Ship paradigm IYTU

[Ran Targas]

Originally posted by Tobias:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ran Targas:
I just think a realistic economic model would encourage small ship navies.

Not if using the basic parameters (ship prices and populations) that are given in the OTU.
The very fact that a spaceship is within the financial reach of private possession for a motley crew of PCs makes it impossible that such a ship is a "force to be reckoned with" in the TU. This is simple logic.

The reality is even a high pop world would not want to expend the funds and resources necessary to outfit their navy with all battlewagons.

Okay, there seems to be some misunderstanding here? Does anyone honestly think that to be a "big ship fan" means to postulate that small ships don't exist?
The poll question should have been:
"Do you think that ship sizes should be capped at about ~5000 dtons?"
"Yes, Book2 rules! Nothing larger than 5000 tons should roam the skies!"
"No, Book5 rules! Large ships should exist too!"

I also think the effectiveness of smaller warships is grossly underestimated by the rules. Escorts cheaply perform much needed reconnaissance as well as extending the sensor coverage well beyond the capability of the main force.

Except that in a "small ship universe", these are not "escorts", but "battleships".
And of course escorts can perform a lot of valuable functions. I doubt any "big ship proponent" will dispute that. But using Traveller's baseline technical assumptions, it is logical that larger ships are more efficient.

Regards,

Tobias

EDIT: This was already done better. </font>[/QUOTE]Give me a break from this "the rules" bit. It's a game!!! Of course the rules benefit the construction of extremely large warships, they were written that way! It doesn't mean the rules are correct or realistic! If they were, there would be a whole lot of big ship advocates who wouldn't be able to have their cake and eat it too!

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by Ran Targas:
Give me a break from this "the rules" bit. It's a game!!!

Indeed. And, you know, this is why rules are relevant.

Of course the rules benefit the construction of extremely large warships, they were written that way! It doesn't mean the rules are correct or realistic!

Of course the rules are "correct" unless they are being errata'd. And "realistic"? It is again simply logical that ships are becoming more efficient as they increase in size. I would rather like to see a rationalization of why ships should be limited in size. (And no, Christopher's old calculations don't count. If they did, you will see that even after arranging all the facts in his favor he still had to admit that gigantic warships are possible at higher TLs).

Regards,

Tobias

 

[Madarin Dude]

If you look at ti logically a weapon made at TL? woudl be deadly to a big ship. My previous example of the Excocet missile if you look at ti a little closer. Needs only one plane to launch. There were 4 exocet missile systems available to Argentina during the Falkands war 3 of them found their target and one was a capital ship. I posutlate that in the far future that weapons will become even deadlier. Thus a single missile could take out a capital ship if it connects. If that can happen you don't want all your resources in locked up in soemthignthat can be taken out so easy. You need to spread them out and make yoru enemy work for their victory.

In reality the game rules make it so that it is virtually impossible for a smaller ship to even rouse anyone on a larger ship out of their sleep. But if there is similar technology you would want there to be more ships to spread out the possibility of damage. I think large ships would be reserved for trade between high pop worlds that have safe trade routes.

 

[Golan2072]

Small ships, but mostly due to MTU's issues (a young, low-tech universe, rather the old and ultratech OTU, very few Starport-A's around, let alone ones with the "high-tech" TL12); there are a few 6,000+ dton ships around, but they are a new phenomenon allowed by the developing productive capabilities. Eventually, if MTU will survive a few more centuries without a war of total annihilation, it will theoretically reach the OTU ship sizes. But for now the 12,000 dton Reagan-class Carriers on construction by the Solar Triumvirate are DAMN BIG. And there is only one of them complete - the TNV (Triumvirate Naval Vessel) Reagan, with the second one, TNV Thatcher, about to be completed in mid-2401. Ofcourse, the Matriarchate (who hate the Triumvirate with a passion) are going to do something about that - the effect of the TNV Thatcher blowing up during its chirstening (sp?) ceremony on Triumvirate morale would be very good for the Matriarchate's cause.

And I like fighters being an issue. Blame that on my Babylon 5 "sci-fi upbringing".

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by Madarin Dude:
If you look at ti logically a weapon made at TL? woudl be deadly to a big ship. My previous example of the Excocet missile if you look at ti a little closer.

As I said before:
Only because naval architects have decided that armor is not needed since, you know, everybody's gonna use nukes anyway in a future conflict. It's the equivalent of a TU where everybody decided to ditch armor because it doesn't help against meson guns anyway.
An Exocet would have no chance to destroy or even seriously damage a WW2 battleship.

In reality the game rules make it so that it is virtually impossible for a smaller ship to even rouse anyone on a larger ship out of their sleep.

That is the exact reality for a modern-day SSM fired against a WW2-era armored capital ship. An Exocet hitting an Iowa-class BB would have about the same effect as a shotgun against a tank.
Now some of the large hypersonic missiles fielded by the Russians may be different stories, but
a) even these wouldn't penetrate the armored citadel of a BB (with their current conventional warheads) and
b) they require quite a large launch platform themselves, if said platform is to incorporate any measure of survivability.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[mike wightman]

I agree with Tobias that the High Guard 2 ship design rules and combat system have to be seen as an accurate model for the warships and battles of the Third Imperium during the golden age.

That doesn't mean there aren't flaws in them that the designers didn't expect.

Later combat resolution systems, Brilliant Lances and Battle Rider, produce very different results to High Guard combat.

 

[robject]

I love the Small Ship Universe, aka the misnomered Proto-Traveller -- a better name would be Proto-Imperial Traveller (PIT), perhaps?

For the Imperium, I'd say it's harder to fight the current of the Big Ship paradigm.

Plus, big honking battle-riders are cool.

And yet, I think a million tons is about high enough. By the time I'm thinking about dreadnoughts, I'm losing my grasp of relative scales. That means I'm working on the threshold.

But then, there's some implied massiveness (volumeness?) in orbital starports. Because Traveller never gave us a design system for starports, we never thought of them as ships, but it seems like they're more like ships than not.

 

[parmasson]

From the discussion here big ships make good threats and are needed for trade.
I have not seen any comment on PCs in command of those 10,000 dton+ ships.
Should you allow that to happen?

I say, perhaps. That means that the PCs now deal with “epic level” campaigns. Either they are pirate lords or nobles in real positions of responsibility. It seems they would be come more like long term wargames. What could threaten a 100,000 ton Imperial cruisers, two 100,000 Zhodani cruisers.

 

[Jame]

I kinda look at it like this: fighters could threaten ships up to 400 tons, which could threaten ships up to 1500 tons, which could in turn threaten ships up to 3,000 tons, which could in turn threaten ships up to 6000 tons, and so forth. So it's kinda like a sliding scale of damage, where you can go by increments,

I still prefer HG, because it allows for the use of low-tech high-displacement vessels.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Jame:
I still prefer HG, because it allows for the use of low-tech high-displacement vessels.

I fix this while maintaining a small-ship universe by using HG drive TLs and computer size limits with my (modified and expanded) LBB2.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

"I have not seen any comment on PCs in command of those 10,000 dton+ ships.
Should you allow that to happen?"

In command, maybe, maybe not. Having military characters serving aboard one can be good. Enterprise and Galactica are big ships.

 

[Ran Targas]

^ I just don't think the rules everyone are so fond of truly reflect the arms race that fielding monster warships would fuel. Someone, somewhere would eventually develop a dreadnaught buster capable of being mounted on an escort sized vessel.

Historical precedence is the advent of aerial and submarine weapons and the eventual disappearance of the battleship. Battleships kept getting larger and larger until new technologies turned them into nothing more than big targets.

You can draw your allegories from the age of sail if you like, but WWII seems plenty reasonable as a template.

P.S. I like small ships!!!

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by Ran Targas:
Historical precedence is the advent of aerial and submarine weapons and the eventual disappearance of the battleship. Battleships kept getting larger and larger until new technologies turned them into nothing more than big targets.

There's no air in space. There's no water in space. 'Nuff said about this analogy.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[Ran Targas]

Originally posted by Tobias:
There's no air in space. There's no water in space. 'Nuff said about this analogy.

Just one more downfall of the American educational system, I guess!

Aircraft and submarines reflect new technologies and tactics utilized to significantly (and cheaply) reduce the effectiveness of old tech armored warships.

You could just as easily use the analogy of tanks versus helicopters and shoulder launched missiles. Ooops, I forgot, there's no dirt and trees in space either, right?

The concept of an "arms race" is entirely foreign in the Traveller rules! Every militarily applied technology would have its counter. In the case of some real world military systems, they were obsolete before the paint was dry on the proto-type.

And this isn't a recent phenomenon, it was happening in the beloved age of sail too, so holding to that analogy doesn't refute my point.

All in all, I tend to agree with Jame. There comes a point where a 100kdT ship designed to defend itself against all comers will lose to a 100kdT designed to just kill 100kdT ships. Sort of like tank killers versus tanks. Sacrifice to much space to be flexible and you will lose out to a platform dedicated to the sole task of killing you.

If I had my druthers, Trav warships would be modelled similar to those in Homeworld and Homeworld II. 'Nuff said.

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by Ran Targas:
Aircraft and submarines reflect new technologies and tactics utilized to significantly (and cheaply) reduce the effectiveness of old tech armored warships.

Aircraft and submarines are effective because they operate in a different medium. Many people draw the false analogies "Space Battleship = Ship, Space Fighter = Aircraft". The correct analogy would be "Space Fighter = reaaaally small boat".

You could just as easily use the analogy of tanks versus helicopters and shoulder launched missiles. Ooops, I forgot, there's no dirt and trees in space either, right?

No, why? It's the same thing. All spaceships operate in the same medium. There is no "air/ground" division.

The concept of an "arms race" is entirely foreign in the Traveller rules! Every militarily applied technology would have its counter.

No, not at all. An arms race can and often does work on the simple "bigger, better, stronger" principle.
In the late 19th century, practically every ship was already obsolete at launch - not because someone had researched some groundbreaking technology which could kill very large ships with very small ships, but because someone had already planned a bigger, better-armed, thicker-armored ship.

And this isn't a recent phenomenon, it was happening in the beloved age of sail too, so holding to that analogy doesn't refute my point.

All the progression between the first use of the battleline and the dawning age of steam, screws and armor basically proceeded along the "bigger, better, stronger" lines. Name one fundamentally new technology during the age of sail that shifted the balance. There ain't any. The technological progression that did exist never revolutionized the basic power structure.
Yes, groundbreaking new principles are occasionally introduced. But this marks - in Traveller terms - a major TL break.

If I had my druthers, Trav warships would be modelled similar to those in Homeworld and Homeworld II.

They would use aerodynamic movement in space, make loud sounds while firing their weapons at ranges of less than a 100 meters, and could be produced in ~5 minutes?

Regards,

Tobias

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
"I have not seen any comment on PCs in command of those 10,000 dton+ ships.
Should you allow that to happen?"

In command, maybe, maybe not. Having military characters serving aboard one can be good. Enterprise and Galactica are big ships.

Why not in command?
IMHO the PCs as the command crew (CO, XO and other principal officers) of a large ship could work quite well. And IMHO it don't matter much if its 5000 or 50,000 tons either.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[veltyen]

It sometimes works.

For an Epic feel I had a set of players in a 20,000 dTon (about 250 crew) Battleship doing empire shattering things. The players controlled sections (bridge crew, gunnery, marines, medical and so on). They baulked when given the heroic option of sacraficing the ship for the greater good though, so it turned out somewhat less operatic then what I was aiming for.

It takes a bit of work to have a armed starship that size that isn't under naval (Imperial or system) control. A couple of nobles and high rank retirees (almost a stereotypical traveller group) smooth things over to some extent.

 

[Rossoneill]

Ct with High Guard,Mt,Tne,Mark Millers Traveller,T20 and many supplements and support books for each version shows very clearly that The 3I uses Big ships and lots of them .
And a fair amount of Fighters too .
So to me the constant big ship, small ship battle was won years ago.
Since for over 1 thousand years the 3I has used Big Ships in Battle Fleets as stated in book after book ,that anything else is just personal preferrence .
So Officially its a Big Ship Traveller Universe .
But its your perogative to make it a small ship universe if you want .
I like big ships personally but i played Ct for 10 years or so with only 3I Super Dreadnaught's above 5KT ,most battle ships 4.5 KT's
and very few of them ,Most 3I Battle units in that campaign were 2 to 4 KT's .

 

[Ran Targas]

Originally posted by Tobias:
[QB] </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ran Targas:
Aircraft and submarines reflect new technologies and tactics utilized to significantly (and cheaply) reduce the effectiveness of old tech armored warships.

Aircraft and submarines are effective because they operate in a different medium. Many people draw the false analogies "Space Battleship = Ship, Space Fighter = Aircraft". The correct analogy would be "Space Fighter = reaaaally small boat".</font>[/QUOTE]No! They were effective because they 1) utilized greater mobility/stealth to reduce reaction time and increase hit probability, 2) employed weapons that bypassed the battleship's primary defenses, and 3) exploited the relative inability of the battleship's primary batteries to engage them.

All these could be reflected in Traveller without upsetting the balance of power tremendously.

Originally posted by Tobias:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ran Targas:
You could just as easily use the analogy of tanks versus helicopters and shoulder launched missiles. Ooops, I forgot, there's no dirt and trees in space either, right?

No, why? It's the same thing. All spaceships operate in the same medium. There is no "air/ground" division.</font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, it is the same as above; the helicopter gun ship and anti-tank infantry unit use their mobility and superior weapons range to engage their target on their own terms, not the tank's.

Originally posted by Tobias:
All the progression between the first use of the battleline and the dawning age of steam, screws and armor basically proceeded along the "bigger, better, stronger" lines. Name one fundamentally new technology during the age of sail that shifted the balance. There ain't any. The technological progression that did exist never revolutionized the basic power structure.
Yes, groundbreaking new principles are occasionally introduced. But this marks - in Traveller terms - a major TL break.

Hmmmm, that's a good one. Does the age of sail include all the way back to the battle of Salamis? Why not? If so, how about Greek fire? the advent of cannon? the metalurgical advances that allowed larger cannon and lighter weight cannon? explosive ordnance? gunpowder mixtures that gave greater range? rifled, breech loading guns? And what about steam? Made armored hulls possible in the first place.

My point about Trav tech is that there are defense systems that make big ships unrealistically invincible without the obvious counters that would have been developed.

Originally posted by Tobias:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ran Targas:
If I had my druthers, Trav warships would be modelled similar to those in Homeworld and Homeworld II.

They would use aerodynamic movement in space, make loud sounds while firing their weapons at ranges of less than a 100 meters, and could be produced in ~5 minutes?

</font>[/QUOTE]Wow, I didn't know you were such a jerk! I guess you don't see the irony in criticizing the imaginary environment and gameplay of Homeworld while at the same time extolling the equally imaginary universe of Traveller. Get a grip!

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by Ran Targas:
No! They were effective because they 1) utilized greater mobility/stealth to reduce reaction time and increase hit probability, 2) employed weapons that bypassed the battleship's primary defenses, and 3) exploited the relative inability of the battleship's primary batteries to engage them.

... all of which was only possible because they moved in a different medium.
If aircraft and underwater weapons never existed, battleships would *never* have been supplanted by anything.

Does the age of sail include all the way back to the battle of Salamis?

No.

Why not?

Because the "Age of Sail" generally implies that the warships were primarily propelled by, you know, sails.
Seriously, though. The "Age of Sail" is a given historical period, ranging roughly from 1580 to 1850.
Advances in warship design were definitely there during this time. A minor recon ship (= a sloop of war) from the 1840s would have smashed any major fleet unit from the 1590s. But the advances were all gradual, non revolutionary.

My point about Trav tech is that there are defense systems that make big ships unrealistically invincible without the obvious counters that would have been developed.

Sometimes there are no obvious counters. But in Traveller there actually is one, namely the meson gun. However, this requires a large platform as well.
This is not even entirely unsimilar to real-world development. You may see aircraft as "small ship" equivalent, but they aren't. They are weapons which are deployed from ships which are by necessity even more gigantic than the battleships they supplanted.

I guess you don't see the irony in criticizing the imaginary environment and gameplay of Homeworld while at the same time extolling the equally imaginary universe of Traveller.

Jesus Christ, that was a joke, man! Seen this fellow before:

? Sorry if it came across differently.
And to an extent it was due to my great disappointment with Homeworld, which I recently purchased. I had actually hoped to see something like "Harpoon in Space", but it was more like "Starcraft in 3D". Somewhat of a letdown, even though it only cost me a few bucks.

Regards,

Tobias