Pocket Battleship and Dreadnought

[Condottiere]

You get the idea that because of the need to cover other fronts, Navily the Solomani Rim War wasn't quite total on either side, and the Terran campaign exhausted the Imperium, or at least, the resources available to attempt any further reabsorption of the Solomani Sphere.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Screens either need to be relatively fixed values for persistent screens or find a better cost across the board per screen, otherwise screens only positive is the removal of non-spinal weapon radiation trait.

Even if screens are not generally worth it, they can have specialised uses, e.g. they can be quite effective against fighters armed with fusion barbettes.

If you leave a few modules open you can adjust your defences to whatever your potential enemies comes up with. You can build new modules quicker then the enemy can build new battleships...

P.S. Sorry for contributing to derailing your tread.

 

[baithammer]

Modules require facilities to swap them and require having the desired modules on hand which reduces the amount of ammunition, fuel and other stores available.

The stanflex of the Danish Navy are used to allow fast upgrade paths and redistribution of existing systems rather than having a large amount of space taken up by mission load outs.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Modules require facilities to swap them and require having the desired modules on hand which reduces the amount of ammunition, fuel and other stores available.

Extra modules can be stored at a convenient naval base or depot. With a moon or two to stack things space is not much of a limit. But, yes, you have to pay for any extra modules.

You don't even have to make extra modules, but simply equip ships on the Solly border differently than ships on the Zho border.

It the enemy starts building some new classes with new types of weapons, it's much cheaper and faster to build new modules, than to build new battleships.

The stanflex of the Danish Navy are used to allow fast upgrade paths and redistribution of existing systems rather than having a large amount of space taken up by mission load outs.

Quite, and that seems like a good idea...

Note that the rules allows us to make even the main armament modular...

 

[baithammer]

The stanflex system is primarily aimed at weapon upgrades with a few mission specific modules.

It the enemy starts building some new classes with new types of weapons, it's much cheaper and faster to build new modules, than to build new battleships.

This is what has proven successful for real life modular systems, with the US Navies experiment with molecularity on the Littoral ships tried to do the opposite and ended up with an ineffective system. ( Weapon systems weren't included in the modular setup and only mission specific modules were tried.)

 

[Sigtrygg]

Ever since CT HG days 3I warships have had modular weapon systems - they are called bays.

Both HG79 and HG80 explicitly state that bay weaponry can be easily replaced with different weapons.

 

[baithammer]

Bays in MGT HG aren't modular but are more properly a battery of a specific type of weapon system, mgt vehicles rules on the other hand have proper bays which are used for disposable weapons such as missiles, ect.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Ever since CT HG days 3I warships have had modular weapon systems - they are called bays.

Both HG79 and HG80 explicitly state that bay weaponry can be easily replaced with different weapons.

And turrets, but not spinals.

Spinals can unfortunately be modular in MgT.

 

[Condottiere]

Then you end up with the Littoral Combat Ship.

In a Navy that's experienced with modular hull configurations, they'll try to make them standardized across the board, like the aforementioned bays and turrets, and have them available at most major navy bases.

For us, modular hull is only really covered in any detail with the modular cutter, as I recall.

 

[Sigtrygg]

How quickly TNE has been forgotten.

The RCES Clipper and the Victrix had mission specific modules, the Clipper was pretty much nothing but modules attached to the frame.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It was an interesting design, but I was never really a fan...

I liked the Scout with a retrofitted module better.

 

[Condottiere]

I think I recall the clipper.

But the modular cutter has been extensively covered across several editions.

 

[steve98052]

I haven't made it through all six pages (so far), but the main topic of page three is whether screens are cost effective. In some past editions of Traveller, they've been so cost effective that they're essentially standard equipment for any reasonable designer. In other past editions, they've been a tradeoff item that tends to be advantageous, but isn't an automatic choice, or one that falls into rock-scissors-paper territory. But here, they look like a special purpose luxury item, best suited for raiders and undergunned but heavily defended flagships.

To maintain consistency with older editions' design feel, maybe the best solution is to shrink screens just enough to improve them to the point where they're back into rock-scissors-paper tradeoff territory.

Aside - why are MgT HG2e screens so horribly broken when compared with CT HG'80 upon which they were surely based?

I came across this observation on a later page. I can't answer the "why", but I can point to the above as an idea of what to do about it.

Maybe spreadsheet out how a screened ship fights if screens are half as large (and the same cost per dton, as is the case with pretty much all large starship systems). If that makes them too good, try three-fourths. If they are still too weak, try one-fourth as large.

 

[baithammer]

Mgt 1 ed screens applied to every attack in a given turn and as long as the screen didn't get penetrated or rolled under, the damage was completely eliminated.