Looking for opinions on a point of mechanics

[AndyW]

I've resurrected an old coding project that tracks vector movement and displays it on a "sensor screen" from an active unit viewpoint. The other units are seen from its perspective, a perspective which can be shifted to the other units. I'm sticking largely to CT rules for range DM spheres and such. The display will re-scale to any size grid based upon how far apart the involved ships are, but that can get fairly large since the Cartesian data, based in kilometers, is kept in 8 byte integer variables, IOW, potentially interstellar distances.

So, the point is, I would love to hear your opinions on what range you would consider a vessel to be "out of theater", beyond sensor lock or firing solution, and/or just plain gonesville. This is for the purpose of making a ship disappear from the screen regardless of any zoom factor.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Using game rules? Or super science TLs?

 

[AndyW]

Game rules, house rules, educated opinions, guesses. How does YTU work?

 

[atpollard]

If I remember Classic Traveller correctly ... “once detected, any ship can be tracked to a maximum range of 900,000 km”.

 

[kilemall]

That's correct, CT ranges were based on whether the sensing ship was civilian or military, whether it was initial detection or tracking, and whether the target was 'doggo' or running silent (although the level of powered off was not defined).


Civilian ships detect at .5 LS or 150000 km, Military ships detect at 2 LS or 600000 km.


Once detected, all ships remain detected and are tracked to 900000 km, unless they duck behind a moon or planet to break the track.


Doggo ships are detected at 1/8 the distance, so civilian ships detect doggo at 16250 km and military at 75000 km.



Ships are undetectable except at close close range when around a planet. I would interpret that to use the doggo numbers.





Might as well throw out my numbers while we're at it. This is a system intended for enabling stealth yet surprise detections, and isn't the whole thing as it breaks down into the various wavelength LIDARs, RADARs, EMF, IR etc. Just showing the ranges.



Detection is Computer model x 100000 km. Bis is treated as .5 up, so Bis/1 is 1.5, Bis/2 is 2.5 etc.


Tracking is (base TL of ship + Computer model +/- HG size modifier tracking ship +/- HG size modifier target ship) x 100000 km.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Game rules, house rules, educated opinions, guesses. How does YTU work?

The Imperial Navy can detect all ships in a hex. As far as what's possible at the speed of light. A ship that is half a parsec away will take awhile before it's seen. But the Navy will figure out what is currently "out there" that they are looking at.

 

[flykiller]

opinions on what range you would consider a vessel to be "out of theater", beyond sensor lock or firing solution, and/or just plain gonesville.

when you decide what maximum initial detection range is, what maximum laser/pa/meson effective range is, and what maximum missile effective range is, then those will be your answers. as to what those ranges, should be, there is no obvious answer, since any given answer might be superceded by "higher technology".

as for "gone", once a target is detected there is no obvious reason why it would ever become untrackable.

 

[whartung]

when you decide what maximum initial detection range is, what maximum laser/pa/meson effective range is, and what maximum missile effective range is, then those will be your answers. as to what those ranges, should be, there is no obvious answer, since any given answer might be superceded by "higher technology".

I mean, this is what all the game rules say, right?

They just disagree perhaps on ranges and efficacy of equipment. "Yes you can detect them at XXX Kms, but have a 1//r^2 * modifier chance of keeping the lock."

As always, I defer to TNE, and Brilliant Lances simply because, despite it's flaws, it's the most thought through system we have in the Traveller Realm. It's 15 years of applied thinking about technologies, space flight, and combat.

In the end, when you think about it, the numbers don't matter, you just have to decide on them.

When your ship fires and it's 5 hexes away from the other ship, and has a 33% chance of doing damage with the Ion Cannon, and 45% chance of penetrating armor -- does the actual "range" even matter, beyond "5 hexes"? The actual size of those hexes at that point is mostly moot.

 

[kilemall]

I mean, this is what all the game rules say, right?

They just disagree perhaps on ranges and efficacy of equipment. "Yes you can detect them at XXX Kms, but have a 1//r^2 * modifier chance of keeping the lock."

As always, I defer to TNE, and Brilliant Lances simply because, despite it's flaws, it's the most thought through system we have in the Traveller Realm. It's 15 years of applied thinking about technologies, space flight, and combat.

In the end, when you think about it, the numbers don't matter, you just have to decide on them.

When your ship fires and it's 5 hexes away from the other ship, and has a 33% chance of doing damage with the Ion Cannon, and 45% chance of penetrating armor -- does the actual "range" even matter, beyond "5 hexes"? The actual size of those hexes at that point is mostly moot.

What matters is that the time/movement/weapon/economics/ship values all hang together logically and provides play/choice opportunity.


The whole 100D thing after all is about providing a battlefield that forces the potential for a fight you can't avoid if approaching/escaping a planet. No other reason to have that rule in place, yet so many essays on how that works/justifies technically.

 

[whartung]

What matters is that the time/movement/weapon/economics/ship values all hang together logically and provides play/choice opportunity.

None of the Traveller system, as far as I know, make any effort to try and balance ship efficacy (via design, weapons, performance, etc.) and economics.

There's a meta theme that using RAW, a Free Trader should be capable of being viable in that it should be able to haul cargo, pay for supplies, crew, mortgage, and depreciation, and, ideally, wring out a bit of profit for the owner.

But as far as I can tell, there's nothing to suggest that two combat ships that both cost, say, Cr100B are in any way designed to be equitable, even at tech level.

The combat systems are simulationist without regards to economics. The whole Battle Rider vs Jump Cruiser debate is as much logistics and tactical as it is about economics.

 

[mike wightman]

LBB2: DETECTION

Ordinary or commercial starships can detect other ships out to a range of about one-half light-second; about 1,500 millimeters [150,000km]. Military and scout starships have detection ranges out to two light-seconds; 6,000 mm or 6 meters [600,000km].
Ships which are maintaining complete silence cannot be detected at distances of greater than half detection range; ships in orbit around a world and also maintaining complete silence cannot be detected at distances greater than one-eighth detection range.
Planetary masses and stars will completely conceal a ship from detection.
Tracking: Once a vessel has been detected, it can be tracked by anyone up to three light-seconds (about 9,000 mm, or 9 meters) [900,000km].

Laser weapon ranges:

Range greater than 2500mm -2 [250,000km]
Range greater than 5000mm -5 [500,000km]

 

[kilemall]

None of the Traveller system, as far as I know, make any effort to try and balance ship efficacy (via design, weapons, performance, etc.) and economics.

There's a meta theme that using RAW, a Free Trader should be capable of being viable in that it should be able to haul cargo, pay for supplies, crew, mortgage, and depreciation, and, ideally, wring out a bit of profit for the owner.

But as far as I can tell, there's nothing to suggest that two combat ships that both cost, say, Cr100B are in any way designed to be equitable, even at tech level.

The combat systems are simulationist without regards to economics. The whole Battle Rider vs Jump Cruiser debate is as much logistics and tactical as it is about economics.

The last statement is IMO a reexpression of what I'm saying. Yes of course CT, HG and descendants are about those things, TCO and all to get X capability where you want it.


I wouldn't say that the design goal is or should be that MCr1008 ship should be equal, more like one sort of design is optimal at X TL and another is at Y TL for what you can get for that budget, because part of the 'storyline' of HG is that tech changes relationships between weapons, agility, armor and defenses.



Or that you might just buy a bunch of ACS ships, depending on the task at hand. Any one of the ACS ships may die horribly to the MCR 1008 ship, but they may be doing a lot of things at once that the ubership cannot stop or even reasonably find.


I would also say that even within X budget at Y TL with Z same role, ship designs might mismatch horribly even if the one superior design in that matchup is vulnerable to almost any other common design. Demolition derby/evolutionary vindication is central to any military design/buy game.


None of the above invalidates what I am saying, that you have to consider the gameplay biome when jacking with mechanics, even as relatively simple as the OP's sensor question.

 

[kilemall]

Laser weapon ranges:

This part is interesting in that without additional pluses the game is saying that lasers cease to hit at 500000 km, but with Predict/Gunnery skill etc. you can extend that range out to 900000km.

 

[mike wightman]

Yup, interesting isn't it.

Between 500,000km and 900,000km (3 light seconds) you will need hefty gunnery/predict bonuses.

If the target has a similar maneuver/evade package up and running you are unlikely to hit.

 

[whartung]

I wouldn't say that the design goal is or should be that MCr1008 ship should be equal, more like one sort of design is optimal at X TL and another is at Y TL for what you can get for that budget, because part of the 'storyline' of HG is that tech changes relationships between weapons, agility, armor and defenses.

I'm simply pointing out that combat efficacy and economic balance is not a key component of the Traveller Ship Combat Systems.

Many board games spend a lot of time to ensure that forces are "balanced", where, in the broad middle of the spectrum a "1000 pt fleet is equal to another 1000 pt fleet".

Trying to provide a balanced, tactical game play experience to the players. The game designers then tweak ship costs, component costs, and/or rules to affect design with a base goal of balance.

On the other end, you have more simulation based games like Traveller, or something like Squad Leader. They don't. They try to represent "reality" and let it go from there.

For example, SL doesn't really care about the costs et al of a Tiger tank vs a Sherman. It did have a point system of sorts, but that was for the more basic game -- at it's core the Tigers armor was the Tigers armor and it was rated vs the efficacy of a gun typically found on a Sherman tank, without regards to things like cost. It's hard to consolidate the entire design, engineering, manufacturing and logistical chain in to "75pts for a Tiger".

So, the scenario designers balance their scenarios through play and feedback, vs just raw points or something like that.

 

[kilemall]

I'm simply pointing out that combat efficacy and economic balance is not a key component of the Traveller Ship Combat Systems.

Many board games spend a lot of time to ensure that forces are "balanced", where, in the broad middle of the spectrum a "1000 pt fleet is equal to another 1000 pt fleet".

Trying to provide a balanced, tactical game play experience to the players. The game designers then tweak ship costs, component costs, and/or rules to affect design with a base goal of balance.

On the other end, you have more simulation based games like Traveller, or something like Squad Leader. They don't. They try to represent "reality" and let it go from there.

For example, SL doesn't really care about the costs et al of a Tiger tank vs a Sherman. It did have a point system of sorts, but that was for the more basic game -- at it's core the Tigers armor was the Tigers armor and it was rated vs the efficacy of a gun typically found on a Sherman tank, without regards to things like cost. It's hard to consolidate the entire design, engineering, manufacturing and logistical chain in to "75pts for a Tiger".

So, the scenario designers balance their scenarios through play and feedback, vs just raw points or something like that.

Ya I get you, in an online game I am somewhat involved in, a volunteer for the game has created a magnificently detailed point system for 'buying' WWII forces that purports to cross-index weapon capability with actual production numbers per time period.



But, he isn't cross-indexing opposition production and capability to ensure that the functional equivalent of a OOB like a wargame is geared to making a game of it, no VP type adjustment, and the capability valuation is for real world performance, not what happens or is modeled in the game. He's approaching it like a DoDhead, and is not hearing things like 'no really it's a game'.


Nontheless I would argue that most HG fleets that use common design paradigms will roughly perform on par with their budgets, it's the strange outlier stuff like the AI-genned fleets or say an all-fighter/carrier fleet that is going to perform better or worse then average, and that when you monkey with the systems you will end up with bizarre min/max scenarios and gaming the buy.

 

[AndyW]

It's one of the things that puzzled me in my coding efforts, that is the laser ranges given in the Traveller Book (aka LBB 2). In programming the range band display, it became instantly obvious that long range shots are well beyond the light second radius. It would seem to be a Herculean thing to hit a small starship sized target approaching or beyond a light second distance (-2 & -5 DM hardly seems enough). Even given Predict programs the arc-second targeting precision needed is astonishing. I have a building in my backyard that could almost house a Suleiman. Of course TL improvements could explain it away. I have a new found respect for turret machinery.

 

[whartung]

It's one of the things that puzzled me in my coding efforts, that is the laser ranges given in the Traveller Book (aka LBB 2). In programming the range band display, it became instantly obvious that long range shots are well beyond the light second radius. It would seem to be a Herculean thing to hit a small starship sized target approaching or beyond a light second distance (-2 & -5 DM hardly seems enough). Even given Predict programs the arc-second targeting precision needed is astonishing. I have a building in my backyard that could almost house a Suleiman. Of course TL improvements could explain it away. I have a new found respect for turret machinery.

Yea, the resolution of the tracking devices (turrets and sensors) has to be rather high. But it's also been surmised that laser weaponry is partly "spray and pray". It's not artillery, sending out single, high power bolts on a ballistic path. Rather, it's more like a machine gun, striving to fill a volume of space with powerful bolts of energy, with the hope of catching the target with just one.

Using your light second model, the base plan is that the turret can fill the reaction area of the ships projected course + ~2-3 secs. to account for sensor lag and laser flight.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Twenty years ago, I thought it was a cool idea to use a Phalanx CIWS to quickly assemble a wall in the sky for jets/missiles to crash into. But it looks like lasers are the way to go because of their speed of light almost.

 

[kilemall]

It's one of the things that puzzled me in my coding efforts, that is the laser ranges given in the Traveller Book (aka LBB 2). In programming the range band display, it became instantly obvious that long range shots are well beyond the light second radius. It would seem to be a Herculean thing to hit a small starship sized target approaching or beyond a light second distance (-2 & -5 DM hardly seems enough). Even given Predict programs the arc-second targeting precision needed is astonishing. I have a building in my backyard that could almost house a Suleiman. Of course TL improvements could explain it away. I have a new found respect for turret machinery.

Not really, pretty trivial actually for larger vessel targets, small craft with high-G agility can be tougher.


The bigger question is how they can convey enough energy to penetrate that distance.