Book 2 v5

[robject]

First only roll to hit per turret rather than per weapon.
Next, for each additional turret grant a +1 to hit and damage.

So a ship fires ten laser turrets and gets +9 to hit and +9 to damage.

On the average, this is a guaranteed hit, I think, and inflicts at least 9 points of damage.

Any ship on the receiving end will have to have significant armor, or risk being a tactical kill.

That's not bad.

That is bad when a 100,000 ton dreadnought fires the equivalent of 1000 turrets at you. The concept is sound, but I definitely think there will have to be something like logarithmic jockeying going on.

A logarithmic curve also means a lower granularity for armor: it makes Level 1 armor meaningful, and Level 6 armor impressive.


Evaluate:

An unarmored Corsair (3GJ2) with four turrets rated 2-2-2-0-0 comes up against a small military escort (3GJ3), armor rating 1, and two batteries: A 3-3-3-3-0 and B 2-2-2-2-0.

Distance=3. Both ships fire all batteries, with the Corsair scoring two hits of two damage points each, and the Escort scoring one hit of two damage points.

Since the Escort has armor 1, one point of damage is absorbed at each location. If the two hits from the Corsair are in different locations, then they will do 2 - 1 = 1 point of damage each, which is annoying but not crippling. On the other hand, if the two hits happen to be in the same location, then they will do a total of 2 + 2 - 1 = 3 points of damage to one location, which could be quite serious.

Note that having more damage points (sort of like penetration) is much more valuable than simply having more hits, because the damage is concentrated on one spot.

Of course, the Escort will probably do its best to keep the distance at 4 instead of 3, in which case it would be safely out of the Corsair's range.


Evaluate:

The same Corsair meets up with a 5000-ton Escort with armor level 4. Unless that Corsair hits with three batteries at the same location, it's not going to be able to damage that Escort.

In short, the Corsair is in trouble.


Armor Thoughts

Along these lines, I'm thinking that each level of armoring requires something like 1/TL x hull volume per level.

 

[Scott Martin]

Sorry I haven't weighed in here yet, I have a couple of projects trying to go off the rails at the moment. A few comments to stir the pot, since I've been working at this "in parallel" with whoever is doing the actual design for a while now.

Hulls
I think having a couple of hull configurations for each "standard" hull volume would work well (see "Armour" below for a bit more detail) I also think that at a minimum there need to be two hulls per "standard" volume, a "standard" hull as in LBB-2 with a fixed drive volume (I'd calibrate at performance of around 3-G and Jump-3, with volume not used for drives available to be used as fuel tankage) and a "custom" hull with no such restrictions (for a premium of course)

Armour
LBB-2 did not have armour, T5 LBB-2 ships should not have armour. I'm not going to be completely dogmatic on this one, but if the "basic" book will allow armoured ships then provide "basic" hulls that come with it prebuilt. (so provide a 400dT "Standard" hull, a 400dT "Custom" hull and a 400 dT "Military" (armoured) hull) The "Military" hull should come with a disclaimer "Max Armour of level XX" with the volume pre-allocated. you can choose to not install the max level, or install an "inferior" armour (so crystaliron instead of Bonded Superdense will save you a few CR if you don't actually need the protection). Note that military couriers should be designed using the unarmoured "custom" hull.
We need to get away from HG armour: a battleship will have belt armour thicker than the *length* of a fighter: why can the fighter have the same armour value by allocating the same percentage of its hull to armour?

Computers
Please oh please let's ditch the LBB computers. Yah they had their cool points, but they either severely (artificially) limited what you could do, or "abstracted" sensors/ECM/ECCM/... into the picture. If anyone here is under the misapprehension that a 1 cubic meter computer built with modern hardware (TL-8?) could not handle independent firing solutions for dozens of independently target weapons at LS ranges, please go to the back of the class. Absorb computers into the bridge, make the bridge a reasonable size, stop justifying why these things are now different.
<sarcasm> most folks can maybe figure out it's a new system fixing percieved issues with the old one? </sarcasm>

Bridges
I'll look into my notes on building "modular" bridges (this ties into the CIC comment above) since most starships under about 1 KdT really have one of three basic styles:
-Minimal Flight Deck
-Bridge
-Military Bridge
---Fire Control stations

The first is what you get on small ships and cargo haulers, the second is on larger non-cargo vessels, and the third (I bet you can guess) is for military starships. Fire control stations can be "bolted on" to a military bridge as needed to handle the whole multi-target thing. If using a FF&S derived system, bridges come with 2 computers (main and backup) while the military one comes with FIB systems (These are really "hardened" electronics: fiber-optic computers are a bad idea in a combat environment)

Engineering
This is worth mentioning after "bridge" because most engineering workstations will be located in engineering proper, the number of workstations required is based on the drives (whether by volume in HG / LBB-2 or power plant output in FF&S derived systems) so include these workstations in the lettered drives. While you're at it (if using a FF&S analogue system) also include a computer with the power plant. This allows Engineering to control the ship (Sublight) if something nasty happens to the bridge. If your powerplant is irretrivably screwed, you have bigger problems than a lack of a computer.

Weapons
"Standard" and "Custom" hulls are limited to 1 hardpoint per 100 dT, No barbettes or Bays allowed. "Military" hulls have no weapon restrictions at all.

"WHAT!" you cry "NO WEAPONS RESTRICTIONS AT ALL??!!"

The actual constraints on a FF&S-like system (which I still believe should be the underlying "layer" for this system) on hulls below about 10kdT is purely how much stuff you can cram in the hull: surface area is NOT a constraint, even on TL-9 ships with HUGE radiator areas for their power plants.

"Standard" and "Custom" hulls in the context of LBB-2 are really "civilian" designs: if you need a warship, use the warship design sequences and a military hull.

Backwards compatibility
I think that we should calibrate the new system to HG: most of the ships designed using LBB-2 were below 400 dT, and the only "incompatibility" between LBB-2 and HG was smaller M-Drives in LBB-2. If bridges get smaller this can easily be absorbed. This then makes it possible (and potentially easy) to build a starship converter from CT to T5. If the underlying layer is FF&S-like, then TNE and T4 ships should be fairly trivial to move across as well. I am not concerned with converting MT ships, since many of these had issues anyway (even if youstayed in the MT universe: Shattered ships of the fighting Imperium anyone?)

Multipurpose Modules
I was the driving force behind this, and can honestly say that it's probably too much work to include in LBB-2 style traveller. Build a couple of ships and small craft that have them (modular cutter etc) tell folks what the volume penalty is to use them (like 2 Dtons for a 25 Dton module) and leave it at that. Provide full rules in the detailed tech archietecture books, and let gearheads pump out modules for the rest of the world to use.

Small Craft
Small craft for most small starships will not be maintained on board ship, so the standard configuration should be a (minimal space wasted) docking sling. Hangars etc. should not be considered for LBB-2 style starships (Want to build a carrier? Use the HG-like or FF&S-like system!)

Combat System
How weapons cause damage needs to be determined, and I'm a fan of the "easier is better" school. That said, there is NOTHING to stop us from starting work on the core system (engines, bridge, hull, crew, accomidations) and leaving aside "hardpoints" to fill in later once the weapons systems and combat system tie-ins are decided on. Fat Trader, Jump-1 M-drive-1 P-Plant-1, WW Crew, XX Cargo, YY passengers, 2 hardpoints. most folks don't play "Starship Combat" Traveller, perhaps we old fogies should make sure that the *rest* of the system works cleanly and *then* decide what the combat system should be.

Scott Martin

 

[parmasson]

As a non-scientist, non-gearhead “ref on the street” just give me a chart. Even if the system requires a bit of tweaking please keep it as simple as you can.
"I was the driving force behind this, and can honestly say that it's probably too much work to include in LBB-2 style traveller"
I agree sooooo much.

I got FF&S and looked at it.
Nice book, it really is.

After a time I just went back to Book 2 with a few Book 8 components added in for fun.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Scott Martin:

Hulls
* a few standard hull volumes
* two hulls per volume: one with fixed engineering space
* a couple of hull configurations for each


Yup, I was considering the cheaper, fixed engineering space hulls last night, too.


Armour
* T5 LBB-2 ships should not have armour, OR
* provide "basic" hulls that come with it prebuilt.

[...]

We need to get away from HG armour: a battleship will have belt armour thicker than the *length* of a fighter: why can the fighter have the same armour value by allocating the same percentage of its hull to armour?


Thank you. This needs to be collaborative without being a bureaucracy. As usual, Scott, your comments are pointed and smart.

In fact, this simply points me at a solution Boomslang proposed many years ago: if a craft is to be armored, then it will be up-armored to the best possible level. This is expensive from a cost and volume point of view. It also means that a ship's armor level depends solely on TL and hull volume. Simple.

Using the "Planetoid" model (Structure + Buffering) as a loose guide for armoring, I'd say armor requires a flat 35% hull volume at, oh, TL13. Bump it up or down 5% per TL.



Computers
Please oh please let's ditch the LBB computers.


I understand your position, and I admit to not using the computers much. But, before I cast computers aside, I have to point out that at some level these systems will depart from reality because they enhance play value. I don't know how much further reduction Book 2 can take before it ceases to be useful.

Having said that, I'll restate that I didn't use the computer rules much, so let's ignore them for now.


Bridges


We'll have to rename "bridge" to something else, then, since it may not have to represent one single chunk of volume. It could include controls in the engineering room, for example. This requires thought to keep it from becoming MT.


Weapons
"Standard" and "Custom" hulls are limited to 1 hardpoint per 100 dT, No barbettes or Bays allowed. "Military" hulls have no weapon restrictions at all.


...which is what T4 did. I don't know why I don't like the idea, but I'll tentatively say "okay". Although, my opinion is relatively uninformed.

I'd suggest that if military hulls have no hardpoint restrictions, then the number of weapon emplacements ought to be thinned out a bit. For example, doing away with barbettes.

Please note that FFS2 limited armaments based on surface area only (which I suppose is what hardpoints are abstracted from).


Backwards compatibility


The new system should be calibrated to the "Adventure" class ships... Types S, A, A2, M, R, Y, L, K, C... and if possible the X-Boat. Drive systems will probably have two formulae, perhaps based on TL, that represent systems for Adventure class ships versus systems for larger ships.


Small Craft
Small craft for most small starships will not be maintained on board ship, so the standard configuration should be a (minimal space wasted) docking sling. Hangars etc. should not be considered for LBB-2 style starships (Want to build a carrier? Use the HG-like or FF&S-like system!)


Thank you, I remember this point being made before.

 

[robject]

Re-Vectoring

from Marc.

Adventure class ships need a Book 2 system. I expect to see it implemented in the same structure as small craft. I also agree that the discontinuous Drive Table is what makes it challenging and fun.

When Marc says "small craft", he is referring to his T5 Small Craft playtest rules.

 

[parmasson]

Some observations.
Hmm so is Mr. Miller heading toward a two tier system?

I can’t say that I object. As to armor. How about considering a light armor/heavy armor system. I really don’t have a preference as to actual mechanics but I wonder if an all or nothing approach is what we might need. Granted that simplicity is the rule of the day but I wonder if a two or three level system for such things might be needed.

On the other hand the TL adjustments could smooth out any such need as high TL armor will take up less of however it is done.

It is an issue for greater minds than mine.

New question.
As to the fate of energy points. Any indication of their fate? Will a higher tech level power plant make more energy?

I have been out of the loop for a couple of weeks now.

 

[robject]

Yep, I think T5 aspires to have a gearhead construction level that can describe the components on the simpler construction level.

The simple level will be more like HG than Book 2, by the way. But providing that level with some nice tables for smaller starships sure makes shipbuilding easier.

TL definitely improves power plant efficiency. That's something I've never tried to think about, but it'll have to be laid out nicely, probably using FFS as a guide.

Edit From CT, we can imply that EP = (hull x pn)/100.

And I'm pretty sure that armor will not be all-or-nothing.

 

[Scott Martin]

Adventure Class ships using the same structure as small craft.
bleah.
(sorry, still unimpressed with the last pass at small craft rules)

I'm still in favour of a 3-tier system

"Top" level is LBB-2 like
"Middle" level is HG-like
"Bottom" level is FF&S-like

For most systems (M-Drive, P-Plant, J-Drive) differences between these systems (at least if they are intelligently designed) will be less than 1%, although if we are deliberately throwing some variation 5% is more likely (and most of that 5% will be the LBB-2 to HG "step")

The trick is making sure that ships designed "from the keel out" stay within a set range (say ~20%) of the capability of ships designed from modular components. Throw in a "standard component" discount of 10-20% and it will close that gap to negligible levels, and assume that maintenance is cheaper as well and you have a dynamic very similar to modern market-driven economies. That milspec frigate with the bolts designed to exact tolerances may be significantly more effective than the same vessel built "off the shelf" but in terms of maintenance costs, crew training and amortization, that modular type R2 gives much better bang for the buck.

This conveniently explains why "standard" components are used, and gives a bit more meaning to the arbitrary breakpoints for "LBB-2 like" and "HG-like" systems: commercial vessesl use standard parts whenever possible for cost savings, military vessels use fairly standard systems designed to closer tolerances, and some specialized vessels are custom built from the keel out to optimise some facet of their mission. Don't expect to use "off the shelf" parts for a submarine designed to dive below 2,000 feet.. Similarly building a container ship out of carbon fiber and titanium would be silly.

This is the primary reason that I think that LBB-2 style ships should be unarmoured: when is the last time you saw an armoured minivan or supertanker? If it's armoured, it's probably military (or paramilitary) and designed in a different way than "commercial" hardware.

Scott Martin

 

[mike wightman]

Armoured minivan?

Every single day.

Security firms use them for transporting cash etc.

Would civilian ships - especially those on high risk routes or with mail subsidies - be allowed armoured ships?
I don't see why not

 

[Plankowner]

Limo's are also armored. Bullet-Proof Glass etc.

BUT, would a "normal" civilian use/need something like that. I don't know where I could get an armored car for personal use.

LBB2 style would provide the basic commericial vehicles.

HG could give you the armored version of the LBB design.

 

[Scott Martin]

Hmmm... two examples that support my point nicely: I doubt that you can walk onto your local dealership and find either of these for sale, which would put them both of them in the "special purpose" category.

*some* limos are armoured, some *vans* are armoured. I haven't ever seen an armoured minivan: I don't think that they have enough load capacity to carry armour and a decent load of coinage. (and the reason for my example not being a car or a truck...) I'd actually be interested if armoured minivans existed (hey sigg, send me a PM on this one will you? now I'm curious, but don't want to hijack this thread any more than I already have.)

I'm off to "the fleet" to post a question on how many folks use starship combat in their Traveller games. If most folks just use "commercial" designs then we can put together a cut at "T5 Commercial Starship Design" in very short order for folks to look review and give feedback on without needing even the slightest clue on starship combat mechanics.

Scott Martin

 

[parmasson]

After rereading most of this tread I might suggest to the powers that be that “all or nothing armor” may not survive the first day of play.

Please reconsider a light/heavy classification at least. It is in a way saying that a ship must be either armed to the teeth or not at all. I know it is not up to us in the final analysis but I urge the management to at least reconsider the possibility.

Past ideas:
Other thread

 

[Saxondog]

OK, I've seen an armored mini-van. There was a company around here that would armor almost anything. With mini-vans, you needed one that was set up to haul a trailer. Not just a hitch but with a frame and transmission to pull a heavier load. My 88 Voyager was set up for towing.

I worked for an insurance company regional hq and the guy who ran the motorpool had a catalog from this company. They armored some compact just to prove it could be done and the car still move.

For ships, you could simply charge more for the basic hull before armor is applied to account for the stronger structure required. For example, a "military" grade hull. Civilian hulls not strong enough.

 

[Scott Martin]

SaxonDog
That is just freaky.
____________________

KG

Note that the proposal for the "Book-2" equivalent is either "all or nothing" or "no armour for Book-2".

Both of these proposals assume that there will be a HG equivalent to let you customize your ships more than the "basic" rules will allow. Just because there is no *limit* to the amount of guns and armour you can put on the hull doesn't mean you *must* max these out.

I can see a lot of utility in a hull that looks exactly like a far trader, including having a heft amount of cargo spacel, but just happened to have a significantly thicker hull and more "legs" hidden aboard. If you're going to build a Q-ship (or stealth courier or whatever) you need to have it's cover maintained, and you can't do that if it never loads or unloads cargo.

In fact, freighter hulls would be *preferred* for this because they have lots of cargo space that can quickly be filled with fuel bladders to takle advantage of the J-5 drive that extends from engineering through the false bulkhead and into those two "unused" staterooms...

Tramp freighters also have a *reason* to be in "unstable" areas that the established shipping lines won't touch, especially the more desperate and less reputable ones that have credentials that are a bit "troublesome" to verify.

Scott Martin

 

[robject]

Kurt, my proposal is purposefully contrarian. I want to see what the reactions are. I am expecting that armor rules will be more like High Guard, and likely relegated to High Guard, but I'd like to think about the issues some, and let others talk about ths issues as well.

 

[parmasson]

^I knew you were a trouble maker!
I’ll bet your old school records are marked “Instigator” and “Willful”.

I’ll be keeping an eye on you . . .

 

[parmasson]

Well then,

May I restart the conversation by suggesting that Book 2 style could have.
Unarmored
Light armor. For couriers and low threat customs ships
Medium armor. High value merchant vessels. 2nd or 3rd rate Navy cruisers
Heavy armor. Battleships and the like.

Flexibility and you don’t need to know all the rules on the first night. If you encounter a ship with “heavy armor” that says enough.

Heavy armor should also provide extra protection from ionizing radiation. Or “additional shielding” might be available that should provide more protection.

 

[robject]

Well then,

Armor can simply be a variant of Piper's vehicle design system

 

[sgbrown]

Originally posted by Kurega Gikur:
Well then,

May I restart the conversation by suggesting that Book 2 style could have.
Unarmored
Light armor. For couriers and low threat customs ships
Medium armor. High value merchant vessels. 2nd or 3rd rate Navy cruisers
Heavy armor. Battleships and the like.

...
Heavy armor should also provide extra protection from ionizing radiation. Or “additional shielding” might be available that should provide more protection.

Shouldn't even the "unamored" ships have significant radiation shielding?

 

[robject]

Summary

So, last night I had a few spare minutes, and did a test of B2v5: I pitted a dreadnought against three cruisers. The ships were sketched out at a resolution somewhere between Book 2 and High Guard. I used only laser batteries.

I used the hit location charts from The Traveller Book.

Combat was extremely fast.

The cruisers finished off the dreadnought handily, with a lucky critical hit.

Setup

Their stats were:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Dreadnought J4 M3 A6 L{3,4,4}
Cruiser J1 M4 A6 L{4,4}

J = jump rating
M = maneuver rating
A = armor rating
L = laser batteries { Small, Medium, Large }</pre>[/QUOTE]Large batteries were rated 9-8-7, Medium batteries were rated 6-5-4, and Small batteries were rated 3-2-1. Since the ships' armor ratings were all 6, the small batteries were useless as they were unable to penetrate the armor.

I reckoned that small batteries here are a group of turrets, perhaps 10. Medium and large batteries are likely to be bay weapons.

Highlights

Due to their superior maneuver ability, the Dreadnought was quickly corralled by the Cruisers, and they harrassed it until one finally scored a critical hit, causing the Dreadnought to explode. It was fun, fast, dramatic, and deadly.

The dreadnought rolled once for each Large battery and Medium battery, so got 8 attack rolls each turn. It managed to take out one battery and one jump drive before dying.

Each Cruiser got 4 attack rolls. Due to their battery strength being equal to their target's armor, each hit only did one point of damage. However, rolling enough times on the hit location table was sufficient to hit the Dreadnought's fuel tanks four times, and finally roll a crit.

Lessons Learned

Don't send a Dreadnought into battle without an escort or two.

Armor is very important: if they can't hit you, they can't blow you up.

Multiple hits are very important: the more you can hit them, the better your chances of blowing them up.

High-damage hits don't always matter: sure, one shot can mission-kill a target, but when there's more than one target you're at a disadvantage.

Improvements to Make

This Dreadnought probably needed a spinal gun. It definitely needed an escort.

Also, perhaps batteries should get a to-hit adjustment based on their size and their target's size or proximity. It seems a shame for those small batteries to be left sitting there unused. On the other hand, I want to prevent situations where people are forced to employ hundreds of fighters to overwhelm a ship by gaming the hit location table. I'm just not sure yet.

Finally, armor has to be partly based on the ship volume. Small ships won't be able to support the same range of armor as dreadnoughts. I haven't decided how to handle that yet.

Focus - Spinal Gun and Armor

The nice thing about a spinal weapon in High Guard is that if it's powerful enough, you get automatic critical hits against your target. This would probably translate to weapon attack factor versus armor rating, probably.

For example, a 12-12-12 spinal gun against Armor 6 scores 1 crit.

But that brings up armor. What's the appropriate range for craft armor? I'm partial to 6 being the max, since ships in HG have a J-Drive and M-Drive max of 6 as well. On the other hand, battery factors and computer models range higher. Nevertheless, I think Armor 6 is a good place to begin, thus forcing ships to install selective defenses (sand and screens) to take up the slack.