High Guard

[aramis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kzin:

So, sorta like "PF"/"Fast Patrol Ships" in Star Fleet Battles?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In a sense.
SFB Mode on
SFB PF's are faster (about 15% faster in play) due to lower overhead costs, and have wepons of comparable capability in lower tonnage per damage point inflicted.
sfb mode off

The traveller fighter is partly an artifact of the 1 turret per 100 Td limit of Bk2/HG/MT. If you can carry 10 10 ton fighters in 150 Td, and put them on a 500 Td ship, you've got 2x the firepower of a 500 Td ship. Likewise, a fighter should be able to spin faster than a battleship, even if the battleship is capable of higher accel; big ships will be limited by centripital forces; if they exceed the GComps, then people and structures take significantly more stress. As in, undue non-thust-axial stresses. (Another reason the ball design is ideal; any rotation provides relatively equal spin-equitorial loading. This means you can more easilty compensate.) A fighter, with a maximum moment arm of 5m, is far less affected by quick spins than the 15m moment arm on the Type S, or the 100m arm of even small destroyers.

So, while HG gets it right, they did so for the wrong reasons. Fighters don't need turrets; they can trun fast enough to bring to bear spinals much easier than the big ships.

Another complication not addressed by the rules: nonaxial thrust. DGP provides a mechanism in the MT Thruster Plates described in the Starhip Operator's Manual: they are capable of omnidirectional thrust. Therefore, rotational mobility is reduced in importance except for spinal mounts. Mayday assumes all ships will be capable of rotating fast enough to change facing for free. BL also makes similar assumptions.

Realistically, a Tigress (BB) should be unable to brinng the spinals to bear on anything significantly smaller. Then again, realistically, it should take some 12 shots to guarantee a single hit on a scout courier at 0.5 LS. (Your data is 1/2 second old at firing, or more, and will be another 1/2 second old upon close; at 20m/s/s accell, that's a minimum of 20m off the "expected course", and you have to saturate an area to assure 1 shot per (6m tall x 20m wide diamond, for half that) 60m^2 "Cross sectional surface area; or 1 shot per 6mx6m (36m^2) to assure a hit, on an area 20m x 20m minimum (go with 26x26, just for safety), or 400m^2. A 6G fighter that area is 60x60, and one shot per 2x2m, or 900 shots to assure a hit!

Realistic? HG is as bad as any I've seen for realism.
Playable? Yeah.
Fun? Not for RP, IMHO...

------------------
-aramis
=============================================
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!

 

[GypsyComet]

two things added to HG could make Fighters useful in a fight. The first is to bring the TNE detlaser missile in as a "torpedo." The second is to allow squadrons to become one "ship" for offensive and defensive battery strength purposes...

 

[The Gneech]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hunter:
Just so. We don't want to make any changes that causes incompatibility with ships in previous works.

Hunter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm ... well there go all of _my_ suggestions.

Mind you, I don't have High Guard, just The Traveller Book, but here are some conceptual things about Traveller ship combat that have always bugged me...

I would like fighters to be viable in large-scale combat. If that requires the introduction of a bomber-style fighter craft, well, that's fine.

Yeah, a tiny one-man ship should have trouble taking on a big ol' battleship ... but given the right conditions it should doable. (Otherwise, Pearl Harbor wouldn't have happened, yes?) There's a reason modern navies have so many carriers.

Actually, in response to Andrewmv, I don't find it that realistic at all. Just imagine what one well-placed small nuclear warhead could do, just for starters ... why couldn't a fighter carry one of those?

I would also like the quality of a crew on the ship to be more important to its performance than the size of its computer.

-The Gneech


------------------
--
http://www.suburbanjungle.com - The life, loves, and career of aspiring supermodel and ferocious predator, Tiffany Tiger

"I pity da fool, thug, or soul who tries to take over the world and then goes home cryin' to his momma!" -Mr. T

[This message has been edited by The Gneech (edited 10 July 2001).]

 

[lostpict]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Gneech:
I would like fighters to be viable in large-scale combat. If that requires the introduction of a bomber-style fighter craft, well, that's fine.

Yeah, a tiny one-man ship should have trouble taking on a big ol' battleship ... but given the right conditions it should doable....
-The Gneech
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So taking this analogy a little further the most practical air-threat to Capital ships (BB & CV) in the last 75 years has been heavily-laden strike aircraft (eg. WWII slow-moving medium to heavy land-based bombers, dive-bombers, torpedo-bombers, kamikazes, or a modern nuclear equipped light bomber) or tactical heavy cruise missiles such as the Russian Kitchen or American Tomahawk (launched from heavy land-based bombers or ship-platforms). These weapon delivery platforms were not one-man platforms, were slow, vulnerable, and are defintely not fighters. They are best represented as missile-toting SDBs in the Traveller world. In fact these guys usually fail unless protected by fighter escorts since the weapon has to breach a layered defence of enemny fighters and AA systems (guns and SAMs).

The exception to this analysis is the nuclear equipped light bomber. In modern terms, this system is capable of delivering a weapon of mass destruction to the capital ship whose single use will destroy the target. Unfortunately (or fortunately) it lacks a Traveller correlary. Ship weapon systems already rely on the use of weapons of mass destruction that are not capable of taking out a capital ship through single use (short of some sort of critical hit roll).

So for very small ships to be viable threats to Capital ships they either need a "Super-weapon" for the one-shot punch or be able to attack in vaery large mass swarms. In either case, they need to be able to overwhelm the layered defense of the Capital ship's battle group and the ability of the BG to maunever. A very tall order if the enemy knows you are coming (so strike Pearl Harbor, the Bismarck, ships trapped in port, submarine attacks, and many of the other great WWII naval victories as examples).

As an interesting testimony to this example, not a single US capital ship built during or since WWII (BB, CV, CVA, CVN) has been lost in battle, despite the several hundred-thousand attempts by small aircraft during WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm.

But whose counting...

Lost Pict

 

[GypsyComet]

Given the simplicity of HG vs, say, TNE, representing the little stings of fighters in a cap ship engangement may be tough. I'd be perfectly happy if Fighters were as capable as a missile barrage of similar numbers, which is why I've always liked the idea of uniting a squadron into one large "battery" of either missiles, lasers or sand (depending on mission and loads). This way a fighter squadron has the possibility of acting as a cap ship's point-defense vs incoming barrages, can drop sand in defense of itself or its escorted vessel, or can be that missile barrage from nowhere so feared by ship captains both real and imaginary.

"One-shot-deadly?" No. Useful? Yes. Worth building carriers for in the first place? Yes, since that carrier would be carrying several dozen "loanable" weapon batteries of notable rating. Dedicated PD Fighters could add another Sandcaster-7 per squadron of 10 to another ship's defenses, while assault designs attacking in waves are getting results as smaller numbers of Fusion-6 or Pulse-6 instead of unrollably large numbers of Pulse-1 or Pulse-2, and an enemy ship has more to worry about if the swarming fighters are popping periodic Missile-6 barrages at it, than even a constant peppering of Missile-1 or Missile-2...

High Guard has no Golden BB, and since real life DOES, some leeway must be found...

 

[The Gneech]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lostpict:

Originally posted by The Gneech:
I would like fighters to be viable in large-scale combat. If that requires the introduction of a bomber-style fighter craft, well, that's fine.

Yeah, a tiny one-man ship should have trouble taking on a big ol' battleship ... but given the right conditions it should doable....
-The Gneech

So taking this analogy a little further the most practical air-threat to Capital ships (BB & CV) in the last 75 years has been heavily-laden strike aircraft (eg. WWII slow-moving medium to heavy land-based bombers, dive-bombers, torpedo-bombers, kamikazes, or a modern nuclear equipped light bomber) or tactical heavy cruise missiles such as the Russian Kitchen or American Tomahawk (launched from heavy land-based bombers or ship-platforms). These weapon delivery platforms were not one-man platforms, were slow, vulnerable, and are defintely not fighters. They are best represented as missile-toting SDBs in the Traveller world. In fact these guys usually fail unless protected by fighter escorts since the weapon has to breach a layered defence of enemny fighters and AA systems (guns and SAMs).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I'm the first one to admit that I'm not an expert on large scale combat, either historically or in modern times. So my observations are based on what I've seen on The Learning Channel.

But aren't there torpedos that can be launched from helicopters? (And if not, why not?)

Also, IIRC the Germans had a devastating dive bomber in WWII didn't they? That might be a model for a Traveller shipkiller ... it comes in at extremely high velocity, having been accelerating at 6-G for the past 4 hours, drops off a big honkin' torpedo at the last second, and doesn't even stop to see if it hit. (After all, that's what orbital telescopes are for.)

Yeah, I know, that's not much of a fighter, more like a cruise missile with a detachable pilot. But still...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The exception to this analysis is the nuclear equipped light bomber. In modern terms, this system is capable of delivering a weapon of mass destruction to the capital ship whose single use will destroy the target. Unfortunately (or fortunately) it lacks a Traveller correlary. Ship weapon systems already rely on the use of weapons of mass destruction that are not capable of taking out a capital ship through single use (short of some sort of critical hit roll).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But other than playability, is there a reason for this? And I'm not sure just how massive the mass destruction weapons of Traveller ships are ... a missile does 1 - 6 hits on a 10-ton fighter, 1 - 6 hits on 200-ton free trader, and 1 - 6 hits on an 800-ton mercenary cruiser. The only difference is how many hits the target ship can suck up ... even the fighter will probably survive (although it may be immobilized).

One heat-seeking missile can utterly destroy a modern fighter plane... do we just assume that modern fighters are made of paper by comparison?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
So for very small ships to be viable threats to Capital ships they either need a "Super-weapon" for the one-shot punch or be able to attack in vaery large mass swarms. In either case, they need to be able to overwhelm the layered defense of the Capital ship's battle group and the ability of the BG to maunever. A very tall order if the enemy knows you are coming (so strike Pearl Harbor, the Bismarck, ships trapped in port, submarine attacks, and many of the other great WWII naval victories as examples).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So I'd want my shipkiller to have some sort of stealth technology then, is that what you're saying?

For that matter, where _is_ stealth technology in Traveller? I know you can't hide the heat of thrusters, but if you reduce the radar signature of your ship enough, and thrust up to speed far enough away, a stealth bomber or several stealth fighters appearing "out of nowhere" --already moving at high velocity-- sounds like the beginning of a very exciting scenario to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
As an interesting testimony to this example, not a single US capital ship built during or since WWII (BB, CV, CVA, CVN) has been lost in battle, despite the several hundred-thousand attempts by small aircraft during WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I know that plenty of US capital ships were lost _during_ WWII, so I'm not sure exactly what your point is there.

Even with Soviet and Chinese, erm, "advisors," I wouldn't think Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq would have an Air Force on par with that of the US.

Have there been any massive furballs of the type we're discussing?

Note that I'm not advocating that Traveller should have Luke Skywalker regularly taking out Star Destroyers with his X-Wing, here ... I'm just looking for a way for the pitiful little Traveller fighter to be a little more interesting than a 6-G six-shooter with no reload and no computer to speak of. Even when its missiles are all used, modern air fighters still have guns. (Of course the guns are only useful against other fighters, although a Vulcan could probably make a nice hole in the side of a cruiser.)

I wonder if maybe ships below 50 tons should work under different rules entirely ... they need far less thrust to get up to speed, are a lot harder for big, slow-moving weapon systems to lock on to, but are easy to damage with small-scale weaponry.

Anyway, I can easily tweak this stuff in my own game with a set of house rules ... I was just expressing what would be on my Traveller^20 Wishlist.

1) Better fighters
2) Stealth technology
3) Torpedos

-The Gneech


------------------
--

http://www.suburbanjungle.com - The life, loves, and career of aspiring supermodel and ferocious predator, Tiffany Tiger

"I pity da fool, thug, or soul who tries to take over the world and then goes home cryin' to his momma!" -Mr. T

 

[lostpict]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Gneech:
Well, I know that plenty of US capital ships were lost _during_ WWII, so I'm not sure exactly what your point is there.

Even with Soviet and Chinese, erm, "advisors," I wouldn't think Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq would have an Air Force on par with that of the US.

Have there been any massive furballs of the type we're discussing?....

Traveller^20 Wishlist.

1) Better fighters
2) Stealth technology
3) Torpedos

-The Gneech

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Heres to the freedom to debate the great unknowable. I have always seen a lot more parallel with the USN and Traveller Navies than probably should be there. I also find myself guilty of trying to replicate the CoDominium Navy from the "Mote In God's Eye" for similar reasons. Somehow all those swarming StarWars fighters seem too unlikely. So with that said here a few more thoughts on the subject..

Back to the history lesson, the US Navy had swelled from ~300 to several thousand vessels by the end of WWII. The navy did loose some pre-WWII BBs and CVs during the war (in open combat), but the vast majority of the fleet was built during the war (to face '40s era weapons) and NONE of those capital ships were lost. (Of course the other side lost a Navy so maybe there is another lesson to be learned AND the USN lost oodles of cruisers and destroyers, but those aren't capital ships - maybe a matter of semantics .

In anycase, the Japanese, Germans, Russians, Chinese, and Iraqis tried real hard to sink these ships with all kinds of different weaponry (including hundreds of thousands of sorties with one-man planes and zillions of light bombs, anti-ship missiles, and kamikazes) with-out success. My point is they are real tough nuts to crack. Gotta assume that the Traveller capital ships will be equally tough.

As an aside (I love asides), there are all kinds of light-weight air weapons (rockets, missiles, cannons, torpedoes, etc.) beside the examples I mentioned. But none of those measure up to the tactical threat of a Tomahawk or Kitchen cruise missiles. Even these guys would have a tough time sinking (damage you bet!) a BB or CV. Ain't armour and compartmentalization great! Not impregnable, but tough nuts to crack.

From a different tact, I think traveller has PT Boats, Fighter-bombers, strike air-craft, that are capable of carrying "big" ship-killing weapons - they are just called SDBs. What is missing are the weapons. I think a great ship-killer would be a big ole 10 ton missile (it could even be man-piloted just like the kamikazes of WWII) launched from a 100 ton 'torpedo boat' (manned by a crew of 2 or 3). These type of craft are the targets for fighters, escorts, pursuit craft, and Torpedo-Boat Destroyers .

By the way, the stealth point is a good-one. Stealth has always been part of war (particularly naval war). Those Romulans always used it to good effect in Star Trek I have always figured that it is assumed in the background (that is why it is actually hard to hit a ship with a laser when you have been carefully tracking it). I can imagine occasionally letting someone inject some new "stealth" technology that temporarily makes it very difficult to locate the enemy.

Anyway, good food for thought.

Lost Pict

 

[The Gneech]

Well, a lot of my terminology comes from Wing Commander, so I've been referring to anything larger than a corvette as a capship. What's the distinction, then? A capship is something that launches other craft, maybe?

I always assumed re: lasers that targeting the enemy ship was easy enough, but the time it took to bring the lens to bear was the deciding factor. After all, if the enemy is in the laser's sights already, you hit it. (The joy of light-speed weapons...)

-The Gneech


------------------
--

http://www.suburbanjungle.com - The life, loves, and career of aspiring supermodel and ferocious predator, Tiffany Tiger

"I pity da fool, thug, or soul who tries to take over the world and then goes home cryin' to his momma!" -Mr. T

 

[AndreaV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lostpict:
In anycase, the Japanese, Germans, Russians, Chinese, and Iraqis tried real hard to sink these ships with all kinds of different weaponry (including hundreds of thousands of sorties with one-man planes and zillions of light bombs, anti-ship missiles, and kamikazes) with-out success. My point is they are real tough nuts to crack. Gotta assume that the Traveller capital ships will be equally tough.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


None of the "modern" (ie 4th Generation designed in the 1930s) USN capital ships were lost; but at least two came perilously close due to some major design flaws. Yes capital ships should be incredible difficult to kill (requiring either massive overkill or a long slow grind), but there is always the possibility of "press button A to blow up battleship" type design errors.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From a different tact, I think traveller has PT Boats, Fighter-bombers, strike air-craft, that are capable of carrying "big" ship-killing weapons - they are just called SDBs. What is missing are the weapons. I think a great ship-killer would be a big ole 10 ton missile (it could even be man-piloted just like the kamikazes of WWII) launched from a 100 ton 'torpedo boat' (manned by a crew of 2 or 3). These type of craft are the targets for fighters, escorts, pursuit craft, and Torpedo-Boat Destroyers .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The problem is not getting a weapon big enough (a 10Kton nuke in close proximity should deal to even the biggest capital ship in Traveller). The problem is getting the weapon to the ship. Given the level of sensors and point defences in Traveller, no missile is going to get within 10,000km of a ship.

Assume a missile is travelling at 50Km/sec and can be detected and engaged at 50,000Km (neither unreasonable given Traveller technology). That missile has to survive for 1000 seconds (about 15 minutes) before it can damage the ship. And if the launch platform tries to go closer for attack, if runs into the same problems.

The only real way to make a missile work in Traveller is to assume its armed with a det-laser warhead.


[This message has been edited by Andrewmv (edited 11 July 2001).]

 

[lostpict]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Gneech:
Well, a lot of my terminology comes from Wing Commander, so I've been referring to anything larger than a corvette as a capship. What's the distinction, then? A capship is something that launches other craft, maybe? -The Gneech
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I definitely think a small swarm of 10 ton fighters should be threat (and they are) to ships less than a couple of thousand tons.

Not wanting to major on semantics, but apparently that is where my miscommunication lies. From my American Heritage Dictionary, a capital ship is "a warship such as a battleship, of the largest class". Most folks include with this definition the caveats of heavily armed and armoured.

In the present-day navies there are not many capital ships in active service. The USN has placed her BBs on the inactive list (but ready for the next big tussle) and only american have CV/CVNs (there are some other carriers in the other navies but they are all small CVLs). Some folks also call really big SSBNs such as the Russsian "Typhoon" class submarines capital ships. USN Cruisers and Destroyers from any era do not fall within the capital ship definition. Back in the glory days of the RN, a 1st Rate Ship of the Line (such as Nelson's HMS Victory) was a capital ship.

A last note (then I'll hush for a few minutes . A carrier's main tactical use is the delivery of ordance to land-base targets (called Power Projection). The biggest threat to a carrier is a submarine not other carriers (largest warship sunk in WWII was the super-carrier SHINANO by a US sub within Japan's coastal waters.) That is why the Russians built bunches of SSNs and not bunches of carriers.

Lost Pict

 

[GypsyComet]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Gneech:
Well, a lot of my terminology comes from Wing Commander, so I've been referring to anything larger than a corvette as a capship. What's the distinction, then? A capship is something that launches other craft, maybe?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

By HG & MT definitions, a Capital Ship is anything big enough to carry a Spinal Mount. This works for these two editions because they had a fixed table of spinal weapons and you had to be above a certain size (that varied with TL) to carry and power them.
TNE and T4 can't use the same definition because they both have design systems that allow you to build a spinal mount into whatever you're building, no matter how small.

 

[Thomson]

I like the idea of renaming "computer" into electronics suite.

Here are a few changes I would make to High Guard:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>Increase the damage capacity of large ships. In the current version big ship battles are reduced to a "who hits first" question. An idea would be to allow big ships to transform a number of hits equal to their size code into weapon hits or something like that.
<LI>Have an other explanation for the immense percentage of hull space devoted to armor. I would rule that the hull volume is occupied by more power plant and maneuver drive machinery to propell the increased mass of the ship. The explanation for asteroid ships would be more complex, but it moves the system a little bit into the direction of the more modern design systems.
<LI>Allowing fighters to dynamically form batteries would give them a great tactical advantage. 10 ramparts would make more sense if they could group into one factor 9 beam laser battery.
[/list]

 

[Nick Bradbeer]

Oooh, this one is always going to be a hot topic. Everybody wants something different out of the space combat system, and accomodating everyone is always going to be tough.

Let's not forget that Traveller is primarily a roleplaying game (I say primarily as some of us get just as much fun from the design and wargame aspects to the universe) and as such, it's important to have a system which deals very well with encounters on the couple-of-hundred-ton scale which players will usually be flying around in.

Having said that, a lot of people expect to be able to fight full-scale naval engagements, and we will lose a part of Traveller if we can't. I guess this is what drove the selection of High Guard as a base system.

However, as has been seen on this thread, and as has been seen on the mailing lists over the past goodness-knows-how-many years, what everybody wants is slightly different, in terms of scale, complexity and even in available technologies like fighters, thruster plates and so on. And while many people would like a really simple shipbuilding system which allows them to get on and play, many others want a detailed complicated one they can immerse themselves in.

So my point is to urge flexibility. Give us a system which has the option to use Mayday hex movement or just to use range bands. An immersive design system for gearheading, with premade modules for quick-builds. Heck, even options like torpedoes to switch fighters between shipkillers and screen would be nice....

Of course, all this is a lot. More even than any previous edition of Traveller, and I'm probably saying it far too late. But this has the capacity to be more than just a rehash of existing material - we can take Traveller further forward than it has ever been.

Nick

 

[Nathan Brazil]

My Cr0.02:

1.What about the crew hits? In HG, a crew hit kills ~90% of the crew. Is that acceptable? If so why. What about crew sections/segments as a representation of compartmentalization? If not, why not? While crew sections were used in MT, this was also in discussion in JTAS#14 "High Guard: Optional Rules" by Stefan Jones

2.How about flexibility for fighters in the same article? This option had fighters performing a variety of roles (missile screen, front line, reserve defense). For Star Wars/Galactica fans, Jones had a close attack role:
A.Get fired on as if close if at far range, close +1 to hit if at close.
B.If you survive, you hit at close range +2 to hit and +1 on penetration tables

3.What about combining/decombining squadrons for more effectiveness. This would give squadrons a little more punch. Something like this was done in MT to combine individuals and vehicles into a unit. It fires together and get wounded together. After the battle is over you assign damage to the individual ships.
Partial example: 10-10DTon fighters each with Triple Laser turrets. At TL13 this is 30 Weapons = 1 Factor-9 Laser. Perhaps it should not be as effective to hit as a capital ship battery since the capital ship will have a linked computer(CT) or Master Fire Director(TNE).

Games have had different philisophies. Some games that combined the "fighter dogfight" and capital ships nod that fighters are merely annoyances to Capital Ships. West End's Star Wars had scale die caps and was even more brutal in its Star Warrior combat plug in(It did have a fun Suicide Run against the capital ship rule). FASAs Renegade Legion universe was also of the same vein when you played its capital ship game Leviathan. Fighter squadrons/groups/wings were reduced to a single counter which scraped off armor more often than not.

On the otherhand, there was always Wing Commander and P&P Star Fleet Battles (if you allowed all fighter options)

 

[Lokar]

It seems to come down to what you believe the technology limit should be. Can engines be powerful and small enough to be useful for fighter like ships?

Also, what of faster than light travel and combat? In Star Trek it seems it didn't even factor in. You can be at warp being shot at or not, doesn't matter.

Seems odd. I guess the sensors must be emitting many-times faster than light particules to be able to detect faster than light ships. Or actually I guess warp is the bending of space, thus sensors must be detecting warp 'signatures'. What ever the heck that means. I don't know what Traveller/High Guard does to deal with FTL travel...

Is it all that realistic to believe that ships, especially military ships, wouldn't be much more then self propelled massive, extreme long range cannons?

It would seem to me with the vastness of open space, one can literally see to the beginning of our universe. This is where one would have to have faster than light sensors to be able to fire on something that is more then a few light seconds aways. Say a light minute out, an hour.. a light week away.

So ignoring the fact that most everything you see out into space is quite literally ancient history. How far out can sensors detect FTL travelling ships? How far can weapons reach? etc..

Also with all this FTL travelling ships, what stops an armada from running right up on a planet? FTL sensors and communications would be paramount.

 

[AndreaV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lokar:
Also, what of faster than light travel and combat? In Star Trek it seems it didn't even factor in. You can be at warp being shot at or not, doesn't matter.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Traveller uses Jump drive for FTL travel, and a ship in Jump space is completely isolated from the rest of the universe. Therefore the can not be any FTL combat.

 

[Lokar]

Wow that's a frighting concept. So anyone can ride a Doomsday device up to your home world and >bang< everyone is dead.

Babylon 5 is quite similar. Seems they get just a few seconds warning as armadas "gate" in or whatever it was called. Shhs no base would exist that the enemy wasn't just allowing it to.

The evolution of space warfare would include means to bombard planets and space navys via FTL travel only. People would have to hide in ever moving hidden places. Home worlds wouldn't even exist. Unless of course one could just keep your entire home would in FTL 'warp'.

There has to be a defense to FTL travel mobility.

 

[DrSkull]

You're missing the huge fuel cost of entering Jump Space in Traveller, and the fact that travel time is always 1 week +/- 10% and the each ship can't control that +/- 10% factor.

The defense is that the attackers need to refuel before they can jump back out again, and that means scooping fuel from a gas giant or ocean. At that point they are vulnerable to attack. Also, they must jump in at least 10 diameters out from a planet, and that's risky, so 100 diameters is far safer.

Futhermore the attacking ships cannot communicate with one another or their bases while in jumpspace, and there's no guarantee that they will all emerge from jumpspace at the same time, it's random and out of their control. So its normal for the fleet to jump in out beyond one of the system gas giants, rendevous, move to a gas giant to refuel and procede to the target at normal, sub light speed. The defenders position stations, System Defense Boats and defense fleets near the gas giants to help prevent this.

------------------
Dave "Dr. Skull" Nelson

 

[FlightCommanderSolitude]

Yes - in fact, it seems like jumping a number of ships into a hostile system might be a very harrowing venture. Unless I'm mistaken, the ships do not have enough control to exit jump space at the same time or in the same formation as they entered jump space in.

That leads to the possibility of weaker ships (eg, tenders) getting into the hostile system before any other ships are there to defend them or press an attack!

-FCS

 

[rancke]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FlightCommanderSolitude:
Yes - in fact, it seems like jumping a number of ships into a hostile system might be a very harrowing venture. Unless I'm mistaken, the ships do not have enough control to exit jump space at the same time or in the same formation as they entered jump space in.

That leads to the possibility of weaker ships (eg, tenders) getting into the hostile system before any other ships are there to defend them or press an attack!

-FCS<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all, MT introduced a way that multiple ships could jump together. You used a lot more time to plot the jump but in return the ships arrived over a much shorter span of time.

However, if you disallow that, an attacking fleet will simply jump to a spot some way from the target world. That will allow the fleet to pull itself together before moving to the attack. That will give the defender some warning, of course, but you can't have everything.

As for refuelling, no competent admiral will want to arrive in an enemy system with dry tanks. If his ships have even 10% fuel remaining, they can break off combat and flee if the battle turns againt them.

One thing attackers won't be able to do in Milieu 1000 is use drop tanks to arrive with completely full tanks, since drop tanks aren't invented until 1080 or so.


Hans