T20: Small ship versus Large ship Economics...

[Flynn]

Out of curiosity, since I haven't done the statistical analysis myself under T20 (or any other ship construction system), can any of you guys with the books next to you (or ship data memorized) answer the following questions?

Given: A rather small interstellar government has only a certain amount of credits available to spend on its navy. The government must make a selection on which path to take in building their interstellar navy: a lot of small ships or a few large ones.

Problem: Choose an appropriate example of a large vessel, such as a Tigress or something akin to that. Determine the number of smaller 1K-5K cruisers needed to equal it in firepower. Choose examples such that the vessels in question have the same jump range and maneuver drive acceleration.

Question: Which approach costs the least for the same level of power?

Question: Which approach takes the least amount of time to build for the same level of power?

Question: Which approach costs the least to maintain, in fuel costs, life support and annual maintenance?

Question: What are the pros of using the larger ship approach?

Question: What are the cons of using the larger ship approach?

Question: What are the pros of using the smaller ship approach?

Question: What are the cons of using the smaller ship approach?

I'm just looking for the basic answers to the above questions. I admit that I like the concept of a small ship universe, but there's something visually impressive about the HUGE vessels of a large ship universe. So basically I'm trying to make an evaluation based on the two factors that appropriation committees seem to think about the most: which costs the government the least and is done the fastest, tempered by extenuating circumstances (hence the pros and cons questions.)

Thanks in advance for your time,
Flynn

 

[Liam Devlin]

Flynn,

Given: A rather small interstellar government has only a certain amount of credits available to spend on its navy. The government must make a selection on which path to take in building their interstellar navy: a lot of small ships or a few large ones.

Problem: Choose an appropriate example of a large vessel, such as a Tigress or something akin to that. Determine the number of smaller 1K-5K cruisers needed to equal it in firepower. Choose examples such that the vessels in question have the same jump range and maneuver drive acceleration.

Define for me "small"?

In the classic case PE of six-linked systems more or less, many & smaller vessels for your navy would be the rule of thumb, with at least one A-class yard, and plenty of C-class types for the heavy repair work on the side.

A Bigger Ship Navy looks impressive, and deters larger foes/ opposing states, yes, but they take more time in any system of traveller in the maintenance slips annually, as well as to build.

States with thousands of worlds can afford to build the Tigress and Korrirak class dreadnaughts.

Smaller states make do with far less to defend themselves/ project their power, etc.

Examples of such Navy's are in the pages of the Gateway domain pdf/ and hard book copy in the Gateway, Glimmerdrift and Crucis Margin Sector states.

These seldom have anything above 100ktons, and thats a heavy cruiser in the Imperium's way of thinking or a small BB.

Those without higher tech interstellar trade[like the xenophobic militaristic aggresive HPA] are relegated by their maximum TL system's world. In the HPA case, TL-B, and size Mod 5 computers by T20 relegate them to vessels of 100ktons maximum...those with trade links like the Federation of Gateway to the imperium can over come this disadvantage IMO.

I use the world Forces generations tables out of TNE's Path of Tears myself for generating system navies. Other folk with more CT outlook might use HG and TCS.

Pro of large ship navy: Fewer ships to maintain,
Con: but costly to replace repair.

Pro of Many smaller ship Navy: Many Jackals can take down a lion. Not every interstellar govt of 'small size' has trillion of folks, and robotic aide to speed up things. Some might even have a double-duty Merchant marine/ Navy.

example: the two system KOBE polity in coreward edge of Crucis Margin Sector.

Con: requires more personnel if not same as fewer larger ship Navy, but if rotated wisely, one can always have enough force insystem than are at dockside.

Of course, you can have them as super heavy monitors in system, ala GRANTH, system in the HPA, Gateway Sector.

My take, the stage is yours gentlemen...Exuent!

 

[mike wightman]

If T20/High Guard combat is an accurate model for combat in the big ship paradigm OTU then ships over 100,000t are a waste of resources.
At TL12+ the naval architect's job should be to fit the largest meson gun into the smallest hull possible - under T20 rules a couple of meson bays at TL13+ can do the job of a spinal mount and can be used instead.

 

[RainOfSteel]

This question is dependent on the construction and combat mechanics, and therefore also on the edition of Traveller.

Every system is different.

Bk 2 is Small-Ships all-around, AFAIC.

Bk 5 is Big-Ship oriented (because big ships resist spinal mount damage better), though the swarm of smaller spinal mount armed vessels still rules the day in the end.

T20: There is no point whatsoever in large vessels. Tiny vessels armed with the smallest meson spinal mount, or a few 100 dTon meson bays, rule the day.

TNE, MT, GT, and T4 . . . I have no idea.

 

[Jame]

I tend to agree with Liam.

My take on it is that High Guard is a slightly better system to use, because it allows larger ships at lower TLs. However, this does not mean you need ships over 5,000 tons...

 

[robject]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:

T20: There is no point whatsoever in large vessels. Tiny vessels armed with the smallest meson spinal mount, or a few 100 dTon meson bays, rule the day.

Very interesting... info filed away for digesting...

 

[veltyen]

RainOfSteel: Tiny vessels armed with the smallest meson spinal mount, or a few 100 dTon meson bays

Tiny vessels with the smallest meson spinal mount:
TL: (dTons+EP) (Meson USP)
TL11: 5000+500EP USP10
Tl12: 2000+600EP USP12
TL13: 1000+700EP USP14
TL14: 1000+800EP USP16
TL15: 1000+900EP USP18


At TL15 tiny extends to 7000 dTon? Admittedly that includes the Imperial standard M4J4 drives. As a rider (M4J0) that can be done at ~3000 dTon, but that rider also needs to accompany a LARGE tender.

If you include any other systems (anti missile, anti fighter, marine contingent, armour, landing shuttles) then you could easily be looking at 20,000 dTon for the stand alone vessel and 5000 dTon for the Battlerider.

As for "a few bays" each bay requires a 1000dTon of hardpoints, meaning that a spinal at higher tech levels takes up less space for more effectiveness.

Admittedly still not behemoth class, but far from "Tiny"

 

[Golan2072]

IMHO it all boils down to three points:
1) The PCs' location in the universe. Small ships mean that while the avarage ship-owning PC is quite low on the food chain (i.e. owns something between a 100-dton Type-S to a 800-dton type-C), he's not EXTREMELY or HOPELESSLY low on it. A PC's ship might have the chance of defeating a small military vessel of similar tonnage (and such ships are common in a small-ship navy; they're the Frigates, Destroyer Escorts and Corvettes) and escaping from the cluches of larger military vessels. Larger ship universes mean that a hostile encounter with hyper-armed (meson and it's likes) military ships will kill a PC's ship. Period.

2) Flavor. Do you want fighters to be relevant? Do you like huge ships with devastating weapons? How do you envision your naval battles? It's a matter of taste.

3) Game Mechanics. Some people prefer the more detailed (and mapped) LBB2/Mayday combat system, some prefer the more abstract High Guard (or High Guard based) combat system. Some prefer the simple, component-based LBB2 shipbuilding system, some prefer the complex but detailed LBB5 one.

That said, that thread caused me to re-consider and start thinking about using HG; my main concerns with LBB2 is the use of vectors, which complicates gameplay (especially for mathematically-challanged players

); I am also tempted by the HG system's more detailed and far more versatile design sequence. And my TL12 universe (especially with nuclear dampers delayed by one TL IMTU) lacks some of the more super-powerful weapons, delaying their introduction by a few decades, and they also make great prototypes for PCs to steal

. So here are my few concerns about the switch:

1) Could fighters still be useful in HG in a TL12 universe without nuclear dampers? Does grouping them into batteries help this?

2) How difficult is the use of HG USPs in combat and outside it?

3) Is HG combat still interesting, despite it's "battle line" format? Where do tactics come in?

 

[mike wightman]

Under T20 rules there's not much point going any bigger than the Factor E TL13: 1000+700EP USP14 (rules fudge - say it's a type J for MCr cost but only power it to E factor).
It's going to hit, meson guns are more accurate in T20 than in other Traveller rules, and meson screens are underpowered in T20 IMHO.

The battleship could get away with being 20-30kt under T20 rules.

A TL15 spinal mount rider can be in the 4-5kt range, while a bay armed boat could be only 2-3kt.

The reason to opt for bays at TL13+ is to save on the size of power plant required, but I agree that installing a spinal should be the prefered option.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
[...]
I am also tempted by the HG system's more detailed and far more versatile design sequence.
[...]
3) Is HG combat still interesting, despite it's "battle line" format? Where do tactics come in?

In a more perfect Traveller, HG would be used to design component systems for Book 2.

HG is quite numbers-oriented. Bound to bore players in an RPG, unless they're building fleets, and even then some would prefer more ... options.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
1) Could fighters still be useful in HG in a TL12 universe without nuclear dampers? Does grouping them into batteries help this?

Unless you group them into batteries or have some sort of close range dogfight bonus to hit (+2 has been suggested in the past) then fighters can not hit each other.
Depending on the size of computer you put in the fighter, capital ships are going to have a rough time hitting them too
Opposing fleets can therefore put out a screen of fighters and no combat can take place under HG rules.

2) How difficult is the use of HG USPs in combat and outside it?

Once you get used to it it isn't a bad way of tracking ship info and damage allocation.
There are a couple of... peculuarities IMHO.
Ships can't be built with the same spinal and bay weapon type, bay weaponry of a given type prevents that type of weapon being used in turrets.
Why? Other than the USP can't handle the data - a modification to the USP is easy enough to allow a ship to carry PAW spinal, PAW bay weapons, and PAW barbettes, should the designer so choose.

3) Is HG combat still interesting, despite it's "battle line" format? Where do tactics come in?

No maneuvering - beyond initiative winner picks the range ,and how you organise your line of battle and reserve - means next to no tactics IMHO.
Vector movement is the onlt true way to do Traveller ship combat IMHO, but if it really isn't your cup of tea then the range band systems used in Starter Traveller and MegaTraveller at least offer some maneuvering.
Another simplification would be to just move the ships on a hex grid a number of hexes per turn equal to their agility rating - anything that allows for a little movement and therefore tactics.

My other major gripes with High Guard combat are the damage allocation system, and the hit tables.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by veltyen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />RainOfSteel: Tiny vessels armed with the smallest meson spinal mount, or a few 100 dTon meson bays

Tiny vessels with the smallest meson spinal mount:
TL: (dTons+EP) (Meson USP)
TL11: 5000+500EP USP10
Tl12: 2000+600EP USP12
TL13: 1000+700EP USP14
TL14: 1000+800EP USP16
TL15: 1000+900EP USP18


At TL15 tiny extends to 7000 dTon? Admittedly that includes the Imperial standard M4J4 drives. As a rider (M4J0) that can be done at ~3000 dTon, but that rider also needs to accompany a LARGE tender.

If you include any other systems (anti missile, anti fighter, marine contingent, armour, landing shuttles) then you could easily be looking at 20,000 dTon for the stand alone vessel and 5000 dTon for the Battlerider.

As for "a few bays" each bay requires a 1000dTon of hardpoints, meaning that a spinal at higher tech levels takes up less space for more effectiveness.

Admittedly still not behemoth class, but far from "Tiny"

</font>[/QUOTE]Remember that in T20 you don't need a Factor T Meson Spinal. C, E, G and J are more than enough overkill. Don't discount the TLF Factor 4, 50 ton Meson Bay. On a 20Kton-30Kton ship you can mount 1 Spinal or (Maintaining reasonable Jump and Maneuver capability.) 6+ 100 Ton Meson Bays. Giving you approximately a 52.5% chance to vaporize anything with one shot (The Spinal) or 6 chances at 30% to reduce to 0 points SI a 900KTon ship per shot. (TLF Factor 9 100 Ton bay.) (TLE Bay is a 20KTon ship)

 

[Liam Devlin]

Gentlemen,
a gentle reminder:

we stray off the poster [Mssr Flynn] of the topic's idea a wee bit here getting into the 'which-book-to-use' syndrome.

He's asking for the pros & cons of a many ship Smaller vessel Navy vs. a fewer ship Larger vessel Navy. Let's give him the answers based on his question, shall we?

Otherwise, we're headed off into "why I like this book over that one" from the looks of things.

Gentlemen, the stage is yours.
Exuent

 

[BetterThanLife]

One important point is it definitely matters which rule set you are using as far as starship firepower and fleet selection goes. Not neccessarily which is better but to answer the question certain things have to be considered when it comes to power to tonnage ratios. Or throw weight to tonnage ratios.

One of the standard design paradigns in both HG and T20 is the 30KTon Battle Rider concept. Cost to firepower ratio they are nasty. Though after careful consideration in both HG and, especially in T20, the 5KTon LACs I designed are even nastier. Size wise you can carry 36 in place of the typial Canon 6 30KTon Riders. Cost wise the 30KTon Canon Riders cost about 5 times the cost of the 5KTon Rider. In T20 a single high speed pass by 2 tenders full or riders (72) will vaporize most canon fleets. (Forget about Squadrons.) They will take losses, but do damage all out of proportion to their losses and cost.

Again it depends on your design philosophy, which rule set you are using, and how many eggs you really want to arm with sledgehammers. (I would think in a real life situation there would be a problem procruring that many spinals, in a timely enough manner to equip carrier battle groups based on the LAC.

 

[Golan2072]

One more line on the book thing: Sigg Oddra, you've convinced me to continue using LBB2. Thank you

Anyway, the real advantage of fighters is that they carry quite alot of firepower per dton (at the extreme, one turret on 6 to 7dton); therefore, they serve as an efficient force multiplires (unless, ofcourse, your favorite rules don't allow this). Also, they are relatively manuverable, hard to hit and might simply overwhelm a larger ship's defences.

Another advantage is flexibility: you can split your fighters/small ships between several missions (i.e. assault several ground targets and several orbital ones at the same time); you can't split one big ship.

 

[Jame]

I think, as I said, I prefer a more small ship universe to a fewer large ship universe. Unless I'm doing a just-post-Night PE, in which it'll be a few small ships.

How I design those ships is a different story.

 

[Flynn]

Gentlemen,

I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. It seems that a general concensus established that, while large ships are impressive in appearance, it is more likely that governments will make their decisions based on cost, and smaller ships are just as effective while being much more affordable.

Please feel free to continue your discussions, however, as I really enjoy the sharing of thoughts here.

With Regards,
Flynn

BTW, for those wondering what system I was talking about, I refer you to the first word in the topic's title, "T20".

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Flynn:
Problem: Choose an appropriate example of a large vessel, such as a Tigress or something akin to that. Determine the number of smaller 1K-5K cruisers needed to equal it in firepower. Choose examples such that the vessels in question have the same jump range and maneuver drive acceleration.

The same level of power is the sticking point.
A TL15 Imperial Battleship is a truely awesome beast, but a single meson bay critical can take one out.
If I were to redesign the Tigress, Plankwell or Kokirrak for T20 I wouldn't give them spinal mounts, I'd give them as many 100t meson bays as would fit - and could be powered etc.
This would allow each BB to threaten to mission kill more than just the one their present spinal armament threatens.

Question: Which approach costs the least for the same level of power?

If we change to the T20 assumption that the meson bay is king, then small ships carrying a couple of bays each actual end up costing a bit more than one big ship because of the cost of computers and screens.
The BB only needs one of each (possibly two for battle damage purposes), while the CL require one (or two) each.

Question: Which approach takes the least amount of time to build for the same level of power?

The small pocket empire could have a 5kt military yard on each member world, but only one yard capable of building the multi-kiloton leviathan inthe whole empire, depending on planetary populations etc.
So I would go with the small ships being built faster.

Question: Which approach costs the least to maintain, in fuel costs, life support and annual maintenance?

The one big ship will cost slightly less overall to maintain etc. because of the command crew needed for each small ship pushing up the life support and crew costs.

Question: What are the pros of using the larger ship approach?

Prestige, bragging rights, slight cost saving (perhaps ), intimmidation.

Question: What are the cons of using the larger ship approach?

One critical and its dead. Limited deployment capability - one ship can only be in one place. Restricted refit and repair capability.

Question: What are the pros of using the smaller ship approach?

Greater survivability, more deployment capability - a squadron could be deployed to each member world etc. More repair and refit facilites.

Question: What are the cons of using the smaller ship approach?

More easily damaged by secondary weapon batteries, more crew required, possibly higher operational costs overall.

 

[veltyen]

At TL15, and using the 50dTon bay option, you can have a J4M4 1kdTon corvette with a 50dTon Meson Bay for under a GCr. With maximum armor it is damn tough when faced with most weaponry. Since Meson screens also scale with size you can also throw in a USP9 meson screen with no worries.

The only thing it would worry about is nukes, as nuke dampers are not scaled, and are therefore difficult to showhorn in. No globe either, as the cost is prohibative.

Going for in-system/Battleriders you could have 400dTon Meson Bay Gunboats. But they would require significantly sized Tenders. Scary SDB's though.

 

[BetterThanLife]

The TLF 50 ton bay option does require 2-3 crits to 0 Si a capital ship. Remember SI of 0 in T20 is still repairable. A single Spinal Crit does double the SI damage to anything less than about 800,000 tons. And takes an 8 Million ton ship to zero SI, on average. The Meson Bays while impressive require 3-4 to statistically get you a Crit where the Spinals only require 2. To outright kill a Tigress you need one spinal crit or 2 Factor 9 bay crits. (In otherwords when facing big capital ships 8 bays equals one Spinal.) Against smaller ships it is more like 4 bays equals 1 spinal. Also remember that spinals have a significant range advantage over bays.