Trillion Credit Squadron, the 1981 tournament!

[Spinward Flow]

It's easy, once you know how it's done.

 

[Kakistocrat]

If I have understood correctly, Lenat fielded slow heavily armoured rocks at TL-12 (Eurisko, JTAS #10) in ’81, and fast unarmoured ships at TL-13 in ’82.

The breakdown of his 1981 squadron were:

• 75 Eurisko-class (agillity 1 with drop tanks), buffered planetoid hull, armor factor J;
• seven Wasp-class (agility 6), buffered planetoid hull, armor factor J;
• four Cisor-class (agility 0 with drop tanks), buffered planetoid hull, armor factor E;
• four Garter-class (agility 4 with drop tanks), needle/wedge hull, armor factor B;
• three Bee-class (agility 0), buffered planetoid hull, armor factor A;
• three Queller-class (agility 0), needle/wedge hull, armor factor B.

I don’t know the analogous details of his 1982 squadron.

In my view, the Eurisko-class ships were there mainly to soak up enemy fire.

 

[atpollard]

In my view, the Eurisko-class ships were there mainly to soak up enemy fire.

I read several "after the fact accounts" that left me underwhelmed with the basic TCS tournament.

From a "battle plan" perspective, the idea seems to have been ...

• Planetoids for free armor to keep down cost and increase the number of ships in the fleet.
• swarms of missiles to overwhelm enemy defenses and take advantage of infinite ammo rules.

Up to this point, both the top two fleets were alike. One can argue whether drop tanks meets or breaks the LETTER/SPIRIT of the rules ... but I am inclined to allow multiple drop tanks as something that has no LOGICAL reason no fleet would ever do it or it violates some logic of reality.

When the Eurisko fleet is loosing an exchange (due to sheer random chance), things get ugly and the #2 fleet quit when Eurisko presented its strategy:

• If damaged and loosing, the FLEET withdraws to the reserve line (where it cannot be attacked and where it can repair damage).
• Small ships take over the line of battle that are capable of NOTHING except they CANNOT BE HIT under the TCS Rules.
• Once the Eurisko Fleet is repaired, it rejoins the Line of Battle and repeats the attack.
• If things go badly, the fleet withdraws and repairs while hiding behind small unhittable ships.
• Sooner or later, statistical probability turns the odds in Eurisko Fleet favor and they press on to victory.

The Second Place Fleet lacked the useless but unhittable ship to hide behind while the fleet repaired; thus the reason they quit rather than face a drawn-out pointless battle based on a bad rule. Imagine a PT boat keeping a fleet of enemy battleships away from your reserve fleet as they repaired because a 12" gun could not hit a small, fast PT boat to sink it ... thus your battleships were safe as long as the unarmed PT Boat cruised between the two fleets. That is how Eurisko won.

So what was learned is that for a given budget, at TL 12:

• many ships with lots of missiles defeated few Dreadnaughts with large Spinal Mounts.
• Battle Riders beat Starships (at the cost of operational flexibility which is more "strategic" than "tactical").
• TCS rules as written have exploitable flaws.

I would really love to learn more about the TL 13 TCS fleets where maneuverability replaced armor.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The breakdown of his 1981 squadron were:

• 75 Eurisko-class (agillity 1 with drop tanks), buffered planetoid hull, armor factor J;

More importantly, Agility 2 without the tanks.

In my view, the Eurisko-class ships were there mainly to soak up enemy fire.

I think it is also the main fire-power with many, many small missile batteries. It the enemy isn't all rocks, that's enough...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I read several "after the fact accounts" that left me underwhelmed with the basic TCS tournament.

From a "battle plan" perspective, the idea seems to have been ...

• Planetoids for free armor to keep down cost and increase the number of ships in the fleet.

Not for free armour, but for more armour, they still have maximum armour in addition to the planetoid base armour.
As missiles rules TL-12, that is the main defence.

• swarms of missiles to overwhelm enemy defenses and take advantage of infinite ammo rules.

As missiles and spinals are the only effective weapons, lots of missile batteries are a given. Spinals are expensive with TL-12 power plants, but are the only weapons that can destroy enemy ships.

Up to this point, both the top two fleets were alike. One can argue whether drop tanks meets or breaks the LETTER/SPIRIT of the rules ... but I am inclined to allow multiple drop tanks as something that has no LOGICAL reason no fleet would ever do it or it violates some logic of reality.

You wouldn't do it in a campaign, but in TCS it was technically correct.

Perhaps if you only had two or three planets and wanted self-deployable SDBs you could use the Gazelle/Eurisko method?

The Second Place Fleet lacked the useless but unhittable ship to hide behind while the fleet repaired; ...

It is not useless to be unhittable. The other fleet should have considered a fleet of high agility ships, and had a counter. Agility and armour are the main choices for defence, and at TL-12 mutually exclusive.

The reason Eurisko uses two turret missile batteries (factor 3) is to be able to hit agile ships, against low-agility rocks one turret (factor 2) batteries would be better. Factor 3 missile batteries can hit size A, agility-6 ships, factor 2 batteries can't. Factor 3 batteries are a calculated trade-off between hitting rocks and fast ships.

The Eurisko fleet also has a bunch of missile bays and particle spinals to handle small, high-agility ships.

A fighter wing would have wrecked the other squadron, and the Eurisko fleet exposed that design-flaw.

It's just another threat-vector to consider...

Going into a TL-12 battle without being able to hit small, agile craft is like going into naval battle in the forties without AA or carriers, thinking only 15" guns can hurt your battleships...

So what was learned is that for a given budget, at TL 12:

• many ships with lots of missiles defeated few Dreadnaughts with large Spinal Mounts.

Agreed.

• Battle Riders beat Starships (at the cost of operational flexibility which is more "strategic" than "tactical").

Agreed, but I would say riders have better operational flexibility. You can't kill tenders in the reserve, so the jump drive is indestructible. Any damaged riders are easily transported to a shipyard.

• TCS rules as written have exploitable flaws.

Agreed, there are corner cases, but they are not so much flaws as threat-vectors to consider.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

• three Bee-class (agility 0), buffered planetoid hull, armor factor A;

Thank you, I hadn't even noticed that the "fighters" lacked agility, and hence were useless...
I just ASSumed...

That, I do not understand. It's easy to hit, and easy to inflict crits due to size? It's just a hapless victim?
Can someone explain what that is for?

 

[mike wightman]

Probably just to spend the credits so the fleet matches the parameters.

If the computer is told to build a trillion credit fleet then it spends a trillion credits...

 

[kilemall]

Probably just to spend the credits so the fleet matches the parameters.

If the computer is told to build a trillion credit fleet then it spends a trillion credits...

Pretty sure real naval establishments follow the same logic.

 

[mike wightman]

The thing that has fascinated me the most about HG80 is the design intent to make differences at the TL breakpoints subtly alter the warship paradigm. TCS does highlight the glaring issues of the design and combat systems.

1. missiles - infinite with zero cost.
There needs to be a limit on the missiles carried and a cost overhead.
2. no facing - agility and batteries bearing is a clunky way to abstract this but...
3. no tactical movement beyond line and reserve (even HG79 had a couple more options)
the game Double Star gives bonuses and penalties for various fleet formation.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Probably just to spend the credits so the fleet matches the parameters.

A ~50 Dt high-agility fighter would have been difficult to hit, and therefore useful in some situations. The Bee is just pointless?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Pretty sure real naval establishments follow the same logic.

All government entities does, if allowed. That is why zero-base budgeting was invented...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The thing that has fascinated me the most about HG80 is the design intent to make differences at the TL breakpoints subtly alter the warship paradigm.

And was remarkably successful, while still rather simple.


KISS, keep it simple enough to actually use for a large ship or groups of small ships...

TCS does highlight the glaring issues of the design and combat systems.

1. missiles - infinite with zero cost.
There needs to be a limit on the missiles carried and a cost overhead.

Yes, it's only an issue for turrets, bays are supposed to have internal magazines.
To keep it reasonably simple it would just be a fixed extra tonnage per missile launcher, or something like that.
A missile turret already costs three Dt (with gunner), another Dt or two wouldn't make all that much of a difference.
If we get into days of fighting (72 turns+), we have failed to keep the system usable anyway.

2. no facing - agility and batteries bearing is a clunky way to abstract this but...
3. no tactical movement beyond line and reserve (even HG79 had a couple more options)
the game Double Star gives bonuses and penalties for various fleet formation.

Sure we could add extra complexity, but do we really need it? KISS.
There is a reason we are still discussing HG, rather than later more complicated editions, even MT.

3. no tactical movement beyond line and reserve (even HG79 had a couple more options)

What did HG'79 have? The only difference I can see is the difference in defender fire at short vs long range?

 

[mike wightman]

This:

Passing Through The Enemy Line-of-Battle: In some cases, forces may need to pass through an enemy force, for example, to move past a blockade. In order to pass through an enemy line-of-battle, the force must move to and remain at short range for a total of four consecutive firing rounds. If the consecutive time spent at short range is less than four rounds, then the attempt must be made again or abandoned.

 

[atpollard]

Agreed, but I would say riders have better operational flexibility. You can't kill tenders in the reserve, so the jump drive is indestructible. Any damaged riders are easily transported to a shipyard.

This is a rules simplification (like infinite missiles) that diverges from reality.
Same with the strategy of a fleet of battleships safely hiding behind a few agile fighters.

It is perfectly understandable why a WARGAME SIMULATION would make such simplifying assumptions, but a fleet designed to exploit quirks of the simulation that diverge from the reality tend to "snap the suspenders of disbelief" essential to the roleplaying experience.

 

[atpollard]

Agreed, there are corner cases, but they are not so much flaws as threat-vectors to consider.

Only for TCS as an end unto itself.

For TCS integrated within a Traveller Campaign or the Traveller-verse, it is just a flaw. Can you now honestly say that the Battle Doctrine of the Imperial Navy at TL 12 was to abandon dreadnaughts for smaller Battle-rider rocks with drop tanks and follow the tactic of hiding behind a few small fast ships in the reserve to effect repairs until luck favored your fleet?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

This:

Passing Through The Enemy Line-of-Battle: In some cases, forces may need to pass through an enemy force, for example, to move past a blockade. In order to pass through an enemy line-of-battle, the force must move to and remain at short range for a total of four consecutive firing rounds. If the consecutive time spent at short range is less than four rounds, then the attempt must be made again or abandoned.

That didn't hurt anything, why was that removed? At the very least it could inspire Referees to specific scenarios.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Can you now honestly say that the Battle Doctrine of the Imperial Navy at TL 12 was to abandon dreadnaughts for smaller Battle-rider rocks with drop tanks ...

No, because, as already stated, it would not work for a campaign. I think it was a good call to ban them from tournaments, but there is no need to ban them anywhere else.

I would allow Eurisko-style ships, if accompanied by tankers carrying a few reserve tanks for each warship. I doubt it would be economically efficient.

Battle-riders are of course canonical, as is the fact that they are more cost-effective, e.g.:

S9, p45, The planetoid "Empress Troyhune":
This design also illustrates some of the advantages possessed by battleriders versus battleships, although the cost advantages are largely eliminated when the cost of the fleet tender is included. Still, a squadron of eight 50,000-ton battleriders in a million-ton tender approximates in price two Tigress class dreadnaughts, yet possesses much greater firepower and survivability.

... and follow the tactic of hiding behind a few small fast ships in the reserve to effect repairs until luck favored your fleet?

Only if the enemy allows it, and why would he? A few missile bays or PA spinals, and the screening craft goes down in a storm of crits.

The only reason Lenat could do it was because the opposing fleet was badly designed, optimised for a very specific type of foe, forgetting everything else.

The Eurisko fleet would not allow an enemy to get away with that, it would just result in a free breakthrough step.

 

[Spinward Flow]

3. no tactical movement beyond line and reserve (even HG79 had a couple more options)

Well, there was the distinction of short range vs long range for the line, and ships on the line could only break off by acceleration from long range. So the choice of long or short range became a tactical one in combat rounds 2+, because all engagements began at long range in round 1.

Yes, it's only an issue for turrets, bays are supposed to have internal magazines.
To keep it reasonably simple it would just be a fixed extra tonnage per missile launcher, or something like that.

This is something that LBB5.80 flubbed pretty badly in RAW.
LBB5.79 had magazine rules for sustained bombardments, which mysteriously "disappeared" from LBB5.80 for no readily apparent reason.

A missile turret already costs three Dt (with gunner), another Dt or two wouldn't make all that much of a difference.

Whut?
A turret with 1 ton weapons installed in it costs 1 ton, regardless of the number of weapons loaded into that turret.
Single missile turrets and triple missile turrets both cost 1 ton to install.

Battle-riders are of course canonical, as is the fact that they are more cost-effective

More like battle riders are capable of better concentration of firepower from the line of battle, but suffer from problems with being able to retreat by jumping. The complication is that the battle riders need to dock with their jump tender in order to retreat by jumping ... and doing that requires rendezvous maneuvering that is suicidal while (still) under fire.

It's the army equivalent of fighting with your back to a river.
If you lose ... your options for retreat are ... not good.

You're going to have to sacrifice SOME in order to SAVE THE REST ... and usually the ones to be sacrificed are going to be the "wounded" battle riders (who mount a rear guard action, allowing the rest of the squadron/fleet to escape).

 

[mike wightman]

With gunner.

The devil is in the detail.

1 missile turret as a battery needs the turret and the gunner - the gunner takes a minimum of 2t in stateroom allocation.

Hence 3t per missile turret as a single weapon battery.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Hence 3t per missile turret as a single weapon battery.

Ah, I see what you're saying (now).

The devil is in the detail.

Especially when the relevant detail(s) get omitted ... for brevity, no doubt.