• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Traveller warships are WWII navy, but without a major piece

So about 19364 km. Each laser should hit a missle 100% of the time at just shy of 20 km. WHich is why TNE switched to Detlasers.

Yeah, that was about what we got back in the day on the TML and gearhead lists, in the same BL hex, you could not miss a grapefruit-sized cross section.

Note that anyone who accepts this is also accepting that at that same range all lasers hit 100% of the time on a particular 10cm diameter target area of another ship (a slightly larger area with crossing heading). So if a laser can shoot at 10 missiles, then it hits a player ship 10 times as well, and at a far longer range if you are not concerned with picking which small areas you are aiming for on his hull. If a laser can shoot 100 missiles per turn, then 100 hits on ships farther out in the same time period. Set that number, and we know how many missiles saturates the defenses. TNE lasers were said to pulse a large number of times, so the unfortunate math was that at the right ranges, player ships would be blazing away with gatling guns that could not miss :)

KKMs are cheap, compared to nukes. They don't have the nasty radiation issues, can be used in "conventional" combats where even the IN might want to avoid nukes. It's just a matter of where the cost-benefit is to use them or not compared to the alternatives. If non-det-laser nukes work, they are detonating on top of the target (and contrary to HG, etc, a detonation closer still should be possible, if atypical, and catastrophic to even a BB). Det-lasers push that out, but they do less damage (on par with HG scrubbing). They are without question very effective if "regular' nukes work.

In a world where all nuke missiles tend to be det-lasers, then they can still work, but have a decent chance of missing. This is offset by a Tigress firing off hundreds of bays full, however.
 
6g doesn't matter. Not true, it matters, but not enough.

If ships are even sort of realistic in a way we expect, the 6g thrust is out the back, right? Traveller ships have big, cool m-drives at the back, right? Else they are UFOs and can instantly go 6g in any direction. So to evade at 6 g, the ship has to be pointed at a right angle to the intercept vector for maximum deflection relative to the missile.

We will assume this is always the case, while in reality, the ship first has to rotate to that position, and this means it might have to chose which missile (or group) it will try to evade maximally. (this has some great role-playing implications, BTW, you evade vs one, and decide to shoot at the other, for example)

In 1 second, at 6g, a ship is displaced 29.4 meters. That's it. That's what 6g bought you, ~30m. If the ship is bigger than 30m, and the missile was gonna hit when it was 1 second away, it's still gonna hit. Note that for our 6g missile, that 1 second is several hundred km away at t=0 (where t=1 is impact). ...

???

Scale. Don't forget scale. Anything from 10 thousand kilometers to a light-second or more. Turn lengths of a thousand seconds to 20 minutes.

If you and I are matching course and speed at those ranges, trading shots, and I see a missile emerge from your locus, I do not have 1 second to react; I have many minutes. Turning is only a tiny fraction of that. I put my butt to you, thrust away from the missile, the missile has had only seconds to accelerate before I respond. At that point it's a math exercise: can a missile accelerating "upstream" catch a ship that's accelerating away from it? Key variables: the missile's thrust, the missile's initial velocity with respect to the ship, the ship's thrust, the distance between them, the amount of fuel the missile has. At those ranges, it is pretty much impossible for a 6G missile to catch a 6G ship from behind before running out of fuel, given only the few seconds between launch and the time the target completes its turn and lays on thrust. Lower acceleration, depends on just how far off the target is and how much fuel the missile has, but it's very much like dealing with torpedoes - the farther off he is and the more power he has, the harder it is to catch him.

If I'm pursuing you when you launch a missile down at me, basically same problem. If you are pursuing me and launch missiles, basically same problem except I don't spend a few seconds turning. The missile starts life with your velocity, so everything's relative to the numbers between us, not the absolute numbers. A 6G missile's best chance is against an opponent of 5G or less; at 10,000 or more kilometers, unless there's a fairly decent velocity difference between the two ships - in the missile's favor - there's no chance if the 6G target reacts to a 6G missile immediately.

Look at it in terms of Book-2 turn sequence:

lntruder Player Turn
A. Intruder movement: "The intruder moves his ships using the movement, gravity, and other applicable rules. Ordnance (missiles and sand) which he has launched in previous game turns is moved at the same time."

...
D. Intruder ordnance launch: "The intruder may launch ordnance (missiles and/or sand) at enemy targets ... Ordnance which has contacted enemy ships explodes in this phase."

Native Player Turn
A. Native movement: "The native moves his ships using the movement, gravity, and other applicable rules. Ordnance (missiles and sand) which he has launched in previous game turns is moved at the same time."

...
D. Native ordnance launch: "The native may launch ordnance (missiles and/or sand) at enemy targets ... Ordnance which has contacted enemy ships explodes in this phase."

And then back to the beginning.

The native moves after the missile is in space but before the missile moves. If the native can get out of the missile's one-turn range with that movement, the missile does not impact that turn. If the native can keep adding up vectors to stay ahead of the accelerating missile, the missile never hits. And, that's much easier if you have the same thrust as the missile; you've got to be doing something pretty stupid or pretty daring - closing range fast and unable to kill that vector quickly enough - to get hit.

Realistically speaking, things don't happen in 20-minute increments and 10-thousand kilometer hexes. In "real life", so to speak, there's a window where the target's close enough that the time it takes for the ship to turn and react gives the 6G missile has a chance at connecting - if the target is really, really close. However, the intercept velocity at that point is low.

In a word, 6G missiles suck rocks against 6G ships at anything beyond the space equivalent of "point blank" range or unless the 6G attacker's making himself vulnerable, something that High Guard doesn't seem to notice. Unfortunately, correcting this within the game parameters is difficult 'cause even a 7G KKV interceptor can thwack a 6G ship a lot harder than any ol' 30-kilo warhead can, given adequate time to build up speed, and it can do many, many times worse to the poor 1G crawler. You'd basically need to scrap the rules and come up with a damage system that more accurately reflected the impact differences between chasing down a 1G ship and chasing down a 6G ship.
 
Now, let's talk briefly about dreadnoughts.

By Supplement 9, armor factors up to F (15), as low as A (10). By Striker that's equivalent to a Striker armor rating of 60 to 65: 190 to 293 cm of steel. A bit over 5 feet to just under 10 feet of steel. Of course, they use a much denser and stronger material: bonded superdense, 14 times tougher than steel.

It takes 13.81 KJ per mol to melt iron; 340 kJ per mol to vaporize it. A mol of iron is 55.9 grams. Steel's tougher, depends on the actual composition, and I don't know the specifics of the steel being used as an example in Striker, but those numbers take us into the ballpark, anyway. Iron's density is 7.874 grams per cubic centimeter, so a mol of iron is about 7 cubic centimeters.

As a math exercise, it takes about 375 kilojoules to melt a 1 square centimeter column 190 centimeters deep into the A-armor dreadnought's hull. Needless to say, the hull's not likely to be designed to let you melt discrete columns - energy will spread quite a bit. But, that's the minimum under perfect circumstances to melt that column - after which it's a question of whether the air inside can force the now-liquid viscous mass out. More energy, maybe it gets runnier and easier. To vaporize that column: in excess of 9 megajoules. To vaporize a crater 190 cm deep and 380 cm across (as from a nuke going off in contact with the hull): let's see, that's 14.37 million cubic centimeters, a bit over 2 million mol, so 697.75 gigajoules - about 166.8 tons of TNT.

So, if we assume the superdense is taking 14 times as much energy to melt/vaporize - which, however illogically, the game designers seem inclined for us to do given that the armor behaves the same regardless of the nature of the weapon interacting with it - then a 0.1 kt tac-nuke can't penetrate factor 10 armor. Given that the nuke's shedding energy in all directions and only about half is interacting with the hull, takes a bit over 0.3 Kt to pull it off. And, of course, the guy with the factor F armor's a lot harder to cut through.

That's just fun with math. Only math - and with a fair margin of error since we analyzed iron, not steel. How much energy it actually takes to penetrate depends on how you see the energy interacting with the hull; much engineering and physics there, very little of which I have. Obviously a thin column's way easier than a hemispherical crater, but just as obviously the armor maker's not likely to make it easy for you to drill thin columns into his precious armor. So, take the numbers and make your best guess based on how you think the hull's interacting with whatever's applying energy to it.
 
Yeah, that was about what we got back in the day on the TML and gearhead lists, in the same BL hex, you could not miss a grapefruit-sized cross section.

Actually, a BL hex is 30,000 km - 0.1LS

The real problem is that, in order to avoid the Direct Fire issue, they also made ranges huge, but that required focus lengths of insane levels, so in order to fit them aboard ship, invented "Gravitic Focusing" for lasers... So you can actually do damage past 100km.
 
If we remove grav focusing what does the effective range of lasers become?

Could we build a more realistic combat system based on the true range of lasers and use remote vehicles to deliver stand off ordnance - x-ray lasers, kkm, particle beams that sort of thing?

Military ship combat would become a battle of combat drone cloud vs combat drone cloud with the loser facing a choice of running away or risk losing real ships.

PC scale merchant versus pirate with civilian grade lasers and basic missiles would become a much closer and faster playing engagement.

For as long as I have refereed Traveller players have always wanted fast ship to ship combat, not 20 min turns.

The 20 min turn becomes the sub hunt game, getting sensor locks on distant targets, while the actual engagement become much closer range affairs.
 
Could we build a more realistic combat system based on the true range of lasers and use remote vehicles to deliver stand off ordnance - x-ray lasers, kkm, particle beams that sort of thing?

The lasers used in Ship weapons wouldn't be visible wavelength type. They'd be something probably more advanced than current day FEL's/
 
If we remove grav focusing what does the effective range of lasers become?.
Range is unchanged ... the arrays become larger diameter. ;)

Seriously, FF&S has data on that and the range will vary with TL, but very roughly an order of magnitude less.
 
The lasers used in Ship weapons wouldn't be visible wavelength type. They'd be something probably more advanced than current day FEL's/

Just an interesting point, but the same properties that let the atmosphere protect you from very high and very low wavelengths will allow atmosphere to function as armor vs space optimized lasers as well. Very specific wavelengths of visible light are the most efficient in atmosphere until the very high x-ray wavelengths ... TL 15 in handheld lasers.

If you wanted that level of complexity, tuneable wavelength lasers would be best with a rock-paper-scissors relationship to the defense options (like aerosols and hull material).
 
FF&S says you need a 6000m lens to get a laser effective at 10 hexes without gravatic focusing.

A ten metre lens wouldn't even be effective at 1 hex they say - in fact they say it is off by a factor of almost 100.
 
FF&S says you need a 6000m lens to get a laser effective at 10 hexes without gravatic focusing.

A ten metre lens wouldn't even be effective at 1 hex they say - in fact they say it is off by a factor of almost 100.

Thank you.
I was too lazy to go look up the exact figures.

OK, I went and looked it up.

For non-grav focused lasers:
[the effective range in thousands of kilometers is equal to the diameter of the array in meters]
A 1 meter laser will inflict full damage at 1,000 kilometers.
A 10 meter laser will inflict full damage at 10,000 kilometers.
A 100 meter laser will inflict full damage at 100,000 kilometers.

For Grav focused lasers:
[the effective range in hundreds of thousands of kilometers is equal to ((60 times the diameter of the array in meters)^2)/10 ]
A 1 meter laser will inflict full damage at 36,000,000 kilometers.
A 10 meter laser will inflict full damage at 36,000,000,000 kilometers.
A 100 meter laser will inflict full damage at 360,000,000,000 kilometers.

So the relationship will be highly weapon diameter dependent and the above are for TL 15 only. Each TL will have a different but similar relationship.
A large part of the difference is that Grav focused ship's lasers operate at 1 angstrom wavelengths starting at TL 13, but non-grav focused ship's lasers operate at 100 angstrom wavelengths at TL 15 ... the source of the x 100 grav vs non-grav range mentioned in the text jec10 quoted.

There are multiple thumbs on the scale to favor grav-focused lasers.
 
Taking a wild stab here...

Is anyone else bothered by the shear amount of gravity (and energy to power the gravitics) to focus that laser light?!

I've had visions of the system powering up, then firing right before collapsing under it's own induced weight.

... a shot in the dark... :D
 
Is it just me who always thought grav focussing was one ridiculous technology too far?

How strong is the gravity field needed to focus light? How much energy does the grav focussing use?

Lol, question answered as I was posting...
 
Very specific wavelengths of visible light are the most efficient in atmosphere until the very high x-ray wavelengths ... TL 15 in handheld lasers.

If you wanted that level of complexity, tuneable wavelength lasers would be best with a rock-paper-scissors relationship to the defense options (like aerosols and hull material).

The US navy is using FEL's for its in atmosphere laser weapons. So, I think your data is out of date.
 
Okay, my knowledge of real-world lasers is limited to what I learned helping my daughter with a grade school science experiment way back when, and that involved a laser pointer. Why are the lasers so short-ranged, and does this mean we need to redefine Megatrav et al's lasers to be TL9 technology?
 
Okay, my knowledge of real-world lasers is limited to what I learned helping my daughter with a grade school science experiment way back when, and that involved a laser pointer. Why are the lasers so short-ranged, and does this mean we need to redefine Megatrav et al's lasers to be TL9 technology?


Lasers do in fact have a small amount of "beam-diameter" spread over long ranges (i.e. they do have a non-zero difraction). In the Apollo missions, a laser was fired from the earth to the moon (where a reflector was set up) in order to precisely measure the earth-moon distance. By the time the beam had reached the moon 384,000 km away, the beam diameter had spread to several meters.

This spreading means that the same amount of energy that the laser initially had is now spread out over a much larger surface area (meaning a much lower energy per unit area). In essence, your laser-cannon eventually becomes a mono-chromatic flashlight, given sufficient range.
 
Stealth / Heat Dissipation

I had a thought about this entire issue. It seems that one of the primary issues is the lack of any ability to "hide" from sensors in 2.7K microwave background space (where you are thermally radiating at a couple hundred Kelvin.

What if you could channel all of that waste heat and radiation into powering a laser that "dumped" your heat signature directionally? In essence, you have "chiller" that removes the heat to the exterior of the craft focussed along a vector (allowing you to appear "black" against the black backgound except in the direction you are emitting).

I haven't thought this through deeply, but does anyone think it has any possibilities for basic "stealth" screening (either for a missile/torpedo or a ship)? Would a missile/torpedo designed using this idea rapidly turn into a "small craft design" due to size/power limitations?

Any thoughts?
 
The US navy is using FEL's for its in atmosphere laser weapons. So, I think your data is out of date.

The US Navy has hand held x-ray free electron lasers?
If not, then how is my data out of date?
(Actually, I was just reporting what FF&S says, so it really isn't my data.)
 
I had a thought about this entire issue. It seems that one of the primary issues is the lack of any ability to "hide" from sensors in 2.7K microwave background space (where you are thermally radiating at a couple hundred Kelvin.

What if you could channel all of that waste heat and radiation into powering a laser that "dumped" your heat signature directionally? In essence, you have "chiller" that removes the heat to the exterior of the craft focussed along a vector (allowing you to appear "black" against the black backgound except in the direction you are emitting).

I haven't thought this through deeply, but does anyone think it has any possibilities for basic "stealth" screening (either for a missile/torpedo or a ship)? Would a missile/torpedo designed using this idea rapidly turn into a "small craft design" due to size/power limitations?

Any thoughts?

It is thermodynamically possible but your beam will be much hotter than the ship itself. If you can use gravity to focus your lasers why not use it to focus your heat (IR radiation) as well.

I read about a similar idea in a SF book. In that instance they used what they called an "entropy engine" to cool things. Never really explained but here is my guess.

Thermodynamics does allow you to operate an engine without producing "waste heat" as long as you produce sufficient entropy, I will call it "waste entropy". How to do so without generating heat I can only imagine. Perhaps understanding gravity allows one to delete information from the universe, thus increasing entropy without heat (or much heat). It can be good for the universe to be doing this. :)
 
Back
Top