What works? How are ships and vehicles armed?

[Badenov]

So what sorts of ships/weapons are actually useful in Traveller? There are a dizzying array of options, sizes, weapons, and it all seems to go in a circle. I'm looking at Mongoose 2007 rules, so other systems will have different answers, but the answers will help tremendously with worldbuilding.

A small 5000-ton destroyer is overwhelmed by the firepower of a dreadnaught, but a handful of destroyers with meson spinal mounts can take out a DN if they can fire first. Judging by example vehicles I've seen, people just strap on what they can afford and hope for the best. And some of them fall very short of RL examples, in the case of low-TL ground/atmospheric example vehicles, which would get obliterated by RL vehicles.

Is there a hierarchy? A circle (X beats Y, Y beats Z, Z beats X)? It looks like that High Guard small craft with 15 armor are basically immune to anything smaller than a bay weapon (or Meson gun). What's up with the Battlefield Meson Accelerator? It weighs more than a 50-ton bay, but does (about) 1/17th the damage. Still, though, it can take out those High Guard fighters. If it can shoot first.

It seems, in Mongoose at least, like almost all fights come down to who shoots first wins. Is that the intent?

 

[Condottiere]

That would depend on which ruleset you're working with.

Also, there is a difference between what the narrative says, and what actually works.

 

[Badenov]

That would depend on which ruleset you're working with.

I'm curious what works in each ruleset if they're different. I can only talk to Mg1, but the others are interesting.

Also, there is a difference between what the narrative says, and what actually works.

And this is why I'm asking.

 

[Spinward Flow]

people just strap on what they can afford and hope for the best.

There are real world historical precedents for that pattern ...

It seems, in Mongoose at least, like almost all fights come down to who shoots first wins. Is that the intent?

It might not be the "intent" but it certainly reflects the "reality" of high tech combat.
The First Shooter Advantage has a tendency to be real ... whether it's pistols at dawn or meson guns against fleets.

As gamers are fond of saying, "dead deals zero damage per second" ... making it the Maximal Debuff you can apply to adversaries.

 

[Condottiere]

The basic principles still apply - firepower, manoeuvrability, and protection.

If you can dictate the range, then large bay particle accelerator with range band of distant.

 

[mike wightman]

Classic Traveller:

LBB 2: three different weapons mounted in three different turrets (single, dual and triple mount)

The three different weapons are the laser, the missile and the sandcaster (actually defensive but make a great giant shotgun)
the laser comes in two types, a beam laser and a pulse laser that is -1 to hit but does twice the damage of the beam laser. Missiles that hit a target inflict 1d of damage

LBB 5: three different tiers of weapons.

Turret, as above but the energy weapons, plasma and fusion guns are introduced, and at high TLs a particle accelerator

Bay weapons mounted in either 50t or 100t bays, the same weapons available as turrets with the addition of repulsors for missile defence, and the meson gun which ignores armour.

Spinal mounted particle beams or meson guns round it out.

Hull armour is introduced as are defencive screens; the nuclear damper, the meson screen, and only at TL15 the black globe.

In my headcanon the spinals would be good vs capital ships but struggle to hit escorts (instakill if they hit though) and nearly useless vs fighters)

Bays would be good against escort class; in massive numbers able to wear away capital ships but struggle to hit fighters (instakill if they do)

Turrets are good for defence against missiles and fighters, and capable of wearing away escorts.

Sadly the actual combat system was lacking such differentiation in outcome.

 

[Badenov]

Classic Traveller:

LBB:2 three different weapons mounted in three different turrets (single, dual and triple mount)

The three different weapons are the laser, the missile and the sandcaster (actually defensive but make a great giant shotgun)
the laser comes in two types, a beam laser and a pulse laser that is -1 to hit but does twice the damage of the beam laser. Missiles that hit a target inflict 1d of damage

In LBB, can turreted weapons hurt heavily armored ships?

LBB 5: three different tiers of weapons.

Turret, as above but the energy weapons, plasma and fusion guns are introduced, and at high TLs a particle accelerator

I don't know about plasma and fusion guns. In Mg1, Particle Accelerators are like TL 8.

Bay weapons mounted in either 50t or 100t bays, the same weapons available as turrets with the addition of repulsors for missile defence, and the meson gun which ignores armour.

Meson Bays are good, but Meson screens can shut them down harder than armor shuts down other bays, if you have the tonnage.

Spinal mounted particle beams or meson guns round it out.

In the game I played, Particle Spinals were wildly nerfed, our DM was like Go Meson or go home with spinals.

Hull armour is introduced as are defencive screens; the nuclear damper, the meson screen, and only at TL15 the black globe.

Hull Armor 15 makes you immune to anything in a turret in Mg1. Not sure about other systems.

In my headcanon the spinals would be good vs capital ships but struggle to hit escorts (instakill if they hit though) and nearly useless vs fighters)

In Mg1, they take a penalty vs smaller ships, but not a huge one.

Bays would be good against escort class; in massive numbers able to wear away capital ships but struggle to hit fighters (instakill if they do)

Bays are useful against anything they can hit; they can wear down anything too big. But against heavy armor, a 6d6 particle beam doesn't do a ton of damage. Still, 2-3 hits will take out thrusters on a lucky roll.

Turrets are good for defence against missiles and fighters, and capable of wearing away escorts.

Except if the fighters or escorts have 15 armor, then missiles and turrets are useless, as I understand it?

Sadly the actual combat system was lacking such differentiation in outcome.

I have found this to be the case also.

 

[Badenov]

There are real world historical precedents for that pattern ...

It might not be the "intent" but it certainly reflects the "reality" of high tech combat.
The First Shooter Advantage has a tendency to be real ... whether it's pistols at dawn or meson guns against fleets.

As gamers are fond of saying, "dead deals zero damage per second" ... making it the Maximal Debuff you can apply to adversaries.

It does reflect the reality of modern combat, rather than the age-of-sail look and feel that it seems to otherwise want to emulate. At the character scale, I already undersood first shot was often the last shot, but that was not what I was expecting with ships and vehicles.

 

[kilemall]

It does reflect the reality of modern combat, rather than the age-of-sail look and feel that it seems to otherwise want to emulate. At the character scale, I already undersood first shot was often the last shot, but that was not what I was expecting with ships and vehicles.

There is a classic modern naval tactics book by Captain Hughes that addresses the high speed sensor driven heavy weapons fight. The book’s primary takeaway phrase is attack effectively first.

A Guide to Reading Fleet Tactics

With renewed emphasis in the Navy on tactics development and practice, widespread reading of Fleet Tactics has never been more necessary.

www.usni.org

The scouting component is largely lost in line em up and shoot demolition derbies like LBB5 or range bands like most of Traveller. I’m big on literal maneuvers to achieve that along with tactical effects of having ‘vector superiority’ but that is likely going to involve more effort.

I would suggest that the OP plan on house ruling the effect desired, and review the Traveller game Brilliant Lances to dip toes into the potential maneuvering ship combat style.

 

[whartung]

The scouting component is largely lost in line em up and shoot demolition derbies like LBB5 or range bands like most of Traveller.

So is the "attack first" part.

Not just from a gaming POV, but, given the "physics" of the TU, any real engagement. Quibble about stealth, there's no real "surprise" in space.

So, that brings to bear essentially dominating firepower. You may not be able to scout or shoot first, but if you're carrying more dominant firepower, then that first, overwhelming attack is your "attack first". This is the motivation for the Battle Rider. Bring as many spinals to the battle as you can.

Even with the simplest of modeling, as soon as competitive forces meet up and one starts deteriorating, they cannot overcome that disadvantage, and find themselves quickly on the losing side. Obviously, if the battles are more one-side, they simply start this way, and the loser not only loses, but loses big.

When, at the tactical level, terrain does not matter, and maneuver does not matter, only raw firepower carries the day. You can't "300" the Persian army in space.

 

[kilemall]

Depends on whether you house rule or not. By RAW of any of them, I agree.

I allow for 300 type mismatches house rules but they will all die doing it. Two ways, close to suicide range and punch through armor/do outsize damage ( like the Imperium range) or a high speed missile run where high vectors translate to more penetration/damage.

Of course heading straight at your targets means likely a bit of suicide range and that’s not fun for the missileers.

As to vector superiority, I mean detecting the enemy fleet first and doing one of the above closing tactics or do an approach where the most optimal range can be maintained- or determining that it is hopeless and steering for break off before the superior force can be brought to bear.

As such the scouting phase is paramount for the conditions under which the shooting phase is conducted.

 

[whartung]

As to vector superiority, I mean detecting the enemy fleet first and doing one of the above closing tactics or do an approach where the most optimal range can be maintained- or determining that it is hopeless and steering for break off before the superior force can be brought to bear.

I don't necessarily disagree with that, I just think that the very long ranges that the Traveller systems allow combat at gives vessels more than enough time to react to such approaches to the point of vastly reducing any potential advantages. The singular problem of "if you can hit me, I can hit you" makes it a game of chicken as to who fires first.

Mind, e.g. in Star Fleet Battle, the Klingons were notorious for being able to fly by, at speed (and speed controls range) against Federation ships, skim the Range 15 benchmark, and let fly with their disruptors, which hit very well at range 15, in contrast to the Fed Photon torpedoes. The Photons hit harder (when they hit), but there's a clear, statistical advantage for the Klingons in that scenario.

It's a BORING game (so many don't play it), but it can be done. There's a lot of "weapons dictate tactics and doctrine" in SFB, which is not part of the Traveller combat universe.

 

[kilemall]

I don't necessarily disagree with that, I just think that the very long ranges that the Traveller systems allow combat at gives vessels more than enough time to react to such approaches to the point of vastly reducing any potential advantages. The singular problem of "if you can hit me, I can hit you" makes it a game of chicken as to who fires first.

Mind, e.g. in Star Fleet Battle, the Klingons were notorious for being able to fly by, at speed (and speed controls range) against Federation ships, skim the Range 15 benchmark, and let fly with their disruptors, which hit very well at range 15, in contrast to the Fed Photon torpedoes. The Photons hit harder (when they hit), but there's a clear, statistical advantage for the Klingons in that scenario.

It's a BORING game (so many don't play it), but it can be done. There's a lot of "weapons dictate tactics and doctrine" in SFB, which is not part of the Traveller combat universe.

SFB done right is a power allocation/committment to maneuver plan which allows for surprise. Tournament maneuver just makes it a twitch video game.

While I am not suggesting writing out committed maneuver for any of the Traveller versions, the function of vector becomes a commitment one way or another. Thus deception, counter scouting and optimal approaches are all done turns before the main bodies collide.

I do have some differences that need to be seen for what they are intended, maneuver and weapons mix matters. So in addition to missile vector damage increases and suicide ranges, I have maneuver up to 10 and more then one spinal per ship. TL15 missiles are a fearsome thing and spinals can blow apart opponents quickly (think 15000 ton hits).

Point for OP was that you can have the effect you want but it’s going to take some sweat equity to get it.

 

[infojunky]

So what sorts of ships/weapons are actually useful in Traveller? There are a dizzying array of options, sizes, weapons, and it all seems to go in a circle. I'm looking at Mongoose 2007 rules, so other systems will have different answers, but the answers will help tremendously with worldbuilding.

The last clause of this question is the most telling. In that what matters is the sort of game/universe you are running.

A small 5000-ton destroyer is overwhelmed by the firepower of a dreadnaught, but a handful of destroyers with meson spinal mounts can take out a DN if they can fire first. Judging by example vehicles I've seen, people just strap on what they can afford and hope for the best. And some of them fall very short of RL examples, in the case of low-TL ground/atmospheric example vehicles, which would get obliterated by RL vehicles.

In most editions of Traveller the fastest, most heavily armed with the biggest computers wins. Though to some extent more lighter ships can pound a larger one into paste depending on what acceptable loss are.

Remember role-play results can be different from war-games results.

 

[Condottiere]

Plot armour are rigged dice rolls.

 

[Rupert]

As gamers are fond of saying, "dead deals zero damage per second" ... making it the Maximal Debuff you can apply to adversaries.

My version of that is "The best CC remains killing them dead."

 

[Rupert]

Classic Traveller:

LBB:2 three different weapons mounted in three different turrets (single, dual and triple mount)

The three different weapons are the laser, the missile and the sandcaster (actually defensive but make a great giant shotgun)

I thought the 'giant shotgun' thing was from Striker. Is it in the original three LBBs?

the laser comes in two types, a beam laser and a pulse laser that is -1 to hit but does twice the damage of the beam laser. Missiles that hit a target inflict 1d of damage

LBB 5: three different tiers of weapons.

Turret, as above but the energy weapons, plasma and fusion guns are introduced, and at high TLs a particle accelerator

Bay weapons mounted in either 50t or 100t bays, the same weapons available as turrets with the addition of repulsors for missile defence, and the meson gun which ignores armour.

Spinal mounted particle beams or meson guns round it out.

Hull armour is introduced as are defencive screens; the nuclear damper, the meson screen, and only at TL15 the black globe.

In my headcanon the spinals would be good vs capital ships but struggle to hit escorts (instakill if they hit though) and nearly useless vs fighters)

Bays would be good against escort class; in massive numbers able to wear away capital ships but struggle to hit fighters (instakill if they do)

Turrets are good for defence against missiles and fighters, and capable of wearing away escorts.

Sadly the actual combat system was lacking such differentiation in outcome.

High Guard's combat tended (exploits of the battle line rules, aside) to come down to a rock-paper-scissors arrangement of missile boats vs spinal meson guns vs spinal particle armed planetoids, varying by TL and what size and budget limits there were.

 

[Rupert]

TNE/Brilliant Lances with stock ships generally meant the ones with the longest ranged lasers (usually meaning the highest TL) and fire control won. Ships were small, lasers had lots of penetration. If could land a missile hit it was usually conclusive, but that was hard to do.

Using FF&S to build your own ships, lasers absolutely dominated, because (presumably due to insufficient play-testing by power-gaming gearheads) their effective penetration scaled linearly with power (and thus mass), while everything else scaled with the square root of power/mass. A generally agreed upon houserule on the mailing lasts was to cap laser output (TL x 50 MJ, was the accepted cap, as I recall), which at least meant big ships needed spinal mounts, but it still meant the only bay-sized beam weapons worth having were lasers. Anyway, you couldn't put enough armour on to stop a laser, so you armoured small ships to stop criticals from lasers, and big ships to stop major damage, making taking a few laser hits to your large ships an inconvenience (unless they were followed up by hits from something major that got through because the lasers had forced something important (like a meson screen) to shut down), though many hits would slowly wreck a big ship (probably by blinding it with hits to sensor antennas and then very slowly killing 'minor' systems). Also, using FF&S you could design missiles that were more likely to actually be useful.

Battle Rider played out a bit differently, because it abstracted non-criticals, so light weapons simply couldn't kill big ships. It also nerfed meson guns (or rather, buffed meson screens), making taking hits from a spinal meson a bit less fight ending for the victim ship, and buffed missiles (by making the multiple hits from them stack so they could actually do damage to a medium-large ship).

No stats for fighters larger than the Rampart (15 DTons in TNE) were ever published, and Ramparts, Gigs, etc. were trash vs any serious opponent because their fire control just wasn't up to it.

 

[Tobias]

In LBB, can turreted weapons hurt heavily armored ships?

There are no heavily armored ships, or any armored ships for that matter, in LBB2 combat.

 

[Badenov]

There are no heavily armored ships, or any armored ships for that matter, in LBB2 combat.

How is that? In my notes, I have that TL14 armor takes up (Armor Value+1) percent of the hull volume. At TL15 (armor value being limited to TL), that's a very modest 16% of your ship, a small price to pay for immunity to anything smaller than a bay weapon. Did this figure not come from LBB2? (It's just noted as CT for me.)