Traveller Store CotI Features New Posts Mark Forums Read Register


Go Back TravellerRPG.com > Citizens of the Imperium > General Traveller Discussions > The Fleet

The Fleet Ship designs, strategies, and tactics.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old May 25th, 2011, 11:21 AM
aramis's Avatar
aramis aramis is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Anchorage, AK, USofA
Posts: 29,416
Gallery : 56
Visit aramis's Blog
aramis has disabled reputation
Send a message via ICQ to aramis Send a message via AIM to aramis Send a message via Yahoo to aramis
Default

We have a canonical useful lifespan, derived from TNE, of only abut 70-90 years, as wear value climes.
__________________
~ Aramis
aramis.hostman.us /trav
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!

Archduke of Sylea (CORE 2118)
Duke of the Third Imperium (SPIN 0534)
Count Terra (SOLO 1827)
Count Gorod (REFT 1302)
Count of the Third Imperium (SPIN 2232)
Viscount of Adabicci (SPIN 1824)
Marquis of the Solomani Rim (SOLO 0606)
Marquis of the Third Imperium (SPIN 2410)
Baron of the Third Imperium (SPIN 2231)
Knight of the Iridium Throne (CORE 1434)
Sir William Hostman (OLDE 0512)
Sir William Hostman (DAGU 0622)
Knight of Deneb (REFT 2239)
Knight of Deneb (Spin 2532)
SEH w/Diamonds for Extreme Heroism - Battle of Boughene
MCG - Battle of Boughene
TAS: William Hostman (CORR 2506)
TAS: Bearer (DAIB 1326)
IMTU ct+ tm++ tne tg-- tt+ tmo+ t4- t20+ to ru+ ge+ 3i+ c+ jt au ls pi+ ta he+ st+
Wil Hostman 0602 C539857-9 S A724
OTU: 95% 3i an+ au+ br- cpu± dt± f+ fs++ ge± ih- inf± j± jf+ jm+ jt+ ls- n= nc+ pi+ pp-- tp+ tr+ tv- vi-- xb+-
Unless there is bold red text, presume my posts to be my personal material only.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old May 25th, 2011, 11:28 AM
HG_B HG_B is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,049
Gallery : 3
HG_B Citizen+HG_B Citizen+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rancke2 View Post
According to a Q&A in TD,
GURPS is far more accurate considering the materials and construction used at those TL's.
__________________
The shortest distance between two points isn't a straight line. It does involve precisely folding the graph paper.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old May 25th, 2011, 12:49 PM
McPerth's Avatar
McPerth McPerth is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 7,710
Gallery : 0
Visit McPerth's Blog
McPerth has disabled reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt123 View Post
I think you may have missed this part of my post.
You're right, I missed that (I guess I've readed it too quickly...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt123 View Post
Slight edit, just noticed your heavy fighter has 7 weapon factors to reduce, neediing 21 damaging hits to get 7 weapon-1 results. 21/16.7% = 125 missile-9 batteries required.

Ok, lets assume your 200ton gunboat has a mixed double turret holding a Fusion-5 and a sand-3 for 8 weapon factors plus a triple turret with laser-2, missile-2 and a second sand-3 adding another 5 factors (the second sand battery is destroyed in one hit) to reduce for a total of 13 weapon-1 hits needed. This 200ton gunship would need 36 damage rolls to get 13 weapon-1's, 36/28.8% gives 125 missile-9 batteries firing to strip this gunboat. Not much differant to your heavy fighter.

To put these 125 missile-9 batteries into context, the attacking fleet is chasing away a strong BB fleet. Each attacking 500kton Tigress carries 215 missile-9 batteries while the 200kton Plankwell & Kokirak carry 50 and 33 each. Plus of course escorts etc.
Then, following your numbers (wich, after what we've seen, I trust more than mine), you need about 125 50 ton bay's worth of nuclear misiles to disable one of those gunboats. So one those gunboats could hold on the line about two Koriraks or one Plankwell, and you still have some of them surviving...

I don't believe that may be true in real battle, that's why I believe some rule must be given to avoid that.

BTW: those 125 battery round would cost, according to MT rules (AFAIK there's no oficial cost for nuclear missiles in HG) MCr 3.75 each, for a total of more than MCr 450 to disable each gunboat... I guess some quartermaster would feel a pain in his chest...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt123 View Post
And of course you could field a squadron of sacrificial fighters/gunboats, but we would be getting well away from the original proposal that the rules are broken because a single fighter can stop a fleet of BB's. It would now be squadrons of very expensive and specialized fighters/gunboats can hold off a BB fleet.
And I guess the enemy fleet won't be engaged by such small gunboats, just ignoring them and going for the reserve. After all, those fighters/gunboats are little more than a nuisance with no real threat to the BBs to push forward.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt123 View Post
PPS, second edit, your heavy fighter is a bit small & way to cheap. Its missing a MD or the PP stat. At 35 ton you will need a PP ((Computer 12EP + Laser 1EP)/.35 + 6 = PP44) taking up 15.4 ton and costing 46.2 MCr, add in the cost of the computer (13 ton & 140 MCr) we are already at 186 MCr and 28.4ton. Armour-15 occupies another 16% or 5.6ton and costs another 10MCr...
You're right again. I forgot the EP used by the computer...

Sorry about that. It was more than 20 years since my last HG design (I am mostly MT player) and I guess I lost practice.
__________________
Duke of ShaiaVland 3215 B64A998-E
Marquis of Ashtagz Tyui SR 1818C548786-8
SEH for actions in Extolay

I'm not afraid about bullets, what scares me is the speed at which they're incoming.

Last edited by McPerth; May 25th, 2011 at 12:58 PM.. Reason: gramar
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old May 26th, 2011, 03:03 AM
Matt123 Matt123 is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Auckland NZ
Posts: 1,148
Gallery : 0
Visit Matt123's Blog
Matt123 Citizen+Matt123 Citizen+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by McPerth View Post
Then, following your numbers (wich, after what we've seen, I trust more than mine), you need about 125 50 ton bay's worth of nuclear misiles to disable one of those gunboats. So one those gunboats could hold on the line about two Koriraks or one Plankwell, and you still have some of them surviving...

I don't believe that may be true in real battle, that's why I believe some rule must be given to avoid that.
I would put it more down to poor canon designs, most HG players will max out on 50-ton missile-9 bays as the secondary batteries for BB's & for a 200kTon BB that would be around 150+ bays. The rest are tertiary batteries, useful against small craft that make it past the escorts but mostly intended to slow down the rate of Spinal & Missile attrition.

I probably shouldn't have used cannon ships as a example.

Quote:
BTW: those 125 battery round would cost, according to MT rules (AFAIK there's no oficial cost for nuclear missiles in HG) MCr 3.75 each, for a total of more than MCr 450 to disable each gunboat... I guess some quartermaster would feel a pain in his chest...
I can't argue with that . But the cut-off has to be somewhere. I dabble occasionally with this and with infrastructure costs such as training academies for the various crew branches (making the player pay to reach the assumed skill level-2 or better) and ground & orbital facilities (eg: fighter bases and ground controlled orbital missile-9 bays).

My view on the lack of missile costs/payload space in HG is that it affects both sides equally and any change would also affect both sides equally.

Quote:
And I guess the enemy fleet won't be engaged by such small gunboats, just ignoring them and going for the reserve. After all, those fighters/gunboats are little more than a nuisance with no real threat to the BBs to push forward.
That depends on how you as an Admiral handle your fleet on defence. Using a picket/skirmishing screen you should be able to maneouver your main force (in the HG reserve position) without hindrance. And in HG the Reserve can fall back as fast as the Enemy fleet comes forward. In addition the pickets have a chance to knock a point off a BB or two's spinal mounts, which would seriously annoy the attacking commander and give a slight advantage to your fleet when you do choose to engage.

The use of pickets/skirmishers in this way is well established in historical wargaming and RL military tactics.

Quote:
You're right again. I forgot the EP used by the computer...

Sorry about that. It was more than 20 years since my last HG design (I am mostly MT player) and I guess I lost practice.
No problem, whenever I post I wait with baited breath for some bright spark to tell me I've made an error. & it happens fairly regularly
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old May 26th, 2011, 08:48 AM
Hyphen's Avatar
Hyphen Hyphen is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Margate, Brisbane
Posts: 1,044
Gallery : 10
Hyphen Citizen+Hyphen Citizen+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt123 View Post
I probably shouldn't have used cannon ships as a example.
Use Eurisko's. It created a 1000-ton fighter for just such a trick (untouchable "fighter" holding the LoB so capital ships could escape).

However, I think the original point - that you would like to create a system that avoids this sort of munchkinism - is being lost in the argument about whether min-maxing has an effect under HG rules. The answer is: it does. Next questions: can we avoid it? Do we want to avoid it? And more importantly, how much effort are you prepared to put into a supposedly "simple" system for the sake of avoiding "Murphy's Rules"-type situations? The more checks and balances, the more loopholes you seek to plug, the more complicated the "simple" system becomes. (I know - I'm currently working for the Tax Office... )
__________________
David "Hyphen" Jaques-Watson
Beowulf Down/Tavonni/Vilis/SM 1520
Titles:Awards:
- Count Zuiar (Dagu 0705)- Starburst for Extreme Heroism - Pursuits at Alell
- Baroness Heidi Maria Heyerdahl, Tavonni (Spin 1520)- MCG - Final Victory at Emerald
- Baron Sii (Dagu 0932)TAS:
- Ritter of Tavonni (Spin 1520)- Bearer (Ley: Silver 0221); Bearer (Lish: Zemud 0212)
Coins:(#170) XO (Lt) FE Holmes, 154th BR Sq
(#222) PlatLdr (LtO2), 3P, ΔTrp (G-Tank), 2B (LI), 4518th(#282) XO (LtO2), ΒCo (J-Trp), 6B (JT), 4518th

Last edited by Hyphen; May 26th, 2011 at 08:54 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old May 26th, 2011, 10:54 AM
Matt123 Matt123 is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Auckland NZ
Posts: 1,148
Gallery : 0
Visit Matt123's Blog
Matt123 Citizen+Matt123 Citizen+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyphen View Post
Use Eurisko's. It created a 1000-ton fighter for just such a trick (untouchable "fighter" holding the LoB so capital ships could escape).
its funny you should mention Eurisko, I've spent the last couple of day looking at it.

Eurisko didn't win its tournament battles by covering its fleet as it ran away, so I can quite safely state that wasn't the purpose of the 1000ton Wasp class. There is other 'interesting' stuff & dynamics going on in that fleet, but running away was not part of the strategy.

However the point I think you are making is a good one.


The following has calculation errors, corrected in a later post. This is kept only at evidence that my maths is poor...
--//--
Any Buffered Planetoid with extra armor will potentially be immune to missiles. Eurisko's Wasp class had Armour-18, at TL15 a similar Buffered Planetoid could have Armour-21 and is immune to surface & radiation damage from nukes & PA spinals. However that same TL15 Buffered Planetoid cannot be a small craft (the original proposition was that a single fighter could hold up a fleet) and must commit (35% + 16%) 51% of its volume to armor. I would expect even a carried ship of this nature would likely have a low agility making it relatively easy to hit with Meson weapons.

FWIW I can get a carried TL15 Rock, lightly armed 1900ton, Armour-21, Agility-0, Meson Screen-9, Buffered Planetoid for around 2000MCr.


An attacking fleets Meson spinals (say factor-N on average) would need 5+ to hit this Rock (assuming long range) hitting (30 in 36 times or 83.3%). Factor-9 screens (penetrates 21 in 36 times or 58.3%) and Configuration-9 (penetrates 26 in 36 times or 72.2%) = the Meson-N hitting & causing damage 35% of the time.


So 3 Meson-N or better will get one hit & cause 6 criticals, reducing the Planetoids armor by 6 and will get a roll on the Radiation & Internal Explosion tables. A Vaporised, Crew-1 or PP Disabled result on the Critical table will occur (8 in 36 times * 6 rolls) 133% of the time, Crew-1 on the Radiation table (12 in 36 times) 33% of the time and Crew-1, Fuel tanks shattered, and nasty Criticals on the Internal Explosion table (7 in 36 times or 19.4% + Criticals 6 in 36 * 8 in 36 or 3.7%) 23.1%. The odds of a single damaging Meson-N hit on this ship enabling a breakthrough is 189%, or statistically pretty darn good.


3 Meson-N spinals = breakthrough a single TL15 1900ton Rock.

Last edited by Matt123; May 27th, 2011 at 09:28 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old May 26th, 2011, 01:07 PM
McPerth's Avatar
McPerth McPerth is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 7,710
Gallery : 0
Visit McPerth's Blog
McPerth has disabled reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt123 View Post
I would put it more down to poor canon designs, most HG players will max out on 50-ton missile-9 bays as the secondary batteries for BB's & for a 200kTon BB that would be around 150+ bays. The rest are tertiary batteries, useful against small craft that make it past the escorts but mostly intended to slow down the rate of Spinal & Missile attrition.

I can't argue with that . But the cut-off has to be somewhere. I dabble occasionally with this and with infrastructure costs such as training academies for the various crew branches (making the player pay to reach the assumed skill level-2 or better) and ground & orbital facilities (eg: fighter bases and ground controlled orbital missile-9 bays).

My view on the lack of missile costs/payload space in HG is that it affects both sides equally and any change would also affect both sides equally.
I think it's a heavy rules error. It's true that it affects both sides equally, but, if you're playing a campaign (Islands Cluster style), where economics are important, its net effect is to give greater fleets to all players, as they have not to pay ammunition.

The other net effect is giving those missiles this secondary role, against beams (at this effect ammunition free) that are given the tertiary role you say.

If missiles are free, then you can rely on them nearly exclusively (aside from spinals, of course, wich are out of this discusion), while if you have to pay for them (MT puts the cost of a nuke missile at KCr 150), you have to rely more on beams, using missiles only when they are decisive, as, even if you have no losses, spending MCr 450 to kill a 200 ton GB will put your budget in jeopardy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt123 View Post
That depends on how you as an Admiral handle your fleet on defence. Using a picket/skirmishing screen you should be able to maneouver your main force (in the HG reserve position) without hindrance. And in HG the Reserve can fall back as fast as the Enemy fleet comes forward. In addition the pickets have a chance to knock a point off a BB or two's spinal mounts, which would seriously annoy the attacking commander and give a slight advantage to your fleet when you do choose to engage.

The use of pickets/skirmishers in this way is well established in historical wargaming and RL military tactics.
They were used mostly in land battles, and less so in naval, but in air battles (IMO the more like the space battles, as are the only ones with a third dimension), their use is not so effective.

And to be effective, pikets/skirmishers must be able to damage the main enemy body, or they will be mostly ignored. Skirmishers could damage the enemy troops, and destroyers (used usually as naval pickets) could damage even BBs, with its torpedoes). This 200 dton GB is nearly useless agains a BB.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt123 View Post
So 3 Meson-N or better will get one hit & cause 6 criticals, reducing the Planetoids armor by 6 and will get a roll on the Radiation & Internal Explosion tables. A Vaporised, Crew-1 or PP Disabled result on the Critical table will occur (8 in 36 times * 6 rolls) 133% of the time, Crew-1 on the Radiation table (12 in 36 times) 33% of the time and Crew-1, Fuel tanks shattered, and nasty Criticals on the Internal Explosion table (7 in 36 times or 19.4% + Criticals 6 in 36 * 8 in 36 or 3.7%) 23.1%. The odds of a single damaging Meson-N hit on this ship enabling a breakthrough is 189%, or statistically pretty darn good.
You're wrong here. The correct way to calculate it is:

A critical hit will be survived 28 times in 36 (77.777...%)- As you roll 6 times, 6 rolls have to be survived, so this must be elevated to the 6th potence, giving you a 22.13% possibility to survive. So the possibility to kill it with a single meson N hit is about 77.87%, far from your 133% (you nearly doubled it).

BTW: (about the whole heavy armored fighter to hold the fleet fact) if using MT ship design rules, this is not more the case, as the possibility to have meson bays aside from your meson spinal will make those Heavy Fighters/Gunboats ineffective. Also the tactics pool rule (IMO another thing to fix, but that's another thread...) will make some of your BB shoots at +8 (so needing 3+ to hit), regardless the DefDM the HF/GB have (of course, you will choose the mesons for those DMs). As a TL 15 meson bay is factor 4 (if 50 ton) or 9 (if 100 ton), those HF/DM won't last much...
__________________
Duke of ShaiaVland 3215 B64A998-E
Marquis of Ashtagz Tyui SR 1818C548786-8
SEH for actions in Extolay

I'm not afraid about bullets, what scares me is the speed at which they're incoming.

Last edited by McPerth; May 26th, 2011 at 02:03 PM.. Reason: clarification
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old May 26th, 2011, 07:32 PM
Garyius2003's Avatar
Garyius2003 Garyius2003 is offline
Citizen: SOC-13
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 606
Gallery : 0
Garyius2003 Citizen
Default

We have had nuclear power carriers go a long time, such that 60 years is within range even floating in salt water.

In space, assume that the grav plates cover 90% of the hull, that there is zero stress for a hull, and it is in vacuum.

Your only wear points are the power plant, jump grid, fuel tank lining, and leading edges of the hull armor. (And moving parts, of course) Those areas can be addressed in rebuilds when the equipment gets upgraded. GURPS took this into account with their rules for ship rebuilds.

Except for tech and warfighting theory jumps, and I regard the FFW as such, rebuilding will almost always take place. (And during an actual war). It keeps yards open and skilled workers working, without the bald faced budget issue of a new ship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aramis View Post
We have a canonical useful lifespan, derived from TNE, of only abut 70-90 years, as wear value climes.
__________________
tc++ tm tn-- tg+ ru+ ge 3i+ c jt- au+ ls pi+ ta- he kk hi+ as dr++ ith-- so zh da+
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old May 26th, 2011, 08:27 PM
rancke's Avatar
rancke rancke is offline
Absent Friend
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 12,238
Gallery : 11
rancke Respected Citizenrancke Respected Citizenrancke Respected Citizenrancke Respected Citizenrancke Respected Citizenrancke Respected Citizenrancke Respected Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HG_B View Post
GURPS is far more accurate considering the materials and construction used at those TL's.
Accurate? As in corresponding more closely to real life starships?

The lifespan of 70 to 90 years mentioned by Wil seems to correspond pretty well with the service records of the Azhanti High Lightings. And unless there is some expense that takes the place of the bank payments after 40 years, fully paid up starships are incredible money-makers.


Hans
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old May 26th, 2011, 08:46 PM
Garyius2003's Avatar
Garyius2003 Garyius2003 is offline
Citizen: SOC-13
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 606
Gallery : 0
Garyius2003 Citizen
Default

And the High Lightning class were on the go a lot. Because they were so useful for everyday work.

There must be something in jump that wears a hull down such that 80 years of jumping twice a month or so wears it out.

There are lots of TL 15 classes that will be parked waiting until the next conflict. Plankwells in lagrange points and reworked every 10 years, waiting for the transport full of reserves for the sixth frontier war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rancke2 View Post
Accurate? As in corresponding more closely to real life starships?

The lifespan of 70 to 90 years mentioned by Wil seems to correspond pretty well with the service records of the Azhanti High Lightings. And unless there is some expense that takes the place of the bank payments after 40 years, fully paid up starships are incredible money-makers.


Hans
__________________
tc++ tm tn-- tg+ ru+ ge 3i+ c jt- au+ ls pi+ ta- he kk hi+ as dr++ ith-- so zh da+
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Marching In Place?" or "Wither the GT ATU?" Whipsnade GURPS Traveller 165 May 19th, 2012 06:25 PM
Adapting "Pocket Empires" for "2300 AD" marginaleye 2300AD & 2320 19 December 4th, 2010 01:49 PM
Pentagon Plots Digital "Crystal Ball" to "See the Future" in Battle Andrew Boulton Imperial Research Station 27 December 30th, 2007 05:07 PM
"Rim of Fire" & "Interstellar Wars" for GT wanted! anders lager Duty Free Shop 1 October 11th, 2007 08:12 AM
How to "fix" your T4 game... Supplement Four T4 - Marc Miller's Traveller 37 April 10th, 2006 01:10 PM

This website and its contents are copyright ©2010- Far Future Enterprises. All rights reserved. Traveller is a registered trademark of Far Future Enterprises .
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.