What works? How are ships and vehicles armed?

[Spinward Flow]

Please explain your reasoning, I have never found anyone who thinks it makes any sort of sense.

There is a ... dichotomy ... between how to interpret the "concept" of armor in gaming.

The classical (and era concurrent) way was how D&D did it with THAC0 and AC ... it's a modifier that determines hit or miss. If you don't make the hit threshold on the dice roll to hit, you deal no damage/miss. For storytelling purposes, if the roll fell into the range that the armor was modifying the roll, you could say that the armor "took the hit" and shrugged it off.

Another way of dealing with the concept is that it doesn't make any difference to hit/miss rolls, but does make a difference to damage results. The armor "soaks" a portion (or all) of the incoming damage, reducing the amount of damage that takes effect/needs to be recorded. LBB5.80 armor, as a game mechanic, is oriented around this damage reduction axis, rather than on a hit/miss type of modifier axis.

After that, it's simply a matter of deciding "how much damage reduction" do varying game statistical values of armor yield ... including the notion that extremely high levels of armor protection produce "nigh invulnerability" to incoming damage.

In Traveller, particularly for small/big craft, armor is about damage REDUCTION, in order to bias damage result yields in the direction of No Effect even when weapons successfully hit to deal damage. From that standpoint, hull size is substantially irrelevant (10 tons vs 1M tons) ... what matters is how much reduction does the armor rating on a craft offer.

The one BIG difference between 10 ton vs 1M ton craft comes with the Automatic Critical Hits rule (LBB5.80, p41 and p48).

A small craft (Hull: 0) with Armor-15 can take hits from weapon batteries (that aren't meson guns) of up to code: 7 without suffering Automatic Critical Hits.
Small craft (Hull: 0) with Armor-15 takes 1 Automatic Critical Hit from code: 8 weapon batteries (that aren't meson guns) ... and that Critical Hit reduces the Armor value by -1 (from 15 to 14). Against code: 9 weapon batteries (that aren't meson guns), the small craft takes 2 Automatic Critical Hits ... and loses -2 Armor (from 15 to 13).
So against "powerful" batteries that concentrate a lot of firepower onto a small craft, even with "nigh invulnerability" to surface explosion and radiation table damage results, it's still possible to "burn through" Armor-15 and achieve "mission kills" because of the Automatic Critical Hits factor.

That vulnerability to Automatic Critical Hits does not happen with larger hulls.
A 900 ton big craft (Hull: 9) with Armor-0 will take NO Automatic Critical Hits from weapon batteries of code: 9-, thanks to it's hull size.
The surface explosion results will be bad (with no armor), but the craft won't be taking Automatic Critical Hits from anything short of a Spinal Mount.

Larger hull sizes (all the way up to 1M tons) likewise will be "bigger enough" to soak some/most/all of the incoming damage from Spinal Mounts in ways that prevent Automatic Critical Hits. So in that respect ... 300,000 tons (Hull: T) is the minimum displacement needed to NOT receive Automatic Critical Hits from Spinal Mounts ... which is a property NOT shared with small craft, because of how the Automatic Critical Hits system works.



What this means is that heavily armored small craft are HIGHLY RESISTANT to incoming damage ... until they're NOT ... and the sheer power being directed at them overwhelms their armor protection yielding Automatic Critical Hits from sufficiently massed battery fire. This means that code: 9 Particle Accelerator Bays are extremely effective anti-small craft batteries (60 EP, TL=14+ under LBB5.80), as are 10x triple beam lasers (30 EP @ TL=13+) or 10x dual fusion guns (40 EP @ TL=14+) ... with the particle accelerator bay NOT being disadvantaged by Long Range engagement, unlike lasers (-1 to hit at long range) and fusion guns (short range only).



Direct enough firepower at small craft and even with Armor-15, they can be "mission killed" by powerful weapon batteries ... because they're SMALL craft and "lots of armor" can only do so much to protect them against incoming firePOWER. Against "low power" battery code values, small craft can be nigh invincible, because their armor is just that tough.

The same is NOT true for increasingly large big craft with Armor-15, so hull size DOES make a difference that is rarely appreciated (mainly because people conveniently forget about the Automatic Critical Hits rule that disfavors small hull sizes).



Your turn.

 

[Rupert]

Ideally, the Royal Navy should have skipped the Admiral class, and build a new design Twenty Nineteen onwards.

Then, refurbish the Hood just before hostilities begin.

And finally, intercept the Bismarck as planned, crossing the tee.

Hood was only completed because it would've cost more to stop and break up the hull on the slipway than to finish it. So they effectively did skip the Admiral class, and they design new classes for the 20s, but the Washington Treaty put a stop to those, and the RN had to settle for the Nelson and Rodney.

Hood was up for a full modernisation when the war broke out, which put a stop to that kind of time-consuming refit

 

[Rupert]

Direct enough firepower at small craft and even with Armor-15, they can be "mission killed" by powerful weapon batteries ... because they're SMALL craft and "lots of armor" can only do so much to protect them against incoming firePOWER. Against "low power" battery code values, small craft can be nigh invincible, because their armor is just that tough.

The same is NOT true for increasingly large big craft with Armor-15, so hull size DOES make a difference that is rarely appreciated (mainly because people conveniently forget about the Automatic Critical Hits rule that disfavors small hull sizes).

I believe the complaint was that small craft and small ships that are competently designed are nearly invulnerable to each other, and that fights between them are very slow and very boring. As it takes 1,000+ DTons of ship to mount a factor 9 battery (and I think you overlooked missile batteries, which can reach factor-9 at TL12), I think there's a point here.

 

[Condottiere]

The Hood was launched in Nineteen Eighteen, so some procrastination would have been beneficial for this, since it was already being redesigned in light of Jutland.

A second redesign could have brought it closer to the Gee Threes.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I believe the complaint was that small craft and small ships that are competently designed are nearly invulnerable to each other, and that fights between them are very slow and very boring.

At which point you either start using ordnance consumption rules (limited shots with missiles and sandcasters, absent tonnage dedicated to resupply) or the entire "concept" of small craft combatants becomes obsolete and they just all fall by the wayside such that they're no longer cutting edge military technology.

Note that one way to work around the "offensive endurance" problem is to switch from missiles (limited shots) to lasers (unlimited shots, so long as there's EP) such that a missiles only force of small craft can expend all their ordnance and be forced into a retreat (because they can't "hold the line" with no offensive firepower, enabling a breakthrough attack into the reserve) while the laser armed small craft can continue to press the attack.

 

[Rupert]

At which point you either start using ordnance consumption rules (limited shots with missiles and sandcasters, absent tonnage dedicated to resupply) or the entire "concept" of small craft combatants becomes obsolete and they just all fall by the wayside such that they're no longer cutting edge military technology.

As I'm not a fan of 'space fighters', this doesn't worry me much when it comes to setting up my own settings. But then, I probably wouldn't use HG (or Book 2) for my ship design rules anyway.

 

[Badenov]

Definitely not. The range was too short for Bismarck's fairly high velocity shells to be 'plunging'. The fatal hit might have penetrated the upper belt at just the right angle to be deflected in just the right way to go through the sloped 'deck' behind and then on into a 4" magazine. Or it may have landed a little short and gone in under the main belt through a wave trough, and thece into the 4" magazine. Either way, the 4" magazine wasn't heavily armoured and was a refit installation that backed right onto a 15" gun magazine and the heat and shock of the 4" powder burning off presumably set that off.

So not plunging, but struck at a place where there wasn't sufficient armor. That reads basically the same to me.

Had Hood had a full upgrade, as was planned had the War not got in the way (or had it been done earlier as it would have been had the UK government not been so stingy on defence spending in the 20s and early-mid 30s), the 4" magazine would either have not been there or would've been properly separated from the main gun magazines.

Note that Hood's protection was actually roughly as good as Bismark's. The Royal Navy had every reason to expect that Hood and Prince of Wales would be able to defeat Bismarck and Prinz Eugen, even though their intercept wasn't perfect (cue armchair admirals accusing the man on the spot of incompetence).

If they'd planned upgrades so that there would be separation, they apparently felt it was needed. Saying that it shouldn't have needed it is clearly wrong, in light of what happened. What shouldn't have happened is it shouldn't have been deferred. The incompetence (as is often the case) belongs to the planners, who seem to care more about budgets than performance and it always winds up like this.

The main reason they were supplanted by aircraft carriers post-WWII was that a carrier air arm can reach much further than a battleship's guns. Carriers were not as good at sinking ships as a battleship, assuming the latter got within range. But hundreds of miles of reach vs 10-15, maybe 20 if you're very optimistic is a huge advantage. Then there are the glide bombs of late WWII, followed by guided missiles. The former let an air strike hit a ship from outside AA gun range, and the latter are like a torpedo with all its drawbacks (range, slow speed) removed.

Agree.

At TL15 the reason you might not have armour is that you've gone for a 'meson-resistant' hull form that can't be armoured. Also note that planetoids can have more than 15 armour. Hence the 'planetoids with particle beams kill missile boats'. And the missile boats kill meson gun armed ships, and those ships kill the planetoids. So the theory goes, anyway.

This is the sort of thing I was looking for originally, but it set me to thinking, and now I wonder if we can shorten this to fleets of meson-armed planetoids hunting each other? They're overkill for the missile boats, which can't hurt the planetoids much, and the meson ships that aren't planetoids just refuel more easily.

 

[Badenov]

The same is NOT true for increasingly large big craft with Armor-15, so hull size DOES make a difference that is rarely appreciated (mainly because people conveniently forget about the Automatic Critical Hits rule that disfavors small hull sizes).

Your turn.

I had to look up automatic critical hits because I was unfamiliar with the rule. It seems that a size 0 ship, 0-99 tons, with 15 armor, only takes automatic crits from Code 8 and up weapons. In Turrets, that's limited, if I understand the tables (which I'm not positive about) to a gang of 30 beam lasers at TL13, or 20 fusion guns at TL14. That's a lot of firepower to get an autocrit on a 0-99 ton vessel, which rolls on a table half filled with results it can safely ignore (Jump Drive, Boat Deck/Hangar, Screens, and Frozen Watch are likely free hits for small craft crits), though I will grant that the rest are probably catasrophic.

 

[Rupert]

So not plunging, but struck at a place where there wasn't sufficient armor. That reads basically the same to me.

If they'd planned upgrades so that there would be separation, they apparently felt it was needed. Saying that it shouldn't have needed it is clearly wrong, in light of what happened. What shouldn't have happened is it shouldn't have been deferred. The incompetence (as is often the case) belongs to the planners, who seem to care more about budgets than performance and it always winds up like this.

It made sense to defer it, given the constraints the Royal Navy was under at the time - full modernisation, including replacing the turbines and boilers takes a lot of time and yard space. As Hood was one of the newer capital ships, she was late on the list. I'm sure if the RN had more money (and that wasn't on them, but on the government), the program would've gone faster. But the UK government's terrible defence funding in the interwar period is well known.

 

[Badenov]

It made sense to defer it, given the constraints the Royal Navy was under at the time - full modernisation, including replacing the turbines and boilers takes a lot of time and yard space. As Hood was one of the newer capital ships, she was late on the list. I'm sure if the RN had more money (and that wasn't on them, but on the government), the program would've gone faster. But the UK government's terrible defence funding in the interwar period is well known.

And the results speak for themselves. But on the subject of spacecraft and space weapons, I think our analogy isn't quite right anyhow, and we're not speculating on a restricted budget at all. I'm still leaning into the idea of of the buffered planetoids-missile ships-meson ships circle, but I haven't settled it in to my head quite yet, and I'm working on why my planetiods can't be meson-armed, though the cost would be huge.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I had to look up automatic critical hits because I was unfamiliar with the rule.

It's not something that leaps to mind for most people.
Like I said, it's often overlooked/forgotten until someone like me comes along with citations and reminders.

That's a lot of firepower to get an autocrit on a 0-99 ton vessel, which rolls on a table half filled with results it can safely ignore (Jump Drive, Boat Deck/Hangar, Screens, and Frozen Watch are likely free hits for small craft crits), though I will grant that the rest are probably catasrophic.

To look at it from a different angle ... you basically need 1000 tons of big craft to obtain either 10 turrets (double or triple) or 1 bay (probably 100 tons, although there are some edge cases for 50 ton bays) as a single battery.

In other words, you want 1000 tons of big craft to get a code: 8-9 single battery to shoot at small craft.
If you want more weaponry than a single battery, you need a bigger big craft.

In LBB S9 on p14-15, the two DE classes are roughly MCr730-735 for a 1000 ton starship with a variety of weapon batteries.
Imagine refitting them such that they were armed with a single battery ... ONE ... made of 10x triple beam laser turrets ... or a single 50 ton missile bay for approximately the same overall construction price.

Now consider that a Heavy Fighter (LBB S9, p26) costs MCr105.33 for a 50 ton small craft with a mixed triple turret of 1 sandcaster, 1 beam laser, 1 missle rack.

A single "One Battery Wonder" destroyer costing MCr730-745 would need to defeat/destroy 7x Heavy Fighters in order for the ledger to "balance" on construction costs between the two choices, in terms of equivalency of exchange. If the "equal costs" setup had a single destroyer (with a single BIG battery) on one side ... and a swarm of 7x heavy fighters on the other that can fire 2 offensive weapons EACH ... I would probably be tempted to bet on the fighters rather than the destroyer. That kind of attrition battle is unlikely to favor the "solo" Big Battery on the 1000 ton starship.

Hence why I'm of the opinion that the "best fighter destroyer" design would weigh in at 1900-1999 tons (so still Hull: A code) which gets a -1 DM to be hit due to size. The 1900-1999 ton hull gives you 19 "turrets worth" of tonnage to spend on armaments, which is enough for a bay weapon and supporting secondary weapon batteries to round things out. Could make things very interesting in LBB5.80 combat terms.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Hence why I'm of the opinion that the "best fighter destroyer" design would weigh in at 1900-1999 tons (so still Hull: A code) which gets a -1 DM to be hit due to size. The 1900-1999 ton hull gives you 19 "turrets worth" of tonnage to spend on armaments, which is enough for a bay weapon and supporting secondary weapon batteries to round things out. Could make things very interesting in LBB5.80 combat terms.

1999Td rider. Missile bay. MD and PP "Z" for 6g/Pn-6. Max out armor, make it a rock if there's room (and with less than 8% of tonnage for power fuel and drives, there will be).

 

[Rupert]

And the results speak for themselves. But on the subject of spacecraft and space weapons, I think our analogy isn't quite right anyhow, and we're not speculating on a restricted budget at all. I'm still leaning into the idea of of the buffered planetoids-missile ships-meson ships circle, but I haven't settled it in to my head quite yet, and I'm working on why my planetiods can't be meson-armed, though the cost would be huge.

As I recall, it's due to the lower accuracy of meson guns compared to particle beams, and possibly meson screens. It would need to be mathed out. One thing I remember being said about HG and MT era fleets was that whilst you wanted to have your ships armed with meson spinals, you also wanted a small portion of them armed with particle spinals to keep the enemy 'honest' - i.e. force them to armour their ships (though enough missile boats should do that).

 

[Rupert]

Now consider that a Heavy Fighter (LBB S9, p26) costs MCr105.33 for a 50 ton small craft with a mixed triple turret of 1 sandcaster, 1 beam laser, 1 missle rack.

A single "One Battery Wonder" destroyer costing MCr730-745 would need to defeat/destroy 7x Heavy Fighters in order for the ledger to "balance" on construction costs between the two choices, in terms of equivalency of exchange. If the "equal costs" setup had a single destroyer (with a single BIG battery) on one side ... and a swarm of 7x heavy fighters on the other that can fire 2 offensive weapons EACH ... I would probably be tempted to bet on the fighters rather than the destroyer. That kind of attrition battle is unlikely to favor the "solo" Big Battery on the 1000 ton starship.

Hence why I'm of the opinion that the "best fighter destroyer" design would weigh in at 1900-1999 tons (so still Hull: A code) which gets a -1 DM to be hit due to size. The 1900-1999 ton hull gives you 19 "turrets worth" of tonnage to spend on armaments, which is enough for a bay weapon and supporting secondary weapon batteries to round things out. Could make things very interesting in LBB5.80 combat terms.

Unless you're comparing a 1000 DTon SDB/rider vs those fighters, the fighter side should also be billed for a carrier, and that's over 700 DTons (assuming J4, which is normal I think) if the carrier is just drives and fuel. It comes to at least MCr32 per fighter, and thus you only get 5-6 fighters per destroyer, which is a little better for the destroyer (but it probably still loses). As you say, a bit bigger is much better - the extra weapons mean some defensive options, and a buffer to reduce the rate of loss of the main weapon's rating.

 

[Badenov]

As I recall, it's due to the lower accuracy of meson guns compared to particle beams, and possibly meson screens. It would need to be mathed out. One thing I remember being said about HG and MT era fleets was that whilst you wanted to have your ships armed with meson spinals, you also wanted a small portion of them armed with particle spinals to keep the enemy 'honest' - i.e. force them to armour their ships (though enough missile boats should do that).

So I have no idea how it works in CT, but in Mg1, you can link enough Meson Screens to make yourself immune to Meson Bays of any size. Meson Spinals, however, even the smallest, will blow through that. I looked it up, CT does have 1000-ton spinals, Meson E and J, and they are not wildly effective. It looks like in CT, all spinal mesons can be defeated by enough meson screens, though the heaviest meson spinals can only be defeated by dreadnaught-level meson screens. It looks like in CT, Meson Bays are limited to 9, which has nearly a zero chance of penertrating any meson screen. In Mg1, Meson bays can be defeated by linking enough screens, which requires TL15, but that will only block the weakest spinals. Sometimes. It's a balancing act.

 

[mike wightman]

The rule is if the battery hits and penetrates defences.

page 41

"Critical Hits: All batteries whose weapon code exceeds the size code of the
target ship will inflict (if they hit and penetrate) automatic critical hits equal to the
size difference"

Armour is the first entry of the defences block of the USP.

If you fail to score damage on the damage table you have failed to penetrate the armour.

No critical hit, even due to battery size.

Think it through - a weapon that can not get through the armour inflicts no damage, and yet can critical hit. Nope, that makes no sense at all and is an opinion I have never seen before.

 

[Spinward Flow]

The rule is if the battery hits and penetrates defences.

• Hits = roll to hit
• Penetrates Defenses = sandcasters, defensive beam usage against missiles, repulsors, screens and hull configuration (all the stuff that "prevents a hit" from happening at all) ... in other words, all the stuff that turns a Hit into a Miss and that prevents rolling on the Damage Tables

Read the Game Turn Sequence found on LBB5.80, p46-47.
I'll even quote it here for you to save you the trouble of looking it up yourself.

5. Combat Step. {...}
For each ship, the combat procedure is:
A. Fire Allocation. The firing player indicates which batteries will fire.
B. Hit Procedure. Firing player determines which batteries have scored hits.
C. Defensive Fire. Target uses its defensive batteries to prevent enemy weapons from penetrating.
D. Passive Defense. Passive defensive screens must be penetrated.
E. Damage Determination. Batteries which hit and penetrate all defenses must determine the damage they inflict. Damage is recorded but does not apply until step 6.
F. Fire procedure begins for next ship.
6. Damage Step. Damage inflicted during combat (5E) takes effect.

The Ship Damage Tables found on LBB5.80, p48 all have a 22+ result of No Effect ... NOT Failed To Penetrate Defenses as you mistakenly assert.

Or to put it more simply ... if you're rolling on the damage table AT ALL ... then your "defenses have been penetrated" (Steps 5C and 5D in the Game Turn Sequence quoted above) and the Automatic Critical Hits rule is activated.

It is perfectly possible for ALL of the Surface Explosion and Radiation and Interior Explosion damage results to yield 22+ on the dice rolls (No Effect) ... and STILL have an Automatic Critical Hit roll snakeyes for a Ship Vaporized result.

Think it through - a weapon that can not get through the armour inflicts no damage, and yet can critical hit. Nope, that makes no sense at all and is an opinion I have never seen before.

There is no response possible to this level of failure to comprehend that does not run afoul of Forum Rule #1.

Good day to you, sir.

 

[mike wightman]

Armour is a defence, it is in the defence block.

No damage means no penetration.

"All batteries whose weapon code exceeds the size code of the
target ship will inflict (if they hit and penetrate)"

You can't critical hit if you can't cause damage.

 

[Spinward Flow]