Why are warships built without armored bulkheads, EM hardening, and backup power?

Terry Mixon

Terry Mixon

Emperor Mongoose
I've been building the Warmonger Battle Tender and some battle riders (one new and a redesign of the Hadrian plus a supporting gunship) and had someone mention how expensive the battle riders and gunboat were. They and the spreadsheets are in the Warmonger thread. The cost difference was me adding armored bulkheads, EM hardening, and power backups to the battle riders I made and the gunboat auxiliary.

When I went looking in High Guard 2022 Update, I only saw that the Tigress and the Armored Cruiser were using them. There may be a few more as I didn't go looking at each, but there were a lot of warships that didn't bother.

My question is this: adding the above adds about 25% to the price tag. Is that really a hard stop for the Imperial Navy? I'd have figured all combat vessels would have the additions as they reduce critical and stop EMP damage. If you're going to make all these warships, shouldn't they be able to stand up to more punishment and smite the Imperium's enemies?
 
Last edited:
The majority of the designs are grandfathered and based on broken originals.

If the current HG update is supposed to represent things as they are in the Third Imperium then every ship example should be ignored.

9g should be the m-drive rating of every IN capital ship. The IN should be making use of TL stage effects to make better jump 4 designs if that is the desired performance for fleet movement.

After that the same old rules apply - bring as many spinals as you can to the battle and there is no such thing as a fair fight.

If the enemy fleet outnumbers you then do not engage unless you have a significant TL advantage. If TL and fleet size are balanced do not engage if you are expecting reinforcements soon - wait.
 
Sigtrygg said:
The majority of the designs are grandfathered and based on broken originals.

If the current HG update is supposed to represent things as they are in the Third Imperium then every ship example should be ignored.

9g should be the m-drive rating of every IN capital ship. The IN should be making use of TL stage effects to make better jump 4 designs if that is the desired performance for fleet movement.

After that the same old rules apply - bring as many spinals as you can to the battle and there is no such thing as a fair fight.

If the enemy fleet outnumbers you then do not engage unless you have a significant TL advantage. If TL and fleet size are balanced do not engage if you are expecting reinforcements soon - wait.
Click to expand...
I sadly rewrite every single published ship if I go to use it in My games. Most of them as designed, just aren't that well designed due to being grandfathered in. I keep their tonnage and basic load out and then I make it as badass as I can. Warships should be hammers and civilian ships should be more varied, so I use some TL-variations of ships like the Free Traders, Fat Traders, Far Traders, etc.
 
It depends on doctrine and the respective naval design philosophies.

Warships tend to be a bunch of compromises, usually having to do with the industrial base, infrastructure, and gross national product.
 
Sigtrygg said:
9g should be the m-drive rating of every IN capital ship. The IN should be making use of TL stage effects to make better jump 4 designs if that is the desired performance for fleet movement.
Click to expand...
How would TL stage effects work? Is that an already existing rule for them or something we wish was in the rules for them?
 
He's talking about the advantages system. Reduced fuel, early jump, that sort of thing. Because Jump 4 is only TL13, so a TL 15 J4 ship should have an improved Jump Drive.
 
As far as the designs go, it's basically what Sigtrygg said. They are generally trying to keep them the same as previous versions that used different rules.

Same issue with merchant ships. If we now have to spend space on cranes, cargo loaders, and cargo airlocks, why do none of the old ships have them? It's not because they wouldn't need them. It's because they were designed before those things had rules.
 
There's an intrinsic conflict of interest in Traveller. The NPCs *in game* want tough survivable warships. The game designers want fast, playable space combat that resolves in the same session it starts. Which generally means papier-mâché ships that blow up in a suitably prompt fashion.
 
Vormaerin said:
There's an intrinsic conflict of interest in Traveller. The NPCs *in game* want tough survivable warships. The game designers want fast, playable space combat that resolves in the same session it starts. Which generally means papier-mâché ships that blow up in a suitably prompt fashion.
Click to expand...
Game designers may want this, but no player wants this. Their ship gets shot at more than any other ship in the game, so the more paper tiger the ships are the higher the odds the PCs are gonna die. Players want it simple and survivable, except for wargamers, they want accuracy as well. lol
 
Terry Mixon said:
My question is this: adding the above adds about 25% to the price tag. Is that really a hard stop for the Imperial Navy? I'd have figured all combat vessels would have the additions as they reduce critical and stop EMP damage. If you're going to make all these warships, shouldn't they be able to stand up to more punishment and smite the Imperium's enemies?
Click to expand...
Assuming this is generally true, and price is the limiting factor.. 25% more weapons and hull (by getting more ships) is going to increase the survival of all ships more than these things. Offense is the best defense.
 
Nelphine said:
Assuming this is generally true, and price is the limiting factor.. 25% more weapons and hull (by getting more ships) is going to increase the survival of all ships more than these things. Offense is the best defense.
Click to expand...
That would increase your crew costs as well though, but more so than that, it would mean increasing the size of the IN by 25% personnel-wise, if this is a Fleet-wide policy. Also, then the Battle Riders no longer fit in their Battle Tender, so now those have to be bigger as well. What about smallcraft such as fighter? Increase them by 25% size also? I think you'd get much further with a fighter by adding +2 to everything, so maybe there is a tonnage where which way you do it changes which is more advantageous. Smaller may be better getting the +2, larger may be better getting the +25% size and hardpoints.
 
Nelphine said:
Assuming this is generally true, and price is the limiting factor.. 25% more weapons and hull (by getting more ships) is going to increase the survival of all ships more than these things. Offense is the best defense.
Click to expand...
It would be interesting to see that played out. I'm not sure it would be as clean.
 
I
Terry Mixon said:
It would be interesting to see that played out. I'm not sure it would be as clean.
Click to expand...
It also just occurred to Me that giving them a +2 to everything basically allows every person on the ship to perform 2 actions per turn at no penalty.
The Automation gives everyone +2 to everything and performing a second action increases the Difficulty by 2, effectively cancelling each other out.
 
MasterGwydion said:
That would increase your crew costs as well though, but more so than that, it would mean increasing the size of the IN by 25% personnel-wise, if this is a Fleet-wide policy. Also, then the Battle Riders no longer fit in their Battle Tender, so now those have to be bigger as well. What about smallcraft such as fighter? Increase them by 25% size also? I think you'd get much further with a fighter by adding +2 to everything, so maybe there is a tonnage where which way you do it changes which is more advantageous. Smaller may be better getting the +2, larger may be better getting the +25% size and hardpoints.
Click to expand...
I meant just buying more ships, not making them bigger.

You buy 4 ships with emp hardening, armourered bulkhead and backup power. I buy 5 ships without any of those things. I don't think the 4 ships is ever going to have a good day. (More spinals, or possibly large particle beam bays, is always going to determine the winner.)

(The increased manpower is a valid concern, but my assumption specifically stipulates price as the limiting factor. If something else is the limiting factor, then it might start to make sense again.)
 
Nelphine said:
I meant just buying more ships, not making them bigger.

You buy 4 ships with emp hardening, armourered bulkhead and backup power. I buy 5 ships without any of those things. I don't think the 4 ships is ever going to have a good day. (More spinals, or possibly large particle beam bays, is always going to determine the winner.)

(The increased manpower is a valid concern, but my assumption specifically stipulates price as the limiting factor. If something else is the limiting factor, then it might start to make sense again.)
Click to expand...
How much extra does a +2 Effect get you on damage? On average? Or do We need to actually look at specifics to know for sure? I am really wishing I was better with the combat rules than I am. lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top