What is the CEP of traveller beam weapons?

[sabredog]

There is nothing in any Traveller version that indicates that a ship can not fire or use its sensors while accelerating. Nor that anything has to be "locked down" during acceleration. At least not that I am aware of. Nothing limits their use whatsoever. What this means is, is whatever stresses or problems that would arise in such a situation would have been removed by whatever technology they have.

You can say what you want. But the game says the exact opposite. Sensors and weapons can be used while accelerating, at no penalty, in the same exact way they can be used while stationary, so therefore they must be able to cope with whatever stress is caused and the movement of the ship. If acceleration and other stresses interfered with how they operate, than if would of been clearly stated it that it would. So while I may be assuming something based on what the books say, you are assuming something with no rules evidence other than "Well, I don't think it would work." Brecause while it is possible to rip holes in the fabric of space/time itself to send a ship across the stars, weapons capable of destroying stars, or to teleport vast distances with the power of your mind alone, it is apparently impossible to build a functioning sensor array.

While you are correct in saying that Trav allows weapons and sensors to be used while vector changes and other maneuvers occur, HG sues agility as a negative DM to reward that sort of thing.

This has to be considered as some implication on the designers' parts that these weapons and sensors can handle a certain amount of ducking and weaving on the ship's part, but obviously require more time than you are thinking to keep up with it.

 

[steventirey1985]

While you are correct in saying that Trav allows weapons and sensors to be used while vector changes and other maneuvers occur, HG sues agility as a negative DM to reward that sort of thing.

This has to be considered as some implication on the designers' parts that these weapons and sensors can handle a certain amount of ducking and weaving on the ship's part, but obviously require more time than you are thinking to keep up with it.

You need to clarify that, as I am having problems understanding exactly what it says.

Looking at High Guard, the only time a weapon is affected by agility is in one of two circumstances. 1) the target ships agility is applied as a negative DM to the firing ships weapons, and 2) all power is diverted from the ships energy weapons to temporarily boost the ships agility.

The firing ships agility makes no difference to its weapons at all. The more agile the the target ship is, the harder it is to hit. But how your ship is moving does not affect the weapons.

And from what I can tell, sensors are never mentioned at all in Book 5 High Guard. They aren't even really mentioned in Book 2. It just says the range a ship can detect another. Doesn't say how they do it, just that they can. But once again, no mention of maneuvering or acceleration affecting anything.

So, show me a page number in either Book 2 or Book 5 that says accelerating, maneuvering, or the firing ships agility affects anything. OR anything that actually mentions sensors. Because I can't find anything on those at all (besides Bk2 implying you have them because of the distance you can detect ships).

 

[sabredog]

You need to clarify that, as I am having problems understanding exactly what it says.

Looking at High Guard, the only time a weapon is affected by agility is in one of two circumstances. 1) the target ships agility is applied as a negative DM to the firing ships weapons, and 2) all power is diverted from the ships energy weapons to temporarily boost the ships agility.

The firing ships agility makes no difference to its weapons at all. The more agile the the target ship is, the harder it is to hit. But how your ship is moving does not affect the weapons.

And from what I can tell, sensors are never mentioned at all in Book 5 High Guard. They aren't even really mentioned in Book 2. It just says the range a ship can detect another. Doesn't say how they do it, just that they can. But once again, no mention of maneuvering or acceleration affecting anything.

So, show me a page number in either Book 2 or Book 5 that says accelerating, maneuvering, or the firing ships agility affects anything. OR anything that actually mentions sensors. Because I can't find anything on those at all (besides Bk2 implying you have them because of the distance you can detect ships).

It's simple: if the target's ability to dodge is a negative DM applied to your firing weapons (which I presume are aimed through the ship's sensors not Willy the Gunner and his trusty telescopic reticule) then it follows that maneuvering to dodge (which is what agility is in HG..pg 28.."violent maneuvers to avoid enemy fire" is stated) makes it harder to lock onto and hit the target.

RL example: I can hit and ave 96 on cold handgun qualifications firing at various ranges and from various positions at a stationary target. But if the target is moving around trying to avoid getting hit I know that because even though I'm a regular Deadeye Dick against a sitting duck if the duck stops sitting I have to now work harder at acquiring, locking onto, and hitting - let alone hitting a certain spot of said duck.

This does not mean that my weapon is acting any worse or my eyesight and skills have suddenly blurred and faded, it means that I have to work harder to hit it is all because of what the target does. So the target's agility counts against me.

Now if I am also ducking and weaving and trying not to get shot at (and again this is from personal experience) it's even harder for me to find, track, lock on to , and hit the target. So both mine and the target's agility work against me - although I can to a certain extent compensate for mine since I hopefully have a plan, but until I can stand still that criticl moment my agility will still affect my targeting (sensors) and hitting (weapon stabilization) the target.

But in HG it only works one way and that doesn't make a lot of sense unless we are talking about distance having a greater effect on modifying that agility DM? Like the farther away you are the more it matters, but the closer the less it matters? You know: like at 20 yards it's harder to hit dodging target, but at 2m the target wouldn't be able to dodge at all and have it make much more difference than a hit in the liver or stomach. Unless he's in bullet-time I guess.

BTW: pg 42 in HG: BG's blind the ship's sensors....as implied when the rules say things like "the ship cannot see, fire weapons, or move" when the field that "absorbs all energy directed at it". My italics here since I assume HG and Traveller are not submarine games so active sensors are used to target and track things in space more than passive ones. And that since weapons are organized in centrally controlled batteries as opposed to locally controlled ones (that would be like in LBB2) that the ship's sensors help direct those batteries.

Or are you saying that starships won't use sensors just because the rules don't have rules (well MT does...) talking about how those sensors work? If so I'm sorry and I'll stop talking then.

 

[sabredog]

....oh, also on page 27 of HG it says the bridge "is for the control of the drives and electronics and for navigation." Precedent being set on page 13 of LBB2 that those bridge electronics include "avionics and sensors" I think it can logically be argued that the same applies to HG. Especially since the bridges are even bigger, have to control a warship with lots of guns, and well I doubt the extra space was meant for hot tubs.

 

[steventirey1985]

Or are you saying that starships won't use sensors just because the rules don't have rules (well MT does...) talking about how those sensors work? If so I'm sorry and I'll stop talking then.

Oh no. Of course not. Just saying that if there isn't even a section saying how they work, there could be no section saying that something penalizes how they work. The best you would be able to do is say they stop working totally, which is what the black globe does. It doesn't penalize their use - it out right prevents it from working. You'll also notice that if the field is flickering at say, 90% (so it is up 90% of the time), there is no penalty to detecting enemy ships. You can still detect things just as good as if the BG was totally off. Which is another point in favor of quick sensor resolution - if there is no effect on detecting ships despite your sensors being blocked 90% of the time, then they must have enough time in that remaining 10% to detect things.

Now if I am also ducking and weaving and trying not to get shot at (and again this is from personal experience) it's even harder for me to find, track, lock on to , and hit the target. So both mine and the target's agility work against me - although I can to a certain extent compensate for mine since I hopefully have a plan, but until I can stand still that criticl moment my agility will still affect my targeting (sensors) and hitting (weapon stabilization) the target.

Your agility works against you because you don't have a weapons stabilization system. That is technology we have now, and counters the movement made by the firing vehicle. Its what keeps the main gun on a tank on target despite the movement caused by rough terrain. So if it is something we can do now, why would we lose that ability in the future? If anything, it would get better. Skip ahead to about 0:50 That is where it starts talking about the stabilization.

 

[sabredog]

I more than understand stabilization but since you don't think we should extrapolate on the way sensors work simply because HG barely mentions them then you shouldn't be extrapolating on weapon stabilization since that isn't mentioned anywhere in HG at all.

I was clarifying what I meant by how distance should have more of an effect on the DM's affecting agility and firing relative to distance and the agility of both participants, and you didn't seem to get it, so I used a simple RL example and also pointed out the places in HG and LBB2 where sensors for the ships are implicitly and explicitly mentioned as you requested.

See, I have always known the weapons were stabilized even though HG doesn't so much as mention them at all (oh, except for both LBB and HG mentioning something called fire control) because I used common sense, I don't always need every little thing spelled out for me to know draw a logical conclusion. I use my head, common sense, and precedent - both implied and explicit. The implicit part on this would be fire control.

But, since you seemed so hung up on the whole sensor thing not being carefully laid out for you in every detail I just tried to do you the favor of at least answering your question with data and an example.

 

[sabredog]

Your agility works against you because you don't have a weapons stabilization system.

Yes I do: my knees, upper body strength, and cat-like reflexes are still in reasonably good shape for a beat up old guy. I figure that may not make me an M-1 or Challenger, but I'm not down to Sherman level yet.

Or was the video about something else..I didn't watch it?

 

[steventirey1985]

I more than understand stabilization but since you don't think we should extrapolate on the way sensors work simply because HG barely mentions them then you shouldn't be extrapolating on weapon stabilization since that isn't mentioned anywhere in HG at all.

Then why mention that a firing ships agility penalizing its weapons fire? If you know about weapon stabilization, then you know that system would negate any penalty the firing ships maneuvering would do.

See, I have always known the weapons were stabilized even though HG doesn't so much as mention them at all (oh, except for both LBB and HG mentioning something called fire control) because I used common sense, I don't always need every little thing spelled out for me to know draw a logical conclusion. I use my head, common sense, and precedent - both implied and explicit. The implicit part on this would be fire control.

Again, if weapon stabilization was something you already knew about, and and apparently it being common sense, then why do you keep arguing that the firing ships agility would penalize its weapons fire?

But, since you seemed so hung up on the whole sensor thing not being carefully laid out for you in every detail I just tried to do you the favor of at least answering your question with data and an example.

True, but how easy do you think it would be to make a 'combat-ready' full sky survey on a moving (or even accelerating, and continuously-vector-changing) spaceship?

Fusor was the first one who mentioned accelerating and maneuvering could affect sensors, not me. I really don't care how sensors work, as long as they work. But how sensors work does matter a little. For all we know, they scan the entire sky and interpret the data in a single second. Or maybe it takes the entire turn. One means that no amount of movement will effect sensors at all, the other means that some sort of stabilization similar to what weapons systems get may be necessary. I'm just saying, that anything that can help keep weapons on a target can keep sensors pointed on target.

edit: Wait, I may be confused some. I think I am mixing up posters.

 

[sabredog]

Then why mention that a firing ships agility penalizing its weapons fire? If you know about weapon stabilization, then you know that system would negate any penalty the firing ships maneuvering would do.


Again, if weapon stabilization was something you already knew about, and and apparently it being common sense, then why do you keep arguing that the firing ships agility would penalize its weapons fire?

I was pointing it out in response to your saying there weren't any rules about the things fusor and others were talking about sensors and weapon systems vs movement on both sides and the lock-up times, yada yada - just go back and read the d--n posts.

It was postulated that the time difference due to having to reacquire targets and "delicate" sensor systems, and weapons and mounts ought to mean something. I wanted to suggest that the whole thing was backwards anyway - the closer you get the less the effects of movement should be anyway since violent motion will be more easily compensated for by the firer. And the bigger the target the easier that gets. That's all.

 

[whartung]

Brilliant Lances punishes firing ships making evasive maneuvers, and evasive ships can't fire spinal mounts at all.

 

[steventirey1985]

Yeah, it seems as if I have been confused over who posted what. So lets see, the arguments we have so far are:

Turrets & sensors are exquisitely sensitive, and so are unable to handle the stresses of acceleration or maneuvering without being locked down.

Which would be untrue because the rules say nothing about any sort of penalties from using your weapons or sensors while accelerating or maneuvering, so those systems must be able to cope with the stress and work fine. Correct?

And the second argument:

A ship accelerating or maneuvering would effect the way weapons and sensors would operate by providing penalties.

Which would also be untrue, as weapons would have weapon stabilization systems, which are designed to negate the penalty from the firing platform moving. Sensors, since there is nothing stating how they work, either work so fast that the movement doesn't effect them, or are stabilized in the same way weapons would be and so are also not effected. Correct?

Note - this is the reason it is generally a bad idea to discuss things over the internet after a long day. Someone always gets confused. In this case, me.

 

[steventirey1985]

Brilliant Lances punishes firing ships making evasive maneuvers, and evasive ships can't fire spinal mounts at all.

The spinal mount not being able to fire would make sense - since the spinal mount is not a turret, it can't turn itself to point towards the enemy. It has to point in the direction the ship is. And if the ship is moving all over the place, so is the spinal mount.

 

[sabredog]

The spinal mount not being able to fire would make sense - since the spinal mount is not a turret, it can't turn itself to point towards the enemy. It has to point in the direction the ship is. And if the ship is moving all over the place, so is the spinal mount.

Ya know, the more I hear about this Brilliant Lances the more I wish it was still available and my players had the patience to learn and play it.

I never looked it over in detail: does it (in the chance I run across a copy sometime) handle anything players would use in a campaign, or is it just for fleet actions? And can use design ships with it or does it use designs from MT or CT?

 

[mike wightman]

It's simple: if the target's ability to dodge is a negative DM applied to your firing weapons (which I presume are aimed through the ship's sensors not Willy the Gunner and his trusty telescopic reticule) then it follows that maneuvering to dodge (which is what agility is in HG..pg 28.."violent maneuvers to avoid enemy fire" is stated) makes it harder to lock onto and hit the target.

You are making up a rule that isn't there or even implied.

In Traveller the acceleration compensators nullify the affects of acceleration within a ship.

Agility in HG is purely a defensive DM for the defending ship.

 

[sabredog]

I'm not making up anything - I thought we were supposed to be discussing the CEP of beam weapons in HG and ALL the possible factors that might mess with it. And since if your ship zigs when other guy's zags then I inferred that it would be reasonable that the firing ship would have a harder time compensating than otherwise.

But I'm probably just working a really far too abstract system with a lot of slop in it too hard. Just IMHO so don't freak out. To me HG is a wargame with some RPG rules attached and it's a pain in the rear to make it otherwise without opening up a gigantic can of the kind of worms best dealt with by an RPG or just plain wargame.

(Ducking the rotten vegetables) ok, ok, I give up now.

 

[Matt123]

I'm not making up anything ... And since if your ship zigs when other guy's zags then I inferred that it would be reasonable that the firing ship would have a harder time compensating than otherwise.

lol, I think you are trying too hard to find problems. I agree with the others for the reasons they give. If we can stabilise stuff at TL7, we will be even better at it by TL8+.

The difference between your zigs and the other guys zags, is that your zigs are instantly known, controlled and ship-wide adjustments are made by your control systems (eg: to weapons, sensors and grav compensators). The other guys zags are not seen by you for 1 or more seconds and by the time your laser fire gets there 1 or more seconds after that, he may have changed zag yet again. (Aramis's earlier calculations not withstanding)

An earlier poster questioned IR radiation and the effect glass has. Glass lets through visible light. It reflects IR radiation. This means that sunlight streams in, heats the objects it strikes, which in turn radiates some of its excess heat as IR energy. The portion of radiated IR energy that strikes the glass, is reflected. Hence cars can get hot in direct sunlight and most well designed homes use lots of glass on the sunny face of the house to get the solar heat gain in winter.

Among my many talents (which doesn't include physics!), I'm a trained Thermographer and yes I have tried using my IR camera from inside the car . It doesn't work...

 

[fusor]

There is nothing in any Traveller version that indicates that a ship can not fire or use its sensors while accelerating. Nor that anything has to be "locked down" during acceleration. At least not that I am aware of. Nothing limits their use whatsoever. What this means is, is whatever stresses or problems that would arise in such a situation would have been removed by whatever technology they have.

You can say what you want. But the game says the exact opposite. Sensors and weapons can be used while accelerating, at no penalty, in the same exact way they can be used while stationary, so therefore they must be able to cope with whatever stress is caused and the movement of the ship.

I think I can explain the confusion here - we're essentially discussing two different things.

I'm coming at this essentially from physical first principles, so as such whatever the book says isn't relevant to what I'm talking about (unless it is actually realistic). I'm under the impression that this sort of approach is what the OP was interested in - not in what the rules say, but rather in what should physically be going on, regardless of whether or not that is compatible with the rules; and where there's a contradiction my preference would be to change the rules.

Whereas you seem to be approaching it from the other way - by using the book rules as the basis for your arguments, and then assuming that problems have been solved to make those rules work. Which is fair enough and a perfectly valid way to look at it, but somewhat at cross-purposes with the approach I'm taking.

Either way, hopefully our discussions can continue in parallel even if they don't cross .

As it is, it's been pointed out that the grav tech in the OTU cancels out the ship's acceleration, making that part of my argument somewhat moot for the OTU. But my point could still be valid for settings that don't have such technologies.

 

[whartung]

Ya know, the more I hear about this Brilliant Lances the more I wish it was still available and my players had the patience to learn and play it.

I never looked it over in detail: does it (in the chance I run across a copy sometime) handle anything players would use in a campaign, or is it just for fleet actions? And can use design ships with it or does it use designs from MT or CT?

BL is basically detailed ship to ship combat, it's designed mostly for small ship battles, and just a few of them. It's the base TNE combat system with some extras. One example is that in contrast to most games, in BL your ship can have 12 facings, rather than just 6. So there's mechanics to track which hex you're entering as you zig zag back and forth. It would convert to raw minis with basically no work.

It also tracks detailed damage to the internal systems of the ship. If your power plant can take 40 points of damage, you'll get to track all 40 points (7, 13, 25, whatever). You get to roll and find out who on the bridge crew got taken out (thus making it more suitable for RPG interface).

It has a ship design system that is basically lifted out of FF&S, and some more stock, pre-made weapons, notably spinal mounts.

It also has a pretty good list of ships and craft (like 20 I think).

"Battle Tender" was the "Fleet" action version of the game, being mostly designed with larger ships blasting spinals at each other. It's not a fleet game like HG is, though, it has tactical movement and such. It's just more a "big ships, big hits, big crits" system without record sheets.

BL and BR are on the TNE CD ROM I believe.

 

[aramis]

The fleet game was "Battle Rider" not "Battle Tender." And despite useing the same first principles, the move to criticals only renders BR play mismatched with BL play.

 

[warwizard]

Ok to sum it up:
If the ship has inertial dampers, the ship's own maneuvers do not affect the CEP of it's weapons. TL 8 and TL 9 DO suffer an increase in CEP due to their own maneuvers due to no inertial dampers.
Spinal mounts cannot be fired by evading ships, but ships that are thrusting directly at the target may fire the spinal weapons but only at that target.
CEP improves as technology increases.
There is some combination of short range, large hull, insufficient evasion, and a tight CEP that will result in no misses, in such cases every shot in the weapons ROF will hit what was aimed at. (defenses may prevent the target lock, spoof the sensor, decoy the sensor, or absorb the energy, so it's not for sure that you hit the enemy ship that was intended)
Conversely at some combination of long range, small hull, high evasion, and a tight CEP will result in no hits as the target is not in the area where the shots are going. (a good prediction of the target's future evasion might allow a reduction of the target's evasion effect, allowing some chances to hit.)
Where the firing CEP is larger than the target hull, (insufficent evasion to clear out of the CEP) the chance to miss is: (1-hull aspect area/CEP area)


Ok, my group has accepted the following CEP progression
At 80 hexes (2.4 Million Km):
TL 8 10km quadrupled if firing ship is evading or maneuvering
TL 9 5km doubled if firing ship is evading or maneuvering
TL 10 1km here and below CEP unaffected if evading or maneuvering and has inertial dampers, Doubled CEP if no inertial damper and is using the m-drive.
TL 11 500m
TL 12 100m
TL 13 50m
TL 14 10m
TL 15 5m
TL 16 1m
TL 17 50cm
TL 18 10cm

We will develop computer support to automate the calculations.

Thanks to all that participated in this discussion.