Traveller warships are WWII navy, but without a major piece

[Vladika]

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.

I think you are making the CLASSIC mistake of thinking there is a "One Ship" design for a fleet. There isn't. The small Rider, including Tender, is VERY affordable both credit wise and total fleet tonnage wise.

These ships WILL benefit greatly by having a large number of less than 2000dton missile ships, one bay factor 9

Failure to have an overwhelming missile offense, in HG, IMO, is a fatal mistake.

BTW a 19,999 dton hull is a HUGE mistake, Meson N or not. The fewer hulls you have the less survivable both your individual credit/tonnage ship as well as total fleet is.

J-gun is too small...

Not when you can field at 2:1 odds! Also you can distribute firing main batteries to much greater advantage.

...as is 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".

In a "One Ship", "One Off" Battle, this is partly true. Not so for a champagne.

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.

False. You have all the secondary guns present too, maybe on "top" of your flying turret analogy? (I don't agree with the analogy for the above mentioned reasons, among several others.)

 

[flykiller]

Failure to have an overwhelming missile offense, in HG, IMO, is a fatal mistake.

I ... believe that's what I said?

The fewer hulls you have the less survivable both your individual credit/tonnage ship as well as total fleet is.

ah. now YOU are making the classic mistake of failing to consider factors outside of hull dispersal (c). as the line ships get smaller they become more numerous and therefore more survivable against individual meson guns but they also and simultaneously become less survivable overall against combined secondary attacks. one cannot consider a single factor and be successful, one must consider all factors simultaneously.

Not so for a champagne.

a campaign was exactly what I was thinking of and designing for. but actually designing for champagne is a good idea too ....

You have all the secondary guns present too, maybe on "top" of your flying turret analogy?

http://modelshipmaster.com/products/modern_navy/yamato/yamato battleship model (4).JPG

(note the antiaircraft guns mounted on the main guns)

 

[Vladika]

I ... believe that's what I said?

ah. now YOU are making the classic mistake of failing to consider factors outside of hull dispersal (c). as the line ships get smaller they become more numerous and therefore more survivable against individual meson guns but they also and simultaneously become less survivable overall against combined secondary attacks. one cannot consider a single factor and be successful, one must consider all factors simultaneously.

Agree completely with you on all factors needing consideration. Smaller ships work just fine though when you consider that a hit from a Meson J IS a mission kill and the ship is ripe for latter cleanup.

I don't believe a ship will survive repeated Spinal Meson volleys long enough to worry about the "stripping" of weapons resulting in attrition damage. Many Spinals will miss and many more fail to penetrate but you'd need massive tonnage devoted to missiles before you see much in the way of damage.

In anything like a "fair" tonnage engagement Meson J's are going to carry the day against larger missile armed ships (even if they are only secondary batteries)

a campaign was exactly what I was thinking of and designing for. but actually designing for champagne is a good idea too ....

http://modelshipmaster.com/products/modern_navy/yamato/yamato battleship model (4).JPG

(note the antiaircraft guns mounted on the main guns)

AA yes (tertiary) 5" guns (secondary), no. BTW You CAN'T man those AAs while firing the main guns. The AA crews would be killed outright on firing.

A surface engagement (WW2) and the need for AA aren't always going to be required at the same time, if so you need to make a choice. In a Traveller battle you need to use it all at once and it's possible.

I'm enjoying the dialog, as well as many of your past posts.

 

[flykiller]

you'd need massive tonnage devoted to missiles before you see much in the way of damage.

true (except against the zhodani, which in my game are the most significant opponent). but at tech 15 the primary purpose of the missile batteries is to force the opponent to armor-up his line ships. among other effects this forces a larger line boat size. I did all the calculations years ago but IIRC the smallest possible size with optimal survivability is about 15kdtons - and it was badly undermanned and equipped. I just upped it to 19kdtons to increase the manning and to better match my shipyard construction capabilities and left it at that.

... and then I dumped it all for new rules. but I kept the basic designs and many of the hg assumptions.

 

[Vladika]

true (except against the zhodani, which in my game are the most significant opponent). but at tech 15 the primary purpose of the missile batteries is to force the opponent to armor-up his line ships. among other effects this forces a larger line boat size. I did all the calculations years ago but IIRC the smallest possible size with optimal survivability is about 15kdtons - and it was badly undermanned and equipped. I just upped it to 19kdtons to increase the manning and to better match my shipyard construction capabilities and left it at that.

... and then I dumped it all for new rules. but I kept the basic designs and many of the hg assumptions.

At 10k(dtons) I can get a Jump 1, Meson J, fully loaded and Dumping the Jump 1 go for the Meson N. Against the TL 14 Zho you can have half their tonnage and still it's a guaranteed win.

Personally, I would like to see a TL15 vs TL15 campaign, fought to conclusion. Don't think it's ever happened, or ever will, but it would put a lot of theory to the test.

One real issue would be the efficacy of Support ships as there is essentially nothing about them in the CT/HG rules. I envision great things for a fleet that utilizes "Dry Docks", Tugs and Tankers to name but a few.

Also the "rule" for "All J4 ships" is a sad joke. At J2 you can fly such a sizable fleet that you can divide forces and still outnumber, and out maneuver, a TCS fleet built to the J4 requirement.

Personally I think the "J4" rule came into being to limit the number of ships at a CON to a manageable level. IIRC you look at 700kdton and better to get a Meson T, fully decked out, at that jump parameter. A single 400dton J4 Tender with 6 10kdton Battle Riders, Meson N, will clean up. Assumes a roughly equal expenditure of credits yielding nearly equal tonnage "fleets".

Also, for the Fighter enthusiasts, in a campaign Fighters definitively have a solid place in any Battle Fleet (You have to give their role a bit of thought, it's NOT in a "toe to toe" with front line Capital Ships). In a campaign their role CAN be crucial. Deployed, and used correctly, they are great Force Multipliers.

 

[flykiller]

Also the "rule" for "All J4 ships" is a sad joke. At J2 you can fly such a sizable fleet that you can divide forces and still outnumber, and out maneuver, a TCS fleet built to the J4 requirement.

true. but strategically a j2 fleet is nothing more than a glorified sdb force. a j4 fleet will simply go whereever it wants and leave the j2 fleet far behind. furthermore a j4 fleet has the option of j2-in, and j2-back out if it has to. a j2 fleet is trapped where it jumps.

j4 all the way.

One real issue would be the efficacy of Support ships as there is essentially nothing about them in the CT/HG rules. I envision great things for a fleet that utilizes "Dry Docks", Tugs and Tankers to name but a few.

been there, done that. support ships in sufficient numbers can consume quite a bit of fleet tonnage - depending on rules of course.

tankers are a good study since they must reflect existing rules. I found it impossible to build enough tankers to refuel everything, so I decided to build tankers sufficient to refuel the non-jump-fuel requirements for the line ships only. this has utility in allowing line ships to maintain a non-refueled position as long as necessary and be fed fuel by the tanker force from out-system sources. but anything more than that is impossible.

I implemented basic minimal supply rules and found that supply ships could not meet full tasking without consuming vast dtonnage. I have some supply but they extend operating ranges only a few months - basically they are limited to major offensive task forces.

repair tenders can be more useful but again this depends entirely on the ruleset. I implemented basic minimal repair rules and found again that the support ship dtonnage required for full support was excessive. again they are limited to major offensive task forces.

Personally, I would like to see a TL15 vs TL15 campaign, fought to conclusion.

as would I. but the negotiations with regard to funding rules, shipyard construction rules, repair/resupply rules, and other such would consume most of the game time.

At 10k(dtons) I can get a Jump 1, Meson J, fully loaded and Dumping the Jump 1 go for the Meson N.

well, if you can get anyone to man these flying death traps for years on end ....

 

[Vladika]

true. but strategically a j2 fleet is nothing more than a glorified sdb force. a j4 fleet will simply go whereever it wants and leave the j2 fleet far behind. furthermore a j4 fleet has the option of j2-in, and j2-back out if it has to. a j2 fleet is trapped where it jumps.

j4 all the way.

For the cost/tonnage of J2 vs J4 you can place enough J2 ships where J4 ships must travel through, or attack, to make the difference.

Also, I mix J2 Spinal mounts with J4 Tender Carried Battle Riders.

J2 Drop tanks in and J2 back out if needed? (Just one option) Drop tanks carried on Tenders instead of using Tankers.

I still like J4 Tenders and Battle Riders to overwhelm a J4 Fleet.

Repair ship to transport Jump Drives to repair in place (per CT/HG rules)

 

[rancke]

For the cost/tonnage of J2 vs J4 you can place enough J2 ships where J4 ships must travel through, or attack, to make the difference.

How do you figure that? It sounds unlikely to me. If you have a string of systems A-B-C-D-E each with only a single refuelling option, the J2 fleet has to garrison B, C, D, and E in order to prevent a J4 fleet from attacking A. If you put an average of two gas giants or waterbearing worlds, we double the number of places that must be guarded. When you make that a two-dimensional web of systems instead of a single one-dimensional string, the number of places that must be defended goes up a lot more.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

For the cost/tonnage of J2 vs J4 you can place enough J2 ships where J4 ships must travel through, or attack, to make the difference. ...

You have a problem on the offensive. You're slow; your targets for attack are easier to predict, enemy worlds farther in are going to have more time to prepare for the arrival of your force, and the enemy can marshall forces in advance of the line of attack. The fact that you can outgun him credit-for-credit will not help you if he draws forces from a wider area and concentrates them on your force. You're going to have trouble withdrawing or reinforcing.

You've got a mainly defensive force, and that puts you at a diplomatic disadvantage. By the time your force leaves your borders and responds to the pleas of Pocket Empire Zeta, the jump-4 force has gone there, whupped their butts, and gone home. You start saber-rattling, the enemy knows about how deep you can thrust how quickly and what worlds are likely at risk - and he can pull a gambit like running tankers into deep space to pull off an 8-parsec incursion. Meanwhile, you can marshall twice the firepower, but along a long border he can concentrate overwhelming force quickly at one point, defeat your forces there, then shift and concentrate to block your responding attacks elsewhere.

You're basically counting on the fact that your "heavy infantry" are cheaper than his "cavalry" unit-for-unit to build a wall of "heavy infantry" around your borders, hoping it can stop the enemy's "cavalry", but the great power of cavalry has always been its ability to concentrate quickly and strike suddenly where you are weakest.

 

[Vladika]

I believe that it's been a long held belief on CotI that a CT/HG battle will only take place with the consent of both sides. (One side or the other can refuse battle and withdraw in one of several ways). This will be modified by necessity to defend certain worlds, refueling points, etc. There are always predictable bottlenecks.

Also the "rule" for "All J4 ships" is a sad joke. At J2 you can fly such a sizable fleet that you can divide forces and still outnumber, and out maneuver, a TCS fleet built to the J4 requirement.

Nothing here establishes a claim for a solely J2 fleet, quite the contrary.

How do you figure that? It sounds unlikely to me. If you have a string of systems A-B-C-D-E each with only a single refuelling option, the J2 fleet has to garrison B, C, D, and E in order to prevent a J4 fleet from attacking A. If you put an average of two gas giants or waterbearing worlds, we double the number of places that must be guarded. When you make that a two-dimensional web of systems instead of a single one-dimensional string, the number of places that must be defended goes up a lot more.
Hans

In CT/HG you can NEVER defend all refueling points (With a maneuver fleet at any rate) it's just plain cost ineffective.

The old adage "Pick and choose your battles" is more than appropriate here as there are both logical and required bottlenecks.

You have a problem on the offensive. You're slow; your targets for attack are easier to predict, enemy worlds farther in are going to have more time to prepare for the arrival of your force, and the enemy can marshall forces in advance of the line of attack. The fact that you can outgun him credit-for-credit will not help you if he draws forces from a wider area and concentrates them on your force. You're going to have trouble withdrawing or reinforcing.

Look to the German army at the outbreak of WW2. Panzer fores could effect a breakthrough but could not consolidate or hold ground. Infantry divisions, moving much slower, were required for this purpose. (Here I loosely hold that J4=Panzer and J2=Infantry.)

You've got a mainly defensive force, and that puts you at a diplomatic disadvantage.

See above.

By the time your force leaves your borders and responds to the pleas of Pocket Empire Zeta, the jump-4 force has gone there, whupped their butts, and gone home.

Not clear here. If "Pocket Empire Zeta" is my territory or responsibility my reaction to hostilities may very well be the deterrent. (Depending on how far "Pocket Empire Zeta" is from MY borders.)

You start saber-rattling,

Screw "saber-rattling" It just tips off your enemy to your intentions. Surprise attack all the way. (NOT totally achievable due to mobilization requirements.)

the enemy knows about how deep you can thrust how quickly and what worlds are likely at risk

The enemy always knows this. You know the same about him.

- and he can pull a gambit like running tankers into deep space to pull off an 8-parsec incursion. Meanwhile, you can marshall twice the firepower, but along a long border he can concentrate overwhelming force quickly at one point, defeat your forces there, then shift and concentrate to block your responding attacks elsewhere.

You can never stop a cavalry incursion or massed local force concentrations. In these cases you are forced to react to a degree. (I would love to see a tread on deep space refueling and exchange ideas and philosophies!)

You're basically counting on the fact that your "heavy infantry" are cheaper than his "cavalry" unit-for-unit to build a wall of "heavy infantry" around your borders, hoping it can stop the enemy's "cavalry",

Walls never work but your analogy is reasonable. My "wall" is not intended to stop an enemy cold but to delay and cause attrition loses. (I don't believe in the traditional "attrition" model of combat, I'm a "maneuver" theorist).

but the great power of cavalry has always been its ability to concentrate quickly and strike suddenly where you are weakest.

All to true, but, this is always a temporary advantage on the part of cavalry. They are invariably to weak to hold ground once taken. Also, they will never prevail against a properly deployed Heavy Infantry.

Cavalry can penetrate but unless they can "live off the land" they will die. In CT/HG you can't live off the land for years due to the captured shipyard rules. (Magic Missile Magazines or not)

I never intended to convey the idea that J2 fleets were the sole choice I would make. I do believe that on the defensive they are a great force for "defense in depth", a time honored and effective proposition. On the offensive, while slow, they are relentless.

Also, assuming a somewhat equal credit navy on both sides (A requirement for two large and hostile governments, otherwise one would have already taken the other over.) for every concentration of force one makes there of necessity arises a corresponding weakness to be exploited.

Without knowing the "terrain" ahead of time no one can design the "right" ship mix in a fleet.

BTW, J2 vs J4 is a better than 2:1 build factor for equivalent Spinal Mounts fielded.

Also to be considered is the TIME a CT/HG battle can/will take. Conceivably it can go on indefinitely (Weeks at least) with reinforcements (sent for if need be) arriving during battle.

 

[Garyius2003]

These are great points, two differences. The inability to refuel destroyers and DEs from the carriers/BBs/cruisers while in motion; and also the already beat to death in this thread (very important, but explained 25 different ways) lack of a WWII torpedo ship killer type weapon.

I think the issue is that even with tankers, that week issue is what makes the difference. The J-number is not time proportional, so oiler capacity does not get the 3I universe what it gave the American Navy in WWII. There they could steam at fleet speed x, decrease to x-y (and maybe a little off course) for 12 hours to refuel the smaller ships, and go right back to x.

Even large ships refuels would only require retiring a few hundred miles to oilers or an advanced base stocked up by tankers.

3I oilers just get you an extra jump or two, at one week per, plus the refueling time on top of that.

So best case is that the J2 defense fleet takes 2 weeks plus one day to go the same distance the J4 ffeet goes in one week.

Even if the cost savings is used partly for J6 scout couriers, the defender at J2 is always going to be behind.

If you are going to crust every single world at risk, which you can try to do because J-space is 2-D, then why not J-1 and oilers for admin moves and simple reinforcements during the ramp up periods?

At TL 15 you can buy 6 type J meson J1s, plus two J1 missile barges, for the cost of one 'do it all' battleship at J4. (HG rules, Mongoose also requires AE or AOE ships. It does not say that, but in any fleet movement it does).

Under HG rules the enemy has 8 battleships and 20 cruisers and you have 10 threatened worlds within their J6 oiler range, you can match them with 80ish J1s, but spread out only gives you 8 hulls per world. Even holding back 50 percent of their own fleet as a fire brigade, then can attack any one of the J1 worlds at 1.2 or better odds.

 

[flykiller]

There are always predictable bottlenecks.

yes there are. but with j4 they are very few and very far between.

BTW, J2 vs J4 is a better than 2:1 build factor for equivalent Spinal Mounts fielded.

a 2/1 advantage in spinals means little if they cannot be brought to bear, and it means even less if j2 forces must be multiply divided in the face of j4 maneuverability.

 

[flykiller]

BTW, J2 vs J4 is a better than 2:1 build factor for equivalent Spinal Mounts fielded.

I should address this from another angle.

when I did my study I found that (using the spinward marches, I don't care about any other region) costs were irrelevant. the limiting factor by far was shipyard capacity. dtonnage was so limiting that I had to invent new rules to allow low-tech high-pop worlds to participate to get a fleet that had any meaningful numbers to it.

basically you can build whatever kind of ships you want. there will be money to pay for them no matter what they are. the limitation is on the total dtonnage that can be fielded.

 

[mike wightman]

I assumed the following for the IN base on extensive HG2 testing:

pre FFW many designs are TL14/15 hybrids and TL15 new builds but built to fight a TL14 opponent;

during the FFW admirals learn the true battle potential of their TL15 ships, and naval architects learn lessons too;

post FFW leading into MT the IN build replacements with the following in mind:

battle riders can now easily have an emergency jump 1 drive fitted

battle riders with drop tanks can now jump from an adjacent system while on the attack

fleet tenders can be truly massive - 10mt and up jump 6 monsters that can rapidly transport tactical tenders and riders from the Deneb reserve

battleships can rely on drop tanks for peacetime manoeuvring, empty hex drop tank depots make a lot of sense, they can even be strategically moved by the monster fleet tenders.

One of the reasons the MT fleet battles are so nasty is that TL15 fleet vs TL15 fleet is the first time such battles are fought.

 

[rancke]

when I did my study I found that (using the spinward marches, I don't care about any other region) costs were irrelevant. the limiting factor by far was shipyard capacity. dtonnage was so limiting that I had to invent new rules to allow low-tech high-pop worlds to participate to get a fleet that had any meaningful numbers to it.

Leaving aside the fact that any world with the requisite tech level can build starships regardless of the starport class (after all, TCS ignores that too), if there's money to pay for shipyard and no shipyard capacity to build it, shipyard capacity would expand to match the demand. That's how things work with Real World seagoing ships and I see no possible reason why it shouldn't work like that for starships. Less, actually, since I don't believe starships need a drydock for construction.


Hans

 

[HG_B]

That's how things work with Real World seagoing ships and I see no possible reason why it shouldn't work like that for starships. Less, actually, since I don't believe starships need a drydock for construction.


Hans

Correct. Erect some scaffolding in orbit and get to work. Ramp up time would be much shorter.

 

[Vladika]

I'm working up a long answer to much of the above and hopefully will post it tonight.

For you J4 proponents; would you tell me how big your ship is since 95% is taken up by percentage based components?

Bridge 2%
Armor 14 15% (could be reduced, but mine are 14)
MD 17% (required for Agility 6)
JD 4 5%
PP 8 min 8% (1.8 % required for meson screen; 6% For Agility)
PP Fuel 8% (1.8 % required for meson screen; 6% For Agility)
Jump Fuel 40%

Total % 95%

This is for a fully decked out ship; Me Screen 9; Nu Damper 9; Armor 14; Agility 6.

I figure about 2% for crew so add your weapons mix (and power requirements) and watch that sucker's size go way up.

Ton for ton a CT/HG ship costs relatively the same, so divide that monsters tonnage by 10k to see how many Battle Riders I have to play with for EACH of your J4 firetraps...

I have been discussing CT/HG rules from the beginning, not some other version or house rules.

Feel free to reduce your agility and give me the added bonus in addition to your size modifier loss. You're toast, sooner or later in a campaign.

 

[flykiller]

if there's money to pay for shipyard and no shipyard capacity to build it, shipyard capacity would expand to match the demand.

sorry, doesn't work that way. tcs explicitly ties shipyard capacity to population, and adjusts that capacity by government type and wartime status, all of which makes perfect sense. money cannot buy what does not exist (extra money only results in inflation) so shipyard capacity is set by those three relevant factors so that is what can be done regardless of any amount of extra cash laying around.

for example. observed in the news today that chinese banks have twenty-four trillion dollars-worth ($24,000,000,000,000) of "assets" stashed in their reserves. this is 2.5 times the valuation of the entire chinese economy. does this extra money buy them more factories and engineers and dishwashers and plastic dog crap? no. their economy is what it is and more money does not change anything.

of course one may game-rule otherwise.

 

[HG_B]

for example. observed in the news today that chinese banks have twenty-four trillion dollars-worth ($24,000,000,000,000) of "assets" stashed in their reserves. this is 2.5 times the valuation of the entire chinese economy. does this extra money buy them more factories and engineers and dishwashers and plastic dog crap?

If they chose to import engineers and the like, yes it would. Why do you think that it wouldn't?

 

[flykiller]

If they chose to import engineers and the like, yes it would.

speaking in traveller shipyard terms, importing engineers from elsewhere would detract from other worlds' ability to build, thus no net change in construction capacity.

consider jewell. it is a front-line world. one may easily envision it as being one big military construction base subsidized (economically militarily and demographically) by the entire imperium. but this does not increase the imperium's shipbuilding capacity - it merely transfers it from one world to another.