why didn't this happen in 'real life'. In short because real life torpedo boats have short legs & a torpedo boat carrier was never developed by any nation. Torpedo plane carriers, yes, but not torpedo boat carriers. Now funnily enuff, torpedo plane carriers did change the nature of surface naval warfare. But consider the context. Surface ship anti-air weapons were few, light and relied on the Mk1 eyeball, however this changed over the next few decades, utilizing point defences and CAPs. Now it takes hundreds of bombers carrying cruise missiles to hopefully run the Aegis Cruiser out of point defence missiles, before standing a chance at killing a capital ship...

But we still have a one shot killer torperdo in US, USSR, UK, French & other arsenals. Its called a Nuke Torpedo, which HG already covers. Tech advances minimise nuke damage through armour advances ('today' at TL7-9 #4 armour which prevents Internal hits 'costs' 20% of your ships tonnage...) and from TL12 you get Nuclear dampers. Argueably at TL11, the Meson gun takes over as the 'Torpedo' ship killer, but its not one shot and the boat carrying it needs to be a little larger.

All food for thought.
Matt

 

[Matt123]

Jeff0?

One of the things I dislike about the houserule for allowing fighters to band together as a single battery is that it unfairly penalizes actual ship hulls within the game.

For example? In order to achieve a Missile-6 attack factor utilizing TL 12 technology, one needs to have a total of 10 triple turrets banded together as a battery. On a ship's hull, that requires a hull size of at least 1,000 dtons in order to have 10 hard points.

The SMALLEST hull therefor, in order to achieve a single Missile-6 battery, is going to have a size 1,000 dton hull, or a to hit penalty of -1.

Contrast this against a squadron of Fighters (10) with a single hardpoint of triple missiles. Give them 10 fighters with a -2 to hit size penalty, the ability to form into a Missile-6 battery, and they are better than the Single 1,000 dton hull.

...snip...

Ultimately, any rule you devise for the use of fighter batteries will need to stand the test of "If fighters can do it, why can't small craft of 200 dtons do it? If 200 dton craft can do it, why can't 400 dton craft do it? Round and round it goes

I'm picking you are thinking at TL12 & effective fighters.

10 x fighter computer #6 @ 55Mcr each = 550Mcr. The 10 fighters will likely cost over $100Mcr each, totalling in excess of 1000Mcr for a single #6 missile battery. In contrast the 1000tn ship can can a #9 missile battery for roughly the same cost, probably less if built to the same design parameters as the fighters (eg: Jump #0) and you should be able to get armour for your 1000tn craft as well.

Regards the 200tn Squadrons, the limiting factor would be in the use of fighter doctrine. Fighter pilot training and tactics can be assumed to include squadron tactics, close formation flying, volley fire (don't forget, 20 minute turns) or straffing runs, computer linking (lets face it, those #6 computers don't have a lot else to do but chat to each other!). Craft 100tn and over generally don't need or get this training and usually has more than one crew member. You could argue super-fighters, but I would counter with the Captain being too busy running his multi-crew ship to effectively engage in Fighter Squadron tactics.

Cheers
Matt

 

[Rev Round]

Its the one hard point per 100 tons which is silly.

How many small ports for launch tubes could cover the surface. That is the volley of shots. Rate of fire was important in all technological eras.
Firing your whole Hard point at the enemy battleship makes more sense for a 100ton ship under the rules as they stand. Better still solid/kinetic kill or explosive secondary craft "fireships" launched from a 100ton craft make powerful sense launched 1 per turn or all at once via a dispersed structure multiple launch/warhead secondary vehicle.

Better than the paltry one hardpoint per 100ton nonsense.

 

[far-trader]

Its the one hard point per 100 tons which is silly...

...Better than the paltry one hardpoint per 100ton nonsense.

You have to understand, it's a game. Not a course in 53rd century space Naval Architecture

It was made to be simple and provide easy trade offs and balances while granting a nod to sci-fi reality.

Your arguments that 1 hardpoint for 100tons is paltry silly nonsense and you can easily fit more on a ship, and launch them all at once makes about as much sense as me trying to argue at the poker table that getting just 5 cards per hand is paltry silly nonsense when I can easily hold more than 15 cards in my hand at once and play them all at once. My Ace High 8 card straight beats your puny Ace High 5 card straight

Certainly no one will say you can't have more than 1 hardpoint per 100tons, only it won't be Traveller you're playing. It'll be some house rule (good, bad or otherwise), just like my 15 card stud poker game

Besides, istr that an honest check of usable surface area and suitable mounting points for weapons on spacecraft seems to yield about 1 Traveller hardpoint per 100tons in most typical designs.

 

[Rev Round]

The thread is called " Fixing High Guard... again"


Missiles don't have to be pointing at the "enemy" to be launched. That's a lot of missiles that can be volley fired. Yes you are right about it being a game so why make ANY house rules at all? However plenty do and we are encouraged to do so by the creator of the game. Maybe the 100ton rule is exactly what the original game designer should tackle. Y'know bite the bullet on the old rule and remodel the rules. See what pans out.

Wonder what Nelsons "Victory" would look like under the 100ton rule. Bet the French wouldn't have followed that rule.

T5... will it have the same 100ton rule?

 

[Rev Round]

I'd be tempted to fill a hold with cannon balls and give the enemy a solid shot meteor strike. It would certainly influence tactics of the enemy in the very least. Empty the lot in front of my vehicle and follow them through. Bow doors on a cargo hold would be useful for that.

A few dummy ships to confuse the enemy too. A Death Star blimp of sorts... Yesssss ..... Plus a few fighters that are really just target drones.

What are the costs for a pilot? If they are free they can be suicide zealots.

Manuever what is really just a rock that looks like a rock ship etc etc.

Ships that are really multiple ships joined. (To bend the bay weapon rules shhh)

Hits would be to the driving ship of course. Cargo hits would be to the other ships. Cascade effects etc...

Fake destruction of a ship. "The derelict is attacking us..."

Most of these little ploys are usable within the rules I think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turret_deck_ship

 

[Matt123]

So make a house rule for your games, as many turrets as you can squeeze on. Play it out over a few games against live opponents & let us know how it goes.

Gotta say tho', of all the abstractions in HG, this one doesn't cause me to lose sleep.

Don't expect the game designer to re-visit 30 year old rules sets. Maybe he will 'fix' it in T5, chances are tho' T5 in 30 years time will be considered to be "needing fixing - again".

Your ship launched grap-shot idea has novelty value & yes, I would let you field that. You could sacrifice some 100tn bays for the cannon balls & still be within the existing rules. Rest assured it would definately affect my tactics...

 

[atpollard]

Wonder what Nelsons "Victory" would look like under the 100ton rule.

While you are completely entitled to your opinions and rule changes, bringing up the ‘Nelson’ allows an opportunity to make a useful observation …

The 1814 HMS Nelson was 62 meters long x 16 meters wide (2659 tonnes) with 120 guns on 4 decks (3 full & 2 partial).

If we apply a version of the “100 ton rule” to sailing ships, we might decide that ‘ships may mount 1 cannon per 22 tonnes of total displacement’ allowing the Nelson to mount 120 cannon (2659 / 22=120.8).

If we apply a version of your “I have more surface area rule” to sailing ships, we might decide that a cannon is about a meter wide and the Nelson is 62 meters long, so I can mount 62 cannon per side per deck on the Nelson. Since the Nelson has 4 gun decks, that allows 62 cannon x 2 sides x 4 decks = 496 cannon. The Nelson should be a 496 gun ship.

To paraphrase your earlier argument, “a 496 gun firing 248 guns at once would be better than a 120 gun ship firing 60 guns at once.”

So why was the Nelson a 120 gun ship rather than a 400+ gun ship?
However you answer that question, is why the ‘100 ton rule’ makes sense.

 

[Whipsnade]

Its the one hard point per 100 tons which is silly.

Rev. Round,

It's a game artifact, that we can agree on. It was intended to make designing starships with paper and a pencil more easier. It was 1979, remember? No personal computer aside from Radio Shack kits, plus a few others, and no pre-written spreadsheet programs either. A smaller number of discrete components meant ships were easier to design and easier to use.

That's the meta-game reason behind it, but let's look at what the results of your "More Turrets" rule would have.

Drop the hardpoint requirement to 50 dTons and what do we have? Every ship now has twice the turrets, twice the offense and twice the defense. So, what's the actual difference? The numbers of bays allowed per dTon increase in the same manner so, again, what's the difference?

I've no real problem with hardpoint limits because I realize any changes would equally effect all ships and more weapons would simply mean I'd be rolling more dice. I also realize that, from an "ease of design" standpoint, hardpoint limits are an admittedly coarse way of quickly modeling the rather detailed aspects of weapon and sensor installations like surface area and volume requirements.

The design system in both versions of Fire, Fusion, & Steel require us to tackle those surface area and volume requirements. However, even with the help of a personal computer, I've designed less than a dozen ships with FF&S while designing hundreds with HG2.

As for current day VLS-style installations for Traveller missiles, I've always assumed missile bays modeled those. And, again, while VLS hatches alone do not require that much surface area, let me point out that the detection and guidance systems such VLS installations require greatly add to the surface area needed and the volume needed by VLS installations are comparable to the "drum" magazines earlier rail launchers used.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Rev Round]

While you are completely entitled to your opinions and rule changes, bringing up the ‘Nelson’ allows an opportunity to make a useful observation …

The 1814 HMS Nelson was 62 meters long x 16 meters wide (2659 tonnes) with 120 guns on 4 decks (3 full & 2 partial).

If we apply a version of the “100 ton rule” to sailing ships, we might decide that ‘ships may mount 1 cannon per 22 tonnes of total displacement’ allowing the Nelson to mount 120 cannon (2659 / 22=120.8).

If we apply a version of your “I have more surface area rule” to sailing ships, we might decide that a cannon is about a meter wide and the Nelson is 62 meters long, so I can mount 62 cannon per side per deck on the Nelson. Since the Nelson has 4 gun decks, that allows 62 cannon x 2 sides x 4 decks = 496 cannon. The Nelson should be a 496 gun ship.

To paraphrase your earlier argument, “a 496 gun firing 248 guns at once would be better than a 120 gun ship firing 60 guns at once.”

So why was the Nelson a 120 gun ship rather than a 400+ gun ship?
However you answer that question, is why the ‘100 ton rule’ makes sense.

Crew and supplies... A deficit of automation. Trav has automation and 14 cubic meters is enough to launch at least 7 "decent" sized missiles at once. Probably more. AND 60 tons of cargo space for... Crumbs we can't put missiles in there because what would the enemy think!

The most effective use of tonnage in low tonnage ships is to have ships inside ships inside ships. Or its not a ship it is a station/fortress/barge (which is not a ship because having just a powerplant does NOT make it a ship) pushed into range which either bypasses the 100ton rule entirely because it is NOT a ship or "expands" its way out of the limited 100ton rule like the famous Russian dolls inside the Russian dolls

Anyway You have some other tactics to consider now

 

[Matt123]

Crew and supplies... A deficit of automation. Trav has automation and 14 cubic meters is enough to launch at least 7 "decent" sized missiles at once.

Would hardly call those 'decent' sized missiles! Thats an area of 2m3 per missile, less launch rails & your automated reloading facilities, crew access for maintenance, electronics, targeting, blast protection, launch hatches, etc, etc. Let alone your missile needs to large enuff for a layman like myself to think its a threat...

Now if you had suggested 7 missiles stored per 14m3, that would be more plausible.

Still not convinced of the need for more hardpoints, but again, if you wish to have gunships bristling with more weapons IYTU, go for it.

I like the cannonball tactic. Thinking on it, I'll suggest people use it as one shot corse sand with flavour. Doesn't break the game that way. If they sacrifice initiative voluntarily, I would accept they are 'following the cannonballs in". Say #8 for a 50tn bay, #9 for a 100tn bay. And of course it would become ineffective after it stopped its first weapon.

 

[Rev Round]

Would hardly call those 'decent' sized missiles! Thats an area of 2m3 per missile, less launch rails & your automated reloading facilities, crew access for maintenance, electronics, targeting, blast protection, launch hatches, etc, etc. Let alone your missile needs to large enuff for a layman like myself to think its a threat...

Now if you had suggested 7 missiles stored per 14m3, that would be more plausible.

Still not convinced of the need for more hardpoints, but again, if you wish to have gunships bristling with more weapons IYTU, go for it.

I like the cannonball tactic. Thinking on it, I'll suggest people use it as one shot corse sand with flavour. Doesn't break the game that way. If they sacrifice initiative voluntarily, I would accept they are 'following the cannonballs in". Say #8 for a 50tn bay, #9 for a 100tn bay. And of course it would become ineffective after it stopped its first weapon.

Yes its a variation on a whole train of linked shopping trolleys in the back of a pick-up truck for Carwars.

You might like to think about chaff that inflates too.

Regarding the cannon ball run. Open bow doors. Switch off cargo bay grav and reverse thrusters. That shower of shot will have a penetration value by the way. Relative velocities etc.

Perhaps a maximally armoured smart rock ship sans bridge and sans crew w. comp and opposite to evade program launched from cargo hold AT enemy. Suicide rocks!

P.S. launch rails? tubes man tubes! Who needs a reload? Fire everything at the big one NOW!

 

[far-trader]

...Regarding the cannon ball run. Open bow doors. Switch off cargo bay grav and reverse thrusters.

And what? Hope your target doesn't change their vector in the slightest? At even close ranges in Traveller (or any realistic space combat scenario) the distance and sizes is such that a very minor change will be a miss for your unguided balls. They'll just keep drifting at a steady speed in a straight line until something else acts on them.

I also think you'll need something a little more sophisticated than load the cargo bay and switch of the grav, open the door and hit the breaks. First off. The stuff is likely to simply tumble out and spread out in that scenario. And the more defuse it is the less the threat.

And of course canon (not cannon) is that Traveller drives only reverse thrusters by flipping the whole ship 180 degrees. Some versions allow a miniscule application of reverse thrust without flipping that might work. But you'll probably have to be putting that cargo bay in the back of the ship and engage in a flip to toss them. Adding to the complexity.

That shower of shot will have a penetration value by the way. Relative velocities etc.

Ah, another limitation. Penetration dependent on relative velocity. Makes it useless for trying to engage a fleeing enemy as well. Even if the enemy only starts running after you've unloosed your balls the penetration value will be dropping steadily, until they are actually going faster than your balls and they can forget about them

Perhaps a maximally armoured smart rock ship sans bridge and sans crew w. comp and opposite to evade program launched from cargo hold AT enemy. Suicide rocks!

Well, it's not a suicide rock if it's uncrewed is it? Unless you're one of THEM :nonono: Are you an Arefar? Well? Are you one of those traitorus Rights For Robots nuts!



That could work. Expensive and not foolproof. Actually that sounds like...

...a missile!?

We've already got one (or two)...

...and a Special Supplement (3) to build that one (maybe, sorta) in CT (from JTAS).

 

[far-trader]

P.S. launch rails? tubes man tubes! Who needs a reload? Fire everything at the big one NOW!

Ah yes, that reminds me of an earlier posit you posted. Something about why do missiles have to be aimed by a turret instead of just fired out a tube or airlock or some such

One possible answer is so your pilot doesn't run it over

Coupled with so the missile doesn't turn around and go "Hey! There's a ship! And it's closer than that other one waaaaay over there. Oops, now I can't even see that other one, it's behind this one. I'll just hit this one instead!! Hmmm, it looks sorta familiar. Is that the tube I just came out o..." KABOOOM!

Another point is it wastes some time and energy turning and burning back the way it has to go, instead of starting off in the right direction.

 

[Rev Round]

The cannon ball run is an area denial tactic much like mines are. ( Mines ) And it makes sense to utilise many ships called a fleet for a particular tactic.

By all means don't shoot yerself in the foot :rofl:

What is the penetration of a 200 ton armoured rock ship?
Maybe with superior shielding etc a computer hell bent on "nuzzling" an enemy ship would be a mighty distraction. The more the merrier. How to effectively utilise cargo space on a ship without major weapons and make a battleship concentrate on other things.

Suicide rocks! (just my little joke) Go on, laugh, it wont hurt you!

 

[Whipsnade]

The cannon ball run is an area denial tactic much like mines are.

Rev. Round,

Area denial? Mines? In space?

By all means don't shoot yerself in the foot

Wouldn't want to do that. Speaking of shooting, do you know that canonical laser ranges in Traveller are on the order of two light seconds? Here's better way to visualize that distance; a ship sitting outride Earth's 100D jump limit can fire on targets in Earth orbit.

What is the penetration of a 200 ton armoured rock ship?

Who cares? Bigger ship, bigger target. Ramming hasn't been a viable tactic since triremes roamed the Middle Sea. Are you serious suggesting ramming as a tactic against ships capable of multi-gee thrust in a 3D environment?

Maybe with superior shielding...

Shielding? This isn't Star Trek.

... a computer hell bent on "nuzzling" an enemy ship would be a mighty distraction.

More like just another target that can be mission killed by a single battery in one round.

How to effectively utilise cargo space on a ship without major weapons and make a battleship concentrate on other things.

Dumping bowling balls out of a cargo hold at a distance far enough from a battleship not to get smeared and then expecting that battleship to stay on the same vector for the amount of time required for the balls to intercept said battleship is not a "combat tactic".

Dumping bowling balls out of a cargo hold at a distance far enough from a battleship not to get smeared and then expecting that battleship to stay on the same vector for the amount of time required for the balls to intercept said battleship is a fantasy.

Go on, laugh, it wont hurt you!

I'm laughing, just not the way you think.


Regards,
Bill

 

[tbeard1999]

Rev. Round,

Area denial? Mines? In space?

Yeah, I share your incredulity.

Mines are impractical in space, unless you can anchor them around a point and guarantee that a ship will have to traverse the area. Even then, they can't plausibly be like classic naval proximity mines. Rather, they'd need to be like the Captor mines that fire torpedoes.

The reason is the sheer size of space -- and the fact that it's three dimensional. The first requires *lots* of mines. The second requires improbably *huge* minefields, since spacecraft can go above, below or around the minefield.

In Book 2, 1" = 2500 km. A 1" square plane of mines would cover an area of 6.25 trillion square meters. If a high explosive mine could cause damage out to (say) 100 meters, you'd still need ~199 million mines to cover this plane. Assuming that mines are 1/4 the size of starship missiles, you can carry 80 per dton. That minefield will consume nearly 2.5 million dtons.

And the shrapnel from one mine would keep going forever and could easily damage other mines.

Nukes would be far more effective, but also far more expensive. And still probably inadequate to the task. A 10kt nuclear weapon would probably have a lethal blast radius of ~10 km in space. That still requires almost 20,000 such weapons for a 1" square plane.

No way mines would be plausible during a battle.

And while it's true that high speeds in space can yield tremendous kinetic energy, the problem is that you actually have to hit the target. That's proven possible at TL8 against unguided satellites and missile warheads. But a maneuverable spacecraft can make virtually insignificant maneuvers that would cause a KE weapon to miss. These maneuvers could be made with attitude thrusters.

There's also the problem that any kinetic energy weapon will retain the speed and heading of the ship that fires it. So it may not be so easy to arrange a collision. In any case, while a collition at typical combat speeds could have horrific consequences, it would be almost absurdly easy to avoid.

Dumping bowling balls out of a cargo hold at a distance far enough from a battleship not to get smeared and then expecting that battleship to stay on the same vector for the amount of time required for the balls to intercept said battleship is not a "combat tactic".

Dumping bowling balls out of a cargo hold at a distance far enough from a battleship not to get smeared and then expecting that battleship to stay on the same vector for the amount of time required for the balls to intercept said battleship is a fantasy.

Agreed. And if the ships are on parallel courses at similar speeds, the bowling balls might not be very effective even if they score a hit.

Regarding ramming, well, try to do a rendezvous on the fly using Book 2's movement rules. Even when one ship is moving a constant speed and bearing, it can be tricky. Now try it when the opponent is actively trying to evade. Not really a viable tactic against a ship that can maneuver.

 

[Rev Round]

Dont missiles ram spacey ships in this Spacey Opera gamey then?

"Now try it when the opponent is actively trying to evade. Not really a viable tactic against a ship that can maneuver." :rofl: If the enemy is forced to manoeuvre then he/she is forced from the area he/she was in previously.

Just evade missiles then! Never mind it was a good game.

Dodge 30 200 ton suicide rocks! Surely the level of dodge and evade is compromised by the number of different ships it is dodging and evading?

How many cannon balls can you fit in a mere far trader type ships cargo?
20 ship loads fanning out ought to cover some volume of space. Bit like throwing a chunk of the Spacey Opera asteroid belt at the enemy. Its a game where's your sense of game?

Crumbs its a cargo space better not put a weapon in there or the enemy might think we are cheating at war!

 

[Whipsnade]

If the enemy is forced to manoeuvre then he/she is forced from the area he/she was in previously.

Rev. Round,

Score a laugh point.

As Ty pointed out, a ship can evade your ramming missile with attitude thrusters. Moving a few meters to one side or another is not the same as your "area denial" or "forced from the area" claims.

Dodge 30 200 ton suicide rocks!

Why dodge them when you can hit them with weapons from two light seconds away? Mission kill them and you needn't dodge them at once, or if, they ever reach your position.

Surely the level of dodge and evade is compromised by the number of different ships it is dodging and evading?

You really haven't quite comprehended the distances we're talking about here, have you? The distance involved is two light seconds, roughly 595,000 kilometers, or just under twice the distance between the Earth and Moon. At 6gees and without any course corrections or turnovers, it will take roughly 1 hour and 15 minute to cover that distance.

Are you beginning to understand now?

How many cannon balls can you fit in a mere far trader type ships cargo? 20 ship loads fanning out ought to cover some volume of space. Bit like throwing a chunk of the Spacey Opera asteroid belt at the enemy.

As Ty pointed already out your conception of the volume involved is off by several orders of magnitude, only a narrow window of vectors will assist you while nearly all will hurt you, and "bowling balls" may have little penetration.

Its a game where's your sense of game?

My sense of game doesn't include poor physics and poorer math skills. If I were playing Star Wars, Buck Rodgers, or some other truly operatic space opera I'd use mines and bowling balls to my heart's content. Traveller, however, has always had a veneer of science about it.

Crumbs its a cargo space better not put a weapon in there or the enemy might think we are cheating at war!

You can cheat at war all you want but, as Feynman reminded everyone during the Challenger hearings, you can't cheat the laws of nature.


Regards,
Bill

 

[tbeard1999]

Dont missiles ram spacey ships in this Spacey Opera gamey then?

Yeah, and they're unrealistic as well Particularly since Traveller missiles are no faster than the fastest combat ships.

IMTU, I assume that missiles have 20+G acceleration.

"Now try it when the opponent is actively trying to evade. Not really a viable tactic against a ship that can maneuver." :rofl: If the enemy is forced to manoeuvre then he/she is forced from the area he/she was in previously.

I'd watch that rolling around on the floor -- you can throw your back out. Given that Traveller ships exist in a reasonably accurate Newtonian environment, they will be pretty much *constantly* on the move. And it takes extremely slight changes in course to dodge something when the scale is 1" = 2500 km.

Just evade missiles then! Never mind it was a good game.

As noted, it's fairly easy to do with 6-G missiles. GDW realized this pretty early; Special Supplement 3: Missiles allows missiles to hit if they get within 1" of the target.

Dodge 30 200 ton suicide rocks! Surely the level of dodge and evade is compromised by the number of different ships it is dodging and evading?

6000 tons of space allocated to 30 rocks for use in space combat seems a rather dubious use of space...

How many cannon balls can you fit in a mere far trader type ships cargo?
20 ship loads fanning out ought to cover some volume of space. Bit like throwing a chunk of the Spacey Opera asteroid belt at the enemy. Its a game where's your sense of game?

Well, given that these cannon balls will retain the speed and bearing of ship they are ejected from, it looks to me like your engagement envelope will be pretty tiny.

Now, as a "once in a lifetime" desperation tactic, it might have merit. But if it worked at all, it would probably only work once...