Tech level, the tachyon cannon 'n' stuff

[Chas]

I just wanted to make a point about tech level progression in relation to the weapons table. If we consider the fusion gun, this comes in at TL12. Now we can add advantages to this over the TL's, but it and perhaps more relevantly other weapons such as the particle accelerator weapons don't really get much better by TL15. You can up the cost a chunk, but for nothing that is paradigm changing.

This has been done in a way specifically not the rock the boat, without creating any big imbalances across the TL for the weapon structure. However, I'm not sure for the Traveller ship design this is the right way to go about it. This is creating a false economy of weapon systems that's neither realistic or desirable. We want things like fusion turrets coming in at TL15 which make the other weapon systems redundant. Why? Because of the way the jump and other mechanisms work. It's good for a ship to be cheap and big... for a higher tech ship they need better firepower to counter act this. So that at least an expensive new ship will dominate the cheaper old ship. Currently if two old TL ships meet an equivalent value new ship they'll massacre it. Which is not representative of how TL in weapons should work, looking at historical equivalents or otherwise. By not wanting to rock the boat here, we're upsetting the apple cart in other places.

This has gone to extremes with the tachyon cannon. The tachyon has been reined in to the point of being useless, it might as well not be in there. When in point of fact this is the ideal weapon and weapon design to swing the battle in favor of higher tech, without getting carried away. The AP mechanism means a low TL ship gets hull points back for a weapon that would be implemented for TL vs. TL fights. I would much rather see a Tachyon barbette that looked something like:

AP 15, 3D damage MCr. 10.

Make it better than the low techs, weapons systems should improve, make it worth the suggested cost. Then you'll see a proper fight when low techs are still viable on a Cr to Cr basis.

To be continued...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I agree to the concept. High TL should be better.

It would mean rebalancing all barbettes and bays...

 

[Nerhesi]

Higher TL should not necessarily mean better in every way. This is evident by how a TL15 ship is not necessarily better than two TL12 ships despite the 100% more cost or so (or whatever cost ratio is required).

Im also not a fan where simply the next thing up completely trumps what came before it. What this creates is cookie-cutter results for best-in-class or best-of-breed. Simply, conversations become "This is the best TL14 fighter, this it the best TL14 Weapon. This is the best TL14 combat spacecraft" with no regard for situation or scenario. To avoid this, you have to have viable options within the same/similar TL ranges.

When reworking the math on Tachyons, this is the path that was followed. We looked indepth at damage per power, per ton, average damage, maximum damage, damage vs max armour (15) and compared to particle.
3D AP15 would just obliterate all competition so completely. Especially for firmpoints for fighters. You'd be advocating 10.5 hull point of damage while ignoring all armour (as we've discussed at length, most designs will try to have max or near max armour).

I hate to sound contrary, but I'm against improving damage on the tachyon at all. My TL14 tachyon doesn't have to be better in every case than my TL12 particle, and my TL15 tachyon can be inferior in some cases to my TL15 particle, etc etc... But I think you have a point about the BASE tech level Chas:

So obviously, I am advocating for tachyons damage & range remaining exactly where it is. If we were to go back and take a look, then the only two things I MAY touch are:
a) Power Consumption
b) Their base TL level (dropping to TL13 from 14)

 

[phavoc]

Well, it's complicated! Sometimes higher TL doesn't mean anything because at it's heart, the weapon system hasn't changed. Take the lowly MG42 machine gun. Today the Bundeswehr operates a virtual identical copy of this classic machine gun. Same goes for the US Browning .50cal, or the Russian AK-47. Tech has changed, the weapons and ammo have not.

To contrast that, let's compare the 20mm cannon in the F-22. Big, massive changes in aircraft, but the cannon is essentially the same as 20mm cannons in WW2. The introduction as a gatling increases the ROF, but gatling guns were first invented in the 1800s. Better materials allow for more penetration of the shells, but not terribly so. Different formulations of the gunpower increase bullet velocity, but not by a great deal.

Now move into naval guns. The standard 127mm/5" gun of the USN hasn't changed much over the last 70 years. Now turrets can fire automated, but that's changes in loading mechanisms. Again, you have incremental changes here and there that add up to a superior gun today, but that gun is also more expensive than the classic version.

So your lowly TL12 fighter with the 1st generation fusion weapon on it is still a deadly threat. Just like if you had a P-51 Mustang today, it could do a lot of damage. Sending up an F-16 to kill it, well, you might find those spiffy Sidewinders would have a harder time locking on to the heat emissions from the P-51. And the F-16 would have to give up it's speed advantage to engage the P-51 with it's cannon. Would make for an interesting fight. And without that modern aircraft, the P-51 would reign death on civvy ships. Same goes for the TL-12 fighter. It makes you wonder how a modern flat-top would handle dive bombers and torpedo bomber attacks... sometimes older isn't any less deadly.

 

[Chas]

We have to be careful here of not getting back into the trap of only considering the tonnage, not the cost, and not considering weapons in the bigger picture, rather than simply matching them up against each other in a weapon only matrix.

A TL 14 weapon is better than anything that goes before it, is there anything terrible about that? If you up the price to say MCr. 15 then the low tech navy can still buy two of the lower tech weapon in a big cheap hull, and have a better ship to fight with. It's still an even battle.

The reverse situation of having a TL 14 weapon that's not particularly better than it's counterparts... what happens there? The low tech ship is beating the big tech ship, both in firepower and cost effectiveness. That is a far worse scenario than having the TL14 weapon work well. This has to be avoided.

Now what happens within the Traveller ship design paradigm? You have a situation, whereby nerfing TL firepower, it becomes totally disadvantageous to build a Jump 4 ship. It forces ships to down grade jump to have any chance to be combat effective. Which becomes a vicious self-defeating cycle.

A TL15 Jump 4 ship should be able to hold it's own against other lower TL equivalent ships, and right now by either tonnage or cost it can't do that, not by any means. The only way it can do it is by better firepower. Which was why I wasn't shy of putting up the TL progression of the meson spinals. If there's a TL12 2DD weapon in the fusion bay, is it really a stretch to say there wouldn't be a 4DD weapon by TL15? We don't have to go to such extremes, but there can at least be something more to address this beyond the advantages.

(also I don't know where the math is for Tachyons as a bay weapon - advanced particles or fusions are superior options that I've seen, I've found tachyons to be redundant e.g. small bay tachyon TL 14 vs. particle with only two advantages, very high yield - average damage is equivalent and the particle is still very long damage vs. the long damage of the tachyon, the extra range band of particles which we know is important is never caught up and tachyons never match the firepower of fusions)

 

[Nerhesi]

A TL 14 weapon is better than anything that goes before it, is there anything terrible about that? If you up the price to say MCr. 15 then the low tech navy can still buy two of the lower tech weapon in a big cheap hull, and have a better ship to fight with. It's still an even battle.

There is actually something terrible about that - obviously this is just our personal preference. I think Cost is an effective balance point in certain scenarios, but it shouldn't be in all scenarios.
For the same reason I would like Particle, Fusion, Missiles, Torps, and Lasers to be valid at a variety of TL levels.

A TL15 Jump 4 ship should be able to hold it's own against other lower TL equivalent ships, and right now by either tonnage or cost it can't do that, not by any means.

I think this expectation is causing many issues. I dont think it is a correct expectation.
In most historical fights against the Zhodani (1 less TL on average than the imperium) the Imperium continued to lose until it's unstoppable warmachine and resources were brought to bare. Jump 4 ships are just massive fuel hogs that way. The imperium employs those big gas-tankers with guns and calls them starships because of it's size.

(also I don't know where the math is for Tachyons as a bay weapon - advanced particles or fusions are superior options that I've seen, I've found tachyons to be redundant e.g. small bay tachyon TL 14 vs. particle with only two advantages, very high yield - average damage is equivalent and the particle is still very long damage vs. the long damage of the tachyon, the extra range band of particles which we know is important is never caught up and tachyons never match the firepower of fusions)

And fusions never match up to the power efficiency of either - not to mention I can stop a ton of fusion damage with a great screen operator! That means Fusion sucks even more than Tachyon! But wait.. they're super cheap??

We can't keep going back to that range argument and trying to fix it by addressing single weapons. Yes Range is killer.. fix the paradigm where kiting is a valid tactic in every scenario (which it is not). This allows weapons to compete on something OTHER than range... Tachyon should be no exception to this.

So with range being just another valid competitor, Tachyon stands out as:

a) Best average damage per hardpoint of any direct fire weapon that cannot be screened (against armoured targets - which are the targets that actually matter anyways)
b) Best power efficiency of any direct fire weapon

Thats it's niche. Just like everything has a "niche" when you consider range a "niche".

 

[Nerhesi]

To sum-up, I'm not in favour of making Tachyon the king of the hill just because it is TL14.

I see a need to adjust it's power consumption downwards (make it 25% of particle) and perhaps, maybe, just maybe it's TL down by 1. But I am against touching it's damage in any way.


The rest of the conversation we're having can be applied to any weapon.. hell Fusion is higher TL than Particle and arguably worse by your measure (range), and Missiles are some of the lowest tech around and as anotherdilbert has shown, probably the best when it just comes to range and cost!

Especially considering the change you (Chas) just championed for the last version that allowed for REALLY cheap Tech level upgrades.. so now fully upgraded missiles and fusion launcher are dirt cheap. You actually wanted them even cheaper. In fact, based on cost and range (your top two drivers), if we revisit AnotherDilberts analysis I can only imagine how super cheap those rows upon rows of TL+3 missile bays will be.

 

[Chas]

a) Best average damage per hardpoint of any direct fire weapon that cannot be screened (against armoured targets - which are the targets that actually matter anyways)

Part of the problem is though the tachyon’s aren’t this. Not in anyway.

Let’s ignore that particles also get the radiation trait.

Barbettes:
Tachyons average damage = 2D + 10 = 17 hull points
Particle Beam with Intense Focus + high yield = 4d x 3.5 = 14pts +2 intense focus + .66 high yield = 16.77 hull points
For .77 of a hull point you are giving up a range band? Will never happen, nobody will use tachyons.

Small Bays
Tachyons average damage = 4D +10 = 24 hull points
Particle Beam with Very High Yield = 6d + 3 = 24 hull points
Again nobody will ever take tachyons.

Medium Bays
Finally the tachyons get some sort of advantage towards particles.
Tachyons average = 6d + 15 = 36
Particles average = 8d +4 or 5 = 28 +4 or 5… so you might get 3 or 4 hull points extra damage. Vs. a range band loss? Hardly a winner. That’s only using 2 advantages though, what say we throw in size reduction? What say we throw in 3 size reductions instead? No contest.
And for Medium’s let’s not get started on the Fusions. At 2DD very high yield, the tachyon has nothing to add. Damage average if 1DD is removed = more than the tachyon. Then the same argument for mesons can be applied here… even if one ship can completely remove the fusion damage (highly unlikely) in a fleet battle the second and third ships will blow the defender out of space.

Large Bays
Tachyon vs particle beam with +5 to hit at very long range? = nobody will take tachyons. Even before we factor in the 2 extra hull point damage that the particle now gets.

The TL14 weapon should be better than its predecessors. Cost it more , but there should be a clear price/performance use case for the weapon. Basic missile then advanced missile. The plasma torpedo. Why not the same for energy weapons. Just dropping a TL isn’t going to do it. There should be proper gradation up TL, not more of the same or an insignificant difference.

Especially considering the change you (Chas) just championed for the last version that allowed for REALLY cheap Tech level upgrades.. so now fully upgraded missiles and fusion launcher are dirt cheap. You actually wanted them even cheaper. In fact, based on cost and range (your top two drivers), if we revisit AnotherDilberts analysis I can only imagine how super cheap those rows upon rows of TL+3 missile bays will be.

Well we are just trying to do something that is common sense. +50% price? Then why aren’t we getting +50% firepower? Why isn’t the 3DD fusion gun on the menu? What are we getting instead that is the equivalent of that +50% firepower? The past pricing structures were totally out of whack.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

My prejudice is built on original High Guard. There you got a massive bonus for each TL, both in tonnage, and in the computer bonus on most rolls. Basically 1 GCr of TL X fleet was equal to something like GCr 5 of TL X-1 fleet.

I also realise that MgT2 will not be rebuilt along those lines.

 

[Nerhesi]

Chas:

In all those comparisons you pick some variables over others. You sometimes use cost, you sometimes use range.
You dont consider that the Tachyon can go to TL15, grab weight reduction for now minimal price increase, in addition to requiring X-tons less of power. We were just discussing how ships are strapped for tonnage. In addition you gloss over the at par or improved damage of tachyon as "not good enough". One can easily counter with "Sorry, but the increased weight/power requirement of particle is just not as good enough".

But here is something that is key: You previously stated price is key.
Price is no longer an issue - because of the reduction in TL increases. Otherwise, Particle TL14 would be a LOT more expensive - which as you stated, is a balancing point.

So either advocate a roll back the price change you championed as this helped create this price imbalance, or we live with is it and make a change to Tachyon TL/power consumption. (before the TL cost decrease, the TL14 particle would cost 50% more on average)

But I cannot support just making the new TL weapon better just because of that.
So what if TL14 Tachyon does less damage at less range than TL 14 particle? Where is TL14 Fusion? Where is TL14 Railbay?

Anyways... if we want Tachyon to be more "customizable" - we should drop it to TL13, and pin power consumption to 25% of particle. Still totally against any damage change.

 

[Nerhesi]

The more I think about Chas, the more I think we should do something, even if we did cause this cascade change.

I'm just adamant damage isn't it.

Right now at TL14, they're at PAR or slightly above particle on avg dmg.

They consume less power but cost is equivalent, for less range.

Option 1:
I'm really in favour of dropping TL by 1 now and ensuring power consumption is 25% of particle.

Option 2:
Drop cost by 50% and do the above as well.

 

[Chas]

I've got nothing against cost increase, if it's value for money! In fact it can be used as a useful balance the way Matt wants it to be for the 3rd Imperium to flex it's cash rich muscles. Where the more money rich economy can afford to spend big. But it's got to be worth it. If you have an expensive TL component that is definitely better than everything below it, then fine, the Imperial Navy can afford that to make it's ships more effective. But it still leaves the lower TL economy the ability to build two bigger ships at lower cost and make a fight of it.

By the way, might as well leave power out of the equations - that doesn't make that much difference in the bigger equation. I'm not that bothered about weapon damage jumps. They happen. I mean consider the impact of the first spinals. Or the first ships with medium fusion bays. There are existing precedents there.

But option 2 also works. Or option 3 drop cost by 75% but keep them TL14. This option 3 is going in a direction different from other weapons which is nice. If the Imperial Navy has access to a low cost effective option, that helps counter balance the other big cost items it's forking out for and is representative of TL change. Actually I like this a lot especially since tachyons are going to be made useless at TL16. They're a short term cheap but useful weapon that have their moment in the sun and then are made redundant.

??

 

[Nerhesi]

I'm on board with price reduction then (75%)

We should also clean up power.. currently it's different between barbette (same power as particle), small/med bays (66%) and large bay (50%)

Chas - I would recommend you post the cost reduction (25% of current cost) and power consumption (50% of particle) on the particle

Or I can do it if you want.. just running around today between things

 

[phavoc]

Something maybe to consider is to better control the options for newer TL for a system. For example, the lowly beam laser introduced at say TL10, should be considered the same at TL11, and TL12 across the Imperium. So if at TL11 it's 5% less expensive, and 10% more powerful, that should be normalized. The same goes for it at TL12.

So in the above examples, it would be probably easier to simply have a chart outlining the particle beam, and what it's capable of, sized and priced for each TL it gets a change. Then if you wanted the longer-ranged version of it, you could provide for a specific defined price and tonnage for it.

At first it may seem like there's more charts, but it may make the design process far cleaner and easier by being able to cross-reference component specifics and make quick comparisons.

The reason I'm suggesting it is so that we pull back a little from the chaos of making everything pick and choose via formulas. Then it would be possible to say the idea of long-range sniping is cool, but we also want to make sure it's far more expensive for that particular component. By defining these types it is easier to define the overall system of positive and negative and also try to ensure they balance out with one another. Cause, yanno, it's not like players min/max their designs all the time...

 

[Chas]

Recommended changes then for the taychon (Standardized at 66% power of particle beam, 75% current costs)

Barbette
Damage: 2D 10 AP
Power: 10
Cost: 2.5MCr

Small Bay
Damage: 4D 12AP (AP needs a little bump here)
Power: 20
Cost: 7.5MCr

Medium Bay
Damage: 6D 15AP
Power: 30
Cost: 15MCr

Large Bay
Damage: 6D 15AP
Power: 130
Cost: 45MCr

 

[Nerhesi]

Agreed!

 

[AnotherDilbert]

That would certainly replace Particle as a standard weapon, except for the range issue.

Are they not a bit cheap at 25% of current cost? It would make them the weapons around.

 

[Chas]

That would certainly replace Particle as a standard weapon, except for the range issue.

Are they not a bit cheap at 25% of current cost? It would make them the weapons around.

At TL14 and 15 there should be some new weapons around, and the particle still has the critical range advantage. Which keeps the old tech relevant. And a cost reduction at that point to a weapon is a drop in the bucket to what the rest of the TL cost creep does to ships. Should provide worthwhile options without the lower tech being so much cheaper that you'd do it in preference. In reality considering all the expense that is required to get weapons into action the cost of the weapons is irrelevant - you buy the best you can... end of story.

To be honest I'd still prefer to see a better firepower weapon (at very high price) at this stage.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I agree higher TL should be better.

 

[MongooseMatt]

I agree with many of the general points here with regards to technology. However, one thing to keep in mind is that the Third Imperium is not a Babylon 5 style universe, where Minbari trumps all (except Vorlons), but one where a TL10 world has to sit in the next parsec to a TL15, and the campaign/storyline cannot break down. The TL10 world has to have something in its pocket that at least makes the TL15 world respect it, if nothing else.

So, yes, a universe where one TL trumps the next in all aspects _would_ make sense. However, that is not the universe we are creating. Instead, we go down another line that also makes sense.