Rethinking Dreadnought Design

[savage]

And this is the problem. 700kdt are ridicules as BBs. Supertankers? Sure. BBs? No.

Under HG2 you need 711kdt to build a "Battle Cruiser" with MS T, J4, A6, Fac 9 Screens and then you only manage Armor 11 not 14 or 15.

For armor above 11 you must sacrifice Fac 9 missile bays for Fac 7 turrets. Fact of life. Fac 7 missiles are relatively useless. So why build the monstrosity if you can build in a Spinal Meson in a smaller hull? BBs are not based on tonnage, but rather weapon.

Just like Earth today BBs have no real place; it's a cruiser universe.

HG2 came about before the 3I setting. DGW never built an efficient capital ship conforming to their own published rules. No rule set to date has ever reconciled this.

The very idea of a Fleet composed of J4 capable ships (not riders and tenders) simply fails. BB Fleets can not exceed J3.

If we keep the setting (though why since none of the publishers do) we must need a new, workable, rule set. If we keep the rules so we all design accordingly the setting doesn't matter.

I like HG2 for it's simplicity. I agree with Hans that a stable, consistent, universe is desirable. Fix HG2 and keep it simple.

IMHO all other versions of Traveller after CT have over complicated things. There have been great ideas that could have augmented CT, not replaced it.

The wheel has been reinvented so many times it isn't round anymore.

Vladika. You just proved my point. Without tweaking (home rules) larger ships are not effective. I tweaked...

 

[robject]

I like HG2 for it's simplicity. I agree with Hans that a stable, consistent, universe is desirable. Fix HG2 and keep it simple.

HG2's design rules are relatively straightforward. It's also the de facto standard. That's the place to work from. And as you suggest, there's room for improvement. Using HG is a fundamental decision.

And any meaningful design system requires tradeoffs. That's the essence of design for gaming. These tradeoffs are fundamental decisions. High Guard's tradeoffs include jump range, speed, agility, computer model, defense versus offense, and the nature of those defenses and offenses. All of us have learned lessons from all of these.

There is an upper limit to starship design -- after a certain point, it no longer works like a ship, but more like an installation. That's a fundamental decision. In High Guard, that ceiling is 1 million tons, which might not be useful for ships of the line, but is useful for tankers and tenders.

Why can't the design rules conform to the setting details?

That's how I tend to think.

 

[rancke]

HG2's design rules are relatively straightforward. It's also the de facto standard. That's the place to work from. And as you suggest, there's room for improvement. Something based on HG is a fundamental decision.

Changing the Third Imperium setting to match HG-ish ship design rules is an option too. Just keep in mind that the Imperial Navy described in RbS is barely adequate to account for the canonical military budgets for Imperial worlds (which is already implausibly low for an interstellar state surrounded by hostile and unfriendly interstellar states). If you retcon Imperial battleships from averaging 300,000T to averaging 60,000T, you're going to have to increase the number of battleships by a factor four or five.

Personally I think it would be less disruptive to amend the rules to give big ships defensive advantages. I mean, it's not like the HG2 combat rules are particularily realistic, is it?


Hans

 

[robject]

Changing the Third Imperium setting to match HG-ish ship design rules is an option too.

[...]

Personally I think it would be less disruptive to amend the rules to give big ships defensive advantages. I mean, it's not like the HG2 combat rules are particularily realistic, is it?

Hans, I think you bring up good ideas, and those are two of them.

I see elements of the latter in HG2, in that spines only get so big -- with a big enough ship, after one installs the biggest possible spine, then one maxes out armor and secondaries, etc. And if Traveller assumes a 'naval' model of space warfare, then the ship of the line might be well defended indeed.

 

[McPerth]

As this thread is not in a specific rules section, I keep advising to give a try to MgT HG rules. Personally, I have not yet (and no sure I'll have the opportunity soon), but my impression is that it ammends some of HG flaws:

1. Seccondaries are treated as volleys, not as individual batteries
2. Same as 1 for fighters, giving them some use even in large ship's battles
3. Ships are destroyed (or damaged beyond repair) instead of just crippled and being there for the victor to take them to repair facilities, so keeping with cannon large naval losses (yes, once again I take this issue to bear :devil
4. Larger ships, having more hull and superstructure hits, are more resistent to damage, so there's a reason to build them
5. Spinals keep being the main weapons, and there is variety on them (as in CT:HG) wihtout so many tables, just 5 kinds of them modified by TL
6. TL affectss all ship design facets (armor capacity, hull/superstructure hits, improving existent weapons, etc...)

That does not mean it has no flaws (e.g. all hits can sustain the same crew hits, it allows overarmored fighters,...), but my impression (I repeat, not having tested it) is that is the version I know that can better represent the setting.

 

[mike wightman]

What I would do with HG3.

Limit pp size to 6 - scrap EPs - effective manoeuvre rating replaces agility.

Have separate lines on the USP for spine, bay and turrets.

Remove the +6 DM for bay weapons on the damage tables.

Ships with a +1 size mod to be hit require 2 hits to damage major systems, ships with a+2 size mod require 3 hits.

Fuel tanks shattered goes back to the critical hit table where it belongs.

The combat system picks up a less abstract manoeuvre system based on range bands.

Escorts may use their batteries for defending the targeted ship - in my house rules the capital ship and its escorts are presented as the target.

Maneuver rating can be spent to change range, flanking manoeuvre, or as a defensive DM.

 

[Vladika]

What I would do with HG3.

Limit pp size to 6 - scrap EPs - effective manoeuvre rating replaces agility.

Hmmm I see possibilities here but see bays below...

Have separate lines on the USP for spine, bay and turrets.

Yes

Remove the +6 DM for bay weapons on the damage tables.

Missiles are going to devastate a ship, armor isn't going to be very effective. I'd say keep it as is for missiles. If you do kill EPs any bay weapon becomes a serious issue to armor.

Ships with a +1 size mod to be hit require 2 hits to damage major systems, ships with a+2 size mod require 3 hits.

Could work. More bookkeeping though. [Ship Cards and checkoff boxes?]

Fuel tanks shattered goes back to the critical hit table where it belongs.

Even then... [Allow each target 100kdt to require yet another hit, but reduce fuel accordingly? 500kdt ship loses 20% per FS hit?]

The combat system picks up a less abstract manoeuvre system based on range bands.

Much needed!

Escorts may use their batteries for defending the targeted ship - in my house rules the capital ship and its escorts are presented as the target.

Long overdue!

Maneuver rating can be spent to change range, flanking manoeuvre, or as a defensive DM.

Advantage to the Fleet with higher mobility; sounds good. Are you saying for example Flt 1=M6 & Flt 2=M4... Flt 1 uses 3 points to close (or open) range & Flt 2 use the same to keep range as is. Flt 1 now has a defense DM of 3 while Flt 2 has only 1 remaining?

 

[mike wightman]

Missiles are going to devastate a ship, armor isn't going to be very effective. I'd say keep it as is for missiles. If you do kill EPs any bay weapon becomes a serious issue to armour.

I want to make missiles bit more of a threat. I want fighter wings dedicated to the antimissile role, I want escorts to be anti-missile escorts - oh and I want missiles with a magazine so limited shots or an all out alpha strike (HG1 rule returns =))

Could work. More bookkeeping though. [Ship Cards and checkoff boxes?]

A bit more bookkeeping but all you need do is use / X and then - for three hit capacity.

Even then... [Allow each target 100kdt to require yet another hit, but reduce fuel accordingly? 500kdt ship loses 20% per FS hit?]

large ships are going to need 3 fuel tank shattered results - see above. 20% fuel per lower result is reasonable.

Advantage to the Fleet with higher mobility; sounds good. Are you saying for example Flt 1=M6 & Flt 2=M4... Flt 1 uses 3 points to close (or open) range & Flt 2 use the same to keep range as is. Flt 1 now has a defense DM of 3 while Flt 2 has only 1 remaining?

Yup, I would also give the winner of initiative a bonus of 1 but only for manoeuvre rather than defensive allocation.

 

[robject]

...my impression is that [MgT] amends some of HG flaws [and has its own limitations, like all systems]:

1. Seccondaries are treated as volleys, not as individual batteries
2. Same as 1 for fighters, giving them some use even in large ship's battles
3. Ships are destroyed (or damaged beyond repair) instead of just crippled and being there for the victor to take them to repair facilities, so keeping with cannon large naval losses (yes, once again I take this issue to bear :devil
4. Larger ships, having more hull and superstructure hits, are more resistent to damage, so there's a reason to build them
5. Spinals keep being the main weapons, and there is variety on them (as in CT:HG) wihtout so many tables, just 5 kinds of them modified by TL
6. TL affectss all ship design facets (armor capacity, hull/superstructure hits, improving existent weapons, etc...)

* Limit pp size to 6 - scrap EPs - effective manoeuvre rating replaces agility.
* Have separate lines on the USP for spine, bay and turrets.
* Remove the +6 DM for bay weapons on the damage tables.
* Ships with a +1 size mod to be hit require 2 hits to damage major systems, ships with a+2 size mod require 3 hits.
* Fuel tanks shattered goes back to the critical hit table where it belongs.
* The combat system picks up a less abstract manoeuvre system based on range bands.
* Escorts may use their batteries for defending the targeted ship - in my house rules the capital ship and its escorts are presented as the target.

Maneuver rating can be spent to change range, flanking manoeuvre, or as a defensive DM.

@McPerth: Some of those look great to me.
@Mike: Ditto.

My non-destructive edit of HG would have:

N0. An alternate process list for payload-first design.
N1. Macro-scale batteries, sold as units.
N2. Defenses improve survivability, so capital ships can take considerably more punishment and degrade considerably slower than riders and cruisers. I think this means strong, layered defenses.
N3. Allow specific ships to screen specific other ships.
N4. Adopting the spines from MegaTraveller's Referee's Manual.
N5. Sand uses the defensive mechanics used by globes, screens, dampers.
N6. Perhaps making bay weapons less powerful.


My more radical edit of HG would have:

R0. Payload-first design primary; Hull-first design secondary but present.
R1. Mass fire evolves and replaces the concept of batteries.
R2. Allow power plants up to rating 9.
R3. Scrapping EPs for all but drives and spine.
R4. 'Manoeuvre' rating equals movement + agility.
R5. Defenses per point N2 above.
R6. Screening ships per point N3 above.
R7. Extracting the nascent rules for spine-building from HG and replacing it with SpineMaker.
R8. Stage effects. (TL affects ship design facets...)
R9. A range band-based movement system, or a hexmat movement system.

 

[Vladika]

With the proposed Power Plant rule (6-9 max) Riders will get even smaller. (currently they run 15-19% for PP and doubled for fuel.)

I would certainly propose that Computers require no Power Plant EPs. On a 10kdt ship you often need an extra percentage point of PP for nothing more than 12 EPs for a computer. The tonnage goes way up as ships get bigger.

Another issue is Meson screens; they are power hungry.

How about PP6 generally (per Mike W), +1 for Spinal Weapons (At least) and +2 for Meson screens (currently 1.8% at TL15) This fits nicely with Rob's maximum and makes me happy in keeping up with the most power hungry systems.

Meson Bays, and to a degree Particle Bays are another whole :CoW: if there are many of them.

 

[aramis]

With the proposed Power Plant rule (6-9 max) Riders will get even smaller. (currently they run 15-19% for PP and doubled for fuel.)

The dropping of EP entirely has certain severely unrealistic effects, most especially on fleet auxiliaries. The example I'll pull is from MGT... a 1000Td ship with a 52Td PP can mount a meson bay... but a 2000Td with the same plant cannot, even if the rest of the ship is mounting no-power-needed missiles.

Really, EP are superior to "pure rating" in MANY ways. Like allowing for ships that are underpowered (a hassle in wargaming).

 

[Condottiere]

In regard to Mongoose, in theory a factor two 40.02 ton fusion plant can power a thousand ton spinal mount, or any combination where the final hull size adds up to 2001 tons.

 

[McPerth]

Another change I'd do in CT:HG is to thread the sandcasters as a screen instead than as a point-deffense battery.

My idea for that would be to use them as if they were a screen with a power equivalent to a battery, but dividing the weapons number by hull tonnage/5000 (or 10000, or whatever you can consider adequate).

The idea is that larger ships need more sandcasters to get the same effect, but once they are there, they defend against any susceptible attack, not on a per battery basis).

Another thing to discuss is if they should affect own weaponry (as they did in LBB2) :CoW:...

 

[McPerth]

The dropping of EP entirely has certain severely unrealistic effects, most especially on fleet auxiliaries. The example I'll pull is from MGT... a 1000Td ship with a 52Td PP can mount a meson bay... but a 2000Td with the same plant cannot, even if the rest of the ship is mounting no-power-needed missiles.

This can even be explained, as the 2000 dton ship would have more systems that draw power from this same PP (life support, artifical gravity, etc...), so diminishing the power available for weaponry.

The same way, the PP that gives you a factor 4 on a 5000 dton will give you a factor 3 on a 6000 dton. As the factor also are the limit of bays per 1000 dtons, your 5000 dton ship could have 20 bays, while your 6000 dton ship could have 18, with the same PP

This does not mean I don't prefer the EP based systems, as with that system there is no distinction among bays (with RAW even missile bays are so limited), and there's no limit to energy weapons in turrets.

 

[Vladika]

Why not keep EPs, design PPs on a tonnage basis, round fractional USP factors UP to the next high number?

This allows for a more realistic energy use, avoids overly large PPs just to get a piddling few EPs more, and allows the current combat system to be used as is with PP number going down for each hit.

 

[robject]

Why not keep EPs, design PPs on a tonnage basis, round fractional USP factors UP to the next high number?

This allows for a more realistic energy use, avoids overly large PPs just to get a piddling few EPs more, and allows the current combat system to be used as is with PP number going down for each hit.

Maybe.

But: a lesson I learned, sideways, from MegaTraveller is that many ship components may have small power plants of their own, including emplacements. I know that in some ways that makes the game more difficult -- you can't count on the power plant being the single point of failure. So that might be a non-starter.

 

[mike wightman]

I quite like the idea that there is a cap of 10 on pp size.

6 for max manoeuvre and turret weapons only.

+1 to power bay weapons and screens.
+1 to +3 to power light, medium, heavy spinals.

 

[robject]

Actually I have no big problem with the current PP usage and unlimited power plant sizes. EPs are annoying, but the haven't stopped people from designing capital ships for Traveller. Two design axes (tonnage & EPs) isn't too bad.

In fact, I think that designing ships backwards simplifies things, because your Payload acts like another Drive: it has a total energy requirement, just like J and M. Except you add it to the larger of J/M, and that's your minimum plant size.


What I'm looking at is three more tables and an edit. Both tables use the same format as the SCREENS tables on page 25. The edit does, too.

One of these new tables is for so-called Point Defense and removes the need to tally up turrets and barbettes which will be dedicated to tertiary or point defense weaponry on large ships. In other words, this is a convenience rule for Big Ships.

The second table is for so-called Secondary Weaponry and removes the need to tally up large numbers of Bay weaponry on large ships. Also a convenience rule.

The third table is Stage Effects, which (gently) reduces fuel requirements as TL goes up. Stage Effects effectively do what High Guard's Power Plant table does, except for the powerplant and the jump drive. It is effective without being munchkin.

Stage  TL  Cost  Fuel
-----  --  ----  ----
Exp    -3   x10   2.0
Pro    -2    x5   1.2
Ear    -1    x2   1.1
Std    +0    x1   1.0
Imp    +1    x1   0.9
Mod    +2    /2   0.9
Adv    +3    x1   0.8
Ult    +4    x2   0.7

One edit is to put Armor into the same table format as SCREENS, too. I don't think it requires such a table, but I think armor serves nearly the same purpose as screens, so it would help to conceptually group them together visually. Also a convenience rule.




Example. I want to design the Tigress, but I don't want to drown in so much detail. So I whip out High Guard 3, which is mercifully formatted on 8.5 x 11 pages in PDF format.

I choose the "Payload First" method, and decide to use the "Fast Tables" options mentioned above.

TL15 Dreadnought.

Payload

Spine: T/Meson. 7,000 tons + 1,200 tons (1,200 EP) = 8,200 tons.
Secondaries: "Factor 29" Missiles. 12,000 tons (*)
3 wings of heavy fighters + pilots = 5,000 tons.

Total Payload: 25,200 tons.

(*) NOTE: This is definitely NOT the correct tonnage for the canonical Tigress' missile bay secondaries.


Performance

Bridge: 2%
Crew: 1%
Point Defense: Factor = Hull Tonnage Code. Includes L-F-A. 0.5%
Screens: Factor = Hull Tonnage Code. Included for TL = Dampers, Screens, Repulsors. 1.5%
Armor: Factor-15 Armor = 16% hull.
Modified Jump-4: 5% hull.
Jump fuel: 40% hull x 0.9 ("Modified" tech) = 36%.
Ultimate Maneuver-6: 17% hull.
Standard Power plant-8: 8% hull.
Power plant fuel: 8% hull.

Total Performance = 95%

Volume

Payload = 5% total volume.
Thus, volume = 25,200 / 0.05 = 504,000 tons. Hull Tonnage Code = V.


Agility still has to be calculated (but we all know what it's supposed to be).

 

[robject]

Example: Nolikian Battle Rider (attempt).

TL15

Payload

Meson Spine N. 2000 t + EP 1000 = 3,000 tons.
Missile Bays "Factor 20" (12 x Factor-9) = 600 tons.
4 Gunboats 4 x (400t + 12t grapples) = 1,648 tons.

Total Payload: 5,248 tons


Performance

Bridge: 2%
Crew: 1% (let's assume troops and low berths and pilots are included ??
Point Defense: Factor = Hull Tonnage Code. Includes L-F-A. 0.5%
Screens: "Better" Factor = Hull Tonnage Code+1. Included for TL = Dampers, Screens, Repulsors. 1.5 x 2 = 3%.
Armor: Factor-11 Armor = 12% hull.
Ultimate Maneuver-6: 17% hull.
Standard Power Plant-19: 19% hull (*)
Power plant fuel: 19% hull.

(*) This is NOT the original -- the original is Power Plant-25, which seems to take up too much space.

Total Performance = 73.5%

Volume

Payload = 26.5% total volume.
Thus, total volume = 5,248 / 0.265 = 19,804 tons. Hull Tonnage Code = L.

I still had to change the numbers to get it to work.

 

[Vladika]

Example: Nolikian Battle Rider (attempt).

TL15

Payload

Meson Spine N. 2000 t + EP 1000 = 3,000 tons.
Missile Bays "Factor 20" (12 x Factor-9) = 600 tons.
4 Gunboats 4 x (400t + 12t grapples) = 1,648 tons.

Total Payload: 5,248 tons


Performance

Bridge: 2%
Crew: 1% (let's assume troops and low berths and pilots are included ??
Point Defense: Factor = Hull Tonnage Code. Includes L-F-A. 0.5%
Screens: "Better" Factor = Hull Tonnage Code+1. Included for TL = Dampers, Screens, Repulsors. 1.5 x 2 = 3%.
Armor: Factor-11 Armor = 12% hull.
Ultimate Maneuver-6: 17% hull.
Standard Power Plant-19: 19% hull (*)
Power plant fuel: 19% hull.

(*) This is NOT the original -- the original is Power Plant-25, which seems to take up too much space.

Total Performance = 73.5%

Volume

Payload = 26.5% total volume.
Thus, total volume = 5,248 / 0.265 = 19,804 tons. Hull Tonnage Code = L.

I still had to change the numbers to get it to work.

Why the 4 Gunboats? You pay dearly for the extra tonnage to carry them by the Rider when the cost carried on the Tender is far less, as is the tonnage to carry. (I wouldn't carry them on the Tender either, but on their own Tender.)

Also, use the minimum number of ships troops/marines (Everything costs big time under Armor & Screens). For boarding actions use a Marine Troop Carrier with Small Craft to transport them from the reserve. This allows concentration when and where needed.

This is where specialty ships really save the building budget. Also a ship designed to do everything does very little with excellence.

BTW, under HG2 you can get a Meson "N" Battle Rider for 10kdt. This has Armor 14 and screens at Fac 9 and, of course, agility 6 and a Fac 9fib computer. FYI This has PP 19 and, in fairness, uses Fac 7 turret missile batteries, not Fac 9 Bays. (IMHO Missiles are better carried on Line ships while Meson Spinals are held in reserve.) [[Build a 10kdt Meson "J" Rider with Fac 9 missiles and Jump 1 rather than the "N" model]].

Assuming a BR Squadron of 6 ships, each having 4 x 400dt "gunboats" that is 24 total at 9600dt. I'd squeeze another 10kdt BR on the Tender for an over strength Squadron.

Another option is BRs at 12.5kdt with particle accelerator "P". Occasionally they prove useful.