Space Combat in Traveller #1: Weapons vs Armor
- Thread starter robject
- Start date
other. imtu armor is ablative in practice and thus has no particular upper limit (observe the tech 15 cherry-class mentioned in the imperial marines combat battalion thread has armor 18). so no matter how thick and high-tech the armor even a tech 9 beam laser can chew through it eventually. pulse lasers chew faster. missiles simply punch their way through.
Last edited:
Ship designs are trade-offs of for example armour vs weapon capacity --- at some point on the continuim just enough armour means you cannot carry a weapon capable of defeating your own design.
So, to answer the question more directly, it does not trouble me that a class of ship (fighter or dreadnought) might be armoured sufficiently to be impervious to its own weapons.
I think the concern with fighters is less about the armour and more about the nature of the trade-off. There is limited trade off in weapon capacity, essentially energy weapons options are lost, but all fighters can carry very comparable missiles (in CT at least, my knowledge of other systems is scant). In contrast the same decision to max out the armour in a capital ship has a distinct effect on agility, weapon choices or both.
The trade-off for fighters in CT (other systems?) to get very high armour is low computer size and agility. Basically offering opponents the ability to easily hit an impervious hull. I suggest this ploy is fine, it offers high survivability, but should also offer avenues for mission kills such as allowing opponents to close and target weapon points or drives (weapon scrubbing or drive scrubbing). But of course this adds more complexity to the system.
So, to answer the question more directly, it does not trouble me that a class of ship (fighter or dreadnought) might be armoured sufficiently to be impervious to its own weapons.
I think the concern with fighters is less about the armour and more about the nature of the trade-off. There is limited trade off in weapon capacity, essentially energy weapons options are lost, but all fighters can carry very comparable missiles (in CT at least, my knowledge of other systems is scant). In contrast the same decision to max out the armour in a capital ship has a distinct effect on agility, weapon choices or both.
The trade-off for fighters in CT (other systems?) to get very high armour is low computer size and agility. Basically offering opponents the ability to easily hit an impervious hull. I suggest this ploy is fine, it offers high survivability, but should also offer avenues for mission kills such as allowing opponents to close and target weapon points or drives (weapon scrubbing or drive scrubbing). But of course this adds more complexity to the system.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
This is TL dependant.
Armour of 14+ will push damage for all but spinals, nukes and pulse lasers off the damage charts I agree.
Fighters could fire nuclear missiles at each other and they have the potential to cause damage, pulse lasers will very occasionally achieve a weapon-1 result
The problem is they can not hit each other in the first place with the weapons they can carry.
Last edited:
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Historically there was a point in steam warship design where armor outstripped guns, and so rams were in fashion as the only sure way to harm another enemy craft.
This situation ended fairly quickly with better guns and torpedoes, but highlights that the mix of speed, targetting, firepower and armor are floating mixes that can change from era to era, or even situation to situation as different tech mixes occur due to discoveries and development at different rates.
This situation ended fairly quickly with better guns and torpedoes, but highlights that the mix of speed, targetting, firepower and armor are floating mixes that can change from era to era, or even situation to situation as different tech mixes occur due to discoveries and development at different rates.
Other...
As a general tactical -- and therefore, design -- doctrine, every fighting ship should pack enough firepower to overcome its own defenses; if it cannot shoot its twin down, it needs more guns put on it.
Basically every class or role of fighting vessel should be able to defend against smaller, lighter vessels but also be capable of knocking out its counterparts in the enemy's fleet. You then build a bigger, tougher platform to stand up to a given class, and ever upward the arms race spirals. At some point, the loop closes, and you are fielding behemoth dreadnoughts so heavy with guns and defenses that they can no longer effectively engage the smallest craft in the enemy fleet -- which buzz around them like flies trying for the "Golden BB" shot.
That said, there are reasons to build absolute tanks -- protecting valuable payload in transit, for example -- but such a hard target will inevitably need some gunboats to escort it, to keep it from getting very, very slowly pecked to death.
As a general tactical -- and therefore, design -- doctrine, every fighting ship should pack enough firepower to overcome its own defenses; if it cannot shoot its twin down, it needs more guns put on it.
Basically every class or role of fighting vessel should be able to defend against smaller, lighter vessels but also be capable of knocking out its counterparts in the enemy's fleet. You then build a bigger, tougher platform to stand up to a given class, and ever upward the arms race spirals. At some point, the loop closes, and you are fielding behemoth dreadnoughts so heavy with guns and defenses that they can no longer effectively engage the smallest craft in the enemy fleet -- which buzz around them like flies trying for the "Golden BB" shot.
That said, there are reasons to build absolute tanks -- protecting valuable payload in transit, for example -- but such a hard target will inevitably need some gunboats to escort it, to keep it from getting very, very slowly pecked to death.
That is not a consequence of heavy armour, heavy armour makes them very hittable...
That is an offensive design strategy, which rewards shear numbers given identical opponents. A Civil War scenario. An alternative strategy is to increase your vessels relative survivability to your opponent. The OP raises the extreme position where a single fighter is immune to opponent fighters that are only capable of killing freindlies.
I've toyed with several builds for fighters that pack enough firepower to slug it out with a ship several times their mass, and shrug off anything short of particle beams, and rail guns....it's possible..and with radiation shielding particle beams become less of a threat....
but to do this I had to boost their tonnage up to the point they were almost as large as a proper starship, and were damned expensive. which leads to the limitations that often lead to warships being offense heavy, and defense light...
Bear with me.....
In Traveller massive warships with armor and firepower to spare rule the day....it takes the focused firepower of multiple destroyers to severely damage a major vessel...so Heavily armored warships rule the day. Since evidently someone rounded up all the bean counters and shot them in the head....
Under Traveller rules armor is 20-50% of the main hulls cost...for one layer of armor..which gets bloody expensive...shields and screens...also very expensive...Internal bulkheads, reinforced hull/structure..etc..all add Mcr to the price tag..
If a bean counter got involved he'd be bleeding out the ears at the price tag f ship which had enough armor and other defenses to survive a hit from it's own main battery unscathed.
the primary role of a warship is to DESTROY the enemy before they are destroyed....to do this heavy weapons and massive main guns once ruled the sea..while armor and defenses were layered on as an afterthought in many cases...See Hood with it's faulty deck armor..and lets not forget the "there seems to be something wrong with out bloody ships today"Battlecruisers of Jutland. fast heavily armed, and thinly armored compared to dreadnoughts.
Now while there were solid reasoning behind the glass jawed Battle cruisers one of the driving motives was cost, the massive turbines, and horrendous fuel expense of battleships made it hard to justify large numbers of them when a country was not at war...and when war came the resources of a single battleship could build squadrons of destroyers.
So bean counters either directly, or indirectly, lead to a generation of heavily armed poorly defended warships that go their...hats...handed to them when they engaged larger more protected warships that could absorb the pounding the Battlecruisers dished out and return massive firepower of their own.
The economics of war isn't a limiting factor in most games, players..., setting on a throne formed from the severed skulls of fictional bean counters... get to pick their big hitters and layer on as much armor as they want resulting in truly impressive Monsters.... the opposing player with equal resources, and is own bean counter furniture...does the same.
their battles tend to run into Big ship slugging matches that are favored by the rules, and mechanics of the various games. Lets face it one 100Kton Behemoth can ignore most lighter ships.
it's armor, screens, and internal reinforcements, make the massed firepower of a destroyer or lighter cruiser an annoyance, to be swatted from the battle-space with a single focused attack....
long story short...Under practical conditions where you would have to fight through a dozen committees, and three Senate reviews, of a Typical big ships budget...heavy firepower, and light defenses are going to be more common....
you can see some Senator/ducal adviser.. trying to make his bones Standing up and asking..If you have screens why do you need to spend Millions on armor that will never be touched by hostile fire..we could spend that on(.insert pet public relations inspired project here)
In games, where Players get to build ideal ships optimized to the Nth degree...heavy armor, heavy guns, high maneuver speeds rule the day and everything lighter had better un for it's pitiful life.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Armour should be a question of steel equivalent thickness; protection, a combination of all factors including screens, shields, manoeuvre, and speed.
A general defense value would be useful..
However I'm torn..A general rating is easier to factor into mechanics, but it limits the value of tactical maneuver, and skillful use by a player/pilot.
It doesn't allow for maneuvering into a vessels weak spots, or getting into a favorable position for attack/defense.
Historically that's always been a major factor in combat...In Leyte, a destroyer was able to get in close enough to fire on the enemy Cruiser, with the cruisers big guns unable to fire on the smaller ship...the destroyer inflicted a lot of damage to vulnerable portions of the cruiser, and was unscathed until a ship at longer range managed to hit it with it's big guns.
"Swede" Vejtasa managed to shoot down three Zero fighters in a dive bomber. He did this in a dogfight where he was jumped by by seven Fighters. His Bomber could stand up to a lot more Gees than a Zero( higher agility), and Vejtasa was able to use that one fact to his advantage...along with being one hell of a pilot.
using a general defense number even modified by pilot skill there's just no way to simulate that sort of scenario....the advantages of the Zero, simply swamp the one factor in the Dive bombers favor, and tactics and skill aren't factored in...
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
We are talking about battles fought in space with weapons that can hit stuff at ranges measured in light seconds.
Dogfighting doesn't exist in such an environment.
Dogfighting doesn't exist in such an environment.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Experience counts for a lot in an actual dogfight.
And whereas at light speed a beam weapon will hit you, keeping that energy focussed on your predicted path is something else.
Destroyers were described as tincans for a reason, and battleships, less so cruisers, were built to absorb damage from a near peer opponent.
And whereas at light speed a beam weapon will hit you, keeping that energy focussed on your predicted path is something else.
Destroyers were described as tincans for a reason, and battleships, less so cruisers, were built to absorb damage from a near peer opponent.
I'm well aware of the realities of space combat....
the point I was trying to make was that An operator who uses what advantages he does have can seriously alter the way combat plays out. And that as it stands there is no real way to do anything but stand off gunnery duels with no use of tactics or clever ploys involved.
Other than the luck of the dice, there isn't any reason why you couldn't boil down combat to a comparison of Defense, vs offense and declare a winner based on that alone....the only real options are close range or open range..
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Which is pretty much what HG comes down to.
During many previous discussions about such things the autokill range has been mentioned.
Basically once you get close enough Traveller beam weapons should be assured of a hit because you can shoot at every possible location a target can be. The other consequence of having light second ranges for lasers is at a range of only a few km they should burn through just about anything.
HG battles model fleets staying at the outer edge of the autokill zone where skill and luck could pay off
During many previous discussions about such things the autokill range has been mentioned.
Basically once you get close enough Traveller beam weapons should be assured of a hit because you can shoot at every possible location a target can be. The other consequence of having light second ranges for lasers is at a range of only a few km they should burn through just about anything.
HG battles model fleets staying at the outer edge of the autokill zone where skill and luck could pay off
In fact, two equal fighters in HG could never hit each other, making the effect of armor (in such dogfights) irrelevant.
A fighter, having only one hardpoint, might be ablet o carry at best a rated 3 missile turret (3 launchers giving factor 2, +1 per TL) or a rated 5 beam one (FG at TL 14+), needing a 6+ to hit in both cases.
Assuming equal computers, and agility 6, this would be raised to 12+, and, once size effect comes to play, 14+, so, no hits achieved to test weapons vs armor effectivity.
A fighter, having only one hardpoint, might be ablet o carry at best a rated 3 missile turret (3 launchers giving factor 2, +1 per TL) or a rated 5 beam one (FG at TL 14+), needing a 6+ to hit in both cases.
Assuming equal computers, and agility 6, this would be raised to 12+, and, once size effect comes to play, 14+, so, no hits achieved to test weapons vs armor effectivity.
I had always thought that spinal mounts create large enough ship-killers that no armor can hold out for long... And meson cannons ship armor and screens...
Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.
Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
A big enough ship with lots of armour can take spinal PA hits and suffer no critical hits. Meson guns have one major flaw, they rarely hit a properly screened ship at equivalent TL.
