How advantageous is a black globe?

[rancke]

In another post I was reminded that a black globe acts as armor even against meson weapons. A factor 4 black globe can provide as much as a +8 on the damage tables, making such results as the infamous "Fuel tanks shattered" impossible.

However, the black globe provides the same advantage to the enemy being fired upon. Moreover, running the black globe reduces the agility of the ship to some degree, making the ship easier to hit.

So can some TCS guru perhaps tell us how much of an advantage a BG is and what design choices would maximise those advantages?


Hans

 

[McPerth]

I'm not a TCS guru (quite far from that), but I repeat hear what I suggested while answering in another thread for if anyone thinks it's worth to read it, as it's just about the subject you give here:

(...) I'd suggest two changes to the BG rules:

1) Missiles are not affected by BG on the firing ship, as the explosion of their warheads is outside it.

2) As I assume the weapons fire is very short bursts, not along the 20 min a turn represents, I also assume at least one of them can be synchronized with the BG ficking. So main weapon (spinal) is not affected (or less affected) by own BG.

 

[Birdrock]

High guard applies here, too: it says a BG stores (converts?) energy in the jump capacitors, thus powering up a jump ahead of a fuel burn.

 

[Birdrock]

Seems that a bigger weapon can overcome a BG on a smaller vessel.

Put another way, jump capacitors take up precious volume. Durability requires volume when you have a black globe.

 

[rancke]

I'm more interested in what advantage a black globe provides against enemies without black globes, and also with what sort of ships without globes work best against ships with black globes.

Say two ships that are more or less equal except one has a factor 4 black globe and the other one hasn't. Who wins and by how big a margin?


Hans

 

[Matt123]

@ McPerth, incoming fire is the only fire that impacts on the BG (HG). It would be reasonable to assume all outgoing fire is synchronized with the flickering (or the flickering can be controlled to suit weapons fire). So outgoing fire does not load up the capacitors, but outgoing firepower/penetration is reduced per the flicker rate, similar to WWI fighter planes firing through their props. The rules changes proposed aren't needed, for CT at least.

@ Hans, good question. Most of my HG/TCS gaming has been at TL12/13.

 

[sabredog]

Actually, on page 42 of HG it says that the flicker rate effects ALL fire, both the target AND the firing ship experience the same DM. And that is for all weapons that fire on a BG - it it hits the BG it gets absorbed - if it gets through the flicker it does not.

Unlike the interrupter-gear analogy the canon BG absorbs all energy and doesn't flicker as a normal part of operation - it was ancient alien tech discovered by the Viliani and then reverse-engineered as best they could so they could make more - but you'll notice that not all Imperium warships use them.

Although it would cause thousands of molotov cocktails to immolate me instantly I will point out once again that the BG is better modeled (as it is IMTU) on the Niven/Pournelle Langston Field, which obviously inspired the BG. The advantage of treating a BG as such is that the shield could then re-radiate the energy it absorbs back through weapon systems that protrude though the field - as they do in The Mote In God's Eye.

So in addition to having absorbed energy being stored in the capacitors for use by any other systems, the energy absorbed by incoming weapons fire (the L-Fied didn't flicker but absorbed all energy going in or out...which is why the weapons and sensors of ships so equipped were made to extend through the field), incoming weapon energy would be shot right back out of the ship's own weapons (energy-wise anyway) at the enemy. And unlike the BG, the Langston field could be used by ground installations for protection.

Obviously once a ship lost it's sensor's it'd be blind, and if the field overloaded because it couldn't reroute absorbed energy into the capacitors or back through it's weapons, then the field collapsed and the ship was annihilated in the implosion.

 

[Matt123]

Actually, on page 42 of HG it says that the flicker rate effects ALL fire, both the target AND the firing ship experience the same DM. And that is for all weapons that fire on a BG - it it hits the BG it gets absorbed - if it gets through the flicker it does not.

I wasn't stating otherwise.

McPerth was suggesting that your own fire also impacts on the BG, the consequence of which would be filling up your capacitors with your own fire... That was the concern I was addressing.

Unlike the interrupter-gear analogy the canon BG absorbs all energy

but clearly not your own fire... sticking with the interrupter gear analogy, if the prop was allowed to absorb the energy from your own fire it would be quickly destroyed. Hence the TL4 interrupter technology. Fast forward now to TL15.

 

[sabredog]

I wasn't stating otherwise.

McPerth was suggesting that your own fire also impacts on the BG, the consequence of which would be filling up your capacitors with your own fire... That was the concern I was addressing.

but clearly not your own fire... sticking with the interrupter gear analogy, if the prop was allowed to absorb the energy from your own fire it would be quickly destroyed. Hence the TL4 interrupter technology. Fast forward now to TL15.

Clearly the rule that gives the enemy ship the same percentile rate of flicker protection implies that the weapons either don't fire unless a window for doing so is open ("interrupter-gear"), or what it means....ad I think this is what it means - that if you miss the enemy ship because of the flicker rate - it could be reasonably interpreted as being because you hit your screens.

That is because the reason the enemy can't hit you is because the BG acts as armor (as stated in the rules) as opposed to a screen that sometimes lets things through because they are powerful enough to punch through. So since the positive armor DM granted to both the enemy and firing ship by the flicker rate is treated as armor the weapons can't get through - not because the ship dodged the weapons - then I argue that some percentile of the firing weapons will be absorbed by the firing ship's BG>

But I do suppose the other side of the argument could logically be that the amount of fire (batteries bearing) ought to be reduced to reflect that the more the BG flickers the less likely it is that ALL of the batteries ordinarily capable of firing wouldn't be able to do so. The mere reduction of the chance to hit doesn't accurately reflect this: there ought to also be a percentile reduction of batteries bearing equal to either the flicker rate or a portion of it.

So while I did understand your concept of some TL-15 interrupter gear system I am only pointing out that the rules in the game implicitly point to several disadvantages to using a BG - which was the original thread question - and trying to explain how the spirit and literal interpretation of the HG rules support those disadvantages.

The workarounds I use IMTU to make the things useable you can take or leave as just suggestions borne of too many arguments of how the things work when the designers of the game never even really seem to have understood or addressed all the implications of a BG.

In fact, because the things are so troublesome in so many ways - the more effective they are the more useless they are tactically (other than as a cloaking device) I long ago tossed them out of my game and substituted Langston Fields - which even the mighty meson gun reduces to mainly something that just keeps your paint from being scuffed by anything smaller.

 

[Matt123]

Well, I'll just rely on the rules then.

When the screen is flickering, a percentage of the incoming energy equal to the flicker rate is absorbed.

Unless you are suggesting out-going energy is really incoming energy. If you are, the M-Drive and sensors will also give you problems, but there is no evidence to support this is the case.

 

[sabredog]

Well, I'll just rely on the rules then.



Unless you are suggesting out-going energy is really incoming energy. If you are, the M-Drive and sensors will also give you problems, but there is no evidence to support this is the case.

The rules do say that the BG affects movement and sensors: if the BG is on the ship is blind and can't move at all. If it flickers then the maneuvering ability is reduced by 10% per flicker for every 10% of the flicker rate. Yet, strangely the sensors don't seem to be reduced by the flicker - so that might imply, illogically, that the energy from the maneuver drives are not energy the BG recognizes as such, or the reduction in agility equal to the flicker rate is sufficient to simulate the interference with the sensors.

Just a few more reasons I find the things too much trouble to bother with IMTU.

 

[kafka47]

Tactics would determine how effective a Black Globe is...having said that when I have given players to lead a Battle Group during the Rebellion Era equipped with Black Globe cruisers. I asked them to role play it. And, they got squashed.

The best representation of Black Globe tactics is in Knightfall where it is used as the "Cloak of Invisibility" to get close enough to decimate the Starport. This is a very crude way of fighting. But, as Jefferson Swycaffer pointed out in Dragon Magazine long ago, Traveller space combat resembles medieval warfare where two sides line up and duke it out. The secret is to think in all three dimensions. Therefore, one needs to come up with an operating paradigm for your space combat which is a real world analogy (but don't hold to it too fast be fluid).

Therefore, if you think that Space Combat is akin to aerial warfare. Then the Black Globe serves the purpose of higher altitude but the price paid is less efficiency in your own weapons systems.

If your operating paradigm is that of submarine warfare, the Black Globe is running silent.

If your analogy is that of a wet navy, then it is the cover of islands and fog.

Each one has the opportunity, as I said to mix and match. Traveller balances the supertech with real world physics.

Some of the best uses of the Black Globe was actually as a charger for said cruisers' weapons when a critical hit took out their power plant allowing them to fire back and fight another day. Other uses are do the Han Solo thing and hide in asteroid field but the dreadnaughts responded just as they did in ESB. Blasting the small rocks to scare the players out. What I have done is as a Referee used Black Globes as Damage buffers, in which players waste their ammo fighting the front line then have a reserve line just behind the the armour that is significantly more powered but less armoured hence be able to defeat the Starport defenders. Also, I have used it as protection for my unstreamlined ships when they have do High Guard thus rendering them virtually invisible to SDBs.

Whatever, you choose, one has to keep in mind that Battlespace (as it is now called) happens in 4 Dimensions. Length, Width, Depth and Time. I am not a mini player but sometimes they help other times they hinder. So, if you can grasp the 4 Dimensions and your players can too. Then it can be for interesting play with or without Black Globes.

 

[far-trader]

toTo a large degree how advantageous (effective) a Black Globe is will depend on how it works which isn't properly defined in the rules. I don't mean how many points of damage it stops and such. I mean operational questions such as...

Can it be turned on in Jump Space so you enter normal space already cloaked and invisible?

How hard is it to pick out the perfect blackness of a BG hidden ship against the background radiation?

If jump precipitation is actually entirely random for time and position how does one use the described tactic of jumping in with a BG hidden ship to 'coast unseen past defenders to suddenly drop the BG at optimal strike range to destroy the target' (words to that effect).

...and several others that routinely come up once one starts to try actually gaming with a BG and clever players.

Firing your own weapons at your BG to power up capacitors.

How much energy does the BG absorb per turn from: The background radiation in deep space, or that close to a star? Collision with dust in deep space, or a kamikaza craft?

What happens if you turn on a BG in atmosphere or on the ground?

Until the whole is much much better explained(1) it is not really useful to bother using it or even pondering it's value tactically or otherwise imo.

(1) Officially. Saying leave it to the ref to answer is fine for individual games, but doesn't help at all for a discussion since we likely have no common frame of reference

 

[McPerth]

@ McPerth, incoming fire is the only fire that impacts on the BG (HG). It would be reasonable to assume all outgoing fire is synchronized with the flickering (or the flickering can be controlled to suit weapons fire). So outgoing fire does not load up the capacitors, but outgoing firepower/penetration is reduced per the flicker rate, similar to WWI fighter planes firing through their props. The rules changes proposed aren't needed, for CT at least.

I can accept that for main weapons, though I think the effect should be quite less on outgoing fire than on incoming fire, but what about missiles?

If your ship with BG flickering ar 40% launches a missile salvo to an enemy, why should the damage roll be affected as if enemy ship had 8 armor levels more? The warhead explodes far away from BG, so it shouldn't be affected (IMO).

 

[Birdrock]

I never liked the 'power up the ship with energy stored by the BG' concept. But I think it has to be part of a better description of the globe.

 

[HG_B]

I can accept that for main weapons, though I think the effect should be quite less on outgoing fire than on incoming fire, but what about missiles?

If your ship with BG flickering ar 40% launches a missile salvo to an enemy, why should the damage roll be affected as if enemy ship had 8 armor levels more? The warhead explodes far away from BG, so it shouldn't be affected (IMO).

Since missiles are going at a VERY slow speed (compared to beam weapons) I'd say that you can't squeeze them through the very small window of time that the BG is "off" during flicker. So, no launching at all.

 

[far-trader]

Regarding BG flicker...

IF it is cyclical to permit you to dump your own energy out/fire timed weapon cycles without hitting it you are still limited to the amount of fire/energy you can dump out and just as important an observant enemy can quickly crack your cycle and fire only when your BG is off to hit you, or perhaps even more viciously when you BG is on dumping all the energy directly into your sinks/capacitors to blow you up with your own petard.

It has always seemed to me then that the BG cycle is unpredictable (and the flicker percentage is a game mechanic to model it) and affects both sides of the globe equally. It is just part of the mystery of how it works.

I'd let you fire missiles, subject to the flicker catching it's share on the way out and dumping the power right into your sinks/capacitors.

 

[sabredog]

I always figured the randomization of flicker was deliberate on the part of the computer firing systems so the enemy can't predict a pattern (the combat rounds are pretty long so there's plenty of room for lots of random firing and synching the weapons with the flicker rate), and that's why the player can even maneuver at all with the flicker. If it was random to the point where even the ship's computer couldn't keep track of it then maneuver in formation would be suicidal.

I just figure the reason for the percentile working against you has more to do with random chance playing its part in your own weapons firing and some not quite making it out through the window in time (a calculation on the captain's part on how much flicker can he risk?), and that because all the weapons are not located in one spot designed to shoot through a specific place during the flicker, but instead the ship has to constantly rotate and angle itself to bring maximum potential batteries to bear (something that used to have more to do with configuration than size, but so much for common sense), that that means the flicker is going to effectively reduce how many of those potential batteries are going to make their shot out through the flicker window in time.

So a good captain with a BG-equipped ship has to take a calculated risk involving flicker rates, how many weapons of his own are hitting the inside of the BG as a result of the flicker, how much his capacitors can hold vs. how much power can be re-routed back out through weapons and other screens, and how his ability to maneuver is affected. Whew....see why I just through the things out of MTU altogether? All that justifies why the ship computers of the TL-15 future are still bigger than yesterday's mainframes!

 

[sabredog]

I'd let you fire missiles, subject to the flicker catching it's share on the way out and dumping the power right into your sinks/capacitors.

There isn't anything that says you can't fire missiles, but to do so you'd have to be able to predict the flicker window and compute the missile acceleration rate relative to the stand-off distance of the BG field. That way you could have the missiles on the way from inside the dead zone from ship to field (assuming it has one, which I would assume it does) so that when the window flickers open the really-really fast (they'd better be) missiles would make it out in time.

So maybe a better ding against outgoing missile fie isn't so much having them hit the inside of the field is reducing the percentage of how many missile batteries can be in the proper position (like my above argument) to fire out at all? You could probably safely argue that none of the missiles will hit the shield on the way out if you can compute the criteria I just outlined here, but certainly not all your missile batteries could do it. The only real caveat is that when missiles are fired they are fired directly towards the enemy and not shot off from the opposite side of your ship and work their way around towards the enemy fleet - but that would be contrary to the batteries bearing reduction rule, then, so it has to be assumed that they fire directly at the enemy in a more or less straight vector from the firing ship.

 

[Matt123]

I'm with Sabredog on this one. The flicker shouldn't be random as far as the firing player is concerned and a 40% flick in a 20 minute turn could be as long as 8 consecutive minutes. That is an extreme example tho.

What can be assumed is that the ability to launch missiles over a 20 minute turn is now reduced to the ability to launch over a 12 minute turn after allowing for and controlling all the flickering. Hence the penalties apply (increasing targets armor).

Whether the penalty is appropriate is perhaps debatable, its the only example of a weakened weapons fire having a lesser damage effect. For example factor-1 Beam causes the same damage as a factor-9. Firing that factor-9 beam with a BG-4 in place, degrades its damage impact (with a +8 DM) to be less effective than a full strength factor-1.

I like the suggestion made earlier (can't remember who to credit sorry) of adjusting the batteries bearing instead, but then the BG wouldn't impact on the spinal mount.