Torpedo Boats in Traveller

[Spike]

The torpedoes are large and unstable due to their being early prototypes of antimatter missiles. The instability part comes from the problem of power - if the carrying ship loses power, the magnetic containment "bottles" fail and everything goes boom.

Why in the name of the great sky engineer don't they have back up power just for those magnetic bottles? Batteries in the torpedoes at a minimum?

They don't even have to last that long, just long enough for an emergency protocol to flush the magazines into vacuum (via explosive bolts or something!)

Does no one in the Imperium have a lick of safety sense?

 

[Jame]

Welcome to the forums, Spike (forgive me if I'm late in doing so). We're glad you're here. But some of us have ... odd senses of humor. So please bear with the following:

The great sky engineer

Oh, you mean Scotty.

Does no one in the Imperium have a lick of safety sense?

Nope. The Vilani did once, but the Solomani got to them...

 

[Major B]

Why in the name of the great sky engineer don't they have back up power just for those magnetic bottles? Batteries in the torpedoes at a minimum?

They don't even have to last that long, just long enough for an emergency protocol to flush the magazines into vacuum (via explosive bolts or something!)

Does no one in the Imperium have a lick of safety sense?

I wondered that too. I think the following excerpts will give an idea of what the author was trying to get at:

At TL 13, the production and storage of useful amounts of anti matter becomes feasible. The equipment for containing it, however, remains VERY bulky. However, the potential usefulness of it as a weapon drives the military development of a short ranged, very large, but very dangerous weapon. It is called the torpedo, after the low tech naval weapon. Extreme care must be taken when handling the weapon, because power MUST be continually supplied to it to prevent the decay of the magnetic bottle containing the anti matter and the resulting explosion. This results in a weapon that requires a lot of specialized attention, care, and equipment.

One of the problems with the torpedo as a weapon system is that if the carrying ship loses power, the usual result is its destruction when any torpedoes onboard when the magnetic bottles containing anti matter decay. This fear tends to cause most torpedo carrying designs to carry a minimal number of reloads, for fear of self destruction. The other reason few reloads are often carried is the sheer bulk of reload ammunition.

So I think he was trying to create a system that would give smaller ships enough firepower to threaten the large ships without creating too much of an imbalance. So the weapons are powerful but have short range and have vulnerabilities that ensure there will never bee too many of them in use.

 

[RandyB]

So I think he was trying to create a system that would give smaller ships enough firepower to threaten the large ships without creating too much of an imbalance. So the weapons are powerful but have short range and have vulnerabilities that ensure there will never bee too many of them in use.

A classic Travellerism - gameism over simulationism. That is, game "balance" ahead of "setting plausibility" when the latter is derived from "what would the effects of the total technology base plausibly be?"

 

[HG_B]

A classic Travellerism - gameism over simulationism. That is, game "balance" ahead of "setting plausibility" when the latter is derived from "what would the effects of the total technology base plausibly be?"

Comes from lazy designers...

 

[Major B]

A classic Travellerism - gameism over simulationism. That is, game "balance" ahead of "setting plausibility" when the latter is derived from "what would the effects of the total technology base plausibly be?"

Comes from lazy designers...

I think both of those comments are pretty unfair guys. From what I've read by Scott Olsen I'd hardly call him lazy - he's been a consistent and valuable contributor to the exchanges he's been a part of - at least those I've been able to read.

And don't equate a small article in a small fanzine with a complete discourse on a subject. He had an idea and shared it. I'd prefer to give credit for what he took the time and effort to do rather than criticize him for what the final product may have lacked.

 

[HG_B]

I think both of those comments are pretty unfair guys. From what I've read by Scott Olsen

I'm referring to complete rule sets that have this easily avoidable flaw (MGT Civilian Vehicles for instance). I don't know Olsen's work so...

 

[Pete Nash]

I'm referring to complete rule sets that have this easily avoidable flaw (MGT Civilian Vehicles for instance). I don't know Olsen's work so...

What exactly do you mean by lazy design?

Are you criticising authors because they don't have a university graduate level education in hard sciences? Or perhaps because when they wrote an article they didn't have access to reams of flawed data via the internet? Or Maybe that they simply aren't perfect at game design and spotting loopholes that wargamers will exploit the hell out of.

Give the guy a break. Personally I think he was trying to come up with an idea to make antimatter weapons a two edged sword and didn't quite extrapolate far enough. Damn good for 1991 IMHO. I can think of far worse flaws in the various core rulebooks we've had over the decades.

 

[HG_B]

Are you criticising authors because they don't have a university graduate level education in hard sciences?

Nope. A university degree isn't needed to think logically. It also takes no degree to know that chemical batteries have less energy potential than nuclear reactors. It doesn't take a degree to know that wings are useless in vacuum as far as creating lift. I could go on but, why?

 

[BillDowns]

When I first proposed this topic, what I had in mind is something well within the existing Traveller rules: a computer-driven "fighter". It would, of course, be single-minded and home in on one target, firing continuously until destroyed, or the target is destroyed.

An LBB2 version could be postulated from a basic fighter, discounted by 2 tons and 2MCr. A crew cabin/couch is not needed nor is the 1-ton "excess" space, and the price discount justified on the thought that no life-support mechanisms are needed. If software load-out is required, then it would need Target, Launch or Predict depending on the warhead, and a variation of Auto/Evade that would allow it to home in on the target. A small carrier, 200 tons or smaller, could be designed to carry anywhere from 2 to 6 of these. Since the "torpedoes" are technically small craft, there are no hard-point limitations, only tonnage limitations.

High Guard could design a better torpedo, most likely, with even greater variability in warheads. I kind of like the idea of a particle accelerator warhead!

Any thoughts on this idea?

 

[RandyB]

When I first proposed this topic, what I had in mind is something well within the existing Traveller rules: a computer-driven "fighter". It would, of course, be single-minded and home in on one target, firing continuously until destroyed, or the target is destroyed.

An LBB2 version could be postulated from a basic fighter, discounted by 2 tons and 2MCr. A crew cabin/couch is not needed nor is the 1-ton "excess" space, and the price discount justified on the thought that no life-support mechanisms are needed. If software load-out is required, then it would need Target, Launch or Predict depending on the warhead, and a variation of Auto/Evade that would allow it to home in on the target. A small carrier, 200 tons or smaller, could be designed to carry anywhere from 2 to 6 of these. Since the "torpedoes" are technically small craft, there are no hard-point limitations, only tonnage limitations.

High Guard could design a better torpedo, most likely, with even greater variability in warheads. I kind of like the idea of a particle accelerator warhead!

Any thoughts on this idea?

That sounds a lot like the "drones" of classic Star Fleet Battles... MW warheads (missiles carried by a torpedo), one-shot energy weapon warheads (your PA warhead)...

 

[giant.robot]

I particularly like the idea of a pilot-less fighter, i typically take a normal fighter model and swap out the cockpit for a drone module like the Assault Fighter in Fighting Ships. The drone module and cockpit have the same displacement but the drone brain is 2MCr vs a cockpit's 0.05MCr which is a nice 40x cost increase in that portion of the ship but only adds a small increase in the fighter's total cost. When amortized over the life of the fighter and you consider the cost of training and maintaining a pilot I think drone fighters end up with a really good ROI. You also don't feel so bad if you turn your fighters into suicide drones if their main armament is knocked out.

This is also my first post on the boards since joining recently.

 

[PFVA63]

Hi

I always kind of liked the battle concept in the video game "Mission Critical" and its use of a kind of automated fighter drones. The parent ship that a large part of the game took place on was also kind of cool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Critical_(video_game)

Regards

PF

 

[fredofmars]

<snip> This is also my first post on the boards since joining recently.

Welcome!
Feel free to continue commenting. We're generally friendly - if you discount the "friendly discussions" that pop up from time to time.

 

[Peter Schutze]

>Why in the name of the great sky engineer don't they have back up power just for those magnetic bottles? Batteries in the torpedoes at a minimum?

>They don't even have to last that long, just long enough for an emergency protocol to flush the magazines into vacuum (via explosive bolts or something!)

From experience with UPS systems there is just enough of a delay in returning to FULL stable current to justify this. Not quite enough to totally peeve current electronics but it should only take one anti-proton or anti-electron coming into contact with real matter centimetres away to start a critical cascade event in something as dense (ie not a big vaccuum with a 1/64 inch blob in the centre) as a warhead.

 

[RandyB]

>Why in the name of the great sky engineer don't they have back up power just for those magnetic bottles? Batteries in the torpedoes at a minimum?

>They don't even have to last that long, just long enough for an emergency protocol to flush the magazines into vacuum (via explosive bolts or something!)

From experience with UPS systems there is just enough of a delay in returning to FULL stable current to justify this. Not quite enough to totally peeve current electronics but it should only take one anti-proton or anti-electron coming into contact with real matter centimetres away to start a critical cascade event in something as dense (ie not a big vaccuum with a 1/64 inch blob in the centre) as a warhead.

Modern, RL UPS systems, scaled in cost to the systems they protect.

At Traveller TLs, given the potential that a mishap carries, it is grossly irresponsible *not* to have adequate redundancy (for definitions of adequate including "comes online sufficiently quickly so as to prevent mishap").

 

[shadowdragon]

Modern, RL UPS systems, scaled in cost to the systems they protect.

At Traveller TLs, given the potential that a mishap carries, it is grossly irresponsible *not* to have adequate redundancy (for definitions of adequate including "comes online sufficiently quickly so as to prevent mishap").

Actually, it would make more sense for the "UPS" to be the main source for the containment systems, and the ship charges the "UPS" in the background. That way, when the ship loses power (not if, when. it always happens, eventually) the "UPS" is already online and there is no wobble in the containment systems.

just a thot......

Shad

 

[RandyB]

Actually, it would make more sense for the "UPS" to be the main source for the containment systems, and the ship charges the "UPS" in the background. That way, when the ship loses power (not if, when. it always happens, eventually) the "UPS" is already online and there is no wobble in the containment systems.

just a thot......

Shad

Even better, and easily doable IRL, which makes it trivial for Traveller tech.

 

[shadowcat20]

OK read the thread through.

Interesting concept except for 1 thing. The torp would never make it to the target. Between casters, missile counterfire, lasers, and jamming a single platform would get shot down. It is a matter of saturating the target with more than he could handle. A large volly of missle will allow some to get through. a single weapon is more likely to die.

If I was a ships captain and saw a 100 to 6oo ton missile headed my way it would take priority in targeting. You could not get enough of them in the air to blow through the defenses of a warship.

Unless of course you had a stand off ship launch a volly of them with Black globes that went on after they left the tubes. They would travel to a preset location then switch off and target. (Starting to sound like Star Fleet Battles here). The cost of said weapons would be too much and battlefield debris would more than likely overload their globes due to lack of jump capacitors to absorb the energy.

May as well take a decomissioned 100 ton scout, rip out the Jump drives and everything else and throw in a Man 6 powerplant. Robotic targeting and a hold loaded with whatever sort of nastiness you could come up with. (Think Traveller era fireship). That is more likely then a large missile.

 

[HG_B]

Actually, it would make more sense for the "UPS" to be the main source for the containment systems, and the ship charges the "UPS" in the background.

Sounds like the UPS systems I was using back in the early '80s...