Work goes forward on In Harm's Way StarCluster. The CharGen section is almost finished, which means I can start alpha playtesting soon! I need to supply a few sample warships of various types. Unlike most (any?) other military space setting, there are no fleets because of a peculiarity in Jump travel. Thus any ship has to be self-sufficient. There will be a lot of patrol craft-to-destroyer sized craft, and carriers.

Commonwealth Space is virtually complete now. Just waiting for some illos from Pat. It goes into a great amount of detail on all the Commonwealth worlds, and, since Pat's a Brit, on the distinctive Commonwealth society. There are some cool bits in there - the CCA did a lot with very little throughout the Cold Space/FTL Now years.

Glorianna remains in limbo. A lot of work has been done, but a lot of work remains. It's a huge undertaking. I still haven't decided on a T-R sub-system, though right now I'm leaning towards risk dice.

-clash

I submit that, militarily fleets will still be viable and important, despite the obvious LOGISTICAL difficulty in moving them. Mind you, I am a logistician in my regular job.

A simple study of military history, absent any particular critical thought on how or why it is so, will reveal that larger ships do not negate the need for smaller ships. A battleship is an awesome thing, fully capable of obliterating a cutter or cruiser or corvette... and provided it wasn't designed and built by defective monkeys, should be able to go toe to toe with another battleship and seriously injure, if not destroy larger vessels such as carriers...

Yet it is still a fragile and easily destroyed peice of machinery in the face of cheaper swarms of lesser vessels. Its firepower is awesome but can be difficult to apply to more nimble vessels, its armor is thick but armor technology rarely matches destructive technologies...

So, while you won't have well organized fleets jumping from place to place with the precision of a parade ground battlegroup (mixing land and sea for metaphors... how gauche of me!), they will exist, in force, in defensive fleets (who, presumptively don't have to jump to do their jobs...), and thus, the only way to realistically engage them is to figure out how to bring fleets on the offensive.  In all likelihood, this would involve jumping into a system outside of engagement range and organizing the fleet on the more conventional drive in from there.

Sorry if I'm spoiling your setting for you, but simply putting up an obstacle (jump drive mechanics) will not actually eliminate valid, and useful tactics. Hannibal took elephants across the Alps, after all...

Quote from: Spike;278276I submit that, militarily fleets will still be viable and important, despite the obvious LOGISTICAL difficulty in moving them. Mind you, I am a logistician in my regular job.

A simple study of military history, absent any particular critical thought on how or why it is so, will reveal that larger ships do not negate the need for smaller ships. A battleship is an awesome thing, fully capable of obliterating a cutter or cruiser or corvette... and provided it wasn't designed and built by defective monkeys, should be able to go toe to toe with another battleship and seriously injure, if not destroy larger vessels such as carriers...

Yet it is still a fragile and easily destroyed peice of machinery in the face of cheaper swarms of lesser vessels. Its firepower is awesome but can be difficult to apply to more nimble vessels, its armor is thick but armor technology rarely matches destructive technologies...

So, while you won't have well organized fleets jumping from place to place with the precision of a parade ground battlegroup (mixing land and sea for metaphors... how gauche of me!), they will exist, in force, in defensive fleets (who, presumptively don't have to jump to do their jobs...), and thus, the only way to realistically engage them is to figure out how to bring fleets on the offensive.  In all likelihood, this would involve jumping into a system outside of engagement range and organizing the fleet on the more conventional drive in from there.

Sorry if I'm spoiling your setting for you, but simply putting up an obstacle (jump drive mechanics) will not actually eliminate valid, and useful tactics. Hannibal took elephants across the Alps, after all...

Oh, there are ways to get multiple ships across simultaneously, like Jump tugs, but they are limited. Here are the Jump peculiarities which make fleet movements so difficult:

A: Jump is subjectively instantaneous, but objectively takes a variable amount of time. Skill reduces but does not negate the variation.

B: Each temporal variation is individual to the ship making the jump. If two ships jump from the same place to the same place at the same time, they may arrive months apart.

C: All Jumps enter the system at the same point, and exit the system at the same point. This means the points can be defended to whatever extent the defenders wish.

D: All Jumps must be taken at a velocity of zero relative to the destination system. This means anyone entering the system has no relative speed at all, and must build it from zero.

There are also cultural issues. Since systems have been segregated for centuries prior to Jump travel, and since fleet jumps are incredibly difficult, there is no equivalent to a star empire, politically or culturally. Systems are politically and culturally isolated, with only mutual trade and defense organizations spanning multiple systems. These mutual defense organizations are composed of ships and crews owned and operated by the various member worlds, not by the organization itself. They are not integrated and standardized. If, say, Glorianna pulled out of the SaVaHuTa organization, all the ships of the Gloriannan Royal Navy would leave also. They do not want to establish any interstellar organization which is greater than the constituent navies.

-clash

Aside from the single jump point in a system (which, I assume, potentially agressive nations have scientists feverishly looking for ways around (and nature usually is willing to provide) none of the other obstacles are unsurmountable.  Point C, however, does have the sense of 'because I said so' about it that may prove somewhat unpalatable (remember how the Spartans finally lost Thermapolae, also a checkpoint. The Persians went around on a goat trail.).

Now, even accepting Point C as inviolable, nature making perfect check points (or alternatively, requiring a recieving jump gate... which is surmountable by intelligence operations with difficulty) I could actually see a nation using a fleet of support vessel 'Q-ships' that slowly assembled in a system as they arrived under the guise of more legitimate trade vessels and so forth, waiting for the later arrival of the presumptively massive dreadnaught battle vessel that would surely be developed to overcome the difficulty of building battlegroups for assault...

History has shown that the perfect defense or tactic only lasts until some nutjob on the other side comes up with some radical and unexpected idea that exploits some otherwise unseen flaw in said defense or tactic.

Quote from: Spike;278290Aside from the single jump point in a system (which, I assume, potentially agressive nations have scientists feverishly looking for ways around (and nature usually is willing to provide) none of the other obstacles are unsurmountable.  Point C, however, does have the sense of 'because I said so' about it that may prove somewhat unpalatable (remember how the Spartans finally lost Thermapolae, also a checkpoint. The Persians went around on a goat trail.).

Now, even accepting Point C as inviolable, nature making perfect check points (or alternatively, requiring a recieving jump gate... which is surmountable by intelligence operations with difficulty) I could actually see a nation using a fleet of support vessel 'Q-ships' that slowly assembled in a system as they arrived under the guise of more legitimate trade vessels and so forth, waiting for the later arrival of the presumptively massive dreadnaught battle vessel that would surely be developed to overcome the difficulty of building battlegroups for assault...

History has shown that the perfect defense or tactic only lasts until some nutjob on the other side comes up with some radical and unexpected idea that exploits some otherwise unseen flaw in said defense or tactic.

Ummm - I never said there was a perfect defense. I said it was incredibly difficult, not impossible. The defense has a huge advantage which must be overcome. Your Q-ship idea is one way to mitigate that difficulty. If it was impossible, why would they have mutual defense organizations? Their job is to nip any such aggression in the bud, because these member worlds don't want to become part of some huge stellar empire. They want things to stay diffuse and decentralized, unless maybe they are the ones on top, and everyone else feels the same. Checks and balances.

-clash

I was planning to address your cultural concerns at some point.  I would rather try to avoid coming across as relentlessly hostile to your perspective, I just see flaws in the assumption that appear to be 'no fleets because the plot says so'.. only replace plot with 'Game Designer thinks no-fleets makes the setting cooler' or what have you.

Cultures are not static, they are fluid, they change, and sometimes they change against the expectations of everyone involved.

Obviously, a lot of the top dog nations will have vested interests in the status quo... though that does not preclude one (or more...) deciding that they can be even better off by breaking all those treaties and mutual defense pacts and take the whole enchalada for themselves.

Just as likely, one of the smaller powers that isn't as vested on the status quo, who in all likelihood feels somewhat mistreated by the existing treaties, or perhaps just has a charismatic and agressive leader take charge who has some unanticipated ideas on how to break the current system.  Maybe some scientist on his homeworld discovers that while the primary subspace flaw (tannenhauser gate or whatever) that allows for jump drives, but restricts them to a single point in system also creates mirror flaws, harder to spot but mathematically predictable, at some other point in system (or at various points along the jump path, allowing one to assemble a fleet outside the system far enough away to be undetected, but close enough that they can power into the system via conventional drives), or perhaps they just design an unprecedented type of starship designed to be a fleet of one (taking advantage of the absolute maximum limits of Jump, or what have you...)..

Again, its always some whacko thinking outside the box that changes accepted facts, be it the infamous disintigrating center tactic that allowed the athenians to break a exponentially larger persian force (what do you mean they beat us by running away?! Them running away means we won! It ALWAYS means we won!!!), or some guy saying 'yes, heavier than air powered flight IS possible, look at my new flying machine!'.

Not only that, but such attempts to overturn the status quo, to alter the military landscape is the stuff of major adventure plots!  Stagnant settings (or even just stangant in one area) are boring settings, the more dynamic the better, says I!

Quote from: Spike;278314I was planning to address your cultural concerns at some point.  I would rather try to avoid coming across as relentlessly hostile to your perspective, I just see flaws in the assumption that appear to be 'no fleets because the plot says so'.. only replace plot with 'Game Designer thinks no-fleets makes the setting cooler' or what have you.

Cultures are not static, they are fluid, they change, and sometimes they change against the expectations of everyone involved.

Obviously, a lot of the top dog nations will have vested interests in the status quo... though that does not preclude one (or more...) deciding that they can be even better off by breaking all those treaties and mutual defense pacts and take the whole enchalada for themselves.

Just as likely, one of the smaller powers that isn't as vested on the status quo, who in all likelihood feels somewhat mistreated by the existing treaties, or perhaps just has a charismatic and agressive leader take charge who has some unanticipated ideas on how to break the current system.  Maybe some scientist on his homeworld discovers that while the primary subspace flaw (tannenhauser gate or whatever) that allows for jump drives, but restricts them to a single point in system also creates mirror flaws, harder to spot but mathematically predictable, at some other point in system (or at various points along the jump path, allowing one to assemble a fleet outside the system far enough away to be undetected, but close enough that they can power into the system via conventional drives), or perhaps they just design an unprecedented type of starship designed to be a fleet of one (taking advantage of the absolute maximum limits of Jump, or what have you...)..

Again, its always some whacko thinking outside the box that changes accepted facts, be it the infamous disintigrating center tactic that allowed the athenians to break a exponentially larger persian force (what do you mean they beat us by running away?! Them running away means we won! It ALWAYS means we won!!!), or some guy saying 'yes, heavier than air powered flight IS possible, look at my new flying machine!'.

Not only that, but such attempts to overturn the status quo, to alter the military landscape is the stuff of major adventure plots!  Stagnant settings (or even just stangant in one area) are boring settings, the more dynamic the better, says I!

No problem, Spike! My "no fleets" point was not a designer's decree, it is a generalized statement of the current condition. Obviously there *are* fleets, even if they are defensive. UP TO THIS POINT, there have been no *successful* attempts to create an extra-stellar star Empire. The alliances have been successful in dealing with any such attempt. That does *not* mean that the next one won't be successful! This also does *not* mean that there aren't other aggressions, wars, and troubles. Utopias are boring.

I don't write metaplot. This is a snapshot of the way things are "now" - stardate X.X. If the GM wants to introduce such things, by getting around the difficulties inherent in the situation, that is totally cool. The alliances will have to scramble and deal with that new situation, or fail and be crushed. I just set them up, the GMs and player knock 'em over.

-clash

I created a frigate with two rider ships and a lighter today. The frigate is the size and complement of a modern frigate - about 4000 tons and 250 men. The riderships are fully independant, non-Jump capable vessels with their own crew. They can be dropped off in a system, working independently for months, or work along with the frigate as a mini-squadron. The lighter is a cargo/transport vessel for picking up supplies, transporting marines, or general utility.

This is interesting after working on civilian vessels only since I released the original StarCluster back in 2001. Military vessels are very different!

-clash

Fleet movement would be deeply hindered if randomness of Jumpspace meant that even if all ships coordinated their jumps, their arrival times would vary.   Also, I am wary of applying sea war tactics to space war.  

Much depends on how big an engine you need for Jumping.   In Star Wars, you could outfit a scooter with a hyperdrive and in Dune, only miles long megaships could jump.    If your setting has massive Jump drives, then it makes sense that only the biggest ships can travel and few empires could afford fleets of them.   And thus, those ships would probably be carriers - aka Yamato in Star Blazers and the SDF-1 in Robotech.

Personally, I like bold designer statements that contradict our "reality" IF we learn why such a statement makes complete sense within the setting itself.  It makes settings unique and different and that's what I buy.

Quote from: Spinachcat;278560Fleet movement would be deeply hindered if randomness of Jumpspace meant that even if all ships coordinated their jumps, their arrival times would vary.   Also, I am wary of applying sea war tactics to space war.  

Much depends on how big an engine you need for Jumping.   In Star Wars, you could outfit a scooter with a hyperdrive and in Dune, only miles long megaships could jump.    If your setting has massive Jump drives, then it makes sense that only the biggest ships can travel and few empires could afford fleets of them.   And thus, those ships would probably be carriers - aka Yamato in Star Blazers and the SDF-1 in Robotech.

Personally, I like bold designer statements that contradict our "reality" IF we learn why such a statement makes complete sense within the setting itself.  It makes settings unique and different and that's what I buy.

In the setting, about the smallest practical ship with a Jump drive is about 100 tons - about twice the size of an American PT boat, or the size of the Space Shuttle. You could as an exercise get down to about half that size, but it would be slow, short range, and couldn't carry anything. An F-16 is about 12 tons, for scale. There are no Jump-capablle fighters.

-clash

Depending upon their utility in combat, fighters would still be a viable military tool. The F16 for example, can be used all over the pacific, but isn't based strictly from land based airstrips.

This does depend a bit upon your exact balance between offensive technology and defensive technology. Currently, of course, offense trumps defense in most cases... which I predict will remain more or less true without a major technological jump.  If fighters can carry the equivilent of torpedoes (even ONE torpedo per fighter) they are a vast 'force multiplier', despite their inability to jump and the simple logistical fact that they require a large dedicated support structure within supporting vessels that renders support vessels much less battle efficient in and of themselves.  Certainly, given the difficulty assembling fleets, ambitious and agressive powers would be better served avoiding 'ships of the line'... battleship and dreadnaught scale vessels in favor of swarm-ships...  though if you want a more victorian feel, rather than (possibly drone based!) fighters, you'd have boarding vessels... the goal of an attack vessel would then be to carry the manpower to essentially take control of an enemy defense fleet as the first strike in an invasion... allowing the peicemeal invasion fleet to land unmolested.

This assumes that system drives and distances means that in-system travel is roughly as slow to respond as your Jump drives (with error margins measured in MONTHS that seems a reasonable assumption...)

Quote from: Spike;278679Depending upon their utility in combat, fighters would still be a viable military tool. The F16 for example, can be used all over the pacific, but isn't based strictly from land based airstrips.

This does depend a bit upon your exact balance between offensive technology and defensive technology. Currently, of course, offense trumps defense in most cases... which I predict will remain more or less true without a major technological jump.  If fighters can carry the equivilent of torpedoes (even ONE torpedo per fighter) they are a vast 'force multiplier', despite their inability to jump and the simple logistical fact that they require a large dedicated support structure within supporting vessels that renders support vessels much less battle efficient in and of themselves.  Certainly, given the difficulty assembling fleets, ambitious and agressive powers would be better served avoiding 'ships of the line'... battleship and dreadnaught scale vessels in favor of swarm-ships...  though if you want a more victorian feel, rather than (possibly drone based!) fighters, you'd have boarding vessels... the goal of an attack vessel would then be to carry the manpower to essentially take control of an enemy defense fleet as the first strike in an invasion... allowing the peicemeal invasion fleet to land unmolested.

Agreed - I'd already come to that conclusion. Typical combat vessel configurations are:

Small Jump-capable scouts and couriers - 100-200 tons or so
Medium-sized Jump-capable ships, like cutters, corvettes, and frigates - 500-5000 tons
Above ships plus a few (one to three) non-Jump-capable Ridercraft
Very few moderately large craft, like destroyers and cruisers - 8000-20000 tons - plus several (four to ten) non-Jump-capable Ridercraft
Jump tugs plus a few (two to four) medium-sized non-Jump-capable ships
Small carriers plus a moderate number (20-30) of fighter and attack craft
Large carriers plus a large number (30-80) of fighter and attack craft

Fighter craft are single place small craft of about 10-15 tons
Attack craft are 2-3 place small craft of about 20-30 tons
Neither has living quarters - crew are boarded on the carriers.

There are, of course, many auxiliary and supply craft for these vessels.

Sound like I've covered the bases?

QuoteThis assumes that system drives and distances means that in-system travel is roughly as slow to respond as your Jump drives (with error margins measured in MONTHS that seems a reasonable assumption...)

Actually, military in-system drives are typically fast Matter/Antimatter engines, capable of really high and sustained acceleration. Transit times are typically measured in tens of hours. Some special purpose vessels are fusion based rather than M/AM, for purposes of simple refueling, but these are typically slower.

-clash

When talking stellar distances you will not acheive transit times of 'hours' unless you are exceeding lightspeed.  I don't have the exact numbers, but from memory the time it takes light from our sun to reach the outer planets of our solar system is measured in days, and to reach Earth is hours (possibly up to a day, its been two decades since I read this mind you...)

Powerful drives merely mean that you can accelerate faster (though too, you reach a limit to what the crew/passengers can sustain), and maybe push the maximum velocity a few percent closer to C.

Learning things about real physics almost ruined writing sci-fi for me... so sad...

Quote from: Spike;278706When talking stellar distances you will not acheive transit times of 'hours' unless you are exceeding lightspeed.  I don't have the exact numbers, but from memory the time it takes light from our sun to reach the outer planets of our solar system is measured in days, and to reach Earth is hours (possibly up to a day, its been two decades since I read this mind you...)

Powerful drives merely mean that you can accelerate faster (though too, you reach a limit to what the crew/passengers can sustain), and maybe push the maximum velocity a few percent closer to C.

Learning things about real physics almost ruined writing sci-fi for me... so sad...

My co-author for StarCluster is a physicist - in fact, is he's a literal rocket scientist. All the transit times are verified. When I say hours, though, I mean tens and hundreds of hours. To go from Earth, say, to Jupiter at 1G, accelerating halfway, then braking the rest, would take approximately 110 hours, give or take 15 or so, depending on the relative positions of the planets. Light travels much faster - from the sun all the way to Neptune is just over 4 Light-hours, as this table shows. We used hours as transit units because it's handier than days for smaller transits.

-clash

Here's the deck plan for the rider ship I created yesterday:



-clash