Starships - Are We Bringing Enough Guns?

[Diveguy]

NOTE: I am NOT trying to challenge canon, re-write almost 40 years of our game, or otherwise start drama. Rather, I found this an interesting thing to consider and was curious as to what others thought. Nor am I interested in debating the "hard science" side of starship combat that Atomic Rockets does such a great job of break down real world vs. science fiction. Finally, I acknowledge beyond any shadow of a doubt that there are rules and canon I am *not* thinking of that probably address some of this.

In some of my non-gaming reading for the day, I was perusing an article by a retired Naval officer discussing the unfortunate state of our (U.S.) current fleet vis-a-vis the real world threat stream (a topic he has expounded on knowledgeably throughout the years). For the TL/DR crowd his argument, supported by history, is that when real-world conflicts happen Navies will bolt everything that can shoot onto their platforms in an attempt to counter threats. While he references battleships and other large combatants, for those without the background trust me, it extends down as small as "craft" can go - look up how much ended up mounted on WW II PT boats, or Vietnam-era PBRs as an example.

Which got me thinking about something I've always noticed about Traveller, even in my early exposures - that, by and large, ships had far fewer weapons than I would have expected... particularly if you work mostly in a small-ship universe. I'm aware some variants and such have played with this, but, by and large, Traveller ships have fewer but bigger weapons.

So, a few potential debate points come to mind:

- We're purely focused on "starship level threats" and things that can interact at near-AU distances; things like point defense and anti-personnel don't get reflected...
- While Traveller starships (and most sci-fi space combat) is based and somewhat modeled on real-world wet-navy operations, it's foolish to take the correlation too far...
- Come on, look at Star Wars, et al - throw some more turrets on those hulls!
- Eh, space combat is icky/difficult - can't we just focus on other stuff?

So - with all that said - I'd be curious to hear thoughts from others.

 

[whartung]

Traveller ships have fewer but bigger weapons.

The fewer, bigger weapons are what kill ships vs just make noise.

Small weapons for small ships, big weapons for big ships, and since fighters "don't work" (because they only mount small weapons which don't kill ships), there's little need for small weapons to fight off clouds of fighters.

Ergo, fewer, but bigger weapons.

 

[robject]

No you've got a valid point. I've seen this since shortly after I picked up Classic Traveller and started running games. My players would never care -- the setting is the setting. But I always wondered why in the world you'd buy a single laser when a triple doesn't really add that much to your monthly payment. And so on.

At the end of the day, I decided that the setting must be of a nature that makes it really unlikely for random combat to occur. I'm not sure I can articulate why that would be. Space is big? Interstellar traffic is low? Or perhaps the opposite -- patrols are common enough because there's lots of traffic.

Dunno, but... but I like the setting.

 

[Spinward Flow]

the setting must be of a nature that makes it really unlikely for random combat to occur. I'm not sure I can articulate why that would be. Space is big? Interstellar traffic is low? Or perhaps the opposite -- patrols are common enough because there's lots of traffic.

It kinda (sorta) depends on where you go.

Just as a matter of "chuck lots of dice" ... if you're running a route through a location which is mostly type C-E starports ... eventually you're going to run into someone who will try to make a move on you. It might be as rare as "once per year" that it happens, but the only way to absolutely prevent it from happening is to stick to type A-B starports where the system defense patrols ARE common enough to have run off the (wannabe) bandits.

Yes, space is big.
Yes, interstellar traffic can be low.

But you're there, aren't you?
Why can't someone else be there too ...
And not everyone else out there is going to be "nice and friendly" when paths cross ... so ...

When risks get high, being prepared isn't exactly an "option" (for anyone who wants to stay in business).

 

[Condottiere]

Optimal use of deck space, versus what's the actual threat.

Accurate fire control allowed the increased range of guns, plus the ability to be able to distinguish one set of splashes for correction, as opposed to another.

The Soviet solution for bolting down large missile systems top deck, is just an externalization of the vertical launch system, with what they understood was likely a kamikaze mission.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Optimal use of deck space, versus what's the actual threat.

Accurate fire control allowed the increased range of guns, plus the ability to be able to distinguish one set of splashes for correction, as opposed to another.

The Soviet solution for bolting down large missile systems top deck, is just an externalization of the vertical launch system, with what they understood was likely a kamikaze mission.

Lun-class surface-effect craft. Image credit: wikipedia.

 

[Condottiere]

As I recall, needs calm waters for smooth sailing.

Otherwise, depending on fuel efficiency, would likely have been earmarked for amphibious expeditionary units.

 

[Rupert]

NOTE: I am NOT trying to challenge canon, re-write almost 40 years of our game, or otherwise start drama. Rather, I found this an interesting thing to consider and was curious as to what others thought. Nor am I interested in debating the "hard science" side of starship combat that Atomic Rockets does such a great job of break down real world vs. science fiction. Finally, I acknowledge beyond any shadow of a doubt that there are rules and canon I am *not* thinking of that probably address some of this.

In some of my non-gaming reading for the day, I was perusing an article by a retired Naval officer discussing the unfortunate state of our (U.S.) current fleet vis-a-vis the real world threat stream (a topic he has expounded on knowledgeably throughout the years). For the TL/DR crowd his argument, supported by history, is that when real-world conflicts happen Navies will bolt everything that can shoot onto their platforms in an attempt to counter threats. While he references battleships and other large combatants, for those without the background trust me, it extends down as small as "craft" can go - look up how much ended up mounted on WW II PT boats, or Vietnam-era PBRs as an example.

And most of those 'bolted on' guns on WWII ships were a waste of space, money, topweight, and crew. On smaller ships the tendency to put guns on anywhere there was room caused a lot of problems for inter-war destroyers in a number of navies. The Japanese made their too light, to get more tonnage for guns. The Germans put guns on them that were too big, causing major topweight problems. The Americans put too many guns on their, again, causing topweight problems. For the US it was at least in part policial - congress objected to paying for a bigger ship that didn't have more guns (thus defeating the whole point of the larger destroyer class - having tonnage for things like protection and seakeeping).

I expect that (aside from it being a design balance thing) in universe the rule about hardpoints or equivalents being limited is from long experience with spaceships with too many guns and not enough of everything else.

Which got me thinking about something I've always noticed about Traveller, even in my early exposures - that, by and large, ships had far fewer weapons than I would have expected... particularly if you work mostly in a small-ship universe. I'm aware some variants and such have played with this, but, by and large, Traveller ships have fewer but bigger weapons.

So, a few potential debate points come to mind:

- We're purely focused on "starship level threats" and things that can interact at near-AU distances; things like point defense and anti-personnel don't get reflected...
- While Traveller starships (and most sci-fi space combat) is based and somewhat modeled on real-world wet-navy operations, it's foolish to take the correlation too far...
- Come on, look at Star Wars, et al - throw some more turrets on those hulls!
- Eh, space combat is icky/difficult - can't we just focus on other stuff?

So - with all that said - I'd be curious to hear thoughts from others.

As for smaller, ground support or self-defence whilst grounded, weapons - Striker and MegaTraveller had sandcasters being pretty darned good anti-personnel weapons, though arcs of fire might be limited if the ship is grounded.

One of the ships in TNE had a ventral turret-mounted squad support laser (suitable for shooting up grunts), and a pair of fixed rapid-fire plasma guns (powerful enough, with the errata, to deal with a grav tank). As TNE's ship mounted lasers weren't always powerful enough to deal with tanks and had a low rate of fire (unlike Striker/MT's stats for them), this was a nice side-effect of the errata that upgraded plasma and fusion guns (without that they'd be limited to dealing with light grav vehicles and low-TL tanks).

I've often thought that a gauss VRF gun and a few cassettes of ammo in a retracable turret would be a sensible addition to any PCs' ship. Millenium Falcon had the equivalent of such, after all.

 

[Condottiere]

Indiscrimination.

 

[whartung]

Lun-class surface-effect craft.

Man that looks like something right out of Thunderbirds!

 

[kilemall]

Man that looks like something right out of Thunderbirds!

The extant hull stripped of wings and engines looks like a Traveller small craft.

 

[kilemall]

My conceptual reason for hard point limits is that most of the turret weapon tonnage is actually wedged in the utility runs between outer hull and the first inner wall. This allows light armament that costs no precious internal volume for most civilian/semicivilian craft.

The limitation then comes in because there is a lot of competition for the use of that space. Power lines, computer cables, life support, fire control runs, hull attachment and structural enhancement etc. all duplicated. The bay weapons on up aren’t wedging in and have internal volume but are still interrupting that key space.

So the defined hardpoint is limiting how much weapon space is allowable before it starts interfering with basic ship durability to hits.

I actually have worked out an answer to this. Keep in mind this won’t translate to most Traveller versions, but perhaps useful to consider for your own tweaks/future combat systems.

What I do is reduce hull points for each extra hardpoint used. This translates into the ship becoming more fragile. I use hull points for general damage, critical system failures start happening at 50% hull damage, streamlining fails, and the ship breaks apart at 100%.

My model for this is the Terran missile boat from Imperium. Hits like a cruiser, fragile like a scout.

So I would go with fragility consequences along with the power demand for anything not missile.

 

[Spinward Flow]

What I do is reduce hull points for each extra hardpoint used. This translates into the ship becoming more fragile.

Oh!
That makes a LOT of sense!

Kind of like how when engineering pressure vessels for (wet navy) submersibles ... the more "holes" that get cut into the pressure hull, the weaker the overall hull becomes, reducing the craft's crush depth potential. That's why "dropping stuff" into the gap between the outer hull and the pressure hull (where it can rattle around and ruin accoustic signatures) is such a huge NO NO, because then you have to cut into the hull somewhere else in order to fish out the lost/loose bit and then weld the hole shut again ... which creates a weak point for pressure in that hull and thereby compromises the maximum crush depth. Keep cutting and patching holes in the hull and eventually you've got something so compromised that it's no longer fit for service (to the scrap heap with you!).

So even though the mounting locations are named "hardpoints" ... each one introduces a measure of vulnerability into the overall hull of the craft. Therefore, up to a certain limit, it's "not a problem" ... but beyond that limit, structural integrity can become compromised in ways that are unacceptable to longevity/reliability/mission endurance.

Very clever bit of re-imagining you've got going on there.

 

[Condottiere]

Rather like castle gates, the primary weapon system emplacements tend to be heavily reinforced and armoured.

 

[kilemall]

Oh!
That makes a LOT of sense!

Kind of like how when engineering pressure vessels for (wet navy) submersibles ... the more "holes" that get cut into the pressure hull, the weaker the overall hull becomes, reducing the craft's crush depth potential. That's why "dropping stuff" into the gap between the outer hull and the pressure hull (where it can rattle around and ruin accoustic signatures) is such a huge NO NO, because then you have to cut into the hull somewhere else in order to fish out the lost/loose bit and then weld the hole shut again ... which creates a weak point for pressure in that hull and thereby compromises the maximum crush depth. Keep cutting and patching holes in the hull and eventually you've got something so compromised that it's no longer fit for service (to the scrap heap with you!).

So even though the mounting locations are named "hardpoints" ... each one introduces a measure of vulnerability into the overall hull of the craft. Therefore, up to a certain limit, it's "not a problem" ... but beyond that limit, structural integrity can become compromised in ways that are unacceptable to longevity/reliability/mission endurance.

Very clever bit of re-imagining you've got going on there.

Similar wonky engineering to your constant quest for the perfect mass produced modular type. Ask different questions, solve for new problems and you can get some nice content.

I haven’t gone over the whole saga of how I ended up here, let’s just say it’s about version 5 of churning over use/reuse of all that stuff while trying to avoid the apparent full on wonk of TNE.

 

[Diveguy]

Some really good comments and replies here - nothing at all I fundamentally disagree with (although I'll slightly debate Rupert on the validity of bolting on more guns and their effectiveness in real world events - but not in a hostile way! I can personally say I was never in a situation where I wish we had brought along fewer guns or less ammunition!)

I definitely appreciate everyone's input - and, it sounds like the overall consensus is Traveller pretty much is doing it "right" for what people envision.

Looking forward to what else anyone adds!

 

[Spinward Flow]

Similar wonky engineering to your constant quest for the perfect mass produced modular type. Ask different questions, solve for new problems and you can get some nice content.

I'm still refining that concept ... although I've put it on the back burner for a while now to let it "simmer" and reduce down the stock into the actual true essentials.

One of the recent "developments" (although that's probably overselling things a bit ) was that I tried to "push" concept for the TL=9 J2/2G on D/D/D drives into a realm where I could "drop" the 24 ton environment/cargo box and swap in another fighter, for a 2x small craft "carrier" that could sustain a 24/7 Combat Aerospace Patrol (CAP) and use the parent starship as a mobile base of operations ... which would also be great for Search & Rescue operations using the small craft fighters.

When I tried to knock the tonnage down to 278 tons (from 279 tons) ... it "broke" the balance point I'd been working around, because I couldn't cram ALL of the capabilities I wanted to into a displacement form factor "that small" and just "ran out of room." Sure, the failure was by a fraction of a ton "too much" but there just wasn't any possible way to "squeeze" that stone any further without making compromises elsewhere.

Sometimes you have to "break" something that looks really promising in order to find out "where you went wrong" with that trajectory you were pursuing.

In this case, I realized that the "mistake" I'd made was assuming that I needed to make the fighters 25 tons instead of 24 tons (like the standard Box sizes I was working with). It basically meant that I could make a TL=9 fighter with a model/3 computer + pop-up turret (+1 ton, +MCr0.1 to costs of the standard turret) ... or a TL=A fighter with a model/4 computer, but the turret would have be a "standard" 1 ton turret displacement and not a pop-up "concealable/retractable" turret.

This would basically mean that the TL=9 with model/3 computer was the "decoy" version, while the TL=A with model/4 computer became the "system defense patrol" version ... both at 24 tons. That in turn would mean that the commercial shuttle that both of them would be a modification of (the Jolly Boat) would also need to be 24 tons (instead of 25 tons).

By "shrinking" the fighters from 25 tons back down to 24 tons, the starship tonnages could return to being 280 tons (J2/2G @ TL=9) and 410 tons (J3/3G @ TL=A) ... and a variety of "downstream" problems that resulted from the 25 ton fighter "requirement" got tied up and sorted out really nicely. The big issue that fixed was, ultimately, the fuel fraction remaining for the power plant endurance being "sufficient" margin to make multi-jumping (2-3x in succession, without refueling) not only practical, but reasonable ... so you aren't arriving at the final destination with fuel tanks that are almost completely empty (just mostly empty). So, ultimately, that change wound up yielding better operational safety margins when reaching for MAXIMUM interstellar range.

All of that, in turn, has made me rethink some of my ideas for hull silhouette and deck plans, so as to make the final design more "hypersonic" looking and done as a "single deck" starship with hangar bays along the centerline and drive bays in the "wings" of the craft. It'll probably wind up being longer than previous iterations, but that's probably for the best when I'm leaning on Configuration: 1 (Needle/Wedge) for my concept.

 

[Condottiere]

One way of figuring out if enough guns are installed, is to calculate the percentage of volume taken up, of weapon systems and magazines.

You can individualize by type, spinal mount, bay, meson, etcetera.

 

[Rupert]

Some really good comments and replies here - nothing at all I fundamentally disagree with (although I'll slightly debate Rupert on the validity of bolting on more guns and their effectiveness in real world events - but not in a hostile way! I can personally say I was never in a situation where I wish we had brought along fewer guns or less ammunition!)

Note that 'most' in my comment. I maybe should've been more explicit - all those small guns mounted on cruisers and upwards (and often on destroyers and escorts as well) were of little use early in the war and were effectively useless by the end. So they were wasted money, resources, crew, deck space, and top-weight and added a fire hazard into the bargain (from the ready-use ammo). Light AA guns (cannon under about 30mm) were simply not useful by the War's end, and hadn't been of much use for years.

For small craft, where such weapons were useful for fighting other small craft, providing fire-support for shore operations, and so on, yes, adding extra guns was often useful - as long as you didn't go overboard and compromise stability.

 

[Rupert]

One way of figuring out if enough guns are installed, is to calculate the percentage of volume taken up, of weapon systems and magazines.

You can individualize by type, spinal mount, bay, meson, etcetera.

The problem is that first you need to have worked out how much volume/mass of armament vs armour/screen/etc. vs propulsion is a good mix for a given ship type.

A 20th century battleship very roughly was split into about 40% for structure, crew, etc., 40% for armour, 15% for propulsion, and 15% for guns, and ignoring fuel (because 'standard' displacement was a treaty artefact that had little to do with operational reality).