I can get behind two parsecs and less armouring, but why are we using multiple small guns rather than multiple big guns? I assume the difference between small and big is mostly accuracy and rate of fire. Given that we can expect to fight low-tech ships, such as ours, I don't expect them to be particularly manoeuvrable. Meaning, we can afford to get bigger guns, that might be able to penetrate heavier targets.
Traveller, The Rise of Empire: A Naval Design, Procurement and Command Quest
- Thread starter 4WheelSword
- Start date
- Original Art Quest Sci-Fi
- Location
- Here, there, everywhere.
@4WheelSword What is the difference between a particle cannon and a barbette? I can't imagine the nautical term translates as accurately to space.
Traveler has a bit of a weird system for ships where individual smaller weapons can be turreted, but larger, more damaging weapons are a "bay" of that type. So large ship combat tends to be more broadsides age-of-sail like than more modern combat. At least that is what I half remember from reading the guide. Once. Half a decade ago.
Edit:
"Bay"s are literally just a cutout in the hull for the weapons to fire out of.
Edit:
"Bay"s are literally just a cutout in the hull for the weapons to fire out of.
It's also for redundancy and firing arcs as well.
Last edited:
The options were, as I understood it:
- Lots of tiny guns
- 1 50 ton gun
- 1 100 ton gun
- Multiple (presumably 2) 50 ton guns
- Multiple (?) 100 ton guns
[X] Plan: Heavy Hobbitronics with lifeboat
-[X] One Parsec, but:
--[X] Write-in - We do not want to leave the crew without an escape option. Include a way for the crew to leave the rest of the ship behind and make an emergency jump of One Parsec. This could be done by a dedicated "lifeboat" module, or by allowing the crew quarters to detach from the rest of the ship.
-[X] Multiple small particle cannon bays, for heavy firepower.
-[X] Write-in - Reduce the size of crew accomodation requirements through extensive use of automated systems and compromising somewhat on crew amnemities (e.g. hot-bunking).
My idea is to basically not choose 1 Parsec or 2 Parsecs, but rather choose 1.25 Parsecs, by only keeping enough reserve fuel to allow the crew to escape by ditching most of the ship. The idea is that these ships will only need to make a second jump if they are losing a battle: if we are winning, there will be plenty of time to refuel. If we are losing, I want to save the crew but lose the ships. We can always build more.
-[X] One Parsec, but:
--[X] Write-in - We do not want to leave the crew without an escape option. Include a way for the crew to leave the rest of the ship behind and make an emergency jump of One Parsec. This could be done by a dedicated "lifeboat" module, or by allowing the crew quarters to detach from the rest of the ship.
-[X] Multiple small particle cannon bays, for heavy firepower.
-[X] Write-in - Reduce the size of crew accomodation requirements through extensive use of automated systems and compromising somewhat on crew amnemities (e.g. hot-bunking).
My idea is to basically not choose 1 Parsec or 2 Parsecs, but rather choose 1.25 Parsecs, by only keeping enough reserve fuel to allow the crew to escape by ditching most of the ship. The idea is that these ships will only need to make a second jump if they are losing a battle: if we are winning, there will be plenty of time to refuel. If we are losing, I want to save the crew but lose the ships. We can always build more.
Can we do this without introducing structural weak points/needing two jump drives?
Having a lifeboat that can be picked up in general is a good idea though
That is not our problem, that is a problem for our naval architects. We are asking them to do it, if they cannot do it without severe tradeoffs they will hopefully let us know.
Also, the idea is to use what is saved in fuel weight to have more armor on the ships, so structural weak points compared to the leading plan is unlikely. Potentially needing two jump drives might be a problem, although the "lifeboat" jump drive would be recovered even if the ship is destroyed.
4WheelSword
The original N-body Problem
- Pronouns
- It/She/They
While the answeer has been given, I'll re-iterate:
- A barbette is a 5-ton weapon system that's an intermediary between the small, turret weapons (beam laser, sand caster, missile tube) and the bigger, more expensive bays.
- The particle cannon bay represents the 'main guns' of any capital ship, and they are limited by tonnage/power supply. There are also missile bays, torpedo bays, railgun bays, etc.
GiovanniBlasini
Transhumanist Nutcase from Niops IX
- Location
- San Diego, CA, USA, Sol III
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Yeah, that's part of what's keeping me from switching to it. Automation isn't a bad idea; so long as you have enough people to handle watches and damage control, but reducing amenities on an interstellar vessel that may be away from home for a good length of time seems unwise.
- Location
- Here, there, everywhere.
[X] Plan: Less bunks more jumps.
-[X] Two parsecs, with there and back again being a possibility.
-[X] Multiple small particle cannon bays, for heavy firepower.
What are we willing to make compromises on (Choose as many as appropriate)?
-[X] Reduce the number of crew sleeping bays and form a shift sleeping schedule for the crew when not at general quarters or on active combat patrol in a hostile area to reduce the amount of space needed for private bunking, put some of the funding saved into increase the quality of other amenities like food for higher morale with the weight saved by the removal of the bunks being used to help reach the tonnage required to carry two parsecs of fuel.
Furthermore pebble casters should be excluded from the ammunition compliment with the weight being allotted to more sandcasters and sandcaster ammunition
-[X] Two parsecs, with there and back again being a possibility.
-[X] Multiple small particle cannon bays, for heavy firepower.
What are we willing to make compromises on (Choose as many as appropriate)?
-[X] Reduce the number of crew sleeping bays and form a shift sleeping schedule for the crew when not at general quarters or on active combat patrol in a hostile area to reduce the amount of space needed for private bunking, put some of the funding saved into increase the quality of other amenities like food for higher morale with the weight saved by the removal of the bunks being used to help reach the tonnage required to carry two parsecs of fuel.
Furthermore pebble casters should be excluded from the ammunition compliment with the weight being allotted to more sandcasters and sandcaster ammunition
There's one more consideration. We'll be making ships that are less comfortable than our existing fleet. It might even lead to uncomfortable questions. "Why are we building these tin cans if we know we can do better. Are we prepping for massive war? With whom?"
As I understand it, the idea is closer to detaching the saucer section in Enterprise-D. The problem with that is, we want to be able to jump out ASAP. We can't jump out ASAP if crew has to make their way to the drive section first.
At the moment, I'm tempted to do something akin to:
[X] Plan Basic Big Gun
-[X] Two parsecs, with there and back again being a possibility.
-[X] Multiple large particle cannon bays, similar to the SDD-class.
-[X] Armouring - These ships must be fast and powerful.
Coyote Niff
the most transbian obligate scavenger on the 'net!
- Location
- Misery!
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Ok, time to flex my aerospace glands.
[X] EPLAN Big Fellows, Little Friends
-[X] Two parsecs, with there and back again being a possibility.
(For all vessels.)
-[X] Multiple small particle cannon bays, for heavy firepower. (For small vessels under 10,000 tons displacement.)
-[X] Multiple small particle barbettes, trading single shot punch for the likelihood of scoring a hit. (For large vessels over 10,000 tons displacement.)
-[X] Acceleration - Our drives are functional enough, we want survivability. (For small vessels under 10,000 tons displacement.)
-[X] Weapons - The longer we can put fires on target, the more likely we are to win. (For large vessels over 10,000 tons displacement.)
-[X] Write-in - Design Notes: Small vessels must focus on defensive armor and point defense/CQC systems to protect larger vessels, along with targeting and surveillance radar to feed data to entire fleet. Larger vessels spare particle weapons bays in exchange for mounting previously shelved Q&P multi-mission torpedo systems and considerable ECM capability with high maneuver at speed. All vessels equipped with refueling scoops. General focus on "soft factors" for long patrols-supply, bed space, communications, crew survivability.
In addition to their small particle bays, all small-mass "Little Friend" vessels should carry significant point-defense and missile interception arrays, both for close-range combat and as part of their broader role as well-armored defensive screens for our larger, less armored "Big Fellow" vessels and their strategic ordnance. Additionally, all vessels should be equipped with refueling scoops for their jump drives; logistical self-sufficiency is key for long patrols and in the event of major conflict with other stellar nations. Our "Big Fellow" vessels, due to their size, have been selected for "lesser" weapons status because of the following proposal: that they act as stand-off strategic weapons carriers armed with the multi-mission torpedoes advanced by this office's shelved Quarrel-and-Pavise plan.
While the Q&P program was reasonably declined for reasons of cost overruns and untested doctrine, I firmly believe that the needs of Home's fleet to respond to threats in the medium and close combat ranges depends on a strategic kinetic strike capability that can serve for both aerospace combat and orbit-to-surface strike missions, including the use of tactical nuclear deterrence. Power that would otherwise be directed to high-mass particle beam systems in the 100-200 ton range can instead be devoted to rotary launch systems bearing multiple torpedos of differing ranges and mission payloads, such as sandcaster warheads for missile and laser deterrence, anti-radiation munitions for inhibiting enemy return fire, and tungsten sabot rods for kinetic strike on enemy orbital and surface installations.
Finally, I advance that soft factors such as crew amenities, communications to Home and its populace, and even morale concerns such as a Fleet Chaplaincy (perhaps via a connection to certain religious orders) be second only to weapons tonnage in our designs; our fleet doctrine calls for ships designed for long patrols both at home and in foreign stars, and it is absolutely crucial that the crews serving aboard these vessels be well-rested, well-trained, and alert to any threat at any time.
[X] EPLAN Big Fellows, Little Friends
-[X] Two parsecs, with there and back again being a possibility.
(For all vessels.)
-[X] Multiple small particle cannon bays, for heavy firepower. (For small vessels under 10,000 tons displacement.)
-[X] Multiple small particle barbettes, trading single shot punch for the likelihood of scoring a hit. (For large vessels over 10,000 tons displacement.)
-[X] Acceleration - Our drives are functional enough, we want survivability. (For small vessels under 10,000 tons displacement.)
-[X] Weapons - The longer we can put fires on target, the more likely we are to win. (For large vessels over 10,000 tons displacement.)
-[X] Write-in - Design Notes: Small vessels must focus on defensive armor and point defense/CQC systems to protect larger vessels, along with targeting and surveillance radar to feed data to entire fleet. Larger vessels spare particle weapons bays in exchange for mounting previously shelved Q&P multi-mission torpedo systems and considerable ECM capability with high maneuver at speed. All vessels equipped with refueling scoops. General focus on "soft factors" for long patrols-supply, bed space, communications, crew survivability.
In addition to their small particle bays, all small-mass "Little Friend" vessels should carry significant point-defense and missile interception arrays, both for close-range combat and as part of their broader role as well-armored defensive screens for our larger, less armored "Big Fellow" vessels and their strategic ordnance. Additionally, all vessels should be equipped with refueling scoops for their jump drives; logistical self-sufficiency is key for long patrols and in the event of major conflict with other stellar nations. Our "Big Fellow" vessels, due to their size, have been selected for "lesser" weapons status because of the following proposal: that they act as stand-off strategic weapons carriers armed with the multi-mission torpedoes advanced by this office's shelved Quarrel-and-Pavise plan.
While the Q&P program was reasonably declined for reasons of cost overruns and untested doctrine, I firmly believe that the needs of Home's fleet to respond to threats in the medium and close combat ranges depends on a strategic kinetic strike capability that can serve for both aerospace combat and orbit-to-surface strike missions, including the use of tactical nuclear deterrence. Power that would otherwise be directed to high-mass particle beam systems in the 100-200 ton range can instead be devoted to rotary launch systems bearing multiple torpedos of differing ranges and mission payloads, such as sandcaster warheads for missile and laser deterrence, anti-radiation munitions for inhibiting enemy return fire, and tungsten sabot rods for kinetic strike on enemy orbital and surface installations.
Finally, I advance that soft factors such as crew amenities, communications to Home and its populace, and even morale concerns such as a Fleet Chaplaincy (perhaps via a connection to certain religious orders) be second only to weapons tonnage in our designs; our fleet doctrine calls for ships designed for long patrols both at home and in foreign stars, and it is absolutely crucial that the crews serving aboard these vessels be well-rested, well-trained, and alert to any threat at any time.
Last edited:
I'd like to point out, I left it purposefully up to the designers how the emergency jump would work. Ideally, it would allow jumping away ASAP without moving the crew, by having the command bridge/crew quarters be able to detach at the push off a button. So the problem you see here is not a problem that is assured to be a problem.
The thing is, as far as I've understood, we are basically giving specifications and priorities to the designers here. We are not doing the designing. Because of that, I don't think we should, at this stage, be considering stuff like "how would the emergency jump work" or "how to make the crew quarters smaller". We give the designers our priorities and the specs, and they will tell us what they can build and what additional tradeoffs would be needed.
- Location
- Here, there, everywhere.
The traditional way of balancing poor bunking was by increasing food quality, it takes up the same space just costs a bit more. IRL Submarine sailors have the best food of anyone in the navy of most nations.
Speaking of submarines I'd love to see how e can exploit jump space as a concept for stealth.
Last edited:
I don't want it to be so spartan as to be impacting morale, but with a jump being a week-long trip, this spacecraft is probably spending around a month on patrol before meeting up with a refuelling outpost or station where there can be more comfortable accomodations. Asking the crew to hot-bunk and forego a bit more space to stretch out is IMO fine for that limited of a duration. I'm not asking them to bunk in the torpedo rooms or anything like that, but at the conceptual level, to consider how we can avoid armouring air where it doesn't impact the mission effectiveness.
I don't know about small ships but I definitely know which choices I would pick for the larger ones.
What should the principal weapon of the ship be? This will affect minimum size and plant rating.
[ ] Multiple large particle cannon bays, similar to the SDD-class.
What are we willing to make compromises on (Choose as many as appropriate)?
[ ] Acceleration - Our drives are functional enough, we want survivability.
[ ] Something else - write in: fuel and ammo storage due to being near the home world and having easy access to resupply.
Do you have any other notes for the Architects?
[ ] Write-in - Redundancy: the ship should be able to take battle damage and keep fighting without suffering from reduced capabilities.
What should the principal weapon of the ship be? This will affect minimum size and plant rating.
[ ] Multiple large particle cannon bays, similar to the SDD-class.
What are we willing to make compromises on (Choose as many as appropriate)?
[ ] Acceleration - Our drives are functional enough, we want survivability.
[ ] Something else - write in: fuel and ammo storage due to being near the home world and having easy access to resupply.
Do you have any other notes for the Architects?
[ ] Write-in - Redundancy: the ship should be able to take battle damage and keep fighting without suffering from reduced capabilities.
- Location
- Fort Worth, TX
[X] Plan: Swarm Them
-[X] Two parsecs, with there and back again being a possibility.
-[X] Multiple small particle barbettes, trading single shot punch for the likelihood of scoring a hit.
-[X] Acceleration - Our drives are functional enough, we want survivability.
-[X] Write-in - Assuming it's lighter than armor, provide ECM capabilities, so we're more difficult to pin down.
-[X] Two parsecs, with there and back again being a possibility.
-[X] Multiple small particle barbettes, trading single shot punch for the likelihood of scoring a hit.
-[X] Acceleration - Our drives are functional enough, we want survivability.
-[X] Write-in - Assuming it's lighter than armor, provide ECM capabilities, so we're more difficult to pin down.
[X] Plan: Hobbittronics
You do know that our biggest ships at the moment, the ones that nearly broke our budget for our nation, are only 4000 tons right?
Edit:
The other thing to note though, is that the small jump ships are going to be set up as the offensive arm of the fleet. They won't be needed as often and can afford to be kept in dock longer than the larger ships.
Last edited:
- Location
- Here, there, everywhere.
Yeah I have to agree, if these are our offensive class which we plan to build in decently large number we shouldn't frontload them with so much they end up just as expensive as our current Destroyer, two jumps are mission critical given these are offensive ships unless every battle is victory or death then they need to be able to retreat, at this moment crew comfort and extra unnecessary amenities (I mean for God's sake look at how much space is wasted on the crew deck in the SDD deck plan on turn 2) among other things.
I can't imagine our armor scheme is that advanced beyond "armor everything, spare nothing". If so we could save a massive amount of weight by cutting armor around less battle-critical areas like the crew and shuttle deck (given at general quarters during a battle all members of the crew will be at their stations and not sleeping, or at least will be alerted via alarm and depart from the deck to their battle stations) and give these compartments the sealing required to prevent a puncture of their deck from venting the entire ship into space or worse causing an implosion. While the loss of the sleeping space would be tragic for morale no doubt having extra armor over the command module while also staying in the same weight area as before the modifications would be nice. Saving the command deck rather than the beds sounds like a better deal to me.
Not to mention if these are going to be small guys anticipating hitting above their weight on targets hopefully in lesser number than them we should dump most if not all our non-nuclear missile compliment to save more tonnage.
I can't imagine our armor scheme is that advanced beyond "armor everything, spare nothing". If so we could save a massive amount of weight by cutting armor around less battle-critical areas like the crew and shuttle deck (given at general quarters during a battle all members of the crew will be at their stations and not sleeping, or at least will be alerted via alarm and depart from the deck to their battle stations) and give these compartments the sealing required to prevent a puncture of their deck from venting the entire ship into space or worse causing an implosion. While the loss of the sleeping space would be tragic for morale no doubt having extra armor over the command module while also staying in the same weight area as before the modifications would be nice. Saving the command deck rather than the beds sounds like a better deal to me.
Not to mention if these are going to be small guys anticipating hitting above their weight on targets hopefully in lesser number than them we should dump most if not all our non-nuclear missile compliment to save more tonnage.
Last edited:
1-6: YardSpace
4WheelSword
The original N-body Problem
- Pronouns
- It/She/They
Our strike fleet - which will eventually make up 70% of our fleet - will be built with the following capabilities:
- Two parsecs, with there and back again being a possibility.
- Multiple small particle cannon bays, for heavy firepower.
- Armouring - These ships must be fast and powerful.
- Reduce the size of crew accomodation requirements through extensive use of automated systems and compromising somewhat on crew amenities (e.g. hot-bunking).
- Assuming it's lighter than armor, provide ECM capabilities, so we're more difficult to pin down.
Design Requirements
The first design profile of the new interstellar fleet is submitted to the architects, and the designs soon come flooding in in response, basic assessments of what a ship might be based on the priorities of the commission that dispensed them. There are a broad variety of designs that come out of the offices, and several of them have non-standard equipment in order to fulfil the requirements otherwise set.
Minimum Viable Product
A very simple design intended to operate for a short as time as possible, using only pre-existing and non-prototype equipment (other than the jump drive) and capable of meeting the requirements otherwise set. The 500-ton MVP is the smallest submitted design, and it shows in the weapon and drive outfits. Carrying just a pair of Particle Cannon bays and a trio of defensive single turrets and half the thickness of armour that previous designs were capable of carrying, this design even omits the before-this standard surface-to-orbit shuttle that would otherwise carry. Two fifths of the designs tonnage would remain after required equipment for things like crew accommodations, additional stores and other mission equipment.
Interstellar Cruiser
Using the hull designed for the Interplanetary Cruiser, this submitted design would use a large powerplant to mount a larger battery of particle cannons rather than the pair of barbettes carried by the older design. It will be fast, well armed, well equipped, and still remarkably small compared to the heavier counterparts that would remain at home. Six defensive turrets, a shuttle and a crew of around twenty-five will round out a capable interstellar warship that is fundamentally an evolution of the oldest warship design in service.
Armed Scout
Again utilising a pre-designed hull, the Armed Scout takes the 700-ton surveyor we have just laid down and re-equips it for pure offensive combat. Six particle cannon turrets would stud the ship, using almost half of the internal space and reducing defensive weapons to a single sad turret. It would also carry barely any armour, but it would at least be the most heavily armed ship submitted while also, remarkably, only just being the most expensive design.
All of the above designs use the most advanced systems available to the fleet, and it is up to the Navy staff to select one design to take forwards to a full architectural drawing:
Select one of the above designs:
[ ] Minimum Viable Product
[ ] Interstellar Cruiser
[ ] Armed Scout
[ ] None of these are acceptable - write in a concept with QM permission.
Other Considerations
We are, perhaps regrettably, not just building a jump fleet. The Home Navy is also required to maintain a significant amount of its force in the Home system as defence forces, with some 30% of the fleet intended to be built to this standard. While there are currently five ships operating for just such a task, they are older, fission-powered and even chemically-driven ships that hardly compare to more modern technology. Even the SDD, the most modern ship available to the fleet, will soon be outpaced as a warship if current trends continue.
If we were to reserve 30% of dockyard space, we would have 2,200 tons for defensive shipbuilding and 4,400 for offensive construction. However, this would limit the size of our defensive vessels to around half the tonnage of our SDD design.
How should we move forwards with this program?
[ ] Use an on-off program, building first our offensive ships, then defensive, sequentially.
[ ] Reserve more tonnage for defensive construction (write-in how much)
[ ] Reserve less tonnage for defensive construction (write-in how much)
[X] Use an on-off program, building first our offensive ships, then defensive, sequentially.
[X] Armed Scout
This Armed Scout looks good. It's only 700 tonnes, it has the most firepower and it uses prototype parts that will be tested with the previous scout vessel. The only problem is small operational time. 4 weeks, which means 2 weeks after considering jump time. This once again highlights the need to claim nearby hexes and build resupply stations there.
[X] Armed Scout
This Armed Scout looks good. It's only 700 tonnes, it has the most firepower and it uses prototype parts that will be tested with the previous scout vessel. The only problem is small operational time. 4 weeks, which means 2 weeks after considering jump time. This once again highlights the need to claim nearby hexes and build resupply stations there.