The Close Escort: not viable?
- Thread starter paltrysum
- Start date
AnotherDilbert said:
Thanks for the number crunching.
I kinda figured that a sensible close escort would be left with the tender way out in the outer system and the tender's only expense would be the best stealth and countermeasures. Make the tender big enough and it ignores critical hits from the smaller ships and will have a decent number of hull points, make it a close structure to beef up the HP.
Not sure about drop tanks as that makes the tender reliant on fresh tanks in the target system, one that is possibly not friendly!
I haven't finished the BRH I spoke of, to be honest, it's a beast of a ship and there are other things I'd rather be doing with the time but at 120,000 tons you can get the largest meson spinal, max armour and enough bays and turrets to do a lot of damage. The 2e allows you to use virtual gunners so the crew/stateroom requirements are manageable.
What are people's thoughts on using multiple core computers? I can't recall if the rules say you can't, I know there's now a back up but why not multiples?
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
I do not intend to ever drop the tanks, I agree that is logistically unacceptable. I use drop tanks since they are slightly cheaper than hull.h1ro said:
A small escort does not matter, if enemy warships can get at the tenders they die. Stealth would be desirable, but is very expensive. Superior stealth is economically unfeasible.
h1ro said:
If we could use multiple computers we would just use hundreds of m/5, basically for free.
I will continue with a single computer operating at a time.
And that limits Virtual Crew and Virtual Gunner for large ships. There is a lot of other software you want to run. Besides meatsacks can have greater skill than the software, which you really want.
AnotherDilbert said:
For drop tanks, do you assume that they have the same level or armor that hull does? That seems to take all the advantages of drop tanks without any disadvantages. In theory your drop tanks have the possibility of occluding turret arc's of fire, covering up sensors, etc. If you model them like normal aircraft drop tanks they are sufficient to do the job but cannot survive combat (i.e. they have zero armor). If you think of them like an F-15s FAST packs, they provide weapon stores capability since they are conformal. Each one (2 are possible) carries 850gal, as opposed to the internal fuel capability of 3,500gal.
From a combat perspective drop tanks should get shredded at the first incident of combat, hence drop tanks are also a liability in that sense.
AnotherDilbert said:
There's really no practical reason why you would be limited to having a backup computer of lesser quality.
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
No, I use them as RAW: No armour and easily destroyed. Hence only ships that do not plan on being shot at can rely on them.phavoc said:
Agreed, but it's a very small point.phavoc said:
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
1. Imperium Navy doctrine seems clear: you only commit battle rider squadrons with overwhelming force.
2. Computers have no volume, only cost and bandwidth; we know from current experience there is bandwidth multiplied by core speed, and there is such a thing as diminishing returns. Computers in Traveller don't make sense.
2. Computers have no volume, only cost and bandwidth; we know from current experience there is bandwidth multiplied by core speed, and there is such a thing as diminishing returns. Computers in Traveller don't make sense.
The rules mention distributed networks for capital ships, makes sense to me that all ships have distributed networks and that the numbers for cost and bandwidth reflect this. That would make it a simple argument for not having multiple computers thru the ship as that's what's already there.
steve98052
Mongoose
This is the line of reasoning I took when I puzzled over how Traveller combat should work if real lasers of that power, sharpness, and steadiness of aim are assumed possible.locarno24 said:
Note that sharpness is limited by the diameter of the aiming system (larger is better) and the wavelength of the light (or X-rays, if there is a way to generate them besides detonation lasers). Those are hard limits of physics, not technology. This explains in terms of viewing optics, but also applies to projection optics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction-limited_system
When trying to hit a dodging target, there are two approaches, and the choice depends on the degree of possible dodging. One is to try a single great pulse, which hurts a lot if it hits but risks a miss. The other is a salvo, which always hits, with the number of hits proportional to the ratio of angular area to angular dodge area. Continuous beams are more complicated than pulses, obviously.
steve98052
Mongoose
This is the line of reasoning I took when I puzzled over how Traveller combat should work if real lasers of that power, sharpness, and steadiness of aim are assumed possible.locarno24 said:
Note that sharpness is limited by the diameter of the aiming system (larger is better) and the wavelength of the light (or X-rays, if there is a way to generate them besides detonation lasers). Those are hard limits of physics, not technology. This explains in terms of viewing optics, but also applies to projection optics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction-limited_system
When trying to hit a dodging target, there are two approaches, and the choice depends on the degree of possible dodging. One is to try a single great pulse, which hurts a lot if it hits but risks a miss. The other is a salvo, which always hits, with the number of hits proportional to the ratio of angular area to angular dodge area. Continuous beams are more complicated than pulses, obviously.
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
How can we kill fighters streaking in towards dogfight?Reynard said:
If we assume that we have some fighters closing in towards some ships that tries to keep the distance open to avoid dogfight.
We start at Distant range. The ships accelerate away from the fighters at 8G and use 1G "Aid Gunners". The fighters accelerate towards the ships with 22G and use 3G to be able to dodge thrice every round.
We then spend 3 rounds at Distant range, 2 rounds at Very Long, 1 round at Long, and then we are in dogfight.
At Very Long range we can attack with Pulse lasers(Long Range advantage) and Particle barbettes.
The ships turrets hits at (pulse laser adds additional +2):
+6[gunner] +3[AdvFireCntl] +1[aid gunner] -4[range] -2[evade] -6[dodge] = -2, hit 10+ (16.7%).
The fourth attack on each fighter, that cannot be dodged:
+6[gunner] +3[AdvFireCntl] +1[aid gunner] -4[range] -2[evade] = +4, hit 4+ (91.7%).
A Pulse laser turret (2D+4) at ±0 to hit against Armour 15 does 0.1 average damage.
A Pulse laser turret (2D+4) at +6 (no dodge) to hit against Armour 15 does 1.93 average damage and has a 35% chance of a critical hit.
A Particle barbette (4D) at -2 to hit against Armour 15 does 0.21 average damage.
A Particle barbette (4D) at +4 (no dodge) to hit against Armour 15 does 2.82 average damage and has a 15% chance of a critical hit.
If we give the Particle barbette an Accurate advantage:
A Particle barbette(Accurate) (4D) at -1 to hit against Armour 15 does 0.40 average damage.
A Particle barbette(Accurate) (4D) at +5 (no dodge) to hit against Armour 15 does 3.56 average damage and has a 26% chance of a critical hit.
If we give the Particle barbette an Intense Focus advantage:
A Particle barbette(Focus) (4D, AP 2) at -2 to hit against Armour 15 does 0.40 average damage.
A Particle barbette(Focus) (4D, AP 2) at +4 (no dodge) to hit against Armour 15 does 4.27 average damage and has a 16% chance of a critical hit.
Given the smaller size, Pulse laser turrets are doing quite well, especially as they are also effective against missiles. We should strongly consider equipping our fighters with Reflec.
A Pulse laser turret (2D+4) at ±0 to hit against Armour 15 + Reflec does 0.00 average damage.
A Pulse laser turret (2D+4) at +6 (no dodge) to hit against Armour 15 + Reflec does 0.59 average damage and has a 20% chance of a critical hit.
To kill a medium fighter (Hull 17) it would take about 25 laser attacks or about 7 particle attacks if they dodge thrice.
So, to build a dedicated anti-fighter escort we should use Particle barbettes, or to build a multi-purpose anti-fighter & anti-missile escort we should use laser turrets. The same goes for any unfilled hardpoints on major warships. Note that escort ships have no advantage over such tertiary armament.
baithammer
Mongoose
Could use a mix of missile barbettes and pulse lasers with a couple of type 3 point defense systems. ( One type 3 to defend the ship with the second one to defend the escorted vessel.)
Usually would have more than one escort ship as well.
Fragmentation missiles can be an interesting touch.
Usually would have more than one escort ship as well.
Fragmentation missiles can be an interesting touch.
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
At TL 15 a basic escort might have J4, 9G, Armour 15 + Reflec, and a ship's boat.
At 1900 Dt (frigate) it would cost MCr ~1500 and have ~250 Dt left over for armaments. Most of the space will be consumed by gunnery crew. 19 barbettes will barely fit, and 19 turrets will leave 75 Dt. Barbettes will cost MCr ~100 more.
At 5100 Dt (destroyer) (to get a rebate on the crew requirements) it would cost MCr ~3500 and have ~1000 Dt left over for armaments, plenty of space for either barbettes or turrets. 51 barbettes will leave ~600 Dt and 51 turrets will leave ~800 Dt.
The frigate would be much better protected against bays and especially spinals, but be vulnerable to criticals from turrets. Yet who would waste spinals on mere escorts? The destroyer is more efficient and has a lot of space for bays, screens, fighters or marines. The destroyer might be vulnerable to criticals from large bays as it might carry itself.
Let's see: At 5100 Dt the destroyer would have about 2244 Hull, 1% of that is 22 Hull so 22 Damage is required to achieve a Severity 1 critical.
A large Particle bay with Accurate advantage at, say, Long range would hit at:
+6[gunner] +5[FireCntl] +1[aid gunner] +1[accurate] +4[largeBay] -2[range] -3[evade] -6[dodge] = +6, hit 2+, critical 8+ (42%). Once we overcome dodges we autocrit.
Average damage on crit: 8D × ( 3.5 + 1 ) +6[Effect] -15[Armour] ≈ 27 damage, so Severity 1.
We need ~48 criticals to disable a ship, so this is less efficient than just doing damage with smaller bays.
A large Fusion bay with Long range advantage:
+6[gunner] +5[FireCntl] +1[aid gunner] +4[largeBay] -2[range] -3[evade] -6[dodge] = +5, hit 3+, critical 9+ (28%).
Average damage on crit: 2DD × ( 3.5 + 1 ) × 10 -15[Armour] ≈ 75 damage, so Severity 3 (or 28% chance of Severity 4).
We need about 20 such crits to achieve a Severity 4 Fuel crit and hence disable the ship. Still less efficient than destroying the ship with damage.
So, we need not be overly worried about crits.
Conclusion: It seems a 5 - 10 kDt destroyer is suitable as a fleet escort.
Such a ship will not defeat an equal budget of either battleships or fighters, but will be somewhat effective against either.
At 1900 Dt (frigate) it would cost MCr ~1500 and have ~250 Dt left over for armaments. Most of the space will be consumed by gunnery crew. 19 barbettes will barely fit, and 19 turrets will leave 75 Dt. Barbettes will cost MCr ~100 more.
At 5100 Dt (destroyer) (to get a rebate on the crew requirements) it would cost MCr ~3500 and have ~1000 Dt left over for armaments, plenty of space for either barbettes or turrets. 51 barbettes will leave ~600 Dt and 51 turrets will leave ~800 Dt.
The frigate would be much better protected against bays and especially spinals, but be vulnerable to criticals from turrets. Yet who would waste spinals on mere escorts? The destroyer is more efficient and has a lot of space for bays, screens, fighters or marines. The destroyer might be vulnerable to criticals from large bays as it might carry itself.
Let's see: At 5100 Dt the destroyer would have about 2244 Hull, 1% of that is 22 Hull so 22 Damage is required to achieve a Severity 1 critical.
A large Particle bay with Accurate advantage at, say, Long range would hit at:
+6[gunner] +5[FireCntl] +1[aid gunner] +1[accurate] +4[largeBay] -2[range] -3[evade] -6[dodge] = +6, hit 2+, critical 8+ (42%). Once we overcome dodges we autocrit.
Average damage on crit: 8D × ( 3.5 + 1 ) +6[Effect] -15[Armour] ≈ 27 damage, so Severity 1.
We need ~48 criticals to disable a ship, so this is less efficient than just doing damage with smaller bays.
A large Fusion bay with Long range advantage:
+6[gunner] +5[FireCntl] +1[aid gunner] +4[largeBay] -2[range] -3[evade] -6[dodge] = +5, hit 3+, critical 9+ (28%).
Average damage on crit: 2DD × ( 3.5 + 1 ) × 10 -15[Armour] ≈ 75 damage, so Severity 3 (or 28% chance of Severity 4).
We need about 20 such crits to achieve a Severity 4 Fuel crit and hence disable the ship. Still less efficient than destroying the ship with damage.
So, we need not be overly worried about crits.
Conclusion: It seems a 5 - 10 kDt destroyer is suitable as a fleet escort.
Such a ship will not defeat an equal budget of either battleships or fighters, but will be somewhat effective against either.
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
We could use modular mounts, but a module containing either a 1 Dt turret or a 20 Dt PD Battery would probably waste space.baithammer said:
Otherwise laser turrets is the compromise armament, it is at least marginally effective in all situations, probably better than a mix of weapons where only some of them are effective in any given situation.
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
Fighters are very effective against fighters, but among reasonably equal fighters the greater number will quickly win with limited losses.h1ro said:
If you have a regular fleet and some fighters, and the enemy have lots of fighters, then your fighters will be killed with very small losses for the enemy.
If you can build dedicated escort fighters that are much cheaper than strike fighters (that needs a massive acceleration advantage to get to dogfight range) so that you can have a regular fleet and still have almost as many fighters as the enemy, that wold be an effective way to neutralise fighters.
baithammer
Mongoose
Was thinking of an escort of around 1,900t with same speed as the escort ships but with 2x type 3 Point Defense systems, 8x triple pulse laser turrets, 8x Missile Barbettes and a single small torpedo bay so it has something to bear on bigger ships.
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
You could, but it would take a lot of space for the bay that would not be very effective. The bay launches only 3 torpedoes, such a small salvo will be killed by even a half-hearted EW action.baithammer said:
Missiles and torpedoes are best launched in overwhelming salvoes.
Something like 3 medium missile bays (reduced size) + 16 missile fixed mounts would probably be a better idea, it would launch a salvo of 120 missiles, not easily swept away with EW. With frag missiles it would even be rather effective against missiles. It would save a lot of gunners.
baithammer
Mongoose
An all missile setup would limit the escorts endurance and would make it more of an offensive platform than an escort.
It should only operate as a single picket in a case of a low threat environment, in normal operation it would work in at least pairs or as part of picket squadrons for larger fleets. ( Which the small bay adds to group offensive capability.)
The torpedoes allow it to hit above its weight limit while still acting as a picket. ( Using multi-warhead torpedoes can have them count as if 9 torpedoes.)
The ship is also designed to use bog standard weapons and systems in order to allow for mass production and per unit cost. ( None of the high tech addons.)
It should only operate as a single picket in a case of a low threat environment, in normal operation it would work in at least pairs or as part of picket squadrons for larger fleets. ( Which the small bay adds to group offensive capability.)
The torpedoes allow it to hit above its weight limit while still acting as a picket. ( Using multi-warhead torpedoes can have them count as if 9 torpedoes.)
The ship is also designed to use bog standard weapons and systems in order to allow for mass production and per unit cost. ( None of the high tech addons.)
