Yeah, the spinal mounts and armor are a no-brainer, but I notice that none of the big vessels in Fightships or the Trillion Credit squadron in any way down play or sideline sandcasters and I was curious about the tactical balance here. I'm also not sure how the -2DM for pulse lasers for point defense pans out in the wash, I'm still working on that...locarno24 said:
Capital ship construction questions
- Thread starter Chas
- Start date
A question for the erudite:
Laser technology upgrades, Accurate vs. Very High Yield. These are both double upgrades, but Accurate only applies +1 to the DM while Very High Yield applies +2. I've not found anything that explains the discrepancy, yet most example ship builds have Accuracy as the preferred option. The only way I can see to justify this is that Accurate applies to point defense rolls while Very High Yield does not. But I've not seen anywhere that states this in any way. Anyone able to confirm what is happening here/what I have missed? Thanks!
Laser technology upgrades, Accurate vs. Very High Yield. These are both double upgrades, but Accurate only applies +1 to the DM while Very High Yield applies +2. I've not found anything that explains the discrepancy, yet most example ship builds have Accuracy as the preferred option. The only way I can see to justify this is that Accurate applies to point defense rolls while Very High Yield does not. But I've not seen anywhere that states this in any way. Anyone able to confirm what is happening here/what I have missed? Thanks!
Chas said:
They are bonuses to 2 seperate things. Accurate gives a bonus on attack rolls, while High Yield (and Very High Wield) apply to damage rolls.
A +1 bonus on attack rolls is better then a damage boost. You are hitting more often, and so dealing damage more often.IT helps on all attacks. Very High Yield only lets you treat a roll of 1 or 2 on a damage die as a roll of 3 instead. So for 4 of the 6 possible outcomes on the damage die, its totally useless. 2/3rds of the time, Very High Yield is worthless.
It doesn't matter if your weapons deal slightly higher damage if you aren't hitting anything.
Ummm... that's not what the rules state. In a barrage attack there's only one attack roll, there's no damage roll. And the description is clear for Very High Yield weapons: "In capital ship combat, if all the weapons used in the barrage are high yield, then a +2DM is used on the attack roll." (should be "very high yield" but that's an obvious typo).Jeraa said:
Chas said:
You never said you were talking about the barrage rules. I'm going by the actual rules for the enhancements, not the barrage rules, which change things up.
And reading the Very High Yield entrey again, it specifically stats it has no effect in capital ship combat (barrages). Unless there is another entry or rules change I have missed.
Yes, I understand. The initial question still remains though, as mentioned a majority of published capital ship designs include Accurate as their upgrade, when barrage rules should apply to the designs and Very High Yield be more optimal. The DM add-on is critical obviously.Jeraa said:
The last line I think you've miss-read Jeraa. Very high yield screens...Jeraa said:
I'll add a P.S. to that, I'm fighting through the rules now and I have to admit snakes and ladders isn't in it with the number of times I've had to back track and re-tweak and catch the dropped balls :mrgreen:
Chas said:
Your right, I did. I blame a fuzzy monitor.
So what if one option is slightly better then the other? Barrage attacks are only a simplification, something to use to speed up play. You can still fire every turret individually. Very High Yield may be better when using barrage fire, but Accurate is still better overall.
I'm building a battle-cruiser amongst variants of a chassis. Ain't no way dem turrets are going to be individually rolledJeraa said:
There's also no way people want to be putting in an individual gunner for every turret. It's a balance issue I'm working through which this question relates to.
Yeah. Very High Yield is just better in barrage combat, but that's an artefact of the rules - in 'normal' combat Accurate is its equal.
Canon pregenerated ships have Accurate because they do. No real reason beyond that - they're written as RPG settings or characters rather than wargames pieces (otherwise the light fighter would be consigned to a bin and never, ever removed from it).
WRT turrets, I generally do use the recommended 1 per turret, but more because I see them as 'gun crew' rather than gunners - maintenance/local weapons supervisors/etc as much as people planning firing patterns. It's not the most space efficient, but I just prefer it.
Canon pregenerated ships have Accurate because they do. No real reason beyond that - they're written as RPG settings or characters rather than wargames pieces (otherwise the light fighter would be consigned to a bin and never, ever removed from it).
WRT turrets, I generally do use the recommended 1 per turret, but more because I see them as 'gun crew' rather than gunners - maintenance/local weapons supervisors/etc as much as people planning firing patterns. It's not the most space efficient, but I just prefer it.
Chas said:
For turrets, no that would be beyond silly. 5" guns on our modern (TL 7) warships aren't even manned. No need to put TL 5 turrets on your star ships. Ideally they are embedded into the outer hull and there is simply a maintenance crawl-way. Missile turrets would need a load chute coming from a magazine area.
Thanks for your comments folks. I'm just getting my drafts organized, the original design has now sprawled into 3 different tonnage options and will probably go to 4. Then I'll have a crack at getting a reasonable posting format together in some manner, hopefully having something for people who may be interested to have a look over.
There are a couple of loose ends e.g. like how to calculate rail gun ammo needs for bays (12 auto fire for 400 rds = 400/12 shots available, or, the reference HG pg would seem to imply there is 400 shots available for the bay?) and I haven't done enough actual combat simulation for sure.
Interested in your comments about fighters Locarno. The rule balance of these given their assumed role in the mission capabilities of ships designed for the setting was always one of the major issues of CT and while Mongoose has done a lot of good things, one of the slightly more disappointing aspects of what I've found working through these rules. Still RPGs need fluff and as you say sometimes the rules just need to catch up with what works in a setting rather than the setting having to match the rules My ship designs are sort of between the two. I like the concept for the rules fit, but also the 'feel' of the ships in the bigger picture.
There are a couple of loose ends e.g. like how to calculate rail gun ammo needs for bays (12 auto fire for 400 rds = 400/12 shots available, or, the reference HG pg would seem to imply there is 400 shots available for the bay?) and I haven't done enough actual combat simulation for sure.
Interested in your comments about fighters Locarno. The rule balance of these given their assumed role in the mission capabilities of ships designed for the setting was always one of the major issues of CT and while Mongoose has done a lot of good things, one of the slightly more disappointing aspects of what I've found working through these rules. Still RPGs need fluff and as you say sometimes the rules just need to catch up with what works in a setting rather than the setting having to match the rules
My ship designs are sort of between the two. I like the concept for the rules fit, but also the 'feel' of the ships in the bigger picture.See ground combat for the rate at which automatic fire eats ammo - a large bay kicks out 36 individual slugs each time it opens up, which means 400 bursts would require seven times the volume of the bay in ammo storage.
It's only 400 actual shells. And yes, that's not a round number of attacks, I'm afraid.
Depends what you see the light fighter as. For not-really-combat capable patrol forces, civilians and non-gov mercs, it's fair enough, (given the edge of a fighters default DM-4 vs barrages and the possibility of Fast Strafing Run if you can get close enough) but the moment you consider putting it up against a real opponent, I instantly say:
1) Where is the decent fire control
2) Put a Very High Yield upgrade on the gun
3) Swap out the laser for a particle beam
It's only 400 actual shells. And yes, that's not a round number of attacks, I'm afraid.
Depends what you see the light fighter as. For not-really-combat capable patrol forces, civilians and non-gov mercs, it's fair enough, (given the edge of a fighters default DM-4 vs barrages and the possibility of Fast Strafing Run if you can get close enough) but the moment you consider putting it up against a real opponent, I instantly say:
1) Where is the decent fire control
2) Put a Very High Yield upgrade on the gun
3) Swap out the laser for a particle beam
locarno24 said:
In light of the new items/options available in Trillion Credit Squadron, I would say that fighters and drones need another redesign. Why would you put a laser or a missile on a fighter when a plasma gun is now available? And a swarm of carried drones each equipped with a missile pack, all tied to the carrier through a fire control grid, appears to be bringing the universe of Honor Harrington into Traveller...
But in any case, the older versions of the light fighter/light drone now seem to be obsolete.
Yeah, the 10 dTon missile pod in a clamp was an idea I'd had - expensive but gives you a faintly ridiculous 'throw weight' of standard missiles.
The only downside is that missiles themselves aren't much cop against a battleship - assuming Imperial Navy equvalent, armour/14 plus point defence can cut the teeth of even the largest missile salvo. The FCN helps, I admit.
But yes, plasma guns or particle beams, when a weapons upgrade would triple the effectiveness of a fighter for a relatively low cost, it would seem madness not to.
The only downside is that missiles themselves aren't much cop against a battleship - assuming Imperial Navy equvalent, armour/14 plus point defence can cut the teeth of even the largest missile salvo. The FCN helps, I admit.
But yes, plasma guns or particle beams, when a weapons upgrade would triple the effectiveness of a fighter for a relatively low cost, it would seem madness not to.
Chas said:
For TCS, the inclusion of sandcasters was... fluff, honestly. Traveller ships use them, therefore it only makes sense 'in universe' for their cap ships to have a few batteries of them. Personally, I would have stuck to PD lasers, but it made sense for the fluffy side of things.
Galadrion said:
I love this, because it wasn't my intention at all at the time of writing and I am overjoyed to see what has come from it. My original idea was basically cheap mass launchers for merchants, and also to fight that niggling irritation at the use of tube launchers instead of proper VLS cells
I will argue that introducing Harrington to Trav is no bad thing
