Fleet Combat/Quite-A-Lot-Of-Credits-Squadron Game?

[locarno24]

Found myself looking through the Fleet Combat bit of High Guard the other day, and thought:
1) There are a few things I'm not sure I follow about it
2) Ironically, a lot of the simplifications make many design features in 'canon' warships redundant
3) I'd really like to have a try running some 'proper' warship engagement scenarios with the assorted notables on the forum to see how it went. We've done over the years a few design & fight activities and they've usually been interesting to read. I've not seen any worked-through example with the newer edition. I have to admit I do like the 'Fleet Manoeuvre Chart'.


With regards to [1] I'm not sure I fully follow the rules on missile salvos in fleet combat. You 'lose' a number of missiles equal to the target's defence plus the amount of Salvo defence allocated to the salvo. Do you actually roll to hit after this or are surviving missiles assumed to hit automatically? I feel like I'm jumping between P.163 of the core book and P.89 of High Guard and I'm not entirely sure which bits to use - such as the 'multiply damage by surviving missiles' bit, for example. Equally, multiply the damage by 10 and then divide it by 10 again (which is what you do with most 'normal' missiles) feels a bit of a redundant exercise. Basically, I think a worked example of fleet combat - especially with missiles - might be useful.

There's also a secondary issue that the example doesn't seem to line up with the rules. P87 says:
"To determine the amount of Damage delivered by a weapon system, consult the Fleet Weapon Damage table, totalling the Damage all the weapons within the weapon system (so, if you have ten triple beam laser turrets, you would count that as a total of 30 beam lasers), then divide the total by 10, rounding down. The result is the Damage score for that weapon system."

Which is fine. Ten triple beam laser turrets = 30 beam lasers = 30 Damage = 3 damage in fleet scale. 3 damage, modified by the Attack Roll/Damage Modification table and a target's armour, would probably put about an S-type Scout on about 50% hit points - which doesn't feel dramatically 'wrong'.

The example, though, has the Impala - which carries 6 Beam Lasers - having a damage score of 6 and its particle guns having a damage score of 30. But its Hull and Armour are scaled down. I'm not sure if I'm missing something, but I assume - hope - that that's wrong. A few salvoes of a half-dozen beam lasers shouldn't be able to do much more than irritate an armoured 400 dTon Gazelle-class EC.



[2] is mostly about sandcasters. They really seem to get the short end of the stick in the system - lasers get to contribute to salvo defence and shoot up enemy ships at the same time, and since the simplified system only cares about the raw number of PD mounts there's no difference in effectiveness between pulse and beam lasers (but the former make much better ship-to-ship secondary weapons). By comparison, sandcasters appear to have no effect at all in a large scale engagement. Equally, there's no link between the number of weapons and potential casualties - a large particle bay, for example, causes 70 damage (7 once the 'divide by 10' is taken into account) - a lone fusion barbette does 2 damage, which would wipe out a squadron of 5 light fighters in a single shot if you managed to get a good enough attack roll.



[3] - essentially that's an open query; would people be interested in a mini-fleet-action run-through with fleets they've put together themselves? An easy start-point for a first game would be just using a picked-to-a-budget roster of 'generic' fleet ships out of one or more of the High Guard books, I guess.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

With regards to [1] I'm not sure I fully follow the rules on missile salvos in fleet combat. You 'lose' a number of missiles equal to the target's defence plus the amount of Salvo defence allocated to the salvo. Do you actually roll to hit after this or are surviving missiles assumed to hit automatically?

It's supposed to be extremely simple, in order to allow us to handle several large warships.

There is no ToHit roll in the Fleet system. Missile salvoes are reduced by defences, the rest hit. Each missile does fixed damage. Follow the procedure in the bullet points on p89-90.

Example:

A ship fires a salvo of 100 missiles. The Defence Score makes 5 missiles miss, the rest can hit. The defender uses his Salvo Defence of 60 to reduce the incoming missiles. 100 - 5 - 60 = 35 missiles impacts.

35 standard missiles does 35 × 10 / 10 = 35 damage. Armour 10 reduces this by 30% so the target takes 35 × 70% = 24.5 damage.

The example, though, has the Impala - which carries 6 Beam Lasers - having a damage score of 6 and its particle guns having a damage score of 30. But its Hull and Armour are scaled down. I'm not sure if I'm missing something, but I assume - hope - that that's wrong.

Quite, the example Fleet Combat Roster card is incorrect. The Damage scores should be divided by 10.

[2] is mostly about sandcasters. They really seem to get the short end of the stick in the system...

In large scale fleet combat lasers are insignificant as weapons, hence sandcasters are insignificant as defences. They are simply ignored, along with a lot of other detail, such as Electronic Warfare.

[3] - essentially that's an open query; would people be interested in a mini-fleet-action run-through with fleets they've put together themselves? An easy start-point for a first game would be just using a picked-to-a-budget roster of 'generic' fleet ships out of one or more of the High Guard books, I guess.

Sure, why not.

Much as I like to design my own ships, using standard designs would reduce the overhead of such an exercise. The conventional TCr would give us a few BBs or quite a lot of smaller ships.

 

[locarno24]

It's supposed to be extremely simple, in order to allow us to handle several large warships.

There is no ToHit roll in the Fleet system. Missile salvoes are reduced by defences, the rest hit. Each missile does fixed damage. Follow the procedure in the bullet points on p89-90.

Example:

A ship fires a salvo of 100 missiles. The Defence Score makes 5 missiles miss, the rest can hit. The defender uses his Salvo Defence of 60 to reduce the incoming missiles. 100 - 5 - 60 = 35 missiles impacts.

35 standard missiles does 35 × 10 / 10 = 35 damage. Armour 10 reduces this by 30% so the target takes 35 × 70% = 24.5 damage.

Fair enough. It does mean a ship with triple missile launchers can never punch through an equivalent number of triple laser turrets (which is nice and simple, but sucks a bit if you're the one behind the missile launchers....).

Sure, why not.

Much as I like to design my own ships, using standard designs would reduce the overhead of such an exercise. The conventional TCr would give us a few BBs or quite a lot of smaller ships.

Anyone else interested?
The Fleet Manoeuvre Chart means you can - to an extent - plot things out in a 'proper' scenario (with what seems to be a slight error that there's no short range on the chart). I suspect that since Close and Adjacent are both insignificant 'dots' compared to the other range bands (or "in the same region" range) the 'close' band might be meant to be 'short' as having close range divided into four quadrants seems bizarre.

My first thought was less than the default TCr - for a first use in anger of the system a BCr seems more than sufficient - allowing you to take several true capital ships and some escorts.

 

[Condottiere]

I've discovered I've rather grown fond of virtual point and click alternatives, which also help visualize the action.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The Fleet Manoeuvre Chart means you can - to an extent - plot things out in a 'proper' scenario (with what seems to be a slight error that there's no short range on the chart). I suspect that since Close and Adjacent are both insignificant 'dots' compared to the other range bands (or "in the same region" range) the 'close' band might be meant to be 'short' as having close range divided into four quadrants seems bizarre.

Close and Adjacent are needed for small craft to be able to engage. I believe the ranges are correct and usable as is.

My first thought was less than the default TCr - for a first use in anger of the system a BCr seems more than sufficient - allowing you to take several true capital ships and some escorts.

BCr 1 = MCr 1 000, not even enough for a destroyer.

TCr 1 = MCr 1 000 000, enough for a few capital ships.

 

[locarno24]

Close and Adjacent are needed for small craft to be able to engage. I believe the ranges are correct and usable as is.

I would disagree - because you have to pass through Short Range to get from Medium to Close.
Adjacent range exists on the diagram - because that's what you are at when in the same section - but medium range takes several turns to pass through, and the thrust-required-to-move between rings uses the same scale as the table on P156 of the core book.

Close Range is a 10km bubble and subdividing it feels silly given a 1G ship can cross it several times from a standing start in a single six-minute round, whilst Short Range is 1240 km gap that a thrust 1 ship takes 2 turns to cross. If you're going to skip one of the two range bands, I would argue not having Close on the diagram makes more sense.

Small Craft's range-specific rule is for Adjacent (the same sector) so they're not dependent on Close Range being on the table. Dogfighting rules are not a thing for Capital Ship Battles - Small Craft get a tonnage-based DM bonus instead when engaging heavies (and vice-versa)

For that matter, the only other rule which does name-check 'Close Range' is the Fleet Defence trait, which since it works at 'within Close Range' would default to 'any other ship in the same sector', since those ships are Adjacent, which is within Close Range.

 

[Condottiere]

Point systems are geared towards likely results orientated outcomes, in this case the assumption that money evens out the playing field.

Two aspects that should be given relevancy would be the veterancy of crews and ordnance, since those are expended and you'd be looking pretty foolish finding out you've run out of ammunition and can't reload.

 

[arcador]

If you're going to use fleet combat rules,

I have a few minor tweaks (house rules), which might give you ideas to address some issues:

- Mass drivers should not be applicable for ship-to-ship combat, and in consequence - fleets. Put some penalty to discourage use. Otherwise, it can become a too strong short-range weapon.
- The same for Ortilellery missiles/torpedoes. However, since they use the missile rules, put some penalty do discourage use. Otherwise, they deal too much dmg.
- Bomb pumped torpedoes (all variants). If we follow ship-to-ship rules, they should be more resistant to salvo defence, which is not factored in fleet combat. My rule is that salvo defence is only 0.8 times effective vs those.

 

[Condottiere]

Ortillery gets a default minus six on any moving target.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AjCAuYkrgA

Luckiest Man in Iraq(Persian Gulf War) by General. Norman Schwarzkopf

General. Norman Schwarzkopf, Commander of Coliation Forces, brief the press about what he called "the luckiest man in Irag" during the Persian Gulf War. In this video he showed how an Iraqi Soldier run for his life as he run through the crosshairs of a laser guided bomb.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

- Mass drivers should not be applicable for ship-to-ship combat, and in consequence - fleets. Put some penalty to discourage use. Otherwise, it can become a too strong short-range weapon.

It's difficult to get to Short range. Bays are not that important. I see no need to nerf them.

- The same for Ortilellery missiles/torpedoes. However, since they use the missile rules, put some penalty do discourage use. Otherwise, they deal too much dmg.

Agreed, ortillery weapons should not be able to hit manoeuvring targets. Or at least suffer a steep penalty, perhaps half damage?

- Bomb pumped torpedoes (all variants). If we follow ship-to-ship rules, they should be more resistant to salvo defence, which is not factored in fleet combat. My rule is that salvo defence is only 0.8 times effective vs those.

Basically agree, but I believe that is included in the expected damage per missile, as specified in the Fleet Missile/Torpedo Damage table. KISS.

 

[locarno24]

For that matter, the only other rule which does name-check 'Close Range' is the Fleet Defence trait, which since it works at 'within Close Range' would default to 'any other ship in the same sector', since those ships are Adjacent, which is within Close Range.

One apology - since the majority of fighters pack fixed mount firmpoints not turret hardpoints, they will be range-limited. I still think going Medium-Short-Adjacent (being the same space) makes more sense than Medium-Close-Adjacent. Once a 6G smallcraft is within the 'medium' ring, it can basically reach any sector on the chart in one turn anyway....

Two aspects that should be given relevancy would be the veterancy of crews and ordnance, since those are expended and you'd be looking pretty foolish finding out you've run out of ammunition and can't reload.

The usual assumption I've seen in such situations is giving everyone a sufficient supply of 'professional' crews to man whatever ships they can field - which is defined as Crew Skill 2 in the section. For the sake of simplicity I'd avoid charging for crews, unless this proves to dramatically skew the results between, say, big ships and carriers.

Since most standard designs tell you how much ammo they can hold but don't include the price of it, you pick what you want to load up with, I guess, with a restriction that the TL of the missiles match the TL of the launcher you're firing them through (which doesn't affect Smart DMs but does affect what missile types are available)

- Mass drivers should not be applicable for ship-to-ship combat, and in consequence - fleets. Put some penalty to discourage use. Otherwise, it can become a too strong short-range weapon.
- The same for Ortilellery missiles/torpedoes. However, since they use the missile rules, put some penalty do discourage use. Otherwise, they deal too much dmg.

Now....that's interesting, actually. Ortillery already "suffer DM-6 to their attack rolls when used against targets that have a Thrust score greater than 0". That's not a copy-paste error from elsewhere, it's been written specifically for the section, which implies that Missile salvos do have to roll to hit in this system.
I'd not think it inappropriate to put the same proviso on Mass Drivers (which are basically Ortillery-variant Railguns).

Basically agree, but I believe that is included in the expected damage per missile, as specified in the Fleet Missile/Torpedo Damage table. KISS.

Their damage per missile is actually proportionately fractionally lower (due to the way damage gets rounded off in the system) - 4D vs 6D becomes 10 vs 25.
The DM-2-for-Point-Defence rule is identical to that for multiwarhead weapons, so copying "Reduce the target’s Salvo Defence by -20% against this weapon" would make sense.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

One apology - since the majority of fighters pack fixed mount firmpoints not turret hardpoints, they will be range-limited.

They are range-limited the same, whether fixed mount or turret. Only missiles are normal range.

I still think going Medium-Short-Adjacent (being the same space) makes more sense than Medium-Close-Adjacent.

Lets call it a matter of taste.

Once a 6G smallcraft is within the 'medium' ring, it can basically reach any sector on the chart in one turn anyway....

But you have to get to the right sector to attack, hence loose the initiative since ships (squadrons) move in initiative order.

With Close range in the inner ring a small craft can attack any Close sector and any adjacent Medium sector.

Since most standard designs tell you how much ammo they can hold but don't include the price of it, you pick what you want to load up with, I guess, with a restriction that the TL of the missiles match the TL of the launcher you're firing them through (which doesn't affect Smart DMs but does affect what missile types are available)

Agreed, munitions are explicitly not part of the cost of the ship.

Now....that's interesting, actually. Ortillery already "suffer DM-6 to their attack rolls when used against targets that have a Thrust score greater than 0". That's not a copy-paste error from elsewhere, it's been written specifically for the section, which implies that Missile salvos do have to roll to hit in this system.

That would be against the procedure described in the bullet points on p89-90.
Note that Defence is deducted directly from the salvo, unlike normal weapons where Defence is a negative mod on the Fleet Damage table.

In this discussion with the authors from beta I did not use the Fleet Damage table for missile salvoes and was not corrected, despite being corrected on other points:
http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?p=900060#p900060

I'd not think it inappropriate to put the same proviso on Mass Drivers (which are basically Ortillery-variant Railguns).

Mass Driver bays do not suffer any penalties in basic combat, probably because of the limited range.

Their damage per missile is actually proportionately fractionally lower (due to the way damage gets rounded off in the system) - 4D vs 6D becomes 10 vs 25.

Armour effects are included in the table, so Standard missiles (4D) does 10 and Long Range (3D) does 5.

Note that a Standard missile does double damage compared to a Long Range missile, despite doing only 33% more basic damage, since armour affects 3D far more than 4D.

The DM-2-for-Point-Defence rule is identical to that for multiwarhead weapons, so copying "Reduce the target’s Salvo Defence by -20% against this weapon" would make sense.

Good point.

Since the 4D Bomb-pumped torpedo has the same damage as the 4D Standard missile, any salvo defence penalties can't be included in the damage table.

 

[locarno24]

That would be against the procedure described in the bullet points on p89-90.
Note that Defence is deducted directly from the salvo, unlike normal weapons where Defence is a negative mod on the Fleet Damage table.

In this discussion with the authors from beta I did not use the Fleet Damage table for missile salvoes and was not corrected, despite being corrected on other points:
viewtopic.php?p=900060#p900060

I'm not saying "you're wrong" so much as - one way or another - that's a fairly fundamental inconsistency.
I don't inherently object to using the fleet damage table - your attack bonus and your enemy's defence in no small part represent the TL difference, which dramatically impacts the effectiveness of missile fire via the Smart trait.

Plus, it doesn't feel inappropriate that some part of missile effectiveness should be proportional rather than linear - the number of weapons point defence shoots down will be directly proportional to the number of flak emplacements, and largely independent of the number of incoming missiles, but the number of missiles thrown off their terminal attack by evasive manoeuvres feels like it should be a proportion of the incoming salvo, rather than a navy Chrysanthemum-class evading five missiles from a salvo regardless of whether the salvo was five or five hundred.

I know it's a simplified system - it just feels a little weird.

They are range-limited the same, whether fixed mount or turret. Only missiles are normal range.

"Ships of less than 100 tons have Firmpoints instead of Hardpoints. A Firmpoint on a small craft is a fixed mount (typically forward-facing, but there is no requirement for this), but can be upgraded to a single (not double or triple) turret....

...A weapon mounted upon a Firmpoint has the following changes applied to it.
• Weapons of Medium range or less are reduced to Adjacent range.
• Weapons of greater range are reduced to Close range."

Unless I'm missing something elsewhere, the range limit is the cost for not making the tonnage and power investment to buy a 'proper' turret, which a small craft can do, it's just that most don't - because 1 dTon may be trivial on a destroyer but is a pretty big deal in a 10 dTon ship.

But you have to get to the right sector to attack, hence loose the initiative since ships (squadrons) move in initiative order.

With Close range in the inner ring a small craft can attack any Close sector and any adjacent Medium sector.

Target moving away is an issue with short-ranged weapons in any fleet combat in the system. It feels a bit weird that the higher initiative ship has to move first and then lower initiative can 'react' to it - and since moving out of close range takes only 1 thrust, anyone moving into close range finds the enemy going "no, medium range."

I still think short range not being on the diagram is kind of weird but the only weapons it really affects are railguns, which aren't really a big traveller 'thing'.

Lets call it a matter of taste.

Oh, I'm happy to play it as printed. I'm just trying to feel out any errors or inconsistencies first.

Mass Driver bays do not suffer any penalties in basic combat, probably because of the limited range.

Looking at their stats, they deliver exactly the same damage as fusion guns of the same size. They're lower TL and much more power-efficient, but more expensive and eat ammo, and, as noted, are slightly shorter range.

Armour effects are included in the table, so Standard missiles (4D) does 10 and Long Range (3D) does 5.

Note that a Standard missile does double damage compared to a Long Range missile, despite doing only 33% more basic damage, since armour affects 3D far more than 4D.

Hmm.. that sort of fits in with laser fire, too. So the system assumes about - what - 5 points or armour or so for an average? But you do double-dip with the % reduction as well.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Plus, it doesn't feel inappropriate that some part of missile effectiveness should be proportional rather than linear - the number of weapons point defence shoots down will be directly proportional to the number of flak emplacements, and largely independent of the number of incoming missiles, but the number of missiles thrown off their terminal attack by evasive manoeuvres feels like it should be a proportion of the incoming salvo, rather than a navy Chrysanthemum-class evading five missiles from a salvo regardless of whether the salvo was five or five hundred.

I know it's a simplified system - it just feels a little weird.

It's the same in the basic system: If you launch a salvo of 1000 missiles, 995 or so are guaranteed to hit. Basically missiles don't miss, you shoot them down or they hit. There was extensive discussion during beta...

"Ships of less than 100 tons have Firmpoints instead of Hardpoints. A Firmpoint on a small craft is a fixed mount (typically forward-facing, but there is no requirement for this), but can be upgraded to a single (not double or triple) turret....

...A weapon mounted upon a Firmpoint has the following changes applied to it.
• Weapons of Medium range or less are reduced to Adjacent range.
• Weapons of greater range are reduced to Close range."

Unless I'm missing something elsewhere, the range limit is the cost for not making the tonnage and power investment to buy a 'proper' turret, which a small craft can do, it's just that most don't - because 1 dTon may be trivial on a destroyer but is a pretty big deal in a 10 dTon ship.

Smallcraft can only have firmpoints. Weapons mounted on firmpoints are range-limited, whether mounted on Fixed Mounts, Turrets, or Barbettes.

Ships can only have hardpoints. Weapons mounted on hardpoints are NOT range-limited, whether mounted on Fixed Mounts, Turrets, or Barbettes.

"A Firmpoint on a small craft is a fixed mount..." This is misleading, it means that firmpoints normally use Fixed Mounts, rather than Turrets. In fact, even on firmpoints, a mount must be selected and installed at normal cost to mount weapons, e.g. a Fixed Mount costs MCr 0.1 as per the Mount table on p24.

Target moving away is an issue with short-ranged weapons in any fleet combat in the system. It feels a bit weird that the higher initiative ship has to move first and then lower initiative can 'react' to it - and since moving out of close range takes only 1 thrust, anyone moving into close range finds the enemy going "no, medium range."

Agreed, it's weird.

The centre of the Fleet Manoeuvre Chart is fixed on a convenient spot, like a world or station. It's only if you want to stay close the that point, that you get there. Normally, I guess, fleets will manoeuvre further out.

Hmm.. that sort of fits in with laser fire, too. So the system assumes about - what - 5 points or armour or so for an average? But you do double-dip with the % reduction as well.

Agreed, it's a double dip: The Fleet Damage chart determines the relative "normal" effectiveness of weapons, and the armour deduction determines how much is deducted from each attack. Basically it simulates the basic combat system as simply as possible.

 

[locarno24]

The centre of the Fleet Manoeuvre Chart is fixed on a convenient spot, like a world or station. It's only if you want to stay close the that point, that you get there. Normally, I guess, fleets will manoeuvre further out.

The convenient spot is usually something of interest to the scenario - if there's an astronomical feature close to a battle it's often the thing being fought over - so I wouldn't guarantee that.




For the sake of a simple starting model, a small naval engagement of a Navy force intercepting a big Ihatei raid on a big convoy.

The Imperial Navy get two Destroyer groups - one pair of Chrysanthemum-class DDEs and one pair of Fer-De-Lance-class DDEs. There's also a screening formation of eight Gazelle-class ECs. The 'reference point' is a megafreighter group, whose exact stats are irrelevant aside from the fact that they're underway at 1G, so keeping position reduces a ship's available thrust by 1G (which everyone's assumed to do unless they move to disengage).

That's three groups of roughly the same value:
8 x Gazelle = MCr 1999.2
2 x Chrysanthemum (loaded with standard-15 missiles) = MCr 1331.2
2 x Fer-De-Lance (loaded with standard-15 missiles) = MCr 1391.2

For a total of MCr 4721.6

For the Aslan.....hmm. Let's say six Halaheike-class pocket warships in two groups. That also means there's a third group of sixty Light Fighters, which - since the Aslan are the aggressors - can be assumed to be deployed before the fight starts.

3 x Halaheike (loaded with standard-15 missiles)= MCr 2451.9
3 x Halaheike (loaded with standard-15 missiles)= MCr 2451.9
60 x Light Fighter - Launched from Halaheike

For a total of MCr 4903.704

That gives the Aslan the edge in 'value', but the multirole nature of their ships and - more importantly - the fact that they're TL14 to the navy's TL15 - means they're probably at a disadvantage.

Does that look like a reasonable first scenario?

 

[Condottiere]

Since they're facing a fighter swarm, perhaps allow the Imperium player to choose his missile load out, like optional point defence and interceptor missiles.

 

[locarno24]

I was initially just going to run through that scenario myself to see how it went.
Out of curiousity - I know Fragmentation missiles can be used for engaging other salvoes, but I don't recall seeing point defence or interceptor as missile types?

 

[arcador]

Fragmentation missiles kill normal missiles at 1:1 rate in ship combat. Not sure if there are differences for fleet combat.

 

[Condottiere]

Point defence and interceptor missiles are described in Traveller Companion.

It's something like Sidewinder and Sparrow, and I'll assume the default standard ones are Phoenix.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

8 x Gazelle = MCr 1999.2
2 x Chrysanthemum (loaded with standard-15 missiles) = MCr 1331.2
2 x Fer-De-Lance (loaded with standard-15 missiles) = MCr 1391.2

Assorted scrap iron... Unarmoured, basically unarmed. Such junk have relatively little combat value, so the monetary value is no guide.

The only weapons of note are missiles and particle barbettes, with lasers for point defence. Since they all lack rad shielding the crews will be cooked before the ships are more than scratched.

3 x Halaheike (loaded with standard-15 missiles)= MCr 2451.9
3 x Halaheike (loaded with standard-15 missiles)= MCr 2451.9
60 x Light Fighter - Launched from Halaheike

I have no idea what a Halaheike is, can you elaborate?

A TL14 fleet should have TL14 missiles?