An alternate thought on Sandcasters.

[BetterThanLife]

Traveller Sandcasters have always bothered me. The concept of using a Point Defense weapon vs. a lightspeed weapon when your sensors are limited to light speed. (If they weren't then FTL comms would be possible.)

The alternative explanation of some kind of Tractor device and holding the sandcaster particles as a shield has additional issues. For example if a Tractor that fits as part of the turret can contain and move thousands of pieces of sand around, then how come Tractors or Repulsors are not turret point defense weapons at the same TL, in fact they are never turret weapons and Tractors are not part of the weapon mix at normal tech levels. After all even a Factor 9 Missile barrage has no more than 100 missiles, that don't have to be deflected by much to generate a miss. Repulsors are TL10 and at that TL only available as a low factor 100 ton bay. Tractors are generally listed in the >TL16 range. Sandcasters are a TL7 weapon. For that little bit of sand it has to expand at a very rapid rate and will disperse rapidly without a Tractor system.

Since neither of the normal explanations really work for me, I propose the following. And was interested in opinions, or to find out if anyone has tried this.

Sandcasters are related to Chaff. They block sensors, specifically targeting sensors. They are treated as additional ECM.

A Sandcaster must be targeted against a specific ship because space is a big place and sand canisters are small. (Using normal targeting, but excluding the targets armor where applicable.)

A Sandcaster can only be used to shield the ship firing the sand.

The additional ECM is effective from the time the sand is fired until the next combat round when it is that gunners turn to take their next action, by which time it is sufficiently dispersed to be ineffective.

The additional ECM is effective against all types of incoming fire however can not be fired as point defense (and can't be fired on an interrupt where applicable).

In T20 this ECM works by adding its USP to the AC of the ship firing it. Obviously only for fire received from the Sand targeted ship but it has no effect on the AR of the ship.

The reason for the targeting requirement is because you are using a little sand to cover all sorts of possibilities in terms of your ship maneuvering and the ship firing against you is also maneuvering. It will effect all incoming fire from that ship because you are dealing with messing up targeting systems.

I realize this isn't canon and can't be canon, but it seems to make more sense to me than either of the standard interpretations.

Opinions? Recommendations? Anyone else try this or something like it?

 

[Anthony]

I've generally assumed that sandcasters can cover an entire facing, not a single ship; nothing forces you to have the cloud particularly far away from the ship. In any case, yes, this is a rational assumption, but it means sand works vs PA and Meson weapons, and opens up the possibility of using a forward observer to see around sand.

 

[BetterThanLife]

I've generally assumed that sandcasters can cover an entire facing, not a single ship; nothing forces you to have the cloud particularly far away from the ship. In any case, yes, this is a rational assumption, but it means sand works vs PA and Meson weapons, and opens up the possibility of using a forward observer to see around sand.

True a cloud will never have to be particularly far from the ship. The issue is that the sandcasting ship is maneuvering. The ship firing on the sandcasting ship is also maneuvering. To get any coverage at all from a depending on the rule system, 50KG, 1/20th of a DTon or 1/100th of a Dton sand canister, it will have to expand rapidly. It would have to work more like a shotgun shell than a smoke bomb. To cover an entire facing of a ship in 3D space would require quite a bit more sand than a single canister. Newton's Law "Objects in motion tend to stay in motion," means it will keep expanding and disperse rapidly, the wider the spread the less effective it is and the less time it would actually be effective.

Yes I realize that it will effect PA and Meson weapons as well as Lasers and other weapons that it never had any effect on in the normal rules. But at the same time I am removing its ability to stop penetration by a laser, energy weapon or missile on its own.

As for using a forward Observer. Most of the weapons involved are lightspeed direct fire weapons. Communication is also lightspeed. More than one person has to react to generate a hit. In that case using a forward observer should actually lower the effectiveness of the fire more than the sand would. Under the normal turn rules, you call your fire and the indirect fire occurs on the following turn. These weapons are not area effect weapons. (And you don't need to generate much of a vector change at these ranges to generate a miss.)

 

[BetterThanLife]

One other point. A single sandcaster turret is equally effective for a 15 ton Rampart Fighter as it is for a 500,000 ton Tigress. So the sand definitely can't be all that close to the hull. Especially if it is going to last an entire turn. It has to stay fairly concentrated. Which is why I suggest targeting ships.

Further if all you have to do is let loose a cloud of sand and it covers an entire facing of the ship, why do you even need a gunner for it, much less a skilled gunner? And why doesn't it have any effect on your outbound fire?

 

[flykiller]

some discussion on sandcasters and space combat here.

 

[BetterThanLife]

some discussion on sandcasters and space combat here.

I was part of that discussion. In fact there have been several discussions on Sandcasters. (I believe I have started the conversation on sand at least once. ) It almost always comes down to either Impossible clouds dragged along by some kind of tractor device (which doesn't agree with the TL tables or really require a gunner), or an STL pointdefense, guided by a speed of light sensor vs. an FTL weapon. Neither of which is satisfactory.

Based on those discussions, these are ATU rules that I am proposing to make Sandcasters actually make more sense in keeping with their TL, the rest of the OTU physics, actual physics, and still require a skilled gunner to be effective. Someone once suggested that it is an ECM canister instead of sand as well.

But I am more interested in opinions of this rule change than rehashing all the old sandcaster discussions.

 

[selunatic2397]

I have seriously tried getting my group to use a balanced turret mix including sandcasters...

But they always load up on energy weapons, with a token missile turret or two.

I think they have discovered this board...as a recent mention of using a battlefield meson sleds weapon in a starship has begun to be mentioned by them as a "really cool idea for a close in weapon!!!"

Oh well...players always keep it interesting...

I will just have to try using a sandcaster as a pointblank antipersonnel weapon against ground troops...any ideas about a CT damage code??

 

[BetterThanLife]

I have seriously tried getting my group to use a balanced turret mix including sandcasters...

But they always load up on energy weapons, with a token missile turret or two.

I think they have discovered this board...as a recent mention of using a battlefield meson sleds weapon in a starship has begun to be mentioned by them as a "really cool idea for a close in weapon!!!"

Oh well...players always keep it interesting...

I will just have to try using a sandcaster as a pointblank antipersonnel weapon against ground troops...any ideas about a CT damage code??

Sandcaster use as a shotgun is covered in Striker. (But I don't know how to translate it.) One of the nice thing about these rules is they retain that ability.

The issue with energy weapons, on starships is available power. Of the standard designs only the Scout, Far Trader, and Sub-Liner of the unarmed ships, have sufficient additional power to mount Lasers and then only in limited numbers. (Of course if you are just using LBB2 then that is another matter.)

 

[flykiller]

It almost always comes down to either Impossible clouds dragged along by some kind of tractor device (which doesn't agree with the TL tables or really require a gunner), or an STL pointdefense, guided by a speed of light sensor vs. an FTL weapon. Neither of which is satisfactory.

I thought the previous discussion elaborated on something different from that.

Sandcasters are related to Chaff. They block sensors, specifically targeting sensors. They are treated as additional ECM.

this would have "sand" being equally effective against all weapons - in which case it's no longer sand as understood from the original rules.

can do whatever you want, but if you're using hg2 as a base and you start tossing in more general minuses-to-hit then hg2 starts breaking down, especially with regards to the spinal mount weapons. if sand is ecm then you'll need a whole new space combat system.

 

[BetterThanLife]

I thought the previous discussion elaborated on something different from that.

Not that I saw.

this would have "sand" being equally effective against all weapons - in which case it's no longer sand as understood from the original rules.

Yes it does make sand equally effective against all weapons. On the other hand, because of the modifiers it is still unlikely to seriously degrade Spinals. And it is a trade off against what sand is giving up, the ability to stop a laser, missile or energy weapon that has scored a hit.

can do whatever you want, but if you're using hg2 as a base and you start tossing in more general minuses-to-hit then hg2 starts breaking down, especially with regards to the spinal mount weapons. if sand is ecm then you'll need a whole new space combat system.

Not so sure about that. Which is why I am asking. It appears to me to be a reasonable trade off.

Consider the following though, given the combat tables in HG and MT, why would you even have sandcasters on a Tigress? A factor 9 Laser, Non-Nuclear Missile or Fusion weapon can not damage a Tigress. A Factor 9 Nuke battery is unlikely to get through the Nuclear Dampers and is not going to penetrate the Repulsors and Lasers are equally effective against missiles as Sand is. Yet a Tigress has 100 triple Sand turrets, why not carry something that is actually going to be effective?

A Kokkirak's 200 sand casters is virtually ineffective against Factor 9 Lasers and energy weapons, but if a Laser or energy weapon does actually score a hit it has only one chance in 12 of doing very minor damage. The Kokirrak's Lasers are more effective against Missiles than the Sand batteries. Again, chose something that is actually going to be effective. Sandcasters in this case have a purpose, they can soak up the minor number of hits that actually do damage.

If capital ships are going to carry Sandcasters, let them actually do something. Though your point is well taken in one respect. Don't allow multiple sandcasters effects to be cumulative against a target in this role.

 

[aramis]

Perhaps the sand cluster is launched against a specific target upon detection of the beam pointer used for fire control solutions.

(See TNE FF&S)

 

[Icosahedron]

How about if sandcasters actually fire a small guided missile that moves to an 'effective range' depending on the size of the launching ship, matches the ship's vector, then releases a 'cloud' of granules that are connected together with monowire filaments (much like a net gun) and towed by the guided canister.

The effect will be much like dew on a spider's web. The particles will spread so far and no further, they will match the angular diameter of the ship, they will match the vector of the ship, they will require a guiding gunner, they will reflect lasers, they will snare missiles, and they will be unaffected by PAs and Meson Guns. It will even still work as a shotgun for ground attack.
The device can even be made at TL7 - not that any of your ships will be less than TL9.

 

[flykiller]

Yes it does make sand equally effective against all weapons. On the other hand, because of the modifiers it is still unlikely to seriously degrade Spinals.

well, if sand is to be considered ecm rather than a physical substance that must be penetrated, then it will affect to-hit. factor 1 sand then logically provides -1 to-hit, and therefore factor 9 logically provides -9 to-hit - and this would seriously degrade the utility of all weapons, not just spinals.

if you have something else in mind, please give an example.

Don't allow multiple sandcasters effects to be cumulative against a target in this role.

if bigger batteries are more effective, then more batteries are more effective too - unless one simply decrees "no".

... why would you even have sandcasters on a Tigress?

well, a non-energy-consuming small-volume defense system that under your rules is effective against all weapons seems like a must-have item.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Perhaps the sand cluster is launched against a specific target upon detection of the beam pointer used for fire control solutions.

(See TNE FF&S)

Don't have it. Not interested in buying it.

However that wouldn't stop someone from mounting a couple dozen "Beam pointers" on ships just to get the enemy to launch sand. It is effectively the same thing. Targeting firecontrol systems with Sand. BTW that should make sand equally effective against all weapons as you are disrupting the targeting system and generating a miss. Besides since it works against a Fusion gun why doesn't it work against a PA anyway? Because the rules say so.

 

[BetterThanLife]

well, if sand is to be considered ecm rather than a physical substance that must be penetrated, then it will affect to-hit. factor 1 sand then logically provides -1 to-hit, and therefore factor 9 logically provides -9 to-hit - and this would seriously degrade the utility of all weapons, not just spinals.

if you have something else in mind, please give an example.

Perhaps in HG and MT it might require something other than 1 to 1 correlation. In T20 a 1 to 1 correlation appears to work fine. In HG Spinals generally hit 100% of the time. (Base number to hit is 2+ for PA's and 4+ for Meson Spinals but with a +2 for short range.) Throw in the size vs. Agility modifier and you are still pretty close to always hit. I think it makes more sense to degrade that some. (Though probably not a full 9, perhaps 1 for 2 factors round down.) So you are looking at a -4 to hit maximum. Making Spinals firing on a ship no worse than hit around 50% of the time. Since it effects all combatants equally, it shouldn't be an unbalancing change.

if bigger batteries are more effective, then more batteries are more effective too - unless one simply decrees "no".
well, a non-energy-consuming small-volume defense system that under your rules is effective against all weapons seems like a must-have item.

You hit the point of diminishing returns. You can drop all sorts of Chaff but after a certain point it no longer degrades the targeting radar any more seriously same principal here. Further, in this case, you are covering more area, not the same area more densely because individual gunners, no matter how well trained can't take exactly the same shot at exactly the same time. So yes there is a reason besides simply saying no.

As far as a must have item. Most of the Capital ships already have them, even if they are generally useless to many of them. It gives ships with an armor rating of 13+ a reason to mount them in the first place. (Which isn't currently the case.) And it gives the characters a tougher choice for what to mount on a ship they are buying/building/arming. Further in T20, where it is all too easy to generate a hit in Starship combat, it makes things a little more difficult. Mixed turrets become more interesting and choices have to be made in combat.

 

[flykiller]

So you are looking at a -4 to hit maximum.

completely arbitrary, but let's try it out in hg2.

at long range a size factor P ship with agility 6 and a "sand" caster of factor 9 cannot be hit by a meson factor T spinal mount (base 4 + 6 agility - 1 size + 4 sand = 13).

a size factor K ship with agility 6 and a "sand" caster of factor 9 cannot be hit by any weapon at all except a factor 9 missile salvo at long range (on a roll of 12 only) or a spinal mount particle accelerator of factor F+ (starting on a roll of 12 only).

at short range a size factor 4 fat trader with agility 2 and a "sand" caster adjustment of -2 will be hit by a factor 3 laser battery only on a roll of 12.

etc.

none of this is necessarily undesirable, but it represents a major change and is approaching a re-write of the game.

You hit the point of diminishing returns.

(smile) diminishing returns is not a "point" which is "hit", it is simply inherent to comparing costs against benefits. comparing the cheapness of "sand" with the expense of being hit seems to indicate that any upper limit to a "sand" caster's usefulness will occur when it prevents any hits at all. and, describing it as ecm, there seems to be no non-arbitrary limit to the amount of "sand" cast having an effect.

 

[BetterThanLife]

As soon as you start adding gunner skill, which admittedly doesn't play a role in the HG rules, the hit number starts to go back down again.

But thanks, that actually helps me put it into perspective.

 

[flykiller]

As soon as you start adding gunner skill, which admittedly doesn't play a role in the HG rules, the hit number starts to go back down again.

then it's only fair to add in sand gunner skill and target pilot skill too, yes?

But thanks, that actually helps me put it into perspective.

welcome. all I'm trying to do.

 

[BetterThanLife]

then it's only fair to add in sand gunner skill and target pilot skill too, yes?

welcome. all I'm trying to do.

Actually the sand gunner skill is in targeting the ship you wish to interdict.

 

[aramis]

Don't have it. Not interested in buying it.

However that wouldn't stop someone from mounting a couple dozen "Beam pointers" on ships just to get the enemy to launch sand. It is effectively the same thing. Targeting firecontrol systems with Sand. BTW that should make sand equally effective against all weapons as you are disrupting the targeting system and generating a miss. Besides since it works against a Fusion gun why doesn't it work against a PA anyway? Because the rules say so.

No, it won't disrupt the FC, for the first shot at least, since the BP is light-speed, and the initial reflection is the fire control solution test.. It will only be launchable in reaction to the BP, and before the main laser comes in. Say 0.5 sec... on a typical shot of around 0.2LS