MGT Only: 2000-ton destroyer

[Brandon C]

You could arm some of them (let's say one wiould be the model A and the other the model B) with meson bays instead. The PA is more useful against unarmored ships (more damage dice, not affected by config nor meson screens, though those latter are unlike to be found in small ships), aside from cheaper, but the mesons are deadly against armored ships.

Somehat ironically, the ships larger than the destroyer all have meson screens, so a PB bay might be more effective against them

Nontheless, even a few of them can give a nice defense DM against both missiles and lasers if you use HG combat (barrage) rules. Not so sure if you're using CB combat rules...

The biggest ship I have planned is 6,000 tons, which makes the barrage rules marginal for use.

Something I noticed in the anit-missile rules in CB though. The only modifier listed is for firing at successive missiles the same round. It appears that the range and accuracy of the laser don't come into play. If this is the case, a mix of pulse lasers and particle beams on a warship seems somewhat more optimal (since a pulse laser can probably hurt a fighter, while a beam laser probably can't).

EDIT. Ack! Missed all of the errata on p.HG 47. Pulse lasers get a flat -2 tto-hit.

There are rail guns in MgT:HG (and I've read here there are rail spinals in TCS, though I have no access to it)...

Sorry, very poor wording on my part. I know HG has railguns, but their short range makes them speciality weapons, no standard weapons.

 

[boomslang]

I'm considering particle beams only for military and paramilitary (privateer) ships. Normal civilian ships are generally limited to lasers, (non nuclear) missiles and sandcasters.

Indeed, I have always thought that the Imperial Rules of War should be applied to PAWs as well as regular nuclear/thermonuclear explosives, given that PAWs, like nuclear explosives, cause casualties due to radiological effects, combined with the fact that in addition to being an excellent corsair tool for de-crewing a target vessel while leaving it otherwise largely intact, a PAW is a superb weapon of mass destruction to employ in committing genocide against a planet with little or no atmosphere surrounding it.

It is interesting to me to note that in the OTU Marches, worker-owned Al Morai lines is allowed to use military-spec Gazelles -- with their PAW barbettes intact -- as "route protectors" while -- possibly as a putative punishment for his cleverness in defying his betters -- Marc hault-Oberlindes can only operate the spinal-mounted-PAW Emissary outside of Imperial space.

In the 3I at least, the definition of "paramilitary" depends on Who You Know, I guess.

 

[McPerth]

Indeed, I have always thought that the Imperial Rules of War should be applied to PAWs as well as regular nuclear/thermonuclear explosives, given that PAWs, like nuclear explosives, cause casualties due to radiological effects, combined with the fact that in addition to being an excellent corsair tool for de-crewing a target vessel while leaving it otherwise largely intact, a PAW is a superb weapon of mass destruction to employ in committing genocide against a planet with little or no atmosphere surrounding it.

It is interesting to me to note that in the OTU Marches, worker-owned Al Morai lines is allowed to use military-spec Gazelles -- with their PAW barbettes intact -- as "route protectors" while -- possibly as a putative punishment for his cleverness in defying his betters -- Marc hault-Oberlindes can only operate the spinal-mounted-PAW Emissary outside of Imperial space.

In the 3I at least, the definition of "paramilitary" depends on Who You Know, I guess.

IITR that an article about starmercs appeared in JTAS limited their PAWs to factor 7 or less (In HG terms). That would allow them to use turrets and small bays, but not large bays nor (off course) spinals. Off course, those are para-military forces, in any case.

Another thing about PAWs/fusion guns vs nukes is the abscence of fallout in the fromer case. If you asume the Impreial Rules of war are thought to avoid large-scale and long-term effects, if would only apply to the nukes, not to PAWs/Fusion guns. If you think any nuclear weapon weapon is forbidden, then we come to what was discussed in this thread...

As you see, consequences are farther ranging than can be expected. As someone said, the law on unintended (or not so unintended) consequences applies.

 

[boomslang]

As you see, consequences are farther ranging than can be expected. As someone said, the law on unintended (or not so unintended) consequences applies.

Indeed, so-called "unintended consequences" inevitably reflect either deceitful or incompetent decision-making.

For all sorts of WMD, radiological or otherwise, the IRW issue seems to come down to which is ultimately more valuable to the 3I: taxpayers or real estate?

"No nukes" implies real estate takes precedence, and the tolerance of tradewar practices would seem to further underscore the relative unimportance of the populace in anything other than their market role, but PAWs (and probably also non-laser energy weapons) are still pretty clearly not, shall we say, "appropriate" for civilian use, either way.

 

[mike wightman]

Putting living pilots in fighters rather than robot brains (or living beings in powered armour which could likewise be machine) which cost more shows exactly where the 3I is on the moral scale...

It comes down to economics - if you have billions of people on worlds, reproducing at a normal rate it is a lot cheaper to just train the constant stream of new recruits than to waste valuable credits and raw materials manufacturing machines that can do the same job.

 

[Condottiere]

Not really, since software replicates itself almost instantly and consistently, whereas after nursery and kindergarten, you have primary, secondary and possibly university to train up a human.

One reason the Germans machinegunned tank crews, it took around a month to build a tank, and at least eighteen years to get the crew.

 

[Brandon C]

Going back to the ineffectiveness of missiles (and torpedoes), a thought occurred to me ... allow missiles to use the stealth option available for starship hulls. This would cost MC 0.1 per 12 missiles and MCr 0.5 per 2 torpedoes. A gunner providing anti-missile fire must detect the incoming missiles (at -4 if they have stealth) before he can fire a laser or sand at them.

Comments?

 

[McPerth]

Comments?

Worth a thread on its own...

 

[mike wightman]

Comments?

Well two things spring to mind.

There is no such thing as stealth in space.

The capability of 50kg missiles in Traveller is already magical rather than technologically explainable, adding stealth to them as well just snaps the old belief suspenders.

 

[Brandon C]

Worth a thread on its own...

Done

 

[Brandon C]

There is no such thing as stealth in space.

The stealth option specifically makes the surface absorb radar and lidar, as well as suppressing heat emissions. GT had similar options.

The capability of 50kg missiles in Traveller is already magical rather than technologically explainable, adding stealth to them as well just snaps the old belief suspenders.

I think MgT missiles are bigger than that and torpedoes are definitely larger.

 

[CliffBates]

If your using optic scanning yes, but radar, microwave and laser based radars/sensor systems bounce back.. now what happens if your ships or missiles have on them absorbent or refracting but in alternative coating. What happens is radar would not get the single back.

Now energy sensors would can detect energy but since there is all this energy in the background, such sensors would be like sonar sound sensors trying to find what is a ships motion version organics. Thus the star's light waves and things that interfere with them will be a means to detect a ship.. and the like.

But this a two way street... hence again, optics are the best.. and with lenses crafting the merge of digital and optic that the higher tech levels.. then the only issue is the question of how fast light travels from the source and the receiver.

 

[McPerth]

[m;] Posts relating to stelathy missiles being copied to its own thread http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?p=523991&posted=1#post523991[/m;]

 

[aramis]

The stealth option specifically makes the surface absorb radar and lidar, as well as suppressing heat emissions. GT had similar options.



I think MgT missiles are bigger than that and torpedoes are definitely larger.

Options which don't negate blackbody radiation. Blackbody radiation is why, while you can mask details (with chaff), you're not likely to actually be stealthy except by very careful approach out of the glare of something else about the same temp.

 

[Brandon C]

Options which don't negate blackbody radiation. Blackbody radiation is why, while you can mask details (with chaff), you're not likely to actually be stealthy except by very careful approach out of the glare of something else about the same temp.

So, your position is that while stealth in MgT helps starships, it would not help missiles?

 

[aramis]

So, your position is that while stealth in MgT helps starships, it would not help missiles?

No, it's that Matt knows little about realism and cares nothing about realism, and that they wouldn't help prevent detection no matter what Matt's rulebooks claim.

 

[Brandon C]

Following the very first line of this thread, I am redesignating the ship as a light cruiser. The light cruiser becomes a heavy cruiser and the heavy cruiser a battle cruiser. The destroyer escort becomes a regular destroyer.