Missiles in 2300

[phavoc]

Ca. 1970 the USN had fleet anti-submarine ships were which were designated destroyers (DD), and convoy escorts which were designated ocean escorts (DE). The Perry was the DE of the Spruance DD/ Perry DE high-low pair. She was not designed for fleet work but for convoy defence and was equipped with lower grade sensors and weapons, although some of each was provided (unlike previous DE's).

The USN had a battle force based around CV(N)'s, with each carrier group having a CG(N) for surface action (almost all late WW2 ships with some turrets replaced with missile launchers), a pair of DLG(N)'s (frigate, a large anti-aircraft vessel) and some DD's (specialised anti-submarine vessels). DE's were not part of a carrier group, but rather were assigned to protect convoys, auxiliairies and amphibious landing ships.

In the MSIF, the Aconit fit the role of a Perry, Knox, Brooke or Garcia DE. A general purpose convoy escort, but not one with a high capability in any area, having been built as the low part of a high/low mix.

The "big ship" concept which produced the Suffrens (100 MW for tactical systems, 200 MW for drives) and Richelieus (115 MW for tactical systems, 300 MW for drives) envisioned ships powerful enough to operate independently or as the core of a TF. These fulfil the roles of CG and CV. In the middle, the capable "normal" ship is probably based around a 150 MW fusion plant* and uses either 75 or 100 MW for the drive, leaving 75 or 50 MW for tactical systems. One of the oldest types is in SotFA - the Ypres class had a 150 MW fusion plant, 100 MW for drives and 50 MW for tactical systems, and is called a frigate. She'd be the equivalent to a DLGN frigate.

The "destroyers" are likely the 75/75 MW versions, a bit slower but more heavily gunned.

We don't have need of different anti-air, anti-sub etc. ships, but I've assumed things are moving towards more drone and missiles, and especially fighter carriers are starting to appear, and they are extremely powerful units that only the two most powerful nations, France and Britain, have.


* Fusion reactors have a minimum size of 150 MW (ca. 500 dTons) this creates a minimum size for fusion vessels.

Yeah, the OHP was a generalized type meant more for convoy escort rather than keeping up with carrier battlegroups. CV groups often had dedicated and specialized ships - Tico class cruisers are an example. Spruance was an excellent sub hunter (one of the best, not to mention nice looking).

USN made changes, some due to tech and some due to budgets, on their fleet. They could no longer afford the post-WW2 fleets. And with tech changes some platforms could do more with fewer hulls (though the current fleet is a bit too small to cover everything - the Constellation FF will hopefully bring the OHP concept back into vogue - you don't need Aegis-equipped destroyers for doing the more mundane needs of having hulls present around the world).

I don't have any 2300 stuff anymore (do have all the Challenge magazines in their OG format - paper!). And when I played we never really got into the naval portion, let alone the design aspects.

 

[boggo2300]

And when I played we never really got into the naval portion, let alone the design aspects.

you missed out, Star Cruiser ship design is quick, clean, intuitive and you can get awsome results, I personally think it's the best Ship design system to come out of GDW except for FF&S (and that only because FF&S covered a lot more stuff)

 

[tytalan]

The science fiction game system...

So according to you a person shouldn’t play a game unless they are educated in it based. Funny I don’t see many people educated in magic but there’s a lot of people playing D&D. It being a scifi game has absolutely no impact on people enjoyment.

 

[tytalan]

How about you indicate that you are talking about the person who is credited with the term rather than the game designer.

So according to you Marc Miller was the person who came up with the concept of hard scifi vs soft scifi. Maybe next time consider the context.

 

[Sigtrygg]

So according to you a person shouldn’t play a game unless they are educated in it based.

The spoiler is sarcastic humour, don't click and you can't be offended.
<sarcasm>Yes, that is exactly my view, well done for finally spotting it. I am sick to death of the scientifically illiterate whining about science they know nothing about then running a rpg that may as well be fantasy for all the science that is involved.</sarcasm>
No, just no.

Funny I don’t see many people educated in magic but there’s a lot of people playing D&D.

Once again, No, just no.

It being a scifi game has absolutely no impact on people enjoyment.

Whatever you say.

 

[Sigtrygg]

So according to you Marc Miller was the person who came up with the concept of hard scifi vs soft scifi.

I have not claimed MWM invented the terms, when you mentioned Miller and the term hard sc fi you did not clarify that you had jumped to a new topic, that being where the original term came from. Once again you make up something I have not said to make an argument based on your make believe.

Maybe next time consider the context.

I did, it it you that didn't. I doubt if you did so delibertely.

Here is what you said:

"Considering I’m not a fan of Miller..." have you indicated that rather than the author of T2300 you have now jumped to the originator of the term hard sci fi? No you havent, so lets keep reading...

"...to begin with and rather something is “Hard” or “Soft” scifi is primarily a matter of opinion..."
still no mention that you are refering to the originator of the terms rather than the terms themselves.

"...I really don’t believe in the Hard/Soft categorization." with no mention that you are referring in this new argument to the Millar who coined ther term rather than the Miller who wrote the book.

 

[tytalan]

you missed out, Star Cruiser ship design is quick, clean, intuitive and you can get awsome results, I personally think it's the best Ship design system to come out of GDW except for FF&S (and that only because FF&S covered a lot more stuff)

After digging into the ship designing rules in the AEH they are not that bad. I think FF&S was just way to complex for most gamers which was a complaint I heard often at conventions back in the day. Unlike Sig I don’t think you have to have a degree in something to enjoy the corresponding RPG, like my wife said she’s loving our PF2 game and she never got her Hoggworth’s letter. I think the key to a design system for a game like 2300 or Traveller is enough complexity to give you a good spread of option while being easily accessible to the average gamer. I think mongoose has done that well with HG and AEH (though I wish the drive math was a little less vague and complex ) even the core concepts for the VH are not bad it was just the execution that failed. In the long run while I do understand some tech heads like the complexity they need to understand that others play the game too and it should be accessible to all players.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Unlike Sig I don’t think you have to have a degree in something to enjoy the corresponding RPG, like my wife said she’s loving our PF2 game and she never got her Hoggworth’s letter.

Well since you mention me by name I get the right to respond.
Once again you libel me, you accuse me me of something I have never said that insults my character.
Also, what is Hoggsworth's? Do you mean Hogwarts? Or does PF" plagiarise J.K. Rawling?

I think the key to a design system for a game like 2300 or Traveller is enough complexity to give you a good spread of option while being easily accessible to the average gamer.

All good equipment design systems should strive to do this.

I think mongoose has done that well with HG and AEH

They have.

(though I wish the drive math was a little less vague and complex )

It isn't that bad, if you get stuck someone on the forum can explain it simply to you. I get a lot of useful stuff from forum members.

even the core concepts for the VH are not bad it was just the execution that failed.

I agree again.

In the long run while I do understand some tech heads like the complexity they need to understand that others play the game too and it should be accessible to all players.

So make it multi-tiered, the gearheads can have their fun and also provide the simplifications for general use. Then everyone can play the game the way they want and everyone can have fun, which is the whole point.

 

[Bryn the 2300AD guy]

On the original authorship of 2300AD...

GDW wrote the contributions to 2300AD in the front covers. The main design team for the 1st edition was MW Miller, Frank Chadwick and Tim Brown. Lester W. Smith became the line manager sometime in 1987. In an interview with him, he said that he got the job after sending in a series of suggestions on how to improve the system when writing Beanstalk. (see here)

They also gave statements of what other contributers wrote. They specifically credit Thomas & Fugate of DGP for the original task system, for example. Matt Renner and Kevin Brown wrote the charecter generation rules. Others were writing bits, but apparently not rules.

The ship design and the space combat system was Frank Chadwick and Tim Brown. I guess they also wrote the space travel stuff.

ISTR (although I may be wrong) that MW Miller did the 3D starmap.

The other major rules bits; combat, world generation and animals, I don't know about.

To generate the history, they played a game. That said, elements were changed to generate conflict. For example, Germany was always unified. However, t2k players know that the south was the intact part of Germany and the capital was moved there. We get additional historical points in pieces of text beyond the core books, such as Britain and Canada being virtually inseparable and exploiting Greenland's and Antarcticas mineral resources. I digress...

However, in the current Mongoose edition, the Traveller writers are credited, not the 2300AD ones (see here). This leads to the two line managers, Tim Brown and LW Smith, getting no credit.

 

[Bryn the 2300AD guy]

After digging into the ship designing rules in the AEH they are not that bad.

They are just awful. It was fascinating to watch peoples reactions go from "looks good" to "that's odd" to "this is unusable nonsense"as they actually tried to use it.

I can drive wagons through the holes in it all day, but the conversion to real power is wrong, 1 power = 25 kW (also for Traveller), and changes to the stutterwarp formulae cause massive shifts in the power to speed curve (which should be cubic)*, and ideas of that is fast. When I pointed the latter out, Colin refused to fix it, and just added the speed limit table to paper over the chasm.

* That's fundamental physics. All locomotion is ultimately steady state speed = constant * (power/weight)^1/3. It reminds he I should post part 2 of this.

 

[Sigtrygg]

That is an interesting interview, i think you should cross post it to the Dark Conspiracy forum, or do you mind if I do?

 

[Bryn the 2300AD guy]

That is an interesting interview, i think you should cross post it to the Dark Conspiracy forum, or do you mind if I do?

Go ahead

 

[ottarrus]

Back to the OP on this one:
One major reason for the misconception is that, just like with OTU missiles, 2300 combat drones are expended once launched. Very few of them get recovered even if they didn't detonate. So many, in fact, that there are models that automatically detonate in safe space if they reach a certain distance past their fuel limitation.
However I do agree that an OTU missile is an entirely different thing from a 2300 combat drone and, yes, it is feasibly possible to guide a combat drone back to the launch vessel for recovery, but that option is hardly ever mentioned much less discussed. Come to think of it, that might be an interesting design for a fleet support ship... the 'drone tender' whose job involves finding and recovering expended but not detonated drones [either armed drones or scout drones].

 

[Sigtrygg]

I have always thought drones and missiles to be recoverable (as long as they don't use their detonation warhead), their engines are far too valuable to waste unless they are damaging a much more expensive vessel.

 

[ottarrus]

I have always thought drones and missiles to be recoverable (as long as they don't use their detonation warhead), their engines are far too valuable to waste unless they are damaging a much more expensive vessel.

I've always surmised that expended ordinance is where the Libertines were getting at least some of their stutter technology and tantalum.

 

[Bryn the 2300AD guy]

I've always surmised that expended ordinance is where the Libertines were getting at least some of their stutter technology and tantalum.

Libertines, or anything like them, explicitly don't exist in the universe as written. They are Colin's invention and he keeps changing the rest of the universe to try and justify them. It still makes no sense though, and it got strange (see my piece here on them)

 

[Sigtrygg]

A most excellent blog post.

 

[ottarrus]

Libertines, or anything like them, explicitly don't exist in the universe as written. They are Colin's invention and he keeps changing the rest of the universe to try and justify them. It still makes no sense though, and it got strange (see my piece here on them)

But 'Libertines or not' isn't really the point.
My point is in regards to why 'missile' and 'combat drone' get confused by players and refs in 2300.
Don't get me wrong here. I'm not getting aggressive, I'm just keeping the thread on track, lest we drift off into irrelevancies yet again, some more.