What is a Fleet?

[robject]

Or, Fleet Types by Tech Level

PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD: I propose to gather together some major concepts about fleets in Traveller by TL, and the strengths and weaknesses of each concept.

Preamble
The way I broaden my understanding of Traveller is by asking people on this forum. I hope many others benefit from this exercise, too.

I know a lot of us are thinking along these sorts of lines: at different tech levels, empires tend to field different mixes of fighting ships. And by "different mix" I mainly think about battleships versus battle riders, but I think there are other variables as well, such as the evolving role of fighters, and perhaps the development of an imperial infrastructure itself.

I want to gather peoples' opinions on this matter, and the more concrete the thought, the better we can develop the options.

Does Milieu Matter?
Originally I considered Milieu to be a reasonable stand-in for TL. However, the fun part of fleet battles is that we have different TLs clashing, which results in potentially different strategic mixes. So the important factor is not milieu, but tech level.

FLEET COMPOSITION BY TL

TL 8 (no jump)
[HG2] - 3,999t maximum hull size

TL 9 (Jump-1)
[HG2] - 19,999t maximum hull size
Important: Colossal Ships, battleships, fighters and carriers.
Not important:
Unknown: Cruisers, Escorts

TL 10 (Jump-1)
[HG2] - 49,999t maximum hull size

Important: battleships, fighters and carriers
Not important:
Unknown: Colossal Ships, cruisers, escorts

TL 11 (Jump-2)
[HG2] 99,999t maximum hull size
Important: battleships, fighters and carriers
Not important:
Unknown: Colossal Ships, cruisers, escorts

TL 12 (Jump-3)
[HG2] 999,999t maximum hull size
Important: battleships, cruisers
Less Important: fighters and carriers
Not important: Colossal ships
Unknown: escorts

TL 13 (Jump-4)
Important: battleships, cruisers
Less Important: battle riders (~700)
Niche: fighters and carriers
Not important:
Unknown: escorts

TL 14 (Jump-5)
Important: battleships, cruisers, escorts
Less Important: battle riders
Niche: fighters and carriers, (battle riders?)
Not important:
Unknown:

TL 15 (Jump-6)
Important: battleships, cruisers, escorts
Less Important: battle riders
Niche: fighters and carriers, (battle riders?), Big Battleships (e.g. Tigress)
Not important:
Unknown:

TL 16
Important: cruisers, battle riders
Less Important:
Niche:
Not important:
Unknown: battleships, escorts, fighters and carriers

TL 17
Important: cruisers, battle riders
Less Important: fighters and carriers
Niche:
Not important:
Unknown: battleships, escorts

TL 18
Important: cruisers, battle riders, fighters and carriers
Less Important:
Niche:
Not important:
Unknown: battleships, escorts

TL 19
Important:
Less important:
Niche:
Not important:

TL 20
Important:
Less important:
Niche:
Not important:

TL 21
Important:
Less important:
Niche:
Not important:

I'll stop at TL 21.

 

[mike wightman]

Which rule set to you want this to default to?

High Guard 2?

 

[robject]

Most data will come from High Guard 2. But I'd like to see the cases other rulesets make, including HG1, HG3, MT, TNE, T4, GT, MgT, and the boardgames.

Also, published text often makes statements about various fleets at various times, with or without rules support. I want to see those, as well.

And I'd like to see concepts challenged. For example, regardless of what the rules state, when do you think fighters "should" be useful in fleet actions, if at all?

I think there are "shoulds" (categorical imperatives?) which proceed from each ruleset, that I'd like to tease out and pin down. A list of these "shoulds" would be nice, for comparison and contrast.

 

[aramis]

Note that Computer limits maximum hull in HG2E... (and T20...)
TL 5 & 6 can support ships up to 600Td, but not with any drives at all that are covered in HG.
TL7 & 8 give system ships up to 1000Td
TL 9 allows J1 and 4000Td
TL 10 allows J1 and 10KTd
TL11 allows J2 and 50KTd
TL12 allows J3 and 100KTd
TL13 allows J4 and 1000KTd
TL14 Allows J4 and 1000KTd
TL15 allows J6 and 1000KTd

 

[mike wightman]

I always thought HG2 computer rules give:

TL7&8 - 3,999t maximum hull size
TL 9 - 19,999 maximum hull size
TL10 - 49,999
TL11 - 99,999
TL12 - 999,999
TL13+ - no upper limit.

 

[aramis]

I always thought HG2 computer rules give:

TL7&8 - 3,999t maximum hull size
TL 9 - 19,999 maximum hull size
TL10 - 49,999
TL11 - 99,999
TL12 - 999,999
TL13+ - no upper limit.

Yup. 25 years, I keep making the same error, because the sizes are nonsensical break points, anyway, and I generally much prefer MT.

 

[robject]

MT doesn't set volume limits, does it?

I like MT's comprehensiveness and rationality. I find its choice of units... distracting. Nevertheless it is nicely full-featured and self-consistent, and ties into the task system in places, and extends the TL range nicely.

 

[aramis]

MT doesn't set volume limits, does it?

I like MT's comprehensiveness and rationality. I find its choice of units... distracting. Nevertheless it is nicely full-featured and self-consistent, and ties into the task system in places, and extends the TL range nicely.

Not directly. It does, however, have some, because there are CP maximums for given computers. Which indirectly limits hull sizes. It also means that, at a given TL, slow low-jump cargo ships can be much bigger than fast, high-jump, warships.

 

[McPerth]

Not directly. It does, however, have some, because there are CP maximums for given computers. Which indirectly limits hull sizes. It also means that, at a given TL, slow low-jump cargo ships can be much bigger than fast, high-jump, warships.

But in at least one ship in canon (the Xboat Tender in HT) the ship mounts more computers to offset this limit. As told in other posts, that always seemed to me as cheating the system, so I wouldn't allow it.

 

[aramis]

But in at least one ship in canon (the Xboat Tender in HT) the ship mounts more computers to offset this limit. As told in other posts, that always seemed to me as cheating the system, so I wouldn't allow it.

Ships in MT are Required to have 3 computers.

The XBT in MTHT is well within the CP needs using a single computer. It provides 28925 CP, and needs a bit less than 28000 (Computers, staterooms, and low berths don't need CP). It's legit as written. The 4th computer is for mail-handling, not CP increases. I figured it out by using the CP formula on the final ship, and then subtracting for subcraft, staterooms, controls, fuel systems, and computers. Adding a large holodisplay cures the issue, anyway, pushing it up enough to cover the completed craft. Also, you can reduce the TL of specific sections... the LS never needs to be above TL10, for example, so it's CP can be reduced there. The Hull can be reduced to the Armor Type's TL; that's TL14, so that shaves a bit... The fluff is bad.

Note that a model 0 can support up to 2500CP... (500 max in, x5 multiple)which means Hull, Drives, Weapons, Electronics and Environment totaling not more than MCr(250/TL)
Model 1: 5000Cpimax, x10, 50,000CP, for MCr(5000/TL), min TL6,
Model 2:10KCpimax, x15, 150,000CP, MCr(15000/TL), min TL 7
Model 3: 15KCpimax, x20, 300,000CP, MCr(30,000/TL), min TL9
Etc.

Note that you can boost this a little with Add-ons - they come AFTER the computer, and don't get multiplied by it.

 

[McPerth]

Returning to the OP questions:

Preamble
The way I broaden my understanding of Traveller is by asking people on this forum. I hope many others benefit from this exercise, too.

I know a lot of us are thinking along these sorts of lines: at different tech levels, empires tend to field different mixes of fighting ships. And by "different mix" I mainly think about battleships versus battle riders, but I think there are other variables as well, such as the evolving role of fighters, and perhaps the development of an imperial infrastructure itself.

I want to gather peoples' opinions on this matter, and the more concrete the thought, the better we can develop the options.

IMHO you forgot here to point also the mission of the fleet. I guess, TL and budget aside, the composition of the fleet will also vary according if it is a planetary fleet (mostly for local defense and customs), subsector (regional defense and anti-piracy), sector (also regional defense, but at a broader scale) or Imperial (imperial cohesion and support to lesser ones).

I guess the size of the ships will grow with each echelon, and BT/BR will mostly be found in the higher ones (IMHO, there's no point to have a BatDron hunting small corsairs).

Does Milieu Matter?
Originally I considered Milieu to be a reasonable stand-in for TL. However, the fun part of fleet battles is that we have different TLs clashing, which results in potentially different strategic mixes. So the important factor is not milieu, but tech level.

Again IMHO, yes, milieu matters, and a lot.

As an example (my opinion, not canon)

If you're playing the First (Vilani) Empire, fleet is mostly an Imperial tool to keep the Imperium together, as the lack of jump capable neighbours makes the need of frontier defense pointless.

As such, its main weaponry is likely to be missiles, as its most likely mission will be rebellion crushing, and mostly those will be ground bombardement and they have industrial capacity to spare in making missiles. Energy weapons will be limited, I guess mostly defensive and to hunt small ships (pirates, smugglers, and whatever the rebels have managed to build/obtain).

PA will not be in general use, as they are useless against atmosphere protected planets (probably the most populated, and so the key ones and the ones able to rebel).

With the arrival of the Terrans (not yet Solomani), many of this principles changed, but the slow reacting Vilani were probably not up to make the changes quick enough.

For the Terrans, things were totally inverse, their main mission was ship killing, as they must face a vastly superior Navy, so, they probably will build better anti-ship weaponry (leading to the developement of the MG). Also the fact that they had less industrial capacity to make missiles, and the fact that they were mostly at offensive (with supplies harder to reach fleets) made them less dependent of missile punch and more of beam weaponry that needs no more than fuel to keep firing (and if you run out of fuel, you have more urging problems than your offensive power).

And see that the differences are not for TL, but for mission and setting...

 

[McPerth]

Most data will come from High Guard 2. But I'd like to see the cases other rulesets make, including HG1, HG3, MT, TNE, T4, GT, MgT, and the boardgames.

(...)

I think there are "shoulds" (categorical imperatives?) which proceed from each ruleset, that I'd like to tease out and pin down. A list of these "shoulds" would be nice, for comparison and contrast

As for rules sets, of course they will also have influence in the fleets. As you say most data will come from HG2, I’ll try to compare it with MT, as the rules I most know. As always, it will be only my opinion:

Combat rules:

In MT there are movement rules (try if you dare in fleet engagements), but I’ll ignore them in this comparison, as they will have little influence in fleet composition (I guess).

MT sensors rules are likely to lead to the deployment of more picket ships, be them fighters with decent sensors or special designed ships, with lots of sensors arrays (anyway, most ships can have quite decent sensor arrays and may be useful in this sense, but I guess that would change tactics a little).

The use MT makes for skills in space combat makes gunnery nearly useless in fact (you’d need a gunnery skill higher than your computer number or your weapons tables to have any effect), while pilot may be quite useful (if you accept it may substitute agility, as it uses to be higher) and ship`s tactics is likely to be abused I you use the rules as written. I guess this will have few effect in fleet composition, but may have in training.

Ship’s design:

I guess most changes will come from this point.

First, the fact that MT ships need less jump fuel, coupled with the armor not needing volume at all, takes part of the non-jump ships advantage away, giving a better chance to Cruisers and Battleships against BRs.

Another major change is the increased vulnerability for most ships:

-Big ships with decent agility, that are plentiful in HG2, are quite scarce in MT (where most ships will rely in pilots for this, as told above), due to the power needs for most systems (MDs, LS, etc.)

-Armor (below TL15) has less effect in MT. As examples, MT TL 8 spaceship has a maximum armor of 40, so a modifier of 0 (against the +8 maximum in HG2), at TL 12 the maximum armor is 60, for a modifier of +6 (against the +12 maximum in HG2). Of course the volume requirements in HG2 makes ships armored at less than maximum more frequent…

Yet another change is the need for ordnance for ships. This makes any missile armed ships have to devote volume (not important in most ships, as the volume saved in armor and jump fuel makes it irrelevant, but quite important in fighters, that now have to retreat to rearm quite often, as RW airplanes do) and cost (at MCr 0.15 per nuclear missile, a 50 ton bay salvo costs MCr 3.75, and a 100 ton bay’s, MCr 7.5). As I’ve told in other posts, I guess that will make the big missile salvoes so often seen in TCS contests quite expensive. OTOH, due to the increased vulnerability told above, quite less salvoes will be needed.

It’s also to mention in the missiles chapter that the changes in the combat tables (now you need high numbers, and large weapons have a +6 modifier) makes the interior explosion result in the surface explosion table quite less lethal, as, being unmodified, now you cannot achieve criticals nor FTS results this way.

Effects of all this in fleet compositions and uses:

-More need to tactical intelligence makes the need for long endurance picket ships higher.

-Partial loss of advantage of BRs over Cruisers and BBs will make the fleets less BR/BT oriented.

-Missile armed fighters will be less common, as they have less combat endurance (due to need to rearm)

-High cost of nuclear missiles, coupled with increased vulnerability to beam weapons (now more accurate, due to reduced agility, and more lethal, due to less armor) will make the fleets less dependent on missiles.

 

[Matt123]

TL 11 (Jump-2)
[HG2] 99,999t maximum hull size
Important: battleships, fighters and carriers
Not important:
Unknown: Colossal Ships, cruisers, escorts

TL 12 (Jump-3)
[HG2] 999,999t maximum hull size
Important: battleships, cruisers
Less Important: fighters and carriers
Not important: Colossal ships
Unknown: escorts

TL 13 (Jump-4)
Important: battleships, cruisers
Less Important: battle riders (~700)
Niche: fighters and carriers
Not important:
Unknown: escorts

In my experience of playing TCS, at these three TL's (& I suspect earlier) fighters dominate. Not the small fighters being discussed elsewhere, but Fleet Fighters with maximum computers for their TL. These fighters are large and expensive, but are very survivable, don't risk damage to jump engines and are replaceable in a campaign within a tolerable period.

Battleships are relegated to niche roles, flying the flag, planetary bombardment, etc. Cruisers are still valid as multipurpose capital ships, but should avoid Fighter combat.

I prefer to use home brew Escort rules to beef up the role of Escorts. In the vanilla game Escorts tend to get ignored in favour of taking out the big guns. But they can be Agility-6 and carry 100tn Missile Bays, which are the best weapon vs Fleet Fighters.

TL13 is the crossover tech, with TL14/15 being dominated by BBs. Primarily because the computers required on Fighters to maintain parity get too large & expensive.

Fighting ships will often sacrifice strategic jump range to gain tactical advantage (more/better systems). I recommend looking at a "typical" jump range rather than the maximum possible which on the whole will be used mainly by strategic assets (scouts/couriers, cruisers, raiders).

Fighting mixed TL's gets interesting, the edge gained at each TL jump over the previous is large. The most dominating being the increased computer size providing both +1 to hit & +1 to defense per TL. Of course there are improvements in weaponry & defenses as well. TCS uses a 10:1 budget ratio to gain parity, which seems to be in the ballpark.

Colossal ships at these TL's should be relegated to System Monitors or Leadership Folly's (Carriers aside) where there are advantages to be had (eg: no jump engines/fuel & in the case of Folly's, umm prestige).

Against sub-optimal fleets of course BBs are fine. The threat to BB's is fighters stripping their weapons, if the opposition has poor or few fighters, there is little threat. Use your fighters to strip his BB's and save your BB's/Cruisers meson guns till the end of the battle when the risk of rapid weapon stripping is negated and you wish to prevent his BB's from escaping.

Missing from your considerations are Fleet Scout/Courier networks and Fleet Tankers, both essential for Fleet Strategy. My last game (at TL12) a full third of my budget was spent on Fleet Tankers to ensure when I arrived somewhere, I could always withdraw (err, more often than others...). Its easier to repair in Traveller than build. At least the scout/courier network is cheap.

To pinch your format from above, my take would be;
TL 11 (Jump-2) (typically jump 2)
[HG2] 99,999t maximum hull size
Important: carriers, fighters and escorts
Not important: battleships
Niche: cruisers, colossal ships (as monitors)

TL 12 (Jump-3)(typically jump2)
[HG2] 999,999t maximum hull size
Important: carriers, fighters, escorts, cruisers & fleet tankers
Not Important battleships
Niche: colossal ships (as monitors)

TL 13 (Jump-4)(typically jump 2)
Important: carriers, fighters, escorts, cruisers & fleet tankers
Experimental: battleships, battle riders
Niche: colossal ships (as monitors)

Hope this helps or generates some discussion.
Cheers
Matt

 

[mike wightman]

Here's a little table I use a lot - the formatting will come later.

TL--->9   10   11   12   13   14   15
bdg   2    2    2    2    2    2    2
m6   17   17   17   17   17   17   17
ag6  18   18   18   18   12   12    6
f     6    6    6    6    6    6    6
jd    2    2    2    3    3    4    4
f    10   10   10   20   20   30   30
af   40   33   36   26   28   15   16
totl 95   88   91   92   88   86   81

This is what I use when I begin designing a ship - agility 6 and max armour at TL, jump appropriate to TL or best to get a usable %.

The remaining % is available for weapons, computer, screens etc and the power plant and fuel needed to power them.

You can see that to increase jump performance at higher TLs either armour or agility must be lost. Or if you want energy hungry weapons you must horse trade or build very big.

 

[robject]

Maybe this isn't part of a fleet discussion, but I've also wondered about High Guard versus the Loeskalth planetoid. It can't be more than TL10, and may only be TL9, yet is estimated to be 50 billion tons, and has jump drives.

Granted that such ships are at best niche designs, HG or its children should still let us build them.

 

[atpollard]

... TL9 ... 50 billion tons ... jump drives ... HG or its children should still let us build them.

Since High Guard is formula based, what would prevent a 50 billion displacement ton starship (or less than 5 billion displacement ton if the quoted 50 billion tons was mass) from being built using CT High Guard?

 

[McPerth]

Here's a little table I use a lot - the formatting will come later.

TL--->9   10   11   12   13   14   15
bdg   2    2    2    2    2    2    2
m6   17   17   17   17   17   17   17
ag6  18   18   18   12   12   12    6
f     6    6    6    6    6    6    6
jd    2    2    2    3    3    4    4
f    10   10   10   20   20   30   30
af   40   33   36   26   28   15   16
totl 95   88   91   86   88   86   81

This is what I use when I begin designing a ship - agility 6 and max armour at TL, jump appropriate to TL or best to get a usable %.

The remaining % is available for weapons, computer, screens etc and the power plant and fuel needed to power them.

You can see that to increase jump performance at higher TLs either armour or agility must be lost. Or if you want energy hungry weapons you must horse trade or build very big.

Please, could you explain a little what the letters mean?

I guess bdg= bridge, m6= maneuver drive 6, Ag6= pp to allow agility 6, jd = jump drive, af= maximum armor, but I'm not sure about f. If it is fuel, then the f below the jd (which I'd assume to be jump fuel) is wrong, as if should be 10*jd.

I also see you allow J2 for TL 9 and 10, while, according to my version of HG (the one on the Classic Books by FFE), J2 is achieved at TL 11.

EDIT: Sorry, I understood jd was jump number, not the tonnage allocated to it. Now I see I was wrong, but you limited the Jn to one less than the maximum attainable per TL (over TL10, as until then only J1 was attainable) or 3, while canon says IN wants their ships to be J4.

 

[aramis]

Please, could you explain a little what the letters mean?

I guess bdg= bridge, m6= maneuver drive 6, Ag6= pp to allow agility 6, jd = jump drive, af= maximum armor, but I'm not sure about f. If it is fuel, then the f below the jd (which I'd assume to be jump fuel) is wrong, as if should be 10*jd.

I also see you allow J2 for TL 9 and 10, while, according to my version of HG (the one on the Classic Books by FFE), J2 is achieved at TL 11.

EDIT: Sorry, I understood jd was jump number, not the tonnage allocated to it. Now I see I was wrong, but you limited the Jn to one less than the maximum attainable per TL (over TL10, as until then only J1 was attainable) or 3, while canon says IN wants their ships to be J4.

he's not listing Jn, but %... those 2's are J1...

 

[mike wightman]

Please, could you explain a little what the letters mean?

I guess bdg= bridge, m6= maneuver drive 6, Ag6= pp to allow agility 6, jd = jump drive, af= maximum armor, but I'm not sure about f. If it is fuel, then the f below the jd (which I'd assume to be jump fuel) is wrong, as if should be 10*jd.

I also see you allow J2 for TL 9 and 10, while, according to my version of HG (the one on the Classic Books by FFE), J2 is achieved at TL 11.

EDIT: Sorry, I understood jd was jump number, not the tonnage allocated to it. Now I see I was wrong, but you limited the Jn to one less than the maximum attainable per TL (over TL10, as until then only J1 was attainable) or 3, while canon says IN wants their ships to be J4.

I was just composing a post when you added the edit

The Imperium can have a jump 4 fleet, but to do so they will have to sacrifice armour or agility in their capital ships - or use drop tanks
Alternatively they will have to build tenders and riders to achieve jump 4 strategic mobility.

 

[McPerth]

Here's a little table I use a lot - the formatting will come later.

TL--->9   10   11   12   13   14   15
bdg   2    2    2    2    2    2    2
m6   17   17   17   17   17   17   17
ag6  18   18   18   12   12   12    6
f     6    6    6    6    6    6    6
jd    2    2    2    3    3    4    4
f    10   10   10   20   20   30   30
af   40   33   36   26   28   15   16
totl 95   88   91   86   88   86   81

This is what I use when I begin designing a ship - agility 6 and max armour at TL, jump appropriate to TL or best to get a usable %.

The remaining % is available for weapons, computer, screens etc and the power plant and fuel needed to power them.

You can see that to increase jump performance at higher TLs either armour or agility must be lost. Or if you want energy hungry weapons you must horse trade or build very big.

To illustrate de effects I told about above of MT design rules, I tried to adapt your table to MT.

As in MT agility depends on weight, not displacement, and weight increases exponentially with armor and decreases somewhat with TL and size, I used a 100 kdton to compute it, and only the mass of the hull. For smaller ships, the needs for agility would increase, as weight per 100 dtons increases.

All is computed in dtons per 100 dton of ship. I did not even dared to try to compute the volume needed for controls (equivalent to bridge in HG), as it depends on cost, TL and computer rating.

Item	TL9	TL10	TL11	TL12	TL13	TL14	TL15	
								
JD	2,00	2,00	3,00	4,00	5,00	5,00	5,00	note 1
MD	17,00	17,00	17,00	17,00	17,00	17,00	17,00	note 2
PP 	5,67	5,67	7,35	7,35	4,88	4,88	2,38	note 3
MD fuel	11,33	11,33	14,69	14,69	16,39	16,39	14,28	Note 4
JD fuel	10,00	10,00	15,00	20,00	25,00	25,00	25,00	
Ag1 PP	0,75	1,03	1,57	2,03	3,13	2,61	4,02	Note 5
Fuel	1,50	2,07	3,14	4,07	10,53	8,77	24,13	Note 6
Ls	1,20	3,30	3,30	3,30	3,30	3,30	3,30	
				
								
Totals	49,44	52,40	65,04	72,44	85,23	82,94	95,11	
								
								
Ag6	13,46	18,59	28,24	36,59	82,01	68,28	168,90	note 7
								
Tot Ag6	60,66	67,89	88,58	102,93	153,57	139,84	235,86	
								
note 1: To achieve max jump (up to 4)
note 2: For 6g
note 3: dtons needed to support MD				
note 4: For PP to support MD (only)
note 5: dtons needed for PP for Ag1 at max armor
note 6: dtons needed to support PP for Ag1								
note 7: dtons needed for PP+fuel for Ag6 at max armor

As you see, you cannot have a maximum armor agility 6 ship at over TL11 (due to increased mass for the increased armor maximum).

You also can see that the JD+fuel have less incidence, so reducing the advantage for the BRs