SDB's vs. Warships

[F33D]

I've been reading everything I can find about Traveller SBDs and I see a couple obvious facts. The typical SDB is an armed non-jump ship between 100-1000 dtons and the variety seems infinite. The majority of the very few examples are way undergunned for wartime though. ...

What I don't see in published material are the SDBs specifically designed to take on warships, the ship killers. ...

One thing to keep in mind is that the publisher may not have the best ship strategists on staff. Any given published warship design may not make sense when the weapon/ship/movement/armour rules are really dissected and analyzed.

It is thus with small trader ship designs when cargo/freight/passenger rules are examined.

 

[F33D]

An interesting wrinkle that has appeared since the rules were written. Some systems have been spotted that have GG's in the torrid zone & not in the outer zones. INSIDE the star's 100D limit.

Given the small number of systems we have seen, this is probably common occurrence. A horse of a different colour indeed.

 

[phavoc]

One thing to keep in mind is that the publisher may not have the best ship strategists on staff. Any given published warship design may not make sense when the weapon/ship/movement/armour rules are really dissected and analyzed.

It is thus with small trader ship designs when cargo/freight/passenger rules are examined.

Oh yeah... so true!

Actually I wonder sometimes if there are any 3rd graders on staff with mad math skillz to proof the designs too... :lol:

 

[Reynard]

I believe 99% of the time game rules are written for gameplay, what feels and works best complicated by time and resource constraints. Seems to work because we keep buying and playing them errata and all.

With that in mind, I like dissecting the games not to destroy them but to understand the workings and maybe expand on them. Traveller is a big win on that note. They gave me rules to create and use ship designs so now I need to see what is possible. The SDBs are a great test bed. So far I'm hearing all sorts of old and new ideas here for the concept.

More than other ship types, I could see System Defense Boat worthy of a sourcebook of their own.

 

[F33D]

One thing to keep in mind is that the publisher may not have the best ship strategists on staff. Any given published warship design may not make sense when the weapon/ship/movement/armour rules are really dissected and analyzed.

It is thus with small trader ship designs when cargo/freight/passenger rules are examined.

Oh yeah... so true!

Actually I wonder sometimes if there are any 3rd graders on staff with mad math skillz to proof the designs too... :lol:

I know. I cringe when I think how easy it would be for them to commission an excel sheet that would make those errors impossible...

 

[phavoc]

I know. I cringe when I think how easy it would be for them to commission an excel sheet that would make those errors impossible...

There are a couple of spreadsheets out there that do a fair job of ship design.

I believe 99% of the time game rules are written for gameplay, what feels and works best complicated by time and resource constraints. Seems to work because we keep buying and playing them errata and all.

Yeah, I think that's true. It's an RPG game. Star Fleet Battles and some naval miniature games have a lot of rules.

With that in mind, I like dissecting the games not to destroy them but to understand the workings and maybe expand on them. Traveller is a big win on that note. They gave me rules to create and use ship designs so now I need to see what is possible. The SDBs are a great test bed. So far I'm hearing all sorts of old and new ideas here for the concept.

More than other ship types, I could see System Defense Boat worthy of a sourcebook of their own.

I like for the rules to pass the common sense test. I'm ok with things like no shields in the Trav universe (by that I mean things like in SW or ST). But sometimes the standard rules just don't make logical sense (case in point, building small craft under 2k tons, and not being able to build a 1500ton ship (cause it ain't in the chart), or a 6G 1400ton ship (but you can build a 3000ton 6G ship). It's silly oversights like this that are annoying.

 

[DickTurpin]

I like for the rules to pass the common sense test. I'm ok with things like no shields in the Trav universe (by that I mean things like in SW or ST). But sometimes the standard rules just don't make logical sense (case in point, building small craft under 2k tons, and not being able to build a 1500ton ship (cause it ain't in the chart), or a 6G 1400ton ship (but you can build a 3000ton 6G ship). It's silly oversights like this that are annoying.

The rules in the Core Rule Book allow you to build a 1500 ton ship, or 1457 tons, whatever you want, it is just usually inefficient since the cost and performance is the same as for a 1600 ton ship. Of course fuel usage would be reduced and hanger space for a carried ship is less so there may be some small advantages in certain circumstances.

Including High Guard rules allows a 1400 ton 6G ship (using a DD drive); or you can just build it using the Capital Ship rules if you want to. I don't understand what you mean about not being able to build Small Craft under 2,000 tons; I expect most small craft are under 2,000 tons. If you mean non-jump capable ships, then they can be any size between 10 tons and 1,000,000 tons (or even larger). Just because it is not on a chart does not mean it is not allowed, only that you might have to figure out what the chart entry would be if it extended to the size of ship you want.

 

[phavoc]

The rules in the Core Rule Book allow you to build a 1500 ton ship, or 1457 tons, whatever you want, it is just usually inefficient since the cost and performance is the same as for a 1600 ton ship. Of course fuel usage would be reduced and hanger space for a carried ship is less so there may be some small advantages in certain circumstances.

I forgot about the extended drive ratings in HG, which allow you to mount an AA drive that will give you 6G performance. Yeah, I'm aware how the hull system works, if you build between the sizes listed you move up to the next highest rating to determine your ratings. A 1401 Dton ship takes the exact same equipment as a 1600 Dton ship - with the aforementioned wastage of space. Hence while you technically can design the ship, the waste makes it pointless to do so.

Including High Guard rules allows a 1400 ton 6G ship (using a DD drive); or you can just build it using the Capital Ship rules if you want to. I don't understand what you mean about not being able to build Small Craft under 2,000 tons; I expect most small craft are under 2,000 tons. If you mean non-jump capable ships, then they can be any size between 10 tons and 1,000,000 tons (or even larger). Just because it is not on a chart does not mean it is not allowed, only that you might have to figure out what the chart entry would be if it extended to the size of ship you want.

If you follow the rules as written, you cannot use the capital ship rules to build a sub-2000 Dton craft. The point here is that capital ship construction rules use a percentage related to your displacement, whereas you cannot do so using standard rules. These ships have to use the drive chart which is fixed tonnage.

Non-jump capable ships follow the same rules as jump capable ones. If a ship is 100 tons or less you use the small craft rules. 100-2000 tons you use core book rules, 2000-3000 you can use core book or capital rules, and 2000 - 1million you use capital rules.

 

[Condottiere]

1. I read it as capital ship rules apply when you sectionalize the hull. It's unclear if you have to sectionalize once the hull hits 2001 tons.

2. I'm also unsure if you have to have the requisite sized bridge for grappled tonnage, or can happily cruise along with a bridge based only on the primary hull.

 

[Jame Rowe]

1. I read it as capital ship rules apply when you sectionalize the hull. It's unclear if you have to sectionalize once the hull hits 2001 tons.

2. I'm also unsure if you have to have the requisite sized bridge for grappled tonnage, or can happily cruise along with a bridge based only on the primary hull.

I think my objections to capital ships and hull sectionalization are:

(1.) capital ships begin as early as 5000 tons - when there are ships as large as 1 million tons, and when there's a dearth of ships between 4000 tons and 25000 tons (if tonnages top out at 1 mton then make capital ships 50 ktons and higher)
and
(2.) sectionalization may be required for all ships whether civilian or military, without distinction between civilian and military sectionalization.

Though I can see even a civilian ship of size being sectionalized - e.g. operations (bridge, commo and so), quarters, cargo, engineering - but I'd think it'd be different from military.

 

[Condottiere]

Normally, I'd say you could approach this in a common sense manner; unfortunately I harbour under the handicap that I'm not an engineer, nor naval architect, nor is there a Jane's Galactic Warships handy.

The hull needs to be able to withstand the stresses of acceleration and atmospheric re-entry, and despite being in a zero gee environment, that the hull doesn't collapse on itself. So I have to rely on the game mechanics to create a spaceship.

I don't actually think there's an automatic cut off point at 2001 tons, and the reason there's a minimum 100 ton size for a jump translation is to prevent people like me designing twenty ton jump capable camper vans or message jump torpedoes.

House rules can add, remove or adjust these mechanics as is convenient, but it also removes a common structure that all agree are relatively fair or don't favour one side (this becomes really important for war games).

Dispersed structure is automatically sectionalized, a close structure implies sectionalization, a planetoid does not.

 

[F33D]

and the reason there's a minimum 100 ton size for a jump translation is to prevent people like me designing twenty ton jump capable camper vans or message jump torpedoes.

I'd say you nailed that one.

 

[darue]

and the reason there's a minimum 100 ton size for a jump translation is to prevent people like me designing twenty ton jump capable camper vans or message jump torpedoes.

I'd say you nailed that one.

hi there, been away from Traveller for a long time but am getting back into it. In a live game even

I think I remember it was said somewhere that to make a jump requires of sentient biological life form aboard, for reasons 'unknown' even at TL15. Is that a 'house rule' someone made up or is it in a rule book somewhere?

 

[Sigtrygg]

It's a house rule.

 

[Reynard]

Looking at the software and interface rules (Core book pgs. 92-93) you could have a computer or robot/drone operate a space/starship. Notice also there's no rule to remove a bridge from ship construction. It's expected that a ship always under human control or observation. There seems to be a prevailing distrust at all tech levels to self sufficient computers and ships. Reminds me about the Daystrom M-5 and that universe's distrust for robotizing everything. Even the highly robotic Star Wars still realize the importance of the sophont element and consequently the Bridge.

However, as I said in the beginning, they give rules to attempt it so, if your group is okay with it, go.

 

[MrBackman]

I wrote an article where I tried to rationalize the various aspects of hyperspace and jumping in Traveller. The idea of always having a human onboard was that the human side of astrogation is done at jump exit, not at jump entry, otherwise the astrogation coul be made externally and laserbeamed to the ships computer and no need for onboard astrogators, especially for X-boats who according to some canon sources lack maneuver drive.
Article can be found here:
http://vectormovement.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/hyperspace-for-dummies/
and some ideas on the 100 diameter limit that strains credibility if taken at face value (all ships are way inside the 100 diameter limit of the Milky way so no jumps can take place etc)
http://vectormovement.wordpress.com/2010/05/30/100-diameters-limit/

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

A while ago we ran a game pitching one "Destroyer Escort (patrol variant)" (1000dt, two particle beam bays, plus 8 turrets, 8pt armour, 752.81MCr) from p 108 of Traders and Gunboats, against two of the SBDs (200 dt, one particle beam bay, 12pt armour, 134.25MCr each)from p92.

The destroyer "won", just, and partly because it had been allowed some higher crew skills and made some lucky rolls near the end. Both SBDs were destroyed, however, the destroyer was reduced to one structure point, hull gone, armour blasted away, sensors and drives jury rigged a dozen times, half the crew irradiated, most fuel gone, and lucky that so many turrets had taken hits (one more hull/structure hit and that would have been it). Just one of the SBDs could have dealt with a 400t close escort (e.g. a Gazelle) without too much difficulty.

Of course, the need for naval ships to carry large jump drives and devote 40% of their volume to fuel explains the disparity, but does point out how efficient and cheap SBDs are. Yes, one SBD will be destroyed easily by a cruiser or a battleship, but you need to imagine hundreds, or thousands, being deployed. Some will be destroyed, but the large naval unit is going to have some problems.

For example, the Azanti High Lightning costs 31,469MCr. For the same outlay a system could build 234 SBDs of the type above, more than enough to trash the Azhanti. (Perhaps a bad example, the armour on the Azahani, 4pt, is so ridiculously thin, that it will be an easy target).

A more challenging battle might be between a Ghalalk class cruiser, costing 37,469MCr, and 279 SBDs of the type above. Though, if you want to give the Ghalalk a chance, you might want to reduce the SBDs to 150 or so (a total tonnage of 30Kdt vs tge 50kdt of the Ghalalk, and only 20137.5MCr). Even if the Ghalalk survives, I doubt if it will be ready for further operations for some time to come.

NB, in both case I haven't adjusted to reduce the triple particle beam turrets to singles, as per HG errata. That might reduce the number of SBDs attacking by one or two, but that would be more than counter-acted by the two thirds reduction in available particle beam weapons, the only turret weapon which is going to be able to defeat 12pt armour approx. half the time they hit.

Basically, if you intend to attack a rich system, you had better have overwhelming numbers of space ships and capital ships available, even small SBDs are good value money, even before we start to count system monitors or old, no longer jump capable, battleships.

Egil

 

[F33D]

I wrote an article where I tried to rationalize the various aspects of hyperspace and jumping in Traveller. The idea of always having a human onboard was that the human side of astrogation is done at jump exit, not at jump entry, otherwise the astrogation coul be made externally and laserbeamed to the ships computer and no need for onboard astrogators,

In my game the calcs are done before and then within an hour after entry, a sentient has to examine various readings to refine the "heading" of the ship in J-space. For your average Tramp this means having an Astrogation pgm run the initial calcs to enter jump then, the Owner/Pilot refines the course after entering J-space. (a Master's Starship Certificate requires Pilot & Arrogation skill of at least 1 in each)

 

[Reynard]

"For example, the Azanti High Lightning costs 31,469MCr. For the same outlay a system could build 234 SBDs of the type above, more than enough to trash the Azhanti. (Perhaps a bad example, the armour on the Azahani, 4pt, is so ridiculously thin, that it will be an easy target)."

That's exactly the type of target SDBs would go after. They want soft and vulnerable targets either from design or circumstance of terrain. The mentality of a fair fight is for gamers. SDBs are not kamikaze looking for the ship most likely to survive. Most SDBs aren't built for stealth so they need to use superiority of numbers and their surroundings to have a high chance succeeding in their mission. No military wants to throw away expensive equipment and personnel unless they that inept. This is why we often hear these craft camping at locations they are designed to defend. Even then they will either fight to the death if they must inflict as much casualties as possible or run if they don't have a chance.

 

[phavoc]

Thanks for the great contributions everyone. It appears there's a couple of theme's here:

1) SDB's, even small ones, equipped with heavy armor and weapons like particle beam bays have an outsized influence (or course, anything armed with a bay has an outsized influence over a ship armed with turret weapons only! The SDB's listed in Supplement 9 and in other sources of materials, are armed with lasers and missiles. The more powerful weapons certainly make a huge difference.

2) Smaller ships, like the 1,000 ton DE in the example given by Egil don't usually have the defenses required to stand up to up-gunned smaller ships. It would take a larger ship, say in the 5k range, to more handily beat off an attack. And to defeat stronger escorts, defenders would need to band together. Of course, a fleet of 50-60 SDB's might not be terribly stealthy and draw the unwanted attention of even larger combatants.

3) Some of the example ships don't seem to be terribly powerful against all-up warships. The example of the AHL shows a relatively large ship that would be a threat to small system navies, but if you matched it up with a 60k ton cruiser with heavier armor and less utility it would have a difficult time surviving. The AHL is not, at least in my mind, what I would consider an "assault" class cruiser. Ships that are meant to be first in to a system (and fight against stronger opponents) should have heavier armor and faster drives at the expense of the utility of having fighters and ground troops.

I think whoever mentioned up-thread about SDB's being a supplement has a good idea. They are potentially interesting.