• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Maximum Viable Battleship Size

Giving it minimal thought, battle riders makes little sense at TL10 and J-1.

Size A missile frigates looks tempting. Size A or K planetoids might work, but requires tankers to skim fuel. Fighters might work, but would suffer from auto-crits.
After minimal experimentation I can build J-1 warships at TL-10, but not more than J-1. If we want to jump longer we are back to tenders with fuel for multiple jumps.

I can build size A riders with Ag-6 and armour 10, or Ag-3 and armour 16. The planetoids are cheaper and will be hit more often, but take less damage per hit... All damage can be repaired, except fuel hits.

Battleships will be constricted to only J-1 or be severely crippled. I would not build them.
 
I am not familiar with all the different ship design systems, but I am curious about how much they vary across editions.

As noted, the combat rules of High Guard suggest 200K as a "soft" maximum size for TL15 or so.

Thinking about Traveller beyond the scope of the Third Imperium, ships qua ships don't get as big as they do in, for example, H. Beam Piper's Space Viking series, or Star Wars. Or Babylon 5, though I may be wrong there.

Space structures -- things too big to be treated as ships -- on the other hand, can be enormous, since we do have orbital starports and stations of all types, including Ringworlds and Dyson Spheres. And there are jump-capable "structures"; for example, the 50 billion-ton Loeskalth planetoid, a TL9 mobile home and base for raiding. One might be tempted to call it a ship, but it's really more like a world than anything else. For one thing, its first purpose is as a habitat. For another, attacks on such a thing are more likely to resemble planetary assaults than anything else. And that sort of distinction is convenient. (Footnote: at high enough TLs you can jump planets).



The cutoff, then, is some fuzzy line in the millions of tons. I will make bald, relatively unsubstantiated statements now:

1. The largest "ship size" in Traveller is somewhere between one and ten million tons. Alternate limits (e.g. Book 2 or Star Wars) are variant.

2. Larger structures are more correctly treated like "worlds" than ships.

There are fuzzy lines here. For example, a "crew" in the millions clearly operates more like a population on a world, while a crew in the thousands is no problem for us to understand (e.g. supercarriers). It's probably safe to say that a "crew" of 100,000 is better treated as a "population" of a "world". But what about 10,000 people? Is it a crew, or a population? So population is one important consideration, but not the only one.
 
Last edited:
Small towns.

The line seems to be between fast battleships (Bismarck onwards with two kay) and supercarriers (with five kay).

Also, carriers tend to be a tad spacier per capita than battleships.
 
The solution for fighters is a rules change - and it's a simple one.

"A flight of up to (TL+Computer) fighters can combine into a single battery."
That's not only an excellent solution, it's one of the least "intrusive" solutions too.

"hey, let's change the rules, it's not intrusive!" ....

ok, so, can we do that with meson guns ... ? three factor J's = one factor T?

why not?
 
"hey, let's change the rules, it's not intrusive!" ....
ok, so, can we do that with meson guns ... ? three factor J's = one factor T?
why not?
IYTU, Yes to both.

[Although it was a little dishonest of you to change the quote from "LEAST intrusive" to "NOT intrusive" ... I assume you were taking liberties for dramatic effect.]
 
"hey, let's change the rules, it's not intrusive!" ....

"hey, let's change the rules, it's least intrusive!" ....

hmmmm ....

seems to me that changing the rules is MOST intrusive. which, I'm sure, is not what you meant.

speaking of which ....


not imtu.

not a bad rule change really, and implementing it across the board is certainly honest (since we're talking about honesty here) and coherent and a whole lotta fun, but it leads to many other issues and subsequent equally logical and rational and coherent rule changes leading to a completely different game (if one is honest, of course) which may or may not be desired. for example, do these ganged fighters still each need a computer? or is a single centralized computer now sufficient? would the ganged fighters even need pilots? are they now flying turret riders, deployed into a "battery"? they're certainly not "fighters" anymore.

why not do this with all weapons? after all it's a good idea to put the bulky stuff behind the line where it can't be hit and put only the bare minimum weapons to the fore where their small size makes them harder to be hit. like to see a centralized meson gun battery controller, hiding behind the line of battle, deploying simple meson gun spinal riders to the fore ....

could a factor T meson strike be divided into three factor J strikes? I've thought this might be reasonable. Changes the game a lot though.
 
"hey, let's change the rules, it's not intrusive!" ....
I agree with your sentiment here - the rules are the rules, use them as written for discussions or tournaments or my TL11 25t bay electromagnetic pulse cannon will disable all your ship systems...

ok, so, can we do that with meson guns ... ? three factor J's = one factor T?

why not?
EPs.
A factor T meson requires 1200, while a J requires 900.

Now ask if you could fire a factor T meson as two bursts of factor C and I couldn't use EP as the argument against ;)
 
I agree with your sentiment here - the rules are the rules, use them as written for discussions or tournaments or my TL11 25t bay electromagnetic pulse cannon will disable all your ship systems...
Point of Inquiry: Are the High Guard Combat Mechanics more 'important' than the OTU as presented in the background literature? (If one of them has to change because of a contradiction, which represents the 'reality' of Traveller and which should change?)

... For tournament, no question, the rules are the rules. I was wondering more about
use them as written for discussions
 
"hey, let's change the rules, it's not intrusive!" ....

"hey, let's change the rules, it's least intrusive!" ....

hmmmm ....
Snippage of a whole lot of drivel.

once again, you go off like a bloody volcano by willfully misreading what is simple and unobtrusive. Do you actually know HG? It sure doesn't seem like it.

In HG 2, Batteries can be reorganized between battles. The standard arrangement isn't always what you use. It usually is the maximum factor (and thus minimum batteries), but batteries are not hardwired.

Unlike Spinal mounts. Unlike Bays.
 
the rules are the rules

well ... yeah, but in the end it's just a game. my point is that changing this little bitty rule or that incidental rule has implications for the entire rule set and thus for the entire game. a referee may believe a rule change to be of little consequence, but you can bet the players will milk it for all its worth and like pressurized acidic hydrogen ants will insidiously exploit every newly-available possibility that they can. you can change the rules all you want, just don't be surprised if it results in a game that you don't like or can't control or can't even run.
 
well ... yeah, but in the end it's just a game. my point is that changing this little bitty rule or that incidental rule has implications for the entire rule set and thus for the entire game. a referee may believe a rule change to be of little consequence, but you can bet the players will milk it for all its worth and like pressurized acidic hydrogen ants will insidiously exploit every newly-available possibility that they can. you can change the rules all you want, just don't be surprised if it results in a game that you don't like or can't control or can't even run.

In real life, few people play complex games without house rules. Often fairly stable for a given group.

Further...

The referee is responsible for maintaining the master maps and charts of the universe, and for determining the various effects of natural forces, chance, and non-player characters on the adventurers. The referee must settle disputes about the rules (and may use his own imagination while doing so, rather than strictly adhering to the letter of the rules).
(Bk 1-81, page 7)​
 
Point of Inquiry: Are the High Guard Combat Mechanics more 'important' than the OTU as presented in the background literature?
Which version of the OTU? :devil:
TNE? MT? Let's stick with golden age 1105-1112 - HG2 was designed to model fleet level combat in Traveller. The fact that GDW authors didn't understand their own rules doesn't surprise me, they didn't have 35 years of hindsight to platytest them to destruction.
(If one of them has to change because of a contradiction, which represents the 'reality' of Traveller and which should change?)
You are assuming there is one reality - there isn't.
Marc's novel and T5 have redefined the OTU.
... For tournament, no question, the rules are the rules. I was wondering more about

use them as written for discussions
By that I mean, for example, if you are discussing the effects of a meson gun then use the rules as written, not a homebrew house rule. Same for fighters, effects of bay weapons etc.
There have been house rules and variants enough to fill an encyclopaedia over the years but as flykiller has wisely noted the smallest of changes may have a large, often unexpected, effect - the law of unintended consequence :)
 
I don't recall - or can find - an official rule that says you can do this.
Number of batteries affects number of gunners, if you lower a batter factor to increase the number of batteries you don't have the gunners to man them unless you have overstaffed the gunnery department during ship design.

Using TCS you could change battery configuration during a refit.
 
I don't recall - or can find - an official rule that says you can do this.
Number of batteries affects number of gunners, if you lower a batter factor to increase the number of batteries you don't have the gunners to man them unless you have overstaffed the gunnery department during ship design.

Using TCS you could change battery configuration during a refit.
I seem to remember something like that, but TCS says "Refitting involves the complete removal of an old system and the installation of a new one; ...".

Missile turrets are not very expensive, but it seems wasteful to scrap the turrets, just to change the fire control.
 
As noted, the combat rules of High Guard suggest 200K as a "soft" maximum size for TL15 or so.
There is nothing in HG that suggests that ship of 200 kT is a good idea. Since Meson guns kills ships instantly, regardless of their size, it's a bad idea to put all your eggs in one basket with huge warships. Big ships are also easier to hit, so worse.

The 200 - 500 kT battleships comes from Fighting Ships, not noted for the brilliance of the designs.


The cutoff, then, is some fuzzy line in the millions of tons. I will make bald, relatively unsubstantiated statements now:

1. The largest "ship size" in Traveller is somewhere between one and ten million tons. Alternate limits (e.g. Book 2 or Star Wars) are variant.

2. Larger structures are more correctly treated like "worlds" than ships.
The difference between a station and a ship is how long you intend to live there. A ship can get by with small crew spaces, since you do not live there permanently. A station where families live permanently needs more space per person.

A station can be 1000 dT, a ship 1 000 000 dT, or vice versa, there is nothing in the system to suggest either way.
 
In HG 2, Batteries can be reorganized between battles.
You can? I thought that was fixed at design time.

High Guard
Traveller, Book 5
Copyright @1980
Starship Construction - Weaponry - Batteries - paragraph 3 - sentence 2 (page 29) - "Battery configurations are determined when the ship is built, not on the spur of the moment."

Do you actually know HG? It sure doesn't seem like it.
 
High Guard
Traveller, Book 5
Copyright @1980
Starship Construction - Weaponry - Batteries - paragraph 3 - sentence 2 (page 29) - "Battery configurations are determined when the ship is built, not on the spur of the moment."

That was my understanding, to fit the almighty USP.

I go wild, even allowing for PA bays AND spinals on the SAME SHIP, cause gameplay and weapon design should not be in service to damn serial numbers.
 
Back
Top