• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Small Ship fleet sizes

Just an observation, but ...

1. Colonist Adam and Colonist Eve land on the empty but habitable world NewEarth.
2. The population doubles every 20 years (in the traditional way) for 30 'generations' (about 600 years).
3. the current population is 2^30 = over 1 billion [Traveller Pop 9].

OR ...
1. Colonist Rabbit-Adam and Rabbit-Eve land on the empty but habitable world NewNewEarth and have 6 children over the 18 year period from age 18 to 36.
2. The childern follow their example and the population Triples every 18 years for 19 'generations' (about 342 years).
3. the current population is 3^19 = over 1 billion [Traveller Pop 9].

It really isn't that hard to reach Pop 9.
 
Just an observation, but ...

1. Colonist Adam and Colonist Eve land on the empty but habitable world NewEarth.
2. The population doubles every 20 years (in the traditional way) for 30 'generations' (about 600 years).
3. the current population is 2^30 = over 1 billion [Traveller Pop 9].

OR ...
1. Colonist Rabbit-Adam and Rabbit-Eve land on the empty but habitable world NewNewEarth and have 6 children over the 18 year period from age 18 to 36.
2. The childern follow their example and the population Triples every 18 years for 19 'generations' (about 342 years).
3. the current population is 3^19 = over 1 billion [Traveller Pop 9].

It really isn't that hard to reach Pop 9.

Kinda depends on how often you throw an earthquake or a meteor at them to slow them down.

Oh wait, that was a different game I'd played. :D
 
Just an observation, but ...

1. Colonist Adam and Colonist Eve land on the empty but habitable world NewEarth.
2. The population doubles every 20 years (in the traditional way) for 30 'generations' (about 600 years).
3. the current population is 2^30 = over 1 billion [Traveller Pop 9].

OR ...
1. Colonist Rabbit-Adam and Rabbit-Eve land on the empty but habitable world NewNewEarth and have 6 children over the 18 year period from age 18 to 36.
2. The childern follow their example and the population Triples every 18 years for 19 'generations' (about 342 years).
3. the current population is 3^19 = over 1 billion [Traveller Pop 9].

It really isn't that hard to reach Pop 9.

I would hope that there would be a few more colonists, as otherwise inbreeding is going to be a major problem.

I have 75, with only 25 couples, increasing to about 8 thousand or so after 200 years.
 
It really isn't that hard to reach Pop 9.

No, but it's not inevitable either. It's perfectly plausible that an ultra-tech society could reduce population growth drastically once it reached a size large enough to provide all the various facets of civilization. And then you could simply arrange the setting to be a frontier that hadn't had the time for the populations to grow to level 9.


Hans
 
It was, back then. Also rather harsh and occasionally deadly. Adventures: nasty disturbing uncomfortable things. Make you late for dinner.

Agreed. On the other hand, I want a civilized area where the population is high to be able to have a TL 12 navy and the rest of the sector where the TL is lower except for special circumstances.

I think I'm going to limit ships to 5,000t until the discovery of charged armor when the limit is off.

But yes, most of the planets will have a lower TL and population for good trade pioneering and adventuring.

And congrats on your 1k'th post!
 
Agreed. On the other hand, I want a civilized area where the population is high to be able to have a TL 12 navy and the rest of the sector where the TL is lower except for special circumstances.

I think I'm going to limit ships to 5,000t until the discovery of charged armor when the limit is off.

But yes, most of the planets will have a lower TL and population for good trade pioneering and adventuring.

And congrats on your 1k'th post!

I didn't even realize until you pointed it out. Thank you.
 
If you really want a small ship setting, reduce the military budgets of the worlds and allow the central worlds to build big ships to absorb most of those budgets, leaving only a handful of small ships to bob and stomp in the borderlands.
Hans

Saying hi pop worlds mean swarms of small ships seems to beg a number of questions to me about how space combat actually works.

The governments are likely to be concerned primarily with defending their mainworld and then with any valuable offworld real estate like gas giants or asteroid mines - not with winning fleet engagements per se.

So those military budgets might get taken up with fixed defences, like orbiting rocks bristling with guns and deep meson sites. And the same budget is paying for planetary forces.

The real question for me is why do non-hi-pop worlds exist - as they lack the economic base to pay for those defences. How do they survive in a universe where any bunch of psychopaths, sorry PCs, can be flying around in a vessel potentially carrying dozens of nuclear missiles and capable of being accelerated to near-lightspeed?!
 
Saying hi pop worlds mean swarms of small ships seems to beg a number of questions to me about how space combat actually works.

What I was saying was that high population worlds meant a hundred times more small ships that big ships if they can't build big ships.

The governments are likely to be concerned primarily with defending their mainworld and then with any valuable offworld real estate like gas giants or asteroid mines - not with winning fleet engagements per se.

Defending the homeworld will be the highest priority, of course, but if you want to have any sort of interstellar state, you have to be able to project power. That requires jump-capable ships.

So those military budgets might get taken up with fixed defences, like orbiting rocks bristling with guns and deep meson sites. And the same budget is paying for planetary forces.

Billions of people can afford BOTH lots of system defense AND lots of jump-capable warships.

The real question for me is why do non-hi-pop worlds exist - as they lack the economic base to pay for those defences. How do they survive in a universe where any bunch of psychopaths, sorry PCs, can be flying around in a vessel potentially carrying dozens of nuclear missiles and capable of being accelerated to near-lightspeed?!

Low-population worlds can't defend themselves. Medium-population worlds, especially pop level 7-8, are perfectly capable of funding system defenses that can turn shipfuls of psychopaths into vapor.


Hans
 
The real question for me is why do non-hi-pop worlds exist - as they lack the economic base to pay for those defences. How do they survive in a universe where any bunch of psychopaths, sorry PCs, can be flying around in a vessel potentially carrying dozens of nuclear missiles and capable of being accelerated to near-lightspeed?!

How long do you think the Imperium is going to let a bunch of PCs, using nuclear weapons with gay abandon, to survive?

I also understand that the Traveller Universe has some fairly weird physics, but do understand the energy cost in accelerating anything to near-lightspeed?

I would agree with the PCs being psychopaths for the most part as correct. Against that, such players will not be around for any length of time in a game I am running, nor will they ever play again.
 
I also understand that the Traveller Universe has some fairly weird physics, but do understand the energy cost in accelerating anything to near-lightspeed?

It's a sensitive issue. If you go strictly by the rules for maneuver drives, there's no upper limit on acceleration, which makes near-C missiles very easy (if expensive). OTOH, OTU history shows a complete lack of near-C missiles (though kinetic kill missiles with lesser impacts are mentioned). Some of us argues that this implies some sort of limitation to the maneuver drive that rules out near-C missiles, because if they were possible, they would have been used.


Hans
 
What I was saying was that high population worlds meant a hundred times more small ships that big ships if they can't build big ships. ...

It doesn't have to. There is the potential for political considerations when you're talking about taxing billions of people to send forces far from home to defend a sparsely settled frontier. There's also a cost-benefit analysis involved: they don't tend to send massive forces to defend real estate of minor value. Until WW-II, major force engagements tended to occur near heavily populated regions and at certain vital choke points and key bases, while engagements elsewhere were single-ship or small flotillas tasked with a specific objective.

You can invoke that if you want to set limits on the number of ships. Small ships, even in large numbers, aren't really optimized to confront the scale of planetary forces that a large world can field in its own defense; even a few hundred million people can field a whole lotta missiles. That and political considerations can be used as an excuse to bias a fleet toward the lower-cost strategy of smaller numbers of mobile forces optimized for skirmishing and trade interdiction as a means of pressuring concessions from the enemy rather than for costly and bloody Normandy-scale assaults.
 
It doesn't have to.

Everything else being equal, it does. If the only thing different between one universe and another is the maximum size of ships, the same political considerations that produced a military budget capable of support one 500,000T dreadnaught will produce a military budget capable of supporting 100 5000T dreadnaughts.


Hans
 
Everything else being equal...

Your're right in your assesments. So, if you want to run a small ship universe, you must choose among making things different, or having lots more of ships.

After all, the RPG needs not to change too much. If things are different, ship's density will be kept more or less equal. If there are more ships, the chance to encounter a patrol will raise proportionally, but, unless making something illegal, this will not truly affect the players. In fact, the difference between pitting a typical player's ship against a 5000 dton battleship or against a 500000 dton battleship is nil (they either flee, surrund or go to CharGen again).

About strategic games, never forget that this will affect both sides equally, so efect will be again minimal. If you use HG, the lack of spinals will make nuclear missiles (even) more decisive, but, again, this will affect both sides. Ships will keep being downgraded in capabilities until inoperative, with a few of them blowing up, as is in HG with unlimited tonnage space ships.
 
What I was saying was that high population worlds meant a hundred times more small ships that big ships if they can't build big ships.

The problem being that big warships, while 100 times the size, are often only 10 to 50 times the crew.
I'm not certain you'll see 100x the ships, simply due to the need to crew them all.
 
Everything else being equal, it does. If the only thing different between one universe and another is the maximum size of ships, the same political considerations that produced a military budget capable of support one 500,000T dreadnaught will produce a military budget capable of supporting 100 5000T dreadnaughts.


Hans

No, because everything else is not equal. A big ship universe produces cruisers and battleriders each with one nuclear damper capable of dealing with incoming missile fire. The damper by itself eliminates 83% of incoming fire; in conjunction with agility and other defenses, it radically reduces the effectiveness of nuclear missiles. A small ship universe produces large numbers of small ships each of which must either independently spend for their own nuclear damper or accept having their weapons quickly scrubbed away by heavy missile fire. Similarly, a big ship requires a single computer; a large number of smaller ships means a large number of computers.

The power situation also creates a problem: the fixed power requirement of the nuclear damper means a larger percentage of the smaller ship must be devoted to power plant and fuel to serve the damper. It is very difficult for a smaller ship to manage defense, agility, and firepower all in one package. So, the cost of a 50,000-ton cruiser does not produce 10 5000-minidreadnoughts or 50 1000-ton attack ships of equivalent firepower; the cost of a 15,000-ton battlerider does not produce 15 1000-ton attack riders of equivalent firepower.

That being the case, an attacking fleet has to spend from a third to a half again more in budget to field equivalent firepower, which becomes relevant only when trying to field a force capable of penetrating the defenses of a heavily populated world - in other circumstances, the weaknesses of the opposing forces cancel each other out. In other words, a small-ship universe is one in which assault of a main world like Regina or Jewell is more costly and therefore less attractive.

Now, how unattractive is up to you. You control the politics in your own universe. If you want a universe in which the 6 billion residents of Jewel and their hundreds of thousands of troops and thousands of missile and bay-meson batteries can be overwhelmed by a couple thousand 5000-ton minidreadnoughts escorting thousands of transports, more power to you. If on the other hand you want to say the 8 billion souls of Cronor aren't willing to be taxed enough to support the thousands of minidreadnoughts and transports needed to accomplish the conquest of Jewell, then that's certainly a defensible view as well.

However, the OTU didn't give enough credit to planetary defense in the first place, so I'd be wary of taking that big-ship universe as an example from which to draw conclusions about a small-ship variant. Jewell could easily have afforded a couple dozen or more deep-meson sites to oppose Zhodani dreadnoughts and keep their transports at bay. Even Regina ought to be able to bring down a few big ships if they dared a planetary assault.
 
No, because everything else is not equal. A big ship universe produces cruisers and battleriders each with one nuclear damper capable of dealing with incoming missile fire. The damper by itself eliminates 83% of incoming fire; in conjunction with agility and other defenses, it radically reduces the effectiveness of nuclear missiles. A small ship universe produces large numbers of small ships each of which must either independently spend for their own nuclear damper or accept having their weapons quickly scrubbed away by heavy missile fire. Similarly, a big ship requires a single computer; a large number of smaller ships means a large number of computers.

I was simplifying partly for the sake of brevity and partly because I couldn't be bothered to figure out the correct ratio. Wil's point above about relative crew sizes will also skew the ratio a bit (though not as much as one might think, because crew costs is a much lesser percentage of operating expenses for Traveller starships than for 21st Century wet navy warships).

So, no, it won't be a straight 100:1 conversion from Big Ship Universe warships to Small Ship Universe warships, every other economic and political factor being equal. But I think it will be something in the same ballpark; 90:1 or 80:1 perhaps. Especially since I was ignoring the potential for ships up to twice the size of the 500,000T dreadnaught I used for an example.

Even 50:1 would be a problem, IMO.


Hans
 
I was simplifying partly for the sake of brevity and partly because I couldn't be bothered to figure out the correct ratio. Wil's point above about relative crew sizes will also skew the ratio a bit (though not as much as one might think, because crew costs is a much lesser percentage of operating expenses for Traveller starships than for 21st Century wet navy warships).

So, no, it won't be a straight 100:1 conversion from Big Ship Universe warships to Small Ship Universe warships, every other economic and political factor being equal. But I think it will be something in the same ballpark; 90:1 or 80:1 perhaps. Especially since I was ignoring the potential for ships up to twice the size of the 500,000T dreadnaught I used for an example.

Even 50:1 would be a problem, IMO.


Hans

I'd say better than 50:1, worse than 80:1, but hard to be specific. I think my point is that the OTU already fails to give proper weight to planetary defense, and it's harder in a small-ship universe. But you're right: a universe in which Cronor can send a hundred squadrons of 5000-ton destroyers into Imperial space to tear apart Imperial trade is a big problem - if anything, a bigger problem than a handful of larger raiders would be. It would make a mess of trade that would take months after the war and huge sums to set right.
 
Is it too late to point out that a small ship universe actually works better being modeled by something several of you despise: Napoleonic Navies and pre dreadnaught navies?

Off hand, I can't think of any sea power of that time with pop in the billions. Further those time frames did not use income tax very much if at all. Perhaps looking at this era for reasonable pop digit maximums and methods of taxation that helps mitigate the military budgets?

Ok. You may now begin throwing the eggs and rotten tomatoes.
 
I was simplifying partly for the sake of brevity and partly because I couldn't be bothered to figure out the correct ratio. Wil's point above about relative crew sizes will also skew the ratio a bit (though not as much as one might think, because crew costs is a much lesser percentage of operating expenses for Traveller starships than for 21st Century wet navy warships).

So, no, it won't be a straight 100:1 conversion from Big Ship Universe warships to Small Ship Universe warships, every other economic and political factor being equal. But I think it will be something in the same ballpark; 90:1 or 80:1 perhaps. Especially since I was ignoring the potential for ships up to twice the size of the 500,000T dreadnaught I used for an example.

Even 50:1 would be a problem, IMO.


Hans
It's not the cost of the crews - it's the people psychologically able to serve. Wet navies have stably limited themselves to about 0.2% of the total population by volunteers, a little more by conscription, with most navies being well under that in peacetime (Also note: Wartime numbers usually draft the other 2% willing for civil service right off the bat...). I doubt space navies will do any better.
 
Is it too late to point out that a small ship universe actually works better being modeled by something several of you despise: Napoleonic Navies and pre dreadnaught navies?

Off hand, I can't think of any sea power of that time with pop in the billions. Further those time frames did not use income tax very much if at all. Perhaps looking at this era for reasonable pop digit maximums and methods of taxation that helps mitigate the military budgets?

Ok. You may now begin throwing the eggs and rotten tomatoes.

If you are sufficiently dextrous, you might be able to catch the eggs.
 
Back
Top