Proposed Ship mission codes

[McPerth]

multiple spinals as an option.

IMHO multiple spinals is an oximeron, as a spinal, by definition, works all along the ship's spine, and so only one (or several paralel ones, that would be in game terms a single, probably more powerful, one) are possible.

That would be, again IMHO, like a sea ship with two rams (that's how I see spinals)

Of course, that's my opinion, not holy writ, and YMMV

 

[kilemall]

Two points to the above-

When a ship is 40000 tons a 3000 ton spinal is a natural design decision.

When a ship is 400000 tons a 3000 ton spinal is more like a bay weapon, both proportionally and not really needing a spinal location for mounting. Slapping several of them on the surface would make more sense.

Putting a 100 ton meson bay on a 1000 ton hull would logically be mounted spinally.

Second point, double barreled spinals look good and is wonderfully destructive.

 

[Spinward Flow]

double barreled spinals look good and is wonderfully destructive.

"Twin" spinals are really just a single weapon made to "look like" it's two separate weapons.
It's not like you shoot them one at a time for a 2x ROF against multiple targets.
Game mechanically speaking (at the "chuck dice" level of things) it's really just a single weapon system that engages a single target ... it just uses twin emitters in order to do so rather than a single emitter.

Kind of like how 2x turrets in a single battery can engage only 1 target at a time, even though there are 2 turrets in that battery.
Same notional idea.

 

[Condottiere]

1. I'd say it's recoil, but the real reason is game balance.

2. At the moment, minimum tonnage is two hundred percent of the spinal mount.

3. However, you could maximize it to ten percent of total tonnage, and you can add more spinal mounts, as long as the tonnage devoted is ten percent per.

4. That resolves the issue why the Tigress has only one sixty kilotonne spinal mount.

 

[kilemall]

"Twin" spinals are really just a single weapon made to "look like" it's two separate weapons.
It's not like you shoot them one at a time for a 2x ROF against multiple targets.
Game mechanically speaking (at the "chuck dice" level of things) it's really just a single weapon system that engages a single target ... it just uses twin emitters in order to do so rather than a single emitter.

Kind of like how 2x turrets in a single battery can engage only 1 target at a time, even though there are 2 turrets in that battery.
Same notional idea.

Visualize how you like. I’m visualizing a multiple shot weapon that can be aimed and fired in sequence at any combination of targets, cause pitch yaw and roll (unless the ship is at maximum accel/no agility).

 

[kilemall]

1. I'd say it's recoil, but the real reason is game balance.

2. At the moment, minimum tonnage is two hundred percent of the spinal mount.

3. However, you could maximize it to ten percent of total tonnage, and you can add more spinal mounts, as long as the tonnage devoted is ten percent per.

4. That resolves the issue why the Tigress has only one sixty kilotonne spinal mount.

Game balance is a legit reason, then you need to be looking at the whole game or weapon system if you don’t like the overpower of the alpha one.

I’m working with my fave, the LBB5 one. I’ve perused most of the others so I know they have different paradigms some of which could have the parameters you lay out. I haven’t really pursued them as they seem to be solutions in search of a problem or painfully inelegant.

I have no objection to a Really Big Scary proportionate spinal, as long as it’s proportionately powerful. My conception is tied to the LBB5 limits.

Course that gets you into the all eggs in one basket problem, when maybe 6 100000 ton ships would serve better, being able to take damage separately, deliver as much damage collectively and split up into smaller groupings for more flexibility.

 

[robject]

"Twin" spinals are really just a single weapon made to "look like" it's two separate weapons.

Agreed. There's always a tradeoff.

And, not sure how you'd cram that into the USP. Perhaps you need a Spine Configuration field.

D - Dual Barrel Configuration

Whatever the benefit of a dual barrel, then each barrel is smaller and therefore less effective than one gigantic barrel. Right?

That seems like a decent design choice to have available -- if there are benefits. 2x ROF. Accuracy. Whatever.

J - Janus Configuration

I heard about a "Janus" mount, which holds two smaller spines end-to-end, so you get a front and rear firing solution with the punch of a spinal gun. Again, smaller guns.

H - Hedgehog Configuration

Similarly a kind of "hedgehog" setup where a ship bristles with spines for any-direction fire. Not sure of the use case of a clutch of tiny spines instead of one big mamma jamma spine. Point defense? Against what??

F - Fanout Configuration might be a related configuration, which simply expands your cone of fire maybe.

---

But all those samples dilute the effectiveness of the spines in exchange for firing arc or accuracy or power or something else.

 

[robject]

I’m working with my fave, the LBB5 one. I’ve perused most of the others so I know they have different paradigms some of which could have the parameters you lay out. I haven’t really pursued them as they seem to be solutions in search of a problem or painfully inelegant.

I have no objection to a Really Big Scary proportionate spinal, as long as it’s proportionately powerful. My conception is tied to the LBB5 limits.

Course that gets you into the all eggs in one basket problem, when maybe 6 100000 ton ships would serve better, being able to take damage separately, deliver as much damage collectively and split up into smaller groupings for more flexibility.

Probably the situation is fluid, changing as TL changes. And as the TL difference between opponents changes.

MegaTraveller extended LBB5's spines organically... thoughts about them?

 

[McPerth]

Putting a 100 ton meson bay on a 1000 ton hull would logically be mounted spinally.

Not so sure about that...

One article about PAWs in JTAS (sorry, I cannot look for the exact reference right now) said that while a spinal accelerates the particles (mesons or not) along its length, the smaller weapons were tor type accelerators. This explained why a PA (or MG) bay was usually knocked on a single hit, while a Spinal was reduced by each hit (it didn't explain why the last bay/turret was treated as spinal, though )

 

[Condottiere]

As I recall spinal mounts ala Fire Fusion Steel, the spinal mounts had certain dimensions, and most starwarships had to be built around them.

 

[mike wightman]

In FF&S you could have as many 'spinal' mounts as you could fit in your design, parallel mounts is the term used. The same source gives us the Janus mount which as two spinals one firing fore and the other aft, although there is nothing stopping you from having parallel Janus configurations as well.

You could indeed have a hedgehog with 'spinals' pointing in lots of different directions.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Visualize how you like. I’m visualizing a multiple shot weapon that can be aimed and fired in sequence at any combination of targets, cause pitch yaw and roll (unless the ship is at maximum accel/no agility).

Multiple rotating barrels to avoid overheating.

Haha meson spinal goes BRRRT.

 

[kilemall]

Multiple rotating barrels to avoid overheating.

Haha meson spinal goes BRRRT.

Not what I meant but amusing.

 

[kilemall]

Probably the situation is fluid, changing as TL changes. And as the TL difference between opponents changes.

MegaTraveller extended LBB5's spines organically... thoughts about them?

Never read up on that one. If it’s 10x the size/power input for 10x the damage or possibly scaling advantage, I’m good with it.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Not what I meant but amusing.

It was indeed meant in jest.

 

[kilemall]

Agreed. There's always a tradeoff.

And, not sure how you'd cram that into the USP. Perhaps you need a Spine Configuration field.

D - Dual Barrel Configuration

Whatever the benefit of a dual barrel, then each barrel is smaller and therefore less effective than one gigantic barrel. Right?

That seems like a decent design choice to have available -- if there are benefits. 2x ROF. Accuracy. Whatever.

J - Janus Configuration

I heard about a "Janus" mount, which holds two smaller spines end-to-end, so you get a front and rear firing solution with the punch of a spinal gun. Again, smaller guns.

H - Hedgehog Configuration

Similarly a kind of "hedgehog" setup where a ship bristles with spines for any-direction fire. Not sure of the use case of a clutch of tiny spines instead of one big mamma jamma spine. Point defense? Against what??

F - Fanout Configuration might be a related configuration, which simply expands your cone of fire maybe.

---

But all those samples dilute the effectiveness of the spines in exchange for firing arc or accuracy or power or something else.

Arc of fire should not matter unless the ship is at accel without agility or equivalent to spin around and fire. Then it should be a big deal.

Multiple spines give you multiple shots against multiple targets rather then utterly destroying one target and being overwhelmed by numbers. Or firing multiple times at one target to be sure.

Also, losing one spine doesn’t reduce you to just firing secondary bay weapons.

The hedgehog style to me has to do with giving the option of maximum arc under max accel by allowing the whole spine to lift up from the surface hull. Think like a fire truck ladder with the spine being the ladder. Trade off is some extra cost/tons for the mounting and greater vulnerability for being on the surface and especially in the extended firing position.

Now how all this plays out in what are optimal design/operation decisions depends greatly on the combination of hit probability, damage potential/average, what options there are to protect/mitigate against super weapons, and if there is a functional difference between a 6000-ton spinal and a 60000-ton one.

 

[kilemall]

Not so sure about that...

One article about PAWs in JTAS (sorry, I cannot look for the exact reference right now) said that while a spinal accelerates the particles (mesons or not) along its length, the smaller weapons were tor type accelerators. This explained why a PA (or MG) bay was usually knocked on a single hit, while a Spinal was reduced by each hit (it didn't explain why the last bay/turret was treated as spinal, though )

So why can’t the big spinal weapon be a tor too? Should be less efficient but trade off for getting that arc advantage, especially if one is not enamored of the hedgehog spinal concept.

Conversely, shouldn’t a 100-ton weapon be more effective if built as a spinal?

 

[aramis]

500 troops is enough for a Battalion.

I agree.
That's enough organic ground support to knock over most non-industrial (Population: 6-) worlds, even before factoring in the tech level differential (TL=15 vs TL=14-). When you get to "bows and arrows against the lightning" levels of tech differential, it gets even more lopsided in favor of the Tigress battalion. And then there's the ortillery factor of a Meson-T being used against ground targets while fighters provide interface superiority as previously mentioned and things can get REALLY UNFAIR™ in an absolute hurry.

Policing rates are typically 1‰ to 7‰. (yes, per mille, ie, 1-7 per 1000.) In the US, the typical rates are 1‰-2‰ for local police, 1‰-2‰ for the sheriff's department, and 0.5‰ to 1.5‰ for state police, 0.1‰ FBI, 0.02‰ USSS, 0.005 DEA, 0.05‰ DIA... and several other feds, basically hitting about 0.3‰... so 2.0‰ to 5.9% (since DEA and several others are localized oddly). This is solely for illustrative purpose; many European nations run slightly under 1‰ but also have Interpol and auxiliary &/or military forces to bring it up to 1.5‰ or even 2‰ in crisis situations. Most nations with under 1‰ also qualify as "lawless" or "thoroughly corrupt" to western eyes. Monaco's 515 officers hit a whopping 13‰ of it's 39k population... but given 15K tourists per year, and an assumption of 3 days each, that's 1300 persons more on a daily basis, and tourists probably should count double...

Occupation rates run 5‰(=0.5%) to 5%, historically, after the initial battles... with some outliers at up to 15%.
500 troops are sufficient for 10,000 extremely hostile to 100,000 basically cooperative occupied peoples. And could wartime garrison 100k to 500k friendlies as the police force. If there's an extremely motivated "5th column" resistance, maybe as few as 3000 people kept in check by the 500 men.
Of course, if the local police are militarized, they can basically be counted as negating an equal number of incoming occupiers... If merely paramilitary, 1/4 to 3/4 of them per

So 500 men in a transport are probably not a good size for most invasions over pop rating 4... but they are enough to beachhead a city of thousands, which is often more important than the world as a whole.

 

[aramis]

If you're applying Napoleonic rating system, it's more likely:

First - dreadnoughts

Second - battleships

Note that historically, Dreadnought is a subtype of battleship; HMS Dreadnought herself was the first of the newer, larger "Post-Dreadnought Battleshiips" - specifically, it was a distinction between legacy 1880's BBs and 1900's BBs. The post WW II BBs were a larger thing still.

DN should probably NOT be a distinction in Traveller, given it's very time limited historical use.

 

[aramis]

"Twin" spinals are really just a single weapon made to "look like" it's two separate weapons.
It's not like you shoot them one at a time for a 2x ROF against multiple targets.
Game mechanically speaking (at the "chuck dice" level of things) it's really just a single weapon system that engages a single target ... it just uses twin emitters in order to do so rather than a single emitter.

Actually, given the actual fire times, one could probably use them to hit different targets in the same target hex without big issues, and all the spinals are functionally magnetic &/or gravitic accelerators, so they could quite easily have a degree or two of independent aim given terminal deflection yokes.
Even if both fire at the same target, armor should apply separately to each, a significant difference from a single beam.
Further still, damage taking - the amount needed to take our a single large spinal should be less than two spinals half the tonnage each...