traveller military orginization

[BetterThanLife]

Spaceman Spiff,
Now granted this is strictly my opinion. But given the following.

An M-1 Tank is approximately 90 cubic meters. Which makes it between 6 and 7 Traveller Displacement Tons. An F-15, because of the shape is a little more difficult to calculate, is approximately 10 displacement tons. Anything much bigger would be easier to spot, more difficult to hide, and have trouble finding cover. But then again we all thought the M-60 was too big. (Which is one reason the M-1 is only 8 feet tall.)

That being said. I figure that the Air Force and Army, get integrated somewhere between TL-9 and 12. With Atmospheric Fighters, Helicopter Gunships and Tanks becoming one craft. Depending on local conditions, local military needs and local political requirements. Now these aren't going to be true spacecraft, but once you get to the TL-11+ range should be capable of low orbit integration as well. (And the Planetary, Wet Navy will probably be integrated between TL-10 and 12.) Now once you get to TL-13 or so then the 10-15Ton Fighter becomes a viable, well as viable as fighters in Traveller get, weapon system and at some point in the TL-13-15 range its capability should be merged with the Tank.

SO as far as controling its own orbital space? I guess it would depend on what kind of unit it was.

The following is from My Traveller Universe though the principles apply.

IMTU, unless it is a balkanized world, most planets below TL-9 don't bother with tanks. (They are too easy to destroy by TL-9+ equipment, slow moving and expensive.) On Balkanized worlds (Or worlds that are fighting the locals for some reason.) all bets are off. But in most cases lower tech militaries will be light infantry.

TL-9-13 militaries may be light, armored or mechanized depending on design philosophy, military theory and mission. And very few planets will approach this problem the same way. Once you get to the integration of Space Fighters with Tanks, (Somewhere in the TL-13-15 range.) Then the Infantry will tend to go back to Light, (heavily armed and armored individual soldiers, but no vehicles, unless you count Battle Dress as a vehicle.) with Armor Support coming in the form of 10-15T fighters and some specialized units.

Which, in most versions of Traveller, are better armed, better armored and faster than Tanks. Also they are more flexible, being able to engage an invader's landing craft and protect their own. Further as far as cost goes they aren't all that much more expensive than an equivalent Grav Tank.

Which is one of the big reasons why, the majority of Imperial Marine Forces are Light Infantry, (Battledress with built in Grav-Belt mobility) with Fighter Squadrons and some specialized Armor, Artillery and Mech units (The exception not the rule).

Military philosophy and mentality has the following axioms (And has virtually always had these axioms.)

1. Speed is Life. (Speed, agility and mobility are now, always have been, and probably always will be one of the most important aspects of warfare.) From the Cavalry charge to the M-1 Tank to the Mach 2.5+ combat aircraft.

2. Take the High Ground. (Translated to Traveller the person controling the High Orbitals has major advantages in controling the planet.) Observation range and Gravity, no matter what your tech level are powerful reasons. (It is tougher to charge up a hill than across flat ground or especially down a hill.) It is tougher to shoot at a satelite than for that satelite to shoot at a ground target. (Don't take gravity lightly or it will get you down.

)

3. Protection. The better your armor, the better protected you are the more survivable you are.

4. Firepower. The more firepower you can bring to the target the better.

In all versions of Traveller, at least that I haver seen, Starships/Spacecraft weapons hit harder than vehicle weapons, or infantry weapons. Spacecraft can be armored better than vehicles. Spacecraft are faster than Vehicles. (Especially in orbit.)

Besides Starship volume is limited. If you are going to attack someone else then wouldn't it make more sense that your Army's Armor can protect your invasion craft/landing craft/drop troopers from the moment that they arrive in a system, as opposed to just within close proximity of the ground? (Close being a relative term.) That your armor can effectively, relatively, engage planetary defenses and attack the high orbitals.

In virtually all versions of Traveller a spaceship pulse laser or beam laser can shatter the armor of a tank. But most vehicle weapons have a very difficult time against reasonable spaceship armor.

So after TL-12 why build tanks? (Unless it is political because the system defenses and the Ground defenses are under two departments of the government and they haven't, yet resolved their differences.

) Kind of like the US Army and the US Air Force. Though those problems do sometimes encourage some very interesting solutions. (The Attack Helicopter, especially, and the developement of helicopters in general came out of that little political mess between the Army and the Air Force.)

 

[aramis]

MT does not make armoring vehicles any different from armoring starships. Starship weapons are way outclassing smaller weapons, but SUCK for ROF...

And while the armor of said tank will be penetrated by said starship laser, said tank's weapons will penetrate the ships' armor between 2 and 20 times... (ROF dependant). Similar can be said for striker weapons, as the stats are much the same.

Also, while you can have a grav tank which can go mach 1 under MT, Striker, TNE, T4, or T20, the odds are good that it will not be as fast as a hybrid aircraft-grav vehicle (One of the best concepts in FGU's Space Opera). And, at TL 9+, under MT, T4, and T20, gravitics CAN make low orbit. (TNE Gravitics are reliant upon external THRUST sources, and only provide 99% weight reduction.)

Like Helo's, you should have a spectrum of resources. GAPC's, Grav Tanks (which neatly fill the same roles as both land tanks AND attack helos!), high-speed interceptors (possibly jet, possibly gravitic, possibly hybrid), GrFAV (Grav Fast Attack Vehicles... think speeders... with light weapons but relying upon speed and maneuver... kind of a hybrid of light tactical air-air figter and light ground attack helo... most likely hybrid - grav suspensions, powerful jet engines...), exposed mobile infantry (grav-bikes.. probably two man teams, driver and hand-gunner/rifleman.) Add the nascent bounce infantry (Cbt or BD; Grav Belts/packs) and you have a 3d battlefield with most needed roles filled.

The one big disadvantage of gravitic craft, especially at speed, is impact upon failure of either gravitics or power... (Without the x10 from the ref's screen, a trepida can be taken out with an ACR... on a lucky hit. )

 

[BetterThanLife]

Aramis,
There is no reason that a Grav Tank couldn't be Attack Helo, MBT and High Speed Interceptor.

Matter of fact there is no reason that a Spacecraft fighter such as the Rampart can't perform all those missions. (Plus of course its own.)

All Tanks are a compromise. Between speed, Armor, agility, and firepower. Aircraft have the same compromises. (Though their fuel load and agility requirements, combined with the needed lift generation capability mean that armor takes a back seat.)

Now since there is a finite maximum on Armor, agility and accelleration, all you are left with, when those are maxed out is how much firepower do you want, what size is it, and how much do you want to pay.

In T20, for example, (Which is a whole lot easier to design in that MT.) a TL15, 15Ton fighter, with an AR of 15, Agility of 6, Pulse Laser, Missile Launcher. (With a missile magazine of .3) and a VFR Gauss Turret, crew of 2, one week of fuel, model 1 computer, which gives you more sensors and communications range than a tank or aircraft would ever need, (And is the biggest you are allowed to mount on a craft of less than 20 tons) and covered in Chameleon Armor, Costs MCr9.19 in quantity.

In Ground Combat it has a max accelleration of 2820 KPH per combat round, a max NOE speed of 1175 KPH and a max speed of 4700kph. YOU have speed agility, armor and firepower. (Especially if you stock a couple of nukes in your missile loadout.)

Your Laser's short range is greater than Horizon. (Matter of fact it is greater than "circumference of the Earth.")

A Trepidia Grav Tank, in T20 is 21 Tons, has a max speed of 600KPH, a max acceleration of 240KPh per combat round, an agility of 4, a Heavy Fusion Gun and a VFR Gauss Gun, and costs MCr13.74 in quantity.

The Armor Class of the Tank is 27 the fighter is 31. (Higher numbers are better.) (In Ground combat.) Imperial Marine Battle Dress IMTU in T20 is AC 35. And Combat armor will provide some protection against the Tank's Fusion gun but provides no protection against the Fighter's pulse laser.

In a fight the Tank has 4KM passive sensors and 50KM Neutrino sensors. The Fighter has 15,000 KM sensors. The Maximum range of the Fusion Cannon is 22KM (short range is 2.2km). Maximum range of the Pulse Laser is 450,000KM. (Obviously the maximum range on a planet is horizon.) Short range is 45,000KM. Now the Tank is going to get 9D20 damage at short range Reduced to half at 11KM and one quarter at 17.6KM and beyond. Since on Earth the horizon is less than 150KM on a large world from altitude you will be lucky to be able to hit a target with a laser at more than 250KM. (Unless it was more than 250KM up.

) the Fighter does 2D10 damage with the Pulse Laser but has a 10M burst radius. If it is firing at a vehicle then it does 7D10 against a vehicle at any range. (to any vehicles in the burst radius) (And the vehicle's Fusion gun does 4D20 against the Fighter at short range.) Now by losing the VFR Gauss Gun you could mount a single Fusion gun in place of the Pulse Laser on the fighter. You are now doing 10D20 against a vehicle and have a short range of 4,500KM with a max range of 45,000KM, (And have a 50M burst radius) but fusion guns aren't usable in T20 as point defense. So it is a trade off as to what you want to carry for firepower, and how much you want to spend. You do have choices but why not combine all three classses of vehicles into one vehicle? Logistics are definitely simpler. And you don't lose anything in the bang per buck category, you don't even need to get any bigger to be multi-role.


By the way, for comparison sake the 15T fighter is about 2.3 times the size of an M-1 Tank and the Trepida is about 3.1 times the size of an M-1 Tank. And since both run on Fusion plants they are both easily detectable by Neutrino sensors. (Which is why my Imperial Marine Battledress doesn't have a fusion plant.

)

I did a similar exercise, years ago, for MT. I am not in the mood to do all the math.

 

[BetterThanLife]

OK Back to reading MT Rules. (At this rate perhaps I should consider starting a MT campaign.

) I stand corrected for armor. I forgot that the base armor of a starship is still paid for just the same as a normal vehicle. I just think of a starship as starting at 40 and a vehicle starts at 0. (Though if you armor your fighters to 70 they are immune to all but lucky hits from tanks).

However your comments on rate of fire being worse for starship weapons. I don't see where that came from. A Starship Pulse Laser has a armor pen of 80 and a dmg of 800. An RFX-15 has an armor pen of 67 and a damage of 30. They both have a danger space of 45 and an autofire targets of 4. The RFX has a signature of Hi, which means if you fire you give away your position because everyone can see the shot. The Pulse Laser has a signature of low.
(Page 80 MT Player's Manual.)

The Rebellion Sourcebook has both the Trepida and a 10 ton (Rampart) Fighter. (But the Rampart in CT was the 15 Ton fighter aboard the AHL.

)

The Trepida is listed as TL-15 but has a RFX-14. THe Rampart has a Beam Laser Pen 75 dam 600. (Why a beam instead of a pulse is also beyond me.) Auto Targets 1 (Beam Laser) vs 3 (RFX-14). They have equal armor (40). The Fighter has much better sensors and is quite a bit faster except at NOE. The cost difference is MCr14.23 (Fighter)vs MCr 20.06 (Trepida) (And the pulse laser is MCr0.4 less than the beam laser, in quantity.) Personally I would arm them with a Pulse Laser and an RFX-15 respectively. THe fighter is listed as agility of 6 and the Trepida has no agility listed.

Why build just tanks? And if you are willing to build your fighters/Tanks with an airframe (Though why you would want wings that increase drag when you don't need lift is beyond me.) they are every bit as fast as any other craft you can build. Remember that you are limited in thrust to 6G and agility to 6.

The most effecient shape for dealing with drag aerodynamically is a needle. The most effecient ballistic shape, other than the needle, is a 7mm Full metal jacket boattail bullet. (A bit more practical shape) After that probably a wedge. Wings and control surfaces are there to provide lift and stability, or in some cases like the F-16, instability. If you have conter-grav you don't need either lift or control surfaces. You just need a shape that will go through an atmosphere with minimal coefecient of Drag. (I seem to remember a Tear Drop being good but not as good as a backwards Tear Drop and a Ball wasn't bad either.)

And the only reason there are armed Helos are because of an agreement that the Army has been forced to abide with since 1947, the founding of the US Air Force. The Army is not allowed to arm fixed wing aircraft. All the further development of the military helicopter really came from that. Helicopters are one of the most impractical vehicles in the world. (And would be not much more than a gleam in Mr. Sikorsky's eye were it not for the Army looking to control its own air resources.

) That is, of course, my own personal opinion and the Helicopter has come a long way since then but the impestus behind it was definitely the Department of the Army's budget.

Originally posted by Aramis:
MT does not make armoring vehicles any different from armoring starships. Starship weapons are way outclassing smaller weapons, but SUCK for ROF...

And while the armor of said tank will be penetrated by said starship laser, said tank's weapons will penetrate the ships' armor between 2 and 20 times... (ROF dependant). Similar can be said for striker weapons, as the stats are much the same.

Also, while you can have a grav tank which can go mach 1 under MT, Striker, TNE, T4, or T20, the odds are good that it will not be as fast as a hybrid aircraft-grav vehicle (One of the best concepts in FGU's Space Opera). And, at TL 9+, under MT, T4, and T20, gravitics CAN make low orbit. (TNE Gravitics are reliant upon external THRUST sources, and only provide 99% weight reduction.)

Like Helo's, you should have a spectrum of resources. GAPC's, Grav Tanks (which neatly fill the same roles as both land tanks AND attack helos!), high-speed interceptors (possibly jet, possibly gravitic, possibly hybrid), GrFAV (Grav Fast Attack Vehicles... think speeders... with light weapons but relying upon speed and maneuver... kind of a hybrid of light tactical air-air figter and light ground attack helo... most likely hybrid - grav suspensions, powerful jet engines...), exposed mobile infantry (grav-bikes.. probably two man teams, driver and hand-gunner/rifleman.) Add the nascent bounce infantry (Cbt or BD; Grav Belts/packs) and you have a 3d battlefield with most needed roles filled.

The one big disadvantage of gravitic craft, especially at speed, is impact upon failure of either gravitics or power... (Without the x10 from the ref's screen, a trepida can be taken out with an ACR... on a lucky hit. )

 

[aramis]

ROF's for all turrets are 30/min (Refs Manual page 74, item 17) All turrets are 30 except sand (6) and missile (1), in shots per minute.

The starship weapons damages in MT, as listed in the PH, are both absurdly high, and unrelated to any other damages in the game system. (A single 250MW laser being able to destroy a type S in one hit, which is absurd, when all other TL8 lasers do MW in damage when MW is above 10...) A Pen 80 laser will pen most tanks. So will the RPY on the trepida. The RPY will STILL take out most sub-100 ton craft in one hit. THe danger space is listed as the same... and the trepida is not the best tank.

The various roles are for various purposes; the space fighter is NOT the be-all-end-all (But it comes close).

Trepidas belnd an interceptor, tank, and assault helo role.

As for armed helos: Helos or other VTOL aircraft are essentially a millitary inevitibility. the agreement to which you refer, to be honest, merely decided who would deploy them and the timeline of deployment. A VTOL combat platform has been, since the development of armor, a desireable thing; the tank-killer helo is essentially inevitable. The A10 is good, but the cobra is a lot more versatile AND just as good... against ground targets. The cobra also can use ground clutter against airborne aggressors.

The spectrum of missions, and the basic tactical doctrine, was, and is, and probably shall remain, "If you can afford a specialized piece for the role, it will better any non-specialized piece for that role". The corollary is the more generalized it's role, the less well it does all of them.

Likewise, the aircraft design sequences allow for MUCH faster in-air speeds than the spacecraft/grav-vehicle sequences.

 

[Antony]

Following this description I/m glad I use FF&S1 for my vehicles.

 

[aramis]

FF&S1 has mostly the same issues as MT, but makes the spectrum all the more relevant, as armor takes not only mass, but volume, thus limiting performance two ways, rather than MT's (rather unrealistic) one way.

Essentially, I see the folowing roles across the TL10-15 bracket:
ASF (Aerospace Fighter)
Grav Tank (Flexible Multi-role platform)
Interceptor (If properly equipped, can outfly an ASF; should carry a single ATW/AAW)
SP PlanDef/Arty (Field Meson guns. Hideously expensive, but if you can keep the spotters alive, they can kill with every couple shots...)
Recon/scout (high speed, excessive sensors, massive ECM and stealth)
Infantry Transport
Scout infantry transports (Grav Chairs, Grav Bikes)
Personal Infantry transports (Grav Belts, G-boards)
Underwater patrol vehicle
underwater personal transports
Underwater hardpoint vehicle (Meson arty, massive sensors and armor, often blends into the SDB role.)

Generally, I consider design parameters and mission in my designs. Under FF&S1/TNE, ASF's are NOT considerably better than aircraft; under MT, they only are due to the weapons rating issues of spacecraft weapons.

That being said, the various roles are prevalent in designs used under striker, MT, TNE, and Even T4. (T20's artificial scaling breakpoints are, well, a fudge.. they work for game but not simulation purposes).

Vehicles need also to be adapted to the environment in which they work. (THe exhaust velocity of the HEPlaR exhaust was a strong argument against the canonical Heplar/Gravitic designs in TNE.) While a Trepida COULD operate under water (Well, under TNE, the cavitation from the heplar would probably cause it to be way too visible), it's weapons kit would make it useless there except as a passive defense, or, under TNE, using the HEPlaR to take out swimmers....

grav bikes have the advantage of quick mount/dismount, but no protection for the crew...but in overgrown/urban areas, they are quite useful for dispersal of infantry, and for patrol. (If they find anything, it's time to RUN, but that's a different matter.)

Speeders (like the Qiknavra from 101Veh... small, very fast, armed with a plasma gun and VRF GG) rely on speed as a defense; it's not as efficient (THe pilot has to fly and gun, so under the two jobs rule does both at -1 skill, if you extend it past ship crews), but it carries a lot of damage in a small but fragile package. It can take out a Trepida in one shot, about 2/3 of the time. A Trepida, or even another qiknavra, can take it out with a single hit about 5/6 of the time or more (Any hit by 1+ points, under MT. A TNE conversion works out to be just as relatively fragile, while the trepida increases slightly in resistance...) If a qiknavra slows down, and loses the speed modifiers, it dies... but it's fast and has a crew of 1, and about 1/3 the maintenance hours (under TNE) of a Trepida, and half the cost.

 

[BetterThanLife]

That is one of the MT problems the rules contradict themselves. Which one is correct? And how do you know? The ROF for a Pulse Laser should easily be higher than a beam laser. (Much less a Particle Accellerator.) JUst because of simple physics. And the table in the players handbook, which in your opinion may have damage a bit high, is the only table that lists damage from starship weapons in the MT rules. It also lists ROF for the weapons specifically by type unlike the one in the Referee's Manual.

Spacecraft have a couple of other advantages than the "purpose built" craft besides firepower. (Again it depends on the rule set as to the exact nature of the advantage.) The first one being they can run away from an opponent by going up. The second one is they, by the nature of space, have longer ranged and better sensors. There is nothing stoping a Fighter from havine an "AirFrame" hull, (in MT except cost, in T20 it takes up a little space and costs a little more.) and since 6G is max output for thrust in any edition of Traveller a purpose built aircraft isn't going to be any faster.

So a Fighter, is at least as well armored, has the most firepower, (both in terms of hitting power and range) is the fastest thing you can build, is the most agile thing you can build, has better sensors, and doesn't cost anymore than an equivalent purpose built vehicle.

Having one vehicle simplifies logistics. And if it does everything exceptionally well why have multiple types. (Aside from political considerations.)About the only specialized vehicle you might want to have are Artillery Pieces so you can determine your type of attack easier. However with point defense and counterbattery radar, I am not so sure than artillery would have much of a place on the TL-15 battlefield. (Meson artillery, being the exception.)

Now an RPY in MT may be a ship killer but it isn't any better than a Pulse Laser for the job and it is much shorter ranged. In T20 it definitely isn't anywhere near as nasty.

Now aside from the fighters you will still need APCs, though a fleet pinnace does the job well it is a little large, and I am not discounting individual grav transport. But for a transport to keep up with the fighters you are pretty much stuck with larger APCs.

Originally posted by Aramis:
ROF's for all turrets are 30/min (Refs Manual page 74, item 17) All turrets are 30 except sand (6) and missile (1), in shots per minute.

The starship weapons damages in MT, as listed in the PH, are both absurdly high, and unrelated to any other damages in the game system. (A single 250MW laser being able to destroy a type S in one hit, which is absurd, when all other TL8 lasers do MW in damage when MW is above 10...) A Pen 80 laser will pen most tanks. So will the RPY on the trepida. The RPY will STILL take out most sub-100 ton craft in one hit. THe danger space is listed as the same... and the trepida is not the best tank.

The various roles are for various purposes; the space fighter is NOT the be-all-end-all (But it comes close).

Trepidas belnd an interceptor, tank, and assault helo role.

As for armed helos: Helos or other VTOL aircraft are essentially a millitary inevitibility. the agreement to which you refer, to be honest, merely decided who would deploy them and the timeline of deployment. A VTOL combat platform has been, since the development of armor, a desireable thing; the tank-killer helo is essentially inevitable. The A10 is good, but the cobra is a lot more versatile AND just as good... against ground targets. The cobra also can use ground clutter against airborne aggressors.

The spectrum of missions, and the basic tactical doctrine, was, and is, and probably shall remain, "If you can afford a specialized piece for the role, it will better any non-specialized piece for that role". The corollary is the more generalized it's role, the less well it does all of them.

Likewise, the aircraft design sequences allow for MUCH faster in-air speeds than the spacecraft/grav-vehicle sequences.

 

[Prometheus]

wow

 

[mike wightman]

Whatever happened to the image of the gunship from the Military Vehicles section of LBB4 Mercenary.
In that book TL12 ground combat AFV's have merged with aircraft, and by TL15 "Gunships... are virtually indistingushable from orbital craft".

Oh,and T4's Central supply catalogue includes rules for stacking G-compensators so that a TL12 17G interceptor is possible, and is given as a vehicle example

 

[BetterThanLife]

Sigg,
That picture and that image and text is what got me thinking along the lines of building one craft for, fighter, Air Superiority, CAS, and MBT. Besides in CT and MT fighters, especially light fighters aren't extremely effective in space combat. They are pretty useless against each other in space combat and even have a very difficult time against big capital ships. (Unless the computer power is within two points, and even then you need large quantities of fighters to score hits.)

So Fighters have to have some role. Then I began to look at the rules for Ship weapons in Ground combat and realized that Fighters, even 10-15 ton craft, can be extremely effective in the CAS role.
Since they can hover just like any other grav vehicle then they also work as grav tanks. (Very nasty grav tanks.) Which is what got me thinking along these lines.

As for T4 allowing greater than 6g Accel, that is news to me. I was under the impression that you were limited to 6G in all versions. (You are in CT, MT and T20.

)

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Whatever happened to the image of the gunship from the Military Vehicles section of LBB4 Mercenary.
In that book TL12 ground combat AFV's have merged with aircraft, and by TL15 "Gunships... are virtually indistingushable from orbital craft".

Oh,and T4's Central supply catalogue includes rules for stacking G-compensators so that a TL12 17G interceptor is possible, and is given as a vehicle example

 

[mike wightman]

Hi Bhoins,

I agree with your take on what CT/MT fighters are useful for. By TL12 the MBT is now a grav vehicle that can outperform most modern helicopters/prop aircraft, the APC leaves out some weapons to allow for troop delivery, and the support versions mount drone launchers, nuclear dampers, etc.
It's a shame that the weapon systems in Mercenary can't be included in the High Guard smallcraft design system more easily. Using Striker it's possible but time consuming.
Perhaps a set of rules could be fudged somehow?

T20 almost allows such a thing to be possible but the vl to dt scale ambiguities (EP especially) make it just not right.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Sigg,

Actually the T20 rules allow it, though they don't specifically state so. (If you use the T20 rulebook 1400vls=1DTon.)

Then all you have to do is the EP conversion. 1 Starship EP = 467 Vehicle EP. (Actually 466 and 2/3rds.

) THe EP conversion is actually consistent. (Well based on the fusion plants anyway.)

Simpler than you would think it is.

 

[The Oz]

A use I have for vehicles with battledress-equipped troops is as a resupply/recharging point. I have vehicles that have space and power dedicated to resupplying/recharging battledress troopers, and even to giving them enough space to get =out= of the armor for a while, in a very long (week or more) operation.

These vehicles also provide the things battledress can't, like nuclear damper protection and such.

 

[Antony]

FF&S1 does allow for speeds greater thab 6G, the G compensation table makes this clear with 1G being cancelled at TL10 to 9G at TL20. Note this is not the maximum acceleration of a craft but the G's that the inertial compensators cancel. Workstations allow another 1G. I'll now see how fast I can make a fighter and still make it work.

 

[mike wightman]

CSC vehicle design is based on FF&S2, which is itself fairly similar to FF&S1. The g-compensation stacking allows high G craft at lower TLs, and is therefore more consistant with the rest of Traveller canon. Stacking compensation costs a lot more (mass, volume, energy, and money) than using higher TL compensators which have a higher G rating.

 

[Antony]

Successfully done a TL15 8G heavy fighter with reasonable armour and endurance (for a fighter). Now on to 9G

 

[aramis]

Historically, specialization of units and equipment has proven superior to non-specialization. There is NO evidence to the contrary from the real world.

Sadly, most games wind up with 1 to a small handful of "Optimal Solutions" which are based upon the rules of the game and the base technology assumptions rather than simulating reality. (Which, in it self, is far more work than where a game is worth playing...) In HG, there were two optimal strategies derived from computer testing. Likewise, MT shares these two optimizations, because it's little more than a HG clone for ship combats.

Now, to give an idea of ranges, Striker puts the limit of aimed laser fire for a TL15 250MW laser at 1.2Mm; MT raises that (in the PH) to 0.5Gm (500Mm) 1 Mm is 1000Km... All the non-Hardpoint weapons convert over to MT with reasonably close range comparisons, and the exact same pen's (I've checked; there are only a few variances); MT ship weapons have pens greater than the Striker conversions would indicate, and damages (for lasers) totally out of scale with the non-hardpoint lasers..

Now, as for FF&S1; It's possible to comp up to about 12-15G by stacking compensators. Cost, power, volume, and mass wasteful. Much past that, and you won't be able to fit a big enough engine to need it on non-FW/SW aircraft... which can generate far more G's turning than their engines can. A 15G space fighter flying in atmosphere should be able to throw about 25+G's at the pilot (many current airframes can throw 15-18 G's by aerodynamics, even though they only have 3-5 G's max thrust)... can we say "Full Body Contusion"? Assuming, of course, that the frame doesn't snap. Pilots will need either computer limiting (most modern fighter jets do that now in order to keep the pilots conscious) or extreme caution, or some combination.

And Even the Spaceship One is a design optimized for special circumstances; it's not the most agile bird in the sky; reentry requirements precludes that.

No, Traveller is NOT Buck Rodgers TV nor Star Wars...

Although MT comes real close at times.

 

[RobertFisher]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Historically, specialization of units and equipment has proven superior to non-specialization. There is NO evidence to the contrary from the real world.

I'd have to agree with this. I suppose it goes without saying, but: Provided that the specialized unit can exploit its specialization. If a generalized unit can get the specialized unit out of its specialized role...

Sadly, most games wind up with 1 to a small handful of "Optimal Solutions" which are based upon the rules of the game and the base technology assumptions rather than simulating reality. (Which, in it self, is far more work than where a game is worth playing...)

Which is the key (IMHO) feature of roleplaying games. The ref can fudge to make up for such deficiencies in the rules rather than expanding the rules to an unweildy level.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
Though since they are self contained I like the one man per FGMP myself.

MTU is only TL-12 (early TL-13 in certain aspects in certain polities); the only high energy weapon available (except for lasers) is the PGMP-12, which isn't self-contained. But still, each 4-soldier fireteam carries one PGMP-12, atleast in the Marines.

IMTU, The Imperial Marines are organized into 4 man teams, two per squad (8 Marines per squad) 3 Riflemen and a Fusion Gunner per team. 3 Rifle Squads and a Energy Weapons (6 FGMP and 2 Riflemen per squad) Squad Plus Platoon Sergeant, Platoon Leader, and Medic per Platoon. Or 35 Marines, not Coincidentally the number of Marines that fit on a Type-T (Squad) and a Kinunir (Platoon).

150 Marines in a Company. (4 Platoons and a Commander, First Sergeant, Supply Sergeant, Company Clerk, Supply Clerk/Armorer, Senior Medic and 4 Mechanics.) (What fits on an AHL.)

So far I haven't had to actually break down anything larger than a Company. But I would put a Batalion at 4 Rifle Companies, an Artillery Battery, a Recon Platoon, a Maintenance Platoon, A Batalion Aid Station and the Batalion HQ Staff. (With a possible attached Armor Company.)

I thinkI'll modify my unit structure to roughly fit yours... 4-man fireteams sound far more reasonable than my original 3-man ones. So here it is:

Solar Triumvirate (TL-12) Marine Corps

Each Fireteam is 4 soldiers strong: one team leader (Corporal or Sergeant), one Plasma Gunner (Private First Class) and two riflemen (Privates). The team leader and the two riflemen are armed with Gauss Rifles; the Plasma Gunner is armed with a PGMP-12 and both riflemen carry additional PGMP-12 power packs.

Each Squad is composed of 2 Fireteams (and thus is 8 soldiers strong), commanded by a Sergeant, who also leads one of the fireteams.

Each Platoon is composed of 3 Squads, and is commanded by a First Lt. CO and a Gunnery Sergeant XO; Additional platoon-level personnel include a Medic (usually a Corporal or Lance Sergeant), a C3I specialist (Sergeant), a Dropship Pilot ("Navy" Sub Lt.) and a Dropship Gunner ("Navy" Able Spacehand). Thus a Platoon is 30 soldiers strong and rides a single Dropship which serves also as a support weapon platform. A Marine Platoon could either be deployed independantly (in a 600-dton Assault Frigate) or as a part of a larger Marine detachment.

The Solar Triumvirate Army, on the other hand includes a Section level of organization, with each section being composed of two Squads, and each Company of 2 Sections, so an Army Company is larger than a Marine one IMTU. Also, one of the Squads in an Army Infantry Company is a Vehicle Squad, usually used to transport the rest of the soldiers and provide close support.