Spaceship vs. Starship

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
Moppy

Re: Spaceship vs. Starship

Postby Moppy » Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:42 am

Old School wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 10:38 pm
Hopefully we’re all roleplayers here, participating on an RPG forum
There is some overlap especially if you play with miniatures.

Plus Trillion Cr Squadron which is how I discovered Traveller.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4291
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Spaceship vs. Starship

Postby AnotherDilbert » Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:43 am

Moppy wrote: Why install one if it will be dodged?
A dodge is just a negative DM to hit, making hits and specially crits less likely.

Of course the target will take any reasonable precautions it can against being hit.

You will have to plan the ship design and tactics to achieve a reasonable hit rate despite enemy counter-tactics, regardless of which main weapon you choose.
Moppy

Re: Spaceship vs. Starship

Postby Moppy » Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:53 am

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:28 am
Moppy wrote: But consider historical examples where wounded soldiers or damaged ships are pulled out of the line to preserve them, or where you have to deal with strategic repairs.
Sure we could withdraw damaged ships, but it is impractical in open terrain-less space. We would have to accelerate away out of range which takes considerable time, time enough for the enemy to finish off the damaged ship...
Can always jump or move to the other side of a planet. They could follow you but then they leave their side of the planet unguarded. This sort of thing isn’t really represented in the combat system for the RPG, which is one of the reasons I asked if we had roleplayers or wargamers in the discussion. its the sort of thing that tends to get scripted in by the GM in an RPG, rather than resolved mechanically.
Old School
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1013
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:41 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Spaceship vs. Starship

Postby Old School » Thu Dec 05, 2019 5:24 am

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:37 am

Multiple small spinals might be able to one-shot a destroyer, if it could hit it, but hardly a cruiser.

E.g. a Plankwell could just about one-shot Ghalalk-class cruiser (since it lacks defences). There is no way it could carry several spinals each capable of the same.
A Plankwell, no. A Tigress, most certainly. A Tigress’s one Spinal Mount averages 77,000 points of damage. One could split that in half and still be pretty confident of taking out a Ghalalk, even with meson screens.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4291
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Spaceship vs. Starship

Postby AnotherDilbert » Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:27 am

Old School wrote: A Plankwell, no. A Tigress, most certainly.
Yes, agreed, that monstrosity could one-shot two ships one-tenth its size.

In the general case many small ships with small spinals will defeat a single large ship with a large spinal (of the same cost), simply because the small ships can dodge many more times.


Note that Imperial ships can probably have several spinals in 3I campaign setting, by using a breakaway design, since:
AndrewW wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 3:21 am
AnotherDilbert wrote: Care to enlighten us how hardpoints are supposed to be handled for breakaway sections?
Each section is it's own. If a section is big enough for a hardpoint it has the usual amount.
It's expensive and inefficient, but...
Moppy

Re: Spaceship vs. Starship

Postby Moppy » Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:06 am

Image

IMO High Guard would be improved if the breakaway hull section wasn't there.

Or it was marked "super ultra optional, use only if you want to use our game engine to play star trek". TBH I can't remember if it is or not. Sometimes there is a "not in 3I" note like for multiple spinals.

At least in Kirk's time it was an emergency measure and they could not re-dock. By Picards time they never explained why it wasn't Voltron.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8490
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Spaceship vs. Starship

Postby Condottiere » Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:11 am

That's where the roleplaying aspect becomes handy.

Player characters have the potential to affect foregone outcomes, create epic victories and/or survive certain death.

That's why you accumulate karma points.

Restricting carry to a single big stick is meant to ensure major combatants have to be balanced between bang and buck.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8490
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Spaceship vs. Starship

Postby Condottiere » Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:16 am

Funny, I have full intention of exploiting the breakaway section.

However, I'd say that if each has a spinal mount, only one can be fired per round, because of recoil now stressing the connecting clamps and plumbing.
Moppy

Re: Spaceship vs. Starship

Postby Moppy » Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:20 am

Recoil isn't the word I would have chosen for beam weapons, but I understand the intention.

In any case, something should exist to avoid this Aslan Superweapon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M3cyCFWChg

Ready To Form Voltron | VOLTRON: DEFENDER OF THE UNIVERSE

Although to be fair, you can't build this with the Mongoose rules.

edit: Except that there's a grandfather-tech ship made of bubbles in the old secret of the ancients?
Linwood
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 749
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:41 am

Re: Spaceship vs. Starship

Postby Linwood » Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:50 am

I think I would limit multiple spinal mounts by ship size - maybe no more than one per 500K dtons?
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4291
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Spaceship vs. Starship

Postby AnotherDilbert » Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:01 pm

Moppy wrote: IMO High Guard would be improved if the breakaway hull section wasn't there.
It's too large and expensive to make a good exploit. It gives us more choices. I don't see much of a problem, even if it is a bit ambiguously described.

It is needed to build something like the classic "Modular Cutter".
Old School
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1013
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:41 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Spaceship vs. Starship

Postby Old School » Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:11 pm

Meh, despite their best efforts, I don’t think Travellers in my campaign will be operating a dreadnaught anytime soon. All these capital ships are so much background noise in a campaign.
Moppy

Re: Spaceship vs. Starship

Postby Moppy » Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:11 pm

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:01 pm
Moppy wrote: IMO High Guard would be improved if the breakaway hull section wasn't there.
It's too large and expensive to make a good exploit. It gives us more choices. I don't see much of a problem, even if it is a bit ambiguously described.

It is needed to build something like the classic "Modular Cutter".
That's a modular hull, not a break away hull. Separate rules. (If we're talking about Mongoose 2).
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8490
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Spaceship vs. Starship

Postby Condottiere » Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:30 pm

I thought it might be neat to have a series of breakaway hulls carrying the components of a spinal mount, which then unite to recreate the super weapon system.

Then I thought about what exactly those descriptive words mean.

Spines aren't meant to be broken up.
Moppy

Re: Spaceship vs. Starship

Postby Moppy » Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:47 pm

Condottiere wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:30 pm
I thought it might be neat to have a series of breakaway hulls carrying the components of a spinal mount, which then unite to recreate the super weapon system.

Then I thought about what exactly those descriptive words mean.

Spines aren't meant to be broken up.
The cooling and power generation might be separatable from the weapon. Maybe it's something like a GPMG where one soldier carries the weapon with a small load of ammo, and an assistant carries spare barrels, ammo, and the tripod that allow it to use long-range or sustained fire.

Maybe you have batteries on the weapon carrier that allows a single shot, and it docks with the powerplant module. But if you're only engaging smaller craft they can separate and be in 2 places at once with their turrets. (But I'd just fit a fighter squadron bay for that).

edit: I've just realised this ties in with the other thread on the size of ships being limited by treaty - or perhaps you need to fit in some port or jump carrier.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4917
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Spaceship vs. Starship

Postby phavoc » Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:00 pm

Going back to the Star Blazers example, the original Argo had a single wave motion gun (a spinal mount equivalent in Traveller). In the second series the Argo was considered old and outdated and it's replacement had dual wave-motion guns sitting side-by-side.

Firing them at the same target seems a bit overkill, but firing at two different targets would make better sense. However the power requirements are huge, and without capacitors having two guns is pointless if you can only power one (keeping a spare for battle damage doesn't make sense either, just build another hull).
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8490
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Spaceship vs. Starship

Postby Condottiere » Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:10 pm

It's more like the spinal mount is meant to be integral to structural integrity of the entire ship.

I could see the magazine of a rail gun being modular.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4291
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Spaceship vs. Starship

Postby AnotherDilbert » Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:14 pm

Moppy wrote: That's a modular hull, not a break away hull. Separate rules. (If we're talking about Mongoose 2).
Not quite, a module in MgT2 is an internal component. Removing it does not change displacement or the potential of the drives. See picture HG p102.

The CT Modular Cutter had an external module; When it was removed displacement and drive potential changed. See JTAS#5, p7.

CT Module ≠ MgT2 Module.

The only way to accurately portray a CT Modular Cutter using MgT2 is by using a breakaway hull.
Moppy

Re: Spaceship vs. Starship

Postby Moppy » Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:36 pm

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:14 pm
Moppy wrote: That's a modular hull, not a break away hull. Separate rules. (If we're talking about Mongoose 2).
Not quite, a module in MgT2 is an internal component. Removing it does not change displacement or the potential of the drives. See picture HG p102.

The CT Modular Cutter had an external module; When it was removed displacement and drive potential changed. See JTAS#5, p7.

CT Module ≠ MgT2 Module.

The only way to accurately portray a CT Modular Cutter using MgT2 is by using a breakaway hull.
I didn't realise/remember the CT one changed displacement when it lost the module. Because that would require the modules were built as ship hulls and it would cost a fortune.

But now I've checked it and it did indeed work like that.

This also means people telling me earlier that jettisoning cargo cans into space was unrealistic - well they now have problems using that premise.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4291
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Spaceship vs. Starship

Postby AnotherDilbert » Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:56 pm

Moppy wrote: Because that would require the modules were built as ship hulls and it would cost a fortune.
An empty module cost MCr 2, the same as an entire Scout hull.

In MgT2 it would cost about MCr 1.8, the same as any other 30 Dt streamlined hull.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests