Rethinking Dreadnought Design

[Vladika]

The setting description portrays cruisers as eggs armed with hammers and battleships as coconuts armed with hammers. The ship design and combat rules make it impossible to design coconuts.
Hans

And as long as that SAME hammer, carried by either, can crush both the eggshell and the coconut, eggshell ships will be the better bang for the buck.

I've no problem with changing the rules, to a degree. I think that's exactly what Rob is proposing and I attempted to start a few months ago.

What I do have a problem with is a setting that is in constant flux to the degree that rule changes don't matter. Whatever we do, whatever we want, Marc and those who hold licenses, will do as they please. So far the God of the Traveller Universe has been pretty erratic...

 

[Vladika]

How long did that changeover take? More than a century as the 3I has had?


Hans

No. It was based on changing battle experience.

What I wonder though, is to what degree communication lag can be a factor? In the late 19th century, through today, it has been nearly instantaneous. In the 3I it's months or years.

What if we scaled the time? It takes about 10 years to bring a new design online today (That's pretty optimistic...) And that's with telephone, telegraph, fax and email. The 3I IS still using pony express.

 

[rancke]

And as long as that SAME hammer, carried by either, can crush both the eggshell and the coconut, eggshell ships will be the better bang for the buck.

But they can't. That's the whole point of my argument. In the description of cruisers and battleships¹, it is implied that battleships due to their bulk can resist damage that cruisers can't. So the hammer in my analogy is a small handheld hammer capable of smashing eggs in one blow but not coconuts. Say a small claw hammer with a 7 ounce head. In the analogy, the hammer represents meson spinals that have a good chance of one-shotting a cruiser but a very much smaller chance of doing the same to a battleship.

¹ That would be Imperial Navy star cruisers and battleships, not 21st Century Earth sea cruisers and battleships.​

Hans

 

[Vladika]

But they can't. That's the whole point of my argument. In the description of cruisers and battleships¹, it is implied that battleships due to their bulk can resist damage that cruisers can't. So the hammer in my analogy is a small handheld hammer capable of smashing eggs in one blow but not coconuts. Say a small claw hammer with a 7 ounce head. In the analogy, the hammer represents meson spinals that have a good chance of one-shotting a cruiser but a very much smaller chance of doing the same to a battleship.

¹ That would be Imperial Navy star cruisers and battleships, not 21st Century Earth sea cruisers and battleships.​

Hans

I see your point. Simplest solution would be to totally do away with Meson weapons. No more hammer, just nails. The BB then becomes the 16d nail you are looking for. I'll agree to that "fix".

 

[Amber Chancer]

The setting description portrays cruisers as eggs armed with hammers and battleships as coconuts armed with hammers. The ship design and combat rules make it impossible to design coconuts. So the rules do not fit the setting. It's as simple as that. Either the setting or the rules has to be changed to make them fit each other. Which one you prefer to change is a matter of opinion. Since changing the rules will just result in rules that work just as well as the old ones, albeit a little differently, whereas changing the setting has all sorts of repercussions, my vote goes to changing the rules.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

I have enough experience of trying to design coherent games systems (but none of actually succeeding :file_21: ) to know that once you start tinkering at the margins, you pretty soon start introducing more and more anomalies, and the "fixes" that are needed to "correct" them increase exponentially.

Trying to "fix" rules is a mug's game, if the rules aren't actually broken.

I would therefore always rather tinker with setting statements, than rules.

And, let's face it, the setting statement is only VERY SLIGHTLY out of alignment with the rules.

It's not that you cannot have a coconut ... it's that (a) you can have all the coconuts you want at TL 13 and 14; and (b) at tech 15, your coconut is more the size of a lemon

 

[whulorigan]

I see your point. Simplest solution would be to totally do away with Meson weapons. No more hammer, just nails. The BB then becomes the 16d nail you are looking for. I'll agree to that "fix".

Or, greatly increase the size and/or power requirements and/or cost of Meson Screens.

 

[rancke]

Or, greatly increase the size and/or power requirements and/or cost of Meson Screens.

Or increase the proportional effect of meson screens as the size increases, giving bonuses to the meson defense of large ships.

(Though I still think larger ships should ALSO have modified critical hit tables).


Hans

 

[Amber Chancer]

That's the whole point of my argument. In the description of cruisers and battleships¹, it is implied that battleships due to their bulk can resist damage that cruisers can't.

And the point of our argument is that the description is clearly (a) wide of the mark, and (b) clearly written by somebody who didn't know what the effect of the rules actually was in combat situations.

Had he done so, he would not have written it, because quite plainly it is wrong.

Any hit, from a Meson factor-F or higher, which penetrates configuration and screens will almost certainly knock out the target ship, NO MATTER WHAT IT'S SIZE.

To want to change the rules in what would have to be a fairly major and fundamental way merely to turn a self-evidently untrue throwaway statement in a book produced to supplement the rules (not supplant them) seems to me to be an absolutely paradigm case of putting the cart before the horse.

 

[McPerth]

One thing not told about here is what combat system will we be using. If the same as HG2, then it's difficult to make BBs superior to CAs as when resisting meson fire, if using T5, IDK, as I have not read it.

@roboject: if your intent is to adapt HG to T5, then could you please outline how T5 starship combat Works, so that we can see how changes would affect it (e.g. secondaries are counted by batery of by total effect, etc...)

 

[Vladika]

Or, greatly increase the size and/or power requirements and/or cost of Meson Screens.

I'm not against that either. If you increase the Meson Screen power requirement you will never have a J4 Battleship. You take a lot of the bite out of Battle Riders due to a Meson Spinal being to big. Again, not a problem as you can still pack a PA "P" into 12.5kdt.

That keeps BRs in the setting as well as BBs to Hans' specs. The BRs can hurt the BBs, and even kill them if they survive long enough. The BBs will be top dog though.

 

[rancke]

And the point of our argument is that the description is clearly (a) wide of the mark, and (b) clearly written by somebody who didn't know what the effect of the rules actually was in combat situations.

Had he done so, he would not have written it, because quite plainly it is wrong.

But the point is that he didn't know and he did write it. Moreover, I see it as quite plainly right, since otherwise the Imperium wouldn't build large ships, and we have a lot of evidence that it does.

Any hit, from a Meson factor-F or higher, which penetrates configuration and screens will almost certainly knock out the target ship, NO MATTER WHAT IT'S SIZE.

We do know that already. None of us is under the misapprehension that under the HG rules size helps against high-factor meson spinals¹. And some of us think that this is quite plainly wrong. If it was right, battleships wouldn't be so large as they are.

¹ But didn't someone just recently post about size being a help under the MgT rules?​

To want to change the rules in what would have to be a fairly major and fundamental way merely to turn a self-evidently untrue throwaway statement in a book produced to supplement the rules (not supplant them) seems to me to be an absolutely paradigm case of putting the cart before the horse.

Then I suggest you don't worry about it. Even if we do come up with alternate rules and even if we do manage to persuade TPTB to adopt them, we're not going to come to your house and force you to convert to them.

Meanwhile, those of us who think it's a case of putting the horse before the cart can get on with the discussion.


Hans

 

[Vladika]

And the point of our argument is that the description is clearly (a) wide of the mark, and (b) clearly written by somebody who didn't know what the effect of the rules actually was in combat situations.

Had he done so, he would not have written it, because quite plainly it is wrong.

Any hit, from a Meson factor-F or higher, which penetrates configuration and screens will almost certainly knock out the target ship, NO MATTER WHAT IT'S SIZE.

To want to change the rules in what would have to be a fairly major and fundamental way merely to turn a self-evidently untrue throwaway statement in a book produced to supplement the rules (not supplant them) seems to me to be an absolutely paradigm case of putting the cart before the horse.

Marc, et al, wrote the book and has ignored his own work from day one. The Sup 9 ships WERE designed by HG2?:rofl: but why is the question. Did the designers ever actually read what they wrote?

Another question: If the 3I really did design the Crap it purports to fight with (Setting à la Hans) then doesn't it deserve to lose the next War to a culture that did it right?

 

[Vladika]

a case of putting the horse before the cart can get on with the discussion.

Hans

Hans, seriously, since HG2 preceded the Setting, which is the cart and which is the horse?

 

[Amber Chancer]

If you increase the Meson Screen power requirement you will never have a J4 Battleship. You take a lot of the bite out of Battle Riders due to a Meson Spinal being to big. Again, not a problem as you can still pack a PA "P" into 12.5kdt.

That keeps BRs in the setting as well as BBs to Hans' specs. The BRs can hurt the BBs, and even kill them if they survive long enough. The BBs will be top dog though.

I disagree.

The more you increase the power requirement for the screen / reduce its potency, the more attractive the BR becomes as against the BB

 

[rancke]

Another question: If the 3I really did design the Crap purports to fight with (Setting à la Hans) then doesn't it deserve to lose the next War to a culture that did it right?

The thing is, Mike, there's a difference between designing crap and designing utter crap. If 500,000T ships done right works, it's a lot easier to believe in a 500,000T ship done wrong than if there's no way in the infinite reaches of space that anything bigger than 75,000T makes the least bit of sense.

That said, as I've already stated once, I have no objections to retconning the crap ships in FS as long as they're retconned into big tough battleships and medium vulnerable cruisers.


Hans

 

[Amber Chancer]

If 500,000T ships done right works, it's a lot easier to believe in a 500,000T ship done wrong than if there's no way in the infinite reaches of space that anything bigger than 75,000T makes the least bit of sense.

But Hans ... 500KT ships done right DO work ... at TL13 and (to a lesser extent) TL14

It's only at TL15 that you find you do better having 4 x 75LT and 200KT small change in your pocket than 1 x 500KT

And what's wrong with that?

It's called technological progress ... which is what I thought TL15 was meant to represent

 

[Vladika]

I disagree.

The more you increase the power requirement for the screen / reduce its potency, the more attractive the BR becomes as against the BB

Two separate issues here.

1) If you increase the power requirement for the screen you will never have a Jump 4 BB. (You really can't anyway if you expect Bay weapons to be carried.)

2) If, on the other hand, Meson Spinals become overly large, BRs suffer due to the need to increase size. I find them attractive, in part due to their small size.

 

[McPerth]

Or, greatly increase the size and/or power requirements and/or cost of Meson Screens.

Or allow them to also act as armor against meson fire, so making the FTS result (the main big ship killer) quite improbable while the MG are working...

 

[Amber Chancer]

Two separate issues here.

1) If you increase the power requirement for the screen you will never have a Jump 4 BB. (You really can't anyway if you expect Bay weapons to be carried.)

2) If, on the other hand, Meson Spinals become overly large, BRs suffer due to the need to increase size. I find them attractive, in part due to their small size.

I thought we were talking about the screens, not the spinals.

I agree with you about J-4 BBs ... but again, where did the idea that J-4 should be the standard for fighting ships come from? Supplement 9, I think ... and that is clearly broken.

Certainly, below TL15, you need to limit your aspirations to less than J-4 if you want an effective fighting ship (and what's wrong with that if the J-4 x-boat is supposed to represent the "pony express"? You would effect knights in armour to move a little slower ...)

I work on the basis of J-3 as the standard for T13 & 14 front line fighting ships, and J-2 for T11 and T12.

 

[McPerth]

Retreat to Tech 12, and it all changes again. Your power plant now takes 3PN% of your ship, and producing the energy required to power those spinal mounts requires just AWESOM amounts of ship. That factor K Meson gun is 8,000 tons; plus 3,000 tons of Power plant to produce its power, plus 1,000 tons of fuel, plus 80 gunners and 30 engineers occupying between them 220 tons of accommodation. That's 12,220 tons just to get the gun into action. Your ship is going to HAVE to be big.

Even your factor C meson gun is 2,000 tons, plus 1,800 tons of power plant, plus 600 tons of fuel, plus 76 tons of accommodation, total 4,476 tons.

Let's say you're going for Jump-2 and 6G. So we need 24% for jump drive plus jump fuel; 17% for M-drive; 18% for power plant to drive the M-drive + 6% for its fuel +2% for the bridge - that's 67% of your ship. Armour-12 (which you'll want on a tech-12 dreadnought) will add another 26%, taking you to 93%. So you've only got 7% to play with for the rest. That includes crew accommodation and so forth which I find normally takes about 2 - 3%. Let's say 3%. We've then only got 4% for our gun ... and we need 4,476 tons. So at Tech 12, the MINIMUM size of ship to deliver a Factor-C Meson (the smallest spinal mount at this tech level) at Jump-2, 6G Agility 6 looks like being approximately 120KT unless we are prepared to sacrifice armour protection.

And don't forget at those TLs the maximum ship size is limited by computers, so just enlarging the ship to raise the payload is not a possibility. THey need to be a compromiso among jump, armor and weaponry (screens and power included there) to fit into the same ship...