SDB, FFW, & HG

[mike wightman]

Note, if you rebuild the Monitor in S9 you can get an AF20, spinal meson N, agility 6, meson screen 9 rock

Transportable by the Imperium's 1 million ton Tender

Refueling could be tricky though

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Hal:

<snip>


Create a 1,000 dton SDB, a 2,000 dton SDB, on up until you find the FIRST SDB that can have a chance (any chance) of inflicting a kill against a Plankwell class Dreadnaught.

One of the little projects I'm working on is my own revised Design Sequence for HG2, so I'm a little down and out on working up ships in the canon system right at the moment.

Originally posted by Hal:
See what size the SDB has to be in order to handle an Atlantic class Cruiser.

Well, N and T Spinal Mounts start appearing at the 30 kdTon to 50 kdTon range of Battle Rider, depending on what sort of design trade off's you'd like to make.

I have a design for a heavy 50 kdTon battlerider which has a Type T Spinal Mount, and might have had very heavy armor if it hadn't included a non-standard ship's component. I've allowed ship's IMTU to buy "Hardening", a variant of Armor that weighs and costs twices as much as Armor of that same Tech Level, and provides +DMs on the Interior Explosions Table, effectively acting like Armor but vs. Meson hits. It's quite surviveable in Meson fleet combat. I think it had 7 points of Armor and 8 points of Hardening. (MTU's Hardening represents armored deckplates and bulkheads, additional damage control systems, etc.)

I didn't actually roll the results, but with 8 points of Armor vs. Meson Hits, my Battle Rider would likely post-toasty the Plankwell.

In the canon ruleset? I have no idea. I think my battle rider would have had 23 points of Armor (Yes, I know, that's too high for the rules, which is one reason I invented Hardening), if it had no non-canon "Hardening" . . . oh, nevermind, I'll go find the design . . .

Well, it was written in 1983-4 or so . . . it seems to have been from my early period of ship design, before I figured out that each bay weapon installed takes up 10 turret slots (effectively), so it's a wee bit overweaponed, but it's not like I wouldn't have just increased Armor and Hardening even higher. Or maybe carried some Heavy Fighters for sweep patrols in a no-Hardening Available situation, but it's Armor in that case would have been 15.

In the case of two canon vessels facing off with Armor 15 and Type T, well, the 50 kdTon vessel is a smaller size code, and that hurts, big time. The Plankwell would stand up longer due to its larger size code. The ideal battle rider would be 300 kdTons, so that the Plankwell would score no automatic extra damage rolls or automatic crits. And it's not as if the Mora's of the OTU couldn't afford them (and I mean lots of them.

---------------EDIT!!!
Whoops! I meant, the spinal mount wouldn't score extra automatic criticals. Extra damage rolls are based only the WF, not the Size Code of the Target.

Originally posted by Hal:
Lets presume for the sake of argument (and I am pulling numbers out of thin air here!) that each 10 SDB factors has a 16% chance of killing a Plankwell. Does the T meson gun have a 16% chance of killing a Plankwell outright? By inference, it gets one Automatic critical hit. That one crit hit has a 1 in 36 chance of "ship vaporized" result. It has a 4 in 36 chance of a powerplant kill. It has a 3 in 36 chance of a crew kill (so to speak) - neccessitating a breakoff of hostilities. If passengers carried on a ship also count in the crew damage, then this would create results that are consistent with FFW where the loss of a single defense factor will also kill 1 battalioin's worth of troops being carried by that squadron (in fact, it is worse, because if your single squadron has a Defense factor of 6, and the SDB inflicts only 1, the squadron must lose not 1 Defense factor, but THREE - as there are no counters to represent a single Defensive factor loss.

In any event - the only reason why an SDB with a T type Spinal mount gets one automatic critical hit against a Plankwell is because the spinal size is one larger than the Plankwell ship size. If the SDB carried a single type S spinal mount? It would roll against the damage table with a plus modifier added due to armor. A Plankwell Dreadnaught has an armor level of 10. This takes the crit hit or the internal hit or Radiation hit if we're talking about particle accellerators (and a shot at a crit hit) out of reach. Meson guns are the exception to the rule of adding armor to the roll on the damage chart. On the other hand

the plankwell has a level 9 Meson Screen. In order to penetrate with a meson shot against the Plankwell with a type S spinal is if you roll a 5+ after rolling to secure a hit (admittedly easy against a Plankwell dreadnaught).

The Bare minimum spinal mount that can possibly hit a Plankwell ship and get a mission kill of sorts is a Class C Meson Gun. The to hit roll is a base 5 or more to hit. Because the hull size is S, the C class Meson gun will gain a +2 bonus to hit. This is a roll to hit of a 3 or more now. Now, in order to get past the level 9 Meson Screen on the plankwell - you need to roll a 12 on 2d6. This is only a 1 in 36 chance probability. Lets say you got lucky, and managed to hit the plankwell despite its screen. In order to secure a mission kill, here are the rolls required:

2 -> 2 (results in ship vaporized)
2 -> 9 (results in powerplant disabled)
2 -> 10 (results in crew-1, no more offensive action

3 - results in crew-1 (and possibly BE kill)
5 - same as 3
7 - same as 3

So what are the cumulative odds of either a Kill or Mission Kill? I'm getting a roughly 1% to 2% chance from those figures above.

Well, HG2's odds are a bit screwy, and certainly weren't meant to be subject to this kind of analysis. I think you need a more robust combat system to lock onto that integrates with CT . . . hmmm, I'm discouraged by what I've read about Power Projection: Fleet (et al), so I'm not sure what to recommend.

Oh! I know. I'm sure you wouldn't mind designing a major robust CT-integrated starship combat system, would you, Hal?

 

[Hal]

Depends on how you define "Robust"

There are some who do not like the GURPS combat system where a single missle can - with enough delta-V, snap the spine of smaller ships and take a major pockmark out of a larger ship...

 

[Hemdian]

Here's a thought:

The 5FW-BG lists local defensive troops as a number that represents "battalion strength equivalents". But these troops are not necessarily organised as N battalions ... they could be divisions and corps and brigades, or even legions and cohorts (depending on local tradition).

Similarly, each world has an SDB number. But SDBs must vary in firepower according to their size. So maybe (within the context of the boardgame) the number present is not the actual number of SDBs but some more abstract score. Thus each point of "SDB" score could represent a monitor, or a squadron of conventional SDBs, or a planetary defense battery, or some other non-jump capable asset. In fact, implicit in the rules is that the "SDB" score is a measure of local defensive firepower against invading fleets.

Not sure if that gets us anywhere, so I'm off to bed.

Regards PLST

 

[RainOfSteel]

A note on self-enlightenment:

I've noted in numerous places over the last few days that SDBs are widely regarded as all non-jump capable military vessels, and that Battle Riders are considered large SDBs that are carried only by tenders (see below) and that Monitors are large SDBs that aren't carried by tenders.

I always knew that Battle Riders were carried by tenders, however I'd always assumed it was possible to build them and not give them tenders . . . I assumed people kept on calling them Battle Riders (primarily because it was, well, kinda cool sounding ). I don't know why the Monitor at the back on Supplement 9 never clicked in . . . I never really liked the planetoid design much (just a personal preference).

In any event, my "terminology nit" above was incorrect. My apologies.

 

[Hemdian]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
I always knew that Battle Riders were carried by tenders, however I'd always assumed it was possible to build them and not give them tenders . . . I assumed people kept on calling them Battle Riders (primarily because it was, well, kinda cool sounding ).

IMTU there are differences between Battle Riders and Monitors:

In CT a Battle Tender was a kind of scaffolding like thing holding a cluster of Riders. But then in MT the description of J-Drive changed and the concept of hull grids was introduced. That's why the Battle Tender in FSotSI (not the best supplement I admit) encloses its Riders. I use MT but like the CT look. Then, one day, I happened across a web site that broke the J-Drive down into components and I realised I could have the core components in the Tender but have hull grid on the Riders. On the downside I've since lost the address of that page, on the upside I printed it off at the time, on the downside (again) that printout is in storage where I don't have ready access to it.

So, IMTU Battle Riders have J-Drive hull grids but Monitors do not. When you want to transport a Monitor to another system (like the Empress Troyhune) you need to rig up a temporary grid net around it.

Regards PLST

 

[Hal]

Oddly enough Hemdian, I was musing on that very topic on my way home from Work Tuesday Morning. If the only difference between a class A starport and a Class B starport is the fact that one can build jump ships while the other can only build boats - then for all intents and purposes, worlds with Class B ports can only build "SDB" type ships. But with the introduction of the Jump Grid - this means that hulls must have the grid built if they are expected to be able to be battle riders. Otherwise? When the Jumpship Battle carrier goes into Jump, it can't take the battle riders along with it unless they too are jump capable. But if they have the grid built into their hull - doesn't that make them HALF Jump capable? In other words, could a battle rider actually be built at a class B starport?
Personally, I go with the idea that the Jump field is generated by the ship rather than by the jump grid. The reason for this is because Misjumps do not ever come into play based on the level of damage a ship has suffered. If 50% of its surface area has been damaged in some way - does it mean that 50% of the ship is destroyed when it goes into jump (the 50% with the damaged jump grid)?

This is all of course IMTU

 

[Hemdian]

Originally posted by Hal:
Personally, I go with the idea that the Jump field is generated by the ship rather than by the jump grid. The reason for this is because Misjumps do not ever come into play based on the level of damage a ship has suffered. If 50% of its surface area has been damaged in some way - does it mean that 50% of the ship is destroyed when it goes into jump (the 50% with the damaged jump grid)?

Actually, that rings a bell: I'm sure I've read somewhere something to the effect of a penalty on the misjump roll per 10% hull damage. It might have been in the Starship Operators Manual, or it could have been in a Digest Magazine Q&A article ...

Stuff ... storage ... no access ...

Regards PLST

 

[Hemdian]

Originally posted by Hal:
If the only difference between a class A starport and a Class B starport is the fact that one can build jump ships while the other can only build boats - then for all intents and purposes, worlds with Class B ports can only build "SDB" type ships.

This is one of those areas of Traveller that breaks down under close examination. Having worked in RL for GM Spare Parts Organisation(Europe) for 3 years (a decade ago) I know that components are rarely fabricated at the assembly plant. So in Traveller if class B starports have ship assembly plants there's no reason I can see why certain components (like the jump drive) can't be fabricated elsewhere and shipped in. In other words if you can construct non-jump boats you can construct jump ships.

Unless ...
... hulls are fabricated in the system they are to be used in assemblies in,
... some aspect of the jump drive is included in the hull,
... and that aspect of a jump drive can only be assembled at a class A starport.

Then having jump grids embedded in hulls would go some way to explain the difference in ship building capability between class A and class B starports!

Regards PLST

 

[Hal]

I know - I once asked that if a Ship breaks down, and is towed to a class B starport - and someone ships in an entire jump drive in the hold of a larger freighter - why can't the smaller ship be repaired at a class B ship yard. If it can be repaired at a class B shipyard - then why can't they MAKE the buggers

 

[RainOfSteel]

I never did like that jump grid theory, but that's just me. The inchorence of handwavium explanations between editions sets my teeth on edge some of the time.

 

[BetterThanLife]

THere are several reasons that a Class B Starport canproduce boats but not ships.

I agree that the hull having something to do with Jump drive is a bit farfetched. I have always thought more along the lines of Star Trek Warp ehgines, (There is a bubble created around the ship.) Or David Webber's Impeller Drive/Warshawski Sails. Parts of the drive are exposed to space but they generate a field to propell the ship. If it were the actual hull then the stresses on the hull itself would be astronomical and any battle damage would likely cause a misjump.

Likely reasons that a Class B starport can't produce jump capable ships.

1. They choose for one reason or another not to.
2. They don't have the natural resources available locally to produce some of the parts. (No Lanthium for example.)
3. The Union workers refuse to fabrivate those parts because it would hurt their Union Brothers at the nearby Class A Starport.
4. They haven't figured out how to manufacture Jump Drives yet. (Just because a world has a particular tech level doens't mean that they have everything in that tech level.)

Just a few observations.

 

[far-trader]

and possibly (if I may jump in, ooh, bad pun, me sorry, tired does that to me)...

5. They are not licensed by the Imperium to produce Jump drives in whole or in part, or install or repair the same in any ship. Doing so without the proper sancition could be seen as an act of sedition, or war, and would be dealt with swiftly. Remember the Imperium rules interstellar space (which I take to mean outside the 100d), it can only do this if it controls the means to travel there, basically Jump drives. Of course this reason is probably not valid outside the Imperium.

 

[Hal]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
I never did like that jump grid theory, but that's just me. The inchorence of handwavium explanations between editions sets my teeth on edge some of the time.

Same here for me. As it is? I'm trying to reconcile the jump duration issue. Marc Miller states CLEARLY in a relatively recent JTAS article on jump space mechanics, that the margin for astrogation error is roughly 3,000 kilometers per parsec travelled. The problem is - that with planets in motion, a miss by as little as 2 hours will cause a person to miss the intended PLANET by more than the 3,000 kilometers per parsec if you intended to show up at approximately the right location...

 

[Hal]

Hi Dan,
Your reason #5 might be closer to the truth when you get right down to it. As has been noted elsewhere - parts can be shipped in. If the assembly process is a function of having parts - all an A-Class starport means is that they have access to the parts.

You know what is a shame? I've noted the Trade classifications discussion elsewhere at COTI. They discuss how the trade classifications really aren't all that "logical" in retrospect (considering that the die rolls are pure random!!!).

But what if instead of a random trade classification as such, the Traveller rules had stated "ok, when rolling for a world's resources - roll against the chart itself, and that in turn determines its resources". Now we'd have explanations as to why those marginally inhabitable worlds were populated. We'd know precisely which worlds had what resorces and go from there. Imagine a world that was low tech, but exported raw Lanthium for the nearest A starport to process and turn into the material required for the jump drives? Imagine that the ONLY difference between a A class starport and a B class starport is simply a function of whether or not the world processes Lanthium into Jump Drives?
Thus, only A class star ports can manufacture the drives - not because of the hull grid, but because the infrastructure of building jump drives exists on the planet itself.
Why is this important? Because you can't exactly ship the jump drive of a 30,000 dton ship in the hold of a 1,000 dton or even 10,000 dton freighter. If you could however ship the engine - how do you get it past the smallish cargo bay doors

Tonight you guys have given me some major inspiration for which I'd like to thank you.

1) the only difference between an A class and B class starport (IMTU) is that the A class starport has facilities for building jump drives. If the jump drives can be shipped - then the world with a B class starport (which can repair jump drives if you ship the replacement parts in) can certainly install them as well. Technicians at a class B starport who install the drives are more prone to make mistakes installing drives unless they're old hands and this occurs often enough for them that they can do so easily.

Secondly? The Astrogation mystery we've been saddled with due to the +/- 10% rule of jump space. I got hit with an idea just as I was typing this in - which I will discuss elsewhere in another thread

 

[Hemdian]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
1. They choose for one reason or another not to.

While I can see this in individual cases, there are a lot of class B starports out there.

2. They don't have the natural resources available locally to produce some of the parts. (No Lanthium for example.)

I think its already been widely established that raw material (like lanthium) is shipped between systems.

3. The Union workers refuse to fabrivate those parts because it would hurt their Union Brothers at the nearby Class A Starport.

Many worlds would not have a legal concept of workers unions, or even workers' rights. You could use this in a few examples but not many.

4. They haven't figured out how to manufacture Jump Drives yet. (Just because a world has a particular tech level doens't mean that they have everything in that tech level.)

Now we get to the difference between tech level and scientific knowledge level. For neutral worlds along way from a major empire and with little interstellar traffic this may be true. But every non-interdicted system within the Imperium will have access to technical knowledge and specifications. (Without Imperium-wide standardisation of parts ships wouldn't be able to travel very far from their homeworlds.) In other words, for non-interdicted Imperial worlds TL represents local production ability.

So, within the Imperium we have a few explanations for exceptional cases but still no common reason.

Regards PLST

 

[Hemdian]

Originally posted by Hal:
you can't exactly ship the jump drive of a 30,000 dton ship in the hold of a 1,000 dton or even 10,000 dton freighter.

Maybe so. But what about smaller ships? Consider the following:

You have a rich world with starport class A (lets call it "Alpha"), and a nearby poor world with starport class B (lets call it "Beta"). A company on Alpha wins a contract to produce 5000 Suleiman class Scout/Couriers for the IISS. It might make business sense to have an assembly plant on Beta (utilising the cheaper labour force there) rather than Alpha. The J-drive for a Suleiman is quite small and you could get a number in something like a Hercules class Freighter. So the J-Drives are built on Alpha and shipped to Beta.

I'm fast coming to the conclusion that it is a mistake to view the rules on TL and starport class restrictions and hard and fast laws. Maybe thay are nothing more than price and availability modifiers. (If something has to be shipped in from offworld there might not be as wide a selection and it might cost a little more, that's all.)

Regards PLST

 

[jasper]

6. The normal B class rating starports are just that ratings. Like the difference of 4 star and 5 star hotel. Some 4 could be 5s except bad rating due reviewer or missing one of x things which make it a 5.
Some b class starports maybe able to produce ships but you have to check the individuals starports Intergalactic web page to see if they do. Or they limited to x dtons due various reasons.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Hal:
Oddly enough Hemdian, I was musing on that very topic on my way home from Work Tuesday Morning. If the only difference between a class A starport and a Class B starport is the fact that one can build jump ships while the other can only build boats - then for all intents and purposes, worlds with Class B ports can only build "SDB" type ships.

Starport classes are for the benefit of civilians. What distinguishes a Class B starport from a Class A starport is not that the Class B starport cannot build starships, it is that a civilian can't get them to build him a starship.

There is a rule somewhere (IIRC it is in High Guard) that specifically states that a planetary navy can get ships from its own planet regardless of its starport type (if the TL is high enough, that is).


Hans

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Hemdian:
So in Traveller if class B starports have ship assembly plants there's no reason I can see why certain components (like the jump drive) can't be fabricated elsewhere and shipped in. In other words if you can construct non-jump boats you can construct jump ships.

Sure. But if, for some reason, it will cost you more to build a starship than it will cost the neighboring world to build the same type of starship, then you may not be able to get anyone to pay you to build one. So you won't be geared up to build starships.

A Class B rating doesn't say that the world can't build starships, it says that it doesn't build starships.


Hans