Ship Design Question:

[Vladika]

So if you really want realistic combat, then use missiles except at the shortest of ranges.

For the life of me I also can't see why a ship, or fighter, couldn't fly right up the arse of another under the assumption that the higher agility ship can pretty much do as it pleases. At that point a nothing of a fighter could close to the point that it couldn't miss even firing visually. I believe the term is "nibbled to death by gerbils"?

Simply overwhelm the targets point defenses with to many targets. You can design a 5.5dt triple missile fighter with AG 6. (I have them in my Fleet, but, they are Marine Ground Attack fighters, not designed too turn myself into a Munchkin!)

 

[BytePro]

Before re-writing HG , I would like to point out that Lasers are only effective at those ranges in the first place because of the magic of 'grav focusing'.
If you use real world laser data along with your real world targeting data ...

Well, in the real world, we don't actually have any lasers designed for long range space combat.

Techniques may well be developed to overcome far-field diffraction limits to collimation of a laser (as has been done with near-field and proposed at least for far-field) without resorting to handwavium or km diameter emitters. Leaving the laser limited then primarily by gravitation and the handful of atoms per cm in the near vacuum cases...

Of course, we are layering 'realism' on top of fantasy - the more relevant aspect is 'believability' which varies by individual.

As to HG - CT (2nd edition at least) simply provides for short and long, which are explicitly 'indeterminate ranges'. Lasers and such being 'most effective at short range' and energy weapons limited to short range.

 

[HG_B]

For the life of me I also can't see why a ship, or fighter, couldn't fly right up the arse of another under the assumption that the higher agility ship can pretty much do as it pleases.

That assumption is incorrect. That's why not.

 

[Vladika]

That assumption is incorrect. That's why not.

Would be helpful if you would share your reasons.

 

[GypsyComet]

I simply disagree and believe that any random action from a pilot BEFORE a LS weapon fires makes predicting the target location harder, hence pilot skill.

A lot of this argument comes down to sensor quality, coverage, and processing power available to the sensor data. Most of the reality wonks here seem to think that a dumpy little free trader is going to pack a navigation and detection grid with the same sensitivity and coverage as the combined observatories of the world (who still miss asteroids on a frequent basis despite acres of lens and antenna) and a super computer to collate all that information.

I have less problem with the super computer part, given the nature of Jump.

Of course Lasers have to roll to hit. They need to put a persistent point of energy input on a target a fraction of an arc second across despite its movement, their movement, dust, sand, the maintenance record on the lubricants used for the turret itself, calibration errors, the vibrations inherent to the ship's power and maneuver, two of the sensor antenna being fried by the last return shot (or just being slightly below spec since that last re-entry), the gunner's mate tromping around in those huge space boots, the panicking Heffalopardis in the hold, and heavens know what other odd signal interferences there might be.

 

[hdan]

Which can be defeated simply by the target ship rolling on its axis. Fails logic 101.

Glad someone brought this up. Clearly, maneuvering the ship out from under the laser beam is not plausible given the distances, times and rates involved.

However, if the laser takes some non-trivial amount of time to burn the target, it *is* plausible to roll the ship to attempt to minimize damage. Since "agility" covers rotational attitude control (as well as messing up the ship's own laser "hose"), I don't see a problem.

Let pilot skill (or auto/evade) work to increase the chances that no damage will occur. Let armor soak up what damage does occur. It all works out. In MgT, I might prefer to allow a piloting roll's effect to work as extra armor, but <shrug>.

 

[aramis]

He was and I know that. It would pretty much turn things into a missile only system though.

I simply disagree and believe that any random action from a pilot BEFORE a LS weapon fires makes predicting the target location harder, hence pilot skill.

Still, should aramis be correct, all those hit modifiers would vanish from the HG tables for LS weapons. Missiles would keep them.

So, where does that leave us? Stick with what we have or T6.aramis?

BTW, would the same argument apply for shooting down incoming missiles with LS weapons? They are a lot closer and probably within a similar "cone of fire".

what we have, in hg, is extremely unrealistic as a combat sim. it is amusing as a game.

anything you do prior to their fire, within canonical ranges for lasers, mathematically can't make you harder to hit, except breaking off/opening range.

realistic ranges for combat should be less than 1/10 what CT, MT, MgT, give. T5 is built on the same flawed laser paradigm.

BytePro's misbelief that it is solved by use of longer on target time fails to remember that any spot is shedding energy, only the spot under it is gaining. If the beam isn't damaging in a second or less, it isn't going to ever be, because it is low enough intensity to be nothing but a heat lamp, and by rolling, I radiate off almost all of it. At a minimum, I divide the energy density by my circumference.... and on big ships, enough to get around more than a couple passes is enough to flatten the crew, but a useful 250MW laser spot is being divided by 50+ time the area... and it is energy density that causes damage; slow heat, the energy spreads laterally by conduction, and radiates as a blackbody, and you don't achieve failure.

Plus, more required time on target point means less human ability to keep it there. Again, computer replaces gunner.

 

[atpollard]

Well, in the real world, we don't actually have any lasers designed for long range space combat.

Then we probably don't have the space laser targeting systems that negate pilot skill as a defensive modifier either.

From a metagame perspective, I have played rules systems where skill doesn't matter and I have played rules systems where it does ... I found the cinematic (maneuvering through an asteroid field or struggling to repair the power coupling to initiate a jump) skill-heavy systems more fun to play.

Frack realism, give me fun.

 

[Vladika]

anything you do prior to their fire, within canonical ranges for lasers, mathematically can't make you harder to hit, except breaking off/opening range.

aramis, I guess I am figuring pilot skill into the equation before there is a guaranteed "lock on". I do agree with you in that after guaranteed "lock on" NOTHING matters.

I'm not questioning the LS of the weapon. I'm questioning the ability to thwart "lock on" before it occurs. If I hold a steady course and speed, "lock on" is easy. Random movement of a potential target should certainly make that a touch more difficult.

At any rate, sensors are 2xLS for targeting telemetry, then it's LS plus the pause in the time of the division to fire.

 

[HG_B]

Would be helpful if you would share your reasons.

Aramis & I have spelled it out earlier in thread.

 

[HG_B]

Most of the reality wonks here seem to think that a dumpy little free trader is going to pack a navigation and detection grid with the same sensitivity and coverage as the combined observatories of the world (who still miss asteroids on a frequent basis despite acres of lens and antenna) and a super computer to collate all that information.

I guess you didn't know that asteroids aren't glowing brighter than a searchlight in the IR band because they aren't using fusion power plants??? :rofl:

 

[Vladika]

Aramis & I have spelled it out earlier in thread.

I'm not talking about targeting ellipse and timing here, I accept much of that.

What I would seriously like to know is what stops a craft from getting as close to another ship as it wants too? Obviously you have to have at least the same, or higher, maneuver drives and I'd think superior agility too would be a great help.

Barring being shot to pieces by weapons fire, what stops a ship with better speed and agility from getting in close? Other than the rules of course.

 

[HG_B]

I'm not talking about targeting ellipse and timing here, I accept much of that.

What I would seriously like to know is what stops a craft from getting as close to another ship as it wants too? Obviously you have to have at least the same, or higher, maneuver drives and I'd think superior agility too would be a great help.

Barring being shot to pieces by weapons fire, what stops a ship with better speed and agility from getting in close? Other than the rules of course.

I misunderstood. Of course if you aren't being shot at, and you are faster, there is nothing stopping you. But, I threw out nonsensical rules like that >30 years ago.

 

[GypsyComet]

what we have, in hg, is extremely unrealistic as a combat sim. it is amusing as a game.

Just not amusing for very long, that's all.

 

[GypsyComet]

I guess you didn't know that asteroids aren't glowing brighter than a searchlight in the IR band because they aren't using fusion power plants??? :rofl:

Patronize much?

Most ships are taking a much larger IR searchlight to the face in the form of the local sun.

Unless you are one of those fusion rocket types, the ships are only radiating. Ships from editions that don't mistakenly use Striker for their technical assumptions are also generating much smaller power signatures. T4 and T5 ships have the potential to be a lot cooler than even TNE and T20 ships unless just emerging from Jump.

Assuming you can identify a hot spot as a specific ship, you still need to have spotted it first. Unless your ship is spinning like a top or covered in car tire-sized IR sensors, that initial scan is going to take a while. The WISE IR sky survey took two years to complete. Even allowing for simplification of mission, a podunk merchant is probably looking at hours or longer per sweep. Detection distance is both temperature AND SIZE dependent, even with a long-term survey package.

BUT.

This has long since left the original question far behind, derailed by people who insist on too much reality in a game.

 

[HG_B]

Patronize much?

Nope. It was just a funny post.

 

[BytePro]

...
BytePro's misbelief that it is solved by use of longer on target time fails to remember that any spot is shedding energy,

Not at all. It is part of the premise.

realistic ranges for combat should be less than 1/10 what CT, MT, MgT, give...
... but a useful 250MW laser spot is being divided by 50+ time the area...

CT doesn't provide any MW to lasers - and HG does not define ranges. That's why I stuck with it - more believable that way.

The RW range of material properties, geometries and delivery characteristics makes any detailed assumptions about energy and thermal dynamics nonsense.

Then we probably don't have the space laser targeting systems that negate pilot skill as a defensive modifier either.

No - but, if a laser has no real dwell time, there is no time for a pilot reaction and not much meaning to it with Traveller's limited accelerations.

... I found the cinematic (maneuvering through an asteroid field or struggling to repair the power coupling to initiate a jump) skill-heavy systems more fun to play.

Frack realism, give me fun.

With you there, to a degree. To a greater or lesser extent everyone must put realism aside who plays the game. I don't consider anything at all in Traveller to be 'realistic' myself - its a game. However, when I can avoid obvious suspension of disbelief breakers (dodging lasers) with some vague rationale with a tip of the hat to reality that also can add to the roleplay fun, I'll take it. (Noting roleplay fun for me precludes fiddly mechanics that distract from the game.)

In the case of my Time On Target 'fix' - it provides a vague rationale for why pilot skill counts - and also some good after action roleplay elements. Any shot that would have done damage - not counting the DMs - just does a different type of damage later.

...Assuming you can identify a hot spot as a specific ship, you still need to have spotted it first. Unless your ship is spinning like a top or covered in car tire-sized IR sensors, that initial scan is going to take a while. The WISE IR sky survey took two years to complete. Even allowing for simplification of mission, a podunk merchant is probably looking at hours or longer per sweep. Detection distance is both temperature AND SIZE dependent, even with a long-term survey package.

Yep.

And the fact that humans can control the direction of radiated energy under known circumstances...

 

[Sigmund]

Just a few quick questions. Are the M drives not assumed to be based on the manipulation of gravity? Between the use of gravity manipulation for thrust and for inertial damping, I've always assumed the dodging and other stuff relying on Pilot skill were based on the replacement of the air medium with the gravity of the system. So fighters would be "surfing" on gravity rather than air, making space a bit less empty and frictionless, thereby making tactical maneuvering much more useful and feasible, since we're basically playing fantasy here anyway. If I were to assume, in my games, that most of the points in this thread were true, it leads me to wonder what use fighters would have at all. Seems to me they'd be unavoidably destroyed the absolute micro-second they entered weapon range. Also, seems to me there's loads of extrapolation and pretend science being put forth in favor of the turret and computer being completely unavoidable and infallible, but, other than for a few folks, not much being imagined in favor of a fighter and/or pilot being equally effective or useful. Does the pilot not also have a computer/sensors to help? Forgive me, I'm no physicist, but seems to me as soon as we mention a laser that can actually cause damage to a space ship we're entering the realm of fantasy.

 

[HG_B]

Just a few quick questions. Are the M drives not assumed to be based on the manipulation of gravity? Between the use of gravity manipulation for thrust and for inertial damping, I've always assumed the dodging and other stuff relying on Pilot skill were based on the replacement of the air medium with the gravity of the system. So fighters would be "surfing" on gravity rather than air, making space a bit less empty and frictionless,

The assumption that friction would be created because of gravity and thus, would act like atmosphere doesn't match with anything known about gravity. So, I'd say no...

 

[Sigmund]

The assumption that friction would be created because of gravity and thus, would act like atmosphere doesn't match with anything known about gravity. So, I'd say no...

I'd say that what is currently known about gravity precludes the possibility of controlling it, so I am not convinced by your reasoning. As long as we're pretending we can control gravity, I fail to see why pretending we're using it for maneuvering a fighter is such a stretch.