Looking for Commonalities

[Archangel620]

So I was interested in whether or not Space Warfare mirrored Air, Land, or Water Warfare in Traveller. Is there a specific book I could read on particular battles of importance, and how ships are designed to handle combat? I mean generically on the ships of course, but looking at the collection of books in our home, I was wondering if there had been a book done on famous or infamous space battles, either ship to ship, or ship to planet, or anything given the setting.

*I have a bias to seeing Space Warfare through Naval lens, as I loved reading Alfred T. Mahan's History of Sea Power, and it was the material I compared Soviet operations in Space with, to see if there was an similarities in strategy and tactics.*

Sorry if this has been reposted somewhere else before, but I thought it might be worthwhile to ask. Thanks!

 

[aramis]

You've already read the best (Mahan) for sea war prior to 1900.

Adm. CW. Nimitz' AARs (if you can find them) are a good read. We read excerpts senior year in NJROTC.

Whatever you do, avoid John Keagan for anything post USCW... he is far too ivory tower (and just plain wrong) about everything from the Somme onward.

 

[Archangel620]

I will definitely look at Nimitz, but I was thinking in Traveller lore. Obviously, my father was the timeline guy. But I didn't know if Traveller had produced books that explained specific battles as examples of ship to ship combat, or ship to planet combat.

Also, you aren't the first person to push me away from Keagan. I have never read it, but my Institute of World Politics professors scoffed at it.

I just didn't know if there was a writer or fan who had put together a battle in the history of Traveller, and detailed out how it carried out. I am a war guy first, and so I have always wanted to know how space combat actually resolves in theory of the game, and in the details of stories in the game.

*And I will definitely look into Nimitz's writing. When I wrote my Space Aggression paper, my co-author asked if I had thought about Submarine parallels to space. I told him we should start by comparing current space operations as parallel to fishers in rowboats with knives. I am being serious, we are so primitive in RL. The education and paper was an eye-opening experience, and mildly harrowing in terms of learning the US lacks a clear space strategy from the administration down. NASA has one, but it's solely civilian publicly these days. Nothing like Roscom.*

 

[Nathan Brazil]

The Invasion: Earth game presents one use of the navy in Traveller. It shows some of the operations and challenges of planetary assault (or WWII island hopping) if you will.
Certainly not a perfect analogy, but a start.

 

[Condottiere]

Principles of warfare don't change, but apparently technology and society does.

Speaking of naval warfare, my current take on the next edition of High Guard is that ship design and space combat will revolutionize that aspect of the game, at the 1906 level.

 

[mike wightman]

Space warfare in Traveller is defined by the rules set you use to model it.
CT small ship universe can use Mayday, LBB2, Starter Edition range bands, even High Guard2
High Guard 2 has got to be the base standard - it is lacking in its abstract movement but it does some things much better than others.
MT is similar to HG2
TNE started as a small ship setting with Brilliant Lances but then introduced big ship battled with Battle Rider.
T4 ship combat is something that is never mentioned...

So - a discussion about space warfare in Traveller will usually be described using terms and paradigms established by High Guard.

High Guard models ship construction and combat at every TL from 7 to 15 (using MT and a bit of extrapolation of HG tables you can get it up to TL22).
Main points.
The nature of space warfare is very different to conventional air/land/sea warfare - there is no stealth in space, adversaries must choose to fight or one side has to be at a system chokepoint (defending a world, high guard for a refuelling operation), weapons have ranges measured in light seconds.
The nature of battleships changes from TL to TL - as you increase in TL the maximum size you can build a ship increase, the main armament shifts from missile bays to a combination of spinal mounts (PA are preferred at lower TLs, meson guns can win you the battle but are limited by a poor chance to hit, at higher TLs your fleet will usually have a mix of PA and meson spinals available).
The value of non-capital ships changes as you go up the TL scale - they are quite useful at low TLs, at high TLs they are useful as a screening force.
There is no Traveller equivalent of the aircraft or torpedo in space warfare - small craft are like MTBs (but without the torpedoes) rather than aircraft to use an air/sea warfare analogue.

 

[aramis]

• CT Bk2 is essentially age of sail in feel.
• CT Bk5 and MT is essentially Age of Ironclad Battleships; roughly 1870 to 1960.
• CT Starter Traveller is kind of a radio-play of age of sail in feel.
• TNE is an attempt to mesh modern understandings of weapons and armor with reduced weapons ranges. It has no historical comparison.
• T4 is burdened by using TNE's FF&S as the core, and expanding outward, while at the same time subsetting for simpler design systems, and a combat system that works with all three planned levels of design...
• MGT 1E is a slightly more robust weapons set, call it an ironclads era (pre-HMS Dreadnought) kind of feel.
• CT Mayday is almost the same feel as Bk2, except for scale.
• CT Mayday movement with Bk5 combat is very much it's own unique feel. Kind of "tanks on ice skates"

The Canon never actually discusses the tactics and their historical effects, but does mention the late 3I several competing tactical trends...
1) Riders vs Battleships
2) Fighter Carriers vs Battleships
3) Escorts vs destroyers.

Much of this is best gleaned from reading the various entries in CT Sup 8 & 11, and their parallels in MT's Imperial Encyclopedia.

For the detailed implications of the High Guard ruleset...
http://members.pcug.org.au/~davidjw...ofessor Lenat and EURISKO's Winning Fleet.htm

(David - if you're watching, would you add that to the wiki, please?)

Eurisco, a computer program, was used to devise the winning strategy. Which was lots of sacrificable smaller (destroyer sized) units with just main guns and defenses... due to quirks of the rules, the spinal meson gun is like the guided torpedo barrage of the Circum-Dreadnought era - one hit, usually one mission kill.

 

[Condottiere]

As I recall, the computer programme came to the conclusion that maneuvering in a deep space battle was optional, and could be discarded.

 

[wbyrd]

As I recall, the computer programme came to the conclusion that maneuvering in a deep space battle was optional, and could be discarded.

which puzzles me to no end. Such things as cross fire, and forcing an enemy to split his attention/forces would seem to be of of some advantage.

 

[Matt123]

For the detailed implications of the High Guard ruleset...
http://members.pcug.org.au/~davidjw...ofessor Lenat and EURISKO's Winning Fleet.htm

(David - if you're watching, would you add that to the wiki, please?)

Hmmm, I don't rate that thread as coming even close to providing detailed implications for High Guard. It is also not unique, there are other threads to be found online which engage in similar levels of banter/analysis.

Eurisco, a computer program, was used to devise the winning strategy. Which was lots of sacrificable smaller (destroyer sized) units with just main guns and defenses... due to quirks of the rules, the spinal meson gun is like the guided torpedo barrage of the Circum-Dreadnought era - one hit, usually one mission kill.

Eurisko was interesting, but did not devise the winning strategy. It found an optimal strategy against dreadnought fleets at a particular tech level, in one-off fights to the death. It demonstrated one of the limitations of the "age of sail" analogy applied to High Guard, in that the opponents of Eurisko that relied on the romantic analogy, got thrashed. My contention is that a Euresko style fleet is very beatable. However this winning fleet is also unlikely to be the "winning strategy", the dynamic is more paper-scissors-rock as is the case in many wargames.

Age of sail is a poor analogy applied to fleet combat. Its limit is its use in describing communication at the speed of travel. Outside of that it kinda works when you consider men-o-war pounding each other to destruction at close range, but then HG also considers spinal mounts and fighters. As a campaign system it also considers blind movement, delayed communication, fleet refuelling and repair.

Mixed up with this is a wide range of opinion on what fleet combat should be, versus what it is in HG. Everybody has an opinion, while the numbers of people who have played it is diminishing and those with multi-game experience are like hens teeth. There are several past and on-going attempts at creating new versions of High Guard to fit a particular vision or in robjects case to find a broadly acceptable vision. Ultimately however COTI readers are largely role players within Traveller rather than war gamers.

 

[Matt123]

As I recall, the computer programme came to the conclusion that maneuvering in a deep space battle was optional, and could be discarded.

Not true. Lenat describes his program as concluding almost extremes as being ideal. Either high speed and high agility or low speed low agility is (was?) ideal. The middle ranges compromised too much while the extremes specialized too much. He gave several examples of systems in his papers.

You may be referring to strategic manoeuvre. Lenat's fleets were designed as Alpha strike fleets. One shot fleets where the designer does not care to consider long term strategic manoeuvre implications if the fleet loses (ie: he used drop tanks, which were subsequently banned in later tournaments). Great for tournaments and a valid campaign strategy (not one I would pick however...).

 

[aramis]

As I recall, the computer programme came to the conclusion that maneuvering in a deep space battle was optional, and could be discarded.

Maneuvering in High Guard is practically meaningless when everything you field has spinal meson guns. (HG's maneuvering rules are pretty abstract). Lots of minimum tonnage expendable spinals don't really benefit from range mods, so you just concentrate on killing what's in optimal...

It's far more important when you add the mayday movement to it (later printings include how to do this), because of concentration of fire. (or denial of concentration.)

 

[Matt123]

which puzzles me to no end. Such things as cross fire, and forcing an enemy to split his attention/forces would seem to be of of some advantage.

These work when you consider terrain and can force your opponent to value a articular piece of terrain, for example, high ground or manufacturing or resource facilities. Cross fire is effective for example in circumventing the effects of linear cover (for example, walls) or providing suppression (enemy needs cover...) allowing an assault group to safely get close, by approaching from an angle 90 degrees to the fire.

In open space there is obviously no such terrain consideration. However there is terrain in the form of the main world, gas giants and secondary outposts. A defensive force must consider how to split its forces across the system to best effect, taking into account an offensive fleets ability to defeat defenders in detail.

 

[Matt123]

Manoeuvring in High Guard is practically meaningless when everything you field has spinal meson guns.
(HG's maneuvering rules are pretty abstract).

Spinal guns miss or get negated, a lot. That aside I think what you mean is that tactical manoeuvre is practically meaningless when you cannot hide (no concealing terrain) and you are in range. I make this distinction because having a high manoeuvre drive and agility can make a significant difference to a ships survivability versus all weapons including spinal weapons. HG (for the uninitiated) uses three ranges; the line of battle which may be at short or long range and the reserve which is out of range. You cannot have a reserve without a line of battle; a breakthrough is when you defeat your opponents line of battle and get to close on the reserve for a free round of fire.

Several of the alternative HG projects aim to incorporate more tactical maneouvre or finer detailed range bands. For example one approach aims to replicate the high speed fly past where two fleets converge at high speeds, engaging for a finite number of turns and then taking a long time to re-engage. High Guard in contrast replicates two fleets "agreeing" to meet and slugging it out.

 

[aramis]

Spinal guns miss or get negated, a lot. That aside I think what you mean is that tactical manoeuvre is practically meaningless when you cannot hide (no concealing terrain) and you are in range. I make this distinction because having a high manoeuvre drive and agility can make a significant difference to a ships survivability versus all weapons including spinal weapons. HG (for the uninitiated) uses three ranges; the line of battle which may be at short or long range and the reserve which is out of range. You cannot have a reserve without a line of battle; a breakthrough is when you defeat your opponents line of battle and get to close on the reserve for a free round of fire.

Several of the alternative HG projects aim to incorporate more tactical maneouvre or finer detailed range bands. For example one approach aims to replicate the high speed fly past where two fleets converge at high speeds, engaging for a finite number of turns and then taking a long time to re-engage. High Guard in contrast replicates two fleets "agreeing" to meet and slugging it out.

HG, RAW, lacks tactical maneuvering other than changing range.

 

[pshrynk]

It's not Traveller, and has tech that Traveller does not have rules for, but David Weber's Honor Harrington series is mainly about the grand space battles every Space Opera Wonk has dreamt of. When I envision fleet operations in Traveller, my thoughts turn to that sort of thing. Also, the Lost Fleet series has some good descriptions that are closer to Traveller in their tech developments. In my campaigns, I discourage players from getting into that sort of thing. After all, they have all just been mustered out and would want to refrain from anything military, right? (CTU rules, obviously.)

 

[aramis]

It's not Traveller, and has tech that Traveller does not have rules for, but David Weber's Honor Harrington series is mainly about the grand space battles every Space Opera Wonk has dreamt of. When I envision fleet operations in Traveller, my thoughts turn to that sort of thing. Also, the Lost Fleet series has some good descriptions that are closer to Traveller in their tech developments. In my campaigns, I discourage players from getting into that sort of thing. After all, they have all just been mustered out and would want to refrain from anything military, right? (CTU rules, obviously.)

Honor Harrington ship combat, at least through book 5, is pretty much Starfire through HT 5... which should be no surprise, since David was the line developer for Starfire.

 

[maksimsmelchak]

I will definitely look at Nimitz, but I was thinking in Traveller lore. Obviously, my father was the timeline guy. But I didn't know if Traveller had produced books that explained specific battles as examples of ship to ship combat, or ship to planet combat.

I just didn't know if there was a writer or fan who had put together a battle in the history of Traveller, and detailed out how it carried out. I am a war guy first, and so I have always wanted to know how space combat actually resolves in theory of the game, and in the details of stories in the game.

No. to my knowledge, there isn't really a good canon book for that. The T20 Gateway to Destiny book, however, probably has the best overview of combat in the Traveller universe though.

The SJG GURPS Interstellar Wars book describes one of the most celebrated conflicts of the Traveller universe.

I would start with those two.

I'm 100% sure that your Dad had those books.

Also, you aren't the first person to push me away from Keagan. I have never read it, but my Institute of World Politics professors scoffed at it.

Keagan is very much a Brit academic who is very full of himself. Sandhurst, anyone? Still, he is no slouch and I think there is value in reading him. I did in the USAF and found some value in it. I can agree with the post-US Civil War assessment though, but basic strategy is really timeless. Sun Tzu has proven that for millennia.

*And I will definitely look into Nimitz's writing. When I wrote my Space Aggression paper, my co-author asked if I had thought about Submarine parallels to space. I told him we should start by comparing current space operations as parallel to fishers in rowboats with knives. I am being serious, we are so primitive in RL.

The education and paper was an eye-opening experience, and mildly harrowing in terms of learning the US lacks a clear space strategy from the administration down. NASA has one, but it's solely civilian publicly these days. Nothing like Roscom.*

The USAF definitely has a game plan, even a Space Command. the civilian echelon may not have one, but the military echelon does.

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.

 

[aramis]

The USAF definitely has a game plan, even a Space Command. the civilian echelon may not have one, but the military echelon does.

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.

The USAF is barred from actual space warfare by Treaty. (Specifically the Outer Space Treaty.) Their primary tasks (according to a relative who worked there, and another relative who routinely coordinated with them) are
(1) Designing, Launching, and Operating US Military Satellites for USAF
(2) Monitoring threat and aggressor satellite use and missions
(3) Providing Cyberwarfare assets and defenses
(4) Coordination with USN-SPAWAR, NOAA, and NASA
(5) Providing space visualizations to all Major Commands, especially to Engineering units.

AFSPC says about themselves:

AFSPC Vision
Global Access, Persistence and Awareness for the 21st Century

AFSPC Mission
Provide Resilient and Affordable Space and Cyberspace Capabilities for the Joint Force and the Nation

The USN has it's own "SPAWAR" - USN-Space and Naval Warfare Command - sometimes abbreviated SPANWAR instead, but that version is deprecated.
Their mission? Provide C⁴ISR support to USN assets, including satellites, IT, and comm gear. (C⁴I = Command, Control, Computer, Communication, Intelligence, Surveilance, and Reconnaisance)

They say it thusly in their brochure...

SPAWAR Mission
As the Navy’s Information Dominance systems command, SPAWAR develops, delivers and sustains command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) capabilities for warfighters, keeping them connected anytime, anywhere. With a space support activity and two systems centers, and through partnerships with three program executive offices, SPAWAR provides the hardware and software needed to conduct Navy missions. The team consists of more than 9,700 active duty military and civil service professionals who keep SPAWAR at the forefront of research, engineering and acquisition to provide and sustain fleet capabilities.

The US Army has their own, too: SMDC Space and Missile Defense Command.
Their mission statement:

USASMDC/ARSTRAT conducts space and missile defense operations and provides planning, integration, control and coordination of Army forces and capabilities in support of U.S. Strategic Command missions (strategic deterrence, integrated missile defense, and space operations); serves as the Army force modernization proponent for space, high altitude and global missile defense; serves as the Army operational integrator for global missile defense; and conducts mission-related research and development in support of Army Title 10 responsibilities.

Note that GPS is joint AFSPC and SPAWAR in practice - but a bunch of agencies actually send members to a GPS governing board. Most important: DOD and DOT.

There is no real unified plan because each service makes their own, except the Navy.

NASA, The USN, and the USAF all have specific plans in place in case of extraterrestrial threats. Since they are very low probability events, the piles of paperwork on them may be surprising... until you actually read some, and most of them involve Nukes from Orbit by other nations.Note that discussion of whom they expected would be politics There are some, however....

I am personally aware that, in 1988, USAF had actual contingency plans in case of a hostile non-terran threat species contact. Publicly, the USAF has, since its inception, denied the existence of alien threats to the US. They've also denied the existence of crashed alien craft. And the B2, until it was spotted on news footage. And yet, just in case, they do have contingency plans for ET showing up.

USAMRIID maintains a contingency plan on an XT virus and XT bacteria... just in case. If anything, this is the most plausible XT threat not involving humans. especially considering Tardigrade survivability.

So, yes, there are plans. No, they're generally not public. Some are even hilarious. (Certain Lt.Colonels of my acquaintance should definitely have avoided drinks at lunch... they got stuuupid and showed me "Hey, can you believe what crossed my desk? You're a wargamer, you'll get a kick of of this...")

 

[maksimsmelchak]

So I was interested in whether or not Space Warfare mirrored Air, Land, or Water Warfare in Traveller.

You are essentially talking about three kinds of warfare in addition to a fourth of spacebourne warfare.

* Planetary Warfare (World):

** 1. Aerial Warfare (COACC): COACC extends into the near atmosphere so it contains a space element. There is a book called COACC.

** 2. Ground (Surface): Traveller ground combat is dominated by two elements: grav armor and battledress (power infantry armor). Other forces support these two primary arms. GURPS Ground Forces is one of the best for this study.

** 3. Maritime (Fluidic Naval): Wet navies are really out of vogue in the Traveller universe. They exist, but in an age of gravitic vehicles, the differences between ground, air, and water vehicles have been largely erased.

There are a number of sources about 4. Spacebourne combat. I think others would know that better than I would. Many of the sources disagree or conflict with each other.

As to your central question of whether Space Warfare mirrored Air, Land, or Water Warfare in Traveller. I would say not. Planetary combat would be a very different duck than interstellar (spacebourne) combat.

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.