The Lowly Sandcaster- Unleashed!

[wbyrd]

ammo types off the top of my head.
Missile short ranged have limited range out to short range band only.
sand
pebble
chaff/decoy
Pulse: detonates causing EMpulse for knocking out drones, missiles torpedoes at range
Sandcutter:
explosive fragmenting: for small craft/boarding parties, maybe ground support
interceptors missiles: would take down missiles at longer range than point defense.

rocket: multiple unguided rounds for use at adjacent ranges, or ground support fire. close range or shorter only.


more exotic loads...
limpet rounds: fire them at a ship then threaten to detonate them.
Spoiler: fired at adjacent ships. it locks on and it uses a short duration thruster to ruin the ships maneuvers
Web: cancels out, or disrupts gravitics preventing jump drives from functioning.
jam: fires a sticky goop that covers sensor arrays....raspberry flavored.

we also tossed around the idea of a combination Missile/sand-caster hybrid option. an improved caster which could fire conventional missiles as well as sand barrels.

 

[Condottiere]

Smallcraft that acts as a delivery system for sandcasters acting as cluster munitions?

Cherry bomber.

 

[wbyrd]

Hmm I may have to put some work into that idea for a game

It would make small craft much more useful as both an offensive, and defensive, attachment to any formation.


The sandcaster by itself isn't a very effective choice for anything but defense...which means every sandcaster decreases the firepower of the ship.

If it's the only weapon on a fighter the fighter can be safely ignored by larger ships. Even if the fighter mass in formations sand caster armed fighters cant generate enough firepower to do more than remove paint, and annoy gunners trying to get a clear shot at larger targets.

So It would seem logical that someone would figure out how to put an offensive load into a caster even if it was short ranged and not as accurate as proper missiles.

with a mixed load of barrels a fighter can go from protecting itself, and spoiling incoming fire, to launching offensive strikes. It would make a sandcaster fighter useful against exposed screening ships, and for harassing larger warships.

 

[kilemall]

Canisters as mines

The questions would be, mines against what? You have to add in sensors, and propulsion, otherwise they're either drift mines, or more or less anchored, which means you're expecting a ship to drive into it.

Now, if you can set them up to swarm a single target once the sensors are triggered.

Well, given the limitations of a missile/mine firing up and engaging from whatever vector and course it was given when laid, you want ships to not detect them far out. Most of the time it will be a head on engagement as the ship in question is moving into range of the mine, so a short sharp 6-G burn is in the cards, perhaps faster if YTU allows it.

There are also limited ranges the standard Traveller missile has re: fuel, so missiles buzzing around looking for prey is not in the cards. You would have to start building cruise missiles with the size more suited to the missile bays.

Most of the add-on sensors from the missile supplement or a cross reference to LBB8 robot sensors yields sensor ranges in the 5-25,000 km range, I think some are to 50,000 km. So figure our canister would have a 25,000 km range for detection, if you like go with the military x4 factor for 'only navy use' ones.

Missiles of course have all those sensors so why not lay the missile as is and avoid the canister/small missile limitations?

Well, missiles for one do not have sensor power, their operating lifespan is measured in a few hours at most.

For another most are not stealthed. Being detected at laser range is not conducive to successful mine operations.

Finally, missiles are designed to be fed targeting data from the turret/ship, not autonomously detect and engage.

So my take is to design the canister as a cylindrical robot, stealthed coating to avoid at least passive detection and active to a degree, fueled to operate for several days, use sensors on the canister and on the missile to detect/target, given gunnery skill, and given coded instructions for what to engage when.

Makes them more expensive, but with payment for existing internally logical game rule capabilities.

The small 30kg missile would largely be the same as normal, just a lot less fuel, which is fine given the mine's sensor limitations.

Mines don't have to destroy their target ships to be effective so density for guaranteed kill is not necessarily required. Stopping shipments or attacks, buying time, tying up ship towing/repair/escort assets, delaying the enemy while they engage in minesweeping, forcing them to use active sensors to avoid mines, may be more valuable then ship destruction per se.

Best place to lay mines? Planetary orbit- planet masks the mines from long range detection, enemy has to go there at some point anyway, more readily maintained if the planetary forces laid the minefield, doesn't require covering millions of kms every 25,000 km to have a barrier.

 

[kilemall]

Thanks for the extra round ideas, I particularly like pulse, HE, gravel, and limpet (particularly the nuclear variety).

Don't know about jam though.............. o:

 

[Patron Zero]

IMTU, sandcasters are not turret-based devices, more-so such are a defensive system that's dispersed about a ship's hull in varying locations.

Sandcasters are grouped in multiple static VLS (vertical launch silo) 'clusters' to be able to provide 'cover' or distraction from different sorts of inbound threats.

I do agree with the idea of different threats needing different counter-measures, simple diffusive silica while reasonably effect to lasers, won't deter a more aggressive hunter like a missile or remote guided assault drone.

I tend to believe a point defense-CIWS makes more sense for active counter-measures, something half the size of a standard turret and would require only half the space of a hardpoint. If a such were a housed like a VLS but only deployed when activated, said 'concealment' might make offer a surprise for an attacker thinking they have found an easy prize.

For the record, I like the idea of a starship being able to launch torpedoes but such dependent on a dedicated torp-launcher, something akin to a rail-gun or linear accelerator capable of other tasks.

Definitely would consider such a small-scale spinal weapon in construction but having applications for launching probes, navigational buoys, drones or other non-aggressive devices. Of course things such as solid-shot or hyper-kinetic penetrators would also be an option for offensive actions but could be used in prospecting-surveying tasks also.

 

[kilemall]

I could see a mass driver used for launches, but not bother putting them on anything but a scout or specialized recon cruiser doing system survey or placing sensor grids.

Or searching for errant rebel bases on hostile ice planets.

Instead, usually placed on a base or station out of a gravity well as part of the infrastructure, to keep up sensor nets or comms relays especially for an A or B starport.

Saves expensive ship and crew time better oriented towards more productive tasking.

Could also be based on an asteroid mining station that probably already has a need for mass driving high value ore to a solar smelter, just double duty.


Reasons would still exist to use satcasters, small scale scout work, small military force support, mercs on a budget, belters looking for sensor coverage to camo/protect their claim or at least get back to the ship, private asteroid/Oort cloud prospecting, etc.

 

[wbyrd]

a Point defense turret might be a good option. Similar to the turret of a Russian 2K22 Tunguska
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K22_Tunguska

it would have short range hypervelocity missiles, short range laser, or Very high velocity rail guns, and multiple ejectors for sand, chaff, buckshot rounds.

With it's own automated fire control, and sensors the operator could set inside the ship controlling the system in semi-autonomous mode, or directly overriding it's decision making process to take more direct action.

since this would be multiple mounting system, scattered around the ship to provide 360x360 coverage. larger ships would require more units to be effective. Meaning the cost would be based on Ships size.

A small craft could mount the system using a single unit to provide full coverage.

My idea would be

External System: Does not take up a weapons hardpoint.
Tonnage: 1.5 tons
cost: .25 Mcr per 100 tons of vessel
reload for system
.25dton per 100 tons 20,000cr/per 100 tons of vessel.

Effect: automatic attack vs missile, or small craft entering close or adjacent range bands. Uses the ships fire control program bonus as it's base Gunnery check

Any boarding party attempting to board ship in Vacc Suits, or Battledress. are engaged automatically. Each member of the boarding party takes damage from "buckshot" rounds,guass gun, and fragmentation rounds.

Each round the Point defense turrets eject sand adding 1d6 to any other sand protection fired from sand casters.

Any missile/torpedo hit destroyed.
Any Small craft Hit: 1d6 damage
Any boarding party Hit: 8d6 Personal scale damage.

To balance the fact the system doesn't use weapons slots, or burn up reactions to be employed...

since it is a self contained system it only has a limited supply of rounds, sand charges... 5 rounds Plus 1 per Ships fire control program bonus...basically to simulate the system being more effective and expending it's stores more judiciously with a better fire control system.

reloading the system takes time, preloaded cannisters with replacemnt missiles, sand etc are stored in ships cargo area and loaded as needed taking 1d6+3 rounds per 100 tons to reload.

The process takes so long due the fact as an externl system it has no direct loading chute to the interior of the ship. Someone has to suit up, wrestle a . 0.25 Dton canister into position and get rid of the empty.

if the ships gunner takes over controls he uses his own gunnery skill to target incoming attacks, or he can use it to directly engage boarders small craft, ground targets as a gunnery action for the ship...although it'd be less optimal for offense than his ship board weapons.

however to use it directly instead of in automatic mode the shi would need an extra fire control unit ( 1dton) to give the gunners direct access to the point defense turrets.

 

[kilemall]

Bit more detail then I guess I would put into it, I would just slap a VRF Gauss Gun or one of the Merc/Striker plasma/fusion arty on and call it a day.

 

[Condottiere]

In a warship or task group, you have to layer it.

For the Millenium Falcon, there's a nifty little remote controlled autoblaster that will work on physical missiles, though not necessarily torpedoes, at very close in range.

 

[wbyrd]

Bit more detail then I guess I would put into it, I would just slap a VRF Gauss Gun or one of the Merc/Striker plasma/fusion arty on and call it a day.

I wanted to work it out for later use. Just slapping a gun on the hull works for man sized targets, and basic roleplaying but sooner or later someone would want to use it, for more than keeping a squad of troopers from boarding the ship....and making it up on the fly leads to headaches.

 

[Patron Zero]

No intentional hijack intended but seems that missiles keep coming into the discussion.

In other threads it's been debated about the effectiveness, of missiles launched from a turret versus those fired from a VLS-fixed location. Let's not go there but simply say turrets (in my opinion) are better served operating as platforms for other weapons.

The hardpoint rule, one per 100Tons should be amended to 'downsize' such to allow for smaller point-defense weapons, say two per 100Tons as a CIWS should be more compact than a traditional turret. Ideally, a point-defense equipped 'mini-turret' should deploy from within a ship's hull, speaking of a merchant or other non-naval vessel, lessening the appearance of a trader or transport looking like a gunboat.

Static defenses, like sandcasters make better effective weapons if 'strategically' disbursed about a ship's hull than bound to a turret, several small VLS-type placements much like modern chaff-flare ejectors offer more coverage in larger quantities.

Sandcasters-good idea, sandcasters occupying a turret-maybe time for a rethink.

 

[Condottiere]

I propose exchanging one hardpoint for four weapon slots, that in the case of sandcasters are small enough to be distributed over the hull.

 

[kilemall]

Well, obviously the turret limits and hardpoints were game limit devices so you would have a back and forth shooting match, without one side loading up on equipment and utterly destroying the opposition first shot (as 'realistic' as that might be).

The Hard Space Damage thread and concept I am working illustrates how the original LBB2 damage table was designed for 'dramatic license' and not any kind of reality.

For instance, the Type S I am going to 'part out' into subtables to illustrate the 10% section rule will yield two sections made up of nothing but bridge (or 1 10 ton bow section and 5 tons on the port bow and starboard bow each), but on the LBB2 table or HG for that matter it would only be hit by critical hits.

You have a logical viewpoint, although not necessarily a slamdunk.

Sandcasting puts me in mind of the P-3 Orion crewman shoving sensors and antisub torps out his drop hole in the back, for a non-warship it would also make sense to have a minimal impact design and have flexibility of rounds, which a VLS system would not having to preload everything or have a lot of space devoted to reloading the tubes after launch.

The form factor I have in mind for the turrets isn't necessarily all rails/lasers pointing like a battleship turret, but rather the vertical turret (part of a wall, gunnery workstation on the 'wall' and missile racks and casters and lasers, turret stays in place except for VLS tube exits for ammo and rotating laser lens), or the box turret (gunnery workstation on the wall, access to rack loading in the floor or ceiling, box pops up for missile launch and laser firing).

Between sand and missiles, the sand definitely needs to be launched 'pointed' in the direction you want the sand to protect, the missile has enough burn to orient and head towards it's target.

You can do that rolling and yawing the ship into the right launch vector, but that could be counterproductive in some situations. Probably a stronger case for the VLS missile rather then canister.

 

[mike wightman]

One of the things that has to go away in Traveller - and I don't know how this retcon will be managed - is the concept of the 'turret'

Hardpoints make sense (sort of), as does fire control, but to then say you can have a 1 2 or 3 slot turret bolted on that doesn't affect the displacement of the hull is just stupid.

Light, medium , heavy laser array; sandcaster screen; missile launch racks are the terms I would recommend.

 

[Enoki]

One of the things that has to go away in Traveller - and I don't know how this retcon will be managed - is the concept of the 'turret'

Hardpoints make sense (sort of), as does fire control, but to then say you can have a 1 2 or 3 slot turret bolted on that doesn't affect the displacement of the hull is just stupid.

Light, medium , heavy laser array; sandcaster screen; missile launch racks are the terms I would recommend.

I've moved to where a group of "turrets" are controlled by a single fire control station with one or more crew manning it. That parallels how naval ships work or how 1950's bombers had their gun systems designed.
While there is nothing in Traveller about this particularly, I'd think the number of people required is inversely proportional to the tech level. That is, as tech level goes up the number of crew required goes down.

 

[kilemall]

I've moved to where a group of "turrets" are controlled by a single fire control station with one or more crew manning it. That parallels how naval ships work or how 1950's bombers had their gun systems designed.
While there is nothing in Traveller about this particularly, I'd think the number of people required is inversely proportional to the tech level. That is, as tech level goes up the number of crew required goes down.

Well, in a sense that's subsumed in High Guard batteries, where you tie in 10 turrets into one attack or defense.

I've been working up a BATTERY program for the CT computers, wherein one gunner controls a battery with it and can fire coordinated shots.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Ah, the T5 Firmpoint.

I propose exchanging one hardpoint for four weapon slots, that in the case of sandcasters are small enough to be distributed over the hull.

Well, as this isn't edition specific, you might like to know that T5 has Firmpoints. A vessel can have 3 Firmpoints per 100 tons in place of a Hardpoint. The Firmpoint reduces the range and are perfect for point defense systems.

Just thought I drop that here and see what folks thought.

Oh, and VLS come pre-packaged, you just replace the whole box when it runs dry. It is not some hole that you stuff things in like a P-3, more like a destroyer's missile launcher. Or that is how I run them, but I mostly stick to turrets, barbettes and bays.

 

[Patron Zero]

I would tend to believe that fire control is a mater of software rather than a dedicated piece of hardware, speaking in the sense of command input-monitoring tasks not physical connections.

If the above is correct, then any terminal-device with the proper authorization codes should be able to act as fire control to the ship's computer network.

Mind there would likely be a hard-wired terminal-input device for use with fire control in the event of damage preventing normal-standard protocols.

 

[kilemall]

Well, as this isn't edition specific, you might like to know that T5 has Firmpoints. A vessel can have 3 Firmpoints per 100 tons in place of a Hardpoint. The Firmpoint reduces the range and are perfect for point defense systems.

Just thought I drop that here and see what folks thought.

Oh, and VLS come pre-packaged, you just replace the whole box when it runs dry. It is not some hole that you stuff things in like a P-3, more like a destroyer's missile launcher. Or that is how I run them, but I mostly stick to turrets, barbettes and bays.

I understand what a VLS cell is, long time naval wargamer, and I'm saying that's a commitment to ammo and space that works for warships but maybe not for adventure ships.

I'm assuming a missile bay is largely a big VLS with 500kg missile (10x the size of LBB2 missiles, with 10x the warhead and plenty of room for top flight fusing, evasion and sensors).