Scale, the Battle Experience and the D-limit

[Adam Dray]

At even fairly long distances, movement isn't that interesting. It's very predictable. Any massive burns to change vector are still within predictable parabolic patterns (and make it way easier for sensors to lock).

I'd remove movement as the interesting part of combat except at extremely close ranges.

Even modern sensors can pick up very small objects, very far away, as long as they're "hot." Add a couple TLs to it and who knows what sensor distance is.

 

[Mako]

I think having both the sensor detection, and then a separate sensor/weapons lock for combat makes a lot of sense.

As mentioned, detection can be at very distant ranges, but locks will be at much shorter ones, especially given the time lags.

Works for me, and adds in some new wrinkles.

I imagine sensor detections will probably be automated, much like those for fighter jets are today (most likely naval vessels, and certainly land-based defense radar nets too), making the job easier for the crews. Of course, it pays to have the latest computer and sensor tech to gain an edge over your opponents in this, and other areas.

I do get the issue of asteroids being easier to detect now, due to their predictable, and in many cases, very close flight paths, rather than space vessels at very long distances, but we're fairly low tech in the whole Traveller universe too.

I looked up some data on radar detection distances now, and it appears that some objects can be detected at 0.1 - 0.5 AU, or more in range, IIRC, for something about 1,100m wide, so detection abilities for small spacecraft should be good to about 900,000 km. now, or so, I suspect, give or take its size, the sensor(s) used, etc., etc..

 

[kilemall]

I think having both the sensor detection, and then a separate sensor/weapons lock for combat makes a lot of sense.

As mentioned, detection can be at very distant ranges, but locks will be at much shorter ones, especially given the time lags.

Works for me, and adds in some new wrinkles.

I imagine sensor detections will probably be automated, much like those for fighter jets are today (most likely naval vessels, and certainly land-based defense radar nets too), making the job easier for the crews. Of course, it pays to have the latest computer and sensor tech to gain an edge over your opponents in this, and other areas.

I do get the issue of asteroids being easier to detect now, due to their predictable, and in many cases, very close flight paths, rather than space vessels at very long distances, but we're fairly low tech in the whole Traveller universe too.

I looked up some data on radar detection distances now, and it appears that some objects can be detected at 0.1 - 0.5 AU, or more in range, IIRC, for something about 1,100m wide, so detection abilities for small spacecraft should be good to about 900,000 km. now, or so, I suspect, give or take its size, the sensor(s) used, etc., etc..

I peg target emitter detection/tracking to TL*100,000km, and passive/stealth target detection (including cold rocks) to computer model*100,000km.

Sensor state greatly modifies detection chances, then I use the CT/HG ship size modifiers for both sensor platform AND potential detection target, with an additional category for less then small craft (mostly missiles, probes and satellites, and small uncharted rocks).

So say Beowulf tries and detect Kininur- -1DM for it's small hull array and 0DM since Kininur is 1200 tons.

Without a lockon, all you get is emission state (passive or EP rating of engines/weapons plus radio/laser) and HG size class (missile, small craft, ACS 100-1000, etc.).

 

[Silverhawk]

My method is to allow detection at even the Kuiper Belt, but that information is very old. Shooting ranges. i.e. target locks, are more like up to a half light minute of distance for long range on direct fire weapons, and missile ranges are more about how far out can the missile make course corrections before all fuel is expended and it becomes a ballistic ally targeted dumb bomb. Therefore larger missiles with more than one burn tank can get course corrections further along to correct for target movement after launch, but the corrections are going to be perhaps several minutes old and at the mercy of your predict program's efficiency. (which, come to think of it, is very Honorverse, especially if you think antimissile missiles are more of the sidewinder size, and making the single stage a cruise missile, and 2 or three stage missiles ICBM sized).

Of course, if you have FTL comms/FTL sensors in your TU, then all of this is unnecessary.

Which is what the railgun thread got me thinking about. Offensive missiles are going to be something that are ICBM sized. Honorverse missile tubes are basically mass drivers to launch the 'bird' clear of the ship. I recall in one novel the size of a Honorverse RMN missile was given at 75 tons (mass) which is definitely ICBM size.

 

[Brandon C]

Which is what the railgun thread got me thinking about. Offensive missiles are going to be something that are ICBM sized.

They don't have to be. The standard Traveller missiles are probably too small for military missiles, but not for civilian models.

The 5 ton heavy missiles (torpedoes) of MgT HG are probably sufficient for military use.

 

[Condottiere]

One twelfth of fourteen cubic metres is bulky.

Torpedoes are now one third of fourteen cubic metres.

 

[infojunky]

Shortening the sensor ranges does seem like an easy fix, and perhaps has a lot of the benefits listed in this posting, but it also seems to me to be a bit short-sighted, especially for star-faring races that can use FTL travel, and/or even advanced, sub-light speeds.

Actually I didn't change the ranges at all, In open space the ranges as stated in Book 2 are in play. I just liberally applied the various modes.

The moon is about 350,000 - 400,000 kms. from the Earth, and I suspect we can/could detect spacecraft orbiting around it now, and/or back in the day, at those ranges, so 50,000 kms. for a search sensor's range, even using 1960s - 1980s tech, would probably be a bit low, in terms of actual performance.

Yes, yes, we could. But consider the size of the arrays, on average 30m+ diameter receivers, So around the moon not a problem if you have a field of said receivers plus the rest of the ground stations to figure what the received signals are seeing. Also note as that is a fixed array you need multiples to get full sky coverage.

Anyone know how far we can detect, and/or track spacecraft around Mars, and/or our other probes sent to fly by, and/or orbit other planets/moons, and asteroids currently?

Only if you are really lucky and someone is looking at it at the time.

To be honest, I am a planetary Scientist so the majority of what i know is Earth observation radars. The Astronomy Guys might have planet or orbit based instruments that can look out that far, but note that I have heard of.

Power is the real limiting factor there, consider a radar that can do an active scan of Mars would be blowing through ship's hulls at the emitter....

 

[kilemall]

At even fairly long distances, movement isn't that interesting. It's very predictable. Any massive burns to change vector are still within predictable parabolic patterns (and make it way easier for sensors to lock).

I'd remove movement as the interesting part of combat except at extremely close ranges.

Even modern sensors can pick up very small objects, very far away, as long as they're "hot." Add a couple TLs to it and who knows what sensor distance is.

Two points to make here.

I prefer the CT ranges and grand movement, and am looking to really punch up the mass impact effects as an aspect of maneuver. As such I would describe the effect of velocity and maneuver as being more operational then tactical.

So in a sense I agree and disagree re: maneuver not being like naval, aviation or armor movement, but that what level of agility you have plugged in at any given moment can change.

My scale is 100 second phases in a 1000 second turn, and energy allocation is the decision/player action subgame.

The other point regards the small objects part. The point I was making about the CT OR the MgT sensor ranges was that they were ultimately play decisions more then sim values.

So if you have decided to have an anything hot is easily detectable at range, that's something you just decide you want to have happen.

But arguably to get something like the actual game values, there is some techno-dues ex machina that is limiting IR detection.

You have to assume it's there and working, possibly define/express for flavor description or subgame if nothing, or change it to whatever feels right and live with the game changing consequences.

 

[infojunky]

Another roundabout limit besides sensor i use is relatively homogenous set of of Ships Maneuver thrust. If you look at the the thrust of the ships in Mayday you find that they are uniformly low, in the 1 to 2 g range.

So I generally have reset thrusts along the following lines.

1g - Unstreamlined slow ships
2g - Streamlined ships
3g to 4g - Military & Paramilitary Ships

The Slow versions of Smallcraft are the most common versions.

A couple of more points along this line,

While I am using The simplified Computer rules, I also use a Modified set of Agility rules In place of the Maneuver/Evade programs. Agility requires thrust, Basic Agility requires one point of thrust and give the Pilot's skill as the base Agility DM, for each additional point of thrust spent on agility a further +1 Agility DM is gained.

Inertial compensation is limited by the Tech level of the hull. Starting at 1g of compensation at TL10. Thus max thrust available while doing Damage Control is 1 + Compensation level. Also for every point of thrust over Inertial Compensation there is a -1 DM per. (Gsuits and improved acceleration couches each offset negative DMs due to thrust),(Gsuit, 1.5 times the price of the appropriate tech level VaccSuit),(Improved Acceleration Couch, +5000cr)

Note The bulk of the rules I am talking about are focused on ACS sized ships. Now if I were going to play in the High Guard scaled ships I would probably use the High Guard switch from Mayday with a quarter light second range increment instead of the 1 light second one. With the chosen Planetary system being Gas Giants.

 

[Condottiere]

Induced artificial gravity and inertial compensators should very much depend on the factor installed, which depends on the technological level of the equipment.

 

[infojunky]

Induced artificial gravity and inertial compensators should very much depend on the factor installed, which depends on the technological level of the equipment.

Yes, And?

 

[Brandon C]

Another roundabout limit besides sensor i use is relatively homogenous set of of Ships Maneuver thrust. If you look at the the thrust of the ships in Mayday you find that they are uniformly low, in the 1 to 2 g range.

I think this is a practical limitation of tabletop miniatures and suitable distance scales on an average table. I don't think more should be read into it.

 

[infojunky]

I think this is a practical limitation of tabletop miniatures and suitable distance scales on an average table. I don't think more should be read into it.

Yes there is a whole bunch of simplification for a game loaded in there, but if one starts to look at the maneuver regime one starts to see very little variation there, especially once one outside the frame of Book 2.

In my example I am giving a set of guidelines for the games i am running, not demanding any change to any design system.

Also note Maneuver limits by tech level have been part of several design systems for Traveller either explicit or not.