Remove ads

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

Reader mode
Also I'm generally OK with the first gen of Lancers having M3 engines and a bit less armor; they're carrying like triple the firepower of our interstellar cruisers, after all.

Lancer:
-4 torpedo bays
-4 particle beam bays
-6 particle barbettes
-8 twin laser turrets
-8 twin sandcasters

IC:
-1xLarge Missile Bay
-2xPrototype Particle Barbettes
4xSingle Pulse Laser Turrets
4xSingle Sandcasters

And just for comparison, the monitor:
12xLarge Particle Beam Bays
8xParticle Beam Bays
4xMissile Bay
12xParticle Barbettes
12xtwin laser turret
12xtwin sandcaster turret

Compared to the monitor it's got like 2/3rd the point defense, equivalent or better missile firepower, probably about a quarter to a third of the particle weapon firepower, depending on how you rate the large beam bays versus standard beam bays.
 
@Rat King Hard agree. Most multirole aircraft thrive on thrust and weapons, and the Lancer has plenty of both even with M3s.
 
Rat King said:
Also I'm generally OK with the first gen of Lancers having M3 engines and a bit less armor; they're carrying like triple the firepower of our interstellar cruisers, after all.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's the Interplanetary Cruiser you've quoted. Those are converted to defense stations. The Insterstellar Cruisers pack 4 particle beam bays and no missiles. Also, M-3 would be the slowest combat ship we've got. Even the Monitor has M-4. 4 is half the armor ICs got. It's just not good enough.
Coyote Niff said:
We need kinetic stand-off yesterday; particle beams are fine for deep-space, long range work but we need a BVR kill that they, by dint of being a beam of linear c speed energy, simply don't offer.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Elaborate?
 
Magnificate said:
That's the Interplanetary Cruiser you've quoted. Those are converted to defense stations. The Insterstellar Cruisers pack 4 particle beam bays and no missiles. Also, M-3 would be the slowest combat ship we've got. Even the Monitor has M-4. 4 is half the armor ICs got. It's just not good enough.

Elaborate?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Sure! In modern air and space combat, and to an extent naval combat, although this is limited by a variety of working conditions like weather, BVR kill-the ability to strike targets beyond visual range, targeting only with radar and other sensors, is crucial. If you get the first shot off, before someone else can see you and shoot back, you generally win or get damn close. For example, BVR missiles like the AIM-120 are a core part of modern NATO air defense against Russia and China. Also, it forces your opponents to waste time avoiding your shots, making them easier to spot because they're moving around, throwing off plumes of chaff and flares and other stuff that radar systems love to see and reflect off of. In our current situation, we're using particle beams, which fire, well, in a beam-at or near light speed depending on what chemicals or other fuels feed the beam, and always in a perfectly straight line. This makes them very accurate-but only when they hit! If you know the beam is coming, perhaps through detection of chemical emissions, or if it's sub-c, visually, like a tracer bullet, you can generally kick your ship or aircraft out of the way with maneuver capabilities. A torpedo, while moving sublight and vulnerable to point defense, can track its targets.
 
I forget, wasn't the Lancer also designed to land troops from orbit?

Edit;
Particle beams are already BVR. We're firing at targets that sensors pick up, and p-beams are THE long range option already. The main thing missiles and torps do is slightly push the range envelope and allowing for some standoff capability in exchange for being the absolute easiest weapon to counter (PD, Dodge, and ECM all get chances to counter missiles, on top of them still having to be aimed properly)
 
Last edited:
Maxin_inc said:
I think viewing our multi thousand ton warships as aircraft is an inherently flawed thinking process.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No gravity in space means their weight only matters in terms of construction strength (ie how tough the materials are), getting the graft into orbit, and the effect of gravity thrust on the craft proper. If you've ever seen footage of a satellite move in orbit, it's like a ballet dance, and yet the thing itself weighs a few tons.
 
Coyote Niff said:
Partially! It's a multirole expeditionary destroyer. Its troop-landing capabilities are an extension of the surface-to-orbit shuttle craft already standard on other Service vessels.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ok, that REALLY needs to be dropped from the design. Either reduce the troop landing to boarding capabilities, or get rid of them all together. If we're landing troops, you want overwhelming numbers, armor, or small surgical capabilities. All require specialized ships. Out of everything that was added to the Lancer, that is 100% mission creep.

(Also, forum etiquette is to combine quotes and responses into one post.)
 
Coyote Niff said:
Sure! In modern air and space combat, and to an extent naval combat, although this is limited by a variety of working conditions like weather, BVR kill-the ability to strike targets beyond visual range, targeting only with radar and other sensors, is crucial. If you get the first shot off, before someone else can see you and shoot back, you generally win or get damn close.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But... we're in space. There's no horizon to hide behind.
Coyote Niff said:
If you know the beam is coming, perhaps through detection of chemical emissions, or if it's sub-c, visually, like a tracer bullet, you can generally kick your ship or aircraft out of the way with maneuver capabilities. A torpedo, while moving sublight and vulnerable to point defense, can track its targets.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But... according to Google, long range in Traveller is just 10K to 25K kilometres. I assume there's no way to dodge a beam at that distance, unless via random evasive patterns. @4WheelSword Is it true? Do torpedoes fare betters in terms of hitting targets than particle beams?

As for troop landing capabilities, if it is just one shuttle plus some marines on board that can form an away-party then I can live with it. Lancer has two, but even then I'm under under no illusions that these guys could storm defended targets. We should indeed look at reducing it, but improving M-drives and adding more armour.
 
Last edited:
Aside from everything else, I love how we're doing the Pentagon Reform debates in real time. It's very funny to me.
 
grimely said:
Torpedoes and lasers are equally likely to hit but can be defeated by different countermeasures.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
OK, if that's the case it makes sense to weight the offensive potential of a ship towards one of them. Against an unprepared opponent, half of their countermeasures don't work. Against someone who designed their warships to counter ours, it's just going back to the baseline effectivness. Since we're doing particle beams, no reason not to stick with them.
 
WallFly said:
(Also, forum etiquette is to combine quotes and responses into one post.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I assume you mean "here's my response to every post made in a nice neat line", which is tough to do when I'm fielding multiple inbounds at once. Thanks for the tip though!
👍
 
Last edited:
Magnificate said:
But... according to Google, long range in Traveller is just 10K to 25K kilometres. I assume there's no way to dodge a beam at that distance, unless via random evasive patterns. @4WheelSword Is it true? Do torpedoes fare betters in terms of hitting targets than particle beams?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Eugh that range table. I refuse to believe that traveller ships are first engaging at a fifth of a light second, given that so many of their weapons are near-C or simply C.
No, multiply that by ten and then some.

As for the hit, well, it all depends on your gunners, but torpedoes do have terminal guidance and manouverability.
 
Coyote Niff said:
No gravity in space means their weight only matters in terms of construction strength (ie how tough the materials are), getting the graft into orbit, and the effect of gravity thrust on the craft proper. If you've ever seen footage of a satellite move in orbit, it's like a ballet dance, and yet the thing itself weighs a few tons.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes, I know this. It's still a lot different than in-atmosphere dogfighting.
 
Last edited:
Maxin_inc said:
Yes, I know this. It's still a lot different than in-atmosphere dogfighting.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

True-but at least in my view, we shouldn't be dogfighting unless we have no other option-that's where my comparisons to air combat are based, and why BVR is crucial. Dogfighting is almost totally visual and completely maneuver-based; it's conducted at incredibly close range. Modern fighter pilots avoid the dogfight at all costs; arguably it hasn't been the tactic of choice since Korea at the absolute earliest and Vietnam at the latest. Hence why I think our space tactics should reflect modern air warfare-see first, shoot first, kill first, and why I think stand-off weapons like the torps are crucial, especially for the Lancer and Zhuge in their capacity as expeditionary ships and escorts.
 
The torpedo - particle beam combo does mean that if they're busy trying to dodge or counter *both* they'll have less time to shoot back at us and give us the edge to score a kill.
 
4WheelSword said:
Eugh that range table. I refuse to believe that traveller ships are first engaging at a fifth of a light second, given that so many of their weapons are near-C or simply C.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Makes sense.

@Coyote Niff That said, it doesn't change the fact that there are no FTL sensors in Traveller. It means, that beams can't be seen until the shot has connected. You cannot make an active dodge attempt against it, because even if it is possible to observe beams charging up, I'm sure there's no way to tell the exact point in space the gunner is aiming at. Just 1 kilometre can be a difference between a hit or a miss.
Coyote Niff said:
Hence why I think our space tactics should reflect modern air warfare-see first, shoot first, kill first, and why I think stand-off weapons like the torps are crucial, especially for the Lancer and Zhuge in their capacity as expeditionary ships and escorts.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That would make sense if we used missile swarms, plus if missiles were longer-ranged than particle beams. From what I understand, that's not the case. Particle beams are most effective at long range, but it's not their maximum range.
Rat King said:
The torpedo - particle beam combo does mean that if they're busy trying to dodge or counter *both* they'll have less time to shoot back at us and give us the edge to score a kill.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What? Surely, each weapon and countermeasure on a ship would have its own operator allowing for simultaneous use?
 
Last edited:
Magnificate said:
What? Surely, each weapon and countermeasure on a ship would have its own operator allowing for simultaneous use?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

They have somewhat different threat envelopes - torpedos are continuously maneuvering and have some terminal guidance; they're in the battlespace and need to be tracked if they're not dead / still tracking in and will have to be accounted for.

Particle beams are high fractions of c and also need to be juked/countered.

The argument isn't that they can't be countered it's that the mixed weapon types force them to pay attention to different things at once and places more strain on the crew, potentially allowing for us to edge out a decisive blow.
 
Magnificate said:
What? Surely, each weapon and countermeasure on a ship would have its own operator allowing for simultaneous use?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

There's this thing in air warfare, suppression of air defense (SEAD). Make too many targets and too many inbounds and people can't react fast enough to prevent either their getting blown up or blowing up other people. The terminal aspect is then killing the air defense that's trying to kill you while the distraction is happening, but the analogy is solid for what @Rat King is shooting at-more threats demand more attention and therefore prioritizing different reactions, et al.
 
Last edited:
That's partially what the multi-warhead torps are for - overwhelming PDs but the same principle applies for just blatting people with other weapons. Give them enough to deal with and they'll screw up eventually.
 
OK, I understand your point now. But, it does it compare to jest invalidating half of enemy countermeasures because there's nothing there to counter?

Perhaps... We could do some simulated combat exercises in Home to test these theories of ours? We could pit some ICs against SDDs.

Anyways, it's 2AM. To summarize, I think Lancer ought to be modified in following ways: upscale to 4K tonnes, 3+1 or 4+1 jumps, M-4 or better, more armour, one less shuttle, weapon loadout undecided for the moment.
 
Yeah, have to say that saturating the battlespace with more threats than the enemy can deal with is a good idea and mixed weapons packages help do that.

I'm also in favor of keeping the tonnage at ~3-3.5k. I think 4k is too heavy.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top