Percentage-based weapons allocations

[robject]

Assumptions

ASSUME attack factors similar to High Guard battery factors, e.g. 1 through 9 typical.

ASSUME that factors are allocated by hull percentage.

ASSUME values are further modified by ship size. E.G. a Size "1" ship increases Factor 5 to Factor 6.


Questions

Question 1. What percentage numbers would work reasonably?

If I had HG2 with me I could make some predictions, but since I don't, here are some random assignments just to get the ball rolling:

Percentage hull by weapon factor
             ---- Factor -----
[B][U]Type         1  2  3  4  5  6  [/U][/B]
Beam Laser   1  3  5  7  9  11 
Missile      1  2  3  5  8  13 
Sand         1  2  3  4  5  6

Question 2. What breakdown of ship sizes best support the increase from one factor to the next? Once again, HG2 is informative, but some wild guesses are:

Code Tonnage
 0   < 1000 tons
 1   1k   - 4999t
 2   5k   - 19k
 3   20k  - 199k
 4   200k - 1.9m
 5   2m   - 19m
 6   20m  - 199m
 7   200m - 1.9b
 8   2    - 19b
 9   20b+

 

[mike wightman]

As I have posted before - every weapon system could be a %.
Point defence/turret 0-10% (or whatever range suits)
Bay/secondaries 0-60%
Spinal 0-50% with 5% , 10% or 20% increments for small medium and large.

Actual factor would be determined by a matrix for % and TL.

HG1 tried to have a logrithmatic scale for weapon factor - that is worth pursuing IMHO.

 

[McPerth]

But that would only allow for one battery per weapon class (or at least, only a few ones), taking off the main advantage of larger ships.

Even worse, it will allow smaller ships to have larger batteries. On a free trader (200 dtons), a factor 9 laser battery would now be posible (at only 34 tons loss of cargo space), while a Tigris (500000 dtons) would need 85000 dtons for the same battery, and probably they would end up equally armed.

So, I'm afraid is quite difficult for me to asume it (unless I read something wrong, of course)...

OTOH, I find it more logical for sand, treating it as if it was a screen, instead of dedicating each battery to an incoming battery, while leaving other batteries unaffected....

 

[robject]

My tables do assume a single abstract attack value for weapons by type. But they don't have to work that way of course. For greater detail, the percentages can be reduced and the result be a single battery. I'm not going in that direction, but someone else could run with it.

Even worse, it will allow smaller ships to have larger batteries. On a free trader (200 dtons), a factor 9 laser battery would now be posible (at only 34 tons loss of cargo space), while a Tigris (500000 dtons) would need 85000 dtons for the same battery, and probably they would end up equally armed.

This is where the Size Code comes into play, but you still have a point: a Beowulf probably shouldn't be able to field a Factor-9 anything (in HG parlance anyhow). Size limits attack factor.


I can get most of the way there by shifting numbers around. For example, I've limited the initial factors to 1-6. In order to get factors greater than 6, you'd have to have a bigger ship -- for example, a 20,000t ship would field a Factor-9 attack rating with the percentage required for a Factor-6 in a 200t ship. On a Tigress, it's a Factor-10.

I think the span still isn't great enough, but that's why I'm posting this.

Note then that my tables step OUT of High Guard territory: it's possible to get attack factors higher than 9 for any weapons.

 

[robject]

For my purposes, I think attack rating needs to make some assumptions in addition to tonnage.

 

[mike wightman]

But that would only allow for one battery per weapon class (or at least, only a few ones), taking off the main advantage of larger ships.

No, you allocate the % to weapon type, how you then designate batteries and factors is another detail.

Even worse, it will allow smaller ships to have larger batteries. On a free trader (200 dtons), a factor 9 laser battery would now be posible (at only 34 tons loss of cargo space), while a Tigris (500000 dtons) would need 85000 dtons for the same battery, and probably they would end up equally armed.

These ideas are for BCS construction, not ACS, details change because of the granularity of the system being modelled.

So, I'm afraid is quite difficult for me to asume it (unless I read something wrong, of course)...

Not wrong, just from the scale of the ships being modelled.

OTOH, I find it more logical for sand, treating it as if it was a screen, instead of dedicating each battery to an incoming battery, while leaving other batteries unaffected....

So why not designate point defence lasers, antismallcraft energy weapons etc in the same way?
The aim is to model BCS, and some detail may be lost in the first pass which can be added as fluff later.

 

[Carlobrand]

...ASSUME that factors are allocated by hull percentage.

ASSUME values are further modified by ship size. E.G. a Size "1" ship increases Factor 5 to Factor 6. ...

Huh?? The target size increases the factor, or the size of the ship firing them increases the factor?

What is the aim of this?

 

[McPerth]

For what I've been answered, I guess I lost something about the meaning of the whole thread. What's exactly the goal of this new way for design?

Even for battle squadrons, I guess some provision for smaller ships must be done, even if just for gunboats and fighters...

So why not designate point defence lasers, antismallcraft energy weapons etc in the same way?

Because

• sand is assumed to produce a cloud protecting the ship, not to aim for specific incoming threats as beams do.
• beam weapons can also be used offensively (at least in HG).
• beam weapòns. aiming for specific incoming threads, can be overloaded (as can an AEGIS system or point defense guns) if the incoming salvo is large enough, while sand, forming a cloud, should'nt be able to (more akin chaff).

 

[mike wightman]

Because
[*]sand is assumed to produce a cloud protecting the ship, not to aim for specific incoming threats as beams do.

This is edition specific.
In HG and MG ond sand battery is allocated to one incoming shot.

[*]beam weapons can also be used offensively (at least in HG).

On the scale of BCS a turret laser is almost useless as an offensive weapon. It has next to no chance to hit, can be stopped by sand, and a BCS can carry enough armour to push any potential damage off the chart and thus take no damage.

[*]beam weapòns. aiming for specific incoming threads, can be overloaded (as can an AEGIS system or point defense guns) if the incoming salvo is large enough, while sand, forming a cloud, should'nt be able to (more akin chaff).

And once again sansdcasters just don't work like that in most editions of Traveller.
If you want to get into the realm of a realistic space combat resolution system you need to scrap an awful lot of Traveller's assumptions and start from scratch.

 

[McPerth]

This is edition specific.
In HG and MG ond sand battery is allocated to one incoming shot.

True, it's how it worked in LBB2 and Mayday, where sand just stood there, but it's also (IMHO) more logical than allowing it to be fired against a laser you cannot detect as incoming until it hits you...

On the scale of BCS a turret laser is almost useless as an offensive weapon. It has next to no chance to hit, can be stopped by sand, and a BCS can carry enough armour to push any potential damage off the chart and thus take no damage.

In what version and agains what opponent?

In MgT:HG a laser barrage can well damage a capital ship, even better than missiles, and even in HG there are instances where they can perfectly be used offensively (e.g. by the Imperials or Darrians against the SW, due to TL advantage)

And once again sansdcasters just don't work like that in most editions of Traveller.

Neither do weapons be percentage based...

What I mean is that a cloud of sand to protect your ship could be treated as a screen, and I'd see it more logical than firing it against incoming beams you cannot detect before they hit you or firing it specifically at a missile salvo while ignoring another, while the beams must individually target each missile

If you want to get into the realm of a realistic space combat resolution system you need to scrap an awful lot of Traveller's assumptions and start from scratch.

Only into the realm of the reasonably believeable...

 

[mike wightman]

True, it's how it worked in LBB2 and Mayday, where sand just stood there, but it's also (IMHO) more logical than allowing it to be fired against a laser you cannot detect as incoming until it hits you...

The sand stays on the vector it had when you launched it, if you accelerate you may lose the sand protection which requires you to fire off another next turn etc.
CT LBB2 doesn't answer a very important question - do sand clouds stack? If a free trader fits a triple turret with sand casters and fires all three does it now enjoy a -9DM to be hit?

In what version and agains what opponent?

HG2e of course

In MgT:HG a laser barrage can well damage a capital ship, even better than missiles, and even in HG there are instances where they can perfectly be used offensively (e.g. by the Imperials or Darrians against the SW, due to TL advantage)

If you are going to quote MgT you may as well quote GT:ISW too They both use damage dice to resolve hits and thus give very different results to HG2e.
As to TL differences etc yes, they can improve your chances a bit, but with a +6 +armour factor (11 for BCS in HG2e terms) +2d6 dice roll with a result of 22 meaning no damage you have to roll a 4 or less to do any damage at all.

Neither do weapons be percentage based...

What I mean is that a cloud of sand to protect your ship could be treated as a screen, and I'd see it more logical than firing it against incoming beams you cannot detect before they hit you or firing it specifically at a missile salvo while ignoring another, while the beams must individually target each missile

I actually prefer this interpretation of sandscreens, and it is how it was done in T2300 - sadly it hasn't been included in Traveller ship combat yet

Only into the realm of the reasonably believeable...

Unfortunately reasonably believable to a lot of people these days is what they see in the cinema or on TV shows rather than an extrapolation of the real world stuff we can do now and the limitiations imposed by physics. Yes I know it is sci-fi but there has to be a plausible and consistent application of any handwavium IMHO to prevent ship combat from becoming cinematic Star Wars nonsense.

 

[McPerth]

The less said about MgT the better,

Let's not start a version war, please...

you may as well quote GT:ISW

No, I couldn't, as I have not read it

As to TL differences etc yes, they can improve your chances a bit, but with a +6 +armour factor (11 for BCS in HG2e terms) +2d6 dice roll with a result of 22 meaning no damage you have to roll a 4 or less to do any damage at all.

If you use pulse lasers with a 6-, that is more or less what nukes have against TL15 warships (but without the ammo problem)

I actually prefer this interpretation of sandscreens, and it is how it was done in T2300 - sadly it hasn't been included in Traveller ship combat yet

Glad we agree in our preferences. Maybe this way of making things might be the opportunity...

 

[mike wightman]

Let's not start a version war, please...

Wasn't trying to - it was a clumsy attempt to point out that MgT and GT:ISW are very different beasts to MG2e, despite being similar. I'll edit it.

No, I couldn't, as I have not read it

It is really god, as is the new MgT HG2e.

If you use pulse lasers with a 6-, that is more or less what nukes have against TL15 warships (but without the ammo problem)

They max out at #7 and thus suffer to hit and penetrate, and their -2 on the damage table means you need a roll of 7 or more to achieve damage. A nuke gets -6, the extra difference makes all the difference
[

Glad we agree in our preferences. Maybe this way of making things might be the opportunity...

It's up to Marc I guess - but a screen of anti-laser particles being manipulated by an electromagnetic or gravitic field is a lot easier to explain.

 

[mike wightman]

Going over this again I have a couple of questions about the assumptions that have an impact on the design decisions that would follow.

Assumptions

ASSUME attack factors similar to High Guard battery factors, e.g. 1 through 9 typical.

Is #9 the maximum factor for a TL15 capital, or is #9 maximum for the top of the line capital regardless of TL and a TL bonus/penalty is applied for ships if disparate TL?

ASSUME that factors are allocated by hull percentage.

Do you want individual weapons types or broad spinal, secondary, point defence type rating?

ASSUME values are further modified by ship size. E.G. a Size "1" ship increases Factor 5 to Factor 6.

Which goes back to the first question.
Is #9 the cap, so #6 by design and then up to +3 to the factor by hull size?

Questions

Question 1. What percentage numbers would work reasonably?

Whatever you want them to be after taking into account engine %, armour % and jump fuel %.

 

[mike wightman]

Let's assume 1-6 is the basic factor then.
Ship size:
1000t+... +1 to weapon factor
10000t... +2 to weapon factor
100000t... +3 to weapon factor

turret/point defence batteries 1% per factor - number of batteries would be by actual hull size.
A 1000t ship allocates 6% to turret weapon batteries for a single #6 battery, alternatively this can be designated as 2x #5 batteries, 3x #4 batteries etc
A 5000t ship allocates 6% to turret weapons and get s 5x #6 batteries or can have more reduced strength batteries.

Bays/secondaries could be 5% per factor

Spinals 10% per factor (assumoing the spin maker paradigm that you posted that a spine includes the power plant and crew).

Come to think of it if crew and power plant are assumed to be part of your % allocation you can have a pretty elegant design system that involves trade offs between:

controls (bridge, CIC, flag bridge, sensors etc)
engines (jump and maneuver)
jump fuel
armour
weapons
defences
carried craft
troops carried

Just making up numbers as a thought experiment.

 

[whartung]

In HG2, TL15, 10K ship, 15 armor, Agi 6, Computer 9, a factor 9 Pulse Laser has about a 90% hit rate, but only a 3% chance to actually damage the ship. A beam laser has no chance to damage the ship, nor does a regular missile. The -2 DM on the PL gives it the remote chance to actually do damage.

A factor 7 (largest factor available in a turret) nuclear missile has about a 2-2.5% chance of hitting, but a 40+% chance of damaging once it does hit (note thats combined, since a nuclear missile gets 2 rolls). That's against a factor 9 Damper. The damper does all the work. Without the damper, we're talking 90% hit chance. Without dampers, Nuclear Missiles will wreck you.

In a fleet situation, laser and sand against missiles are marginal defenses, as it seems better to focus the entire fleet on individual ships, wrecking them one by one, rather than spreading the fire out. So, the lasers and sand will take out a few missiles, but will be quickly overrun. Fine option 1 on 1, but not in a fleet.

Finally, outside of crits for size, below 9, the factor only determines the chance to hit, not the actual damage done. That is, a factor 9 has a better chance to hit than a factor 3, but if either hits, the effect will be the same.

 

[mike wightman]

How do you get a 90% chance to hit for the laser? Assuming two ships as you describe firing at each other (TL15, 10K ship, 15 armor, Agi 6, Computer 9).
Firing at the same TL and computer rating you need a 4+6 = 10 on 2d, that's about a 17% chance to hit. That's for a beam laser at #9.
A pulse laser at #7 needs an 11 to hit, which is 8%

Your hit % for the missile is way too high as well for equal TL/computer engagements - the best a turret missile (#7) can get is 9+ to hit.

Agility 6 grants a -6 defensive DM on all weapons - errata added in TCS and later printings of HG.

 

[whartung]

How do you get a 90% chance to hit for the laser?

Agility 6 grants a -6 defensive DM on all weapons - errata added in TCS and later printings of HG.

Yup, I forgot to give my model ships the Agility 6.

Observed hits is about 16.5-16.6% for the laser, which is 10+.

These are short range, so the missile is 10+ as well.

With 15 armor, turreted lasers and regular missiles are essentially ineffective. Add in a factor 9 damper, and that makes nuclear missiles essentially ineffective. None of this really applies with the < 1KdTon ships.

 

[mike wightman]

I originally played HG without the blanket agility defensive modifier - if I could I would get the powers that be to errata the errata, only have agility as a defence against spinals again.

 

[kilemall]

I have to echo some of the same questions here- what is the purpose, and additionally what are the parameters- must it approximate CT HG2/TCS, or simplified ship build/resolution, how far off the extant USP type values and ship build economics are you looking to stray, to what end, etc.