Ship Design Question:
- Thread starter Nerhesi
- Start date
There were in the playtest.
Original_Carl
SOC-12
Small craft fall under Vehicle Maker in Combat. It can be quite detailed, but it's up the referee to decide what's important and what isn't.
Are you trying to decide if you want T5?
Yes and no? 
I've already ordered it but I'm trying to decide how excited I will be and how much I'll want to play it.
I've been thoroughly disappointed by a lot of systems not taking into account pilot skill, and size of craft when dealing with defensive modifiers.
Someone had mentioned that in classic traveller, fighters actually gained some sort of defensive bonus DM based on the fighter-pilot's skill? And that they also had size modifiers as a bonus defensive DM?
Mongoose system really ticked me off when I noticed that was lacking.
Sam W.
I've already ordered it but I'm trying to decide how excited I will be and how much I'll want to play it.I've been thoroughly disappointed by a lot of systems not taking into account pilot skill, and size of craft when dealing with defensive modifiers.
Someone had mentioned that in classic traveller, fighters actually gained some sort of defensive bonus DM based on the fighter-pilot's skill? And that they also had size modifiers as a bonus defensive DM?
Mongoose system really ticked me off when I noticed that was lacking.
Sam W.
Pilot skill is immaterial when fire solutions have to be "Saturate this area with fire because he can't be outside this apparent elipse..." Any system accounting for pilot skill in space combat with the ranges involved is inherently cinematic.Yes and no?
I've been thoroughly disappointed by a lot of systems not taking into account pilot skill, and size of craft when dealing with defensive modifiers.
Given the resolution minimum of 1G in 1 turn, 6 min turn (360s), ranges are in 1296km chunks using 10m/s/s Traveller G's, or 1270km Earth G's, thats about 0.00423 LS per G-turn. assuming some 5 to 6 burns distance at engage, that's 0.02LS, or 0.14s round trip+Aim... in 0.14s, the pilot of a fighter isn't going to make a difference - he's deviated a mere 0.7 meters in a 6G ship.
Heck, even at CT's 0.5LS typical engagement ranges, and adding 0.1S for tracking time still, he's still only gone a maximum of 36m off expected location using 6G (6m using 1G)... and anything fancy he does puts him closer to the center of the probability elipse AND makes it less likely he'll be going anywhere he wants to go.
Are we taking gunnery skill into account when firing? The same answer should apply to piloting and dodging.
You have also made a few assumptions sir, if I may:
a) The deviation only occur once the target is firmly in the sights.
b) There is no evasion - and that this is a dodge to avoid a shot, not to make it more difficult to take the shot (which is not true of any BFM that I know of - Basic Fighter Maneuvers)
c) The accuracy/resolution of a turret that is 10,000km away from a target. That the nth percentage of a degree required to account for 36 meter deviation for example is trivial. I see you've mentioned its about are saturation. I think range modifiers cover that somehow (saturating an area that is 50k km out rather than 100 km out)?
d) Your assume, that a fairly skilled pilot using only 6G (Is not 9G+ possible for some fighters?) will somehow put a pilot off track and not where he wants to be. I think it's best we leave that up to the pilot whose career it was to fly in combat rather than our conjecture?
Again - I think all your points prove, with mine, that piloting skill should have SOME effect.
Regardless, I'm not here to argue to merits of piloting skill (which should be obvious considering we have the merits of gunnery accounted for), but I am curious as to how the system takes them into account or if it does.
Last edited:
You can't get out of the way. "Evasion" in space combat isn't the tight maneuvers of aircraft - given the time-to-target, YOU CAN'T EVEN GET OUT OF THE WAY.
Pilot skill is UTTERLY, TOTALLY IMMATERIAL.
Gunnery skill is in guestimation, not actually putting rounds on target. Gunners don't sight down barrels. Hell, Gunners can't even SEE the target. They are looking at scopes, and concentrating fire within the ellipse.
Anything you do other than large maneuvers puts your elipse smaller, making you EASIER to hit. Which means accelerations longer than the distance in LS... but at barely realistic ranges of 0.1 to 0.5 LS for non-gravitic-focused lasers, 6G's isn't even getting out of its own length. Your skill is immaterial as a pilot, because NOTHING YOU can do will put you away from the center of the elipse of where you can be far enoough to cause a miss.
The gunner, likewise, has no time to actually line up shots. He's intuiting where in the elipse to focus the majority of fire, picking which target to shoot, and does the maintenance, but the computer's algorithms actually do all the fire. (Think of CIWS weapon crews - they don't actually fire the weapon, ever - they enable it, prioritize threat zones, and turn it on or off, safety on or off, and maintain it... but once on, they really do not "fire" the weapon.")
The laser battlefield is a VERY different experience from the aircraft dogfight. The physics involved result in a tremendously different paradigm.
Pilot skill is UTTERLY, TOTALLY IMMATERIAL.
Gunnery skill is in guestimation, not actually putting rounds on target. Gunners don't sight down barrels. Hell, Gunners can't even SEE the target. They are looking at scopes, and concentrating fire within the ellipse.
Anything you do other than large maneuvers puts your elipse smaller, making you EASIER to hit. Which means accelerations longer than the distance in LS... but at barely realistic ranges of 0.1 to 0.5 LS for non-gravitic-focused lasers, 6G's isn't even getting out of its own length. Your skill is immaterial as a pilot, because NOTHING YOU can do will put you away from the center of the elipse of where you can be far enoough to cause a miss.
The gunner, likewise, has no time to actually line up shots. He's intuiting where in the elipse to focus the majority of fire, picking which target to shoot, and does the maintenance, but the computer's algorithms actually do all the fire. (Think of CIWS weapon crews - they don't actually fire the weapon, ever - they enable it, prioritize threat zones, and turn it on or off, safety on or off, and maintain it... but once on, they really do not "fire" the weapon.")
The laser battlefield is a VERY different experience from the aircraft dogfight. The physics involved result in a tremendously different paradigm.
Precisely. It is simple mathematics. Light speed - distance - craft G limit - size of craft. Those set the outer boundaries that the WSO (Weapon System Operator) considers. Most of the time the center of that will always have the target filling it.
This raises an interesting point.
Do all these arguments about the irrelevance of pilot skill apply equally to the irrelevance of gunner skill?
From your comments, the computer generates an aim point 0.7 meters in radius to target a multi-cm beam at a multi-meter diameter target.
How does Gunner skill impact that shot?
pendragonman
Absent Friends Margrave
Which sadly is not very cinematic or good for role-play.
a) I think you gents need to clarify for me how maneuverability is irrelevant. What you are saying makes it seem like you're shading in an entire three dimensional area so that missing is impossible. You're colouring in an entire matrix with laser fire? That seems a bit unrealistic (hah - I just used that word regarding a scifi RPG)
b) Since a) deals with the math; on the philosphical angle, if it is a sure thing to identify the elipse and determine and X% chance to hit regardless. Then Gunnery skill shouldn't matter either... correct?
b) Since a) deals with the math; on the philosphical angle, if it is a sure thing to identify the elipse and determine and X% chance to hit regardless. Then Gunnery skill shouldn't matter either... correct?
Exactly my point. Either nothing matters - or both matter. Or, I guess, the game designer is equally within his/her rights to say "No - one side matters and the other does not". Then we simply fall into the "not very cinematic or good for role-play".
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
aramis, to a certain degree I am in agreement.
CERTAINLY, once a beam weapon is fired, you are either a hit target or it missed. Once fired upon there is nothing left but fate.
BEFORE a beam weapon fires is where pilot "skill" (or just accidental luck in a maneuver) counts. Relative computer is in part the ability of the firing ship to "predict" where to aim for an accurate hit. Here, a pilot can affect the targeting if for no other reason flying inconsistently or erratically.
Knowing an enemies tactics has been a time honored way of defending against them. I'll grant a computer is infinitely faster than any pilot reaction, but they are not sentient. Other than programing an evasive "pattern" or sequence (which an opposing computer can "learn"), a computer is a creature of habit. Habits, in warfare, will get you killed by an enemy.
In this case I would suggest that pilot, and gunnery, skill would be that study of combat, both evasive and firing, that counts. My gunner has studied basic combat techniques and so hat the pilot. Hopefully, military intelligence has provided the oppositions "manuals on tactics and abilities in addition to basic skills.
One sides gunner knows where another pilot has been trained to go. The pilot knows where a gunner is most likely to fire. Both try to do something the other doesn't anticipate.
Every combat soldier I ever knew developed a "sixth sense" a twitch between the shoulders you get when being observed... (Another time, another topic...)
Anyway, if a computer can do everything a pilot can do, and do it better, let's do away with pilots altogether...
Missile fire is another matter; plenty of time to pull some evasive maneuvers. (Missiles must either track or use a "shotgun" approach.) A pilot could even turn away and outrun a missile (though that would be Breaking off).
In all cases a pilot can control the attitude of his ship. He brings maximum weapons to bear or adjusts for maximum defensive batteries to bear. (Batteries barring rule)
It might be irrelevant.
Case: Your ship is a sphere 30 meters in diameter. You have a 1G M-drive (~10m sec/sec) The firing vessel is 1/10th L.S. away. The gunner targets "center of mass" on the 30 meter diameter ship. The gunner instructs the targeting computer to fire as soon as "lock on" occurs. Say a total time of 5/10ths of a second. The target ship can maneuver only 5 meters in that time frame.
Now play around with different M-drive G ratings & distance for that ship...
At some point we have to stop the quest for complete rationality and realism, because we'll step out of the realm of "fun game" and into "un-fun simulation". Try to imagine if we used ANY logical extension of today's rapidly advancing computer technology and intelligent software design (note: completely avoiding anything AI-like), and applied it to space combat.
No game left. More specifically, no fun left.
For those of you with long histories, please remember the end-points of the c-fractional rocks and space-pirate economics "discussions" that many of us have joined in so gleefully over the years: 1) yes, c-fractional rocks work, within the laws of physics; yes, they'd be used constantly, regardless of consequences; yes, there's no room for fun there at all, and 2) no, there's no economic system discoverable that'd allow pirates to fly their own spaceships, keep them repaired and supplied, and give them a Port Royal for disposing of their ill-gotten gains...without someone bringing several c-fracs to said Port Royal in short order. Once again, no game left, no fun left.
Winking at certain things is a skill we need to cultivate. All space games are space operas; some are simply a bit less operatic than others.
No game left. More specifically, no fun left.
For those of you with long histories, please remember the end-points of the c-fractional rocks and space-pirate economics "discussions" that many of us have joined in so gleefully over the years: 1) yes, c-fractional rocks work, within the laws of physics; yes, they'd be used constantly, regardless of consequences; yes, there's no room for fun there at all, and 2) no, there's no economic system discoverable that'd allow pirates to fly their own spaceships, keep them repaired and supplied, and give them a Port Royal for disposing of their ill-gotten gains...without someone bringing several c-fracs to said Port Royal in short order. Once again, no game left, no fun left.
Winking at certain things is a skill we need to cultivate. All space games are space operas; some are simply a bit less operatic than others.
IMTU, using energy/particle weapons for effect requires maintaining Time On Target. Where target is a localized area, not (usually) the whole ship. Merely hitting the target isn't enough, the energy has to be concentrated long enough in one area. So changing aspect alone can affect the outcome. With caveats for small ships vs large/capital ship weapons in 'saturation' range - and advantages for close in ranges for smaller craft. This rationalization fits with incorporating more skill into combat.
While I've seen first hand a multi-megawatt laser 'instantly' vaporize thick steel plate, I find it plausible that sci-fi energy/particle weapons, to be effective, need finite time to vary characteristics and take advantage of compound damage mechanisms (ala thermal effects) to overcome the obvious material defenses that can be built into a hull. Especially considering some reasonable degree of kinetic, wide spectrum EM and high energy particle protection the likes of prolong space operations would entail.
(Of course, while I originally just overlaid these 'rationalizations' on the 1,000s/20m CT combat rules, I eventually ended up going beyond these to account for more variable damage and more skill/creativity in combat...)
While I've seen first hand a multi-megawatt laser 'instantly' vaporize thick steel plate, I find it plausible that sci-fi energy/particle weapons, to be effective, need finite time to vary characteristics and take advantage of compound damage mechanisms (ala thermal effects) to overcome the obvious material defenses that can be built into a hull. Especially considering some reasonable degree of kinetic, wide spectrum EM and high energy particle protection the likes of prolong space operations would entail.
(Of course, while I originally just overlaid these 'rationalizations' on the 1,000s/20m CT combat rules, I eventually ended up going beyond these to account for more variable damage and more skill/creativity in combat...)
Are we taking gunnery skill into account when firing? The same answer should apply to piloting and dodging.
You have also made a few assumptions sir, if I may:
a) The deviation only occur once the target is firmly in the sights.
b) There is no evasion - and that this is a dodge to avoid a shot, not to make it more difficult to take the shot (which is not true of any BFM that I know of - Basic Fighter Maneuvers)
c) The accuracy/resolution of a turret that is 10,000km away from a target. That the nth percentage of a degree required to account for 36 meter deviation for example is trivial. I see you've mentioned its about are saturation. I think range modifiers cover that somehow (saturating an area that is 50k km out rather than 100 km out)?
d) Your assume, that a fairly skilled pilot using only 6G (Is not 9G+ possible for some fighters?) will somehow put a pilot off track and not where he wants to be. I think it's best we leave that up to the pilot whose career it was to fly in combat rather than our conjecture?
Again - I think all your points prove, with mine, that piloting skill should have SOME effect.
Regardless, I'm not here to argue to merits of piloting skill (which should be obvious considering we have the merits of gunnery accounted for), but I am curious as to how the system takes them into account or if it does.
The "gunner" is basically the man in the loop confirming that it's ok to burn the shiny red dot, and which shiny red dot, on his console. The gunner is not controlling this mount, the computer is. The computer is interpreting the sensor data. The computer is performing the ballistics and flight path projections. The computer is tracking the firing solution. The computer is operating the mount. The gunner says "okie dokie, set to extra crispy and fry when ready" and computer takes that green light and fires when it seems fit.
The pilots ability to "jink" and "dodge" is seriously constrained by the mechanics of maneuver in zero G and in vacuum. A space ship is not an airplane. You can not simply twitch an aileron and expect the ship to move.
Rather, you have a LARGE thruster and smaller maneuver jets. If you want "6G" of maneuver, you have to turn that LARGE thruster in the opposite direction of whatever maneuver you are trying to do. At best you have a gimbaled thruster which can give you some maneuverability and potentially a faster direction change than a maneuvering thruster. But the key point is that turns are as sluggish as the mounts themselves, or the actual delta V that can be generated by the maneuvering thrusters. And don't forget, unlike an airplane where returning a control surface to normal returns to normal flight (modulo stall angle, etc.), space ships need to "undo" the maneuver by a countering maneuver, or they going spin, spin, spinning in to the black.
All of these conspire to make maneuver a sluggish affair. The bulk of your thrust generation is fixed and has to be physically changed to affect dramatic maneuvers, and those rotations will take time -- time that a computer can watch, anticipate, and leverage for targeting. How long do you think it takes to invert the space craft in order to reduce velocity? In this environment, with light speed weapons, and nano-second computers, seconds not only count, they simply take far, far too long. These all severely narrow the probability window of where the ship will be from second to second, eventually narrowing to not just a probability but a certainty that "some part" of the ship is going to be within the circle of impact for the light speed weapon. That's when the computer fires and the pilot skill gets turned in to a fine, smokey mist.
This stuff is soullessly automated and a numbers game. Physics is a harsh task master. It's a game of tolerances, mechanical response time, and sensor sensitivity. The weak, Carbon Based Lifeforms offer little out side the decision to green light the computers in the first place.
(Weird -- the board logged me out...)
No, (realistic) space combat is not very cinematic. It's also not spectacularly interesting tactically. In general, it's a pretty blah game overall. You have to start adding in handwavium on top of handwavium to make it even remotely interesting, frankly. This is why ship combat, notably in Traveller, is more a strategic game than a tactical one.
Light speed weapons change the battle space dramatically.
I was just watching a youtube of a someone shooting a .357 at some metal targets. You can hear the distinct pause between the *BANG* and the *CLINK*. When you do the same thing with a high powered rifle, especially at these ranges (10's of yards) , the *BANG* and *CLINK* walk on top of each other because the bullet is so much faster.
That distinct pause is where a large chunk of "missing" happens when firing at moving targets. The delay between *BANG* and *CLINK* gives the target time to move to where the gunner is not aiming. ("Serpentine! Serpentine!")
The problem then boils down to how fast the target can change position, and whether it can do so before the *BANG* becomes a *CLINK*. With light speed weapons, it's quite difficult for a ship to "react" faster then the mount, much less faster than the weapon itself.
You have to consider how small the weapon mount must change it's motions to track something 10's of thousands of kilometers away in contrast to how much change must happen for the dodging ship, and how quickly. Consider 10,000 km -- and how much a ship must change, in a 30th of a second intervals to try and dodge a mount that must move in thousandths of an arc second. Once the mount has "locked on" and starts tracking, the computer has to "guess" where the ship will be 1/15th of a second from now, move the mount there first, and start blasting.
Can your ship turn direction in 1/15th of second? Can it turn back? By the time the pilot realizes the direction change has occurred and starts to change it back ("jinking"), the attacking mount had you locked in for several 10ths of a second and could be firing at anytime. You could try jerking the joystick back and forth, but the drive has to respond, the servos have to move, and humans are simply not very good at "random". In the end you'd have to rest -- take a breather. Just a second. And -- bam -- a second is a LONG time to a computer. All that bouncing around is happening in "slow motion" for the computer. You're struggling to push the joystick around, the attacking ballistic computer is doing integral calculus 1000 times a second while watching you, running scenarios, taking in to account ship size, past performance, servo velocity, observed patterns.
You thought the T2000 was a bad nemesis. Wait until you go eye to eye with a ballistic laser computer.
No, (realistic) space combat is not very cinematic. It's also not spectacularly interesting tactically. In general, it's a pretty blah game overall. You have to start adding in handwavium on top of handwavium to make it even remotely interesting, frankly. This is why ship combat, notably in Traveller, is more a strategic game than a tactical one.
Light speed weapons change the battle space dramatically.
I was just watching a youtube of a someone shooting a .357 at some metal targets. You can hear the distinct pause between the *BANG* and the *CLINK*. When you do the same thing with a high powered rifle, especially at these ranges (10's of yards) , the *BANG* and *CLINK* walk on top of each other because the bullet is so much faster.
That distinct pause is where a large chunk of "missing" happens when firing at moving targets. The delay between *BANG* and *CLINK* gives the target time to move to where the gunner is not aiming. ("Serpentine! Serpentine!")
The problem then boils down to how fast the target can change position, and whether it can do so before the *BANG* becomes a *CLINK*. With light speed weapons, it's quite difficult for a ship to "react" faster then the mount, much less faster than the weapon itself.
You have to consider how small the weapon mount must change it's motions to track something 10's of thousands of kilometers away in contrast to how much change must happen for the dodging ship, and how quickly. Consider 10,000 km -- and how much a ship must change, in a 30th of a second intervals to try and dodge a mount that must move in thousandths of an arc second. Once the mount has "locked on" and starts tracking, the computer has to "guess" where the ship will be 1/15th of a second from now, move the mount there first, and start blasting.
Can your ship turn direction in 1/15th of second? Can it turn back? By the time the pilot realizes the direction change has occurred and starts to change it back ("jinking"), the attacking mount had you locked in for several 10ths of a second and could be firing at anytime. You could try jerking the joystick back and forth, but the drive has to respond, the servos have to move, and humans are simply not very good at "random". In the end you'd have to rest -- take a breather. Just a second. And -- bam -- a second is a LONG time to a computer. All that bouncing around is happening in "slow motion" for the computer. You're struggling to push the joystick around, the attacking ballistic computer is doing integral calculus 1000 times a second while watching you, running scenarios, taking in to account ship size, past performance, servo velocity, observed patterns.
You thought the T2000 was a bad nemesis. Wait until you go eye to eye with a ballistic laser computer.
Yep, if a computer can track it, then its pretty much a given it can hit it given near light speed weapons and targets that have nowhere near the acceleration to avoid a hit and no means to tell the future. 
Not that Traveller doesn't require a good dose of 'suspension of disbelief' to begin with, but I found CT often offers enough wiggle room to avoid some of the most glaring. I required a laser to be focused on the same 'spot' for some fraction of the 15~20 minute CT combat turn to be effective. Thus providing human time scale opportunities.
If your beam has to stay within meters (or cm) of a spot on a target 10s of thousands of km away for 5 to 10 minutes, then the computer's ability to predict, and a human's ability to out-predict, can come into play (pun).
Not that Traveller doesn't require a good dose of 'suspension of disbelief' to begin with, but I found CT often offers enough wiggle room to avoid some of the most glaring. I required a laser to be focused on the same 'spot' for some fraction of the 15~20 minute CT combat turn to be effective. Thus providing human time scale opportunities.
If your beam has to stay within meters (or cm) of a spot on a target 10s of thousands of km away for 5 to 10 minutes, then the computer's ability to predict, and a human's ability to out-predict, can come into play (pun).
