The 10 dTon convoy fighter

[McPerth]

There is no facing in HG. Ships are considered to be rotating or whatever to be able to constantly bring to bear the maximum number of batteries even when batteries are reduced by attrition (good thing the enemy always hits entire batteries on the same side of the ship at once to make it easy)....

....and yet during combat that supposedly takes place across thousands of kilometers over a 20 minute turn during which ships the size of aircraft carriers zip about at ten's of gees of accumulated acceleration to dodge myriad lasers, missiles, and energy weapons so there is no way that the same ships could ever have time, energy, or maneuverability to fire three or so large weapons that are mounted to face more or less one direction. But...they can make sure a ship the size of the Death Star can rotate and bring to bear all those batteries even while losing some to attrition in combat.

Not to mention the ridiculous idea that a 100kt warship can only mount a single spinal weapon that masses 5k or less, especially when that is usually the only one that really makes the ship dangerous to other warships of similar class. It's about as much sense as a few fighters the size of F-14's stopping a line of capital ships from brea......oh...yeah.....never mind.

I know there's no facing in HG (so that you can fire your frontal spinal even if you are retreating, so you're assuming to be "showing your stern" to enemy fleet, but the bateries firing simultaneously must be capable to do so, and so to aim to diferent angles at once, and not fixed ones or you will force your enemy to be so gentle as to hav his ships in those specific angles.

That will be as trying to fire a double-barreled shotgun to fire simultaneously to two separate targets.

About a single fighter stopping all your raider fleet, IMHO the possibility of a breacktrhough (HG2 page 41) to occur is so high as to make the fighter screen unseless, unless there are nearly as much fighters in the screen as batteries the enemy has to fire them.

 

[pendragonman]

I disagree with you here. The same term on spinal weapon forces any ship, regardless size, to have single one. This is not for size constrains, but by the fact that they a immobile (relative the ship).

Even if you arm you Tigris with 3 spinals (possible, being a sphere, as they can be equally long), they will be in fixed angles (let's say a central one and one each 30 degrees port and starboard). What is the possibility to have three ships exactly in those angles so that your Tigris can fire its multiple spinals at once?

And if they are used to absorb damage, see that a single weapon ship will disable one full spinal (even if it is a T rated one) as long as it is not the last one (the last battery). Yes, it's another game artifact, but a single fusion turret (factor 5 at TL15) will absorb 5 weapon hits, while a secondary spinal will be taken out by a single one.

Ok, so suppose your Tigris has three spinals, one for each of the cardinal axes. I agree, no more than one is likely to fire on any one given turn. However, damage degradation would mean that the opponent would need three spinal damage hits to reduce the ship's spinal effectiveness.

Now, what say you to a catamaran hull, or a trimaran? Then you do have the double (or triple) barrel effect, all being able to be aimed at the same target each round. One ship, multiple spinal shots. Further, what is to stop you at three? How about a "revolver" hull? Six or more spinal shots in one round.

The rule about one spinal to a ship is to define a limit. It is also a game artifact and not meant to model reality.

 

[samuelvss]

Any wargame rules introduce artificiality. IMHO, light fighters are more of a help in a LBB2 universe than an HG2 one, but I think overall HG2 does a good job at providing a decent abstract system.

For me the breakthrough rule makes sense: when a weapon system is taken out of its comfort zone, then strange results happen: An old man takes out an APC's crew with a rock and a grenade. A single private with an M-1 rifle firing one shot holds up a panzer brigade overnight (long enough for the engineers to rig the the next bridge for demo, which is to say long enough to stop them for good). One tank in the Golan holding up a brigade in '73, for a while.

This is how I see it: In HG2, what allows a huge ship to evade is the extreme distances involved (and yes, size figures into the "to hit," just not the same way it would at the ranges we're used to). When a force breaks through it ignores trying to keep these standoff ranges, it gets out of it's comfort zone, allowing much inferior weapon systems to take "achilles heel shots." Rather than playing this out, HG2 just disallows a breakthough under these conditions. I buy this, within the system. The breakthrough rule also keeps fighters relevant, which no other rule really does in HG2.

Any ruleset has compromises that we can sharpshoot. Indeed, any law, uniformly applied, will lead to unjust results. Good laws just lead to far fewer.

 

[McPerth]

Ok, so suppose your Tigris has three spinals, one for each of the cardinal axes. I agree, no more than one is likely to fire on any one given turn. However, damage degradation would mean that the opponent would need three spinal damage hits to reduce the ship's spinal effectiveness.

Now, what say you to a catamaran hull, or a trimaran? Then you do have the double (or triple) barrel effect, all being able to be aimed at the same target each round. One ship, multiple spinal shots. Further, what is to stop you at three? How about a "revolver" hull? Six or more spinal shots in one round.

The rule about one spinal to a ship is to define a limit. It is also a game artifact and not meant to model reality.

To shoot more than one spinal to a ship, mosre so if they should share the to hit ropp (as I envision mounting them as a double-barreled shotgun) is pointless, as most times the first spinal shoot disables the ship (mission killing it), and other spinals are just overkilling.

And about using them to avoid spinal degradation, as I've already said, lesser cost (both, in volume, money and power) weapons have nearly the same effect and also help you against fighters or lesser ships (or as ortillery) while they are still functional.

 

[McPerth]

This is how I see it: In HG2, what allows a huge ship to evade is the extreme distances involved (and yes, size figures into the "to hit," just not the same way it would at the ranges we're used to). When a force breaks through it ignores trying to keep these standoff ranges, it gets out of it's comfort zone, allowing much inferior weapon systems to take "achilles heel shots." Rather than playing this out, HG2 just disallows a breakthough under these conditions. I buy this, within the system. The breakthrough rule also keeps fighters relevant, which no other rule really does in HG2.

Fighters may screen your fleet and avoid a breakthrough only in hight numbers, but they will probably be in a suicide mission. Anyway, fighters may have other relevance, at TLs lower than 15. In fact, at some TLs they are the main weapon.

EDIT: And in the case the OP tells, as convoy defense against pirates, they'll probably be enough too, both in LBB2 and in HG, as pirates don't use to have state of the art cruisers or battleships.

 

[Piper]

For me the breakthrough rule makes sense: when a weapon system is taken out of its comfort zone, then strange results happen: An old man takes out an APC's crew with a rock and a grenade. A single private with an M-1 rifle firing one shot holds up a panzer brigade overnight (long enough for the engineers to rig the the next bridge for demo, which is to say long enough to stop them for good). One tank in the Golan holding up a brigade in '73, for a while.

Another example along the same lines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_off_Samar

This is how I see it: In HG2, what allows a huge ship to evade is the extreme distances involved (and yes, size figures into the "to hit," just not the same way it would at the ranges we're used to). When a force breaks through it ignores trying to keep these standoff ranges, it gets out of it's comfort zone, allowing much inferior weapon systems to take "achilles heel shots." Rather than playing this out, HG2 just disallows a breakthough under these conditions. I buy this, within the system. The breakthrough rule also keeps fighters relevant, which no other rule really does in HG2.

Any ruleset has compromises that we can sharpshoot. Indeed, any law, uniformly applied, will lead to unjust results. Good laws just lead to far fewer.

I think I can see where you're coming from here and, so far as it goes, I tend to agree with you. The problem I have with the High Guard breakthrough rule is that it "feels" rather gimmicky; a bit too cold and forced.

One way to handle it might be to implement command and control rules and/or personalities for subordinate commanders allowing for the kind of human factor that's lacking in HG. I really doubt this will have any traction, though. HG has always seemed more like a way to test competing ship designs than a naval wargame or RPG.

 

[HG_B]

Another example along the same lines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_off_Samar

Not really. The Jap commander panicked and fled. Otherwise, he would have wiped out the US ships in that entire area.

 

[Carlobrand]

Ok, so suppose your Tigris has three spinals, one for each of the cardinal axes. I agree, no more than one is likely to fire on any one given turn. However, damage degradation would mean that the opponent would need three spinal damage hits to reduce the ship's spinal effectiveness.

Now, what say you to a catamaran hull, or a trimaran? Then you do have the double (or triple) barrel effect, all being able to be aimed at the same target each round. One ship, multiple spinal shots. Further, what is to stop you at three? How about a "revolver" hull? Six or more spinal shots in one round.

The rule about one spinal to a ship is to define a limit. It is also a game artifact and not meant to model reality.

Try looking at other rules. As others have pointed out, the rules on weapons hits makes a second spinal impractical for preserving your firepower, so not a good solution against the missile boats. And, the rules on spinal hits make meson spinals rather deadly - you put two, three, four spinals on one ship, you have two, three, four spinals die in one hit along with that ship. The way the rules are structured, you don't want more than one spinal on a ship - you want lots of separate ships so you don't lose all your eggs when that basket gets stomped.

Still a game artifact - just for different reasons.

Not really. The Jap commander panicked and fled. Otherwise, he would have wiped out the US ships in that entire area.

Harsh.

Fierce opposition prompted him to misread the nature of the opposing force, and he chose to preserve his force rather than sacrifice it to achieve the objective. He'd had three cruisers sunk or severely damaged by the defending force by that point, thought Halsey hadn't taken the bait and was still in the area and hitting him with fighters from the main carrier force. The day before, they'd lost Musashi, a Yamato-class battleship, to air attack.

In retrospect, it was a bad decision - Japanese navy was already becoming marginalized by the fuel shortages and the difficulty replacing fighter losses, they were to the point of sacrificing carriers just to decoy Halsey, the Japanese commander's force was considered expendable. It would have been better to spend his force even if he was facing the opponent he thought he was facing, but he thought he was going to lose his ships without achieving anything.

 

[McPerth]

Try looking at other rules. As others have pointed out, the rules on weapons hits makes a second spinal impractical for preserving your firepower, so not a good solution against the missile boats. And, the rules on spinal hits make meson spinals rather deadly - you put two, three, four spinals on one ship, you have two, three, four spinals die in one hit along with that ship. The way the rules are structured, you don't want more than one spinal on a ship - you want lots of separate ships so you don't lose all your eggs when that basket gets stomped.

Let me take the opportunity to make a little homage to Andrew Boulton and his videos in Youtube to show how I envision the spinals would work (though I envision them to be fired beyond visual range):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsX4e7sZ_Ek

Now imagine that instead of a single blue ray there are two parallel ones (as would 2 spinals mounted as double-barrelled shotgun), and tell me if it really would make any difference.

 

[HG_B]

Harsh.

Fierce opposition prompted him to misread the nature of the opposing force, and he chose to preserve his force rather than sacrifice it to achieve the objective.

Actually, they were DD's opposing him. They came within VERY close range. There was no mistaking them for Cruisers or above. The aircraft attacking were clearly not really set up for taking out capital ships. Also, this was a last ditch plan. His mission was to destroy the force before it could lodge itself on land. "Preserving" his force and failing meant total, unrecoverable failure. To this day, his running is attributed to his bad state of mind and physical health (US Naval intel assessment) as it was not logical within other context...

 

[samuelvss]

As to multiple spinals, I would allow them only to share the same "to hit" die. Essentially, I would allow a rules modification to make bigger spinals, though I would have to look at the relative sizes.

I personally like the idea of maximizing the available meson spinal platforms, and making them riders, as far as far as a capital battlefleet is concerned.

That said, there are a whole lot of other roles for the navy, for which capital ships, and rider/tender combops specifically may not be suited.

That said, I would envision rider/tender combos as a strategic reserve, witht he riders able to act well in a defensive/DIP role. They fight bravely for whom retreat is no an option.

 

[Whipsnade]

To this day, his running is attributed to his bad state of mind and physical health (US Naval intel assessment) as it was not logical within other context...

Don't forget that two days earlier Kurita had spent over an hour swimming for his life after his flagship Atago was sunk by a submarine and one day earlier air attacks by Halsey's carriers had caused Kurita to order Center Force to withdraw. Then, when Kurita initially spotted Taffy 3, Center Force had just begun a formation change from nighttime steaming to daytime air defense. Rather than wait for that change to be completed, Kurita ordered what amounted to little more than a "bum's rush" at US forces with every IJN ship working independently. Topping all that off, Yamato with Kurita aboard then had to steam away from the battle to avoid torpedoes - torpedoes which had been set to run just a fast as the battleship could steam. That stern chase meant Kurita lost sight of not only the US force but most of his own ships too.

As interesting as Samar is, it's a rather poor example of the role the OP's fighter is meant to play.

Getting back to the OP's fighter, I cannot stress enough that that craft is nothing more than an unreal game artifact. It works in HG2 because of the Line/Reserve rules and nothing else. It does not work in LBB:2, Mayday, MT, Brilliant Lances, Battlerider, Power Projection, or any other ship combat system in Traveller because none of those systems has Line/Reserve rules like those in HG2.

One poster mentioned that the fighter could work in convoy defense in LBB:2. It cannot. There are no rules in LBB:2 which provide for any type of screening whatsoever. If a ship is within weapons range it can be fired upon and no friendly vessels can interfere with either the enemy's sighting or firing.

The seeming lack of screening or area defense rules in nearly all Traveller ship combat systems was not an oversight on GDW's part. The lack was a deliberate design feature as such rules are difficult to both create and use. The lack is meant to speed/simplify game play so we have no screening rules most combat systems and a "perfect" screening rule - the Line/Reserve rule - in HG2.

The "perfect" nature of HG2's screening rule means it can be hacked in both play and design. All systems break down at extremes. Hence the OP's convoy fighter design and the potential that dozens hundreds of battleships can screened by a lone, highly agile, small vessel.

The OP's design and the conversation it sparked illustrate once again our collective tendency to ask more of the rules than the rules were designed to give. Ships in Traveller should be able to screen each other and provide some kind of area defense, but we do not have rules for those activities so any attempts to design ships with those activities in mind will fail.

We cannot ask more of the rules than the rules were meant to give. Recently one poster complained that MT's wet navy design rules published in Challenge did not produce historical results. They, of course, hadn't even considered the possibility that those rules weren't designed with producing historical results in mind. A very similar incomprehension occurs when a few rules solely meant for TCS' simple strategic wargame are "used" by well meaning people to fashion a budget for the Third Imperium or to determine how much time ship repairs will require.

The OP's fighter is a lovely design. However, it's a orchid that can only thrive in the environment of HG2. Set it down in any other system and it's intended role vanishes.

 

[HG_B]

Don't forget that two days earlier Kurita had spent over an hour swimming for his life after his flagship Atago was sunk by a submarine and one day earlier air attacks by Halsey's carriers had caused Kurita to order Center Force to withdraw.

Yes, that & being physically ill were a central part of the US Nav Intel assessment I noted.

In good health, mind & body, I doubt he would have illogically fled like he did.

 

[Whipsnade]

Yes, that & being physically ill were a central part of the US Nav Intel assessment I noted.

I just wanted to add some of the details to explain why he was so rattled before the encounter and why he handled the encounter so poorly.

The events leading up to Samar meant that Kurita was not at 100% mentally or physically, much like Hooker at Chancellorsville after the shell burst.

In good health, mind & body, I doubt he would have illogically fled like he did.

Kurita claimed decades later that he knew the war was lost and that part of his decision to withdraw was to save the lives of his men. I agree with many others that those claims were nothing but revisionist thinking on Kurita's part.

 

[aramis]

Bill, it's worth noting that any 10Td fighter in Bk2 combat is as much threat as the average Merchantman... not much, but in Bk2, that's plenty.

 

[samuelvss]

Bill, it's worth noting that any 10Td fighter in Bk2 combat is as much threat as the average Merchantman... not much, but in Bk2, that's plenty.

That was the point I alluded to, apparently without effect. Being able to jam a turret into 14 tons or son is rather an advantage in LBB2, especially if you have a mess of them. Swarming works, with or without the HG2 rules. In many tactical situations, having too many targets can be a fatal problem. Midway comes to mind....

 

[PFVA63]

I hope I'm not getting too far off the original post here but I think that Whipsnade hits on something important here, in that there are some significant differences in how the different rules sets and add-on games model space combat. While some of this may be just due to rules artifacts and such, I fear some other differences may actually be due to the fact that the different rules and approaches may not really be modeling what they are trying to model all that well.

In general, as I understand it, vessel maneuver in Traveller has always been based around acceleration-based vector movement and both the original rules and MayDay tried to translate what would occur in 3D into a 2D setting.

I only have a vague familiarity with some of the later rule sets such as Brilliant Lances and Battle Rider because they kind of came out after I had initially begun to move away from playing Traveller an started playing other games (like Twilight 2000 & 2300AD, etc) but High Guard did come out while I used to play Traveller, and looking over everything now a days its hard for me to reconcile a lot of what's in High Guard (concerning fleet operations and movement and screening or such) with the acceleration-based vector movement assumed for the ships.

As such, now that I've been getting re-interested in Traveller again, I've become less interested in High Guard and a large ship stuff and more focused on smaller ship stuff.

 

[sabredog]

HG is to LBB2 combat and movement what Mercenary is to LBB1 combat. Both try to introduce abstract rules for managing big battles which may or may not involve characters in a campaign game.

If you layer your campaign to allow for large fleet actions that may be peripheral or have some character involvement on a personal scale then HG works the same way that the Mercenary battle system does: it allows for more color and action on a large scale.

I have run campaigns where the players have had to dodge through battles in progress to make it to the surface of a world for a rescue they were hired for, then have a major invasion going on around them before they could get off the world and safely away again. The naval ships involved were HG designs, the ship the players were in and fighting were LBB2 designs using that combat system, and the ground battle was handled through Mercenary's tables until it directly affected the PC's and then switched to LBB1 combat.

By at least having the abstract large-scale rules for HG and Mercenary I was able to run up and down the scale of the action around the players and allow for some character interaction to effect some of the action on a local scale. As an abstract battle management system HG works OK. It isn't perfect and you have to just accept some odd quirks, but it does the job it was designed for, which is large fleet actions and designing really large or specialized ships. For small ship combat and design it is lacking, but I never thought you had to toss the LBB2 systems when HG came out; that HG was to supplement those depending on scale was all.

 

[aramis]

HG is to LBB2 combat and movement what Mercenary is to LBB1 combat. Both try to introduce abstract rules for managing big battles which may or may not involve characters in a campaign game.

Neither of which produces the same results as playing out the lower scale.

Merc comes closer; striker is closer still.

HG, however, can't be replicated at the lower scale for a number reasons - the biggest being no conversion back to Bk2/Mayday combat mechanics for Fusion, Plasma, and Meson guns. Nor for armor.

Heck, even playing unarmored vessels designed with Bk2 vs each other in HG mechanics doesn't replicate Bk2. They're incompatible models.

That's one of the reasons I like MT, T20, and don't actively disdain MgT... I have the tools to play out even big ships at the small ship combat systems. (Ok, MT doesn't provide screen rules for the vehicle combat mechanics, but those can be adjusted from the HG based into a hit/miss and the damage assessed per the vehicle combat mechanics.)

 

[Whipsnade]

Bill, it's worth noting that any 10Td fighter in Bk2 combat is as much threat as the average Merchantman... not much, but in Bk2, that's plenty.

While a 10dTon fighter is a threat in LBB:2 combat, it cannot screen other vessels and screening other vessels is what this thread is about.

The rule which allows the OP's design to work in HG2 has no counterpart in LBB:2. The design is usefull in LBB:2 but it useful in another way.