Trillion Credit Squadron, the 1981 tournament!

[kilemall]

I worked out both missile bay ammo usage/costs and maneuver in my hybrid CT/HG version.

Striker of course gives us a missile count especially for the bay weapons, effectively 1 dton per missile, and a weapon diameter for HE purposes. They also match the nuclear weapon diameters, so we have that cost (notably cheaper then the supplement nukes).

Salvos are 2 bay missiles for 50tons, 4 for 100 tons. This yields 25 salvos per bay for expenditure.

Tested through and found a sweet spot of 750kg per missile, with assumption of 10x the 50kg warhead and the rest chaff/spoofing to allow the fewer large missiles to survive point defense. This yields us missile size too.

Two costing regimens for missiles- the first is the supplement build with bay missiles costing 15x the turret missiles, 10x the warhead and the balance an advanced ECM system costing Cr10000. The other is building missiles like they are small craft/ships- divide by 1000, bridges are the fusing systems, specific burn rate built in, computer model determines PD survival.

Maneuver involves using the CT system as is or some Mayday system if preferred. The main thing that has to be worked out are ranges and lines.

I went with 250000 km as short range, further is long. I also have a sub-100000km suicide range, but that’s outside the scope of this discussion. Tough to duplicate the shifting range feel of the abstract game, likely going to be long then short then long and breakthroughs happening even if half the ships are debris.

Real heartbreaking choice when ships lose their maneuver/agility whether to scuttle or slow down the whole fleet to protect them. I expect the usual choice would be scuttle the too badly damaged or no jump ships and repair those that can be. At a certain point the crews taken off ships are more valuable in the battle then the ships themselves.

Given the large amount of distance between ships and a lot of light speed weapons without area shielding to build a ‘wall’ with, I don’t see blocking physically as practical.

So I give the line ships their highest computer model summed collectively as a negative DM for ships behind them and not firing. The sphere of EW blocking extends 10000 km, but is not infinite. So it is possible that an effective blocking line can be formed against a main enemy fleet, but a flanking enemy fleet could fire into the rear ships.

A normal fully stocked fleet could move as a sphere, needing to have the same vee and accel to maintain the blocking. Such a fleet could protect its rear ships while repairs occur- but eventually a side of the front line would be shaved away, requiring rebalancing.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

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.

Planetary bombardment was only sketched in HG'79. It disappeared in HG'80, and with it the magazines.

A turret with 1 ton weapons installed in it costs 1 ton, regardless of the number of weapons loaded into that turret.

The full cost of a turret is the turret itself, any gunner, possibly needed power plant and fuel and even a fractional engineer.
E.g. a fusion turret is quite expensive, missile turrets are comparatively cheap.

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.

You can rendezvous with the tender in the reserve, the tender can then jump out. You can cover the retreat with e.g. some sacrificial fighters (drones?).

 

[Kakistocrat]

I think [the Eurisko-class] is also the main fire-power with many, many small missile batteries. If the enemy isn’t all rocks, that’s enough…

Yes, undoubtedly 75 Eurisko-class ships, each capable of firing V (29) batteries of six missiles per battery, tore through the 20-ish “supership” squadrons of their opponents more quickly than they had anticipated. One example was provided in Lenat’s Artificial Intelligence article:

• Before combat began, there was Lenat’s squadron of 96 ships vs. his opponent’s squadron of 20 ships:
• After one round of combat, 81 ships vs. 15 ships remained;
• After the second round, 70 vs. 11;
• After the fourth round, 46 vs. one;
• Lenat won in the fifth round after destroying that last ship, still having dozens of ships remaining.

[…] Can someone explain what [the Bee-class] is for?

I agree with mike wightman on this; each Bee-class ship was just under MCr128, so it seems to have been a case of budgetary “use it or lose it” (the combined cost of the three ships of that class represented less than 0.04% of the TCr budget).

 

[Kakistocrat]

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

It was the first year of the TCS tournaments, so it shouldn’t be surprising that something new was discovered that wasn’t found through internal playtesting (and through the linear programming modeling!) at GDW.

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

• TCS rules as written have exploitable flaws.

If you were made TCS tsar, how would you ameliorate those flaws? Would you provide additional rules for use in tournament play, or would you rewrite TCS rules for all occasions?

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

I wonder if copies of Lenat’s 1982 squadrons were preserved by the folks who ran the tournament—or if rerunning the EURISKO program would recreate them.

 

[Condottiere]

That's because it wouldn't account for campaign attrition and supporting infrastructure.

Most navies would end up with general purpose (star)warships during peacetime, and rather specialized ones only during wartime, like escort carriers.

 

[kilemall]

TCS tournament is to campaign as demolition derby is to the Dakar Rally.

 

[atpollard]

If you were made TCS tsar, how would you ameliorate those flaws? Would you provide additional rules for use in tournament play, or would you rewrite TCS rules for all occasions?

I started Traveller with "The Traveller Book" and still remember the absolute best rule in that book was the basic guideline that these were suggestions and the REFEREE made it a game. TCS is what it is. Rules to be used. Rules that can be abused (as all rules can because simulating reality with perfect detail is really not much fun as a game). For two arbitrary fleets battling it out in a tournament, it works fine.

For any actual campaign (with real people meeting regularly over an extended time), the REFEREE would take care to "reality check" the rules as applied against THEIR reality (applicable to their universe). So the problem only exists in "Tournaments" where an element of absolute fairness (equal applicability of rules to all participants) and ultimate "rules lawyer munckinism" (the whole point of bringing YOUR fleet to compete against all other fleets) domiante the arena.

The issue resolved itself ... rules lawyering tends to not really be enjoyable and the tournament died [as far as I know].

Personally, I never encountered the need for two fleets to battle in a game that couldn't be resolved at the level of "Rule 68A" (Fleet A rolls an 8, fleet B rolls an 11 ... so a decisive victory for Fleet B. The survivors of Fleet A retreat and Fleet B has a lot of damage to its ships to repair. The shipyard informs you that they can't get to your annual maintenance for about 5 months, so you need to find a Class B Yard in another system.)

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I agree with mike wightman on this; each Bee-class ship was just under MCr128, so it seems to have been a case of budgetary “use it or lose it” (the combined cost of the three ships of that class represented less than 0.04% of the TCr budget).

I find this unlikely.

The "unhittable lifeboats" (the Wasp-class) isn't very unhittable, every single ship in the Eurisko fleet can hit it. An agility 6 fighter would be more difficult to hit (but easier to destroy). It's basically only factor 2 (one turret) missile batteries that can't hit the Wasp, any factor 3+ missile or any spinal can hit and damage it.

EURISKO: A Program That Learns New Heuristics and Domain Concepts, p20-21:
The author culled through the runs of EURISKO every 12 hours or so of machine time (i.e., each morning, after letting it run all night on one or more 1100's), weeding out heuristics he deemed invalid or undesirable, rewarding those he understood and liked, etc. Thus the final crediting of the win should be about 60/40% Lenat/Eurisko, though the significant point here is that neither party could have won alone . The program came up with all the innovative designs and design rules (i.e., the loopholes in the TCS formulation), and recognized the significance of most of these . It was a human observer, however, (the author) who appreciated the rest, and who occasionally noticed errors or flaws in the synthesized design rules which would have wasted inordinate amounts of time before being corrected by EURISKO.

The Bee wouldn't have remained unless Lenat thought it had a purpose?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Personally, I never encountered the need for two fleets to battle in a game that couldn't be resolved at the level of "Rule 68A" (Fleet A rolls an 8, fleet B rolls an 11 ... so a decisive victory for Fleet B. The survivors of Fleet A retreat and Fleet B has a lot of damage to its ships to repair. The shipyard informs you that they can't get to your annual maintenance for about 5 months, so you need to find a Class B Yard in another system.)

So, TCS (and FFW) are irrelevant for your play-style. Good for you.

But then why do you complain about it so much?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Yes, undoubtedly 75 Eurisko-class ships, each capable of firing V (29) batteries of six missiles per battery, ...

Note V does not always mean 29:

S9, p40, "Plankwell".


For the Eurisko USP to make sense it has 54 missile batteries. In the Eurisko fleet U and V are redefined, but X, Y, and Z are not used. I believe, but I can't prove it...

There is no limit on the number of batteries on a ship, and it has to be squeezed into the USP somehow.

 

[atpollard]

But then why do you complain about it so much?

I made TWO positive posts in this topic and ONE mixed post evaluating the "lessons" from the tournament (which itself had two positive observations and one negative observation) ... before you came along to pick a fight with everything that I said. I have complained excessively about nothing. I have merely responded to comments directed to me honestly.

The ultimate lessons of the fleet DO have limited broader practical application to Traveller beyond how to win a Pyrrhic victory in a one shot tournament. Do you even disagree with that observation?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I have complained excessively about nothing. I have merely responded to comments directed to me honestly.

OK, sorry.

The ultimate lessons of the fleet DO have limited broader practical application to Traveller beyond how to win a Pyrrhic victory in a one shot tournament. Do you even disagree with that observation?

To a large degree yes. It teaches how to fight a battle at different TLs. What you learn about effective tactics and ship design will transfer to a campaign or war scenario, albeit with added operational and strategic constraints.

E.g. the relative effectiveness of missile rocks vs meson cruisers at TL-12 that Eurisko demonstrated will transfer to a campaign.

Added considerations in a campaign would be e.g. that drop tanks on warships is probably a bad idea, and that without pilot limitations you can (and probably will) meet entire fleets of "unhittable lifeboats" so you really have to expect and counter that.


See the beginning and starting fleets of a TCS Old Islands campaign here:
https://www.firetree.net/tcs/

 

[atpollard]

E.g. the relative effectiveness of missile rocks vs meson cruisers that Eurisko demonstrated will transfer to a campaign.

THIS was the greatest lesson (and it didn't need Eurisko since all the top contestants figured this out). As Joseph Stalin would say "Quantity has a quality all its own". The real lesson is that a fleet of defending BOATS has an advantage over a fleet of attacking STARSHIPS. The asteroids are already in the system and going nowhere ... no JD, no Jump Fuel and as Sun Tzu would remind us, men fighting in the "terrain of death" (to defend their home) with no possibility to run will offer a determined resistance.

It might be interesting to try calculating the cost of a fleet of High Guard Legal jump capable attackers to overcome a Trillion credit squadron of Eurisko-like System Defense Boats. For attacking a CASTLE, the rule of thumb was you needed at least a 10:1 advantage. I wonder what the ratio is for Starships vs Defense Boats to attack a system. Throw in Deep Meson Guns on Gas Giant moons and things could get interesting.

 

[whartung]

To a large degree yes. It teaches how to fight a battle at different TLs.

No, it tells you how to GAME a fight of a battle at different TLs.

The underlying problem with a tournament fleet is that it doesn't tell anything about how a society would design a naval doctrine to enforce policy, taking into account all of the issues with large scale organizations, particularly design, procurement, staffing, maintenance, public policy, etc.

We've all heard about those war games where a US carrier group (or some such) was taken out by a flurry of little boats with missiles.

But here's the detail on that, a "navy" of little boats with missiles isn't very good as a navy. There are broader issues involved than a single scenario in a game.

The USN has been working the missile problem for a long, long time. Now its working the drone problem, much like everyone else.

That doesn't mean the scenario with the little boats wasn't instructive, but it doesn't suggest that it's a realistic or likely scenario either.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The underlying problem with a tournament fleet is that it doesn't tell anything about how a society would design a naval doctrine to enforce policy, taking into account all of the issues with large scale organizations, particularly design, procurement, staffing, maintenance, public policy, etc.

It's a game, I'm not trying to solve the question of life, the universe, and everything.

That is way beyond the scope of any game I would care bother with.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

THIS was the greatest lesson (and it didn't need Eurisko since all the top contestants figured this out).

Well, there was one vaguely similar fleet, presumably with missile rocks. But he apparently couldn't figure out that he might meet high agility ships...

As Joseph Stalin would say "Quantity has a quality all its own". The real lesson is that a fleet of defending BOATS has an advantage over a fleet of attacking STARSHIPS.

No, it's not just a question of boats vs. ships.

Sure, using drop tanks instead of tenders saved him a lot of money, but that is not the only reason he won. Using tenders and riders he would still have beat the "max spinals and substandard defences" strategy that seemed to be the most common.

Eurisko figured out that he would meet many different types of ships and fleets, and he had to win over (or at least not lose to) any of them.
Missile rocks is A strong strategy at TL-12, but not the only one possible.

You need a nigh-unbreakable defensive wall.
You need small missile batteries to attrit the enemy defensive wall.
You need missile bays to kill small nuisances, but they are inefficient against rocks.
You need meson spinals to kill large ships.
You need particle spinals to kill small ships.

At TL-12 that is just not the same ship, but the Eurisko fleet had all of that in carefully considered proportions and the ability to punish a fleet that had neglected any of them. THAT is the genius of Eurisko.

It may seem obvious now, but wasn't then, judging by the results.


I would probably have used more spinals and less Euriskos, but I haven't spent a few thousand computer-hours simulating many different battles against many different fleets, so what do I know?

It might be interesting to try calculating the cost of a fleet of High Guard Legal jump capable attackers to overcome a Trillion credit squadron of Eurisko-like System Defense Boats. For attacking a CASTLE, the rule of thumb was you needed at least a 10:1 advantage. I wonder what the ratio is for Starships vs Defense Boats to attack a system. Throw in Deep Meson Guns on Gas Giant moons and things could get interesting.

Sure, it's a simple TCS tournament scenario, just do it?

Since it would devolve to riders + tenders vs. riders, I guess it would be in the region of 2:1 budget-wise.

 

[Spinward Flow]

We've all heard about those war games where a US carrier group (or some such) was taken out by a flurry of little boats with missiles.

And all we got out of that is the LCS ... which couldn't survive in littoral waters, couldn't do much in combat and often failed as a ship (by breaking down and needing to be towed to base). It was an oversized speedboat.

Since it would devolve to riders + tenders vs. riders, I guess it would be in the region of 2:1 budget-wise.

Ah, but there's an important distinction with the jump fleet versus SDBs scenario.

The SDBs are going to have to be supported by the taxes levied on the in-system economy. Since the SDBs "do not leave" their home system, no one else is going to pay for constructing them or their maintenance and upkeep.

By contrast, a jump mobile fleet will be supported by the taxes levied on the economies of multiple systems (such as a provincial, pocket empire or subsector navy).

So yes, the jump capability of ships will be EXPENSIVE to buy, relative to the "maneuver only" boats ... but the jump capable navy will have a broader base of financial, technical and personnel support, compared to a force of SDBs.

Sure, you can buy more boats than ships for the same number of credits.
The trick is that the jump capable ship navy has a broader economic base than a single star system's SDB force can muster (usually).
Meaning ... the jump fleet gets a bigger budget than the SDB force.

 

[atpollard]

No, it's not just a question of boats vs. ships.

The TCS tournament was not about Boats vs ships ... but the broader application of the lessons learned in the exchange to the greater "Travellerverse" points straight at the difference between DEFENDING your home system (which means BOATS, since you don't need to jump to get to your own home planet building a defense fleet) and ATTACKING a system (which by definition means SHIPS except in the case of a civil war).

The DEFENDER of a system (any and every system) already has the advantage of the "drop tanks" except they can completely forgo both the Drop tanks and the Tender and spend the limited Navy Budget building MORE BOATS (or a Deep Meson Gun on the moons of Jupiter)! They already have every reason to use the asteroids in their system to build hulls. They can forgo any expense of Jump Drives.

All of the advantages of the BATTLERIDER and DROP TANK and Missile ROCK are innate to the DEFENDER and more so since they need NO jump capability. That is the lesson that I took away that has broader application. That has implication for things like a Vargr invasion of an Imperium system or an Imperial attack on an Aslan world (with or without using the TCS rules).

 

[kilemall]

The TCS tournament was not about Boats vs ships ... but the broader application of the lessons learned in the exchange to the greater "Travellerverse" points straight at the difference between DEFENDING your home system (which means BOATS, since you don't need to jump to get to your own home planet building a defense fleet) and ATTACKING a system (which by definition means SHIPS except in the case of a civil war).

The DEFENDER of a system (any and every system) already has the advantage of the "drop tanks" except they can completely forgo both the Drop tanks and the Tender and spend the limited Navy Budget building MORE BOATS (or a Deep Meson Gun on the moons of Jupiter)! They already have every reason to use the asteroids in their system to build hulls. They can forgo any expense of Jump Drives.

All of the advantages of the BATTLERIDER and DROP TANK and Missile ROCK are innate to the DEFENDER and more so since they need NO jump capability. That is the lesson that I took away that has broader application. That has implication for things like a Vargr invasion of an Imperium system or an Imperial attack on an Aslan world (with or without using the TCS rules).

Which was built into Imperium with the fighter and monitor units.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The SDBs are going to have to be supported by the taxes levied on the in-system economy. Since the SDBs "do not leave" their home system, no one else is going to pay for constructing them or their maintenance and upkeep.

Agreed, but it depends entirely on the political structure.

The feudal Imperium has many navies built by many different polities (e.g. worlds, subsectors, ... , the Emperor). The worlds might love SDBs since their liege lords can't "federalise" them and fly them away to be killed, but the lords might love tenders since they can turn the SDBs into riders and do carry them away to be killed.

A centralised polity will have only one navy with a single budget, and will not care much what local government thinks about it.


Second it depends on if you think you will be on the offensive or defensive. If you are going to the enemies worlds to take his toys, SDBs are not of much use to you.


Even the Imperium will find some worlds important enough to fight for regardless, e.g. Jewell, and station Imperial SDBs there in addition to any mobile fleets or local fleets.


Reasonably defensive "SDBs" are the same as the offensive "riders", the only difference is the tenders. For a flexible approach you build more riders than tenders and station them as reserves in likely hotspots. Hopefully the mobile fleets will take more losses of riders than tenders, so the tenders can go drop off damaged riders at a shipyard, and pick up some reserve riders stationed there as SDBs, and go directly back to the fighting.


So, that was a very long-winded way of saying, "Yes, often, but it depends..."