Certain ones today can tell the difference and can be loaded with images to compare against.
What do you think a space battle...
- Thread starter PFVA63
- Start date
Certain ones today can tell the difference and can be loaded with images to compare against.
Actually, I just had an idea! Create missiles using the Robot rules for whatever system you are using. Since I'm about to start a MgT campaign, I'll do one for MgT Robots.
Build a Robot who's sole purpose is to hunt down enemy ships and gleefully blow up! Right before firing, update an onboard database of the target's EM, IR and Visual readings. Could be fun!
EDIT: I see that MgT has rules for Smart Missiles...
Last edited:
Actually, I just had an idea! Create missiles using the Robot rules for whatever system you are using. Since I'm about to start a MgT campaign, I'll do one for MgT Robots.
Build a Robot who's sole purpose is to hunt down enemy ships and gleefully blow up! Right before firing, update an onboard database of the target's EM, IR and Visual readings. Could be fun!
EDIT: I see that MgT has rules for Smart Missiles...
Ouch! Kinda like an intelligent torp. Nuc no doubt! :devil:
For that matter, I wonder how hard it would be to make a missile sized Robot/Combot with some kind of beam weapon installed so that it travels to the target area looking like a missile, maybe a heavy missile, and when it gets to the area, fires off a couple of shots(energy stored in a capacitor or chemical or bomb pumped maybe) and THEN blows up!
You say this a lot.
While the statement is 'self evident', it is often a gross oversimplification.
For a variety of reasons, this is a flawed initial assumption. Given everything that is known about Traveller, thermodynamics has clearly been violated at some point.
As a purely hypothetical counterpoint, assume that Fusion reactors are innately endothermic and act as a giant heat sink drawing in all available excess heat to support the initial fusion pulse that releases the electricity. This super-cools the hull of a typical ship to about 2-3 deg K. You are now attempting to detect a 2 deg K cold spot against a 4 degree K background at light-second to light-minute ranges.
While nothing in Traveller supports this assumption (except perhaps the rules on detection range), it violates thermodynamics no more than a 1 meter diameter star core encased in an iron alloy in the engineering compartment of a starship.
YMMV.
Because a lot of posters assume that would be the case.
In trav you can produce heat without energy?
Elaborate with examples pls.
Last edited:
Even though it sounds like you wrote this "off the cuff", I really like this.
The one that most closely mimics "reality".
Now all we have to do is figure out what said "reality" is.
Hans
Hi,
Thanks for the info. I just dug out my copy of Battle Rider and it looks like it has some interesting ideas in it. The copy I bought was second hand from someone off the internet who had included several pages of additional suggested rules off the internet and also some additional errata that I'd like to take a closer look at. In addition, since the hexes are so large in Battle Rider I have a couple additional thoughts on maybe trying to add some ideas from some other games as well, especially with respect to formations within the hex, etc.
Maybe a listing of the shortcomings and/or strengths that people see in the different combat resolution systems might be a good idea for an additional thread here.
Other things that would mark how the battle would develop are (IMHO):
- relative sizes: I guess if the sides are not minimally matched, the less powerful one will shun combat (something easily done if you count the time it has to react), either by jumping away or by dispersing and hiding, so forcing the stronger force to either ignore them or begining a long moping up campaign, unless they're protecting a too valuable objective or have possibility to have support.
- the objectives of both fleets. This may be defending a valuable target, attacking that same target or just wearing off enemy force, for strategic reasons.
If you're defending a target, you'll want to keep the enemy far from it, so probably you'd look for an intecepting vector, unless you need the support the same target can give (see below). Of course this could perfectly lead to that one shoot passing by engagement I told about in other threads.
I also envision a planet who sees a fleet approaching to launch intercepting missiles. Those missiles would reach some speed to intercept, then run by inertia until at firing range, and at this moment start its propulsors again to maneover for impact. See that they might be launched for even a several days course against the incoming ships.
- the support each fleet might have from a nearby planet (deep messons, etc) or any reinforcements thought to be on the way. If this leads to a low relative speeds protracted engagement, I envision it as probably a melee.
NOTE: see that none of those scenarios really match with HG2 fleet combat system...
- relative sizes: I guess if the sides are not minimally matched, the less powerful one will shun combat (something easily done if you count the time it has to react), either by jumping away or by dispersing and hiding, so forcing the stronger force to either ignore them or begining a long moping up campaign, unless they're protecting a too valuable objective or have possibility to have support.
- the objectives of both fleets. This may be defending a valuable target, attacking that same target or just wearing off enemy force, for strategic reasons.
If you're defending a target, you'll want to keep the enemy far from it, so probably you'd look for an intecepting vector, unless you need the support the same target can give (see below). Of course this could perfectly lead to that one shoot passing by engagement I told about in other threads.
I also envision a planet who sees a fleet approaching to launch intercepting missiles. Those missiles would reach some speed to intercept, then run by inertia until at firing range, and at this moment start its propulsors again to maneover for impact. See that they might be launched for even a several days course against the incoming ships.
- the support each fleet might have from a nearby planet (deep messons, etc) or any reinforcements thought to be on the way. If this leads to a low relative speeds protracted engagement, I envision it as probably a melee.
NOTE: see that none of those scenarios really match with HG2 fleet combat system...
Last edited:
The one that most closely mimics "reality".
Now all we have to do is figure out what said "reality" is.
If we consider "reality" to be a Newtonian Universe with some Geedeedubian discoveries and technology enhancements, then I think the TNE, FFS, and BL is likely the most realistic system we have.
It is founded on the basic "throw things at stuff and see if it pokes through" combat system, that scales from a side arm to auto cannons to lasers with incredible range. Add in some radiation damage and "armor, what armor" meson tech, and the rest just grows from there. Obviously it's imperfect, and we've learned things in the past 20 years, and it's not even a unique system in the Traveller Universe, or gaming in general.
But the principles are sound, and it's the most developed we have when you consider the work from FFS to TNE basic to BL with its detailed movement and record system. What it lacks is the operational characteristics. We haven't really seen that formalized anywhere (I believe) since TCS and FFW. Besides operations is more a field of budgets and scheduling than physics. But for putting bullets and blasters downrange to targets, TNE et al is pretty solid. Mind, none of this addresses any playability issues folks may have with the ruleset.
I think TNE handles damage well, I like its high penetration, low damage laser model. The biggest gap in TNE is the lack of handling for collisions at speed. Ships move REALLY fast, and the closing velocities of potential collision objects are potentially REALLY, REALLY fast, making impacts very energetic.
But TNE punted on that problem cleanly by making missiles bomb pumped lasers rather than exploding balls of shrapnel. Now, "close" and "impact" are measured in 1000's of kilometers, so possible impact can be considered "unlikely". Otherwise we'd have a flurry of guided kinetic kill weapons and we could just all go home and be done with it.
So, this aspect is missing, but I don't think it's actually missed.
TNE has a usable sensor model. We can debate nits on ranges and what not, but that really falls in the "we already know what you are, now we're debating price" column. Make sensors too powerful and we may as well not have a model at all (everyone sees everyone at all reasonable weapon ranges, so why bother). Make it too weak, and it's sub hunt in the fog. "Sulu, Z minus 10000 meters!"
As for what would a space battle look like?
Simply, the larger force wins. Why does the larger force win? Same reason the larger force always wins -- with a one to one trade, the larger force has units on the field at the end, and the smaller force doesn't. As the larger force atrits the smaller force, the larger force proportionally gets that much larger while the smaller force gets that much smaller.
In space, there's no advantage to defense. You can't build fortifications, you can't hide behind trees, and you can not stop the assault. There is no terrain to slow down the attacker, no way to way to force their positioning (i.e. defend the pass). The faster ships fleet will control the range to their advantage, so in this way a smaller fast fleet may have some advantages of a slower larger fleet, but the problem remains that if your target is in your danger space, then you are in theirs. If you can hit them, they can hit you. Save under specific circumstances, notably constant acceleration that prevents facing changes and perhaps white outs that prevent detection and lock, there are no blind spots. And in the case of white outs, larger fleets have the advantage as they can share locks. If one ship detects, all of the ships do. White outs are concealment, not cover.
3 dimensions offer no real advantage. 3D helps in a gravity well, high ground has advantages. Gravity wells help when velocity is expensive, but in Traveller, that's not really the case. The high G drives make velocity rather cheap. So, most battles I think would be outside of major influence of a gravity well. Why would a defender want to have to crawl out of one to meet their attacker if they don't have to? That would be a surprise issue, and I think the 100D limit is far enough to make surprise a non issue. In TNE Jupiter is about 5 hexes in diameter (TNE uses 30Kkm hexes), which puts 100D at 500 hexes. That's a long time, depending on the approach vector (which in theory can be anything since, in theory, vectors are maintained in Jump -- a ship can exit jump with a 500 hex velocity, giving effectively no warning, but also no time on target either).
High Guard fueling scenarios pop in, but truth be told, the fueling fleet may well be able to put off fueling to engage the attackers, since most of the fuel may well be for jump, rather than maneuver.
The perfect tactical defense situation is a running battle, where the defenders are faster than the attackers, the defenders are behind the attackers, and the defenders are slowly catching up while the attackers continue to accelerate and thus not be able to change facing to put their spinals in arc. This lets the defenders continually fire and attrit the attacking force with impunity. Note this when you're stuck in your far trader trying to out run a 3G or 4G Corsair.
I just don't ever see that happening. Barring some time pressure, the attacker simply will engage the defender, overwhelm said defender (larger force wins), and move on their merry way, licking their wounds.
In the end, this is why I think B5 is the way that it is. Operationally, the battles are tactically uninteresting. As I've said before, fleet composition determines the victor before the game even begins. The dice determines the cost. Close fleets will start close, but once one side gets a lucky shot and starts to gain advantage, they will in the end mostly retain and expand upon that advantage until victory.
Space battles offer none of the really rich tactical options of maneuver, positioning and tactical timing that other battle spaces do.
This is why I think fleet battles are really more an operational game, getting your overwhelming forces in the right place at the right time and dealing with all of the time lags of jump. It's more "Risk" than "Car Wars".
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
I will add one caveat to your well said bit, there, whartung: once the attacker has successfully attacked and taken the system, it now becomes the defender. Which, IMHO, in the long run leads back to the operational question.
Not always. You telling me that a larger force of TL10 vs a smaller force of TL15 ships is always going to win? I don't accept that.
Only in deep space. In an inner system there are multiple objects that create overlapping gravity wells which lead to Lagrange points and other hazards that good commander can take advantage of.
You are also leaving out the skill of the commanders.
Also, just because your sensors can detect moving objects at long range doesn't mean you know what they are. Is that formation of IR Sources that just made a jump into your home outer system Large Freighters and Tankers masquerading as a Fleet? Or is it a group of cruisers? Based on that information do you start maneuvers now, or do you wait until those units get closer in system for ID before maneuvering your defense? On the other side of the coin when you jump into a system, you detect some ships in orbit of the GG and the primary world. Do you commit to a burn toward the GG with most of your Fleet? or are those ships in orbit of the main system a Fleet strong enough and fast enough to punch holes in a raiding ship group heading for the GG?
By making a blanket statement of "The Largest side Always Wins" is way too generic and leaves out too many variables.
Now, if you are talking about a battle in Deep Space, equal TL, equal Commander Skill then, Yes, I'd agree with you about the Larger Side having the advantage...
Hi,
I was about to say the same thing. Overall I would suspect that command and control and the ability to effectively deploy and maneuver your units would likely be a big issue in determining overall which side may ultimately be victorious.
It's also important to note that the better commander doesn't always have the better skilled crews, and crew skill matters, as well, in an idealized situation. Even given total computer control, the side with better ability to maintain the craft is more likely to triumph.
Yea, that's kinda what I was pointing out above...
It's patently obvious to anyone but a pedant that whartung's observations presume "All Things Being Equal".
I can add exceptions and clauses to any combat situation from now until the Heat Death of the Universe which will tip the balance in favor of one side or the other. However, all those exceptions and clauses are nothing but exceptions and clauses.
This thread is a discussion about what we believe an OTU space battle can generally be depicted and not a discussion about what exceptions and clauses can change that depiction.
