From jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com Thu Jul 25 00:36:01 1991
Received: from relay.tek.com by engrg.uwo.ca;
	(id AA01670) Thu, 25 Jul 91 00:35:41 EDT
Received: by relay.tek.com id <AA06887@relay.tek.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 91 21:04:17 -0700
Received: from wrgate.wr.tek.com by tektronix.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1)
	id AA09600; Wed, 24 Jul 91 21:02:41 PDT
Received: by wrgate.wr.tek.com (5.51/7.1)
	id AA03351; Wed, 24 Jul 91 21:00:31 PDT
Received: by metolius.WR.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1)
	id AA10933; Wed, 24 Jul 91 21:00:25 PDT
Message-Id: <9107250400.AA10933@metolius.WR.TEK.COM>
To: dan@engrg.uwo.ca (Dan Corrin), bfwong@ocf.berkeley.edu (Raven Blackburn),
        mcknight@f104.n170.z1.fidonet.org (Chuck McKnight),
        fantasci!traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (Joseph "Jo" E Poplawski),
        jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com (James T. Perkins)
Subject: TML Bundle #218: Msgs 2658-2668
Reply-To: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Precedence: bulk
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 21:00:24 PDT
From: James T Perkins <jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com>
Status: R


TML Bundles come from the archives of the Traveller Mailing List,
maintained by James Perkins, traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed Jul 24 21:00:21 PDT 1991
From: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Subject: TML Bundle #218: Table of Contents

-AMN- --Date--- --Sender--------- --Subject-----------------------------------
2658  22-Jul-91 Adrian Hurt       Striker vs. Fifth Frontier War << "Robert S. 
2659  22-Jul-91 Adrian Hurt       Re: YACOPI (Yet Another Comment On Planetary 
2660  22-Jul-91 Hugh Schoenemann  Plastic ships - flights of fancy ? << Greetin
2661  22-Jul-91 jimv@ucrmath.ucr. tmap1.ps fixed << Greetings and Salivations f
2662  22-Jul-91 SULAIMAN@ecs.umas Large Warship design problems << I wasn't doi
2663  22-Jul-91 vather@pnet03.cts newgroup question << I haven't seen this post
2664  23-Jul-91 "Alvin M. Chan"   re:re: autofire etc (mayhem,death,etc) << >Da
2665  22-Jul-91 George William He Large Warships and Plastic Ships << plastic s
2666  23-Jul-91 Jo Jaquinta       World Builder's Handbook Software << Last I h
2667  23-Jul-91 "Robert S. Dean"  Re: (2662) Large Warship design problems << I
2668  23-Jul-91 "Robert S. Dean"  Re: (2660) Plastic ships - flights of fancy ?

------------------------------

Archive-Message-Number: 2658
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
Subject: Striker vs. Fifth Frontier War
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 9:10:58 BST

"Robert S. Dean" <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil> writes:
> Steve Higginbotham posted a rebuttal of the planetary invasion concept based
> on the Striker budgetary levels.  Well, let's face it--Striker does not
> correspond well with our only other 'official' data point, which is the
> Fifth Frontier War game and the battalion counts derived from it which are
> published in the Rebeliion Sourcebook.

The Fifth Frontier War game also doesn't correspond too well with the
"official" history, in that it doesn't take long enough.  In "reality",
the war lasted about 4 years (1107-1111), and ended in a negotiated peace
with little shifting of borders from their pre-war positions.  In the
game (at least, whenever I play it), a big reinforcement fleet appears on
turn 6 (Rimward reinforcements, or something like that - a whole lot of
colonial-grade squadrons and troop units).  Shortly after that, the Sword
Worlds gets flattened.  The Imperials get their reinforcements in small
lots which build up somewhere safe until they reach a suitable size, then
go looking for something big and blue to clobber.  The war tends not to last
long after turn 52; if the Zhodani haven't won a complete victory by then,
they get completely defeated instead.

As for battalion sizes; perhaps the Imperium subsidises some worlds to
create larger defence forces, or penalises some worlds for having too
large forces.  I don't know what the discrepancies are, but a creative
referee should be able to figure plenty of excuses.

- - -- 
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk

------------------------------

Archive-Message-Number: 2659
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: YACOPI (Yet Another Comment On Planetary Invasions)
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 9:20:29 BST

Marc Alexandrovich Volovic <mav@cs.huji.ac.il> writes:
> Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk> writes:
> >Marc Alexandrovich Volovic <mav@cs.huji.ac.il> writes:
> >>					 There may be 5 Atlantis battleships
> >> (Robert Dean's Prize Baby :-) in a star system, but a mixed force can
> >> outmaneuver it and perform a planetary landing.
> >
> >Perhaps, but there had better be something that can take out those 5 Atlantis
> >class battleships, or at least keep all 5 occupied for a long time, or else
> >at least one battleship will come and make the invasion very costly.
>  
>   Granted, partially. However, it may be possible to take out the Atlantis
> sized ships with ramming drones. Does it matter how much damage the Meson-T
> can do on it - anything short of "Ship Vaporized" will still propel a drone
> at a high speed into the ship.

Can the ramming drones be destroyed or disabled with lasers or missiles?
If not, they count as "something that can take out those 5 Atlantis class
battleships".  The point I was making was, if even one of the battleships
can make its way to the invasion area, the invasion is in big trouble.  I
was not commenting on how you stop them, only that you need to do so, as
opposed to just going round them (outmanoeuvre and perform a planetary
landing).

> >The whole assumption in this discussion is that for some reason, the attacker
> >can not/does not want to destroy the defender totally in this manner.  (Why
> >was such a tactic never used during any of the Frontier Wars, by the way?)
> >Otherwise, if the attacker finds himself faced with an unbeatable defence
> >at any stage, he can just give up, take off and nuke the planet from orbit.
>  
>   I assume the following - Steve Kellog suggested a possible way to
> obliterate (or, at the very least, heavily damage) any planet by a single
> Type S scout. This is a tactic employable by any starfaring nation. The
> only possibility is to have it mutually proscribed, the same going for
> planetary bombardment to destruction. Otherwise - better not speak, eh?

In other words, for some reason, the attacker can not/does not want to destroy
the defender totally.

> >Why?  There are reasons why the infantry has to get out of the vehicles
> >and fight on foot.  The only way anti-gravity will put an end to fighting
> >on foot is if every soldier gets a grav-belt, and anyone with Striker will
> >know what that will do to the unit's maintenance costs!
>  
>   With the widespread usage of rapid-firing laser guns (say, the Traveller
> equivalent of the 10Mw pulse laser) infantry - mounted, dismounted or with
> grav-belts - shall become very vulnerable. A phalanx arrangement of ten or
> so vehicles, carrying three to five such guns will probably deny the area to
> anything but other vehicles.

The same can be said nowadays about machine-guns.  They're why the infantry
tends to ride around in APC's.  Even so, there is still infantry around.

- - -- 
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk

------------------------------

Archive-Message-Number: 2660
From: Hugh Schoenemann <hugh@pyra.co.uk>
Subject: Plastic ships - flights of fancy ?
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 13:27:40 GMT-0:00


Greetings everyone,

This may seem a rather stupid question to some, so please indulge
my ignorance or the possibility it's been discussed here before.

I was thinking the other day about the possibility of using plas-
tics in the construction of starships, that is the external hull.
Given the weight ratios between "standard" metal  structures  and
their  plastic  counterparts, would it not be more fuel-efficient
to use plastics and thus benefit from  any  weight  savings  that
might accrue ?

I then thought to myself, "Well, what would happen upon free-fall
re-entry  ?  Fried  plastic  blob  hits deck at G ?" Perhaps not.
Wouldn't it be possible to shield the ship using good ol' ceramic
tiles a la Space Shuttle ?

Then the problem of aging occurred to me.  Plastics  age  through
photo-chemical  reactions  caused  by  the interaction of natural
phenomena (sun, wind, rain, local soil etc.) with  the  plastic's
own  atomic  structure  (plastics-  or  organic chemists - please
shoot me down in flames if this is a misconception on  my  part).
This  can  be  useful,  for example when designing bio-degradable
plastics,  but would surely be an undesirable trait in  plastics-
for-space-vehicles  purposes.  Given that UV light (which clearly
lends a hand in the aging process) is shielded  somewhat  by  our
atmosphere (unless you live in Antarctica, that is), wouldn't the
situation be that much worse in vacuum where  no  such  shielding
takes place ? I suppose solving this problem might help solve the
next ...

I remember hearing years back that all plastics are, to a greater
or  lesser extent, porous.  Is this true ? How could this be com-
pensated for or, preferably, eliminated when considering  plastic
vehicles ?

Note that I didn't consider strength as a factor in my reasoning.
Why  not  ? Well, I reckon that a ship-asteroid collision at some
of the speeds frequently discussed on the TML will turn both ship
and  contents  into  so  much blackberry jelly no matter what the
ship's made of. Comments ?

If these thoughts aren't pure fancy, it gives rise to the follow-
ing possible scenario :-

Punter enters local branch of "Spaceships R Us". Asks  about  the
possibility of purchasing a brand new 1,000 ton trader. Slick and
somewhat greasy salesman says, "Certainly, sir. You need the  La-
zlar  Lyricon  (sp ?) model. Only 17 zillion credits or $ 1.98 in
Revell kit form".

Looking forward to some replies.

All the best, everyone.

Hugh.
- - -----

P.S. Apologies to Douglas Adams and the  Hitchhiker's  Guide  for
misusing the Lazlar Lyricon bit. H.

| Hugh P. Schoenemann     | "Hey sonny - haven't you  got an  | *  * ***   *** |
| Pyramid Technology Ltd. |  FGMP  15 to play with or what ?" | *  * *  * **   |
| ..ukc!pyrltd!hugh       |                                   | **** ***    ** |
| Tel : +44 252 373035    |  ***** FIZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ! *****  | *  * *    ***  |

------------------------------

Archive-Message-Number: 2661
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 16:57:08 PDT
From: jimv@ucrmath.ucr.edu (jim vassilakos)
Subject: tmap1.ps fixed


Greetings and Salivations from the vargr historian. For those of you who
found a bit of trouble printing the first tmap, it should now be okay
for a greater number of postscript printers.

As before, you can find it in the pub/ucrgg directory of the following nodes:

          watnxt2.ucr.edu  (192.31.146.189)
          watnxt1.ucr.edu  (192.31.146.188)
          watnxt3.ucr.edu  (192.31.146.125)

It has also been donated to sunbane (129.100.100.12), but how soon
it replaces the old version is still up to Dan Corrin, the site admin.

Now it's time for Bill the Aslan to say a few words:

           _   /|
           \`o_O'
             ( )     <---  jimv@ucrmath.ucr.edu
              U            ucsd!ucrmath!jimv (uucp)
          Aachk!
        Phft! Ftp!


------------------------------

Archive-Message-Number: 2662
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1991 19:38 -0500
From: SULAIMAN@ecs.umass.edu
Subject: Large Warship design problems

I wasn't doing much this weekend so I decided to check out some of
the warship designs that have been submitted on this list. After
Steve Higginbotham's "Sikkinthar" and "Aenoegrr" class ships, I
felt rather humbled and obligated to support his premise. So I
decided to check on whether his assertion had any validity. Steve's
assertion being that 8 of his Sikkinthar class (7ktons) could
destroy a Atlantis class (1 million tons). 

What I found was rather amusing. Actually it would take only 5 to
do the job. This got me thinking on whether any of the other
capital ship (20ktons + ) were any good. I found that in general
they were not. It seems that most of these warships were built with
the "bigger is better" mentality with no regard to their actual
effectiveness. Before I go into further details let me point out a
few things that I noted:

1. Most capital ships were heavily overarmored, overpriced and very
vulnerable to meson weapons. Most designs would be LESS vulnerable
to ALL weapons if they were LESS armored. 

2. I do not know if anyone has actually done any large scale combat
with these starships( or any other starships tonnage > 20 kt) in
large numbers. I have a feeling that the designs would be a lot
different if they had done even rudimentary tests. If someone has,
it would be of great benefits to the "architects" to know its
results. 

3. There were hardly any capital ship designs with PA spinals, yet
there were lots of ships with armor > 60. Similarly there was a lot
of use of the TL 15 50 ton factor 9 missile bay but NOONE used the
more effective 100 t factor A missile bay. 

4. It seemed to me that the rider/tender vs battleship controversy
is now decided firmly in favor of the rider/tender. A 100,000 ton
tender brings far more spinal mounts to bear than a 200,000t
battleship. And when both sides have armor 60+ than the battle is
decided by who is nimbler and with more spinal weapons. 

5. Steve Higginbotham's designs assume a standard 24/72 cruise
endurance with a 1/3 peak power endurance. For those who may have
played large scale capital ships battles, a question. How realistic
is this figure? It seems very suitable since all my battles were
over in 2-5 rounds (40-100 min). 

6. I think the Imperial requirement of warship specs should be
amended as follows. 

Imperial warships should be J-4 with a cruise endurance of 21/63+.
Cruise implying constant 2-G accel (1/3rd power) with all noncombat
systems powered and some offensive and defensive systems powered. 

All warships should be capable of 6-G, Agility - 6 and all
weapons/screens powered at peak powerplant output. The endurance
for this peak performance being atleast 1/3 days. 
I will also recommend that all Imperial warships > 100,000t be
battle tenders. The reasoning for this will become clear soon. 

7. As an interesting aside, the requirement for armor becomes lower
as ship size increases. A 100,000t ship has less need of armor than
a 20,000 t ship. 

All the following assume standard MT vehicle construction rules:
All die rolls are assume craft at long range for combat purposes.

Atlantis class (1,000,000 t battleship) 
vs.
Sikkinthar class SDB(7,000 t)

Atlantis Price MCr903,000          Sikkinthar Price MCr7100
TL15, DefDM=+7,Armor=82G           TL15, DefDM=+15, Armor = 40G
Weapon:        
Spinal-T Meson Gun                 Spinal N-Meson gun
To Hit: 10+                        Auto
To Pen Meson Screen: 4+            7+
To Pen Conf: 3+                    Auto
Shots Needed to Get a Hit: 6.7     1.7

Beam Lasers Factor=9
To Hit: 11+                        None
To Pen: Auto
Shots Needed to Get a Hit: 12

Missiles Factor=9
To Hit: 8+                         Auto
To Pen Nuc Damp : 10+              10+
To Pen Beam/sand: Auto             5+
To Pen Repulsor: Auto              Impossible

Particle Accel Factor = 9
To Hit: 10+                        None

After one round of combat Atlantis was destroyed by 5 SDB. 2 SDB
were damaged none was destroyed. The damage was from the spinals
which are guaranteed a hit on the Atlantis. 

Note Factor-N spinal is by no means the largest spinal that can be
put on a starship or a SDB of 7-50ktons. Note also the price
differnce betwwen the two craft.

What follows is an off the cuff analysis of other large ships
designs that have been put on the list. All assume that the firing
ship has the best computer for that TL. Shown Spinals are the
SMALLEST ones that have a chance to get through. Also shown are the
larger calibers available at that tech level:

1. Atlantis class battleship. Def DM = +7
2. Osprey class battleship. Def DM = +8
3. Nergal class battleship. Def DM = +8
4. Atlantic class cruiser. Def DM = +10
5. Revenge class SDB/Rider. Def DM = +9
TL-13 Meson - L
To Hit: 3+/4+/4+/6+/4+
To Pen Screen: 10+/10+/10+/9+/10+
To Pen Conf: Auto/5+/7+/Auto/4+
Larger Caliber: P

TL-14 Meson - G
To Hit: Auto/3+/3+/5+/3+
To Pen Screen: 11+/11+/11+/10+/11+
To Pen Conf: Auto/7+/7+/Auto/6+
Larger Caliber: H,M,Q,R

TL-15 Meson - J
To Hit: Auto/Auto/Auto/4+/Aut
To Pen Screen: 9+/9+/9+/8+/9+
To Pen Conf: Auto/6+/6+/Auto/5+
Larger Caliber: N,R,T

All above craft had factor-9 meson screens. As can be seen all are
basically guaranteed hit at long range. The fact that it is hard
for a "run-of-the-mill" spinal mount to penetrate the best possible
screen is small consolation. Their best hope seems to be increased
agility but with the bulk of factor 60+ armor, it is practically
impossible for any of the above to have any agility over 1 and not
even that in most cases.

Which led me to my next question as to why have armour in the first
place? The primary reason seems to be the fear of the spinal PAs
with their "Penetrate-All" attack. Strangely though I have seen
just one ship with a spinal PA. The other reason seems to be
nuclear missiles. The T-PAWS cannot deliver any automatic criticals
to a vessel over 50ktons. So that will rule out protection against
crits as an excuse. To avoid the "Interior Explosion" and
"Critical" hit results on the Surface Explosion or Radiation Damage
chart you only need armor factor 52(-4 to damage die roll). A case
could be made to make a vessel invulnerable to secondary weapons.
However it is a pretty weak case as secondary weapons rarely do
enough damage to seriously effect the firepower of any capital
ship. Actually it seems that the bigger ships have little to fear
from PAs and more to fear from their size and lack of agility.

Even the largest Spinals can be carried on smaller cruiser size
craft and that would render little need for larger vessels. The
only really good reasoning that I can come up for a 100,000t +
craft is as a battle tender or carrier(much like today..). With
factor-9 meson screen, agility 6 and dispersed configuration it
stands a good chance against meson weapons, and if armored to 52 it
can survive PAs too; atleast until help arrives or it can jump.

Ameer


^Z

------------------------------

Archive-Message-Number: 2663
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 19:30:15 PDT
From: vather@pnet03.cts.COM (Trevor Smith)
Subject: newgroup question

        I haven't seen this posted lately, FWIW, but could someone do me the
favor of sending me the list of external speciality groups (such as this one).
The list I currently have is very out of date (based on the mail deamons that
came chasing after me).
        Thanks in advance.
                                Trevor Z Smith

UUCP: crash!pnet01!pnet03!vather
INET: vather@pnet03.cts.com


------------------------------

Archive-Message-Number: 2664
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1991 00:54 EST
From: "Alvin M. Chan" <CHAN93%SNYBUFVA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Subject: re:re: autofire etc (mayhem,death,etc)

>Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 11:44:18 -0400
>From: teets@frith.egr.msu.edu
>Subject: (2651) RE:(2621) Autofire

[stuff about burst-fire/autofire deleted...]
[good stuff about missed shots while trying to kill 'bob' deleted...]

>messy with their "hit" jobs will get a lot more heat.  Not only will the
>       players
>be in trouble for the murder (or maybe assault) or the target but also of the
>people standing around them.  Killing a known pirate will probably get the
>players a little sympathy but not if they also accidently killed 7 by-standers
>and wounded 12 others.  Oops, sorry about that, back to the rules.  Roll for
>       the
>missed shots against another target normally.  If it hits go back to the auto
>fire rules but after a miss don't roll again.  After all it is unlikey the
>player is trying to bring his aim back on them.  As for missed shots, when an
>area is pretty empty simply roll once any more than that and roll more times up
>to 5 or 6 rolls for a really crowded area.

you could always do the 'Kill with extreme prejudice' sort of thing, and follow
the credo of "KILL EM ALL AND LET GOD (ugh) SORT EM OUT"...that way, there are
no real misses, unless you count the people who DID survive!  Intention?
No witnesses? no problem!  of course this is not for the 'self-defense-only'
minded unless of course one is latent paranoid.  Will that make dice rolls a
little simpler? 8-)  roll for success of search and destroy, with the emphasis
on DESTROY! (eg: non-trading mission/wipe out competition)

[stuff about being careful   deleted....heheh]

>bring multiple deaths.  This works the same with grenades.  Although these rule
   s
>may seem tiresome they tend to make the players much more careful about wieldin
   g
>weapons with such zeal.  And make enemies who do use them as such seem much mor
   e
>villainous, making them much more important to hunt down.  Thank you.
>Matt Teets

geeez, I liked my team being BAD guys; it gives the cops and/or/and villains an
incentive to party/rock-and-roll. 8-)

(of course dont try this on a known to be unamused Referee.. "secret roll, oh,
so sorry guys, your guns jammed/overheated/ran-out/blew-up, take your pick..
choose your death, and start rolling up some new characters!)

                                                        - Alv

------------------------------

Archive-Message-Number: 2665
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 22:15:13 -0700
From: George William Herbert <gwh@ocf.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: Large Warships and Plastic Ships


	plastic ships first, they're shorter to deal with 8-)
	We did an analysis of the hull weights etc. and why you'd want it that
that thick earlier on the list.  The conclusions were that level-40 is not
needed for any significant reason..._except_ radiation protection over the
long term for the crew.  And there is simply no way around having to shield
the crews; they'll spend all their time in space, and will recieve unhealthy
doses over a few years if you scrimp on thickness.  Plastic ships, while
structurally valid (if not as well armoured for combat 8-), don't give very
good radiation shielding at all.

	Large Ships...
	Funny that it just came up.  I've been working with the designs
in Fighting Ships of the Shattered Imperium a lot over the last few days,
and the starship combat rules, and I just decided to set up a computer 
program to handle large-scale combat for me.  The results are not yet in,
but by friday or so I'll have a few dozen battles under my belt, and the
facilities to easily run more, so we'll see what happens when 1500 fighters
and an Atlantis take on three Battle Riders... 8-)
	The program's in Hypercard/hypertalk for mac, so if anyone else
out there is interested, I'll pass it around once it's debugged.  It's probably
going to cut some corners in places, but ought to be useful.

- - -george william herbert
gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu

------------------------------

Archive-Message-Number: 2666
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 14:15:36 BST
From: Jo Jaquinta <jaymin@maths.tcd.ie>
Subject: World Builder's Handbook Software

	Last I heard there was no sign of this coming out. Since my
Library Data program fairly meets the functional specifications of their
ad I've been contemplating offering to sell it to them. Anyone out there
with their finger in DGP who might say what there policy on such things
are? [Note: I already intend to send it to be reviewed by their shareware
column].

	The program has expanded and now has full details for all the
UPP figures (all the way down to local customs &c), more tolerably fast
globe generation (with rotation). It creates the planet names from the
apropriate tables depending on the Alliegence (anyone know of tables for
Sylean, Darrian, or other obscure alliegences?), volcanoes and cities
appear on the map and bits and pieces more.
	I will put the new version on the mail server on the 1st of August.
			Jo Jaquinta
			jaymin@maths.tcd.ie

------------------------------

Archive-Message-Number: 2667
Date:     Tue, 23 Jul 91 9:39:08 EDT
From: "Robert S. Dean" <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Re:  (2662) Large Warship design problems

In your letter dated Mon, 22 Jul 1991 19:38 -0500, you wrote:
>
> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1991 19:38 -0500
> From: SULAIMAN@ecs.umass.edu
> Subject: (2662) Large Warship design problems
> 
> I wasn't doing much this weekend so I decided to check out some of
> the warship designs that have been submitted on this list. After
> Steve Higginbotham's "Sikkinthar" and "Aenoegrr" class ships, I
> felt rather humbled and obligated to support his premise. So I
> decided to check on whether his assertion had any validity. Steve's
> assertion being that 8 of his Sikkinthar class (7ktons) could
> destroy a Atlantis class (1 million tons). 

Almost anything will destroy an Atlantis class...as the designer I should
know.  You should probably be aware of a couple of things with regard to
the Atlantis before using it as an example of anything.

1) It was originally designed using High Guard and converted to MT with as
few modifications as possible.

2) It was designed as an experiment to see what the 'maximum tonnage' ship
would look like.

3) It was assigned to the Imperial Glisten Navy, which was the first fleet
that I designed, and which therefore had a bunch of questionable designs,
such as Particle Accelerator cruisers (bad idea in High Guard) and some 
smaller vessels with armors of 3 or so (also a bad idea in High Guard as this
allows a nuclear missile the possibility of an interior hit.)

4) Its game rationalization is that it was built for 'prestige' or 'propaganda'
purchases.  Besides, if doing a force on force comparison of an Atlantis
versus something else, you should really factor in the subsidiary craft. The
three 10000ton riders with Meson Gun-J are not bad ships.  (Not great either--
I just did a Mk II 10kton rider last week...)

> What I found was rather amusing. Actually it would take only 5 to
> do the job. This got me thinking on whether any of the other
> capital ship (20ktons + ) were any good. I found that in general
> they were not. It seems that most of these warships were built with
> the "bigger is better" mentality with no regard to their actual
> effectiveness. Before I go into further details let me point out a
> few things that I noted:
> 
> 1. Most capital ships were heavily overarmored, overpriced and very
> vulnerable to meson weapons. Most designs would be LESS vulnerable
> to ALL weapons if they were LESS armored. 
> 
> 2. I do not know if anyone has actually done any large scale combat
> with these starships( or any other starships tonnage > 20 kt) in
> large numbers. I have a feeling that the designs would be a lot
> different if they had done even rudimentary tests. If someone has,
> it would be of great benefits to the "architects" to know its
> results. 

Yes.  But only with High Guard.  I pitted the Glisten fleet against a surprise
attack by a TL13 industrial planet as part of the Fifth Frontier War.  The
enemy was using a fleet consisting of only four standard designs--a 1000 ton
missile boat, a 6000 ton missile armed 'destroyer', a 28000 ton 'cruiser'
armed with the largest available particle accelerator (R?), and a 60000 ton
'battlecruiser' armed with the largest available meson gun.  All hulls were
configuration 4 for lowest possible price, and there was little armor.  The
overall results were that the TL13 vessels died in droves due to the computer
imbalance (agilities were generally about equal), but since they outnumbered
the Glisten fleet at almost every encounter, they were able to destroy most
of the large Glisten ships (the Lemuria of the Atlantis class survived by not
engaging in combat).  The Ospreys (under High Guard) and the Sun Tzus stood
up reasonably well, but since their PA main armament was laughable, they
got ignored in the early combat rounds.  I had a class of 8000 ton cruisers
armed with a Meson Gun E (don't ask--J would have been better, but I _said_
this was my first fleet) which I have not yet converted to MT because there
was _one_ survivor out of a class of 60.  The Revenge class battlecruisers
did OK with their large meson guns, but they were prime targets and out-
numbered so I lost about 2/3 of them.  The Lobachevsky's with their covey of
15 10kton meson gun J riders were probably the stars of the whole thing.
When they finally got engaged, it was all over for the much-depleted TL13
fleet.  As a result of these combat tests, I redesigned the fleet under
High Guard rules and had even laid out what the procurement schedule would
be through about 1120 when MT finally came out.  The Type 1107 destroyer,
the Sun Tzu refit, The refit Osprey with Meson Gun N (only one that can be
substituted for PA T), the Nergal, the Yathaghan (good High Guard design
that doesn't translate due to shift in the agility rules), and the 11000ton
meson gun destroyer (forget the class name), as well as the fighters with
the computer 7s and computer 9s are part of the redesign.  I guess I'll
give them a test drive one of these days when I get around to doing a TL13/14
Aslan Ihatei fleet to my taste.  Anyway, the bottom line is that I know that
a lot of the IGN designs are not sound, but I converted them to MT anyway
because there were survivors from the Fifth Frontier War still in service.

> 3. There were hardly any capital ship designs with PA spinals, yet
> there were lots of ships with armor > 60. Similarly there was a lot
> of use of the TL 15 50 ton factor 9 missile bay but NOONE used the
> more effective 100 t factor A missile bay. 

Old High Guard habits...most of my large warships (all of the Glisten Navy)
used 50ton missile bays because there were no 100 ton TL15 missile bays, so
I didn't change them when I converted.  I also used to put in spinal PAs, which
made the high armor necessary.  As it is--which comes first?  If I reduce armor
then the enemy will build PA armed ships in their next procurement cycle, and
I will have to uparmor mine to compensate, as well as be left with a bunch
of vulnerable ships.  I think real designers faced with this problem would
either a) accept the PA casualties for increased agility or b) routinely armor
at such a level as to render PAs useless, and either solution would be
acceptable.  My earliest designs used a lot of PAs because I liked the idea 
that there was 'no defense'.  It was much later that I actually tried combat
and realized that they did too little damage to be really useful.

> 4. It seemed to me that the rider/tender vs battleship controversy
> is now decided firmly in favor of the rider/tender. A 100,000 ton
> tender brings far more spinal mounts to bear than a 200,000t
> battleship. And when both sides have armor 60+ than the battle is
> decided by who is nimbler and with more spinal weapons. 

Agreed.  The retreat issue as discussed in old Trav is still valid though--
I tend to expect that fleets would run toward medium meson gun jump capable
cruisers for forward system screens (which would run if disadvantaged) and
rider squadrons to remain concentrated for the counterattack.  Battleships
are very questionable.

> 5. Steve Higginbotham's designs assume a standard 24/72 cruise
> endurance with a 1/3 peak power endurance. For those who may have
> played large scale capital ships battles, a question. How realistic
> is this figure? It seems very suitable since all my battles were
> over in 2-5 rounds (40-100 min). 

The 24 cruise endurance seems potentially a little short if you start looking
at insystem maneuvering requirments, but the 1 day peak power duration is
probably quite long enough.  As you have seen, I like to figure that all of the
fuel tanks can be crossconnected and that the power plant can be 'throttled
back' at least to a limited number of settings, which gives you the flexibility
to fight two or three separated insystem battles without need of refueling, 
which Steve's ships could probably do too even though he has chosen to
represent his power distribution differently.

> 6. I think the Imperial requirement of warship specs should be
> amended as follows. 
> 
> Imperial warships should be J-4 with a cruise endurance of 21/63+.
> Cruise implying constant 2-G accel (1/3rd power) with all noncombat
> systems powered and some offensive and defensive systems powered. 
> 
> All warships should be capable of 6-G, Agility - 6 and all
> weapons/screens powered at peak powerplant output. The endurance
> for this peak performance being atleast 1/3 days. 
> I will also recommend that all Imperial warships > 100,000t be
> battle tenders. The reasoning for this will become clear soon. 
> 
> 7. As an interesting aside, the requirement for armor becomes lower
> as ship size increases. A 100,000t ship has less need of armor than
> a 20,000 t ship. 

A reasonable specification system.  Note that thrust based maneuver 
calculations can make it difficult to actually achieve 6-G in any ship 
with even minimal (50+) armor.

> All the following assume standard MT vehicle construction rules:
> All die rolls are assume craft at long range for combat purposes.
> 
> Atlantis class (1,000,000 t battleship) 
> vs.
> Sikkinthar class SDB(7,000 t)
> 
> Atlantis Price MCr903,000          Sikkinthar Price MCr7100
> TL15, DefDM=+7,Armor=82G           TL15, DefDM=+15, Armor = 40G
> Weapon:        
> Spinal-T Meson Gun                 Spinal N-Meson gun
> To Hit: 10+                        Auto
> To Pen Meson Screen: 4+            7+
> To Pen Conf: 3+                    Auto
> Shots Needed to Get a Hit: 6.7     1.7
> 
> Beam Lasers Factor=9
> To Hit: 11+                        None
> To Pen: Auto
> Shots Needed to Get a Hit: 12
> 
> Missiles Factor=9
> To Hit: 8+                         Auto
> To Pen Nuc Damp : 10+              10+
> To Pen Beam/sand: Auto             5+
> To Pen Repulsor: Auto              Impossible
> 
> Particle Accel Factor = 9
> To Hit: 10+                        None
> 
> After one round of combat Atlantis was destroyed by 5 SDB. 2 SDB
> were damaged none was destroyed. The damage was from the spinals
> which are guaranteed a hit on the Atlantis. 

Well, I might wish that you would include the Atlantis' 13 2kt+ riders and
the several hundred fighters with comp-9s in the analysis, figuring that 
these subcraft will act as a screen for a couple of rounds before the main
ship actually joins combat.  After all, they are included in the price you're
quoting for the price comparison.

> Note Factor-N spinal is by no means the largest spinal that can be
> put on a starship or a SDB of 7-50ktons. Note also the price
> differnce betwwen the two craft.
> 
> What follows is an off the cuff analysis of other large ships
> designs that have been put on the list. All assume that the firing
> ship has the best computer for that TL. Shown Spinals are the
> SMALLEST ones that have a chance to get through. Also shown are the
> larger calibers available at that tech level:
> 
> 1. Atlantis class battleship. Def DM = +7
> 2. Osprey class battleship. Def DM = +8
> 3. Nergal class battleship. Def DM = +8
> 4. Atlantic class cruiser. Def DM = +10
> 5. Revenge class SDB/Rider. Def DM = +9
> TL-13 Meson - L
> To Hit: 3+/4+/4+/6+/4+
> To Pen Screen: 10+/10+/10+/9+/10+
> To Pen Conf: Auto/5+/7+/Auto/4+
> Larger Caliber: P
> 
> TL-14 Meson - G
> To Hit: Auto/3+/3+/5+/3+
> To Pen Screen: 11+/11+/11+/10+/11+
> To Pen Conf: Auto/7+/7+/Auto/6+
> Larger Caliber: H,M,Q,R
> 
> TL-15 Meson - J
> To Hit: Auto/Auto/Auto/4+/Aut
> To Pen Screen: 9+/9+/9+/8+/9+
> To Pen Conf: Auto/6+/6+/Auto/5+
> Larger Caliber: N,R,T
> 
> All above craft had factor-9 meson screens. As can be seen all are
> basically guaranteed hit at long range. The fact that it is hard
> for a "run-of-the-mill" spinal mount to penetrate the best possible
> screen is small consolation. Their best hope seems to be increased
> agility but with the bulk of factor 60+ armor, it is practically
> impossible for any of the above to have any agility over 1 and not
> even that in most cases.

Small consolation indeed, because small meson gun size can usually be 
balanced within any given budget for more hulls, definitely putting
the advantage on the side of the smaller distributed weapons systems.
Do we want to rehash the 'what is agilitly argument'?  Your analysis, that
improving agility is the key to survival, appears to be correct.  I just
don't like the way it is handled in MT, not to mention the unresolved
ambiguities in how it is calculated.  My ships, at least, were High Guard
conversions, and it should be remembered that it was easy under those
rules to keep your agility up to the level of your maneuver drive _and_ have
a reasonable armor class, so the ships mentioned above were not quite so
crippled as they appear to be now.

> Which led me to my next question as to why have armour in the first
> place? The primary reason seems to be the fear of the spinal PAs
> with their "Penetrate-All" attack. Strangely though I have seen
> just one ship with a spinal PA. The other reason seems to be
> nuclear missiles. The T-PAWS cannot deliver any automatic criticals
> to a vessel over 50ktons. So that will rule out protection against
> crits as an excuse. To avoid the "Interior Explosion" and
> "Critical" hit results on the Surface Explosion or Radiation Damage
> chart you only need armor factor 52(-4 to damage die roll). A case
> could be made to make a vessel invulnerable to secondary weapons.
> However it is a pretty weak case as secondary weapons rarely do
> enough damage to seriously effect the firepower of any capital
> ship. Actually it seems that the bigger ships have little to fear
> from PAs and more to fear from their size and lack of agility.

Please check my recent designs for the number of craft carrying armor 52
for this reason...Your analysis is quite correct.  The other potentially
useful armor values are 82 (minimum to avoid all surface damage from
secondary weapons) and 100 (minimum to avoid all surface damage.)  I
might calculate the mimimum necessary to avoid manuever hits from surface
damage too.  Once again, the spectre of High Guard hovers over the fleets.

> Even the largest Spinals can be carried on smaller cruiser size
> craft and that would render little need for larger vessels. The
> only really good reasoning that I can come up for a 100,000t +
> craft is as a battle tender or carrier(much like today..). With
> factor-9 meson screen, agility 6 and dispersed configuration it
> stands a good chance against meson weapons, and if armored to 52 it
> can survive PAs too; atleast until help arrives or it can jump.

Yes.  If I ever do another fleet, the cruiser with a meson gun N or lower
tech equivalent will be the largest jump capable combat ship.  (Poor Glisten,
always behind the times...)

> Ameer

Rob Dean


------------------------------

Archive-Message-Number: 2668
Date:     Tue, 23 Jul 91 9:56:27 EDT
From: "Robert S. Dean" <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Re:  (2660) Plastic ships - flights of fancy ?

> From: Hugh Schoenemann <hugh@pyra.co.uk>
> Subject: (2660) Plastic ships - flights of fancy ?
> 
> Greetings everyone,
> 
> This may seem a rather stupid question to some, so please indulge
> my ignorance or the possibility it's been discussed here before.

This answer may look a little strange, because I started at the bottom
and worked my way back toward the top.

> I was thinking the other day about the possibility of using plas-
> tics in the construction of starships, that is the external hull.
> Given the weight ratios between "standard" metal  structures  and
> their  plastic  counterparts, would it not be more fuel-efficient
> to use plastics and thus benefit from  any  weight  savings  that
> might accrue ?

Well, this is the weak link in the whole thing.  If you actually have a
structure which _requires_ the strength of a given piece of steel, replacing
it with 'light weight' materials usually gains you little advantage because
the ratio of the tensile strength to the weight is often equal to or inferior
to steel.  Replacing a 100 lb load bearing steel member  with a 300 lb 
aluminum member to get the same strength is not much help.  In the real world
savings can often be made because the extra strenght is not really needed.
Besides, the TL7 and TL9 composite structures may well include plastic
components, so it's already taken into account.

> I then thought to myself, "Well, what would happen upon free-fall
> re-entry  ?  Fried  plastic  blob  hits deck at G ?" Perhaps not.
> Wouldn't it be possible to shield the ship using good ol' ceramic
> tiles a la Space Shuttle ?

Ah! But with grav vehicles we can take the reentry at any speed we want.
We've got power, thrust and duration to burn, and if you want to hover
over one spot for hours while you ease down into the atmosphere, you can
do it.  This aspect of Traveller has been somehwat neglected--as for 
example in the rule that still says that an unstreamlined hull cannot
land on a planet with an atmosphere...

> Then the problem of aging occurred to me.  Plastics  age  through
> photo-chemical  reactions  caused  by  the interaction of natural
> phenomena (sun, wind, rain, local soil etc.) with  the  plastic's
> own  atomic  structure  (plastics-  or  organic chemists - please
> shoot me down in flames if this is a misconception on  my  part).
> This  can  be  useful,  for example when designing bio-degradable
> plastics,  but would surely be an undesirable trait in  plastics-
> for-space-vehicles  purposes.  Given that UV light (which clearly
> lends a hand in the aging process) is shielded  somewhat  by  our
> atmosphere (unless you live in Antarctica, that is), wouldn't the
> situation be that much worse in vacuum where  no  such  shielding
> takes place ? I suppose solving this problem might help solve the
> next ...

Well, in the real world plastics which are required to stand out in the
sun for prolonged service will frequently have an additive such as
carbon black added as a UV screen.  Between internal additives and external
paints and coatings (we could aluminize the hull for example) this could
be ignored.

> I remember hearing years back that all plastics are, to a greater
> or  lesser extent, porous.  Is this true ? How could this be com-
> pensated for or, preferably, eliminated when considering  plastic
> vehicles ?

Quite true.  However, the amount of porosity could be considered to be
insignificant in this context.  In the course of my job, I've dealt with
helium leak tests performed on containers made out of 1/4 inch thick
high density polyethylene.  Helium is used because of its high ability
to permeate any gap.  A properly sealed container retains enough helium
for test purposes for many months--which translates into plenty of time
to get to a starport and get another air bottle.

> Note that I didn't consider strength as a factor in my reasoning.
> Why  not  ? Well, I reckon that a ship-asteroid collision at some
> of the speeds frequently discussed on the TML will turn both ship
> and  contents  into  so  much blackberry jelly no matter what the
> ship's made of. Comments ?

While there is little point in considering structural strength vis-a-vis
asteroid collisions, having a ship which is capable of standing up to your
maximum acceleration would be desirable.  I'm not sure if inertial comp-
ensators (which I've always viewed as more grav plates mounted to be able
to cancel the drive gravity effect internally) would help the external
structure of the hull or not.  Also, I'm not conversant with radiation
shielding effects of plastic.  George Herbert has pointed out that the
best reason for the armor 40 hull minimum is to provide long term radiation
shielding for the crew.

Does that help any?

Rob Dean


------------------------------

End of TML Bundle
*****************

