Fleet Production

[The Oz]

Here's that analysis I promised.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Wpn Hits To Hit Avg Hits To Pen Eff Hits % of f - T Values?
A 2 7+ 1.166 13+(12+)0.0324148 0.002836662 0.01
B 3 7+ 1.749 13+(12+)0.0486222 0.004254993 0.01
C 4 7+ 2.332 12+ 0.0648296 0.005673323 0.01
D 5 6+ 3.61 12+ 0.100358 0.00878246 0.01
E 6 6+ 4.332 11+ 0.3608556 0.031578947 0.05
F 7 6+ 5.054 11+ 0.4209982 0.036842105 0.05
G 8 6+ 5.776 10+ 0.964592 0.084412712 0.1
H 9 6+ 6.498 10+ 1.085166 0.094964302 0.1
J 10 6+ 7.22 9+ 2.00716 0.175649207 0.2
K 11 6+ 7.942 9+ 2.207876 0.193214128 0.2
L 12 6+ 8.664 8+ 3.612888 0.316168573 0.3
M 13 6+ 9.386 8+ 3.913962 0.342515954 0.4
N 14 6+ 10.108 7+ 5.892964 0.515701017 0.5
P 15 6+ 10.83 7+ 6.31389 0.552536804 0.6
Q 16 6+ 11.552 6+ 8.340544 0.729891957 0.7
R 17 6+ 12.274 6+ 8.861828 0.775510204 0.8
S 18 6+ 12.996 5+ 10.825668 0.947368421 0.9
T 19 6+ 13.718 5+ 11.427094 1.0 1.0</pre>[/QUOTE]The "Hits" is the number of damage rolls the weapon gets on each table. The "To Hit" value is based on short range, equal computers, and a size Q+, Agility-6 target. The Pen(etration) roll is based on penetrating a factor-9 meson screen and equal computers. For this calculation I let the factor-A and factor-B weapons penetrate such a screen on a 12+, in the rules they need a 13+.

"Avg Hits" is the average number of damage rolls that would hit a size-Q target at short range. "Eff Hits" is the number of on-target damage rolls that would penetrate a factor-9 meson screen. "% of f-T" is the ratio of effective hits of that meson gun to the effective hits of a factor-T meson gun.

"Value?" is a possible rating for each weapon compared to the factor-T meson gun. You can see that the smaller meson guns are really low-valued in this calculation. Even a factor-J (the darling weapon of light battle rider designers) is only valued at one-fifth of a factor-T.

Note that these values do =not= include the extra critical hits that some of these weapons would get if firing at small enough ships, and the probability of such hits and the number of such hits goes up with larger meson weapons, so this table probably still underestimates the lethality of the larger spinal mounts.

However it is true that in actual HG combat, the hits are "all or nothing;" either the shot entirely misses/is stopped by the screen or =all= the damage rolls make it to the target. In such a case even a factor-E has a good chance of a "one-shot-zot" against even the biggest ship, because all you have to do is roll one "5" on the Internal Explosion table and the target is mission-killed, at least.

Now here is an alternative evaluation which assumes that things like the meson screens are counted in the squadron Defense value, and all the Attack value counts is firepower delivered to the target.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Wpn Hits To Hit Avg Hits % F-T Value
A 2 7+ 1.166 0.084997813 0.1
B 3 7+ 1.749 0.12749672 0.15
C 4 7+ 2.332 0.169995626 0.15
D 5 6+ 3.61 0.263157895 0.25
E 6 6+ 4.332 0.315789474 0.3
F 7 6+ 5.054 0.368421053 0.35
G 8 6+ 5.776 0.421052632 0.4
H 9 6+ 6.498 0.473684211 0.5
J 10 6+ 7.22 0.526315789 0.55
K 11 6+ 7.942 0.578947368 0.6
L 12 6+ 8.664 0.631578947 0.65
M 13 6+ 9.386 0.684210526 0.7
N 14 6+ 10.108 0.736842105 0.75
P 15 6+ 10.83 0.789473684 0.8
Q 16 6+ 11.552 0.842105263 0.85
R 17 6+ 12.274 0.894736842 0.9
S 18 6+ 12.996 0.947368421 0.95
T 19 6+ 13.718 1.0 1.0</pre>[/QUOTE]This just rates the weapons based on their average number of hits delivered. It is much more favorable to the smaller meson guns and I think it would be a better table to use, as long as we remember to account for things like screens and armor and target size in the Defense value. Note that the factor-J winds up at just over one-half a factor-T, about where we were supposing in our previous musings.

 

[Theophilus]

I think the truth is probably a combination of all these idea's.

The Zhodani know they are going on the offensive and have equipped their fleet accordingly, the fact that the higher bombardment factor is used in both ground pounding and SDB eradication is a figment of their doctrinal use of the fleet.

I would like to see a discussion of what constitutes bambardment, and what weapons are used.

ie. Meson or missile.
High orbit or low.
laser?

And also, suppresion of SDB's. Why use Bambardment Factor and not Attack factor.

We know Regina has 10 Large SDB's, And FFW gives Regina a 10 on it SDB rating. So are these just large SDB's? Why wound attack factors kill Large SDB's?

Maybe GDW just through all the rules into a hat and randomly drew out numbers. It certainly seems that way sometimes.

 

[jappel]

Eric Holmes wrote a paper some years ago where he deduced the formulas for calculating the SDB, defense battalion, colonial squadron and colonial troop unit strengths in FFW. I'll contact him and see if he's willing to post it or have it posted in the file library here. In the meantime, if you'd like a copy PM me with an e-mail address and I'll send it on.

John

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by The Oz:
Here's that analysis I promised.
<snip>
This just rates the weapons based on their average number of hits delivered. It is much more favorable to the smaller meson guns and I think it would be a better table to use, as long as we remember to account for things like screens and armor and target size in the Defense value. Note that the factor-J winds up at just over one-half a factor-T, about where we were supposing in our previous musings.

I like the second table too.

Great work Oz.

Now for defence factor

 

[The Oz]

Originally posted by jappel:
Eric Holmes wrote a paper some years ago where he deduced the formulas for calculating the SDB, defense battalion, colonial squadron and colonial troop unit strengths in FFW. I'll contact him and see if he's willing to post it or have it posted in the file library here. In the meantime, if you'd like a copy PM me with an e-mail address and I'll send it on.

John

Do you mean this web page?
Planetary Forces in TRAVELLER

I don't think Eric did this but it's the same kind of thing.

As a side note, I also looked at INVASION:EARTH and in that game Terra has 34 "wings" of SDBs, with a total of 70 Bombardment factors and 134 Defense factors split up between them.

According to the table on the web page I just listed, Terra should have about 150 SDBs (TL13/14 world, Pop 9). That works out to just about 2 SDBs per Bomb factor and 1 SDB per Defense factor.

 

[The Oz]

Originally posted by Theophilus:
I would like to see a discussion of what constitutes bambardment, and what weapons are used.

ie. Meson or missile.
High orbit or low.
laser?

And also, suppresion of SDB's. Why use Bambardment Factor and not Attack factor.

We know Regina has 10 Large SDB's, And FFW gives Regina a 10 on it SDB rating. So are these just large SDB's? Why wound attack factors kill Large SDB's?

You've hit on one trouble: Bombardment is used for two different things. One is fighting SDBs, the other is blasting ground troops to smithereens. To make matters worse, the fighting of SDBs can be "active," where the SDBs are coming up to play, or "passive" where the SDBs are hiding and the attacking fleet is presumably dropping bombs on them just like it would for bombing troops.

As for what Bombardment is, I think it's the use of non-spinal mount weaponry to attack targets close to a world or on a world. The most important weapons for this are missiles (especially nuclear missiles), with beam weapons (lasers, energy weapons) being of lesser significance. Meson and PA bays are of some use but not much since meson bays have a hard time hitting anything and PA bays are useless against a target protected by atmosphere.

Bombardment probably takes place close to or in the atmosphere of a world. Here is where I think Sigg is on to something when he says that squadrons with integral fighters should have better Bomb ratings since their fighters can get "down and dirty" in atmosphere while the capital ships stay safe up in space.

We don't know (at least, =I= don't know) just how "large" those large SDBs are at Regina. Are they 400dton boats from Supp#7? Are they a couple of kilotons, just enough to have bay weapons? Are they multi-kiloton vessels with small spinal mounts? Maybe they're full-size asteroid monitors, for Hades' sake. Does anyone know? I personally think they're small, 1 to 2 kiloton boats with missile bays, but that's just my feeling about it. Planets with larger SDBs should, in my opinion, be shown as having a Colonial squadron of Jump-0 ships.

If SDBs are generally pretty small boats (less than 2000 tons) then they are pretty poor targets for the spinal meson guns that make up the bulk of Attack ratings in FFW and the weaponry of choice to deal with them would be the smaller secondary weapons that make up the Bomb rating.

 

[mike wightman]

The strike cruiser in CT Supplement 9 is

specifically designed for ground support and planetary bombardment.

It is armed with:
a spinal meson gun, factor N;
a 100t PAW bay;
forty 50t missile bays;
100 heavy fighters.

Then there is the strike carrier which has:
a spinal meson gun, factor E;
thirty two 50t missile bays;
80 heavy fighters.

I reckon that this helps support the hypothesis that bombardment factor should include fighter complement

Meson bays may have a hard time hitting high agility targets, but for taking out static installations and blasting troop concentrations (going by the rules in Striker you wouldn't want to be in the blast radius) they are pretty effective.

 

[jappel]

Bombardment probably takes place close to or in the atmosphere of a world.

Except that canonically, in many cases the SDBs ran to hide in planetoid belts, the outer systems, etc. The best example I can think of right now is the discussion of in The Spinward Marches Campaign of the SDBs at Louzy fleeing to the outer system, denying the Zhodani control of the world.

I don't have my copy of the FFW rules here at work but it may even say this explicitly.

Of course, it may not, and this could be just one more instance where the FFW boardgame and the historical canon diverge wildly.

-John

 

[jappel]

Oz,

Not the same document but covers the same material. I'll take a look and see if these two are congruent.

-John

 

[The Oz]

Yes, SDBs are supposed to hide in all kinds of places: gas giants, the Oort Cloud, asteroid belts, ocean bottoms, etc, etc, etc. But FFW doesn't tell us that, it just says they are either "Active" or "Passive," and if Passive they can be attacked once per turn, with -3 on the die roll.

And this connects to something else I've wondered about in FFW: where are the planetary defenses, in particular the deep meson gun sites? One thing I intend to put into house rules for FFW is a way to account for such weapons, aiming at a result that produces long duration sieges of planets.

Oh, well; that can wait for later. Right now I want to think about how to figure out Bomb and Defense factors for FFW.

 

[Antony]

Given that there is no actual limit on planetary meson gun size though there would be a budgetary one. I generally assume that they are equivelant to the largest that that world would put on a ship, so at TL15 the equivelant of type T if using HG. If using FF&S1 then the power level is equivelant to say a Tigress or one of my Titan class dreadnoughts but with the details optimised to hit cruisers and dreadnoughts at the maximum possible range with a good chance of penetrating a dreadnoughts meson screen.

So assum Earth, how many meson guns would be beneath the surface? There are no guidelines, but according to canon Earth has 3 ground based A class facilities. So for simplicity I assume the equivelant of a batron of maximum size per starport - say 8 deep meson sites. On this basis Earth has 24 dreadnought class meson guns hidden beneath the surface with a huge number of sensor backups so the guns can keep firing. I also assume that they are powered from a non-nuclear source where possible so that neutrino sensors can not locate them, perhaps geo-thermal?

Now would you like to take a fleet in against Earth knowing that you could loose 24 dreadnoughts or cruisers every 30 minutes (assuming TNE combat turns)?

 

[The Oz]

That's what I want to put into FFW, Antony, the threat and reality of deep meson gun (DMG) sites. The best use for them is not to kill dreadnoughts, but to shoot the transports carrying the invader's army. After all, the only way to silence DMGs is to take out the sensors that provide their fire control, i.e., capture the whole planet. In a recent PBEM game of FFW Jewell was taken in one turn when the Zhodani player landed practically his entire ground troop allotment on Jewell in one massive wave. DMGs should be allowed to shoot up those transports making planetary assaults much riskier and expensive. Planetary defenses are allowed to fire on invading transports in INVASION:EARTH. I'd like to see something like that in FFW.

 

[flykiller]

The best use for them is not to kill dreadnoughts, but to shoot the transports carrying the invader's army.

yep. another reason to put infantry in its own organic small-craft transport.

 

[The Oz]

Here's my suggestions for how to figure the Defense value for HG ships/squadrons in FFW terms.

FFW Defense rating:
Base value (sum up points for all capital ships in the squadron)
1 point for every capital ship hull of 30ktons or larger.
0.5 point for every capital ship hull of less than 30ktons.

Multipliers (applied to total squadron value, and are cumulative)</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Computer Multiplier
Mod/3 or less 0.1
Mod/4 0.2
Mod/5 0.33
Mod/6 0.5
Mod/7 0.7
Mod/8 0.87
Mod/9 1.0</pre>

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Agility Multiplier
0 0.1
1 0.2
2 0.33
3 0.5
4 0.7
5 0.87
6 1.0</pre>[/QUOTE]Modifiers (applied to squadron value after multipliers, and are cumulative)
-1 if the squadron does not have escort tonnage of at least 20% of the capital ship tonnage.
-1 if the average capital ship Nuclear Damper rating is less than factor-7.
-1 if the average capital ship Meson Screen rating is less than factor-7.
-1 if the average capital ship Armor rating is less than factor-9.
[/quote]

The basic ratings are based on number of hulls since meson guns are assumed to be the big killers, and being bigger doesn't give much advantage vs. meson guns. However, size does give an advantage vs. all other kinds of weapons, so smaller capital ships are penalized for not being large enough to absorb damage from smaller weapons, especially damage from spinal PAWs.

The multipliers are there because those two factors (computers and Agility) affect every single weapon, and therefore are the most important defensive characteristics after number and size of hulls. They could become modifiers instead of multipliers if their effect is thought to be too strong.

The escort modifier is mostly just to require squadron designers to include escorts in the squadrons. I think a similar modifier might be included in the Attack rating (to represent the firepower the capital ships would have to divert to the targets the escorts would normally be killing) and the Bombardment rating.

The Nuc Damper modifier is based on a statistical study of how much damage nuclear dampers can stop; basically, nuc dampers of factor-6 or less stop less than half of the factor-9 missile salvoes coming in.

The same basic logic applied to the Meson Screen rating, although the numbers aren't as good; even a factor-9 meson screen can only hope to stop an average of 3.2 hits from a factor-T meson gun, but a factor-6 stops just an average of 0.5 points.

Finally, the armor modifier is based on the fact that factor-9 armor will not stop any hits at all from nuclear missiles, while armor-10+ has at least a chance. I thought of making it a -2 for factor-9 or less armor, and a -1 for factor-12 or less but I think that's overpenalizing the lower TLs.

Comments, criticisms?

 

[mike wightman]

Looks about right

I'll see how it applies to squadrons put together from Fighting Ships - along with the earlier rules for attack factor.

Just one thought for the moment.
By including a computer modifier for defence factor (and the spinal meson attack factor being model/TL dependant) there is now no need for the relative TL optional rule in FFW.
Is this intentional?
I hope so because I've always thought that the TL difference should be included in the counter ratings themselves rather than a rule add on

I suppose there could still be a rule to represent crew quality though

 

[The Oz]

Yes, I am trying to put the TL differences into the calculation of the FFW ratings, instead of an optional rule appended later. However, I'm worried that the values this system will give are really punishing to lower TLs.

Now, in HG combat, that's just how things work. It's very hard in HG to fight against even one TL difference, thanks to the computer ratings in particular. Take two ships, one at TL14 and one at TL15, each with the best equipment their TL has to offer. The TL15 ship will get (on average) 15.8 damage rolls/shot with its factor-T meson gun (if the gun hits, it will automatically penetrate the TL14 factor-6 meson screen), while the TL14 ships gets only 7.6 damage rolls/shot with its factor-S. That's over twice the damage per shot, although since meson guns are "hit-or-miss" weapons under strict HG, things aren't quite as bad as it looks for the TL14 ship.

But it's even worse with missiles (counting only the "to-hit" roll and penetrating the nuclear damper): out of 100 shots of factor-9 nuclear missiles, only 6.9 will get through to a TL15 ship, while 70.1 will hit a TL14 ship; that's over ten times as many!!!

I think we will need to carefully consider how to deal with TL differences. We want it to be "realistic" within the rules, yet I also think we want lower-tech forces to have a chance.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Antony:
Given that there is no actual limit on planetary meson gun size though there would be a budgetary one. I generally assume that they are equivelant to the largest that that world would put on a ship, so at TL15 the equivelant of type T if using HG. [...]

So assum Earth, how many meson guns would be beneath the surface? [...]

Now would you like to take a fleet in against Earth knowing that you could loose 24 dreadnoughts or cruisers every 30 minutes (assuming TNE combat turns)?

The issue of the presence and usefulness of deep meson sites used in the defense of critical worlds is covered extensively in: Invading Star Systems/Defending Them.

 

[The Oz]

Here's a suggestion for calculating the FFW Bombardment rating of a squadron of HG ships. The main assumption underlying these formulas is that battleships are too valuable to risk fighting SDBs or planetary defenses while cruisers can be more readily risked in such action. The same holds true for fighters based on ships in battleship squadrons; those fighters are assumed to be needed for screening the capital ships and therefore not to be expended.

Note: To find the number of "effective missile batteries" on a ship with turret missile racks, count the total number of missile racks (not turrets, not batteries, actual missile racks) on the ship and divide by 30.

For capital ship squadrons with main ships of size R or larger (battlecruisers, battleships, and dreadnoughts):
Bombardment = (# effective missile batteries/400), rounded down, + (# fighters in the squadron/1000), rounded down. It is possible for the result to be zero, but not negative.

For capital ship squadrons with main ships of size Q or smaller (cruisers, battleriders):
Bombardment = (# effective missile batteries/100), rounded down, + (# fighters in the squadron/300), rounded down. It is possible for the result to be zero, but not negative.

Modifers:
</font>

• -1 if squadron is not prepared for Bombardment action. To avoid this modifier the squadron must have had some of the weapons removed from its weapons bays and deadfall ordnance placed in those bays. I would think that the Zhodani BatRons in FFW have had this done.</font>
• -1 if the total escort ship tonnage in the squadron is not at least 20% of the total capital ship tonnage in the squadron.</font>
• -1 if the total cargo hold tonnage in the squadron is not at least 5% of the total capital ship tonnage in the squadron.</font>

Modifers can reduce a squadron's Bombardment rating to zero but cannot reduce it below zero.

If you want to eliminate the "doctrinal" reason for BatRons having lower Bombardment scores you can just use the cruiser formula for all squadrons, but you'll end up with BatRons being serious SDB killers.

 

[mike wightman]

The doctrinal reason you've come up with makes a lot of sense, and the numbers seem to work.

It's time to put it all together and try designing some squadron counters.

I don't suppose you'd like to post the rules for attack factor, bombardment factor and defence factor all in one go to save digging through this thread for them, would you???

 

[The Oz]

As a matter of fact, I was just assembling them into one big unit. GMTA.

===========================================
Rating HG ships and squadrons for FFW

Definitions:

Main ship - A ship of the same type as the type of squadron; battleships and battleriders are the main ships of BatRons, cruisers are the main ships of CruRons, assault ships are the main ships of AssaultRons, tankers are the main ships of TankRons, and scouts are the main ships of ScoutRons.

Capital ship - A ship carrying a spinal mount, intended for the line of battle. Capital ships are usually armored and of high acceleration and Agility, carrying the best computers available.

Escort - A ship without a spinal mount, but intended for combat.

Fighter - A combat ship of less than 100 tons.

========================Calculating ratings==================
Attack rating: each spinal mount provides part of the Attack rating according to the table below. Add up the points from all the main ships in the squadron to get the total Attack rating, rounding fractions down. Divide spinal PAW ratings in half. The minimum rating can be zero but not less than zero.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Wpn Value
A 0.1
B 0.15
C 0.15
D 0.25
E 0.3
F 0.35
G 0.4
H 0.5
J 0.55
K 0.6
L 0.65
M 0.7
N 0.75
P 0.8
Q 0.85
R 0.9
S 0.95
T 1.0</pre>[/QUOTE]Modifiers:
</font>

• -1 if total squadron escort tonnage is not at least 10% of total main ship tonnage.</font>

Modifiers can reduce a squadron's Attack rating to zero, but not below zero.
===================================
Here's a suggestion for calculating the FFW Bombardment rating of a squadron of HG ships. The main assumption underlying these formulas is that battleships are too valuable to risk fighting SDBs or planetary defenses while cruisers can be more readily risked in such action. The same holds true for fighters based on ships in battleship squadrons; those fighters are assumed to be needed for screening the capital ships and therefore not to be expended.

Note: To find the number of "effective missile batteries" on a ship with turret missile racks, count the total number of missile racks (not turrets, not batteries, actual missile racks) on the ship and divide by 30.

For capital ship squadrons with main ships of size R or larger (battlecruisers, battleships, and dreadnoughts):
Bombardment = (# effective missile batteries/400), rounded down, + (# fighters in the squadron/1000), rounded down. It is possible for the result to be zero, but not negative.

For capital ship squadrons with main ships of size Q or smaller (cruisers, battleriders):
Bombardment = (# effective missile batteries/100), rounded down, + (# fighters in the squadron/300), rounded down. It is possible for the result to be zero, but not negative.

Modifers:
</font>

• -1 if squadron is not prepared for Bombardment action. To avoid this modifier the squadron must have had some of the weapons removed from its weapons bays and deadfall ordnance placed in those bays. I would think that the Zhodani BatRons in FFW have had this done.</font>
• -1 if the total escort ship tonnage in the squadron is not at least 10% of the total capital ship tonnage in the squadron.</font>
• -1 if the total cargo hold tonnage in the squadron is not at least 5% of the total capital ship tonnage in the squadron.</font>

Modifers can reduce a squadron's Bombardment rating to zero but cannot reduce it below zero.

========================================
Here's my suggestions for how to figure the Defense value for HG ships/squadrons in FFW terms.

FFW Defense rating:
Base value (sum up points for all capital ships in the squadron)
1 point for every capital ship hull of 30ktons or larger.
0.5 point for every capital ship hull of less than 30ktons.

Multipliers (applied to total squadron value, and are cumulative)</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Computer Multiplier
Mod/3 or less 0.1
Mod/4 0.2
Mod/5 0.33
Mod/6 0.5
Mod/7 0.7
Mod/8 0.87
Mod/9 1.0

Agility Multiplier
0 0.1
1 0.2
2 0.33
3 0.5
4 0.7
5 0.87
6 1.0</pre>

Modifiers (applied to squadron value after multipliers, and are cumulative)
-1 if the squadron does not have escort tonnage of at least 10% of the capital ship tonnage.
-1 if the average capital ship Nuclear Damper rating is less than factor-7.
-1 if the average capital ship Meson Screen rating is less than factor-7.
-1 if the average capital ship Armor rating is less than factor-9.
[/quote]