Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
"What is a "determinator"? "
It's what Arnie's passport says under Occupation...
It's what Arnie's passport says under Occupation...
Large Ships and Spinal Mounts: What is the Point?
- Thread starter endersig
- Start date
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
I though "determinator" was the role Arnold played in all those movies.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
SSM's are actually quite limited and as of last count Chinese and North Korean SSM's are not much more capable of taking out targets than the SCUDS of Desert Storm Era. (Sadam fired 144 of them and killed 78 soldiers with them, or about 2 missiles for each emeny combatant killed.) With upgrades to things like Patriot and Aegis, plus other things that are in the works, (Saber for example) the useful life of SSMs especially ICBMs is actually coming to a serious close. And since Balistic missiles require launch facilities that are fairly easily detectible from the air and ICBMs are pretty much relegated to being stationary or at least easily tracked, then you enter a short phase of use them or lose them. And with the throw weight of a single Ohio Class Submarine, unless you have a whole lot of those missiles, (btw nobody besides the US does anymore) and are willing to accept the losses a counter strike will involve then they are pretty much going to sit in the tubes on the ground regardless of any minor conflicts that might go on around the world.
Balistic Missiles do not allow force projection. You need something that actually takes people and planes to the target area.
Chuck Anumia
SOC-14 1K
North Korea has the ability to affect 1/5 of the worlds population with the use of the nuclear missiles they have.
I don't mean to get politicle with this. I just want to use them as an example of what a small force of heavily armed and determined people can do. How large an impact they can have on those around them.
I don't mean to get politicle with this. I just want to use them as an example of what a small force of heavily armed and determined people can do. How large an impact they can have on those around them.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Only because they can strike China which has approximately 1/4 the earth's population.
You are right though a small heavily armed force can have a larger impact than their numbers suggest. The liberation of Iraq is along similar lines. A vastly outnumbered force destroyed a larger heavily armed force using superior technology, determination, and training. It isn't all about numbers. The point I was making is that certain weapon systems, by their nature, over time become obsolete. The Battleship, the Spitfire Fighter, the JU-87 Dive bomber, the Zepelin. All of these weapon systems when designed were the pinacle of technology. They were the best at what they did. All of these examples, with the exception of the battleship became obsolete in about 10 years. The Battleship took just over 30 years. (Mostly because nobody wanted to admit that Billy Mitchel was right about air power.)
Chuck Anumia
SOC-14 1K
"
The point I was making is that certain weapon systems, by their nature, over time become obsolete. The Battleship, the Spitfire Fighter, the JU-87 Dive bomber, the Zepelin. All of these weapon systems when designed were the pinacle of technology. They were the best at what they did. All of these examples, with the exception of the battleship became obsolete in about 10 years. The Battleship took just over 30 years. (Mostly because nobody wanted to admit that Billy Mitchel was right about air power.) [/QB][/QUOTE]"
Exactly!
Whatever the current technological advantage a "power" has it will become obsolete eventualy.
Better craft, weapon systems and defense systems will determine the newest policies for war.
BTW I believe that Billy Mitchel was way ahead of his time and we are still looking for another man like that.
Large craft with Spinal Mounts still have a place in the Navies of the universe (IMHO).
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
"
The point I was making is that certain weapon systems, by their nature, over time become obsolete. The Battleship, the Spitfire Fighter, the JU-87 Dive bomber, the Zepelin. All of these weapon systems when designed were the pinacle of technology. They were the best at what they did. All of these examples, with the exception of the battleship became obsolete in about 10 years. The Battleship took just over 30 years. (Mostly because nobody wanted to admit that Billy Mitchel was right about air power.) </font>[/QUOTE]"
Exactly!
Whatever the current technological advantage a "power" has it will become obsolete eventualy.
Better craft, weapon systems and defense systems will determine the newest policies for war.
BTW I believe that Billy Mitchel was way ahead of his time and we are still looking for another man like that.
Large craft with Spinal Mounts still have a place in the Navies of the universe (IMHO). </font>[/QUOTE]Smaller craft with spinal mounts, especially in T20, are the Billy Mitchell equivalent for Traveller. Carrying 5KTon riders instead of the traditional 30KTon riders are the equivalent of fast light attack craft. Fragile, (Like the aircraft of the interwar years.) fast, with lots of punch. And lots of them to swarm the target.
Chuck Anumia
SOC-14 1K
Right On.Originally posted by Bhoins:
[QUOTESmaller craft with spinal mounts, especially in T20, are the Billy Mitchell equivalent for Traveller. Carrying 5KTon riders instead of the traditional 30KTon riders are the equivalent of fast light attack craft. Fragile, (Like the aircraft of the interwar years.) fast, with lots of punch. And lots of them to swarm the target.
Now all we need are some deck plans for these high g, High firepower small 5 to 20 ton fighters.
These would make a great article for the fanzine Flynn is putting out.
Ran Targas
SOC-14 1K
WARNING! WARNING! Non-Gearhead making gross generalizations! Isn't the problem with a spinal mount is it's limited firing arc? A big meson cannon requires monsterous power generators, a huge "flux" tube or "resonance" chamber, and can only fire directly ahead of the ship, as it slowly rotates at full thrusters, right?
Can't you redirect the beam through some sort of gravitic lense or neutronium matrix or something so the beam can be angled atleast 45deg to the centerline? Can you make a meson shotgun by intentionally de-focusing the beam? If not, it's pretty easy to avoid being shot at; don't cross the firing ship's bow. Sort of like avoiding a broadside at optimum range.
I still don't understand the complete disregard for small craft as combatants. Small means maneuverable, small means difficult to detect, small means easier to make thousands of them at numerous facilities hidden across your sector. Small also means cheaper to keep on station and easier to deploy. Yeah, you may not be able to level a planet with a single ship, but you have a much better chance of surviving an ambush or forced retreat in a bunch of small ones that go in every which direction to flee the area.
And you can hide in places where a 30kt cruiser would stand out like a sore thumb. Think of how many 1kt corvettes could be skulking about in a planetary ring system or grounded out on a small moon or in a comet's tail. And I bet, in real world economics, 30 1kt corvettes don't cost nearly as much to build or operate effectively as 1 30kt cruiser (just ask any second/third world navy if you don't want to do the math).
Think of the game OGRE; even though the main weapon of a single GEV can't even penetrate the OGRE's hull, a swarm of GEV's can stop an OGRE dead if deployed properly. All you really need is more GEV's than the OGRE has weapons.
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
At least in TRAVELLER terms, thirty 1000-ton ships cost more than one 30kton ship, mostly because you're paying for 30 computers instead of one or two. The same goes for operating expenses: you have to pay 30 captains, executive officers, chief engineers, etc, etc.
That said, there is certainly a reason to have lots of small ships in any TRAVELLER fleet. They let you be in more places at once, and the loss of any one doesn't hurt your firepower that much. The trick is to strike the correct balance of big and little ships.
That said, there is certainly a reason to have lots of small ships in any TRAVELLER fleet. They let you be in more places at once, and the loss of any one doesn't hurt your firepower that much. The trick is to strike the correct balance of big and little ships.
Wrong way arround. The 30 corvettes cost a lot more to purchase and operate then a vessel 30 times the size.
The cruiser cannot be in 30 different places at once.
It takes a very similar ammount of effort to sink either.
Going with a real world example RAN
Patrol boat 220 Tonne crew 24
Frigate 4100 Tonne crew 210
Ran Targas
SOC-14 1K
^ Okay, okay, let me back pedal a little on that one. Like I said, not a gear-head. Now that I think about all the nitty gritty details; it would cost more to field the fleet vice the battlestar.
That said, I'd still rather have the fleet of gunships than one dreadnaught.
That said, I'd still rather have the fleet of gunships than one dreadnaught.
Up to TL 14 you usually want a big ship or two in a High Guard (Trillion Credit Squadron) fleet. You would probably want a few more in a campaign game or a "real" navy so you can spread them around.
This is because of the "meson, missile, rock" game that goes on in HG at these TLs. Basically, "mesons beat rocks, missiles beat mesons, rocks beat missiles". "Rocks" in this context are big ships with planetoid hulls, lots of armour and (usually) Particle Accelerator spinal mounts.
Their main purpose is to kill missile boats, whose weaponry is useless against them. On the other hand they die horribly against smallish meson gun armed vessels. But missile boats can defeat a force of meson vessels built for the same budget...
So big capital ships will be present in small numbers up to TL 14. TL 15 is a bit different, mainly because armour volume drops. But there are trade-offs at this TL too, which suggests that there might be a place for _relatively_ large vessels here too.
Of course I am only talking about line of battle vessels, not carriers, tenders and the like...
There is, however, a glitch in HG where vessels are presumed to carry an unlimited supply of missiles. Greater realism here would narrow the possibilities for missile boats.
This is because of the "meson, missile, rock" game that goes on in HG at these TLs. Basically, "mesons beat rocks, missiles beat mesons, rocks beat missiles". "Rocks" in this context are big ships with planetoid hulls, lots of armour and (usually) Particle Accelerator spinal mounts.
Their main purpose is to kill missile boats, whose weaponry is useless against them. On the other hand they die horribly against smallish meson gun armed vessels. But missile boats can defeat a force of meson vessels built for the same budget...
So big capital ships will be present in small numbers up to TL 14. TL 15 is a bit different, mainly because armour volume drops. But there are trade-offs at this TL too, which suggests that there might be a place for _relatively_ large vessels here too.
Of course I am only talking about line of battle vessels, not carriers, tenders and the like...
There is, however, a glitch in HG where vessels are presumed to carry an unlimited supply of missiles. Greater realism here would narrow the possibilities for missile boats.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Actually thirty of those 5000T LACs I posted a while back cost about the same as 6 30KTon Battleriders. (With obviously 5 times the major firepower.) Granted you can fit 36 of those LACs on the same tender as the 6 Battleriders, but still.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Small may imply maneuverable and fast now. However that wasn't always the case. In the age of sail bigger ships, due to better sail configuration, more sail area and better capability to handle waves were actually faster and more nimble than smaller ships. (I know it is counter intuitive.)Originally posted by Ran Targas:
Isn't the problem with a spinal mount is it's limited firing arc? A big meson cannon requires monsterous power generators, a huge "flux" tube or "resonance" chamber, and can only fire directly ahead of the ship, as it slowly rotates at full thrusters, right?
Can't you redirect the beam through some sort of gravitic lense or neutronium matrix or something so the beam can be angled atleast 45deg to the centerline? Can you make a meson shotgun by intentionally de-focusing the beam? If not, it's pretty easy to avoid being shot at; don't cross the firing ship's bow. Sort of like avoiding a broadside at optimum range.
I still don't understand the complete disregard for small craft as combatants. Small means maneuverable, small means difficult to detect, small means easier to make thousands of them at numerous facilities hidden across your sector. Small also means cheaper to keep on station and easier to deploy. Yeah, you may not be able to level a planet with a single ship, but you have a much better chance of surviving an ambush or forced retreat in a bunch of small ones that go in every which direction to flee the area.
And you can hide in places where a 30kt cruiser would stand out like a sore thumb. Think of how many 1kt corvettes could be skulking about in a planetary ring system or grounded out on a small moon or in a comet's tail. And I bet, in real world economics, 30 1kt corvettes don't cost nearly as much to build or operate effectively as 1 30kt cruiser (just ask any second/third world navy if you don't want to do the math).
Think of the game OGRE; even though the main weapon of a single GEV can't even penetrate the OGRE's hull, a swarm of GEV's can stop an OGRE dead if deployed properly. All you really need is more GEV's than the OGRE has weapons.
Now in Traveller a small ship maxes out at 6G Maneuver and Agility 6. A big ship also maxes out at 6G maneuver and Agility 6. A big ship is also more likely to have the 6G and agility 6, provided it was built for speed, because of certain fixed size elements that have to be included in a starship. Especially if the small ship also has to be jump capable. So in Traveller a 10 Ton fighter can't run from, outmaneuver, or get away from a 500,000 Tigress. Going in the other direction the fighter can't close with a Tigress that didn't want it to.
As for keeping the nose on the enemy, that is what modern fighters do. High speed firing platforms firing on targets invaribly fire ahead for several reasons. One of the important reasons that would apply in starship combat is that a missile would have to counter the launch vector imparted by the direction of travel of the ship before it could engage. Firing over the stern of the ship would mean that the missile would have to actually decellerate, in relationship to the launching ship, past stop to the other direction.
If a ship has an agility of 6 I see no problem with the ship keeping the nose on the target, especially and reasonable ranges. At pointblank range that could be a different matter.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Bhoins, could you post the stats or the link to thase LACs again please.
I'm having trouble finding them
Oddly enough it ain't just the sails. Cavitation hulls are limited in velocity to their length in the water. Therefore a longer ship can go faster then a shorter one.
This is only for cavitation hulls. Supercavitation, skimming, foils and most other types of hull don't have this limitation.
Bhoins: What was the crew and maintenance costs like? The capital costs should be swallowed by the ongoings in most cases. I'm surprised the ratio is quite that high, I would have expected 3 or 4 to 1 rather then 5 to 1.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Bhoins, have you tried fighting any test battles between different forces as follows:
Tender + LACs vs Tender + BRs
Tender + Lacs vs Battleship
Tender + BRs vs Battleship
There should be equal funding for both sides and the same TL.
Tender + LACs vs Tender + BRs
Tender + Lacs vs Battleship
Tender + BRs vs Battleship
There should be equal funding for both sides and the same TL.
Ran Targas
SOC-14 1K
Bhoins,
I agree that the rules state that a Star Destroyer can maneuver as well as any TIE fighter (given the right drives) but there is something inherently evil about that.
I like my capitol ships to be big and bulky; they must have some weakness, otherwise my players wouldn't stand a chance of escaping or even surviving an encounter with hostiles while nosign around in their Q-ships.
I agree that the rules state that a Star Destroyer can maneuver as well as any TIE fighter (given the right drives) but there is something inherently evil about that.
I like my capitol ships to be big and bulky; they must have some weakness, otherwise my players wouldn't stand a chance of escaping or even surviving an encounter with hostiles while nosign around in their Q-ships.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
The whole thing, especially in T20, is extremely nasty. 2 Tenders unloading 36 LACs each in the outer system and the LACs then accellerating in and making one high speed pass is enough to wipe out most fleets. In T20, in particular, you are destroying, not just mission kills, I mean destroying, approximately 36 capital ships. Now if there are 36 Capital ships then you are likely to lose 18 ships in return, but as far as I am concerned that is acceptable losses. Especially when you consider relative cost. The numbers in HG and MT aren't anywhere near as dramatic. And unfortunately HG isn't set up to simulate a high speed pass. MT basically uses the HG tables so big meson screens will save more of your fleet in both of those systems.
In all cases, even with HG and MT tables the biggest telling stat is the number of Spinals you can bring to bear. For equal cost and tonnage you are bringing 5 times the guns against typical battleriders. And the Battletender Battlerider is cheaper than Drednaught Squadrons in the first place. So the Battlerider vs. Battleship, fight if you go by cost or tonnage the Battlerider wins in an equal fight. The same applies here with the LAC. When you go against an equal cost, there are 5 tubes in the LAC Squadron for every tube in the Battlerider squadron and depending on the Drednaught, on average 10 to 20 LACs (cost wise)
per Drednaught.
The reason, especially in T20, that I would recomend a high speed pass is that the LACs are fragile. They may hit like a Drednaught, or perhaps a Cruiser, but they take hits like a big Destroyer. So it isn't a craft that you really want to sit around and trade blows, though you certainly can, after all in an attrition fight, you have the firepower advantage and the loss of 5000T for you doesn't reduce your overall firepower as much as the loss of one of the Battleriders or Drednaughts.
