The Close Escort: not viable?

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2320
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:29 pm

Reynard wrote:
Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:28 pm
One thing I notice. All the ships and fighters here are always TL 15.
Since CT S9 the Imperial Fleet have been mostly TL15.

Yes, that leaves only three large shipyards in the Spinward Marches, that I assume will be reserved for repairs, while new ships are built further from the front, e.g. in Deneb.

The Gazelle, that started this discussion, is an Imperial high tech design.


Pocket empires and local fleets are more likely to use local technology.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2320
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:14 pm

Perhaps something like this could be used as a Fleet Escort:

DDE, 6 kDt, J4, 9G, Armour 15, Hull 2640, MCr 3800 in quantity.
103 crew including 20 marines, reasonable berthing, a few extra staterooms, life pods for all, 2 boats.
60 Dt of cargo for extended operations.
Full set of Library, Med Bay, Workshop, etc.
Computer CORE/100 with full set of software.
15 small bays (45 dT), e.g. Particle bay(Accurate, Reduced Size)
45 turrets, e.g. Pulse laser(Long Range)
Power for any combination of bays and turrets.

Since bays are natural modules we can replace them with PD Batteries if extra missile defence capacity is desired. The wasted space might even be filled with screens.

Image

Image
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2320
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:01 pm

The ship has 8 sensor operators, so can attack 8 missile salvoes simultaneously.

With a good crew it can kill 270 missiles per round, or up to 427 with PD Batteries instead of bays.

If all bays and turrets are replaced with missile launchers it can launch 315 missiles per round.


Against fighters we get
Very Long range: Turrets:
+6[gunner] +3[AdvFireCntl] +1[aid gunner] +2[Pulse] -4[range] -2[evade] -6[dodge] = ±0, hit 8+ (42%). Average damage 0.0.
When the fighter cannot dodge anymore:
+6[gunner] +3[AdvFireCntl] +1[aid gunner] +2[Pulse] -4[range] -2[evade] = +6, hit 2+ (100%). Average damage 0.59 and 20% critical.

Bay:
+6[gunner] +3[AdvFireCntl] +1[aid gunner] -4[bay] -4[range] -2[evade] -6[dodge] = -6, hit 14+ (0%).
When the fighter cannot dodge anymore:
+6[gunner] +3[AdvFireCntl] +1[aid gunner] -4[bay] -4[range] -2[evade] = ±0, hit 8+ (42%). Average damage 3.09.

Against fighters with three dodges the turrets can almost kill two fighters per round.
The bays can kill another two fighters, for a total of four fighters.


At Long range we get +2 to hit and
Turret without dodge: Average damage 1.37 and 42% critical.
Bay without dodge: Average damage 5.93.

The turrets can kill almost four fighters. The bays can kill roughly 3 fighters, for a total of 7 fighters.


So against fighters that streak in towards dogfight we can fire twice at VLong and once at Long:
2 × 4 + 1 × 7 ≈ 15 fighters.
15 fighters (with carriers) is perhaps half of the cost of the destroyer, not very good.

The bays are of some use against ships, such as enemy destroyers, but that is not really our mission.

Conclusion: We need a better ship...
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby baithammer » Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:09 pm

Point Defense systems have the ability to scale with the number of ships, don't require gunner rolls and can be applied against all salvos in a turn.

Was thinking more along the lines of the following.

Image
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2320
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:28 pm

As has already been suggested we can make all hardpoints modular mounts (so that we can mount any barbette or turret) and add some fighters. So let's try this:

DDE, 6 kDt, J4, 9G (8G with fighters), Armour 15, Hull 2904, MCr 4100 + MCr ~500 for fighters in quantity.
129 crew including 20 marines, reasonable berthing, a few extra staterooms, life pods for all.
117 Dt of cargo for extra modules and extended operations.
Full set of Library, Med Bay, Workshop, etc.
Computer CORE/100 with full set of software.
60 modules of 5 Dt and 1 hardpoint each, e.g. Particle barbette(Accurate) or Pulse laser turret(Long Range)
Power for any combination of bays and turrets.
Carries 12 medium fighters, 11 in docking clamps and 1 in full hangar for maintenance and repairs.

Image

Image
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2320
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:18 pm

baithammer wrote: Was thinking more along the lines of the following.
I like the batteries powering the jump drive, allowing the ship to fight fully and jump in the same round. I have to copy that, thanks.

The lack of Armour is problematical against a qualified opponent.

You have quite a lot of power, wouldn't say 1600 Power be enough?

Only 5 battery-rounds of missiles is a bit low? I would include the cost of the missiles and a little extra magazine capacity.

I would include a few gunners for the screens, Broad Spectrum software is rather ineffective. Meson screens are of little use if there are only spinal mesons IYTU, use Dampers instead?

I would use better software, you already have the computer to run it, at least Evade/3, Adv Fire Control/3, and Launch Solution/3.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2320
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:08 pm

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:28 pm
DDE, 6 kDt, J4, 9G (8G with fighters), Armour 15, Hull 2904, MCr 4100 + MCr ~500 for fighters in quantity.
....
60 modules of 5 Dt and 1 hardpoint each, e.g. Particle barbette(Accurate) or Pulse laser turret(Long Range)
...
Carries 12 medium fighters, 11 in docking clamps and 1 in full hangar for maintenance and repairs.
Evaluation:
Configured with 60 Laser turrets it can kill 360 missiles, the fighters can kill a few more. Not good, but passable?


Configured with 60 Particle barbettes:
Very Long range:
+6[gunner] +3[AdvFireCntl] +1[aid gunner] +1[accurate] -4[range] -2[evade] -6[dodge] = -1, hit 9+ (28%). Average damage 0.73.
When the fighter cannot dodge anymore:
+6[gunner] +3[AdvFireCntl] +1[aid gunner] +1[accurate] -4[range] -2[evade] = +5, hit 3+ (97%). Average damage 5.19 and 27% critical.

With only three dodges we can kill a fighter with 5 attacks, so we can kill 60 / 5 ≈ 12 fighters.

Long range:
+6[gunner] +3[AdvFireCntl] +1[aid gunner] +1[accurate] -2[range] -2[evade] -6[dodge] = +1. Average damage 1.85.
When the fighter cannot dodge anymore:
+6[gunner] +3[AdvFireCntl] +1[aid gunner] +1[accurate] -2[range] -2[evade] = +7. Average damage 7.07 and 58% critical.

With only three dodges we can almost kill a fighter with 4 attacks, so we can kill 60 / 4.5 ≈ 13 fighters.


As the fighters streak in we can attack twice at VLong and once at Long:
So we kill 12 × 2 + 13 × 1 ≈ 37 fighters.

As the fighters arrive in dogfight they meet our 12 carried fighters so we can match 49 fighters costing roughly as much (including carriers) as our ship. As good as can be hoped for?
h1ro
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:06 pm
Location: Co Front Range

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby h1ro » Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:26 pm

I'm unable to check the rules so bear with me on this, re batteries for jump drive, I guess this is open to interpretation but I read it as taking 1d6 turns to instigate a jump. Battieries are listed as discharging in one turn. Are you installing batteries for 6 rounds times your jump drives power need?
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2320
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:36 pm

h1ro wrote:
Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:26 pm
Are you installing batteries for 6 rounds times your jump drives power need?
Normally it takes up to 10 rounds:
Jump!: Firing the jump drive requires an Easy (4+) Engineer (J-drive) check (1D x 10 minutes, EDU),
but we can hurry the task, so it only takes one round:
Jump (Engineer)
See Jump Travel on page 148. Jumping in combat is the same as jumping in normal conditions but the astrogation calculations have to be done in a hurry, incurring DM-2 on both the Astrogation and Engineer (j-drive) checks to bring the time down to 1D minutes (within one combat round).
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby baithammer » Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:48 pm

The software reflects the limits imposed for running all the software at once, Broad Spectrum EW allows every salvo to be engaged in addition to any crew attempts. ( Make sure to attempt with crew first.)

The armor reflects the more likely threats that would be engaging the escort. ( Being sub 2k hull eliminates spinal targeting and imposes serious penalties for bay weapons.)

Could play with the missile load, but with having 8 separate barbettes allows for tailoring for the job. ( Most likely would only fire all missile barbettes in extreme cases.)

The meson screens are an oops, as I forgot meson bays aren't in the mainline weapons list.

The power plant is over-provisioned in order to charge the battery, also a backup if the battery is taken out.

That 6k design looks like its trying to be master of all roles, better to concentrate on the close escort role and if you want fighters but not a full carrier, go for an escort carrier.

As to the battery, you don't need to use all the charge in a round and I got the impression the power really only needs to be available for the Jump portion rather than all the prep stages.
AndrewW
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4052
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:57 pm

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby AndrewW » Sun Jun 25, 2017 12:23 am

h1ro wrote:
Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:26 pm
I'm unable to check the rules so bear with me on this, re batteries for jump drive, I guess this is open to interpretation but I read it as taking 1d6 turns to instigate a jump. Battieries are listed as discharging in one turn. Are you installing batteries for 6 rounds times your jump drives power need?
The jump drive only needs the power for the jump, it doesn't draw that amount of power each round.
h1ro
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:06 pm
Location: Co Front Range

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby h1ro » Sun Jun 25, 2017 2:36 am

AndrewW wrote:
Sun Jun 25, 2017 12:23 am
The jump drive only needs the power for the jump, it doesn't draw that amount of power each round.
Thanks for the clarification :-)
Reynard
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 2873
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby Reynard » Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:57 am

I'm probably misunderstanding the formatting but is '+6[gunner]' actually the Gunner skill? Is that for one person or the average of gunnery crews? I've seen this in several examples. High Guard lists an experienced crew as +2 while anything 4 or higher as 'extremely rare'.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2320
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:19 pm

Reynard wrote:
Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:57 am
I'm probably misunderstanding the formatting but is '+6[gunner]' actually the Gunner skill?
You understand correctly.

I assume a good crew member has a skill of 2 plus a characteristic DM +1. I further assume a competent navy will augment a crew member in charge of millions of credits with skill augmentation, DM +1, and characteristic augmentation ~2, DM +1, and given access to an expert system, DM +1.

Total skill is 2[skill] +1[char] +1[skill augm] +1[char augm] +1[expert] = +6.

The augmentations would cost peanuts compared to the equipment operated.
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby baithammer » Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:07 am

Updated version of the Escort Frigate

Image
Reynard
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 2873
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby Reynard » Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:34 am

"I further assume a competent navy will augment a crew member in charge of millions of credits with skill augmentation, DM +1, and characteristic augmentation ~2, DM +1, and given access to an expert system, DM +1."

Problem is the character creation for at least the Navy career shows no such rush in any sense to augment their crews otherwise there would be a benefit or some event roll that hands out these augmentations. Character creation applies to both player characters and NPCs and it covers decades of service. That says augmentation is not a common handout. This also goes for expert systems or every warship design would include enough for every eligible crew member as standard on the design sheet.

Marine and army careers should also assume every person is augmented to the hilt during their service and I doubt it get yanked out at mustering.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2320
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby AnotherDilbert » Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:49 pm

baithammer wrote:
Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:07 am
Updated version of the Escort Frigate
Is the 40 Dt for small craft, in addition to the 80 Dt for hangars, a misprint? I thought it was the cost of the craft that had happened to be placed in the wrong column, but now I see it repeated...

You have good sensors and EW capability, I would include a few extra sensor operators to take advantage of that. They can also help maintaining the bridge watch.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2320
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby AnotherDilbert » Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:56 pm

Reynard wrote:
Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:34 am
Problem is the character creation for at least the Navy career shows no such rush in ...

Marine and army careers should also assume every person is augmented to the hilt ...
The char generation system is not an accurate census. The navy career should probably be more generous with augmentations, but I did not comment during beta, so I guess I can only blame myself...

The naval gunner or pilot operating billions of Cr of equipment will receive more attention than an army soldier operating a Cr1000 rifle.

Don't you think the players will soon find and use these tricks?
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby baithammer » Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:01 pm

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:49 pm
baithammer wrote:
Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:07 am
Updated version of the Escort Frigate
Is the 40 Dt for small craft, in addition to the 80 Dt for hangars, a misprint? I thought it was the cost of the craft that had happened to be placed in the wrong column, but now I see it repeated...

You have good sensors and EW capability, I would include a few extra sensor operators to take advantage of that. They can also help maintaining the bridge watch.
Full hangar facilities require x2 the tonnage of the craft they support and doesn't include the tonnage of the craft in the hangar. ( Allows for repair/maintenance of the vehicles as well as faster launch/recovery.)

Would have to play around a bit more for the sensor stations but could add a few, just have to make sure accommodations are calculated into the setup.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3886
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby phavoc » Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:14 pm

Reynard wrote:
Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:34 am
"I further assume a competent navy will augment a crew member in charge of millions of credits with skill augmentation, DM +1, and characteristic augmentation ~2, DM +1, and given access to an expert system, DM +1."

Problem is the character creation for at least the Navy career shows no such rush in any sense to augment their crews otherwise there would be a benefit or some event roll that hands out these augmentations. Character creation applies to both player characters and NPCs and it covers decades of service. That says augmentation is not a common handout. This also goes for expert systems or every warship design would include enough for every eligible crew member as standard on the design sheet.

Marine and army careers should also assume every person is augmented to the hilt during their service and I doubt it get yanked out at mustering.
Who's to say that people will want to be augmented? Not everyone is interested in having tech grafted, sometimes permanently, on to their bodies. Even if it does provide an advantage.

Players might, but that's why their are disadvantages socially to body augments on some worlds.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests