• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

What do you think a space battle...

Hi,

I guess one issue with a 6G ship chasing a 5G ship is that for a 6G ship to get from Earth to say Neptune @ 6G assuming the accelerate at max G one way, turning at the half way point and then decelerating will typically take over 6 days to accomplish, and a micro-jump could take 7 days +/or minus, without even considering that the enemy may be moving away from you at the time.

As far as whether it would make sense to try and protect a gas giant or not I guess a lot of that would depend on whether you hope to prevent an enemy from gaining a foot hold in the system and/or using it as a jumping off point/refueling point for reaching other systems.

I see that Garyius suggested that a battle in a system might look a bit like the WWII Battle of Leyte Gulf, and I think that I have previously suggested something along it being like the Solomons Islands campaign, where there might be a lot of back and forth between the opposing forces, with the opposing sides setting up bases etc and making attacks and counter attacks against each other.
 
You can only argue that if you found a way to hide your enemy fleet. How would you do that?

I don't think you have to hide the fleet, you need isolated portions of the fleet engaging. Midway was checkers. The battlefleets were laid out and organized. It was also aircraft and sub strikes only.

By Leyte portions attacked portions. In that case it was due to restricted waters and one American force taking the bait and not telling the other surface battleship commander. In Traveller it will be the three d nature of space. Unless you keep you fleet always together in one formation, given the engagement sphere in space only portions of the fleet will clash.

Many of the game versions do not support this, HG was rock paper scissors, computer, and agility, until TL14, at which point was spinal. Mayday did this a little even in 2-d. Mongoose is the HG method, with two twists.
 
Yes alot of this depends on your rules assumptions. PFVA63 summed up my reactions, the high G nature of travel means that once you begin a long distance acceleration you are sort of committed and if the target force waits till you are mid burn, then accelerates in a different direction or toward you, you aren't going to catch them. This cat and mouse game could continue until the defending force decides it has grouped enough assets together that it can face a big battle, or it gets caught out and runs into another enemy group, or is forced to hang around and defend a key world.
 
I don't think you have to hide the fleet,

If you are going to argue that battle, you do. Halsey's decision to split off was 100% predicated on his fear of a "hidden" carrier group & his burning desire to sink them. Restudy that material.
 
Hi,

The possibility of a "hidden fleet" can maybe be replaced by the fear of "a fleet/task force jumping in from another system".
 
Yeah, but tactically you can't plan a fleet jump to occur during battle. There are just too many variables.

Maybe a staggered jump into a star system would work, though. One group begins an attack run, enemy counters, second fleet arrives and moves on the real target.

Of course, if you have enough ships to do that, you might be able to jump in, blow up the enemy ships, and then blow up the target without any fancy footwork.
 
Yeah, but tactically you can't plan a fleet jump to occur during battle. There are just too many variables.

Maybe a staggered jump into a star system would work, though. One group begins an attack run, enemy counters, second fleet arrives and moves on the real target.

Of course, if you have enough ships to do that, you might be able to jump in, blow up the enemy ships, and then blow up the target without any fancy footwork.

Hi,

Yeah that would be kind of what I would think. Its my understanding that the overall Leyte Gulf Battle, from the Japanese perspective, was kind of heavily "staged" with their various units approaching their various objectives at different times and from different directions, such that not all of their units were necessarily "in contact" or located by the US at the same time.

In a Traveller setting this may entail a "staged" attack where some units jump in system before others (and possibly at different locations) in order to perhaps draw the enemy out of place, etc.
 
Yeah, but tactically you can't plan a fleet jump to occur during battle. There are just too many variables.

Maybe a staggered jump into a star system would work, though. One group begins an attack run, enemy counters, second fleet arrives and moves on the real target.

Of course, if you have enough ships to do that, you might be able to jump in, blow up the enemy ships, and then blow up the target without any fancy footwork.

Not necessarily...

Let's imagine you want to attack a planet (just a hit and run raid) you suspect too deffended for your fleet to really attack.

If you send a part of your fleet to a GG in the system that is far away from the main planet and make them pretend they're mounting some kind of refuelling point, you have a fair chance at least part of the enemy fleet will go ther to oust you, weakening the main planet's defenses.

If your fleet may jump fueled (e.g. by using drop tanks to go, or keeping at least fuel for a jump, so that they can flee if enemy has not fell in your trap) let's say at 6 hours from the main planet, you may see if the main fleet has left, and then proceed to your raid, or if it has remained, and then jump away.
 
Personally, I don't think looking for World War Two analogies is very useful. I think to do this subject justice you have to look at the rules, ranges, speeds and other factors as they stand on paper then extrapolate from there ... where-ever that may lead. Chances are it will lead to the creation of a style of warfare very unlike anything in existence so far. I would hope!
 
Personally, I don't think looking for World War Two analogies is very useful. <snip> Chances are it will lead to the creation of a style of warfare very unlike anything in existence so far. I would hope!

I agree no previous war may be used as analogy, and I guess when space becomes another field to contend many things should have to be unlearned if there are going to be battles there.

I think to do this subject justice you have to look at the rules, ranges, speeds and other factors as they stand on paper then extrapolate from there ... where-ever that may lead.

The main problem when looking at the rules is that there is no operational part on them. If you're playing into a system, tactically, you may play using the vectors once fleets are close enough, and if you're playing interstellar war, then it seems that being in the same system already allows you to confront the fleets, ignoring the vastness of a single star system.

Same happens with planetary combat. There are rules to fight into a planet (Invasion Earth), but when you come to fight an interstellar war, the same planet is used as a single hex (FFW) or dirtside opperation outright ignored (TCS).

And also if we just look at the rules, planets are defenseless against ships, something totally contrary to the canon, that talks us about deep meson sites and other planetary defenses.
 
Last edited:
Deep meson sites are easily "built"... Pick a spherical hull. Install a spinal mount meson, PP, bridge, computer, and quarters, and a bit of on-board fuel. It is axiomatically Agility 0. Keep in mind it can only be targeted with meson weapons. Use the tunneling costs for asteroids for hollowing out a hull-space for it underground.

it can fight anyone approaching the planet...

I would recommend using the Mayday/HG link-up for fights near worlds.
 
Deep meson sites are easily "built"... Pick a spherical hull. Install a spinal mount meson, PP, bridge, computer, and quarters, and a bit of on-board fuel. It is axiomatically Agility 0. Keep in mind it can only be targeted with meson weapons. Use the tunneling costs for asteroids for hollowing out a hull-space for it underground.

it can fight anyone approaching the planet...

I would recommend using the Mayday/HG link-up for fights near worlds.

I understand how can they be featured in a HG/MT battle (after all, one of them was presented in MT: Assignement Vigilante), but what I meant was more in strategic games (like TCS or FFW).

What I'm trying to point is that in Traveller there are rules for strategic and Tactical campaigns, but not for the operational, and that would be quite important in any space battle, when we try to imagine how could they be (at least IMHO).
 
Deep meson sites are easily "built"... Pick a spherical hull. Install a spinal mount meson, PP, bridge, computer, and quarters, and a bit of on-board fuel. It is axiomatically Agility 0. Keep in mind it can only be targeted with meson weapons. Use the tunneling costs for asteroids for hollowing out a hull-space for it underground.

But there aren't any defined rules for detecting deep meson sites, nor has there been much discussion about how to detect space ships from the ground, how the planet and it atmosphere etc. may affect detection range and/or sensitivity for the various sensor types.

There's the suggestion of use of densitometers to hunt for sites, but I fear they could be easily spoofed (build empty holes in the ground with empty tubes).

There's also doesn't seem to be a reasonable counter to a DMS if the attacker does not have meson weapons.

There's chatter how this is all solved by intelligence and reconnaissance, and that can certainly be effective, but it's not a solution, merely an aspect of the battle. A DMS with passive detector -- that's just flat out a hard nut to crack.
 
There's the suggestion of use of densitometers to hunt for sites, but I fear they could be easily spoofed (build empty holes in the ground with empty tubes).

In MT (AFAIK the rules sets that better described them, but I know little about T4, TNE, T20 or T5 ship design) the maximum penetration range the densiometers have is 1 km. Just digging your deep meson sites deeper would sufice to avoid them detected.

The most effective way to silence them is either by cutting their power or by cutting them from their sensors, as, being so deep, they depend on external sensors for targeting.
 
And also if we just look at the rules, plante are defenseless against ships, something totally contrary to the canon, that talks us about deep meson sites and other planetary defenses.

Where in the rules does it state that you can't put heavy weapons (meson spinal types) on a planet???
 
Where in the rules does it state that you can't put heavy weapons (meson spinal types) on a planet???

Nowhere, AFAIK. It seems once more I expressed myself poorly.

I meant that in strategic Traveller rules there are no provisions for it. In FFW, planets are defenseless, and in TCS, once you have a fixed amount of combat space power the planet surrunds, so planet defenses are not useful not acounted for. Only Imperium featured them somewhat.
 
Nowhere, AFAIK. It seems once more I expressed myself poorly.

I meant that in strategic Traveller rules there are no provisions for it. In FFW, planets are defenseless, and in TCS, once you have a fixed amount of combat space power the planet surrunds, so planet defenses are not useful not acounted for. Only Imperium featured them somewhat.


I wouldn't worry. "strat trav rules" tend to be poor anyway. Just use common sense & the rules for weapons & sensors, et al. As you can see, the TCS "rule" is ludicrous to use in an RPG. Why would they auto surrender?
 
Deep meson sites are easily "built"... Pick a spherical hull. Install a spinal mount meson, PP, bridge, computer, and quarters, and a bit of on-board fuel. It is axiomatically Agility 0. Keep in mind it can only be targeted with meson weapons. ...

If I recall, in canon the deep meson site could only be taken out by taking out the sensor sites feeding it targeting information. By MegaTraveller rules, Zhodani densitometers could only penetrate about 250 meters, Imperial densitometers up to a kilometer. If you could get below that, the unit could not be found.

Except ...

The meson site requires power, a lot of it. Fusion power plants put out neutrinos, which under MegaTraveller could be picked up by neutrino sensors. Assuming the power plant is similarly hidden and effort made to discharge heat well away from the reactor itself, a TL 14 10 KW neutrino sensor acting alone to locate the plant is a difficult task, base roll 11 plus computer rating, minus range in 25 thousand kilometer increments, so basically pretty easy from orbit given an adequate computer. Gaining a lock is basically the same but a confrontation, which rule I find more than a little confusing in this context because the DMS listed are for offensive computer and range ...

Difficulty, Off = computer model number; Def = range (confrontation, uncertain).

... which I think means the attacker rolls with a bonus for his computer, while the defender rolls with a bonus for range, with the high roll taking the prize, though the attacker can get a little info out of it if he rolls close. In this context, assuming a ship with a good computer in orbit within 25 thousand klicks of the planet, lock is almost certain. Ergo, taking out the power plant feeding the deep meson site is not particularly hard if you're willing to expose your ship to return fire and have mesons of your own to apply to the task.

The power grid may be decentralized, with several plants feeding that and other weapon sites, maybe even city power available as backup, but it's only a matter of time before you knock out enough power to take the thing offline. There may be non-nuclear sources, but finding something non-nuclear that puts out power in the 1 to 3 hundred thousand megawatt range while remaining inconspicuous from orbit is rather challenging.

But there aren't any defined rules for detecting deep meson sites, nor has there been much discussion about how to detect space ships from the ground, how the planet and it atmosphere etc. may affect detection range and/or sensitivity for the various sensor types.

I don't know of any rules addressing atmospheric impact on EM sensors. Seems to me that'd be a problem, not insurmountable, but ground-based passive sensors might not have the range that space-based ones would. However, neutrino sensors won't be affected by that. Under MegaTraveller, neutrino sensors are best in conjunction with EM sensors, but they can be made to work alone at higher techs - just with some loss in range. At TL 14-15, it's a base 11 on 2d6 with bonus for computer rating and penalty for range in 25,000 km intervals (so 3+ for someone in orbit at TL 14, 2+ at TL 15). As for weapon lock, it's as easy for a ground-based neutrino sensor to pick up a ship's power plant as for the ship to pick up ground-based power plants.

If we assume passive EM is degraded by atmosphere, this creates a situation where ground-based batteries don't have as much range as space-based weapons - but space-based attackers are going to have the same problem picking out ground-based targets, perhaps moreso since they're having to do so against the backdrop of a planet while the ground-based defender's trying to identify something floating alone in vacuum. This leads us into the canon situation where attacking spacecraft are having to get in reasonably close to the world to attack targets on the surface - and thereby coming within range of ground-based fire - while defending ships far enough out in far orbit may be outside the protective umbrella of shore batteries.

There's the suggestion of use of densitometers to hunt for sites, but I fear they could be easily spoofed (build empty holes in the ground with empty tubes).

There's also doesn't seem to be a reasonable counter to a DMS if the attacker does not have meson weapons.

Other than locating the power plants and sending down troops to destroy them.
 
Carlo - excellent point about the neutrino sensors... But... they work both ways.

Also, unlike a ship, a Deep Meson Site (henceforth, DMS) can have larger (and thus more sensitive) neutrino sensor systems, can easily have more of them (for triangulation), knows the local solar neutrino flux parameters better, and has a roster of the profiles of the local ship and groundside plants.

Further, a two layer grid of meson screens in buried tunnels can both massively increase the screen and serve as a meson fire detector. Add to that the use of seismic sensors to detect and isolate meson fire... and some dummy power plants with meson screens, turned on when hostiles come into system...

It's not a sure-fire system, but it's probably good enough to make like really nastily unpleasant for the team in orbit trying to pinpoint the deep meson site.

Goodness... it's looking better for the home team than before...
 
Back
Top