RE: Chadwick and stutterwarp.

Please send this along to GDW:

Frank Chadwick:
> Now, on to something more important: STUTTERWARP.

> Now, issue number 1. Why introduce stutterwarp at all?

> It seems to me that stutterwarp does a better job than does a simple
> delta-vee model of replicating squadron and fleet battles as they have
> always been described in Traveller literature. Even High Guard and
> Trillion Credit Squadron's abstract maneuver systems produced combat
> exchanges which never struck me as the sort of things which would
> result from a delta-vee system. This is because Traveller's
> inspiration for ship-to-ship combat has always been a surface naval
> model, with lines of battle trading broadsides and so forth. This is,
> not coincidentally, the classic science fiction model as well. A
> delta-vee maneuver system, however, produces combat situations which
> bear no resemblance to that surface naval analogy at all, and which
> are much closer to those found in aerial dogfights.

You are confused as to the causes of the feel of a "classic Naval
battle".  It has very little to do with the drive type, and a lot more
to do with relative speed and range.  In Traveller as it stands, weapons
ranges are long enough that it takes several hours to travel to the
limit of weapon ranges.  With stutterwarp ships and the same weapons, it
takes about 5 seconds to travel to the limit of weapon range.
In a WW2 Naval battle (there were only a handful that match the
model you are looking for, BTW), weapon range is 20-odd nautical miles,
about an hour's travel.  In an aerial dogfight, weapon ranges were less
than a thousand yards unless you were extremely lucky, less than three
seconds travel.
Actually, having played Starcruiser, Mayday, and TCS games (the last
both with standard "line of battle" and with a more detailed Mayday
style movement (this is how I am doing my TCS game now, BTW)), I find
that only the classic TCS has anything like the feel of a Naval battle.
Starcruiser and Mayday have none of that "line of battle" feel to them,
and the battles in my TCS game stopped looking like classic TCS as soon
as one of the players decided to develop a Doctrine that ignored the
"line of battle" as meaningless in space.
Then, of course, there is that pesky third dimension.  Unless you
decide that space is flat, it'll always be there to mess up your
picture.
I also question that the "naval battle" is the classic Science
Fiction model.  In almost all of the science fiction I have read with
large fleet actions, from Lensmen series (by E.E. Smith) to Saberhagen's
Berserkers, the feel has been more toward an aerial action than a
surface navy action.  Indeed, in First Lensman the battles were fought
like naval engagements, but by Galactic Patrol (the next book) that
Doctrine had been dropped as unworkable unless the enemy cooperated,
which he seldom did.


> If I were doing this from scratch, I would have commercial ships
> rely on delta-vee for maneuver, thus leaving you with a fun
> ship-to-ship delta-vee combat system for the small stuff.
> Stutterwarp (probably because of expense, and the fact that it's not
> as efficient a way to get from star to star) would be used almost
> exclusively by purpose-built warships. From a game point of view,
> this makes larger actions (say half a dozen to a dozen ships per
> side) very playable, while that is much less true with a
> delta-vee system. From a game world point of view, it means that
> REAL warships run rings around civilian ships when it comes to
> in-system combat, a very nice distinction I think, and fleet actions
> play out the way we have always described them in the Traveller
> literature.

If you did that, pirates would have to be purpose built warships.
Remember that the 100-diameter limit is only two minutes travel away
from low orbit for a stutterwarp ship, so the Navy will ALWAYS be able
to come to the rescue of someone in need of it.
As to the stutterwarp being less efficient than Jump, I cannot
understand why ANYONE thinks that.  Dragging out my old Starcruiser
game, I see that a 75MW "New Commercial" stutterwarp fits neatly into
the slot left by a Free Trader's Maneuver Drive.  It requires 27% of the
power of the old maneuver drive (which means you can scrap the power
plant and put a cheaper one in, thus saving on fuel, and increasing
cargo space).  According to the Imperial Encyclopedia, a Free Trader
masses 2280 Tons loaded.  Dcrease that by 140T for the M-drive removed,
add in 62T for the stutterwarp, and get a final mass of 2202T.  Going
back to Starcruiser, I find that 75MW - 2202T gives a pseudo-speed of
5.2 light years per day (faster than a KENNEDY!!!), which translates to
a sustained travel speed (assuming good geometry on a long trip) of
jump-5+.  Even ignorng that a free trader can only go a parsec in one
week, and the stutterwarp version can cover that same parsec (which is
well within 7.7 lightyears) in 15 hours.
Admittedly, the stutterwarp cost more than the M-drive that fits
into the same space.  But coming at the problem the other way, let's see
how expensive a stutterwarp you need to install to get the same 1 parsec
per week performance out of a stutterwarp ship.  Again we assume a 2200T
Free Trader.  Using "OLD Commercial", we find that we need a 0.055MW
stutterwarp to get that performance.  0.06MW costs 1.2MLv, compared to
2.8MCr for the maneuver drive, plus 12MCr for the jump-drive it also
replaces, plus 3.1MCr for the power plant you no longer need.  And don't
forget that you get more cargo in this version, so you make more money
per trip.  And that you have lowered the mass somewhat, so this version
would also be somewhat faster....

> So what do you think? Nothing has been finalized yet about
> stutterwarp in the final version.

DON'T do this!  It is unnecessary for the effect you want to produce.
It will kill piracy AGAIN!  It will change the whole picture of
Traveller (which does not, in and of itself, bother me).  And, perhaps
most important, the first world to develop this will conquer EVERYONE
ELSE VERY QUICKLY!  So your New Era will be a New Empire about five
years after stutterwarp is discovered.  Unless you stretch plausibility
well past the breaking point by specifying that every spacefaring world
discovers it independently within the period of a few weeks.

---Steve Higginbotham

PS.  It would, however, be really nice if you did a 2300AD Sourcebook
for TNE.  I've missed 2300AD since you guys decided to drop it.  ---JSH
^Z