I don't. I think more like long range sub-sniping ala Hunt for Red October...
Putting Together 'Starship of the Line'
- Thread starter dccarles
- Start date
I don't. I think more like long range sub-sniping ala Hunt for Red October...
That's only because you have a horrible streak of realism running through your imagination
Only surgery could cure it...Actually I see the long range missile duels along the same lines as you, but I also think there is the possibilty of "knife range" ship to ship duels, especially deep in gravity wells / orbital areas. Those are going to look more like the Star Wars / Star Trek type battle. Those are also the battles that should / could involve fighters in a role beyond a missile interceptor screen / missile battery.
The two types of naval battle are so different, it might be easier to have different rules for them... more tactical / short time turns / close ranges for the orbital stuff and operational / longer turns / longer ranges for the distant missile / spinal mount battles. Abstarct rules are good for the long range battles, but never seem to give the right feel for the small, close range ship to ship duels. Or maybe one rules system with scalable time - turns / ranges / etc.
Last edited:
That's only because you have a horrible streak of realism running through your imagination
o:Hardly that at all... After all, IMTU, no chandelier is too high to swing from, and if you look hard enough, you'll find one near every nobleman's throne...:devil:
I just never have been able to justify the enemy being more than a tiny blob "Way off over yonder" given the speeds ships go.
My first ship-to-ship combat as a GM lasted 3 rounds:
Round 1: both out of range, detected, radioed, hostile reaction.
Round 2: Both fire on approach
Round 3: both fire on separation
Both ships were starting opposite directions on the route from Jupiter to Terra....
Some in other threads have emphasized the difficulty of matching vectors; it stands to some reason, then, that combat is voluntary or very short - unless there is a large difference in potential acceleration between two fleets and/or lots of available time.
Something I'll have to think about.
--Devin
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
The way I have always envisioned it is that there are two major kinds of battles:
Meeting engagement - One fought with nearly matching vectors so the range closes slowly (if at all) and the engagement can last a long time. Missiles (and missile magazine depth) play a major role in these engagements.
Crossing engagement - One fought with nearly reciprocal vectors so the range closes (and opens again) very quickly, and the engagement is over very fast. Beam weapons play the major role in these engagements.
The decision tree for the two sides might look like this:
Code:
1. The Intruder jumps into the system and decides to:
A. Offer a crossing engagement by heading straight for the mainworld.
B. Offer a meeting engagement by heading at an angle for the mainworld.
2. The Native then decides:
A. Accept battle
I. At the mainworld - Native has to accept whatever kind of battle the Intruder offers.
II. Away from the mainworld
a. Accept the type of battle offered by the Intruder.
b. Attempt to change the type of battle.
3. The Intruder may then decide:
A. Accept the type of battle the Native has accepted.
B. Attempt to change the type of battle offered by the Native.This is a very rough idea and needs refining, but I hope you get the basic concept.
Could you elaborate a little more on this?
Depending on vessel drive ratings, I can see missiles as being more useful in the crossing context than lasers (which you can just coast through in a cloud of sand), since missiles can pursue and overtake a retreating enemy in later rounds, whereas in the meeting context, sandcaster reloads may be as crucial to survivability as anti-missile capabilities are...
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
As I see it; in the crossing engagement the fleets continually accelerate towards each other. So each fleet gets one missile salvo at "long range" before their vectors cross since they would be closing at very high relative speeds. These missiles will have a considerable incoming vector (since the targets are closing on the missiles while the missiles are closing on them) and sand will be of little use here since the ships are accelerating (which moves them in front of their sand). As the vectors merge there will be a single-salvo bloodbath of close-range beam weapon fire. Again, sand will be of little use since the ships are accelerating heavily. Missiles might be fired as vectors cross, but the ships will present a difficult target with a high rate of angular change. Still, missiles will hit. After the vectors cross, missiles will be at a disadvantage as they will be fired from ships with a high vector =away= from the targets, and the targets will be moving away at high speed and may still be accelerating away from the missiles. In this case, sand will be useful against the missiles as the sand will fall behind the defending ships.
I suppose a fleet in a crossing engagement could accelerate hard and then coast just as the vectors cross. They'll still have a high range closing rate which will limit the time for missile salvos, and when the vectors merge it'll be difficult to keep sand between a ship and everyone who might shoot at it. Especially in a real 3-D environment. After the vectors cross missiles will still have a devil of a time chasing targets that are moving away at the sum of =both= fleets vectors, even if the fleets don't start accelerating again.
In the meeting engagement, missiles will have lots of time to intercept the target, but the targets can also make full use of their defenses (including sand, and you're right; depth of sand magazines could also be very important), especially if they coast while defending. Beam weapons will mostly be out of range, except for spinal mounts.
I imagine that for a crossing engagement to happen, one or both fleets want to get things over with quickly, either because they are more likely to win at beam range, or because they need to inflict maximum damage quickly. A crossing engagement would be the battle of choice for an attacker with sufficient strength to be sure of victory because it gives him the initiative; it should be more difficult to evade action against an attacker that starts closing in at high-G. Meeting engagements are more likely for cautious commanders, since they will probably give time to assess enemy strength before you commit to decisive action, and if both sides have committed to this type of battle it should be easier for either side to cut and run, if they want to break off.
Devin,
Now it's my term to apologize for a poorly worded post.
While my post can definitely be read that way, I did not mean to suggest that flank observers would be sending targeting corrections to firing ships; i.e. You're long, you're short, you're long, etc. The point I was trying to make was that multiple observers all sharing their "piece" of the sensor "puzzle" do and will greatly enhance the ability of all platforms to create hits.We see this process already at work in Real World navies. The USN had a shared tactical data system as early as the 1960s and it's capabilities have grown exponentially ever since. Multiple "obervers" in a variety of platforms all "pool" their view of the tactical picture. Where one might be effected by evironmental issues or another ECM/ECCM concerns, the "pooled", and therefore more effective, sensor data can be used by all.
In the 57th Century, having multiple observers at operating at many different bearings/vectors from a potential target would allow for a more accurate sensor/targeting picture. Those are the "flank" observers I'm referring to.
In my post I failed to fully differentiate between my discussion about the historical development of gunline "flank" observation techniques and the Real World current day and (presumably) Far Future practice of "multiple" observers.
As for your other assumptions, I strongly believe that analogies between historical naval combat and Traveller's ship combat can be and been drawn too far. People pick an era they like or that they believe fits Traveller well and then "milk it" to a point of absurdity. This practice does nothing but harm.
The list of knee-jerk, flawed, and unexamined analogies abounds in threads of this type. Because Traveller has sub-100dTon vessels called "fighters", people make an incorrect semantical connection and then bemoan that "fact" that "fighters" in Traveller can't destroy warships just like fighters in WW2 or currently can do. Because Traveller ship combat rules refer to the "line" and the "line of battle", people make another incorrect semantical connection and spin out Age of Sail/Trafalgar fantasies involving rigid formations and (I kid you not) the ghost of Nelson appearing on the bridge. Because Traveller ship combat refers to "armor" and "penetration", people make yet another incorrect sematical connection and assume that both terms should be used exactly as they were during the Battleship Era.
I regularly point out in these threads that the only "era" or "age" people should examine is that which is presented in the Traveller ship combat RULES and in those rules alone. Are there aspects of those rules that somewhat resemble historical practices? Certainly. However we must take great care not to extend those vague analogies to the point of absurdity or even to a point where they no longer resemble the rules.
Traveller warships DO NOT line up like Nelson's 1st Raters, armor IS NOT confined to discrete slabs and belts like Jellicoe's dreadnoughts, and fighters DO NOT behave like Spruance's Wildcats.
The analogies can only go so far. This is the 57th Century we're dealing with. Ships move very differently in a very different environment and use very different weapons.
Have fun,
Bill
captainjack
SOC-13
Agree 100%....but, I suspect that the battleline model is just helped by High Guard's explicit use of the term (in describing its very abstract system), and the boardgames (FFW DN &IMP) where the resolution involves lining up the counters and firing......
There's the other extreme, too. Star Fleet battles became increasingly warped (hah...I make funny pun) to fit the 1980's harpoon model of naval combat; neccessary, I guess as Harpoon wasn't enough of a complicated charts and tables type game...
Don't even start me about the lengths the Harrington series goes to to model age of sail ships and tactics And Why Such Effort Is Inherently Distracting and Annoying.
Garyius2003
SOC-13
Grand Admiral of the Purple Countess Keyholder Dame Honor Harrington strode from the shuttle onto her newly appointed flagship. The assembled Marines bowed and piped and did other 17th century navy things.
Her eye quickly fell on a young officer as the next victim of her passive agressive romance habit. She marked him and strode off to the bridge.
The 'all hail 1MC' clicked on all over the newly assembled fleet. "This is Harrington. We will accelerate at 1,000,056,578.58 gravaties and will arrive up grade of the enemy fleet and cross their tee.
We will then fire beam type weapons through narrow windows in our magic field armor, and launch missles from towed barges just like a WWII pre landing rocket salvo.
All enlisted will die or be badly burned. I will act sad about this and pet my cat.
I will then order our badly damaged ships to follow any retreating enemy ships until ambushed, as this will further some ill defined political goal.
My fiery style of giving orders will cause each of you to obey. Carry on."
Within 2.834 seconds 85.43% of the enlisted were sick, causing a class one over use of the shipboard fresher system!
Garyius,
Why do I get the feeling that you've come across some of Mr. Weber's dreck before? As Capote opined after reading Kerouac's On the Road; "That's not writing, that's only typing."
Sadly Weber has advanced to the King-Michener stage of authorial diarrhea. Once that disease takes hold, anything he writes, including his laundry list, will be automatically snapped up by enough gushing fan-boys and thus reach the "best sellers" list. While literary giants such as Danielle Steele, James Patterson, and Dean Koontz all dine well on the sales of thier dreck to gushing fanboys, the sci-fi and fantasy fields are expecially prone to outbreaks of authorial diarrhea.
How else can you explain Harry Turtledove?
Have fun,
Bill
Last edited:
While there are authors I'd snap up in preference to another Weber book, the sad fact is that many of them are dead (and many of them have even stopped publishing books). Weber's books are OK. Not great, but OK. A lot better than some books that have been hailed as masterpieces (Check my sig to get a hint of what I'm alluding to
).Having judged a number of Turtledove's books by their cover, I've never actually read a Turtledove book I didn't like. But I admit that I've carefully avoided his "take a bit of history and run a search-and-replace with fantasy or SF terms to make a fantasy or SF book" productions. His Lost Legion books are great. I reread them every couple of years. The prequels are not as good, but I still reread them once in a while. His Fox of the North books are good too, as is Agent of Byzantium.How else can you explain Harry Turtledove?
Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
rancke@diku.dk
------------
"Hellfire!" erupted Thomas Covenant, his raw, self-inflicted nostrils clenching in white hot, stoical anguish while his gaunt, compulsory visage knotted with fey misery. His lungs were clogged with ruin. A hot, gelid, fulvous tide of self-accusation dinned in his ear: leper outcast unclean... To release the analystic refulgence, the wild magic of the white gold ring he wore, could conceivable shatter the Arch of Time, utterly destroy the Land, and put a premature, preterite end to the plot!
Yet what other way was there? The argute notion pierced his mind like a jerid. Only thus could the unambergrised malison of Lord Foul be aneled. Only thus. Hellfire and damnation!
At that point he was struck by a swift, sapid lucubration.
--- "Play it again, Frodo" by Dave Langford
captainjack
SOC-13
A lot better than some books that have been hailed as masterpieces (Check my sig to get a hint of what I'm alluding to
------------
"Hellfire!" erupted Thomas Covenant, his raw, self-inflicted nostrils clenching in white hot, stoical anguish while his gaunt, compulsory visage knotted with fey misery. His lungs were clogged with ruin. A hot, gelid, fulvous tide of self-accusation dinned in his ear: leper outcast unclean... To release the analystic refulgence, the wild magic of the white gold ring he wore, could conceivable shatter the Arch of Time, utterly destroy the Land, and put a premature, preterite end to the plot!
Yet what other way was there? The argute notion pierced his mind like a jerid. Only thus could the unambergrised malison of Lord Foul be aneled. Only thus. Hellfire and damnation!
At that point he was struck by a swift, sapid lucubration.
--- "Play it again, Frodo" by Dave Langford
Okay, you bugger. YOU come over and clean the coffee off of my screen and keyboard.......(I'll deal with my pants...)
Plankowner
SOC-13
WOW!
And sadly, I just started the latest book by Mr. Donaldson... Things I get to look forward to.
And sadly, I just started the latest book by Mr. Donaldson... Things I get to look forward to.
(Check my sig to get a hint of what I'm alluding to
Hans,
Good Sweet Strephon!!! That nailed Donaldson's "Terminal Thesaurus Thrombosis squarely on the head.
I needed a liter of Windex to clean up the mess, but at least my sinus infection has been cured.
As for Turtledove, while his short stories and older stuff is good, stay away from his Timeline 19-- and Worldwar series as if they carried ebola. With those multi-volume piles of word processor droppings, he's gone right though "milking it" and right out the other side.
Have fun,
Bill
P.S. I'll state that How Few Remain is worth reading; it's the book that begins the Timeline 19-- series, but the following 10+ books should be avoided at all costs.
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
If you liked that, you need a copy of this:
http://www.amazon.com/He-Time-Polic...=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210682675&sr=1-7
(and while you're at it, get this too: http://www.amazon.com/Leaky-Establi...=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210682675&sr=1-8 )
http://www.amazon.com/He-Time-Polic...=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210682675&sr=1-7
(and while you're at it, get this too: http://www.amazon.com/Leaky-Establi...=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210682675&sr=1-8 )
Ah... you did notice, I hope, that the actual writer of that wonderful bit of Donaldsonesque composition was Dave Langford? He wrote some marvelous stuff for White Dwarf, including the article that was taken from.
Hans
Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
rancke@diku.dk
------------
"Look! Smoke signals! Can you read them, Chief?"
"Of course. Ah... 'Puff, puff puff, puff; puff, puff puff, puff, apostrophe puff, puff, puff puff, exclamation puff'.
"What does it mean?"
"'Help, my blanket's caught fire!'"
--- Round the Horne radio sketch
