The Operational Rules of Traveller

[robject]

This thread was inspired from a recent discussion which turned out to be a proxy war for operational rules, though not expressed in so many words.

Executive Summary for all you Impatient Types

There are no operational rules. Thus every solution seen on COTI is IMTU. Your solution will not satisfy others. Embrace the variety and be content.



The Operational Rules of Traveller

...don't currently exist.

Traveller, for all its vastness, is still vague in certain areas of play. One glaring omission in "canon" is operational rules. We can battle squadrons. A trader can fight off a corsair. But we can't invade a star system.

The recent spate of people-talking-past-each-other was initially about new-fangled heat storage technology. But what the entire discussion was really about was over operational rules for Traveller -- of which there are none.

This discussion is merely the latest exchange. It's been going on for longer than I've known about Traveller. Probably been going on since the 80s. (Are there any kids here who were born in the 80s or later?)

So, until operational rules are nailed down, there is no resolution to this discussion.


Coping With the Lack of Operational Rules

Coping mechanisms are on a spectrum from using concepts from physics to re-using existing rules or introducing new game concepts. At the extreme ends of the spectrum, the other end may appear unreasonable, ignorant or silly. When using realism as a proxy for one's opinions, new game concepts are said to "snap one's suspension of disbelief", under the [not necessarily true] assumption that "magic" = cheating. When using game concepts as a proxy, realism will seem too "gearheaded" a solution, perhaps under the [not necessarily true] assumption that complex = complicated.

But the correct attitude in a public forum on Traveller would be to treat all of these opinions as IMTU solutions, which is exactly what they are, and perhaps fork the discussion into two based on each polar assumption. (This is what the Traveller Mailing List was -- two lists which had different starting assumptions -- before Unification Day).

 

[atpollard]

When confronted with a situation during play that had no clear rules guidelines, but needed resolution for the game to continue ... we resorted to flipping a coin.
Heads they attack now, tails they don't.

It works for a surprising number of situations and almost infinitely complex circumstances ... and it keeps the game moving forward.

"So you want to climb the rock face wearing a vacc suit jury-rigged from duct tape using old gum to improve your grip? Heads it works, tails it doesn't."

 

[whartung]

But we do have TCS and FFW as, ostensibly, some vision of the reality of operations in A TU. FFW is pure operations at a high level. TCS gets a bit deeper, but kind of skips over parts in FFW (I don't know recall if TCS has any rules on ground combat and planet stomping).

Nobody seems to have rules on planetary defenses, notably deep meson sites, how they're deployed, how they're targeted, how they're hardened. (Mind, we don't really have rules on deep penetrator ala "bunker busters" either in the rule set, but, anyway. I'd like to think a fleet of meson-less ships have some counter to a deep meson site, but perhaps not.)

Beyond that, currently, planets are little more than garrisons for ground forces and defended by in space fleets rather than considered Really Big Ships with dozens of Meson Guns and thousands of missile launchers.

But given all that, do you have any proposals to help settle the debate, or do you consider these details irreconcilable. Will any insights in T5 "settle" anything?

 

[Dragoner]

JTAS or Challenge had an article on invasions, planetary I think.

 

[McPerth]

Nobody seems to have rules on planetary defenses, notably deep meson sites, how they're deployed, how they're targeted, how they're hardened. (Mind, we don't really have rules on deep penetrator ala "bunker busters" either in the rule set, but, anyway. I'd like to think a fleet of meson-less ships have some counter to a deep meson site, but perhaps not.)

I'm not sure where did I read it, but IIRC planetary defense MG are deeper than what a densiometer can detect, and so, unless you have a map telling you their exact positions (quite possible in the Rebellion, as the same fleet attacking the planet is the one expected to defend it, but depending on espionage for other settings), cannot be targeted by attacking fleet and the only way to stop them is by destroying their sensors arrays, so blinding them too.

As for planetary defenses and assaults, see that FFW system is quite incompatible with IE, even while most units could theoretically be interchangeable (once TL differences are featured, as in IE TL15 was still being developed in 3I), as in few occasions will a planetary assault in FFW last for the 8+ months IE lasted.

The fact that any bombardement affects the whole planetary defense force in FFW and only one hex in IE (even while IE turns are two weeks, and FFW only one) has much to do with that, to give you only an example.

Also, in IE there are ground units (some mobile, some not) capable to damage the fleet in orbit, not featured in FFW, as you say. I guess the immobile ones represent the deep mesons, though they can be targeted from space.

 

[Vladika]

Nobody seems to have rules on planetary defenses, notably deep meson sites, how they're deployed, how they're targeted, how they're hardened.

I believe that Traveller does have a few things to say about planetary defense Deep Meson Sites, albeit indirectly.

Consider planetoids, armored or not. A planetary defense meson site (PDMS) is nothing more or less than the volume beneath the planet surface that would otherwise be available in planetoids as ships.

That same volume allows for costs, screen defensive power use, meson gun size etc. Call it a meson gun T, and a meson screen factor 9 and a "Bridge" for control rooms, a power plant, staterooms for crew, etc. just as if it were a ship, leaving out jump and maneuver drives of course.

Fuel could be continually supplied by underwater rivers, lakes or ocean access tubes and so forth. I would require a "holding tank" and fuel processors be included though.

With a deep site I would forgo nuclear dampers as unnecessary, or not, depending on "how deep is deep".

It's not complicated.

A few other rules are noted:

On the cheesy side TCS eliminates the need for ground assault by its rule on the victorious fleet having 100 offensive weapons points in orbit to control the planet. (I personally hate that rule). Also the long time between capture and use of shipyards is found in TCS.

 

[robject]

But given all that, do you have any proposals to help settle the debate, or do you consider these details irreconcilable. Will any insights in T5 "settle" anything?

Oh, it's as if someone paid you to post that question! If only the answer was already out there.

Probably, most of us suppose that there is a solution, and that (best case scenario) it will satisfy most people to some degree.

T5's "Battle-Class Ships" supplement has yet to be written; it's not part of role-playing, it's a strategic core. I suspect, but don't know, that the Operational War rules will be contained in that supplement, and will spell out how to invade or defend a system, how to invade or defend a world.

Marc has written emails about planetary assault and defense. Jake Collins has additionally commented on those thoughts, filling in some of the conceptual corners. Here is a distillation of these thoughts:


Step 0: Warfare in Traveller. (See "Land wars in Asia")

Step 1: Technology. determine what future tech will support. E.G. the SkyShield.

Step 2: Equipment. determine unit types.

Step 3. Differentiation. differentiate by species.



Step 0: Purpose

[Jake] 99% of wars will be about conquest or securing resources, not extermination (K'kree excepted, of course).

[Marc]We want the ability to make the battlefield a rectangular grid like downtown Manhattan and then make our forces struggle through the battlefield, compelled to fight at close quarters.

We want to have “hero” forces that we depend on for the special tasks… star marines, commandos, grognards, shadow troops, Persian Immortals. Complete with reasonable backstories that make the players love them.


Step 1: Technology

The standard (and more-or-less obligatory) components of any army force the battle to be surface warfare.

Sky-Shield

[Marc] For any deployment in force on a world surface, we’ll have a sky-shield: a sensor, missile, beam, and even meson gun protection against incoming ortillery and long-range siegecraft. In many cases, there is a pre-programmed barrage of incoming attacks that the sky shield will normally repulse; knocking out the sky-shield will allow devastating attacks on the surface.

In any planetary assault, the attacker will be trying to knock-out the power sources, sensors, and command and control grids of the 'sky shield' that otherwise prevents effective use of orbital bombardment.

[Jake] To do this, grunts will have to go in 'below the radar' and deal with things at close range.

Also: [Marc] Those Sky-Shield units need to have multi-duty capability, so they don’t just sit on the battlefield and do nothing else.


The Nuclear Option

[Marc] Second, we’ll have NDampers to make the battlefield non-nuclear. Knocking them out allows the battle area to become nuclear.

[Jake] Again, grunts are needed to knock these out.


COACC

[Marc] Third, there are a variety of air defense installations that will stop, repulse, or ? any aircraft (including grav craft above NOP -- Nap of Planet).

Like Sky-Shield units, Air Defense units need to have multi-duty capability, so they don’t just sit on the battlefield and do nothing else.


Environment

[Marc] Fourth, some worlds have their own challenges. Many of the battlefields are on habitable worlds, but there is also the opportunity for missions/ clashes/ operations on Vacc Worlds, Rad Worlds (high levels of Radiation), Storm Worlds (turbulent, violent atmospheres), Ocean Worlds (a few islands; open seas; suitable for grav vehicles and some boats), and more. [Jake] In addition, there are worlds with extensive urban areas, arcologies, subterranean cities, and the like. Grunts will be the main force in those environments, if the war is about anything less than extermination (which near-c rocks can accomplish without need for bothering with much else).


Step 2: Equipment

[Jake] Functional distinctions make more sense than just racial ones. Take a base case (infantry or cavalry, for example) and then add the qualifiers and specialties appropriate (lift cavalry or jump commandos, for example). Some races would have their own specialties (Zhodani psionic commandos, etc). Some worlds would have aquatic units, others ProFor for combat in vacuum or insidious atmospheres.

Future warfare is expected to have some sort of robotic forces. But "we prefer people to robots for our battles." [Marc]

[Marc] We want Plutons (think a rifle bullet pasted onto a GHQ micro-armor chassis) ready to fire their single shot big-nuke when the enemy’s NDampers are finally knocked out.

Once we posit Nukes on the battlefield, we also need to look at how to implement them,. And how to counter them with Black Globes, Stasis, and whatever.

We also need to posit various robot helpers and companions for the troops.


Step 3: Differentiation

[Marc] We want the ability to have strange enemies, in addition to the sophonts.

Chamax? Slugs? Bugs? On worlds where the native monsters attack both sides.

[Rob] I prefer that ecological niche be as interesting as tech level. It doesn't change TL advantage, but really it ought to change the field.

TL15 battledressed Imperial marines will still subdue or annihilate the Shrieker Grande Armee, but the Shriekers will set up their defense differently than humans.

 

[sabredog]

Nobody seems to have rules on planetary defenses, notably deep meson sites, how they're deployed, how they're targeted, how they're hardened. (Mind, we don't really have rules on deep penetrator ala "bunker busters" either in the rule set, but, anyway. I'd like to think a fleet of meson-less ships have some counter to a deep meson site, but perhaps not.)

Beyond that, currently, planets are little more than garrisons for ground forces and defended by in space fleets rather than considered Really Big Ships with dozens of Meson Guns and thousands of missile launchers.

But given all that, do you have any proposals to help settle the debate, or do you consider these details irreconcilable. Will any insights in T5 "settle" anything?

"Planetary Bombardment" is mentioned in various places in Traveller as some sort of means for attacking worlds. The 1st ed. HG required a missile magazine for ships that were designed for this role so I have always assumed that the primary weapon for attacking planets was the missile bay. Maybe big meson guns, but probably only as the ultimate bunker-buster.

As for assaulting the world without the means or desired to carpet bomb in into surrender, or to take out those deep meson installations I have always thought that was the reason for drop troops. Too small and too many to hit with meson guns after you've destroyed all of the surface batteries. Disperse them mixed with decoys and gunship drones for close air support.

In the end, though, the reality of science fiction planetary assaults, even with nuclear dampers to clean up afterwards if pretty devastating. The fleet in space would need to be able to reduce the planetary defenses quickly to avoid being shot to pieces while taking up orbit to deploy, and the best way to do that would be to use nuclear weapons. Large ones, smart ones, enhanced radiation ones, anything that will quickly smash communications and defense installations no matter how hardened and scattered. If that can't be done the causalities on the attacking side will be tremendous if not prohibitive. The old scifi adage of destroying a world to save it (ala' Flandry among others) comes to mind, so as to use it as an example to others. I think this is mentioned as the case in the OTU?

But I would say you have the defense combination about right. In the games Imperium and FFW only missile factors are counted towards reducing the defenses of a world. The original HG rules required missile magazines. I think the operational rules for planetary assaults should reflect that missile batteries of the assaulting fleet are what should be counted against the defenses of the world attacked.

A chart similar to the one in HG ought to suffice for damage that is counted in populace and military casualties, shields, batteries, infrastructure. infrastructure and populace casualties could lower the world's morale towards surrender, while military casualties would reduce it's defensive capabilities. When the morale level is below a certain threshold (which could be determined by the referee depending on culture/race/whatever) the world surrenders....the drop in military defenses determines how hard the planet can fight back or if it will need a ground assault.

That's a quick two-cents, anyway.

 

[whartung]

I guess we need to talk about the two, distinct operational aspects within Traveller.

The one that folks seem to chat about the most is simply getting the fleets assembled, deployed and on the attack. This is where questions about Jump synchronization, fuel times, High Guard positions, skimming operations, etc. all come in. The management and movement of the fleet.

Once the fleet is in system, there's the tactical problem of gaining control of space (or segments of it, around the gas giant, around the main world, etc.). We have LOTS of rules for that detail, save we don't have rules for operations within the upper atmosphere of a gas giant, as eluded to in another thread. While the fantasy of SDBs rising stealthily out of the crimson clouds of "Hank's Truck Stop V" is nice, I don't think it's really practical. I don't think the physics supports it well, and I think the SDBs stuck in a gravity well are at a particular disadvantage. But that's open for discussion.

Finally, then the land war begins on how to manage the problem of invading a planet and ideally having something worth capturing in the long run.

Those are distinct problems, me thinks, and should be addressed separately.

 

[sabredog]

I agree. For at least the system/planetary assault end there are several phases to work one's way through, each with it's own distinct goals that if not achieved may/will cause the whole thing to fail or be highly risky.

1) Jump-in/assembly/refueling phase: fleets arrive, secure a refueling/resupply assembly point, organize for system assault.

2) space battle phase: secure system from system space defenses (SDBs, defensive fleets) in space battles....planetary assault divisions will be in reserves here until system is secured

(Before next phase is entered a reserve rear-guard can be deployed in case of relief fleet jump-in by opposing forces. The planetary siege can take a while so this could be important if no other reserves are expected to join the attacking fleet soon.)

3) Planetary bombardment: any orbital defenses should be destroyed before assault orbit achieved for bombardment and landings. Monitors, close orbit defenses, and any other planetary space defenses must be reduced before continuing attack.

4) Planetary bombardment: reduce surface installation defenses to allow for drop and/or soft landing of assault forces. Failure to reduce sufficiently reduces chances of success though trying again later after resupply with reserves is possible.

5) Physical ground assault begins: seize control of what defenses are left, including any deep meson batteries. Before this is achieved soft landing of troops and equipment is costly, but casualties reduce as landing sites are secured so larger, slower supply ships can land.

6) Surrender of world and deploying new ground defenses in case of enemy relief arriving. Move reserve fleet forces closer to world and set up orbital defenses.

 

[aramis]

Robject - yes, there are limited operational rules - Invasion: Earth.

 

[sabredog]

A quick glance at the rules for Invasion Earth confirms this. They look pretty thorough, actually. They even include guerrillas and pesky SDB units popping in and out of various hiding places around the planet.

They even have provisions for involving PC's. They could still be expanded upon but so much of the game can be, ad nauseum, depending on the direction one's taste takes.

 

[PFVA63]

I guess we need to talk about the two, distinct operational aspects within Traveller.

The one that folks seem to chat about the most is simply getting the fleets assembled, deployed and on the attack. This is where questions about Jump synchronization, fuel times, High Guard positions, skimming operations, etc. all come in. The management and movement of the fleet.

Once the fleet is in system, there's the tactical problem of gaining control of space (or segments of it, around the gas giant, around the main world, etc.). We have LOTS of rules for that detail, save we don't have rules for operations within the upper atmosphere of a gas giant, as eluded to in another thread. While the fantasy of SDBs rising stealthily out of the crimson clouds of "Hank's Truck Stop V" is nice, I don't think it's really practical. I don't think the physics supports it well, and I think the SDBs stuck in a gravity well are at a particular disadvantage. But that's open for discussion.

Finally, then the land war begins on how to manage the problem of invading a planet and ideally having something worth capturing in the long run.

Those are distinct problems, me thinks, and should be addressed separately.

Hi,

My concerns relating to an operational level Traveller game stems from two or three main issues.

First, a Solar System is surprisingly huge to me (in Traveller terms). In fact the size of our own Solar system is so large that its quicker to travel from Earth to the outer planets via micro-jump rather than by maneuver drives. As such, this presents many issues relating to just how a player can/would defend such a vast volume of space. This is even more of an issue for systems like our Solar System which appears to have several Gas Giant planets which may need to be defended and/or patrolled

Next, there is the issue that the base "concepts" & "physics" of Traveller suggest the ability to do a lot of things like long duration accelerations to fairly high relative speeds, long range sensors, certain specific weapons and sensors, and other such factors.

And finally, looking over the rules as written for many of the games and rule sets in Traveller, many seem to suggest that the players will act in a certain way. Specifically most stuff I've seen for LBB2, May Day, High Guard, Brilliant Lances, and Battle Rider all seem to suggest that both sides will meet at a relatively modest closing speed before entering combat, and each of these different systems seem to have different thoughts on how easily ranges may open and close over time. And finally, for High Guard in particular there seems to be some significant indications that unless you are trying to break off combat, fleets appear to be assumed to stay in specific groups, rather than there being a potential for battles to break into several nearby but separate smaller actions.

To me then, because of the massive scales involved I have begun t have doubts that just because two opposing forces are in the same solar system that they will necessarily have to meet in battle. For our Solar System in particular, even if the "native' player were to station defense forces at each of the Gas Giants, as well as near any major colonies and outposts, plus near any major manufacturing or mining facilities in the asteroid belts plus near Earth, then an 'intruder" fleet may encounter one of these units if it jumps in near one of the gas giants, colonies, outposts, or mining/manufacturing "native" forces to reinforce his forces at the point of the "intruder's" attack, that any local battle may/will likely be over long before any reinforcements may arrive, and if the "intruder" may be able to refuel or conduct his raid or whatever his goal was and jump out before any of these reinforcements can arrive.

Similarly, if an intruder's goal is to conduct a raid against a major outpost or even Earth itself, its not clear to me why the commander might not consider jumping in system a fair bit of a distance away from his target, and then use the long run up approach to his target to get to a relatively high-speed making a quick "fly-by" strike and jumping out, hopefully limiting his exposure to the "native" players defenses. In many ways this might be seen as being maybe a bit analogous to some of the high-speed bomber raids made by the various combatants in WWII (such as the RAF's use of their high-speed Mosquito aircraft to attack Berlin, etc). Or similarly, it might also be seen as perhaps being a bit analogous to the US Army's high-speed dash through Baghdad in the Second Gulf War.

In general, the underlying tech and concepts of Traveller would seem to allow for such alternate tactics, and the use of alternate tactics on one side could potentially give that side an advantage over an opponent not prepared for such tactics (similar to how Lord Nelson's adoption of alternate tactics may have given him an advantage over what I believe was a numerically larger enemy force at Trafalgar).

Its because of stuff like this, that I'd really like to see Traveller operational level game.

Also, if one side isn't going to necessarily constrain himself to how High Guard, or Invasion Earth or the Fifth Frontier War assumes that opposing sides will likely act then I'm not sure what's included in them will necessarily be a good starting point for trying to model an operational level game, especially if the alternate tactics that one side may want to do is well within the basic precepts of Traveller tech and concepts.

Regards

PF

 

[sabredog]

You are correct that battles in space will need to be ones that are agreed upon to happen by the combatants, much like during the Age of Sail. Everyone will know who is out there and where they are most of the time (fleet wise, small groups and individuals, not so much) and there may even be some frustration on the part of one side as they dash around in a system trying to get the "French to come out".

But that is all something that can be assumed to be out of the way in a game involving Traveller fleets on the operational scale. By assuming battles will be centered around the strategic resources (like the ones you point out) needed to support space operations finding opponents in the vastness of a system will be pretty simple in the end. Even with jump drives leaving no wake to follow it is still pretty easy to figure out where the other guy went given the limits of the drives and need for all that fuel.

You know, other than coming up with a more detailed planetary assault system that maybe doesn't have to be as exhaustive as Invasion: Earth wouldn't just FFW work as an operational level rules system?

 

[Timerover51]

As I see it you are mixing apples and turnips. Traveller started out as a ROLEPLAYING GAME, and much of the basic rules are focused on that. If you are talking space fleet tactics, defense of a solar system, planetary invasions, and Trillion Credit Squadron fleets, you are no longer in a roleplaying game, but a SCIENCE FICTION WAR GAME. Those are two totally different things.

I could not care less about how to defend a solar system, and regard planetary invasions as utterly insane, especially if the target planet has a population in high millions to billions. I am interested in how a player character is going to make his ship payment and cover his operating cost this month. If you want to argue massive fleet combat, separate the forum. Have one for the roleplaying group and one for the wargaming group and never the twain shall meet.

 

[sabredog]

So you are contributing to the thread, why?

 

[Cryton]

As I see it you are mixing apples and turnips. Traveller started out as a ROLEPLAYING GAME, and much of the basic rules are focused on that. If you are talking space fleet tactics, defense of a solar system, planetary invasions, and Trillion Credit Squadron fleets, you are no longer in a roleplaying game, but a SCIENCE FICTION WAR GAME. Those are two totally different things.

I could not care less about how to defend a solar system, and regard planetary invasions as utterly insane, especially if the target planet has a population in high millions to billions. I am interested in how a player character is going to make his ship payment and cover his operating cost this month. If you want to argue massive fleet combat, separate the forum. Have one for the roleplaying group and one for the wargaming group and never the twain shall meet.

Traveller has been both a roleplaying game and a wargame since the late 70s. (Striker, Trillion Credit Squadron, ect, ect.) As such, threads dealing with both are welcome on this board.

Be civil and if you have nothing to say on a wargaming style thread, then please say nothing.

 

[PFVA63]

You are correct that battles in space will need to be ones that are agreed upon to happen by the combatants, much like during the Age of Sail. Everyone will know who is out there and where they are most of the time (fleet wise, small groups and individuals, not so much) and there may even be some frustration on the part of one side as they dash around in a system trying to get the "French to come out".

But that is all something that can be assumed to be out of the way in a game involving Traveller fleets on the operational scale. By assuming battles will be centered around the strategic resources (like the ones you point out) needed to support space operations finding opponents in the vastness of a system will be pretty simple in the end. Even with jump drives leaving no wake to follow it is still pretty easy to figure out where the other guy went given the limits of the drives and need for all that fuel.

You know, other than coming up with a more detailed planetary assault system that maybe doesn't have to be as exhaustive as Invasion: Earth wouldn't just FFW work as an operational level rules system?

Hi,

I think I mostly disagree with this here. To me one of the reasons I think an operational level game would be useful is that rather than just viewing a solar system as a single point where if two fleets are in the same space together the will likely battle in a High Guard like encounter until one side decides to try and break off contact, I've begun to view a solar system more as a "theater of battle" much like the Solomon Islands in WWII.

As such, there may be maneuvering (on a grand scale) to try and gain an advantage (such as trying to pull units put of place), decoys, feints, micro-jumps, micro-jumps by decoys to try and get your opponent to assume that you are jumping to one location while the main units of a fleet actually jump to a different location, and even the potential for each side to establish their own bases in system, with the opposing sides exchanging raids over time, etc (similar to US & Japanese actions in the Solomon Islands/New Guinea area with the opposing bases at Guadalcanal and Rabual, etc).

As for the actual battles, I don't necessarily think both sides would have to agree to meet, if the attack is planned as a raid.

Regards

PF

 

[Enoki]

I'd add that there are going be alot of politics in this. After all, you can have very big mismatches in technology levels and there are not just Imperial systems involved. What would be the politics in a non-aligned system of moderate tech level? Or, between two micro empires that are maxing out at around TL 10 or so? No meson guns there.

Oh, nuclear devices have upper limits on size. This is based on their coming apart at the seams so to speak before they can completely fission or fusion. In most cases a bunch of smaller ones are desirable to a few big ones and planet busting of deep defenses I'd think would better be done with a "Rod from God" type of penetrator anyway.

 

[samuelvss]

I could not care less about how to defend a solar system, and regard planetary invasions as utterly insane, especially if the target planet has a population in high millions to billions. I am interested in how a player character is going to make his ship payment and cover his operating cost this month. If you want to argue massive fleet combat, separate the forum. Have one for the roleplaying group and one for the wargaming group and never the twain shall meet.

As to the insanity of invasions, Germany had millions when we invaded with hundreds of thousands. America had hundreds of millions when Germany invaded with a few dozens. Insanity has a way of repeating itself.

I think that having an operational backdrop to what the characters are going through. If the repo man is the biggest moving part in my campaign I might as well hang it up.

For Traveller being a roleplaying game, operational art and military science are chrome. I like chrome. Can't get enough. Anyone else like chrome?