LeperColony
Traveller Card Game Dev Team
I don't really know much about HG at all, but is the Tigress even an effective ship? My understanding was that fighters were not very useful at TL-15.
Tigress class dreadnaughts
- Thread starter rancke
- Start date
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
Tigress is an oversize target and a poor design for a warship at TL15 (Meson Spinal Magnet with not enough of a meson screen). There ARE several uses for Fighters at TL15, just not good "front line" combat options. That statement will without doubt open the :CoW:
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
Naga is Sanskrit. In case it was Japanese also (I didn't know one way or the other) I looked it up.
By a very strange twist of fate I worked on some of the sets for the movie Tora! Tora! Tora! From memory Tora is a phonic pronunciation and as such can have multiple meanings. In the movie, as historically, it was the code word for Attack (On Pearl Harbor), literally though, Tiger.
Tiger was associated with the Samurai, hence the Japanese choice of the code word. Plenty of room for confusion for us Westerners.
big tiger oodora
dragon and tiger ryuuko, ryouko
fierce tiger mouko
paper tiger harikonotora
small tiger kodora
tiger tora
tiger beet michishirube
tiger cat toraneko
Tiger Swallow Fist koenken
year of the tiger toradoshi
From: http://eudict.com/?lang=engjap&word=little tiger
attack kougeki
From:http://www.japanesedictionary.org/search?search=attack&searchtype=english
Naga in English
Naga (Sanskrit) Serpent; the symbol of immortality and wisdom, of renewed births, of secret knowledge and, when the tail is held in the mouth, of eternity. The nagas or serpents of wisdom are, therefore, full initiates: "the first Nagas -- beings wiser than Serpents -- are the 'Sons of Will and Yoga,' born before the complete separation of the sexes, 'matured in the man-bearing eggs produced by the power (Kriyasakti) of the holy sages' of the early Third Race" (SD 2:181). These first nagas were the original human adepts, who were later symbolized by the terms serpents and dragons. "These 'originals' -- called to this day in China 'the Dragons of Wisdom' -- were the first disciples of the Dhyanis, who were their instructors; in short, the primitive adepts of the Third Race, and later, of the Fourth and Fifth Races. The name became universal, and no sane man before the Christian era would ever have confounded the man and the symbol" (SD 2:210).
to be continue "Naga2 "
Nāga (, , , Javanese: någå, , , , Tibetan: ཀླུ་, Bengali: নাগ) is the Sanskrit and Pāli word for a deity or class of entity or being, taking the form of a very great snake—specifically the King Cobra, found in Hinduism and Buddhism. The use of the term nāga is often ambiguous, as the word may also refer, in similar contexts, to one of several human tribes known as or nicknamed "Nāgas"; to elephants; and to ordinary snakes, particularly the King Cobra and the Indian Cobra. A female nāga is a nāgī or nāginī.
From:http://translation.babylon.com/english/naga/
Well, the combat rules fail to reflect it, but the greater size of a battleship must improve its ability to stand in the line of battle. Survivability is a stated characteristic of battleships, and the only difference between a heavy cruiser and a battleship armed with the same meson gun is the size. It makes sense too. The hit that totals a critical part of a ship (e.g. the ship's computer) has a lower chance of hitting the computer on a big ship than on a not so big ship. The hit that shatters the fuel tanks on a cruiser only hits a part of the tanks on a battleship, and so on.
And, of course, the fact that the Imperium builds 160+ of the things (and hundreds of other battleships) suggest that they are not vastly less effective than the number of cruisers you could build instead. Battleships are not just impractically expensive cruisers. It's a stated fact that battleships can stand in the line of battle and cruisers can't. There has to be a reason for that difference.
None of which is actually relevant to this thread. Even if Tigresses were complete failures, the Imperium still built a couple of hundred of them and I just happen to think that it's fun to come up with names for (at least some of) them.
Hans
Heh. I just had a spectacularily bad idea: Replace the -ess in the names I already have with -ette, thus doubling the number of names in one fell swoop! Tigrette, Lionette, Pantherette, etc., etc.. :rofl:
(And even if I did (don't worry, I won't), I'd still be 80 names short!
)
Hans
(And even if I did (don't worry, I won't), I'd still be 80 names short!
)Hans
Garyius2003
SOC-13
Remember the 3I has only really fought the Zho and Rim War lately. Sure, there are all kinds of theories, and some of them are right, but who is going to bet the safety of the 3I on building TL15 55kDt cruisers and 9kDt riders exclusively.
Please recall right up through the Turkey Shoot most people were waiting for the real battle between surface ships, and even with Ten-Go the first thought was to move the US Battle line up rather then the massive air attack.
Sure, we the players know the Tigress is wrong, because we have the rule book, and know exactly every bit of probability that will ever be in a fight (the PCs are in). No one else does.
Please recall right up through the Turkey Shoot most people were waiting for the real battle between surface ships, and even with Ten-Go the first thought was to move the US Battle line up rather then the massive air attack.
Sure, we the players know the Tigress is wrong, because we have the rule book, and know exactly every bit of probability that will ever be in a fight (the PCs are in). No one else does.
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
That is probably the best reason I've heard yet.
True, Remember though that there were always far more Cruisers in every navy than Battle Ships. Then came the Carriers...
I think the Imperial Navy still knows that the configuration of the Tigress is a bad choice as is the comparatively week mason screen.
The funny thing is, even though I advocate for Cruisers and Riders, I agree with Hans*; the rules are flawed. T5 has a semi fix in the multiple zones for ships as they get larger. They take far more hits before destruction.
*Don't get to excited Hans, just because I agree with you doesn't mean I will loose a battle by designing against the rules in play. After all, it does have to make sense.:devil:
There's a difference in belivability between one specific class of battleship being sub-optimal and every single battleship being vastly inferior (credit for credit) to cruisers, especially when the setting description makes battleships superior to cruisers.
There's a difference between designing ships and fighting other ships in a war-game on one hand and setting-building on the other. The second has to make sense; the first just has to be balanced and make for a fun game. (ISTR that the Eurisko fleet was based on a strategy of sacrificing ships that might not have worked quite according to plan if it had been manned by actual people). Also, a ship that is a great success in a wargame where missile expenditure is ignored may not do so well in a setting where logisitics are a factor.
As for riders, keep in mind that in the Classic Era the comparative effectiveness of riders vs. battleships is close enough to be a subject of debate and that in 1105 the Imperium is shifting FROM battleriders TO battleships...
Hans
Last edited:
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
I hate the "magic missile" rule in it's entirety. CT carefully tracks missiles and HG looks like a teen arcade game where you have a revolver that never needs reloading and never runs out of ammo.
BTW, I've never actually seen anyone here compare the "J" Meson equivalent to a WWII torpedo and the small ships they are deployed on as a PT/E boat equivalent. Given the 7700dt to 10kdt ships without jump drives (littoral ships) and the 500ktd Battleships its not to bad of an analogy.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Historically, there are technological, political, social and economic reasons for the composition for any particular navy, based on the perceived needs of their respective Admiralties.
If you have to patrol a vast empire, most of your ships will be the cheapest, smallest, most economic solution to protect your mercantile shipping and project power, so basically a cruiser.
If you look at the current discussion as to the best modern solution, you'll have advocates for single mission corvettes, modular hybrids and multi-mission destroyers (ironically sized like previous generations' cruisers). Frigates and OPVs tend to be the compromise.
If you have to patrol a vast empire, most of your ships will be the cheapest, smallest, most economic solution to protect your mercantile shipping and project power, so basically a cruiser.
If you look at the current discussion as to the best modern solution, you'll have advocates for single mission corvettes, modular hybrids and multi-mission destroyers (ironically sized like previous generations' cruisers). Frigates and OPVs tend to be the compromise.
The problem with Traveller battleships is that they're supposed to be tougher than cruisers, but if you go by the combat system, they're not significantly better able to resist a meson gun. From the setting description, cruisers are eggs armed with sledgehammers and battleships are coconuts armed with sledgehammers. From the rules, battleships are larger and more expensive eggs, not coconuts. A fleet composed of cruisers is effectively 6-8 times better than a fleet of the same cost composed of battleships.
I doubt there are any historical examples of such a situation.
And yet the Imperium builds a battleship for every two or three cruisers.
Hans
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
The usual historic formula is for any ship to be able able to deal with enemy ships of the same tonnage, which is why cruisers tended to be sufficiently armoured to survive eight inch shells, though how effective this tended to be is disputed.
Under CT, you would ideally build 300kT dreadnoughts in a TL15 setting (if I recall the hull rating system correctly) to slug it out.
Because of the communications and transition lag, you might not know what awaits you at the other end of the jump, so the temptation would be to construct a ship that can take reasonable care of itself when facing more or less equal odds, with superior training being the deciding factor.
Under CT, you would ideally build 300kT dreadnoughts in a TL15 setting (if I recall the hull rating system correctly) to slug it out.
Because of the communications and transition lag, you might not know what awaits you at the other end of the jump, so the temptation would be to construct a ship that can take reasonable care of itself when facing more or less equal odds, with superior training being the deciding factor.
LeperColony
Traveller Card Game Dev Team
What I actually meant by my original question is whether the Tigress is well designed for a battleship. Cruisers may be more efficient than battleships, but how do Tigresses stack up as a dreadnought?
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
The Tigress is a piss poor design for a BB. Wrong configuration and to small of a meson screen.:toast:
Also, while claiming to be J4 it carries only enough fuel for J3.
Other than those big issues the "useless" fighter craft and launch tubes make it start to look like a "flying deck cruiser":file_28:
Seemingly the IN designers were to busy watching Heavy Metal for inspiration...:file_21:
http://www.ugo.com/image/132745/greatest-movie-spaceships-heavy-metal
Also, while claiming to be J4 it carries only enough fuel for J3.
You know, there are stiff penalties for disclosing classified Imperial Navy secrets . . .
And to answer that question we also to think about how high guard stacks up as a combat game for Traveller. Which problem was it designed to solve? How playable and fun is it? Does it model the OTU correctly? Do the design rules fit ship combat?
I mean, the Tigress is supposed to be a powerful ship, and one of the biggest, baddest beasties in the Imperial lineup. Asking if it actually IS what it's supposed to be is one question among many important questions.
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
Rob, Eurisko simply took the rules as written...:CoW: but you are right, things do need a facelift.
The biggest complaint seems to have been the "self destruct" of damaged ships. That can be obviated by breaking of from the reserve. Both keep the Fleet agility up for the stated purpose of initiative role.
Another two things the competitions did that WOULD NOT apply in a campaign, or real life, is limit the number of pilots and require J4. This, I believe, was to speed up the game to be played in a necessarily short time frame. It also had the "unintentional:devil:" result in hampering Eurisko...
Both resulted in far fewer ships in play for the Trillion Credits.Another complaint from Fans was the Eurisko Fleet with no maneuver drive the first year. In all fairness the rules didn't require them and for a System Defense Fleet that works just fine with the weapon ranges what they are.
I believe anyone should build whatever fleet they think is appropriate (under WHATEVER rules are in force, amended or not). Just because somebody out thinks some other player is no reason to call foul.
Your enemy just DOES NOT simply walk into your carefully thought out trap.
You beat my Fleet and I'll learn from it, not whine and cry. As long as we are in fact under the exact same constraints it is "fair" to both parties.
Militarily speaking, forget what you want to do, or can do, UNTIL you know what your opponent CAN do. If he CAN do it, sooner or later he probably Will. (That is why he designed his fleet the way he did!) If he CAN'T do it, he obviously never will.
