In short, it wouldn't work. Here's a good write up: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php
Traveller warships are WWII navy, but without a major piece
- Thread starter Garyius2003
- Start date
In short, it wouldn't work. Here's a good write up: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php
No. You need to reread the exchange in this thread.
Post 142 quotes post 140.
Post 140 quotes post 138.
Post 138 quotes post 134.
Post 134 quotes post 128.
Post 128 quotes post 126.
Which means ... that it's striking as a 1 meter wide beam?
CT, I've got a 250 megawatt laser that is hypothetically capable of vaporizing over 40 kilograms of iron; 5220 cubic centimeters. CT/HG-speaking, 5 factors of armor will keep the beam from getting to my soft innards and limit damage to my fuel tanks and surface constructs (my weapons). Striker-speaking, that 5 factors of armor translates to a Striker rating of 54: equivalent to 113 cm of steel. Hypothetically, the beam is burning 7.67 cm diameter (fist-size) holes in my hull - but then there's this spreading thing which implies that the beam has to start out very very narrow to achieve 7.67 cm by the time it hits me (and doesn't explain why it's not more powerful closer in and weaker farther out, so that very-narrow-beam idea doesn't work anyway). A 1-meter laser even without spreading is sure as heck not burning 7.67 cm holes in anyone's hull without someone meddling with the beam.
And then Wiki tells me:
"The beam of a single transverse mode (gaussian beam) laser eventually diverges at an angle which varies inversely with the beam diameter, as required by diffraction theory."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser
Which if I translated to just-folks English correctly means that the narrower the beam, the more the angle
- which basically spells doom for the under-1-meter view and means that SOMETHING has to be focusing the beam for it to do what it's doing.Which still leaves the question of why it can't do even more damage closer in.
I'm so confused.
How are the photons experiencing diffraction in vacuum? Are they interacting with each other? How does that prompt a photon to alter its path?
FF&S states that the beam from a 1 meter array (or the 100 meter array) has diverged to the point where it is striking a 1 cm square at that distance.
At longer distances, the beam will strike a larger area and inflict less damage.
At shorter distances, the beam will probably strike a smaller area, but the damage (based on energy delivered to 1 square cm) will be the same.
I believe that the idea is a pair of parabolic reflectors with a pinhole shutter at one end to columnate the photons ...
... which is what delays the x-ray lasers until higher TLs (the difficulty reflecting an x-ray) without the magic of grav focusing.
I have no idea if this is correct, only that it is a Traveller rule system that, at first glance, appears to function based upon a known formula.
So I offer it simply to quantify the current discussion.
Personally, I think that detection at ranges measured in AU and combat at ranges measured in kilometers sounds realistic and, potentially, interesting
... it just doesn't really sound like Traveller.
YMMV
I'm afraid I'm not understanding how something a meter wide diverges to a centimeter.
starship_captain62
SOC-7
What would a WW1/2 destroer analog be like?
Hi
A very interesting discussion.
I have been thinking about this myself and have wondered what a destroyer in the clasical sense (WW1/2) would be like?
My guess would be a smallish starship with one or two missile bay weapons. A system defense boat would be like a torpede boat (short range, harbour defense).
Any thoughts.
Cheers
Philip
Hi
A very interesting discussion.
I have been thinking about this myself and have wondered what a destroyer in the clasical sense (WW1/2) would be like?
My guess would be a smallish starship with one or two missile bay weapons. A system defense boat would be like a torpede boat (short range, harbour defense).
Any thoughts.
Cheers
Philip
More like a Coast Guard cutter with the armour of a WW2 BB.
Think of a reflecting telescope.
The part where the light enters the telescope is 1 meter in diameter.
The eye piece where the beam of light exits the telescope is much smaller, let's say 0.5 cm to pull a value out of thin air.
If you place your photo film 1000 km from the eye piece of the 1 meter telescope, the 0.5 cm beam of concentrated light from the 1 meter telescope will have diverged to become a 1 cm beam of light.
in the beginning battleships ruled the seas. when torpedoes became fully-functioning weapons they were a threat to these new battleships. torpedo boats - binky little fast hard-to-hit boats carrying no armor and no weapons other than torpedoes - were built to threaten the big high-tech high-cost battleships in a low-tech low-cost manner. torpedo boat destroyers - boats fast enough to intercept and large enough to carry the fast-firing guns necessary to hit the torpedo boats - were then built to protect the battleships from these. eventually the name was shortened to "destroyer". these naturally picked up scouting and fire-support roles and eventually acquired the air-defense role.
given existing rule sets (at tech 15) there is no "destroyer" role in traveller as there is no devastating anti-ship weapon which can fit onto a small cheap fast boat, hence there is no need for a screening ship to protect the main fleet from small attackers. depending on sensor rules however the scouting role may still exist.
imtu it is the cherry. tech 15, 1900 dtons, m6/rider, fact9 sensors, armor 15+7, fact9 beam, fact4 missle x2, fact5 sand x2, meson screen 9, nuke damper 9. its primary role is to lead the fleet and make first contact, hopefully by detecting the enemy but if necessary by being fired on. it is built to clear out any smaller scouting vessels and also to take any hit a major combatant can dish out. it also leads the way in planetary assaults and provides contested fire support for ground troops.
starship_captain62
SOC-7
Ship killing weapons
I seem to recall from my old CT high gaurd that there was a weapon that bypassed the armour (equivalent of below the water line). That was the meson gun. Big ones however need big ships. What I think we are looking for is a potential ship killing weapon, one shot only and can be mounted on s ship of limited size.
Cheers Philip
I seem to recall from my old CT high gaurd that there was a weapon that bypassed the armour (equivalent of below the water line). That was the meson gun. Big ones however need big ships. What I think we are looking for is a potential ship killing weapon, one shot only and can be mounted on s ship of limited size.
Cheers Philip
And there is the problem. Unlike the torpedoes that were usually carried in small ships but could well sink a battleship, the meson guns are only available to a 1000+ dton as bays (nearly useless, as they are easily stopped by meson screens, only roll once and have the +6 modifier as they are rated 9-) or to cruiser and up as spinals (somewhere the cruiser is described as the smallest ships having spinal mounts, so that's what makes them cruisers in HG).
No equivalent to torpedo boats or destroyers killing a Battleship with torpedoes, that's what the OP alluded (or at least what I unerstood from it).
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
I think the word was poorly chosen and should have read "converged" assuming the parabolic reflector argument is correct.
madmike
SOC-12
Mongoose introduced torpedoes with bomb pumped laser warheads. These are fast 2.5dT smart weapons fired from barbettes and bays.
If anyone has read the Honor Harrington books by David Weber, then you can understand the armour penetration and damage capability of such a warhead. As I use the Clement Sector setting where spinal mounts are pretty much non existent, the BPL torpedo fired in salvo is the premier ship killer.
If anyone has read the Honor Harrington books by David Weber, then you can understand the armour penetration and damage capability of such a warhead. As I use the Clement Sector setting where spinal mounts are pretty much non existent, the BPL torpedo fired in salvo is the premier ship killer.
Last edited:
If you've introduced the IMTU variant of making ships carry and pay for their missiles, the meson becomes the ideal ship-killer - mounted on as small and fast a ship or craft as you can manage and still mount a credible attack, usually a rider of some sort.
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
And at TL15 you can get that armor (14), maximize screens (damper & meson 9), agility (6), computer (9fib) etc. at under 8k dtons (Hull Code G) for a Battle Rider.
Lessee:
As Vladika points out, you can build a decent TL15 rider at size code G. You can get up to size K - 19,999 dT - before a size code penalty triggers, but smaller is better because it means more meson spinals fielded. So, we're looking at ships roughly in the 6 to 10 thousand megacredit range.
We will assume an agility 6 rider with a factor 9 nuclear damper, equal computers (which isn't the case unless we're fighting an Imperial civil war scenario, but we'll give a bit to the attacker for this test). Nothing under a Factor 7 missile battery is penetrating. At factor 7, 0.77% hit and penetrate dampers. At factor 8, 2.31% hit and penetrate dampers. At factor 9, 6.95% hit and penetrate dampers.
Nukes are coming in over Cr100,000 per shot, say 10 per megacredit to make it simple. They're more in MegaTrav, but this is closer to the SS3 value and it makes the math easier. So, figure about 60 to 100 thousand missiles costs as much as a rider. Assuming TL15, Factor 7 is 30 turret missiles, factor 9 is a 50 dT bay launching 50 missiles, and there isn't a factor 8 so we'll drop that.
So, for factor 7 batteries, you're going to average 1 hit for every 130 shots - 1 hit vor every 3900 missiles, at a cost of MCr 390 per hit. At factor 9, it's 1 hit for every 14.4 shots - about 720 missiles, or MCr 72 per hit.
He'll also have sand, lasers, fusion guns - probably at least a battery of each and as many batteries of sand as he can manage. He'll also have at least one repulsor, more if he can fit it but priority goes to agility and armor. Figure 2 or so missile batteries that hit aren't going to get to the nuclear damper stage - actually makes surprisingly little difference unless you're in an equal odds situation.
He's going to have at least 11 factors of armor to shield his maneuver drives from your nukes, and probably more. At tech 15, his small meson spinal's a J. He's got lasers, energy weapons, missiles, particle beams, sandcasters and at least one repulsor to cushion it against weapon hits. On average, the damage table yields 0.72 weapons results for every penetrating hit, so a bit over 1 in 10 penetrating hits results in a loss of a meson factor - MCr720 per factor assuming factor 9 batteries and factor 11 armor. (Every 10 penetrating hits also means an average 2.8%/28 tons of fuel lost, which may or may not be consequential.)
Against armor at factor F, you're getting 0.33 weapon hits (and 0.083 1%/10dT fuel hits) for every penetrating hit, with the rest sliding ineffectively off the bottom of the damage chart. About 1 in 21 penetrating hits results in a loss of a meson factor - MCr 1512 per factor.
Meanwhile, if you're an optimally built small fry in the 1999dT and under range, about 1 meson shot in 100 is killing your ships, 'cause at TL15 you've probably got a meson screen of your own. That's why the fleets don't like to pit their capital ships against top-of-the-line small fry. Of course, the game wants to pit under-tech SDBs against the front-line warships instead of letting those worlds import the tech needed to do the job, but that's a different discussion.
However, short story is you're paying anywhere from half the price of the target to about the target's full price to take him out of the battle - after which he will go home, get some repairs done, and come back. His repairs would cost way less than what you spent sending him home even if he had to completely replace every damaged weapon - and the only repair rules say it's even cheaper than that - so over an extended attritional fight, you will run out of money for missiles long before he runs out of money for repairs, even if he only carries the 11 factors of armor. Missiles actually work better in the offensive role 'cause then you're depriving him of his income-generating worlds, but even then you need to have deep stocks and pray for a short war.
As Vladika points out, you can build a decent TL15 rider at size code G. You can get up to size K - 19,999 dT - before a size code penalty triggers, but smaller is better because it means more meson spinals fielded. So, we're looking at ships roughly in the 6 to 10 thousand megacredit range.
We will assume an agility 6 rider with a factor 9 nuclear damper, equal computers (which isn't the case unless we're fighting an Imperial civil war scenario, but we'll give a bit to the attacker for this test). Nothing under a Factor 7 missile battery is penetrating. At factor 7, 0.77% hit and penetrate dampers. At factor 8, 2.31% hit and penetrate dampers. At factor 9, 6.95% hit and penetrate dampers.
Nukes are coming in over Cr100,000 per shot, say 10 per megacredit to make it simple. They're more in MegaTrav, but this is closer to the SS3 value and it makes the math easier. So, figure about 60 to 100 thousand missiles costs as much as a rider. Assuming TL15, Factor 7 is 30 turret missiles, factor 9 is a 50 dT bay launching 50 missiles, and there isn't a factor 8 so we'll drop that.
So, for factor 7 batteries, you're going to average 1 hit for every 130 shots - 1 hit vor every 3900 missiles, at a cost of MCr 390 per hit. At factor 9, it's 1 hit for every 14.4 shots - about 720 missiles, or MCr 72 per hit.
He'll also have sand, lasers, fusion guns - probably at least a battery of each and as many batteries of sand as he can manage. He'll also have at least one repulsor, more if he can fit it but priority goes to agility and armor. Figure 2 or so missile batteries that hit aren't going to get to the nuclear damper stage - actually makes surprisingly little difference unless you're in an equal odds situation.
He's going to have at least 11 factors of armor to shield his maneuver drives from your nukes, and probably more. At tech 15, his small meson spinal's a J. He's got lasers, energy weapons, missiles, particle beams, sandcasters and at least one repulsor to cushion it against weapon hits. On average, the damage table yields 0.72 weapons results for every penetrating hit, so a bit over 1 in 10 penetrating hits results in a loss of a meson factor - MCr720 per factor assuming factor 9 batteries and factor 11 armor. (Every 10 penetrating hits also means an average 2.8%/28 tons of fuel lost, which may or may not be consequential.)
Against armor at factor F, you're getting 0.33 weapon hits (and 0.083 1%/10dT fuel hits) for every penetrating hit, with the rest sliding ineffectively off the bottom of the damage chart. About 1 in 21 penetrating hits results in a loss of a meson factor - MCr 1512 per factor.
Meanwhile, if you're an optimally built small fry in the 1999dT and under range, about 1 meson shot in 100 is killing your ships, 'cause at TL15 you've probably got a meson screen of your own. That's why the fleets don't like to pit their capital ships against top-of-the-line small fry. Of course, the game wants to pit under-tech SDBs against the front-line warships instead of letting those worlds import the tech needed to do the job, but that's a different discussion.
However, short story is you're paying anywhere from half the price of the target to about the target's full price to take him out of the battle - after which he will go home, get some repairs done, and come back. His repairs would cost way less than what you spent sending him home even if he had to completely replace every damaged weapon - and the only repair rules say it's even cheaper than that - so over an extended attritional fight, you will run out of money for missiles long before he runs out of money for repairs, even if he only carries the 11 factors of armor. Missiles actually work better in the offensive role 'cause then you're depriving him of his income-generating worlds, but even then you need to have deep stocks and pray for a short war.
starship_captain62
SOC-7
Small battlrider
Hi all
I had a look through some of my old HG designs and found one for a small 5000ton battlrider. It has a type J spinal mount meson gun.It is pretty much a minimaxed design - a big gun with a maneuver drive. Decent gun but vulnerable. This is as close to a destroyer as you can get in HG, which iswhere the analogy seems to break down.
Cheers
Philip
Hi all
I had a look through some of my old HG designs and found one for a small 5000ton battlrider. It has a type J spinal mount meson gun.It is pretty much a minimaxed design - a big gun with a maneuver drive. Decent gun but vulnerable. This is as close to a destroyer as you can get in HG, which iswhere the analogy seems to break down.
Cheers
Philip
ah, but now you have a problem. without a large missile offense then your enemy needs no armor - it serves no purpose. this gives him a tremendous advantage.
the missile offense must be included. this mandates the rider dtonnage up to 19000 - above which the to-be-hit penalties are too great. max meson gun at that size, armor, and secondary offense, is N.
J-gun is too small as is the ship. for a fractional increase in dtonnage and spending you can get a large increase in firepower and survivability, and they would clean-up the "destroyers".
and at that point you have the hg2 battleship. yes the guns are located on a rider but the transport must be included in the overall picture. think of an iowa-class battleship where the main gun turrets detach and fly around.