Energy Weapons in Space Combat

[IanW]

But a ship can only mount a single spinal mount.

What I was looking for was crafting spinals for different ship tonnages, using the roughly 10% volume method. So a 50,000 ton ship could mount a 5,000 ton spinal, while a 35,000 ton ship would mount a 350 ton spinal. Which would allow for scaling of the weapon and you could tailor your ship designs using different tonnages for different tasks.

Sort of.

I've played with FFS2 designs of "six pack" spinal PAWs, which are essentially a multi-barrel particle accelerator weapon, designed to maximise RoF at the cost of penetration. Even if you require each of them to have their own accumulator bank, it's a reasonable solution for punching the armour of cruisers with too much armour for lasers to deal with, but without requiring the fire of Main Fleet Units to switch from firing at the other side's Main Fleet Units.

Lasers and missiles do a fine job against civilian ships, and Big Honking Spinal Mounts are needed for heavily armoured battlewagons. If there are a lot of ships who fall between the two categories, then either quick firing secondary batteries on bigger ships, or smaller ships mounting medium sized weapons come into play.

As to maximising the size of a spinal mount, its very hard to build a ship that can make fleet speed in terms of both jump and maneuver and dedicate more than 10% of volume to a spinal mount - the Chevalier sans Peur, for example, has secondary armament adequate for a ship a tenth it's size to be able to fit it's 225x15 PAW, because that alone uses 11% of ship volume without counting crewspaces. Thats a TL12 ship, so it gets away with jump-3, but at TL14-15 the Imperium expects to start to expect jump-4 from your Main Fleet units, so you just dont have that much mass and volume to play with.

Battle riders, can mount more impressive weaponary, of course.

In short, the engineering dictates the sort of ships that can be built, and doctrine dictates the sort of ships that will be built.

http://lists.travellercentral.com/pipermail/tml/2011-November/035730.html

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

With the way Traveller armament is designed, you can't NOT install a large secondary set of armament on warships, because with the execption of the spinal mount, a 5,000 ton destroyer can mount the same size weapons as a 500,000 ton battleship. The weapons really should scale upwards to get away from that.

Can you image a light cruisers of old mounting a 16' cannon in a single turret? It would be putting an awful big hammer in an eggshell.

Agreed about the need to mount lots of secondary (bay) and tertiary (turret) weapons on big Trav warships, why wouldn't you? The barrage rules reward numbers of available weapons. My OP was really about how range effects accuracy of energy weapons, though I like the idea that has been thrown up of reducing the accuracy of bays at very close range (spinals already have a -6 to hit anyway).

I think the 20th Century wet navy analogies can be pushed too far, these ships only move in two dimensions, manoeuvre slowly, in traveller terms all their weapons are ridiculously short ranged, their firecontrol and sensors are TL6, not TL12, their heavier weapons are in turrets that elevate and traverse with the speed of a state of the art TL6 system, not a state of the art TL12, and the bigger weapons had a very slow rate of fire compared to the smaller ones, a factor not really present in Trav where almost all ship board weapons fire once every 6 minutes.

BTW, there were some attempts to mount large guns on light cruisers, e.g. HMS Erebus, though you won't be surprised to know that these were not very successful.

Egil

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

So, this is where I am at with suggested range modifiers etc;

1. For all energy weapons, maximum effecitive range is the range given in the core or HG, e.g. for a partical beam, long range. Shots beyond that are ineffective (NB range can be increased using a HG enhancement). This, in itself, significantly reduces the ranges suggested in HG and CRB.
2. To hit adjustments for turret and bay weapons firing at ships or small craft changed to the following, adjacent range +0, close range +0, short range +0, medium range -2, long range -4, very long -6. For spinal mounts, the -6 adjustment in HG applies at all ranges, but no further adjustments needed.
3. The type of mount and the speed of the target needs to be considered at closer ranges, for all bays firing at a target at short, -1 per 1 point of thrust the target has, at close -2 per 1 point of thrust, at adjacent bays cannot engage a moving targe. For spinal mounts firing at short, -2 per 1 point of thrust, at close and adjacent unable to acquire moving targets. For turrets and barbettes +0, i.e. no adjustment.
4. The use of lasers or sandcasters in turrets for point defence against missiles or boarders remains unchanged, i.e. +0 at adjacent.
5. For missiles and torpedoes, effective range by the speed and amount of fuel carried, as HG, to hit modifiers, -2 at adjacent, +0 at close, short, medium long and very long, -2 at distant.

The net effect of this is to reduce the accuracy of energy weapons at longer ranges (though remember that most military ships will have fire control software that would off set this to some extent), though the damage inflicted on a hit would still be high and most energy weapons cannot be stopped with point defence. This will tend to increase the importance of missile/torpedo salvoes at range, which in turn will stress the importance of point defense as a counter. It will also mean that bays and spinal mounts will be pretty inaccurate against fast moving targets that have managed to get to short or even close range, again increasing the need for effective point defence. However, a ship with limited or no thrust will still get fried by bays or spinal mounts.

Time for some play testing, I think.

Any comments?

Egil

 

[Captain Jonah]

So, this is where I am at with suggested range modifiers etc;

The net effect of this is to reduce the accuracy of energy weapons at longer ranges (though remember that most military ships will have fire control software that would off set this to some extent), though the damage inflicted on a hit would still be high and most energy weapons cannot be stopped with point defence. This will tend to increase the importance of missile/torpedo salvoes at range, which in turn will stress the importance of point defense as a counter. It will also mean that bays and spinal mounts will be pretty inaccurate against fast moving targets that have managed to get to short or even close range, again increasing the need for effective point defence. However, a ship with limited or no thrust will still get fried by bays or spinal mounts.

Time for some play testing, I think.

Any comments?

Egil

1. Unless you change the range bands in the same way that 2300 has done allowing energy weapons to fire out to a long range that is a light second or two.

Re your conclusions.

Yes indeed. I see Traveller as very much a laser broadside against Pbeam broadside sort of cinematic game. Like star wars I see the bigger ships with huge bulky bay weapons tracking across the sky seeking big slow targets while smaller more mobile ships flash in and out dog fighting each other under the bigger guns.

Bays are there to fight enemy capital ships. Turrets are there to fend off fighters and missiles. Spinals are there to engage enemy Battleships.

Need to keep those enemy ships outside of short range. That would be where all those destroyers and light cruisers come in. Otherwise taken as is Traveller fleet battles have no need for escorts at all.

I prefer the idea of a screen of small ships guarding the battlewagons and players leading a fast strike against the enemy screen trying to break through and get under the guns of the enemy flagship to launch ship killing torpedoes or flying escorts trying to fend off the enemy’s lighter craft.

Leaving the biggest ships vulnerable to close in attacks allows players to influence big battles without being in battleships themselves.

 

[locarno24]

Looks like another vote for a modifier based on weapon mounts rather than, or additional to, weapon type. I am also a fan of the laser/missile/combat wasp set up in sci-fi, but the Traveller vibe is much more long distance death rays.

I would concur. One of my pet hates with manouvrable craft (note - not necessarily 'small craft' - anything capable of 6G can put well over fifty metres or so between where you thought it should be and where it is when evading randomly at a light-second's range) is that they only get the same defence from dodging as a 1G craft (albeit they do so multiple times). Equally, if only a laser can engage missiles, why do lasers not have an easier time hitting enemy fighters?

As noted, it seems that some weapons should do better at certain ranges based on the calibre of the mount rather than the type of weapon.

And yes, I can imagine a 'percentage table' for heavy bay mounts or heavier/lighter spinal mounts. It seems odd that a ship can only take one spinal mount when - on a 500 KdTon ship - even a heavy particle spinal takes no greater a proportion of the ship than does a turret mounted weapon on a common starship...

I looked at this a while back, thinking about 'capital turrets' with spinal mounts and no drives ganged onto a core hull by docking clamps - not sure if it's worth the effort but it does fit within the rules....

 

[phavoc]

I would concur. One of my pet hates with manouvrable craft (note - not necessarily 'small craft' - anything capable of 6G can put well over fifty metres or so between where you thought it should be and where it is when evading randomly at a light-second's range) is that they only get the same defence from dodging as a 1G craft (albeit they do so multiple times). Equally, if only a laser can engage missiles, why do lasers not have an easier time hitting enemy fighters?

As noted, it seems that some weapons should do better at certain ranges based on the calibre of the mount rather than the type of weapon.

It almost sounds like bay and spinal mount weapons should have a minimum tonnage / agility rating table listing the size of craft that cannot be hit due to their small size, agility and range. Obviously anything sitting still is a target for any weapon, but even a free trader at 2 light seconds probably has a good chance to dodge a spinal shot.

This is always the point that I wanna shout "Where's the damn High Guard 2.0 book outlining REAL capital ship design rules, and the weapons and systems that are too big or energy hungry to also be mounted in a 5,000 ton destroyer?"

Let's face it, for the most part characters run around in ships of less than 1,000 tons. But the original LBB High Guard made it fun to build and fight capital ships (though nobody I know actually adventures as caption of a Tigress.. But it's still fun to design and fight the larger ships. Well, fun for some at least. It would be nice to see some work out there to make capital ship designs, well, capital!

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

It almost sounds like bay and spinal mount weapons should have a minimum tonnage / agility rating table listing the size of craft that cannot be hit due to their small size, agility and range.

I was trying to avoid more tables, though the effect of one of my suggestions would be to make hitting a fast moving, close, target with a bay weapon very difficult, e.g., trying to hit a Gazelle with a meson bay at short range would incur a -4 DM, so long as the Gazelle was moving (good fire control software could counteract a lot of that, but the Gazelle has still got more chance than it would have had), if the Gazelle can get to close range, thats a -8 DM, very hard to hit. Of course, a Gazelle is not particularly fast moving. Smaller craft like the Multi-purpose Fighter (thrust 9) and the Torpedo Boat (thrust 10) in HG will be virtually impossible to hit at short, let alone close, ranges with bays or spinals, which I think is right, good, and how things should be. Hopefully the modifiers are a bit more dynamic than a table.

Oddly enough, I don't see the tonnage (and size) of the target as such an important modifier because of the distance involved in most space battles, everything is going to appear very small (even a Tigress at 20,000km will just be a speck).

Obviously anything sitting still is a target for any weapon, but even a free trader at 2 light seconds probably has a good chance to dodge a spinal shot.

2 light seconds would be close to 600,000,000km, so, in Trav terms, your Free Trader is pretty safe (very, very distant range?). At a likely enagement range, say 20,000km, the Free Trader has got some problems, the spinal mount roll would be adjusted by -6 (spinal) + 5 (fire control software) +1 (crew skill (rather on the low side, spinal mount crew should be an elite) -2 (target under 1000tons), but should avoid being hit for a few turns (especially if able to dodge successfully). Of course, if the capital ship fires a few meson or particle bays, the same modifiers would lead to a +6DM, almost certain hits, and a wrecked Free Trader (though perhaps not quite so dramatically slagged as being dissolved by overwhealming energy from a spinal mount). The moral is probably stay at two light seconds, or surrender quick.

Egil

Edited once to include size adjustment, forgotten first time around, and twice for a basic maths error!

 

[IanW]

I think these rules are what you're looking for

http://webspace.webring.com/people/lc/ca_barnett/misc/mcp.txt

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

I think these rules are what you're looking for

http://webspace.webring.com/people/lc/ca_barnett/misc/mcp.txt

No, definately not, far too long winded and over complicated for a rpg.

I am generally only interested in making small tweaks, sometimes for "accuracy", sometimes for playability, and sometime for the "game vibe", to a system (MgT) that I think is fundamentally very good indeed.

Egil

 

[Captain Brann]

HI
I have thought about this and have come up with the following
Let me know what you think.

Sorry this doesn't come out to clear so I will put it on my web site as well.
http://chrisbrann.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/traveller-space-ship-weapons-thoughts/

Mount Turret [1dt] Barbette [5dt] Bay [50dt] L Bay [100dt] notes
Beam Laser D6 2d6 Sand is a defence +1 to hit Uses effect number
Pulse Laser 2d6 3d6 Sand is a defence -1 to hit
Particle burst 3d6 4d6 6d6 9d6 Sand is a defence Auto crew hit
Fusion burst 5d6 8d6 Sand is a ½ defence
Meson beam 5d6 8d6 Auto crew hit
Power-guns 2d6 UAP 3d6 UAP Sand is a defence
Rail-guns D6 Auto 2 3d6 Auto 4 3d6 Auto 8 3d6 Auto 12 -2 to hit Uses effect number Sand is a ½ defence
Missiles 1-2 launched 6 launched 12 launched 24 launched Sand is a defence
– Semi guided Drones
AKV 1 launched 3 launched 6 launched Sand is a defence
- Autonomous Kill Vehicle

Ranges are unlimited, but all non rail guns, missiles and AKV’s lose 1 dam per 5k km of range due to diffusion of the beam, pulse. . Missiles and AKV’s use thrust not range to get to the target.

Adjustments for range to the hit roll
Mount Turret [1dt] Barbette [5dt] Bay [50dt] L Bay [100dt] notes
Adjacent 1 -2 -3 -4
1-10km 1 -1 -3 -4
11-1250km 0 0 -1 -2
1251-10,000km -1 0 0 -1
10k – 25k km -2 -1 0 0
25k – 50k km -3 -2 -1 0
> 50k km - 4 -3 -1 0
Turrets are quick to train whereas the other mounts only have limited arcs and require the ship to help them line up. So the Ship line mod, this roll is only for non-turrets.

Power Gun’s fire two shots nanoseconds apart, the first shreds armour for the second so giving the Ultra Amour Piecing effect [ignore 3 times die in armour]
TL 7 Pulse Lasers fire short bursts of energy at targets and are more effective at inflicting damage than are beam lasers.
TL 9 Beam Lasers fire continuous beams of energy at targets and are more effective in achieving hits than are pulse lasers.
TL8 Particle Beams fire a stream of accelerated subatomic particles.
TL 9 Missile racks are launchers for small anti-ship missiles. The damage of a missile depends on the type of missile used.
Missiles racks need ammunition – twelve missiles take up one ton of space.
TL 7 Sandcasters are defensive weapons; they dispense small particles which counteract the strength of lasers and protect the ship. A sandcaster reduces the damage from various weapons by 1d6.
TL12 Fusion Guns fire a directed beam of fusing hydrogen at targets.
TL 11 Meson Guns project a stream of mesons at a target. Mesons have an extremely short half-life, and are calculated to decay while within the enemy ship. Meson weapons are therefore unaffected by armour, as the blast only becomes harmful after it has already passed through the hull.
TL 9 AKV - Autonomous Kill Vehicle’s are large torpedo like weapons; they have an AI for guidance. Have sensors 1 for lock-on or to break jamming.
TL9 Rail Guns – fire slugs at very high speed and at a rapid rate, they use numbers to make up for accuracy. Can be used as a defence against fighters, missiles and AKV’s.
Missiles or drones – TL9
Basic Missiles get to make a single attack of 2d6, thrust 10 for 10 turns
Smart Missiles may keep making attacks until they hit or are destroyed damage d6, thrust 10 for 10 turns
MWM [multi warhead missiles] d6xd6 damage thrust 8 for 10 turns
Nuclear Missiles inflict a radiation crew hit as well as a normal hit; 3d6 damage Thrust 10 for 10 turns

AKV warheads
TL 7 Basic - a fragmentation kill system, 4d6 damage
TL 7 Nuclear – 6d6 damage as well as a crew radiation hit.
TL 9 Laser – 6d6 laser attack, point defence is at -2 due to its stand off ability.

Upgrades or cost difference due to higher TL
For cost and tonnage difference see HG
For most weapon upgrades see HG

Mounts can only have accurate; easy to repair; resilient
Weapons can have High yield; Very high yield; Long range

Improved sensors - +1 to internal sensors for missiles and AKV’s.
Variable range is now meaningless
Accurate now affects the mount not the weapon. It represents improved local fire control and sensors. Cost is based on the whole mount including weapons.

Long range reduces the loss of damage due to range to 1 every 10k km
Extra long range a double upgrade reduces the loss of damage to 1 per 20k km

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

Two thoughts re Captain Brann's post;

1. Significant change to RAW in allowing sand to counteract particle beams, fusion guns and even railguns. There is an arguement that sand will have no effect on such weapons.

2. The range reduction system you propose will require a lot of book keeping, and move away from the more simplistic, but easier to administer, system in MgT.

Egil

 

[locarno24]

Oddly enough, I don't see the tonnage (and size) of the target as such an important modifier because of the distance involved in most space battles, everything is going to appear very small (even a Tigress at 20,000km will just be a speck).

It's not so much a case of being a speck - if you're going to fire at anything at light-second range (shy of a star, anyway) it's going to require phenomenal accuracy.

However, the target's size does matter in it's ability to dodge, because it decides how far you have to dodge for the attempt to do anything:

I know - barring ECM and high-tech stealthy ninja abilities - where you were X seconds ago (where X is range in light-seconds). I can tell where your inertia at that moment will put you in X seconds time (when Speed-of-light weapons will 'land' in your vicinity). That gives you 2X seconds of acceleration which I cannot observe and cannot take into account.

If your acceleration is not sufficient to move you the length of your own ship off an existing vector in 2X seconds, you can't dodge. At 1 light-second, the displacement in metres is about double your acceleration, so 1G puts you ~20m off-bullseye and so on. A lot of capital ships are going to have a radius more than 20m per G of max thust, so shouldn't really be able to dodge at normal combat ranges.

 

[Captain Brann]

Two thoughts re Captain Brann's post;

1. Significant change to RAW in allowing sand to counteract particle beams, fusion guns and even railguns. There is an arguement that sand will have no effect on such weapons.

2. The range reduction system you propose will require a lot of book keeping, and move away from the more simplistic, but easier to administer, system in MgT.

Egil

Hi
My limited understanding is that anything moving at speed hitting something else moving at speed causes damage. All these things will be moving at high speed and so should have some effect on each other. True particle beams use very small amounts of mass but they are particle's, rail guns use a number of solid rounds so should have some degradation from going through a field of sand.

I do not see how just dividing the range by 5k is a lot of book keeping. I record ranges in all fights as a rule and do not use bands except for the mods.

However thanks for the feedback.

 

[IanW]

I know - barring ECM and high-tech stealthy ninja abilities - where you were X seconds ago (where X is range in light-seconds).

A long time ago, Bruce McIntosh, who had an unfair advantage writing the Definitive Sensor Rules on the grounds he is a professional astronomer, pointed out if you assume the Sol system is unusually free of dust, you could assume that sensor resolution in the Sol system is quite a bit better than in the rest of the galaxy.

Therefore, usual detection ranges could reasonably be pushed out to only a light-second or so, possibly less for quiet stealthed-up ships.

 

[locarno24]

I know - barring ECM and high-tech stealthy ninja abilities - where you were X seconds ago (where X is range in light-seconds).

A long time ago, Bruce McIntosh, who had an unfair advantage writing the Definitive Sensor Rules on the grounds he is a professional astronomer, pointed out if you assume the Sol system is unusually free of dust, you could assume that sensor resolution in the Sol system is quite a bit better than in the rest of the galaxy.

Therefore, usual detection ranges could reasonably be pushed out to only a light-second or so, possibly less for quiet stealthed-up ships.

Which would make dodging even harder - since you've got less than two seconds displacement to work with.
In all honesty, I never quite got the whole dodging thing anyway. Yes, alright, random 'jinking' about your base vector, but that should affect everyone shooting at you (the Defensive Posture order does it right). The mechanic of dodging specific incoming shots makes no sense.

Did he outline the reason for the assumption re dust concentration?

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

Oddly enough, I don't see the tonnage (and size) of the target as such an important modifier because of the distance involved in most space battles, everything is going to appear very small (even a Tigress at 20,000km will just be a speck).

It's not so much a case of being a speck - if you're going to fire at anything at light-second range (shy of a star, anyway) it's going to require phenomenal accuracy.

However, the target's size does matter in it's ability to dodge, because it decides how far you have to dodge for the attempt to do anything:

I know - barring ECM and high-tech stealthy ninja abilities - where you were X seconds ago (where X is range in light-seconds). I can tell where your inertia at that moment will put you in X seconds time (when Speed-of-light weapons will 'land' in your vicinity). That gives you 2X seconds of acceleration which I cannot observe and cannot take into account.

If your acceleration is not sufficient to move you the length of your own ship off an existing vector in 2X seconds, you can't dodge. At 1 light-second, the displacement in metres is about double your acceleration, so 1G puts you ~20m off-bullseye and so on. A lot of capital ships are going to have a radius more than 20m per G of max thust, so shouldn't really be able to dodge at normal combat ranges.

Possibly about to split hairs here, not an unreasonable comparison for long range space combat. Of course I can see that size could be a varible, I just think that at these extreme ranges it is distance that is most significant, some of this goes back to trying to envisage how energy weapons work, are they a one shot delivery, a 16" shell, or a rapid series of many shots, a Phalanx (but probably firing 12" shells), systematically sweeping a target area, in the hope that some of that energy will hit.

As far as dodging goes, it could be up or down, or temporaly turning to present a smaller profile, as well as side to side. I suppose the arguement is that on a successful dodge the pilot has managed to trick the opposing gunner.

Egil

 

[IanW]

Did he outline the reason for the assumption re dust concentration?

For a stealthy ship on a quiet approach, it puts their likely detection range inside your weapons range, allowing stealthed ships to sneak into range and get the first shot.

Otherwise, given what we know of Trav weapons and sensors, stealth just isnt viable as a strategy, which isnt Maximum Game Fun.

A spherical "Happy Fun Ball" isnt at all stealthy - you're looking to minimise surface area to maximise the effectiveness of armour. A stealthy ship maximises surface area, so it can radiate heat away from the target, making their detection or targeting solution more difficult ... but all that surface area means you need more armour per volume.

If the Happy Fun Ball can see Mr Stealth at five light seconds or so, then the Happy Fun Ball is tooled up and ready. But if Mr Stealth can get to within half a light second before detection, then Happy Fun Ball can be caught with it's metaphorical pants down ... or Mr Stealth can decline to engage and slip away.

A TL8 Hubble Telescope is a pretty cheap and crappy sensor, and according to Bruce Macintosh's calculations, it can detect Traveller warships at quite a few light seconds. But blanket the average system in dust and you can sneak up on it.

Dusty systems force you to invest heavily in sensors, which arent cheap and take surface area, and make stealth a viable combat strategy.

Thus, Sol is an unusually clean and clear system.

 

[locarno24]

No, I got the effect, I was more wondering why.
Essentially looking for a reason to justify the effect. Fair enough - it's something GMs do often enough...

 

[Captain Jonah]

Re sand stopping Plasma/Fusion Pbeams and anything else.

What is sand. Its not a bag of builders sand thrown out in a cloud.

Instead it is a mix of metallic strips or particles, ablative mixed in with multi spectral reflective and a containment field or launcher (the TNE description of launching a “Sand” round that spins and puts out a Catherine wheel of particles for a period of time and you then set the course of the canister to match your own.

If “Sand” can cause an incoming attack to give up part of its energy before it hits the hull then it has done its job and that is exactly how it works in game. Its ablative armour.

Or replace the whole “Sand Mechanism with “Screens” from 2300 so it’s a refreshable ablative that blocks your own sensors and fire as well.

Allowing “Sand” to work against P-Beams seems reasonable to me, the turret P-Beam is far too OP compared with Lasers or even Nuke missiles, what you are doing is stripping away the charged particles by having them hit metallic chaff.

As for Plasma/Fusion bolts, all you need to do is to bleed of enough energy from the bolt to reduce its coherence and you could get hit with a hot blob of Dueterium instead of a super molten ball. One ruins the paint work, the other makes a mess through the armour.

I can see the case of rail guns not being bothered by sand. It’s a high density penetrator designed to punch through a good thickness of BSD. “Sand” cannot really do anything to it.

Dodging. Well unless its fairly slow you cannot dodge an attack. You can dodge the gunner/computers aiming point by evasive movement but with light speed weapons by the time you realise it is going to hit you it just did.

Weapons and sensors. These are two entirely different but closely related things. Larger longer firing weapon mounts are going to do more damage but if they are firing more shots or a longer beam they are going to be more accurate by dint of blanketing more possible target locations.

If your spinal can hit out to 2 light seconds and you can detect the target at 5 light seconds you get a lot of shots before he can close the range. If your sensors can detect him at 1 light second then you need to rely on that 1 light second sensor drone globe you have out and you need to add a delay to the targeting since the drones report the position to you and you fire based on 1 second old sensor data. This would be another reason why fleets have escorts and screens and fighters and drones. To extend the sensor globe.

A decent fleet should have pickets and drones etc out to a light minute if possible or certainly a lot further than the ships own sensors can reach.

Add a penalty for firing based on remote target detection.

Traveller is very much the Star Trek/Star wars school of naval combat. Close till you can see the name on his hull and fire laser broadsides. :wink:

With the ability to reach far beyond the range in which you can see the target with the naked eye you need to change formations and tactics. Every ship should have recon fighters or drones. A fleet carrier isn’t there for its massive firepower as much as its there to put a screen of fighters with recon pods out beyond the ships sensors along threat axis.

If your sensors can detect an enemy at 10 light seconds and he can detect you at the same distance then you want drones out detecting at 20 light seconds giving you enough time to react.

Sailing along with your fleet in a nice tidy formation hunting an enemy CruRon and then coming into sensor range of the Beach ball of Death and its escort fleet or which that CruRon you were hunting is just a small part is going to be painful. :roll:

It doesn’t matter how dusty or not the system is, you can extend your sensor range to cope. In fact your sensor range should be a long way past your weapons range. When your sensor and weapons ranges are the same coming into detection range of an enemy puts you at weapon range of that enemy and you are sounding action stations as the first Light speed shots are hitting you. :shock:

 

[IanW]

In vaguely some sort of order.

Particle Barbettes are meant to be overpowered, and have been since High Guard. Lasers are what civilians use, real military ships use PAWs.

"A decent fleet should have pickets and drones etc out to a light minute if possible or certainly a lot further than the ships own sensors can reach."

Right. Assume "dusty" sensor range of 2 light seconds. Thats a *lot* of sensor platforms you need to throw out to keep sensor coverage out to a light minute ... someone better at geometry can correct me, but I think you'll be needing hundreds of them.

Then again, a jump-3 200 dton escort frigate is about MCr 100 from memory, so its 500 of them to a smallish ship of the line.

The flip side is if you have them out beyond where your main fleet units can intervene, we can just abrade them to death with cruisers and so on ... which means you might choose to commit some reasonably stealthy battlecruisers.

Bruce Macintosh suggested the "dusty" fix to sensor ranges to keep something reasonably hard-science but still force fleets to bring scouts and spread out to avoid the risk of sudden detection.

To me, this makes a much better Traveller universe, without needing to handwave why passive sensors suddenly got so much worse.