OTU Only: Types of Big Ships

[atpollard]

One historical element that lends itself to simple rules in a campaign setting is the existence of outcomes other than simple victory or loss of a battle ...

1. You can win utterly ... near zero friendly losses, near complete annihilation of the enemy.
2. You can win by a narrow margin ... achieving a tactical victory, but the war goes on.
3. You can win a pyretic victory ... tactical victory, but a strategic defeat.
4. You can fight to a draw.
5. You can be on the loosing side of 1-4 above.

 

[atpollard]

There are some tiypes of ships of the ones listed in the OP that I see quite contradictory, as the Defense Ortilelry and the Defense Assault. As I see planetary invasions, only te attacker would use ortillery and assault ships, as it has to have achieved orbital superiority or the whole invasion is suicide.

And back on topic (for me) ...
Why do you need to achieve orbital superiority? (Rhetorical question)

Defense Ortillery and Defense Assault are the ships that make orbital superiority necessary. If you land forces Normandy style, the Far Future needs a version of spacecraft to fulfill the role of an attack helicopter or Warthog.

What happens if superiority is only marginal superiority and not total dominance? Is there room for orbital attack on enemy ground forces?
(Not a rhetorical question, just room for thought.)

 

[Piper]

What happens if superiority is only marginal superiority and not total dominance? Is there room for orbital attack on enemy ground forces?
(Not a rhetorical question, just room for thought.)

If your model for planetary assault follows that described in GDW's "Imperium" and "Invasion: Earth" then orbital bombardment is a key element of the story.

Besides, it's cool

 

[aramis]

Lighten it up a bit by calling it destroyed but it being neutralized.

It reminded me of Star Fleet Battles.

After a first pass and an alpha strike, the battle was pretty much decided.

Was not true in the SFB I've seen - including running 8 local tournaments - except for frigates and below.

Which brings to mind: there are 2 major concepts on how to fight in SFB - Mizia's strip the weapons and my strip the power are the two that ADB has published. Both are effective in SFB. Some (few, IME) fly a hybrid. The game changes tone as damage accrues, but I've seen the guy on the losing end of an alpha pull it around because he made better use of his EA for the second pass...

This leads to two relevant points:
1) the system needs to be aware of the effect of player skill on the outcome of a given battle once joined (SFB=very high, 5FW=very low)
2) as the correlation of player input to the outcome rises, multiple viable strategies can evolve in a complex system.
2.1) some of these will be bugger-all bad simulation.

 

[Timerover51]

Deleted for being wrong.

 

[Quint]

My first game from GDW was Imperium (still got it). I remember playing it and finding out how the different types of ships worked. Also it seemed in the game Solomani tended to go to gun heavy ships (exc the missleboat) and the Imps went for missile ships.
Some of the counters even had recognizable pictures of ships from the Sup Fighting ships. SO, I have always seem Imp ships in those roles, Flood em with missiles and close to clean up with lasers while the Solomani tended to fire missiles to distract while closing in for direct combat.

Point is, I still have a pre conceived idea how Traveller combat should work from playing that game and it's spin off Dark Nebula.

One thing I do not see in Traveller that was very common in Imperium was monitors. VERY large system defense ships without jump drives. Take a BC or BB tonnage hull and pack in all the toys you can without having to pay for Jump drives or large reserves of fuel. Any extra space could be docks for fighters and custom ships. Every planet with a class A starport should have one and more than one at subsec caps.

I think that my sole comment in this thread piggybacks on this - namely that doctrine will determine what ship classes are "available" (or defined).

Personally, I prefer a small ship universe because it makes the ACS' more "relevant" - though I also understand that desire for ACS' to be so irrelevant as to be beneath the notice of the IN and similar navies.

D.

 

[atpollard]

Let us assume that the Defense Ortillery is in low orbit over the planet. If in an orbit based on the planet's equator, then there will be areas in the northern and southern hemispheres over which the orbit will not pass. For full planet coverage, you would need to be in a polar orbit, which means that your orbit is quite predictable in terms of location. An opponent can readily place a large number of ball bearings, bricks, or any assorted space junk in a retrograde orbit to the defender, allowing the defense satellite to run into it as a velocity of twice orbital velocity. This would not be good for the defense satellite.

Also, as the planet revolves, the orbit continually passes over different territory. Unless you have an absolutely staggering number of satellites, you are going to have your defense ortillery satellite only able to hit a particular spot on the planet every several hours or more. If it is a polar orbit, an area may only be able to be hit every 4 orbital periods or more.

Quite simply, defense ortillery does not make a whole lot of sense.

Just playing devil's advocate and toss out ideas ...
The Invasion fleet pours into the system at the 100 diameter limit and suffers some attrition running the gauntlet and smashing the planet's fixed orbital defenses (just as you predict). The Invasion Fleet then establishes a planetary 'fire base' to serve as a landing/resupply zone for the ground-based pacification force (if we are invading, then we must assume that glassing the world from space is off the table for some strategic reason).

The Planetary Defense Ortillery ships then launch from deep under the oceans or some remote canyon base at 6G for Classic Traveller (or 13G for Mongoose Traveller IIRC) and makes an orbital pass hitting strategic targets around the world (like the Invasion Firebase) before hiding in the oceans (using MgT stealth technology). Repeat as opportunities allow.

Clearly this will not win a war, but is it a plausible ship/mission to aid in the planetary defense?

Your criticism seems more an objection to non-maneuver drive defenses ... but in Traveller, 6G MD are very affordable.

 

[aramis]

Let us assume that the Defense Ortillery is in low orbit over the planet. If in an orbit based on the planet's equator, then there will be areas in the northern and southern hemispheres over which the orbit will not pass. For full planet coverage, you would need to be in a polar orbit, which means that your orbit is quite predictable in terms of location. An opponent can readily place a large number of ball bearings, bricks, or any assorted space junk in a retrograde orbit to the defender, allowing the defense satellite to run into it as a velocity of twice orbital velocity. This would not be good for the defense satellite.

Also, as the planet revolves, the orbit continually passes over different territory. Unless you have an absolutely staggering number of satellites, you are going to have your defense ortillery satellite only able to hit a particular spot on the planet every several hours or more. If it is a polar orbit, an area may only be able to be hit every 4 orbital periods or more.

Quite simply, defense ortillery does not make a whole lot of sense.

LEO is a 90 minute period. With 8 sats and a 45° cone of fire, any given location is under continuous fire if needed, provided it's below inclication+45° latitude. Add 4 polars, and with 12 platforms, full time coverage.

Don't look at the individual platform, look at the system. Systemic coverage can be 100% of the surface under continuous fire with a handful of (by Traveller standards) cheap armored platforms. On many worlds, the poles are going to be uninhabitable - drop the polar component. On many others, the equatorial belt is too hot for people - switch to polars.

After all, Barrow has continuous satellite coverage for telephone... so it's clear that orbit to surface coverage isn't impossible nor even impractical.

 

[pendragonman]

Was not true in the SFB I've seen - including running 8 local tournaments - except for frigates and below.

Which brings to mind: there are 2 major concepts on how to fight in SFB - Mizia's strip the weapons and my strip the power are the two that ADB has published. Both are effective in SFB. Some (few, IME) fly a hybrid. The game changes tone as damage accrues, but I've seen the guy on the losing end of an alpha pull it around because he made better use of his EA for the second pass...

This leads to two relevant points:
1) the system needs to be aware of the effect of player skill on the outcome of a given battle once joined (SFB=very high, 5FW=very low)
2) as the correlation of player input to the outcome rises, multiple viable strategies can evolve in a complex system.
2.1) some of these will be bugger-all bad simulation.

I don't know who you've played with, but from the beginning of actual combat range (inside 30 hexes) to the battle being decided (and by decided, I mean the winner is known, not necessarily the end of shooting and not necessarily knowing the level of victory yet) every SFB battle I have fought from fleets to single ships and tournaments (rated ace, twice, Klingon. Once in 1985 and once in 93) has lasted no more than 3 combat rounds. Alphas are survivable, and so is mizia. What is not survivable is impatience. That leads to mistakes and mistakes kill faster than anything.

 

[aramis]

I don't know who you've played with, but from the beginning of actual combat range (inside 30 hexes) to the battle being decided (and by decided, I mean the winner is known, not necessarily the end of shooting and not necessarily knowing the level of victory yet) every SFB battle I have fought from fleets to single ships and tournaments (rated ace, twice, Klingon. Once in 1985 and once in 93) has lasted no more than 3 combat rounds. Alphas are survivable, and so is mizia. What is not survivable is impatience. That leads to mistakes and mistakes kill faster than anything.

I've run two ace tourneys (the others didn't have the 24 needed at the time; the 2 ace tourneys were after the reduction to 16), and I've played 4 rated aces myself. I've seldom seen a game play out in under 5 turns. I've seen Romulan-Gorn battles run 15 turns; I've seen 10 turns in tourney. (Both individuals in that have since earned their ace cards.)

You're correct about patience, but I would suggest you reread the victory at origins articles - your experience as claimed is not matching the elite players commentary. Nor the 40+ people I've played.

 

[pendragonman]

Under 5 turns. Did those start inside 30 hexes of each other and WS III?

I can see Rom-Gorn lasting a while. Three rounds to load the heavies. I play Klingon, no such issue. Although I have been part of a Kzin-Klingon fleet battle that lasted so long that we (both sides) actually ran out of drones and ADDs, the deciding factor being who had a remaining standard shuttle (and its phaser III). That one lasted 15 rounds and only ended because I had to go to work.

As I said, once inside 30 hexes, the winner is decided quick (3 turns), and I have played at least 40 other players as well. As I said, the shooting hasn't necessarily stopped after the 3 rounds of close combat and we don't know if it is a Pyrrhic victory or a Strategic one yet, but we know who will get the victory pin. I stand by those statements as that is my experience over ~15 years of active SFB play (1978-1993). Haven't had much time to play since then, nor been able to find anyone to play with in Kansas.

 

[Timerover51]

LEO is a 90 minute period. With 8 sats and a 45° cone of fire, any given location is under continuous fire if needed, provided it's below inclication+45° latitude. Add 4 polars, and with 12 platforms, full time coverage.

Don't look at the individual platform, look at the system. Systemic coverage can be 100% of the surface under continuous fire with a handful of (by Traveller standards) cheap armored platforms. On many worlds, the poles are going to be uninhabitable - drop the polar component. On many others, the equatorial belt is too hot for people - switch to polars.

After all, Barrow has continuous satellite coverage for telephone... so it's clear that orbit to surface coverage isn't impossible nor even impractical.

Sorry for being wrong again, as usual.

 

[aramis]

Under 5 turns. Did those start inside 30 hexes of each other and WS III?

Almost all of them. A typical Kzinti-Romulan tourney fight is often not decided until the shuttles are gone.

I, personally, play Lyrans, Hydrans and Roms... Hydrans play much faster than Roms, and Lyrans are the fastest playing of all the races. And, outside of tourney, always play with EW — which lengthens battles — and full boarding

The unrealistic mix of technologies in SFB leads to a variety of experiences. As does the massive number of optional rules.

I've seen ships crippled by turn 3 still manage to defeat their opponent decisively.

Which brings another point to mind:

If trying to develop a strategic game, the player input needs to be at the strategic level, not the tactical one, and vice versa. SFB is a tactical game, but if used to resolve F&E or Fed Space generated battles, the results can be pretty damned swingy... but it also makes an 8 hour Fed Space scenario take 80 hours to play.

 

[pendragonman]

Which brings another point to mind:

If trying to develop a strategic game, the player input needs to be at the strategic level, not the tactical one, and vice versa. SFB is a tactical game, but if used to resolve F&E or Fed Space generated battles, the results can be pretty damned swingy... but it also makes an 8 hour Fed Space scenario take 80 hours to play.

Boy howdy. I've been in three turn battles that lasted 8 hours.

 

[aramis]

Boy howdy. I've been in three turn battles that lasted 8 hours.

Slow play there.

We need to leave the SFB off unless it relates to the project at hand, tho'. Rob's trying to get the classifications down for a strategic sim, IIRC.

 

[robject]

For example, here are a number of Supplement 9 ships, abstracted and pinned down for the sake of discussion.

Prices are standard. Maneuver only vaguely takes Agility into account (using a + sign).

Key:
Kt = kilotons. Pri=primary weapon. Sec=secondary weapon(s). Def=defenses. Secondary weapon M=Missile bays.
M=acceleration. J=jump.
mJ=Meson spine J, et al.
Lt=light. Ba=basic. St=Standard. GG=Good. XL=Strong.
HF=50t heavy fighters. T=Troops. T++=Piles of troops. BR=Battle Riders.

Name                     Kt  BCr Pri Sec  Def  M  J  Notes
------------------------ --- --- --- ---  ---  -- -  -----
Midu Agashaam             3   3    -  PA   Lt  6+ 4
PF Sloan                  5   4    -  PA   Lt  6+ 4
Kinunir                   1.3 1    -  -    Lt  6+ 4
Nolikian Battle Rider     20  12  mN  lots St? 6+ - 
Skimkish                  29  20   -  lots Ba  2  4  80 HF
Gionetti                  30  23  mJ  -    Ba  5+ 5
Troyhune Monitor          50  22  mJ  -    St  6+ -  20 HF
Arakoine                  50  35  mN  PA,M St  4+ 4
Ghalalk                   50  35  pH  M    Ba  5+ 4
Lighting                  60  43  pN  M    Ba  2  5
Atlantic                  75  59  mN  PA   St  5+ 4
Wind                      75  58  mE  M    GG  6+ 3  80 HF
Antiama                  100  65  no  PA   GG  2  4  300 HF
Plankwell                200 150  mT  M    St  5+ 4
Kokirrak                 200 169  mT  M    St  6+ 4  1000 T
Lurenti                  300  23   -  lots GG  2  4  200 HF  7 BR
Tigress                  500 453  mT  M    XL  6+ 4  300 HF T++

I do see some tradeoffs going on here. Lose the jump fuel and everything else gets a big boost, at a low price. Volume ~ price, when all else is equal. There is always improvement for defenses, but weapons will hit a ceiling.

 

[mike wightman]

Many of these designs are broken in the original supplement(s).

if you use broken designs/data you will get yet another broken system built upon it.

 

[robject]

Many of these designs are broken in the original supplement(s).

if you use broken designs/data you will get yet another broken system built upon it.

I'll take them at the concept level.

 

[JFGarber]

You can only move a few (1D?) units per turn.I don't like this.

Apologize for the double quote.

I'm not sure how I would tie only moving 1d6 units back into the game reality, and am not completely comfortable with rule. Perhaps this roll is a base, modified by tech level? That said, such a mechanic would be a great place to slide the Fleet Tactics skill into the game. I have struggled with how to make that skill matter.

 

[Piper]

I'm not sure how I would tie only moving 1d6 units back into the game reality, and am not completely comfortable with rule. Perhaps this roll is a base, modified by tech level? That said, such a mechanic would be a great place to slide the Fleet Tactics skill into the game. I have struggled with how to make that skill matter.

Perhaps instead of preventing movement, you could prohibit course changes. Units would still move, be required to continue movement in fact, but couldn't alter course.