SpineMaker and Battle-Class Ships

[robject]

About 5% of the Tigress is emplacements: 25,000 tons.

5% of a Patrol Cruiser would be 20 tons, and yet it only has four turrets, and perhaps a couple 1-ton magazines.

I'm thinking about how ACS works with emplacements. Mass fire uses the lowest TL, the sum of DMs, and the sum damage. A 2400t cruiser with 5% emplacements would have one 100t bay. A single Main Gun would take up about 8% of such a ship.

So it seems that the intent of ACS is to not have many large weapons on any one ship. DMs will seldom climb higher than +24 for ACS, and damage will seldom reach above 100D.

Moreover, the several different ways of damaging a ship will tend to make ship design try to cover several bases, further diluting the maximum damage potential of a design.



So what does this mean for Big Ships? Primarily it means that they'll look a lot like they did in High Guard - and potentially a HG design would be portable to T5, if the process were made clear. Defenses for one would have to be re-sorted out to keep the design survivable.

But secondarily it implies that mass fire can work in BCS just like it does in ACS. The scale factor may change, but other than that it may look very similar.

For example, if BCS wanted to aggregate sets of bay weapons, it could do so with DMs. The Large Bay might get a DM+1, the Main a +2, and the Spine a +5 or better. Damage might be on the same scale as HG battery factors, so bays and mains would be rated 1-9, and spines 10 and up.

If that worked, then mass fire would work for BCS, and attacks between capital ships would be a couple orders of magnitude faster than when using HG. Maybe they'd be about TCS speed.

Batteries bearing could probably work as they do in HG.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

On damage.

Rob, I don't have to attenuate my damage, I just need tons of missiles. Since missiles have a variety of damage methods I find missiles keep my damage up (and in fact are the King of Space Battle since they are the only long range weapon worth two spits).

So, nope I can still lay devastating damage with only one weapon type. This is in fact who I build my ships now, turrets are for close up work, point defense and anti-boarder action. Other than for those jobs every other weapon is pretty much useless. Except maybe Particle Aceelerators, I think they too might have a reasonable range, but fusion/plasma guns and lasers are pretty worthless.

 

[kilemall]

This thread hit me where it hurts: http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=34376

The essence of it is the challenge I see to BCS. This may not be the challenge seen by others; it's my personal bent, my blind spot, my tunnel vision.

The Challenge. Using only a pencil and one sheet of paper, design a pair of fleets in 15 minutes each, and fight them in the context of a selected interstellar war scenario in 45 minutes' time.

For example, fleets can follow various philosophies:

1. Jump Capable Fleet for a given amount.
2. Battle Rider Fleet without jump capability for the carried units.
3. Battle Rider Fleet with Jump 1 for the riders.

...and these philosophies affect the outcome of course.

Fleets are made up of capital ships with different weapons loadouts, including spine configurations and point defense, auxiliary craft, including escorts, and so on.

In short, capital ship design gives you a rich design suitable for Traveller (not just the OTU, but Traveller), but paradoxically doesn't require a spreadsheet.

And that gets back to my "how much detail is enough detail" thoughts. That's why I had those thoughts to begin with.

The only game I have seen do that is WarpWar. Even Starfire takes more time and thought then 15m of design work.

 

[robject]

Rob, I don't have to attenuate my damage, I just need tons of missiles. [...]

...fusion/plasma guns and lasers are pretty worthless.

An overwhelming barrage might just do the trick. I wonder if there are ways to defeat them, however. For example, a layered point-defense laser turret network?

If a triple beam laser firmpoint could eliminate 50% of the incoming missile barrages, then two would cut that back to 25%, three to 12%, four to 6%, five to 3%, and six to 1.5%. Just add enough layers to out-survive the enemy.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Nope.

An overwhelming barrage might just do the trick. I wonder if there are ways to defeat them, however. For example, a layered point-defense laser turret network?

If a triple beam laser firmpoint could eliminate 50% of the incoming missile barrages, then two would cut that back to 25%, three to 12%, four to 6%, five to 3%, and six to 1.5%. Just add enough layers to out-survive the enemy.

Overwhelming barrage is the trick. Tons of small, fast missile boats will overwhelm a capital ship quite nicely, the USN had this pointed out to them a while ago. In fact it so upset things that the SecDef reset the wargame and denied the OpFor those tools in the next round. So, yes, missiles still win out. Period.

EDIT: in fact this is more true with T5 since the beam/energy weapons got their ranges shortened to useless unless you can look out the port and wave to the enemy spacers.

 

[robject]

Range is of no concern to point-defense systems. And you do need both overwhelming numbers of hardpoints and overwhelming levels of damage, per barrage, else that capital ship is just going to flick off those gnats a group at a time.

...THAT, by the way, is an advantage of High Guard. We can prove that quickly. Yes, it's basically statistics. And boring. It's also therefore crystal clear -- and therefore extremely useful for that purpose. The wargame is enjoyable, and therefore serves a different purpose.

Different purposes require different solutions. Multiple purposes require multiple solutions.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Grrr.

Range is of no concern to point-defense systems. And you do need both overwhelming numbers of hardpoints and overwhelming levels of damage, per barrage, else that capital ship is just going to flick off those gnats a group at a time.

...THAT, by the way, is an advantage of High Guard. We can prove that quickly. Yes, it's basically statistics. And boring. It's also therefore crystal clear -- and therefore extremely useful for that purpose. The wargame is enjoyable, and therefore serves a different purpose.

Different purposes require different solutions. Multiple purposes require multiple solutions.

Since when is range no concern for point defense? There is a big difference between a missile that explodes at Range S1 v. one that explodes at S2.

That by the way is why HG is boring as dry toast. It is all about stats, nothing else but stats, oh and the combat is dull too. Hell design seems to be more fun that combat in someways, I get to make more decisions than I do in combat.

On an entirely different tack, why is the Maneuver listed before the Jump number in the USP? I should think the interstellar range to be more important than the speed. If I can jump anywhere into a system speed is not that important. Now if there are choke points for jump then maneuver is more important, and since Traeveller uses jump anywhere it seems Jump should come before Maneuver.

EDIT: So this capital ship has unlimited shots per turn then? Otherwise it is merely a case of shooting more missiles than the other ship can shoot at in one time unit.

 

[robject]

Meh. I seem to recall you saying that you don't do ship combat. At all. (Have you tried ACS combat lately?) What we need is a poll! :rant:

Page 369. Massive explosions are at World Ranges (R), and yes, there's a big difference between R=1 and R=2. Thankfully defenses on firmpoints can block at R=6, which is a "miss".

As for why Maneuver comes before Jump, ask Marc, he wrote T5, and it's the QSP.

Regarding the capital ship: each defense bears separately. So what the first one doesn't catch, the second may try, and so on, like a Sieve of Eratosthenes or something.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Quigly...

Meh. I seem to recall you saying that you don't do ship combat. At all. (Have you tried ACS combat lately?) What we need is a poll! :rant:

Page 369. Massive explosions are at World Ranges (R), and yes, there's a big difference between R=1 and R=2. Thankfully defenses on firmpoints can block at R=6, which is a "miss".

As for why Maneuver comes before Jump, ask Marc, he wrote T5, and it's the QSP.

Regarding the capital ship: each defense bears separately. So what the first one doesn't catch, the second may try, and so on, like a Sieve of Aristothenes or something.

No what I said is I don't like combats. Any combats, they are a failure in my eyes. For all my love of rayguns, I very much dislike having to have shooting happen. Diplomacy is always preferred to force.

I have tried it, I just don't like it.

I may have to been planning on it but still have more important stuff I should be doing first.

Oh and yes, I messed up the ranges, but I didn't want to look it up for an example that was merely to point out that Range does matter. So, I am cool, point made.

Now, I should remember your classical mythology reference but it eludes me. Now, aside my failing memory, if one misses, then it has wasted its shot. Again they can't shoot an unlimited times in one turn. So yes there is a point where my hundreds to thousands of missiles are going to find the mark and kill the ship. I just need a lot more missiles than you have guns to shoot them.

Funny enough, Rob, there is here a thread on CT 77 and sand boxing that takes a brief foray into D&D to discuss play types. And I think we come from different schools, you are Combat as Sport and I am Combat as War. We have different goals and methods. I want to have an unbalanced field in my favor so if the fool admiral on the other side doesn't surrender right away their fleet is dead by the end of the watch, if not in the first hour. You on the other hand seem to be more about even contests. I may be wrong (won't be close to the first time), but it does seem that way.

As a Combat as War player I am always going to try and find the exploit that lets me just plain crush my opponent. Wars are not about being fair, they are about winning and killing the ever loving void out them as quick as possible.

 

[dalthor]

I'm having (at least) three different combat concepts rattling around in the space between my ears. Each has its good and bad points, but there is much more flexibility. I say let the situation determine the style.

Version 1 is your detailed High Guard equivalent, because I like the wargames kinda space combat.

Version 2 is your standard ACS combat, whatever final form it takes.

Version 3 is your cinematic Star Wars/Star Trek action shoot-em-up version.

The hardest part will be consistency among the three. A good foundation will be the key. Heck, if you do the base well, the rest could fall into place pretty quickly.

First, define the systems - baseline the types of weapons, mods, damage, and so on. Set guidelines for how those items interact.

Once you have that stable base, you can build the different combat styles on top of it. It can be as abstract or detailed as you like - flexibility is a good thing. The nice part is that you don't have to relearn the basics if you change versions.

One version could be based on volley fire - each weapon fired individually. Ships would have detailed assemblies, compartments, and components. Good bookkeeping would be essential due to the level of detail. Battles take a long time to resolve.

The second version could include simplified hit locations, more generic ship formats, and a mix of volley and battery fire. It would be faster paced, but still have sufficient detail to require planning and have game consequences once the battle was over.

[[ For what it is worth, the FACE project was my feeble attempt to consolidate a lot of T5 things into one location, and come up with my own version 2. ]]

The third version would be really quick and dirty - a successful hit destroys a compartment or component, and battles would likely be deadly affairs, with lots of explosions, mayhem, and epic last words hurled with dying breaths.

The three versions may end up as three separate releases, so to speak, for T5 as a whole. The more I think about it, the more sense it seems to make.

Anyway, wanted to poke my head up and say my piece.

Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion...

 

[robject]

I think we come from different schools, you are Combat as Sport and I am Combat as War.

Probably. At any rate, Traveller is very much a Hunting as Sport game, so that's where I work.

But I can see a Hunting for Food game -- a true rock-scissors-paper game -- just not with true ship design rules. Perhaps more with Battle Rider T5 squadron "lite" design rules.

 

[robject]

By the bye, I think the better, less loaded terms for these would be:

Hunting for Sport versus Hunting for Food

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Bah!

By the bye, I think the better, less loaded terms for these would be:

Hunting for Sport versus Hunting for Food

What is loaded or less loaded than Combat as X? Hunting for Sport is much more loaded for me than Combat as Sport. I kinda have serious issues with Hunting for Sport.

Also, we are talking about Combat, not Hunting and Combat is deadly and dangerous to everyone involved. Hunting not so much, rarely does the non-human get to win.

Geez, Rob, much love but for Void Sake, call a spade a spade.

 

[robject]

What is loaded or less loaded than Combat as X?

"Combat as Sport" certainly sounds loaded. Who does combat ("real" combat) for sport? Unless you mean "wargames".

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Combat is loaded.

"Combat as Sport" certainly sounds loaded. Who does combat ("real" combat) for sport? Unless you mean "wargames".

Gladiators, that is who. And D&D characters, technically.

 

[robject]

Gladiators, that is who.

OK, Thunderdome. Fine. Now I've forgotten what we were arguing about and why it matters. Why waste energy arguing when we can be thinking about things?

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Tsk, tsk, how quickly they forget.

OK, Thunderdome. Fine. Now I've forgotten what we were arguing about and why it matters. Why waste energy arguing when we can be thinking about things?

My missiles overwhelming your ship before its PD can wipe them all out. Or I seem to recall.

 

[kilemall]

You're not the only one.

After about 1995, however, I wanted Bk 5 plus mass. As in, the same number of parameters as MT, but without the added detail layer. And I wanted it to link to a Bk2 kind of combat. I was sore disappointed when hunter's "Tons per hit" proposal went away in T20.

Tons per hit?

That's exactly the territory I'm working for the CT-HG hybrid.

Dammit, is no idea I have truly new?

 

[robject]

Oh yeah, Craig, thanks. See, if we had a combat system we could test the theory out.

 

[aramis]

Tons per hit?

That's exactly the territory I'm working for the CT-HG hybrid.

Dammit, is no idea I have truly new?

For Traveller? Quite possibly not. It appeals to tinkerers.