• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

Battledress varients

Remul

SOC-6
I'm fairly new to Traveller and have been playing T20 for a few weeks. I was wondering why battledress isn't available until TL13 (for the standard battledress). It seems to me, that it would be available on lower TL worlds, too. I mean, most mid TL worlds are mid TL because of resources/infrastructure. Not because of a lack of ideas/information. With this in mind, why wouldn't a TL8-12 military build a lower tech version of battledress? With the T20 rules, battledress can be designed at TL8 (500vl).

Here are the designs I've created. Please let me know what you think.
 
Perhaps at lower tech levels, Combat Armor is more state-of-the-art.

IMTU, the Scouts have a nice powered combat armor at TL12 that is a sort of poor cousin to battledress.
 
Nice designs.

There is no problem with BD at TL8+. Traveller is first and foremost a generic SciFi game, whats in your universe is what is in your universe.

In the OTU BD isn't used till TL13, though there are battle-walkers and other similar type machinery before that. This is partly because the universe is derived across multiple game systems.

As for variants.

Superman Suit
BD with inbuilt grav, both a BattlePod and Battledress. Useful for dropping out of orbit, or flying arround safe areas.
Hostile Engineering Suit
Need to fix a running fusion reactor? Too much radio noise to send a remote? The best protection an engineer could have, often in a lobster configuration (asymetric appendages) with inbuilt tools.
Lobster Suit
A fixed weapon instead of one of the arms. Often done for pricing reasons. An adequate apendage is far more expensive then a bolted on machinegun. Generally derogatory.
Ship Dress
Used exclusively on board naval vessels. Maximum protection minimum size, often meant to be plugged into the nearest wall socket with a minimal tether free battery life. Laser based weaponry.
Battlepod
Battledress relying exclusively on grav rather then legged movement. This one is an officialish designation.
Support dress
Heavy weapon designate Battledress. Often intermingled with normal battledress units, though the larger size (~500VL) means that it cannot enter some enclosed spaces.
 
Battledress in T20 is handled differently from Battledress in previous incarnations of Traveller. (IN earlier versions it was considered Armor in T20 it is a vehicle.) There is nothing stopping you from designing and building battledress at earlier tech levels but economics, and especially power supply/fuel consumption makes practical battledress more difficult.

Looking at your two TL-15 designs, I would have to guess they are Fusion powered? Fusion powered Battledress has a minor problem. Well it is a major problem if you are wearing the suit on a battlefield.

Look up Neutrino sensors and tell me why your battledress doesn't have them and then why your enemy, if he has them, could cause problems with them.

I would also recommend Laser or Maser coms. Using a radio on an electronic battlefield is difficult, because it is subject to jamming and dangerous, because it is subject to direction finding. Just a couple of observations.

My TL14 and TL15 battledress, and I will post it when I find it, is fuel cell powered, includes Laser coms and is 249VL so it is man sized (designed to fit better in places people are expected to go and isn't easier to hit.) It also has an agility, though I don't remember how much.

Good work though. I do like the designs. The problems are minor nitpicks.
 
Actually, I'd recommend using batteries if you're designing battledress. They're very small in size (even smaller than fusion) but cost more.
 
The reason you don't have TL8 battledress in Traveller is the same reason you don't have it in real life. Power supply. The TL8 power supplies don't give enough power to run a suit properly.

In T20 this gets a little strange because it has a different set of power supplies than previous versions. And each version of traveller is a little different.

My one suggestion about your battledress: You must keep the design to 250vl or less. Any larger and start having problems of matching the suit to the wearer. The TL8 version is more of a small mecha than battledress.
 
Originally posted by lightsenshi:
Actually, I'd recommend using batteries if you're designing battledress. They're very small in size (even smaller than fusion) but cost more.
Actually because of limited duration of batteries I recommend Fuel Cells. You can get 24+ hours out of them, in a typical suit. (It happens to be the way the "Standard Battledress" is designed. Since there is no cabin on a suit of battledress you can't stay in it indefinitely anyway.
I went with fusion until I realized the ramifications of Neutrino Sensors then looked at batteries and found that the advanced Fuel Cells had a better output per volume for any reasonable duration.
 
Hey this is a cool thread. Thanks especially to Remul and Veltyen and Bhoins for examples, variants, and nitpicks.

I seem to recall this coming up long ago, but gee, wouldn't it be great to have a Travellers' Aide dedicated to Personal Armor: combat armor and battledress? At least BD, maybe combat armor, and then the other, "lesser" types if there's room.

1) Sorted by TL...

2) Offering the typical variants, like the ones mentioned above, or perhaps like something that shows up a lot in novels:
--standard suit
--command suit
--scout/marauder suit (lighter and lightly armed but fast

3) Options, Advantages, Disadvantages, etc.

One thing that's not been clear to me is how to represent the things you "get" when you wear it. For example: +4 STR, +2 Dex, etc. (I'm just making that stuff up...)

Oh yeah: Heads-up Displays, too (HUDs) - it seems like these would have all kind of variation, too: basically different software packages...

...and built-in medical systems

...etc.

Anyone? I'd be up for brainstorming and description-writing, but I'm not very good at the stats.

Thanks
Dan

PS -- anyone seen the (Bryan Gibson?) illustration on the inside first page of GT: Sword Worlds? It has a scruffy Sword World soldier/suicide bomber slapping a limpet mine onto the chest of an Imperial Marine's BD; in the background is another Marine arched in pain and death as his limpet mine detonates, above his own now-killed suicide bomber... Wicked.
 
Cool thread, neat ideas. However:

I would also recommend Laser or Maser coms. Using a radio on an electronic battlefield is difficult, because it is subject to jamming and dangerous, because it is subject to direction finding. Just a couple of observations.
Except for that niggling little problem of needing line-of-sight for laser or maser comms. This is going to be really problematic on the battlefield. Micro-burst systems which record the signal, compress it and then transmit it in milisecond or smaller bursts can really cut down on the direction-finding issue. Jamming will still be a problem, though.

PS -- anyone seen the (Bryan Gibson?) illustration on the inside first page of GT: Sword Worlds? It has a scruffy Sword World soldier/suicide bomber slapping a limpet mine onto the chest of an Imperial Marine's BD; in the background is another Marine arched in pain and death as his limpet mine detonates, above his own now-killed suicide bomber... Wicked.
I started a minor ruckus on the TML last year about ways lower tech troops could effectively combat battledress troops. Tod Glenn (Corejob here) pointed me to a nifty weapon under development called the LOSAT, basically a hypervelocity missle that kills its targets via kinetic energy. Tod proposed a shoulder-launched version and I worked out some Striker versions; the thread is over in the Ship's Locker forum. These were able to easily kill BD under Striker rules; not sure if the results can be replicated in other rulesets.

Veltyn - nice variants! But where's the flamethrower version?
file_23.gif


John
 
I appreciate all the great input! One thing that seems to be a recurring theme is comm jamming. With the advancment of spread spectrum technology and reverse error correction algorithems, this will be a much smaller issue in the FAR future of Traveller. IMHO, anyway.
 
Originally posted by Bhoins:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by lightsenshi:
Actually, I'd recommend using batteries if you're designing battledress. They're very small in size (even smaller than fusion) but cost more.
Actually because of limited duration of batteries I recommend Fuel Cells. You can get 24+ hours out of them, in a typical suit.</font>[/QUOTE]Actually, I've got a suit of battledress designed with 60 hours of battery life. YOu do realize that fuel cells amounts to walking around with volitile chemicals on your back.
 
I appreciate all the great input! One thing that seems to be a recurring theme is comm jamming. With the advancment of spread spectrum technology and reverse error correction algorithems, this will be a much smaller issue in the FAR future of Traveller. IMHO, anyway.
It isn't jamming or interception as such. If your enemy has a detector network connected to multiple near orbit ortillery relays any signal sent is asking for your squad to be annihalated. Disposable cutouts get expensive. Lightspeed return fire especially when it hits an area 20m in radius becomes hard to avoid.

Veltyn - nice variants! But where's the flamethrower version?
Funny you should mention that. I've been thinking of ways to model chemical projectors under T20 lately. Acids, thermal agents and toxins all have their place, currently there is only the plasma/fusion projectors, and they don't appear designed for wide dispersal.

Oh yeah: Heads-up Displays, too (HUDs) - it seems like these would have all kind of variation, too: basically different software packages...
A fairly good rundown of weapon enhancement HUDS are described in TA1. As a bonus they have very simple rules - a direct modification to attack bonus.

My one suggestion about your battledress: You must keep the design to 250vl or less.
Um. Regular standard design BD is 300vl. This is 3 times the size of a large human (or double someone my size). I always considered the size restriction to be based on the primary requirement of BD, being vehicle class armor that was able to move through human sized interior spaces (buildings, starships). In objective terms this means

150 VL
Some crawlspaces are inaccessible. Occasionally knocking higher extremities on door jams and light fittings. Slower movement through chokepoints. Some standard interface consoles inaccessible (thinking driving a car), though larger ones might still be useable. Marine in combat armor carrying a full kit sized.

200 VL
Enclosed spaces (cupboards for example) and crawlspaces become somewhat inaccesible. Use of 100VL crew stations becomes limited or impossible. Extensive manevearing to get though smaller doors. Larger egresses still not a problem, nor are standard corridor spaces. Robocop sized.

300 VL
Small corridors become a problem (Library stacks for example). Multiperson corridors (ie 2 wide) are still fine, but egresses designed for one person at a time become difficult to navigate if at all possible. Small doors and accessways become out of the question.

500 VL
About the limit for sharing human classed interior space. Defeated by doorways, rooves are all far too low. Wide corridors are still accessible, as are foyers, plazas and small alleyways, making this size battledress advantageous over some other vehicles. Blase destruction of low hanging objects with the nessicity of widening civilian doorways for access. Aliens Cargo-Loader sized.

700 VL
ED209 sized.
 
Originally posted by jappel:
Cool thread, neat ideas. However:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I would also recommend Laser or Maser coms. Using a radio on an electronic battlefield is difficult, because it is subject to jamming and dangerous, because it is subject to direction finding. Just a couple of observations.
Except for that niggling little problem of needing line-of-sight for laser or maser comms. This is going to be really problematic on the battlefield. Micro-burst systems which record the signal, compress it and then transmit it in milisecond or smaller bursts can really cut down on the direction-finding issue. Jamming will still be a problem, though.

PS -- anyone seen the (Bryan Gibson?) illustration on the inside first page of GT: Sword Worlds? It has a scruffy Sword World soldier/suicide bomber slapping a limpet mine onto the chest of an Imperial Marine's BD; in the background is another Marine arched in pain and death as his limpet mine detonates, above his own now-killed suicide bomber... Wicked.
I started a minor ruckus on the TML last year about ways lower tech troops could effectively combat battledress troops. Tod Glenn (Corejob here) pointed me to a nifty weapon under development called the LOSAT, basically a hypervelocity missle that kills its targets via kinetic energy. Tod proposed a shoulder-launched version and I worked out some Striker versions; the thread is over in the Ship's Locker forum. These were able to easily kill BD under Striker rules; not sure if the results can be replicated in other rulesets.

Veltyn - nice variants! But where's the flamethrower version?
file_23.gif


John
</font>[/QUOTE]Actually Laser coms works well on a battlefield. If you don't have line of sight, unusual within an Infantry Platoon or smaller unit, you can point the laser at a comms satelite or a battlefield orbiting drone and it can do your broadcasting or relay the laser signals to the rest of the unit. (Probably Company level or higher.)

As for spread spectrum, frequency hopping, etc. SigInt and ELINT will certainly advance right along with the signal technology. (Usually it manages to stay a step ahead.) Just because when it was tested in Turkey, the Soviets couldn't jam SINGARS doesn't mean the US couldn't. (Or that the Soviets could but decided not to show us that capability.) Besides for a battlefield soldier the problem of DF is more dangerous than jamming or signal interception. (Can you say Thor Shot? I knew you could.) High value targets will be target with massive, overwhelming fire (which may or may not be guided in by your radio signals, like a HARM missile.). And if the best targets aren't available due to EMCON then guess who gets to see, up close and personal that firepower.
Or if your signal encryption can't be cracked, it would be difficult to distinguish between high value targets and typical infantry, so a conservative approach is to fire on all of it. And as anyone who has ever served in any branch of any military knows, militaries are universally conservative.
 
Masers/Lasers present a very big problem for a battlefield situation. They are highly directional. I'd like to see a troop try and aim a laser at a satellite while being shot at. Then the other problem, the thing can only be pointed at one receiver at a time. Since a radio is the only omnidirectional comm device in T20, it is essential that BD have at least one.
As for spread spectrum, frequency hopping, etc. SigInt and ELINT will certainly advance right along with the signal technology. (Usually it manages to stay a step ahead.) Just because when it was tested in Turkey, the Soviets couldn't jam SINGARS doesn't mean the US couldn't. (Or that the Soviets could but decided not to show us that capability.) Besides for a battlefield soldier the problem of DF is more dangerous than jamming or signal interception. (Can you say Thor Shot? I knew you could.) High value targets will be target with massive, overwhelming fire (which may or may not be guided in by your radio signals, like a HARM missile.). And if the best targets aren't available due to EMCON then guess who gets to see, up close and personal that firepower. [Smile] Or if your signal encryption can't be cracked, it would be difficult to distinguish between high value targets and typical infantry, so a conservative approach is to fire on all of it. And as anyone who has ever served in any branch of any military knows, militaries are universally conservative.
As far as spread spectrum technology goes, frequency hopping is one method, but not the only mehtod. Although frequency hopping is the primary method used in today's military, direct-sequence has much more potential for interference rejection, low probability of intercept and antijam characteristics.

Of course electronic warfare (SigInt, ELINT) will advance in all areas, the need for communications will always be there.

With regaurd to the "Thor Shot", Space superiority in the traveller universe would be just at important as air superiority is in today's warfare.
 
Originally posted by Remul:
Masers/Lasers present a very big problem for a battlefield situation. They are highly directional. I'd like to see a troop try and aim a laser at a satellite while being shot at. Then the other problem, the thing can only be pointed at one receiver at a time. Since a radio is the only omnidirectional comm device in T20, it is essential that BD have at least one.

<SNIP!>

With regaurd to the "Thor Shot", Space superiority in the traveller universe would be just at important as air superiority is in today's warfare.
Hell aiming a comm laser today in any circumstance is a pain, forget about combat conditions. But if your computer knows where the comsat or droyne is and where you are then the operation should be pretty routine. I never said don't have a radio. But they should not be your primary means of comms. And in most cases you will lock them down to receive only. Besides if you loose the bird you will need an alternate plan. Chattering on the radio, no matter how secure you believe your comms to be, is still not something that you want to routinely do. There is an old Army Rule. There is nothing on the battlefield more dangerous than one of your Lieutenants, with a radio, a map and a compass. (And an NCO who isn't willing to sit on said lieutenant.) Make him truly dangerous and give him a full SOI, and a GPS to go with it and send him out into the desert. <SHUDDER!!> But that combination is too dangerous for any NCO to allow to happen no matter how incompetent. (Though I know of one who tried.
)

BTW given the directional capability of lasers (being one of its strong suits) one would think that each suit is designed to relay (And should therefore have two sets for full commo.) and if the unit is hooked into one drone or comsat then you lose that problem with your other set designed to receive from command and the transmitter being down line through your unit.


As for space superiority, of course that is a given that it is required. It is just one example of infantry meeting overwhelming firepower on the futuristic battlefield. The disposable, scatterable, remote MRL mentioned in LBB4 would be just as effective at laying down overwhelming firepower.
 
Chattering on the radio, no matter how secure you believe your comms to be, is still not something that you want to routinely do.
Except where it comes to encryption. Then chattering becomes important to do. Increaseing noise to signal helps.
 
As far as my ability, willingness, to talk about this comm issue is, I can only talk so far. I can address all kinds of gEEk issues (read Electrical Engineering), but when it gets into real world issues, my ability/willingness to talk is cut. Anyway, what it comes down to is, there will most likely be a balance in ELINT in the future. Omnidirectional comms will be the most usefull for general communications. Directional comms will have it's uses, just like today.

I agree that a computer/servo system can use a maser/laser system to contact a receiver with minimal user interaction. But the limitation of one receiver (highly directional) per transmition is huge. Omnidirectional systems are nessisary, if not essential.

But to get right down to it, I just wanted to instigate conversation with the BD varients.
 
Originally posted by kaladorn:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
But if your computer knows where the comsat or droyne
One small niggling question: How does knowing where the droyne is help you? ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Obviously using an intelligent species to fly around and be used as a comms relay is better than using a robot brain controlled artifact. After all a sentient being can do unpredictable things. Further since they have no real exhaust if you put them in a combat environment suit that doesn't inhibit their capability of flight they would be more difficult to lock on to and shoot down.


(Did I really spell drone, droyne? Crap, it appears that I did.
)
file_21.gif
 
Originally posted by Remul:
As far as my ability, willingness, to talk about this comm issue is, I can only talk so far. I can address all kinds of gEEk issues (read Electrical Engineering), but when it gets into real world issues, my ability/willingness to talk is cut. Anyway, what it comes down to is, there will most likely be a balance in ELINT in the future. Omnidirectional comms will be the most usefull for general communications. Directional comms will have it's uses, just like today.

I agree that a computer/servo system can use a maser/laser system to contact a receiver with minimal user interaction. But the limitation of one receiver (highly directional) per transmition is huge. Omnidirectional systems are nessisary, if not essential.

But to get right down to it, I just wanted to instigate conversation with the BD varients.
On the other side of the coin, there are limits as to how much I can discuss about COMSEC, SIGINT and ELINT. Especially since I have been out of the intelligence field for a while and I have no clue as to what is and what isn't classified anymore. So don't feel bad about it. Lets leave it at, encrypted radio chatter sounds like encrypted radio chatter and while you might not be able to listen to the conversation, you can still normally determine the location of the transmitting station and you can usually barrage jam the transmission if you so desire. Of course the problem with barrage jamming is that you let the enemy know where your jammer is at least as fast as you found the transmitter that you were looking to jam. And because of the power output of a jammer you have lit every DF antenna within 100+ miles up with a big kick me sign. THe standard Soviet doctrine response to jamming was to fire on the jamming station, usually with a BM-21 Batalion. That is 18 vehicles each with 40 122mm rockets. Or enough rounds in less than 1 minute from start of the barrage to the end of it to blanket an area 1km by 1km, usually with you in the middle. (Which is why Jammers were considered to have a battlefield life expectancy of less than 5 minutes. (Ground Survelience Radar Operators were in the same boat, except they tended to set up on the enemy side of the front lines. (In front of the front lines.)

Transmitters don't last long on the modern battlefield. neither does artillery pieces once the enemy's capability to direction find your radar is sufficeintly degraded.

Rounds tend to be on the way before your rounds hit the target.
 
Back
Top