2022 update -- dogfight rules change?

[Bill Sheil]

Well I am one of those (who Matt can count on two hands) that appreciate Traveller's historical adherence to Newtonian physics and its readiness (in classic editions) to eschew Star Wars type dogfighters in favour of ship designs actually derived from extensions of the rules (e.g. the Book 9 Heavy fighters). But it's entirely up to the players and referees to do what they want and I appreciate Matt's efforts to cater for disparate (but heretical) interests.

I don't personally mind the abstracted linear system from CT or Mongoose and also the flat hex vector systems of Mayday etc. They may not be perfect but they are "good enough" to represent vector movement and I don't find them too difficult to manage. And I would argue that they don't actually that lose much "realism" anyway; or not as much as people think.

For two ships or ship groups a linear system is fine. There is simply no benefit in maneuvering at any vector other than straight towards or away from your opponent (except in immediate evasion of ordnance) whether you want to close, increase or maintain distance. Orthogonal vectors are wasting your own thrust in less effective distance control. Even if there are more than two ship groups, if they are linked together such as one group protecting a second from a third aggressor then the protected group's only logical choice is accelerating on the line between the aggressor and the protecting group, orthogonal movement plays to the aggressor's advantage and the disadvantage of both the protector and the protectee. The only time it might break out from a linear engagement would be if the protectee group was to split up in separate directions (effectively combining their escape accelerations), but obviously leaving one of the groups continuing to be pinned and losing vector advantage so the other can escape.

In cases where there are three points of interest (three maneuvering ship groups or two and a static jump point or planet or station) then an arbitrary flat 2D plane (hex map) can still represent the positions. Again there is no benefit of vertical (orthogonal) acceleration off the initial plane for any of the participants and the plane can still be rotated to keep all of the participants "on the table".

And that (ship groups etc.) got me thinking about actual ship strategies in Traveller and fiction. I have read a few cases where authors have tried to express some cleverness in starship combat formations (Saberhagen, EE Smith etc). A lot of these imaging inverted cone formations, torri, planes or multiple groups to surround or outflank an enemy but, for the most part, I think the most obvious and most sensible formation is actually just a tight cluster. If there was a benefit in your space combat paradigm, to attack targets from multiple angles simultaneously (e.g something to do with the way shields work or heat radiation) then a dispersed formation might be practical but most paradigms really don't exclude concentrating fire from one direction on one side of an enemy to overwhelm its defences. And in most cases (so long as weapons have a reasonable range compared with ship sizes) a "tight" cluster could still be dispersed enough that there is no significant effect from friendly ships occluding one another's line of sight. The advantage of keeping all your ships in a cluster is that when one ship gets into range they are all in range and can concentrate fire on targets. And it is a lot easier to organise and maneuver than the more esoteric SciFi dispersed battle formations. Also enemies cannot do a Lanchester and selectively maneuver to engage only a subset of your fleet, as they are tightly clustered they are always supporting each other. So the idea of ships forming only a small number of clusters (and preferably a single one) to fight battles seems sound and therefore so too is describing battles on a plane and generally simplifying the whole fleet battle thing.

Multiple strategic locations (planets, moons, satellites) could require a 3D map but even then I think they would often be arranged on a planetary plane unless they were far enough apart that they would effecting be on different boards. For Travellers there may be a few counters on the table - e.g. their ship, a pirate ship, a gas giant and a naval escort but all of these could well be starting on a common plane and would optimally continue moving on that plane. The idea that a third dimension is actually need is questionable when you actually start examining the way protagonists would actually interact.

So, all told, I think the 2D hex map would almost always be good enough to represent even large fleet battles (end then with fleets being represented by single units) and fleet combat in the Traveller universe would rarely get more compilated than what Imperial Naval Academy instructors could describe on a flat screen.

Anyway that is my (on spectrum) thoughts on vector combat in Traveller. By the way I did one put together a draft combining Mayday and the Mongoose rules which I called "Maygoose Monday". My integration of Mongoose personal combat rules with Snapshot would have probably been called "Snapgoose Mo(o)nshot"

 

[Condottiere]

Naval line of battle tactics evolved rapidly in the first half of the twentieth century, based on available weapon systems and their respective platforms.

Weber's wall of battle is the logical way to concentrate firepower and defensive flak, much as Smith's cone is more about layering different tiers of warships.

I don't know how battles in the Spinward Marches looked like, but unless the Confederation Navy consolidates it's major assets for a decisive battle, we're unlikely to see another Jutland.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Try playing Power Projection and/or Squadron Strike: Traveller.

Newtonian movement and facing matters for bringing spinal weapons to bear on a target - and good games to boot.

I have long been of the opinion that the line of battle model from CT High Guard abstracts how things must be done. You have to have your capital ships facing the enemy and any maneuver/evade programs have to occasionally allow for the lining up of a shot.

Fleet vs fleet engagements can only occur around choke points (gas giants and the like) or by mutual consent.

 

[Condottiere]

To be fair, that's probably nine out of ten historical naval battles as well.

Sure, I'm being clichéd when I analyze this as being a matter of time and space, but about half the equation is how much time is likely to be spent locked in combat, and the length of time you can squeeze some utility out of any particular weapon system and/or it's respective platform.

The space part is how much room you have available to manoeuvre, tactically, operationally and strategically.

 

[Bill Sheil]

Naval line of battle tactics evolved rapidly in the first half of the twentieth century, based on available weapon systems and their respective platforms.

Weber's wall of battle is the logical way to concentrate firepower and defensive flak, much as Smith's cone is more about layering different tiers of warships.

I don't know how battles in the Spinward Marches looked like, but unless the Confederation Navy consolidates it's major assets for a decisive battle, we're unlikely to see another Jutland.

Yes but these are specific to Naval warfare and the specific capabilities of the ships where a formation is need to ensure all vessels can bear on the target for a sustained period without occluding line of sight of one another.

In (albeit fictitious) Traveller space combat if the ships (of size maybe several hundred metres) are clustered into a volume of space with maybe 1000km diameter then there is no realistic problem with occlusion and, with engagement range of perhaps 25000km (Mongoose), pretty much every ship in the cluster can engage targets in good time. Put a failsafe to block fire on the very rare occasions when occlusion occurs but it would have no practical effect. Different weapon ranges may lead to separate (but linked) clusters but there is no need for defensive flanks an enemy is never going to split forces or pincer either if it faces an opponent which will keep its forces together and therefore always engage with the entire force. Clusters are always the optimal maneuvering/engagement unit when the vessel size is substantially smaller than the weapon ranges.

If the dreadnaughts in the battle of Jutland were the size of fleas they would not have needed to form a line, just a tight cluster (although Beattie would probably have had them do something stupid anyway). And it was also noted that even when the Scapa Flow fleet managed to cross the T a couple of times it was less effective than naval doctrine expected.

 

[Condottiere]

On reason for the wall of battle was the rather brief window of time that each side can engage while under acceleration, so that makes concentration more attractive.

In our case, considering the likelihood of limited numbers of capital ships, Traveller naval formations would resemble current tactics, with escorts clustered around each respective task group, and each task group far enough away so that they can operate freely, but close enough for mutual support.

If you have a spinal mount, you have to point it in the direction of the enemy, so unless they install them broadside, or the manoeuvre drives broadside, the tendency would be to close.

Or you install them ass backwards, in which case, one side would be able to keep a certain distance.

It's possible that for most engagements not involving spinal mounts, broadside posturing might be an option.

 

[NOLATrav]

On reason for the wall of battle was the rather brief window of time that each side can engage while under acceleration, so that makes concentration more attractive.

In the Lost Fleet series, Jack Campbell posits that tightly grouped fleets or squadrons accelerate towards one another in order to close to optimal range then computers handle all firing solutions - because the relative velocities are way too fast for human minds to make relevant choices and execute them - and then the fleets engage in damage control as they slowly circle back around for another run. I found that to be an interesting take but hard to recreate in Traveller.

 

[Condottiere]

Conceptually sound, since you could rendezvous with the fleet train.

But I think what would really happen is that it would be a long drawn out chase, with defenders calculating how far they can afford to leave their stations unprotected.

Or just despatch a bunch of torpedo boats to encourage them to keep moving.

 

[Ursus Maior]

So, what is Traveller and what is not should be decided by a gaming group for themselves. Consequently, they should have options on the table to pick from.

And this is why we made sure Dogfighting was modular - you can simply skip over it and use the 'core' space combat rules at all ranges.

What we needed to do was provide a mechanism for universes other than Charted Space, so you could do your Star Wars, your Firefly and Battlestar Galactica - and, of course, have that element in Charted Space if you so chose (I do!). It also gave an easy mechanism to combine vehicles and spacecraft in the same battle.

I totally get this and support the idea. In all honesty, my group has no desire for crunch more than Traveller offers. I tried BattleTech's vector movement rules for Aerospacefighters from their optional rules. It's nice for a 2 vs. 2 and could be adapted for Traveller easily. But it's no fun, more a lot of work.

 

[Arkathan]

That's not Traveller ship combat.

Traveller ship combat is newtonian, vectors, momentum - not hand break turns and dropping bombs in zero g...

Mayday, Triplanetary, LBB2 - vector movement is Traveller.

Cinematic cartoon physics is not.

Vector is 80's Traveller. MTG2 is thrust points and ranges. You can do the combat on a number line indicating thrust points to target.

 

[Sigtrygg]

With no momentum conservation whatsoever - cartoon physics.

 

[NOLATrav]

With no momentum conservation whatsoever - cartoon physics.

MgT 1e High Guard offered a hex-based vector system with future position markers. Kind of like Mayday but with smaller hexes and shorter turn length. So that’s an option. Pretty easy to tack on accumulated momentum if you want.