T5, Traveller, the Fighter, the Battle Rider, and the Dreadnought

[aramis]

Quite, but traveller is not characterised by rapid technological advance, leading to uncertainty of how to fight the next war.

Traveller naval tactics is presumably rather unchanged since the Terrans built the first meson battleship a few thousand years ago (IIRC), and developed a doctrine for its use.

The OTU is presumably more like medieval mediterranean naval warfare based on galleys, where the design and tactics had been fine-tuned for millennia and everybody knew how to build ships and use them.

Except that the idea of tech stagnation in the middle ages and dark ages is a falacy. The galley warfare was, at least advancement, cyclical, and, once gunpowder is added, ceased cycling.

THat the Viking longship is, technically, a galley, it's effectiveless was not as a ram-and-board; it was a coastal raider. Similar form, but significant differences from the Roman ram-ships. Different fighting styles. Different personal combat equippage, too.

Noting that the computer that won HG fixated on one rules based optimization, such single solution situations have only been seen in the transitions ina few cases. Like the rise of the supercarrier replacing the BB; the other solution is the strategic submarine... whether or not it's used as a nuclear weapons asset. Much of what the BB did in DS I was replaced by SSBNs converrted to SSGN in the more recent gulf wars.

 

[aramis]

Well, I sent 10 contrived 7500 ton "Battler Riders" (i.e. Agi 6, computer 9, Meson J, damper 9, meson screen 9, 15 Armor), simply the smallest J gun I could make, against a Tigress, and they killed it in the first round. Maybe they get mopped up by fighter screen (likely). (In theory 34 of these BRs cost as much as an empty Tigress.)

Only one of the ships actually hit the Tigress, but that was enough.

If for some reason they don't kill it on the first go, the Tigress struggles to reduce the attackers. It could dedicate all 480 missiles on one target, and, yea, that'll scrape it clean. But next round he'll be facing 9, and the odds are against it.

The fighters can't hit the BRs at all. Too small, can't get through the armor or the dampers.

That's an issue of the sim being unrealistic - as the fighters should be capable of usign nuke warheads which should at least scour the surface.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I sent 10 contrived 7500 ton "Battler Riders"

the fighters should be capable of usign nuke warheads which should at least scour the surface.

Makes me wonder if 12,000-15,000 ton Buffered Planetoid Battle Riders with otherwise the same specs (+6 more armor!) would be able to shrug off even nuke attacks by the fighter screen in addition to any particle accelerators. A code: K (10,000-19,999 ton) Buffered Planetoid hull with a total of Armor: 21 at TL=15 would need to be hit by a Code: W spinal mount before it would take automatic critical hits.

I mean, if you're going with Battle Riders and a Tender, you might as well offload refueling duties to tanker craft, right?
After all, those Buffered Planetoids woud make for EXCELLENT High Guard overwatch, right?

 

[mike wightman]

You know I promised myself I would stay out of these threads as it has all been done to death and yet it has been spread out over so many years...
1. define the gold standard - to my mind that would be a re-worked HG80 combat system
2. have a very clear concept for what you want the combat system to model
3. don't lose sight of what HG does by getting fixated on a particular setting, era or TL
4. leave any idea of there being a perfect ship at the door (the battle rider vs battleship debate is settled, the battle riders win except...)

So to unpack that little lot, and I have made lots of posts over the years, somewhere I even have word documents of the various posts edited together.

1. After all these years it is still the most talked about ship construction and combat system, so fix it to do what you want it to do (I have suggested many of these fixes over the years as have others) and then convert to T5.

2. Rock paper scissors - but within rock there should be rock paper scissors, within paper there should be rock paper scissors, etc.
(and for deity of choice sake please have a mind to expanding to a tactical movement system beyond line up)
eg
turret weapons - good vs smaller vessels, moderate vs small capital ships, poor vs large capital ships
bay weapons - poor vs smaller vessels (overkill), good vs small capital ships, moderate vs large capital ships
etc.

3. This thread and others like it are concentrating too much on one era and TL, the genius of HG80 is that the very nature of the ship design choices and combat outcomes change with TL due to technology changes - what works at TL12 doesn't at TL14, and combat between different TL opponents is doable.

4. Polities do not build navies that are points balanced and sent off to conflict in matched engagements.

 

[Condottiere]

1. So Mongoose has a draft on an updated High Guard.

2. There are lots of potential issues, but relatively speaking, the ones that tends to come to mind are:

3. Hull armour is effectively measured in feet or metres, not percentages;

4. It should be easier to move smaller massed and/or volumed spacecraft.

5. Polities build militaries usually in reaction to threat perception, or if they plan on expansionism.

 

[whulorigan]

. . .

3. This thread and others like it are concentrating too much on one era and TL, the genius of HG80 is that the very nature of the ship design choices and combat outcomes change with TL due to technology changes - what works at TL12 doesn't at TL14, and combat between different TL opponents is doable.

4. Polities do not build navies that are points balanced and sent off to conflict in matched engagements.

These are both excellent points. One of the things you definitely want to be able to reproduce (especially in a Traveller context in a Universe encompassing differing TLs) is the difference in tactics, strategy, and "feel" of fleet engagements at various given TLs, and how engagements between two fleets of differing TLs plays out.

 

[Spinward Flow]

3. This thread and others like it are concentrating too much on one era and TL, the genius of HG80 is that the very nature of the ship design choices and combat outcomes change with TL due to technology changes - what works at TL12 doesn't at TL14, and combat between different TL opponents is doable.

Part of the reason why I'm having so much fun mucking around in the TL=10-12 ACS realm, with the occasional foray into TL=13-14 as evolutionary extensions where the idea is to keep "refreshing" old ideas to help stave off obsolescence as technology advances. This then creates opportunities for "technological hegemony" over subsectors of space, in which whatever the local economies in the region support then get to dictate what kinds of starships ought to appear within that region of space. This then creates a "texture" to the setting that would otherwise be lacking when the default assumption is "TL=15 everything all the time everywhere" regardless of the map (or how far away the nearest TL=15 world is).

4. Polities do not build navies that are points balanced and sent off to conflict in matched engagements.

THIS.

Gamers want to play "balanced" games in which each participant (theoretically) has an equal chance of winning, with the difference between opponents (presumably) coming down to differences in preparation, strategy, tactics, skill and (of course) luck.

REAL military forces HATE the thought of going into a "fair fight" in which they have a 50/50 chance of winning.
The preference BY FAR among real military forces is to overwhelm your opponent in such a way that the odds of success should not be in doubt. It's the classic case of needing 2 offenders to defeat 1 defender ... because "fair fights" are for people who think losing isn't such a bad outcome.

Real military forces prefer to AVOID parity in order to gain an asymmetric advantage over their opponents before they engage in combat.
They want to be confident of victory before the battle begins.

Balanced forces contesting where the opportunity of victory comes down to a 50/50 coin toss is for wargamers, not soldiers.

 

[whulorigan]

Part of the reason why I'm having so much fun mucking around in the TL=10-12 ACS realm, with the occasional foray into TL=13-14 as evolutionary extensions where the idea is to keep "refreshing" old ideas to help stave off obsolescence as technology advances. This then creates opportunities for "technological hegemony" over subsectors of space, in which whatever the local economies in the region support then get to dictate what kinds of starships ought to appear within that region of space. This then creates a "texture" to the setting that would otherwise be lacking when the default assumption is "TL=15 everything all the time everywhere" regardless of the map (or how far away the nearest TL=15 world is).

I know your a CT guy, but GT: Starships did a nice job of this (within the GURPS Traveller game mechanic) for several classic vessels in Traveller (including the Patrol Cruiser and SDB, among others) for the full GTL9-GTL12 tech level range (GTL10 = Traveller TL12, and GTL12 = Traveller TL15).

 

[whartung]

That's an issue of the sim being unrealistic - as the fighters should be capable of usign nuke warheads which should at least scour the surface.

Well, they're not my rules, but that's not what's happening.

RAW, lower than factor 9 get +6DM on the damage table. RAW all save Mesons, get +ArmorDM on the damage table. So, a 15 armor ship against a <=9 factor gets a +21 DM, on a table where 22+ is "no effect". All of those munitions just bounce.

Nuclear missiles get a -6 on the damage table, and that's all well and good.

But the lower factor nuclear missiles, specifically those from Fighters, can not penetrate the high end nuclear dampers, which is a passive effect. So, they're not even getting a chance to scour anything. This is what makes the Fighter ineffective against these ships.

 

[Spinward Flow]

But the lower factor nuclear missiles, specifically those from Fighters, can not penetrate the high end nuclear dampers, which is a passive effect.

Which is where being able to coordinate salvo fire from a formation comes in handy to help overcome that deficit by massing and concentrating firepower (so that some missiles get through rather than all of them getting knocked down).

Sure, you may only be able to achieve a code: 2-3 as a solo fighter with a triple missile mount ... but fight in formation with wingmen to form a larger battery and you can start getting up to factor: 6-7 (in theory). There's also going to be a mathematical "optimum" mix of formation size salvo fire versus quantity of fighters available. One of those -1 to hit but roll twice relative to the alternative kinds of mixtures. Skilled leadership will know from ship identification what the optimal formation size per coordinated salvo would be against a variety of threats based on intel of their capabilities.

 

[whartung]

Which is where being able to coordinate salvo fire from a formation comes in handy to help overcome that deficit by massing and concentrating firepower (so that some missiles get through rather than all of them getting knocked down).

Correct, I'm just waving the RAW flag for this.

In Starfire they do this at the ship level with a thing they call "data link" letting groups of ship fire as one, and defend as one. It's a technology with cost, and limitations of how many ships can be linked. I also know later on they got rid of the individual fighter, and just made squadrons of them (I think) as an abstract unit.

To group Fighters, you could use Flights or Squadrons. I don't know how to balance a flight of fighters that has to be targeted individually. Maybe that's a good thing, as now you're in the "age of the fighter" instead of the small combatant ship. Dunno if there should be special rules perhaps that makes the integrity of the flight easily disrupted beyond just reducing it fighter by fighter. And how does this work when you fling fighters at each other.

It should be noted that the Tigress has, among other things, 50 batteries of Fusion guns. Ostensibly these are there specifically to eat up fighters and small craft.

 

[Spinward Flow]

It should be noted that the Tigress has, among other things, 50 batteries of Fusion guns. Ostensibly these are there specifically to eat up fighters and small craft.

Which works just fine ... at short range.
At long range, those fighters are "safe" from the Fusion guns ... at which point those Fusion guns get shifted over from the anti-fighter to the anti-missile role.

Still, if you throw 300 fighters at a Tigress and they can only knock down 50 of them per combat turn ... 250 ... 200 ... 150 ... 100 ... 50 ... that's going to be multiple combat rounds during which the Tigress is still under attack and "busy" with Aff Aff (anti-fighter anti-fighter).

So the most obvious option to maximize the asymmetry between fighters and a dreadnaught target like a Tigress would be use of ... triple beam lasers and single particle accelerator turrets (not barbettes).

• 30 lasers on 10 fighters costs 3*10=30EP and gives you a combined factor: 9 beam laser battery with a base to hit of 4 @ short range, 5 @ long range ... which also need to be able to penetrate sandcasters.
• 10 particle accelerators on 10 fighters costs 5*10=50EP and gives you a combined factor: 7 particle accelerator battery with a base to hit of 5 @ short or long range ... which sandcasters cannot stop.

After that, it's just a question of putting the biggest computer you can afford into those fighters in order to maximize your chances of actually hitting for damage with those weapons (and at what ranges and against what defenses). This is where the "stacking" of your formations starts coming into play.

10 fighters need to roll a base 5 to hit with factor: 7 ... but 6 fighters need to roll a base 6 to hit with factor: 5.
So 3 shots to hit a 5+ ... or 5 shots to hit a 6+ ... when it comes to decisions about organizing formations. Depending on the specifics of the engagement (big ship vs small ship) the answer to that question might change.

All things considered, fighters armed with a particle accelerator and the biggest computer that can be economically installed (somewhere in the model/5-7 range sounds about right) starts making for the best anti-capital ship fighters that you can manage.

Sure, against a Tigress with Armor: 12, the best you can hope for is 2+6+12=20 on the damage result ... and 22+ is no effect ... but 20 and 21 results are Weapon-1 on both the surface explosion and radiation damage tables, so fighters using lasers or better yet particle accelerators from long range (to stay away from the fusion guns) could potentially inflict SOME damage to the weapon systems and start reducing the arsenal onboard a Tigress. The nice thing about using energy weapons for this job instead of nukes would be that the lasers and particle accelerators would have "deep magazine" effectiveness (no physical ammo to expend) and could keep up the harassing fire for as long as they don't get shot down (or until recalled). Sure, the spinal mount could "pop" one fighter at a time, so they won't last forever ... but when there's a LOT of fighters harassing you, time is on the side of the swarm, not on the side of the dreadnaught fending off the swarm (hence why the Tigress has their own fighters for dealing with such nuisances).

 

[robject]

^ How about Severity of Dispersal, rather than attrition? The more severe the dispersal, the more difficult it would be for the fighter wing to re-form. So they're at least temporarily Out Of Action, and if the beating is severe enough, they could be Out Of Action for the duration.

But then I guess that still requires keeping a tally on a fighter cloud.

 

[Dragoner]

I just did a war, some notes: build time is an important factor, and this counts against capital ships; what are fleet engagements actually about, why are ships fighting? In my setting, Luyten 726-8/UV Ceti was important because of it's position for logistics, both transit, and re-fueling. That meant the Battle of Celestino, the local Gas Giant, ultimately became the determiner of the outcome of the war, one fleet broke the other. That said, fighters are important for a variety of duties beyond fleet battles; and I am developing an adventure along those lines, think Space: Above and Beyond meets Black Sheep Squadron.

 

[Condottiere]

Arms limitation treaties tend to resemble point based systems.

 

[whartung]

I just did a war, some notes: build time is an important factor,

This is absolutely a factor when you're limited by shipyards and hulls available.

Less so, though, for peace time where you have time to make the more "optimal" choices.

 

[Dragoner]

This is absolutely a factor when you're limited by shipyards and hulls available.

Less so, though, for peace time where you have time to make the more "optimal" choices.

Si vis pacem, para bellum; only counts if one prepares for the right war, so the choices made, might not be optimal for the situation. Another side note, is that the value of the hulls, meant that capturing ships with boarding parties was a more coherent strategy, often enough. Another topic is what does one do about planets and satellites that could have unlimited missile batteries, and deep meson gun emplacements.

 

[robject]

Another topic is what does one do about planets and satellites that could have unlimited missile batteries, and deep meson gun emplacements.

My thought is: we decide what we want that to look like. Do we want unlimited torpedo batteries?

 

[Condottiere]

Maintaining missiles and torpedoes cost money.

As some people are finding out right now.

Also, gravity well.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Sure, against a Tigress with Armor: 12, the best you can hope for is 2+6+12=20 on the damage result ... and 22+ is no effect ...

The Tigress in CT FS has Armour F (15) and will shrug off any turret weapons except nukes (and theoretically pulse lasers).

After that, it's just a question of putting the biggest computer you can afford into those fighters in order to maximize your chances of actually hitting for damage with those weapons (and at what ranges and against what defenses).

Without a big computer you can't hit or penetrate anything, and you are very easy to hit.

A hypothetical fighter squadron with a factor 7 missile battery and a m/9 computer hits a Tigress at 7+ (58%) but only penetrate dampers on 12+ (3%). Decrease the computer to a m/8 and it can't penetrate at all...

The Tigress would hit a fighter with missiles at 10+ (17%) or 7+ (58%) with a m/6 computer.


A High Guard fighter lives and dies with its computer. The first step in fighter design is to maximise agility and computer factor.