Traveller, The Rise of Empire: A Naval Design, Procurement and Command Quest

7-1: The Age of War(Games)
Adhoc vote count started by 4WheelSword on Aug 28, 2024 at 4:28 AM, finished with 53 posts and 5 votes.

  • [X] Plan War Games Re-Run
    -[X] Write in: Re-Run the exercise with equal tonnages on both sides, one MMV vs. three ICs. If feasible, have the crews and referees discuss the results and prepare for the third set of exercises, which would pit the MMV against an escorted cruiser group same as in the first iteration but with improved tactics.
    -[X] Write in: Investigate radiation shielding and other potential countermeasures for radiation. Evaluate the tonnage requirements for the different solutions.
    -[X] CAM module, to turn the ship into a light carrier.
    -[X] Fuel module, to turn the ship into a tanker. If feasible, it should be able to mine materials or gather raw fuel and refine it on-site.
    -[X] Engineering module, to turn the ship into a mobile repair and construction platform. In addition to supporting the fleet on deployments it ought to be able to assist in infrastructural development of systems such as Cassalon and Nova Refugio. If feasible, perhaps even as far as building starports?
    -[X] Construct one 2,5K armed defense station to be placated at Home or later moved to other location.
    -[X] The remaining yardspace goes towards supporting the HSMS and infrastructural developments.


Would the HSWS care to institute any lessons learned from this war game? Re-Run the exercise with equal tonnages on both sides, Investigate radiation shielding and other potential countermeasures for radiation.
Are there any modules the HSWS would particularly like to see designed? CAM module, to turn the ship into a light carrier. Fuel module, to turn the ship into a tanker. Engineering module, to turn the ship into a mobile repair and construction platform.
What will be done with it? Construct one 2.5K armed defence station.



War Gaming
Over the next months, multiple ships go out into the far reaches of the Home system and demonstrate their capabilities against one another:
- In the first game, the Perkūnas is set against three smaller Interstellar Cruisers. She is out-gunned in just such a scenario, and even with the deployment of nuclear torpedoes, she is only able to disable one of the cruisers before radiation and hull damage from the cruisers twelve particle cannons flags her as mission-killed. It should be noted that a cruiser at full strength was only able to intercept or spoof five of the three incoming torpedoes, and thus suffered significant damage after impact. The use of nuclear warheads would greatly increase the damage these three munitions can do, while multi-warhead torpedoes would improve hit counts against the enemy.

- In the second, the Perkūnas once again sails into the black with an Interstellar Cruiser and two Frigates accompanying her. Many in the staff office have called for the frigates to act more aggressively, closing the range in order to distract the larger cruiser from her principal target. Instead, when the combat starts, they break from their companion cruiser and boost away in company. They open the range as the IC is mission-killed in short order by a combination of particle beams and torpedoes. Then, at ranges of up to half a million kilometres (almost two light seconds) they launch barrages of nuclear missiles and the only response the MMV has is her torpedoes. After three hours of combat, the Perkūnas is declared the winner on a technicality - she still has ten of her crew flagged as non-causalities, while the Frigates have both been reduced to two crew total.

This is a fascinating look into the capabilities of guided munitions beyond the range of sensors to get a good lock. At two light seconds, self-guided weapons are still able to effectively engage their enemies while fires from the particle beams aboard the Perkūnas are functionally guessing where the enemy might be. When the enemy is a sixth your size and capable of applying up to 6G's in any direction, a random walk can keep them well out of the guns sights.

Radiation shielding is clearly about to become a necessity for ships in the fleet, and indeed it begins a crash program in testing capabilities for hull designs that can accommodate various enhancements to improve the fleet. This program discovers:
- Heat shielding, as we have previously used on some shuttles and other small craft, will also be useful to protect a craft against the heat of the star at relatively (note - millions of kilometres) close ranges. Heat shielding an interstellar cruiser cannot be applied post-facto and would cost 100MCr.

- Radiation shielding will protect against the washes of harmful radiation emitted by proximity to a star, certain stellar bodies and also the weapon systems primarily deployed by the fleet. Radiation shielding an interstellar cruiser would need to be done during construction and would cost 25MCr.

- Stealth systems would minimise electronic emissions as well as absorbing some incoming radar and lidar pulses as well. It would not hide a ship from being detected, but it can spoof sensors and confuse attempts to get an accurate location, bearing or identification of a ship. Applying stealth systems must be done during construction, requires 2% of the volume of the ship and would cost 40MCr. on an interstellar cruiser.

It would seem that technology is moving beyond our ability to refit the Interstellar Cruisers. Would the HSWS consider a new main combatant and, if so, how should it be designed?
[ ] A successor to the Interstellar Cruiser, of similar size.
[ ] A second class of MMV's, incorporating lessons from the war games.
[ ] An intermediate design of around 2,000 tons.
[ ] Other - write in.
How should it be armed?
[ ] A mixed armament of torpedoes and particle beams.
[ ] A mixed armament of missiles and particle beams.
[ ] Solely one armament type - which?
[ ] Other - write in.

In regards to a defence station, which would include many of the similar design principles incorporated into it, there are questions of secondary functions. Some argue that it should be an anchorage and headquarters for the HSWS. Others that it should be at least partially committed to the orbital construction of small craft such a shuttles and fighters. Others still think it should be as much a hostel for sailors as it is a weapons platform, with housing for those whose ships are in dock without the need for them to return to the surface.

What secondary role should the station serve?
[ ] It should be a pure defence station.
[ ] It should be capable of building small craft.
[ ] It should be an anchorage station.
[ ] Something else - write in.

Please present any votes as a plan. Voting opens at
 
Last edited:
- In the first game, the Perkūnas is set against three smaller Interstellar Cruisers. She is out-gunned in just such a scenario, and even with the deployment of nuclear torpedoes, she is only able to disable one of the cruisers before radiation and hull damage from the cruisers twelve particle cannons flags her as mission-killed.
It seems that under equal tonnage more hulls can make the difference. Three cheers for Interstellar Cruisers!
At two light seconds, self-guided weapons are still able to effectively engage their enemies while fires from the particle beams aboard the Perkūnas are functionally guessing where the enemy might be. When the enemy is a sixth your size and capable of applying up to 6G's in any direction, a random walk can keep them well out of the guns sights.
Hmmm… Movement matters. It seems that Thrust 4 won't be enough for mainline combatants.
- Radiation shielding will protect against the washes of harmful radiation emitted by proximity to a star, certain stellar bodies and also the weapon systems primarily deployed by the fleet. Heat shielding an interstellar cruiser would need to be done during construction and would cost 25MCr.
But no extra weight?
- Stealth systems would minimise electronic emissions as well as absorbing some incoming radar and lidar pulses as well. It would not hide a ship from being detected, but it can spoof sensors and confuse attempts to get an accurate location, bearing or identification of a ship.
We wanted to have stealth ships at the beginning of the Quest, perhaps it's worth returning to that idea.

As for the IC successor, I'm a clear proponent of sole-armament designs. As for sizes, I think we've outgrown 1K mainline ships and can increase it to around 1,5K to 2K.

As for the defense station, I think we should make it focused on combat. Other duties can be covered by modular stations, but this one we want armoured and bristling with weapons.
 
Last edited:
In the second, the Perkūnas once again sails into the black with an Interstellar Cruiser and two Frigates accompanying her. Many in the staff office have called for the frigates to act more aggressively, closing the range in order to distract the larger cruiser from her principal target. Instead, when the combat starts, they break from their companion cruiser and boost away in company. They open the range as the IC is mission-killed in short order by a combination of particle beams and torpedoes. Then, at ranges of up to half a million kilometres (almost two light seconds) they launch barrages of nuclear missiles and the only response the MMV has is her torpedoes. After three hours of combat, the Perkūnas is declared the winner on a technicality - she still has ten of her crew flagged as non-causalities, while the Frigates have both been reduced to two crew total.

This is a fascinating look into the capabilities of guided munitions beyond the range of sensors to get a good lock. At two light seconds, self-guided weapons are still able to effectively engage their enemies while fires from the particle beams aboard the Perkūnas are functionally guessing where the enemy might be. When the enemy is a sixth your size and capable of applying up to 6G's in any direction, a random walk can keep them well out of the guns sights.
This is hilarious, since the QM is unsubtly showing the voters (me at least) that we were completely wrong about how missiles should be used. They are better at longer ranges, not shorter, and it is possible to outrange the particle cannons. This actually makes the missiles a pretty good choice for the frigates, in situations where they are operating without needing to protect other ships.

Like really, tonnage wise this was 1000 tons of frigates against the 3000 ton MMV, and the MMV only won on a technicality. This is a absurdly good result, good enough that I am considering a doctrine where we exclusively use fast missile frigates at long range. Surely this is not a silver bullet? I assume the MMV had done better if it was armed with missiles instead of torpedoes and had more point defense?

My takeaway is thus that point defense is very important to prevent someone from nuking us from outside particle beam range. All large ships should also carry at least some missiles to prevent them from being sitting ducks against this kind of hit-and-run tactics.
 
This is a absurdly good result, good enough that I am considering a doctrine where we exclusively use fast missile frigates at long range. Surely this is not a silver bullet?
Small ships require pilots, so there's that limitation to consider. That said, we can scale the engines to make the bigger vessels as fast as the small ones.
My takeaway is thus that point defense is very important to prevent someone from nuking us from outside particle beam range. All large ships should also carry at least some missiles to prevent them from being sitting ducks against this kind of hit-and-run tactics.
Here, I think the main lesson is to never allow an opponent to outrange our ships.
 
I recall that the Aslan offered advanced hostile environment suits, would using those theoretically increase crew survivability? Would it compromise crew effectiveness?

I like the pure defense station, more fighter production would be nice but I feel like that's more of a sustainment function (replacing small craft lost without needing to return Home to resupply) than anything else.

I agree with the single armament ship, I would not want to doctrinally replace the MMV (If equally matched ships are more likely to be mission killed by having all their crew die than get blown apart having a couple of landers to recrew disabled ships or take prizes is a big capability to have in small numbers) so I think I'd want to support a 2000 tonne ship that can do 6G, which means missiles make more sense as our 'modern' fleet would consist of the new design+frigates (because they'd be the ships that could do 6G). I would say I don't think missiles are as good as Pinniped believes (note that the MMV had enough time to jump out of system while it was getting annoyed by two missile boars) just that, under the current rules, (if sandcasters started degrading missile performance too we'd be having a different conversation) overwhelming a single type of defensive measure is more sensible than have a varied offensive capacity agaisnt an as yet unknown opponent.
 
While this would be ideal, I don't think we can rely on having ideal engagement ranges all the time.
True, but we should strive to get the speed advantage. With it, we could disengage from combat almost at will.
so I think I'd want to support a 2000 tonne ship that can do 6G
It seems that's exactly what we need. Honestly, if it wasn't for the fact that fuel for reaction drives is so heavy, I'd even add boosters for extra bursts of speed.

[ ] Plan Steenbeck
-[ ] Cruiser Successor: 2K tonnes, 2+2 jumps, optimize for speed and firepower, capable of at least 6G acceleration, principal armaments of particle beams, 50/50 split of point-defense and sandcaster defensive weapons, add extra electronic warfare stations for spoofing missiles and torpedoes, add radiation shielding, add virtual crew to replace servicemen disabled during battle.
-[ ] Defense Station: pure combat design with significant armor, include a command centre.

This post is sponsored by the Steenbeck Security Industries, your trusted weapons procurement partner.
 
Last edited:
Speed is great, except that two out of three combat engagements in the quest have taken place at orbital ranges. Which makes sense! Starships will usually fight over an objective in a fixed orbit, which will either be a planet or a station. Securing orbital space is in fact the point of fighting over a planet, which will usually mean having to either engage ground defenses in a slugging match on the offense or a severe limitation to exactly how much kiting the enemy you can do on the defense.

The main takeaway here should be the design of the station, which needs heavy missile and torpedo armament to avoid starships dictating the range to it.
 
I think going for single armament and hoping we can always dictate engagement range is not something we should invest in.

As it stands, I think a revised MMV variant with increased speed, rad shielding, and possibly nuclear warheads / multi warheads would be a good all-rounder for us to invest in. Also likely to save on construction time since we have a standardized hull form already.

Unsure on torpedoes v missiles still, I think multi warhead torps and nukes can provide a lot of punch. But I can go either way.

Leaning towards anchorage on the defense station.
 
Last edited:
Sure, why not (I don't, like... This is a quest about a navy, first and foremost. The economy only matters to me in how much it impacts the navy and building it. If you want to consider the impacts of new interstellar trade on homes domestic economic and social culture, then please, go ahead. I would welcome that discussion. But until such a time as it comes up, I just... haven't really considered it.)
 
So: torpedoes are effective if they hit but need to be massed and the MMV doesn't carry enough to use them - they should be switched for missiles or larger bays should be used.

Missile kiting does work, at least if the enemy has to fight you.

Our current ships tend to kill each other by mutual decrewing - but they also don't have extra radiation shielding, which could change the story. So we shouldn't make precipitous decisions before we can build something with shielding to test and find out how effective shielding is.

A fast and long ranged ship can punch well above its weight class.

So, counters: what about fighters? The story might have been different if a squadron could chase the frigates.

Equally, our bombers are a frigate amplified - vastly smaller and harder to hit yet, faster yet, and able to deliver much heavier salvoes (I think). In an extreme-range duel like this, fighters can chase out and fire torpedo salvoes before returning to rearm, while the kiting force can't follow them in for fear of being particle beamed to pieces. And offensively, fighters can deliver missiles long range without exposing the carrier to fire.

I suggest running yet more exercises, this time focused on strike craft to see how much of this holds water. Fighters vs escorted IC, IC and fighters vs frigates.

Depending on how effective shielding is we may also need to come up with a scheme to make our fleet of unshielded hulls useful. Something something CV(L)?
 
Last edited:
So: torpedoes need to be massed and the MMV doesn't carry enough to use them - they should be switched for missiles or larger bays should be used.
Not just torpedoes. All weapons need to be massed to be able to overwhelm defenses.

In this regard, torpedoes and missiles seem to be worse than particle beams because there's more ways to defend against them. If the enemy has point-defenses, missiles can be shot down. If the enemy has their own counter-missiles, our missiles can be intercepted. If the enemy is fast enough, it can either flat-out outrun them or keep them in point-defense zone longer. Plus, missiles can be spoofed.
 
[ ] OPLAN: Bombardier
-[ ] A second class of MMV's, incorporating lessons from the war games.
--[ ] Provide design variants for review with particle beam/torpedoes and particle beam/missiles, swapping particle bays for torpedo / missile bays, with particle beams relegated to barbettes and reduced in favor of PD; if possible, increase speed to M-6 so it can maintain range; include radiation shielding.
- [ ] It should be an anchorage station.


Not just torpedoes. All weapons need to be massed to be able to overwhelm defenses.

In this regard, torpedoes and missiles seem to be worse than particle beams because there's more ways to defend against them. If the enemy has point-defenses, missiles can be shot down. If the enemy has their own counter-missiles, our missiles can be intercepted. If the enemy is fast enough, it can either flat-out outrun them or keep them in point-defense zone longer. Plus, missiles can be spoofed.

Particle weapons at longer range are virtually useless and so going all-in on particle weapons is foolish. Missiles and torpedoes also have more use-cases and can include multiwarhead variants for overwhelming point defenses, as well as nuclear warheads for maximum damage against targets. As demonstrated, a pair of smaller ships armed with two missile bays were able to stay in their own effective engagement envelope - if anything, the lesson seems to be speed, missiles, and point defense beat particle beams - the revised MMV uses torpedo barbettes rather than bays and so was able to pump out less projectiles and so couldn't overwhelm the PD screen. Even then, it still effectively mission killed both targets (although it was also badly hurt in the process).

If anything, we should go to torpedo/missile bays to saturate point defense networks, with particle beams in barbettes for close range killing power. If the MMV had torpedo bays, it would have been pumping out triple the torpedoes and probably ended the engagement earlier.
 
Last edited:
Part of it is also speed/evasion - the frigates are small and had enough free thrust to both hold the range open and evade fire. A larger or slower ship wouldn't have been as hard to hit, while against a faster MMV they would have had to either allow it to close the range or had to go up against an evading target themselves. And in a planetary orbit, if a gunship jumps in it's likely to already be in its own optimal range and moving away or using the planet for cover gives it free rein to do as it pleases to infrastructure.

The weapons that do seem useless are the mass drivers. They don't have range or through-armour effects.
 
Last edited:
Particle weapons at longer range are virtually useless and so going all-in on particle weapons is foolish.
So is going all in on missiles, at least for bigger and slower ships. As seen in the 3x Cruiser vs MMV war game, Particle Beams are very effective at medium range. Thus, any ship not fast enough to keep its distance would benefit from Particle Beams over missiles. The same is true for missions were the ship has to stand its ground, as is the case when defending planets or stations.
[ ] OPLAN: Bombardier
-[ ] A second class of MMV's, incorporating lessons from the war games.
We just saw that tonnage wise, Cruisers are more effective than the MMV in straight-up combat. So why would we base our future combat fleet on the MMV and not the Cruiser?

Like the MMV is called a Multi-Mission Vessel for a reason, right? It is meant to be more flexible than a pure combat ship, and it does that job well. But it was not designed to be the workhorse of the fleet, so for that role I much prefer the Cruiser.
 
- [ ] It should be an anchorage station.
Why? If we want anchorages we can just repeat the Heimdall design. Here I'd rather we exploited the fact that the station can be armoured and focused on it's combat potential.

[X] Plan Steenbeck
-[X] Cruiser Successor: 2K tonnes, 2+2 jumps, optimize for speed and firepower, capable of at least 6G acceleration, principal armaments of particle beams, 50/50 split of point-defense and sandcaster defensive weapons, add extra electronic warfare stations for spoofing missiles and torpedoes, add radiation shielding, add virtual crew to replace servicemen disabled during battle.
-[X] Defense Station: pure combat design with significant armor and defenses, add a command centre.
 
Back
Top