on the CT cd and the JTAS Cd.
Traveller warships are WWII navy, but without a major piece
- Thread starter Garyius2003
- Start date
on the CT cd and the JTAS Cd.
T5 has collision rules (which I haven't yet tested), so designing a torpedo should be possible under the small craft rules...
The only problem is having the torp survive the large ship's firepower long enough to hit...
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
That's the beauty of it. Some are going to neither try, nor be ready, to defend against it believing it to be impossible. Someone else is going to try and, maybe, succeed. Another will allocate defenses for an attack that may never occur.
Sure puts some "Fog of War" into the mix!
So, about 500mm for the typical 5G5 - or 50,000 km range.
A thing to note is that missiles don't actually move until the turn after they're launched. Rule says, "Any powered missile will impact the target on the first turn of movement," (assuming the target's in range, I presume, though it's not stated) and your ordnance launch phase is after your movement phase, so your missile's first opportunity for movement after the missile is launched is the next movement phase.
Since the target's movement phase occurs after your ordnance launch and before your movement phase, it means he's gonna see your launch and have a chance to veer off (and, incidentally, to load up an ECM or antimissile program in his computer phase). If he fails to change his vector enough during his movement and ends up inside that 1-turn range, then you auto-hit him without having to worry about your missile's movement. Otherwise, it's a chase. You gotta have the right combination of timing and luck - or a particularly daring target - to hit him in one turn.
If your target is low-G, that's not so difficult, though you may be out of luck if you're heading right at each other at high velocity: if your combined vector is high enough, even a low-G ship can jet past that range before your missile gets its movement turn.
If your target is high-G, it's pretty hard. You're likely to end up with a lot of stern chases and dead missiles.
All in all, not quite what Vladika's hoping for. We'd need an interpretation that allows a missile to hit and be resolved before the target can move or take action when both ships were within range X of each other, to do what he's describing. Such as:
"[fillindablank] Ordnance Launch. Precise missile types (indicating specific assemblies included in the missile) are designated prior to launch. Missiles are launched on specific missions against designated targets by the intruder, subject to the applicable rules. Sand is launched. Missile racks and sandcasters are reloaded if necessary and missiles or sand are available. Missiles which intercepted targets detonate, with blast and/or radiation effects."
"Interception: A missile intercepts a target if it passes within 25 millimeters of that target. Within 25 millimeters of the target is close enough to activate proximity detonators and for any warhead to affect the target..."
Now, me, seeing that missiles both launch and detonate in the ordnance launch phase, I'd say that if you and your target were within 25mm of each other, your missile would hit in the same phase it was launched - which is precisely what Vladika is looking for. Makes a missile-armed 6G fighter rather nasty if you let it get close enough: three 30-kilo warheads hitting home simultaneously, and not a blessed thing you can do about it.
Apropos of nothing in particular, I personally prefer missiles with high G and a lot of burns - means a smaller warhead, but it tends to keep the bad guys at bay.
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
Mostly what I'd like to see are engagements where fighters (all inclusive for bombers, torpedo craft, etc.) have to be taken more seriously. Not really the "one shot ship killers" some would like, but the ability to do some real damage if proper precautions are not taken.
"AA" batteries and "AA" Escort ships. A better mix, and use, for tertiary batteries (per HG), and a broader fleet mix, out of necessity.
Personally, I believe that is what HG intended, and failed, to produce.
Particularly when almost every post wants to compare the merits, or lack thereof, of individual ship combat. Beyond that it get's bogged down in a "one off" battle scenario which, by it's very nature, is unreasonable.
A Fleet, better yet, a Navy, is designed and built for a protracted campaign. That is a very different thing. T5 seems to hint at that from what I've skimmed last night.
A protracted campaign is what HG (and TCS) just beg for.
From what I've seen, T5 allowed designs could very well accomplish that in an extended way. (I know, I know, I'm coming around to T5). Putting the two together, in a judicious way, would make a lifelong, "realistic", campaign.
"AA" batteries and "AA" Escort ships. A better mix, and use, for tertiary batteries (per HG), and a broader fleet mix, out of necessity.
Personally, I believe that is what HG intended, and failed, to produce.
Particularly when almost every post wants to compare the merits, or lack thereof, of individual ship combat. Beyond that it get's bogged down in a "one off" battle scenario which, by it's very nature, is unreasonable.
A Fleet, better yet, a Navy, is designed and built for a protracted campaign. That is a very different thing. T5 seems to hint at that from what I've skimmed last night.
A protracted campaign is what HG (and TCS) just beg for.
From what I've seen, T5 allowed designs could very well accomplish that in an extended way. (I know, I know, I'm coming around to T5). Putting the two together, in a judicious way, would make a lifelong, "realistic", campaign.
That exists at the lower tech levels in HG (II), before computer factor and armor become overpowering.
At higher tech levels - well, Earth history shows tech levels introducing paradigm shifts: ancient ships relied heavily on rams and boarding actions; Age-of-Sail was about close-range broadsides and boarding; WW-I naval war was about weight of armor and size of gun, or stealth - and boardings were almost unheard of; WW-II naval war was all about aircraft or stealth; modern war is about missiles, and there isn't much armor used anymore 'cause the boom's so big and is just as likely to come down on your deck as in at your waterline.
Given that, it's hard to argue that the spacefighter's role and influence should remain static across 6 tech levels of far future advances. Even the proud dreadnought becomes obsolescent at high tech levels: the nature of the meson spinal favors numbers over-size, giving mid-range ships an advantage over their larger cousins.
A number of people have proposed "strafing" rules for fighters, basically allowing them to deliver their weapons with greater accuracy by getting really close. I can't think of anything in space that would stop a higher-agility craft from getting in close and dogging a lower-agility craft, so one could argue for taking the CT-Book-2 interpretation into High Guard. At short range, allow a craft with higher agility to choose a "point-blank" range with respect to its target: missiles would hit without being stopped by computers or screens. (You might want to subtract the size code from agility before making the comparison, reflecting the difficulty a larger ship has in outmaneuvering a smaller ship.)
However, I'd point out that if you were that close, your craft could be targeted by a nuclear damper. That would mean ALL your nukes on-board are rendered inert. If you're going to make a point-blank rule, then a craft going to point-blank range against a target with a nuclear damper can't attack with nuclear missiles, then or for the remainder of the game. So, the fighter might do it just because it's better to hit with an HE than to accomplish nothing, but the destroyers and larger ships are going to want to stay out of point-blank range to protect their nuclear munitions from destruction. (In fact, it'd be an interesting tactic for a destroyer to charge in to point-blank range and run a nuclear damper over some dreadnought's missile holds.)
That would be a rather interesting HG variant.
Garyius2003
SOC-13
A torpedo in WII was such a weapon. One or two would sink an escort or a transport or small carrier, but against a properly designed ship, even a carrier, you needed 3 or 4. Of course, you had the Taiho (fleet carrier, one hit, poor damage control issue), and the Yamato (at least 7).
Mongoose has a pretty good idea with their torpedo (limited counter-measures, 6D6). However, to really justify fighters, destroyers, and fleet carriers the damage needs to be 6D6x10 with some way to comb or avoid. Perhaps counter fire/sand works x2. Then those ships make sense. Until then wasting tonnage on fleet carriers and destroyers makes no sense.
I have done some math with Mongoose, and given the limited counters, and the 6D6, banks of torpedo launchers to go with the spinal make sense. But only at the 400 plus range. Until then you are better off building about spinal.
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
I'd also suggest that a ship with a higher maneuver drive (acceleration) couldn't be closed with regardless of the other vessel having a higher agility. (Assuming "line abreast" starting positions).
I agree 100%. That's a well thought out position and certainly makes for the addition of tactics in an otherwise minimal tactics game.
martletsquire
SOC-12
Torpedos and heavy missiles
Better rules for both of these concepts need to be added.
Current Torpedos can carry huge nuke explosives, or shaped charged explosives that do much more damage than the WWII underwater bombs. Add targeting systems and fire/forget lock on/guide on sytems, and the torp becomes not just a merc killer, but potentially a capital ship damaging weapon. Limited range, but maybe programmable drives, for drifting (non-accelleration flight).
Heavier missiles than the commercial "rocket in a box" available for merchants should be available. Head to the Harpoon, which is much more powerful than the Exocet. Add in anti-ship cruise missiles, including some of the "commie" fast ship killers, and right now we have some very dangerous ship mounted missiles availabe for the right price on our non-space world that are much more powerful than a javelin/tow/laws rocket (which is more of the type missile used by the standard missile launcher in Traveller).
What happens when you get a 12-18g stealth 20t nuclear or non-nuclear missile with fire/forget and command update features from the launcher or from the controller (which may be a stealthed platform much closer to the action)?
Yeah, out of price of the standard Traveller Character, but Navies and Defense forces should still have something like this available. And as to availability to the player, well, what happens when that oppressive government falls and the price of a high quality hotel goes from 5 million credits to .05 credits (Eurotrip reference here).
Just remember all of the things available right after the collapse of the soviet union.
Imagine your conversation with Sergeant Yuri who is now stuck in Eastern Germany with no pay and no way to go home or do anything. "Hey, Comrade Amerikanski, you buy brand new T-80 tank, full load, with uniform and personel weapons, spares and whatever? 500 dollars and a pair of Levis." Yes, an exageration, but stuff like this happened
Better rules for both of these concepts need to be added.
Current Torpedos can carry huge nuke explosives, or shaped charged explosives that do much more damage than the WWII underwater bombs. Add targeting systems and fire/forget lock on/guide on sytems, and the torp becomes not just a merc killer, but potentially a capital ship damaging weapon. Limited range, but maybe programmable drives, for drifting (non-accelleration flight).
Heavier missiles than the commercial "rocket in a box" available for merchants should be available. Head to the Harpoon, which is much more powerful than the Exocet. Add in anti-ship cruise missiles, including some of the "commie" fast ship killers, and right now we have some very dangerous ship mounted missiles availabe for the right price on our non-space world that are much more powerful than a javelin/tow/laws rocket (which is more of the type missile used by the standard missile launcher in Traveller).
What happens when you get a 12-18g stealth 20t nuclear or non-nuclear missile with fire/forget and command update features from the launcher or from the controller (which may be a stealthed platform much closer to the action)?
Yeah, out of price of the standard Traveller Character, but Navies and Defense forces should still have something like this available. And as to availability to the player, well, what happens when that oppressive government falls and the price of a high quality hotel goes from 5 million credits to .05 credits (Eurotrip reference here).
Just remember all of the things available right after the collapse of the soviet union.
Imagine your conversation with Sergeant Yuri who is now stuck in Eastern Germany with no pay and no way to go home or do anything. "Hey, Comrade Amerikanski, you buy brand new T-80 tank, full load, with uniform and personel weapons, spares and whatever? 500 dollars and a pair of Levis." Yes, an exageration, but stuff like this happened
ALL the non nuke ones you mentioned would be ineffective against an Iowa class BB when considering its max armour areas. Trav ships have their armour everywhere, not just belts on certain areas of hull. So, short of nukes, missiles in Trav wouldn't be a threat against the capital ships. Which is how the game currently runs.
A problem with envisioning missiles for Traveller space combat is the effectiveness of missile defenses, at least under High Guard (2). The only thing that makes missiles worthwhile in High Guard is the fact that they basically cost nothing and you don't need to worry about reloads, which of course is as unrealistic as heck.
Under High Guard, much depends on computer ratings and the size and agility of the target but, all other things being equal, most missiles will miss a highly agile warship, and when they do get through they still have to penetrate antimissile fire and possibly repulsors. The result is that only a small fraction of the missiles have any effect, which - if you actually account for cost - creates a disincentive for a government to make high-price missiles: it's possible for the total cost of missiles used to batter down a target to exceed the cost of the target, putting the attacker on the wrong end of the attrition contest in an extended war. Factor in armor, and the damage needed to make a given ship retreat from the field of battle can very easily exceed the cost of repairing the targetted ship.
Since it's difficult for stealth to work in space - given the distances involved, the energy needed to cross those distances quickly, and the absence of any cover to hide the use of such energy - it's difficult to come up with rules that make it possible for expensive missiles to be cost-effective. You're forced to come up with some fantasy drive that produces energy and then applies it to motion without being detectable by the target, and that is also cheap enough and small enough to fit in a missile. In fact, the existing rules are arguably far too generous with missiles. The idea that a laser has any chance of missing a target at anything above TL7-8 - given several minutes to train on a target moving toward the laser, and said target expending considerable quantities of energy in the vacuum of space - is a bit of a stretch.
Ursus Latex
SOC-7
Never. It just doesn't make sense to build bigger ships, if they're not good at winning the battle. The reason for building a bigger ship is to fit a bigger engine to carry more armour against the biggest guns available. When everybody reaches that level, you need larger guns, so you build a larger ship again.
This paradigm has two exceptions: Since WW2 the largest ships are CVs, but they don't pack any offensive punch, they are force multipliers to aircraft. This is a logical evolution, since - as you stated - in the end it's about projecting power. Aircraft can reach diffrent kinds of targets that are inaccessible for guns: targets further away, especially targets not close to the shore. The CV is a force projector par excellence. This is why our most powerful ships are - as in Traveller - medium sized ships like missile cruisers and frigates. They can knock each other out. And since armour has almost no value in today's naval combat, they don't carry any. However, since not all navies can afford or have the need to project strategic power via CVs, for most of the world cruisers are the biggest ships around. And then we still have CV-killers in much smaller form: Submarines.
What Traveller seems to be doing is diffrent and I have no real explanation for it. Sinking your tax-money in BBs seems useless, if a cruiser can kill it. It only makes sense - and this is exception number two - if you need TL n BBs to kill TN n+1 cruisers. In this case bigger is a compensation for better. That's essentially pre-WW1 all over again: You fail to put bigger guns and adequate armour on current-TL designs, so you step up the size.
Early days of jet fighters, some pilots crashed themselves doing this. Prop fighters in WW2 did it to.
Very true (though I'd make the stealth idea closer to "impossible" than difficult). It does in fact becomes impossible to miss a missile (or any other target) at some fraction of a light second at minimum (intercepting missiles are entirely predictable, effectively near stationary targets). The task is only made uncertain by large numbers of targets, and prioritizing their destruction. Ie: we can kill X per second per mount, and are confronted with Y missiles. How to efficiently use those defense systems without having many of them decide the same target is to be hit first. This is a RL problem with SDI technology, even using perfect directed energy weapons as a thought experiment.
The countermeasure is to have the missile disperse clouds of penetrators such that the cloud is large enough that the target cannot get out of the way 100% of the time. This means many small penetrators, and in effect looks a little like HG (hull-scrubbing missiles, since the penetrators are moving fast, but have tiny mass).
It doesn't make larger penetrators impossible, however. How can you tell an 8 ton fighter from an 8 ton missile, for example? Or a 50 ton missile from a 50 ton heavy fighter? Seems like the latter could disperse a huge number of substantially larger penetrators than a tiny, cannon missile. At very high closing velocities, these could be nasty, indeed.
The dispersal would have to happen at very close range for the target to NOT be able to evade. It would be taken out before then. Remember, missiles aren't moving that fast in relation to the ships they are targeting... It's not anything like a missile vs. a ship on the ocean.
This is not generally true, though sometimes true. The majority of the time, we have to assume that fleets would only even run into each other near something of value---a planet. That means orbit. Even if not a majority, a substantial % of engagements. If you jump in across the system, then engagements only happen if both sides chose to fight. Closer in, you could possibly force one side to engage.
So anywhere near a planet, one side is effective stationary to start with.
Missiles start with whatever velocity the launcher has, and even the little classic missiles can possible do 6g12 or better, right (with the supplement?).
Even at a total of 6 g-turns, a 10 gram penetrators will have 622MJ energy. Modern tank rounds are on the order of 10-13 MJ.
This will vary linearly with penetrator mass, so a 1 gram ball would be 6X more energy than getting hit by a DU round from an Abrams tank.
Realistically, ships cannot actually evade uniformly 6g in any direction (unless you assume a reactionless drive that can "thrust" in any direction). Even so, almost 2 decades ago we did the math, and they can disperse at a substantial distance away (we looked at missiles the size of aerial torpedoes dispensing traveller superdense bbs such that they would have 1 bb every X meters square if spread at whatever the distance was. I'll find my notes. Back of the envelope, at 352 km/s (6 gturns), the target can evade if already pointed 90 degrees to vector ~29m in 1 second. That's a detonation 352 km away assuming only a 60m diameter cloud of bbs with no chance of missing with all bbs (might only hit with 1, lol). Note that you can then adjust damage based on how possible/cost effective SD bbs are vs lesser materials (DU, tungsten, etc) to adjust the damage (handwaving RL metal vs SD is allowed, after all).
Bottom line is that as gamers, we were happy if it wasn't 100% hits, anyway
KE missiles are entirely plausible. For player ships, there would be few enough coming at you that fighting them has danger, but is not impossible. Missiles that are more likely to hit also do less damage---smaller shot spread over a wider area for a given size missile (a great trade off gaming wise). Default tiny bbs produce a HG-like hull scrubbing.
Missiles could be larger, with bigger bbs, spread over the same area (equal to-hit, much larger damage), or considerably larger penetrators with a lower to-hit. Full impacts of the whole missile would be ship killer events. Ships would want layered defenses, which sort of matches cannon CT ships that look a lot like WW2 ships armed for primary foes (main guns/spinals), secondary foes (DP guns, bays), and aircraft (missiles in CT) Quad/DP in RL, and small turrets in CT.
Defense systems are very effective, but can be overwhelmed. This is pretty similar to modern naval combat vs incoming vampires.
The low damage of CT missiles is predicated on the tiny size initially offered (AIM-9s in space, lol). Later missile rules made missiles much nastier than LBB2, actually, as I recall (higher gs and g-turns, warheads that do multiple criticals on player sized ships, etc).
If missile damage were properly related to relative velocity, fighters could dash in at high speed (increase missile damage), them dump missiles. Certainly makes cannon BBs holding hundreds of fighter make more sense.
The distance that a missile can be picked off is what I'm referring to. It has to be guided all the way to the target. I've done the calcs. The unguided perpetrators would have to be released TOO close to the maneuvering targets. It isn't viable.