Space Battles: Harrington or Star Wars?

[Sturn]

From Mongoose news:
Space combat is following a similar mold (with arguments raging about whether it should be more like Harrington or Star Wars!),

Wouldn't most Traveller veterans agree that combat should be more like Harrington then Star Wars?

I'm stating this from the viewpoint that Star Wars battles are more "dog-fightish", fast, furious vs Harrington battles that are less dynamic like old broad-side battles from the "Age of Sail". If this is what they meant, past Traveller fans should be more used to the Harrington model.

 

[rust]

If this is what they meant, past Traveller fans should be more used to the Harrington model.

Yes, I think so. With a maximum acceleration of 6 G, a maximum ac-
celeration difference of 5 G, comparatively weak fighter craft weaponry
and very strong capital ship weaponry, the scenario should be much
closer to Harrington than Star Wars.

In CT, it would take a flight of fighters quite some time to seriously da-
mage an Azhanti High Lightning Class cruiser ...

 

[Klaus Kipling]

It would be nice to see fighters upgunned, though. With bigger nukes or something.

Also, a fighter can act as a mobile sensor relay, shepherding swarms of missiles into their targets, or otherwise improving the hit rate of the mother fleet.

Fighters are pretty much an afterthought in earlier editions of Traveller, to the point that the big fleet carriers mentioned everywhere are essentially an extravagantly expensive waste of time and resources, without any real military use. At best they make useful interdiction vessels.

Maybe fighters could have targeting bonuses at close range when trying to take out specific bits on capital ships. They should have a higher chance at achieving a contact hit, too.

Shouldn't be either/or Harrington/Star Wars, but somewhere in between.

 

[Zowy]

Normal missiles where alot more deadly in CT than they are in MGT, nukes in both versions are crew killers unless you have a damper :twisted:

 

[AKAramis]

Nether;

The honorverse's 50+G's, übertech weapons, and such are just as bogus as star wars' constant speeds and flying like an aircraft.

Actually, if you look closely, you see the honorverse is just "Starfire" redressed. And Starfire is constant speed drives.

 

[Zowy]

Nether;

The honorverse's 50+G's, übertech weapons, and such are just as bogus as star wars' constant speeds and flying like an aircraft.

Actually, if you look closely, you see the honorverse is just "Starfire" redressed. And Starfire is constant speed drives.

Don't you like silly sidewall shield tec, lots of ECM/ECCM, and mega missile barages, that take out whole fleets?

I think the McMaffrey, Crystal Singer / Brainship, FSP universe would be closer / simpler to adapt than, Star War or Honorverse.

 

[EDG]

Personally I think it's better to take Traveller for what it is rather than trying to pigeonhole it into other SF settings.

 

[Sturn]

Personally I think it's better to take Traveller for what it is rather than trying to pigeonhole it into other SF settings.

I don't think that was the point. I believe they were simply debating two different styles of starcraft warfare. A.i. simply using examples of such warfare and debating which style fits Traveller.

 

[EDG]

I don't think that was the point. I believe they were simply debating two different styles of starcraft warfare. A.i. simply using examples of such warfare and debating which style fits Traveller.

I'm not sure there's any evidence to suggest that it fits either style though.

My point was that it's more useful to take Traveller combat for what it is and determine the style from that, rather than say "I wonder what existing style it's most similar to". i.e. Identify what sort of ranges that combat takes place over, what sort of weapons are used, what sort of ships are usually involved (Pirate/Trader combat is likely to be different to Capital ship/Capital ship combat), etc etc and then figure out what that means for the general style of combat.

 

[AKAramis]

Nether;

The honorverse's 50+G's, übertech weapons, and such are just as bogus as star wars' constant speeds and flying like an aircraft.

Actually, if you look closely, you see the honorverse is just "Starfire" redressed. And Starfire is constant speed drives.

Don't you like silly sidewall shield tec, lots of ECM/ECCM, and mega missile barages, that take out whole fleets?

I think the McMaffrey, Crystal Singer / Brainship, FSP universe would be closer / simpler to adapt than, Star War or Honorverse.

I've played a good bit of starfire. Honorverse combat IS starfire relabeled.
(Webber was also the line developer for Starfire for 1.5 editions...)

I agree that the FSP would be a better universe to adapt. But, since we don't see space combat in it that doesn't involve boarding (Planet Pirates trillogy), it's irrelevant.


As far as what setting's combat Traveller is closest to, that would have to be Traveller.... by MJD.

Battletech also has good realistic combat portrayed in the novels. But by the same token, it also has several games as well.... thus becoming irrelevant. BTW, the FASA guys all played traveller, so similiarities in design are not mere coincidence...

 

[EDG]

BTW, the FASA guys all played traveller, so similiarities in design are not mere coincidence...

Except that they might well be coincidental, since both systems are more reality-based than say, Star Wars. Other that the obvious commonality between Traveller's Broadsword and FASA's Union Dropship, FASA's ships bore little resemblance to Traveller (very fighter-based, dropships of wildly varying designs, jumpships completely different), and the technology was totally different.

 

[Klaus Kipling]

Mechwarrior seemed specifically inspired by Jerry Pournelle's Falkenberg/CoDominium/Empire of Man cycle, but with mechs.

Tho Trav too was in part inspired by the same source. So maybe Trav combat is more like Mote in God's Eye (especially when you use BGG).

Anyway, it shouldn't be just based on old fans rational for CT combat. There's no reason a new version of Traveller can't introduce new weapons and tactics. Fighters are fun, and PC scale, so I reckon they should be boosted. Even deadfall bombs become useful with fighters to aim them and release at close range. Also, what's wrong with mass drivers? Or anti-matter bombs?

These rules aren't just for the OTU, they are meant to be generic; as such, they should cater for as many styles as are feasible in a book (I'm guessing this stuff be left to HG to keep the core rules from bloat).

 

[AKAramis]

BTW, the FASA guys all played traveller, so similiarities in design are not mere coincidence...

Except that they might well be coincidental, since both systems are more reality-based than say, Star Wars. Other that the obvious commonality between Traveller's Broadsword and FASA's Union Dropship, FASA's ships bore little resemblance to Traveller (very fighter-based, dropships of wildly varying designs, jumpships completely different), and the technology was totally different.

The guys who wrote Aerotech (The 1st Battletech space system) are all FASA guys who worked on Traveller products. FASA starts off as a Traveller 3rd party adventure and supplement company, and branches out with Battletech and STRPG...

I found it interesting to note the overlap between product lines in Early FASA products.

 

[EDG]

The guys who wrote Aerotech (The 1st Battletech space system) are all FASA guys who worked on Traveller products. FASA starts off as a Traveller 3rd party adventure and supplement company, and branches out with Battletech and STRPG...

Right... but so what? The FASA people may have started with Traveller but then they made their own line based more on Japanese giant robot anime than anything else (to the point of directly ripping off designs from Macross/Robotech). There's still little evidence for any evolution from Traveller there.

I think you're seeing a connection between the two games that isn't there.

 

[MJD]

I'm really puzzled by this comment:

"As far as what setting's combat Traveller is closest to, that would have to be Traveller.... by MJD. "

I don't suppose you can explain what you mean, because I'm being a bit dense here....

 

[TrippyHippy]

I'm not sure what Harrington is, to be honest, but Traveller space combat should attempt to be 'realistic', to a degree. That should count Star Wars out.

 

[Golan2072]

Shouldn't be either/or Harrington/Star Wars, but somewhere in between.

Babylon 5 probably - fighters matter, but capital ships matter even more; fighters do close-in work against "defense grid" turrets and other spot targets, capital ship weapons do major ship-killing damage; fighters could kill a weak target (e.g. Raider Battlewagon) without support but would be eaten for breakfast by a real battleship if they go after it without any heavy weapon platforms (especially if the said battleship is Minbari, or, Valen forbid, Shadow/Vorlon); fighters and capital ships complement each other, not replace each other; and targeting is sensor-based and not visual except for in very close-range combat (see how effective the Minbari stealth techniques were against the EA ships during the Earth-Minbari War).

The main differences would be that Traveller uses far more missiles than B5 does, and that Traveller ships tend to be much smaller than the B5 ones.

Another good candidate is Andromeda: missile-heavy, sensor-based, with energy weapons being used for close-in work/point-defense and missiles for serious long-range combat; fighters tend to have a secondary role; ECM/ECCM matter.

 

[rust]

Another good candidate is Andromeda: missile-heavy, sensor-based, with energy weapons being used for close-in work/point-defense and missiles for serious long-range combat; fighters tend to have a secondary role; ECM/ECCM matter.

Yes, I would agree with this. However, this is also a good description of
the Harrington-style combat after Weber's introduction of the fighter-like
LACs and their carriers.

 

[Voodoo B Do]

All my missiles have got built in sand casters. So i get a higher percentage of missile hits in combat. :shock:

 

[GamerDude]

The big diff between the "Honorverse" (Honor Harrington universe) and SW/ST space combat is "real physics/acceleration/etc" vs "inertialess drive/spacecraft acting like fighters in atmosphere than in a vacuum."

In the Honorverse, ships can't just jump right to max velocity (or drop to zero) on a dime instead having to accelerate/decelerate. Changing direction requires changing the direction of your thrust and going through the accel/decel thang.

The 'shields' come from the 'impeller wedge', the energy field their STL (Slower Than Light) engines generate to propel the ships.

The ship to ship weapons are nukes, lasers and such. Missiles have a limited amount of fuel and hence a max velocity, maximum distance they can travel and still have their course guided/corrected. The warheads can be nukes or nuclear powered UV based lasers.

Except for the "impeller" drive, everything is within possibility of today's technology.

GURPS Traveller used "G" as a 'velocity rating' instead of a standard rate of acceleration. The very first 3rd Ed GURPS Traveller campaign I played in blew my mind when the ship moving to intercepted ours suddenly accelerated from a speed of '1G' to a speed of '5Gs'. Actually the entire group pretty much said "WTF" when that happened.
.......
=====
.....
Personally, I'm a big fan of real physics vs the 'inertialess/fighters in outerspace" types of StarWars/StarTrek. I was very impressed when the pilot for Sci-Fi channel's reimaging of Battlestar Galactica used real physics for how ships flew in space (vipers hitting maneuvering jets, flipping over, and firing at ships chasing them while not changing velocity/direction since their engines weren't "thrusting".) THAT'S how ships DO behave in outerspace.