Blade-1

[FlightCommanderSolitude]

I'm wondering what everyone's take is on blade weapons in Traveller? [Especially CT.]

They seem rather over-emphasized in the LBBs for such a sci-fi game; at the same time, there are even in those books some tantalizing justifications for their presence.

If you create characters with Bk1, you're likely to end up with some sort of blade skill. But I don't recall ever adjudicating any armed conflicts in my Traveller that involved bladed weapons! [I haven't actually really played in quite some time, sadly.]

So what's the story? How do people deal with blades in their Traveller games?

-FCS

 

[GypsyComet]

I had a merchant captain once with no gun skills, but Small Blade-3. Needless to say he rarely had law level problems...

 

[Artikid]

I like the idea of blade weapons, Law level problems apart it conveys an atmosphere of feudalism I find appropriate to the setting.
I always think of CT as the age of renaissance (around 1600 AD) in space...
The Imperium is sort of the UK Empire with colonies etc...
Artikid=)

 

[Gallowglass]

Apart from Blades and Daggers, which are useful concealable small arms on any world, I always assumed that the archaic melee weapons were ceremonial (Marines Cutlass), or to cover the low-tech worlds.

I always like the feel of higher law level worlds, reminds me of thos fights in CJ Cherryh's Merchanter books when people start pulling chains and such out of their pockets...

 

[soloprobe]

In an age of starships and rayguns Who's gonna' buy a sword?
Your players will if you wake up the police everytime they leave the starport. Of course any cop that won't let you bring your guns to town, isn't gonna' be too happy about you carrying swords either.
I deal with it by letting them buy what ever blade they care to.(keeping in mind the higher the law level the shorter the blade should be) I like the "sword and blaster" feel that blade weapons give. Just be careful Not to bring a knife to a gunfight!

 

[Crimson Cat]

I think the drill instructor in the movie Starship troopers gave a good reason for them.
Now please place your hand up against that wall and call the medic.

 

[DrSkull]

I remember one campaign where there was a marine PC who had a cutlass skill of 6 or 7. Man, he just tore things up, chopped through everything in sight. IN boarding actions and house to house, using the CT rules, blade weapons can be quite useful. Now if th ebad guys can see you from far off, you're toast.

------------------
Dave "Dr. Skull" Nelson

 

[Emperor Cleon]

I think the reason the designers emphasized blade weapons was in keeping with Traveller's original "Age of Sail in Space" feel, something that kinda got lost as more and more suppliments were published and Traveller went from a generic sci-fi game to a detailed "Third Imperium" universe.
In truth, though, blades make good shipboard weapons. Their range is just about right for a corridor-to-corridor boarding action, and they do much less collateral damage to the rest of the ship.

 

[RobertFisher]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FlightCommanderSolitude:
They seem rather over-emphasized in the LBBs for such a sci-fi game; at the same time, there are even in those books some tantalizing justifications for their presence.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I don't disagree with the fact that the designers may have overemphasized blades to create more of a renaissance feel, I don't think you need that as a justification.

Blades have a place in every sci-fi game. Traveller's placing them on an equal level as guns is just right.

It isn't hard to imagine that criminals or streetwise types in the Third Imperium would carry knifes or other small blades just as many do today.

Besides the concealable blades, bayonet is a blade as well. No matter how technologically advanced, you should always train your soldiers in hand to hand combat.

There always comes a time when; because of law, low ammo, close quarters, or whatever else; your firearm just isn't an option. When that happens, the guy with a blade and some skill with it is going to have an advantage.

As for swords, I'd imagine they're much more rare. (That's been my experience in Traveller games.) But many gamers I've known have collected swords and studied fencing, kendo, etc. Likewise, I'd think some Travellers would too. (OK, we'll ignore for the moment that modern fencing/kendo/etc. probably doesn't really prepare you to really fight with a sword.)

Analogously, I seem to remember hearing about how, at one point, they started designing fighter aircraft without cannons figuring all air combat would only take place with missiles. They ended up putting cannon back on. (Boy, I hate it when people use unsupported anecdotes in an argument like that.

*shrug* Oh, well...) I think almost all fighters today carry cannons, with the exception of something like the stealth fighter. (And I wonder if it could survive a dogfight anyway...)

When it comes to weapons, technology merely gives us more options that we have to consider.



------------------
Robert FISHER

 

[Tanuki]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RobertFisher:
Analogously, I seem to remember hearing about how, at one point, they started designing fighter aircraft without cannons figuring all air combat would only take place with missiles. They ended up putting cannon back on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was the U.S. Air Force that decided that guns were no longer necessary on fighters and ordered F4s without guns. The Israelis got some of those F4s and promptly came up with a belly mounted cannon package. Around 50% of their confirmed kills were cannon kills. And they pointed out that it's nice to have a backup when your missile flakes out and goes ballistic, or won't even come off the rail.

And the USAF quietly decided that guns were a good thing after all.

[This message has been edited by Tanuki (edited 29 June 2001).]

 

[Christopher Jennings]

Actually it was the experiance in Vietnam that made the Air Force rethink the issue of guns. The funny thing was that it was the Navy's F-8 Crusader that helped change their minds, with a little help from the North's Mig-17's. Seems that the F-8 made most of it's kills with it's 4 20mm cannon (plane designed before the Vulcan) which is even funnier because it was an F-8 that almost shot itself down when it literaly caught up with then tried to pass it's own cannon shells.
But thats OK, at least we managed to avoid that British White Paper that said the days of the manned war-plane was over and knocked the British aviation industry out of competition for over 30 years.

 

[Uncle Bob]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tanuki:
It was the U.S. Air Force that decided that guns were no longer necessary on fighters and ordered F4s without guns. The Israelis got some of those F4s and promptly came up with a belly mounted cannon package. Around 50% of their confirmed kills were cannon kills. And they pointed out that it's nice to have a backup when your missile flakes out and goes ballistic, or won't even come off the rail.

And the USAF quietly decided that guns were a good thing after all.

[This message has been edited by Tanuki (edited 29 June 2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The F4 was a Navy package, and assumed that most kills would be made by Sparrow missiles beyond visual range under control from shipborne radars, or by sidewinders in close. The Air Force went into Vietnam with the F105 "Thud" ground attack package which did have a Vulcan 20mm gun. The gun-armed, maneuverable North Vietnamese Mig-17s were knocking them down 'way to often. When the Air Force got the faster F4s, they were still trading 1-1 with the Vietnamese, so they developed the F4E with the gun under the nose (this was years before Israel got any). And they crowed about "improving" the Navy plane, but I have heard that it flew like a brick.

Rather than redesign the planes, the Navy started the Top Gun school to improve their pilots. As a matter of fact, Navy F4s never did get guns, and IIRC the Navy aces of the Vietnam war (both of them?) scored all their kills with sidewinder missiles.

 

[Uncle Bob]

OK, cold steel . . . There are several reasons for melee weapons:

Law level is obvious, but not very comforting. Starport security might let you out with your knife, but it is not going to give you parity on the Street. Street crime is frequently commited with weapons in violation of the local law level. The USA is generally law level 5, but car jackings are often committed with pistols and gang warfare is carried out with sub-machine guns and there have been several well-publicized robberies with assault rifles. I recently communicated with a gentleman in Glasgow, Scotland (law level 6, almost 7) who complained that the weapon of choice in Paisley was the MAC-10 SMG.

Environment A knife is a pretty good close weapon, so in confined spaces it works. (Police officers are trained that a knifeman within 20 ft can kill them before they make up their mind to shoot.) It is quiet (although the guy you stick will likely scream for several minutes. None of this "grunt softly and expire" unless you are very good or very lucky.) Tunnel rats in Vietnam sometimes used a knife instead of a pistol because the flash and report of a .45 blinded and deafened then. (At the end of Vietnam the Army developed a silent revolver, but it was too late to use. The Russians have used the same principle for an asassintion weapon, though.) A knife will not over penetrate, so space ship walls don't leak (actually, it would take several turns for a compartment to decompress through a 10mm hole) and you don't kill the 3 yr old two apartments over.

Tech level If you can't make guns, or you don't want to be obvious furriners, a sword is a good choice.

Concealment We always figured even a body pistol could be found if someone was looking for it, but no-one objects to a swiss army knife or leatherman tool. Even if they do, a small composite-material knife can be hidden in a lapel or belt.

Social This could be carrying the Sikh kirpan through smallsword (AKA "foil") dueling among Nobles. (That is not cannon, but it makes sense.) And all to often, you "run what you brung."

 

[Uncle Bob]

Back to aerial fighters, briefly.

I just checked the Air Combat page (http://www.webruler.com/aircombat/). From 68-72 the only two American "aces" in Vietnam were Cunningham for the Navy and Ritchie for the Air Force. Both scored all ther kills with missiles. Of the 93 aircraft shot down by F4s, only 6 were shot down by 20mm from F4Es (F-4Es got 19 with missiles, one F-4D scored with gunpods).

In the 1973 Yom Kippur war, Israeli F4Es claimed 75 kills, 8 with gun kills, 16 with missiles, 6 crashed when their runway was bombed, 2 by maneuver, and the rest not described

Since 1974 the Israelis have claimed 107 Air-to-air kills
62 by missile
8 by gunfire
2 by "maneuver" (1 scored by a UAV!)
35 by unknown method

In Desert Storm 47 planes were downed by air-to-air action. (plus 6 Helicopters shot down by gunfire by A10s, smart bombs, or anti-tank missiles.)
45 aircraft were destroyed by missiles
2 were destroyed by "maneuver" (i.e. ran into the ground)
1 Aircraft was destroyed by a combination of AIM-7 missile and gunfire

After all that, I have got to believe that bringing a gun to a missile fight is almost as daft as bringing a knife to a gunfight. Hmm, that was the original topic, wasn't it?

 

[Uncle Bob]

Back to aerial fighters, briefly.

I just checked the Air Combat page. From 68-72 the only two American "aces" in Vietnam were Cunningham for the Navy and Ritchie for the Air Force. Both scored all ther kills with missiles. Of the 93 aircraft shot down by F4s, only 6 were shot down by 20mm from F4Es (F-4Es got 19 with missiles, one F-4D scored with gunpods).

In the 1973 Yom Kippur war, Israeli F4Es claimed 75 kills, 8 with gun kills, 16 with missiles, 6 crashed when their runway was bombed, 2 by maneuver, and the rest not described

Since 1974 the Israelis have claimed 107 Air-to-air kills
62 by missile
8 by gunfire
2 by "maneuver" (1 scored by a UAV!)
35 by unknown method

In Desert Storm 47 planes were downed by air-to-air action. (plus 6 Helicopters shot down by gunfire by A10s, smart bombs, or anti-tank missiles.)
45 aircraft were destroyed by missiles (mostly AIM-7 Sparrow medium range missiles)
2 were destroyed by "maneuver" (i.e. ran into the ground)
1 Aircraft was destroyed by a combination of AIM-7 (Sparrow) missile and gunfire

After all that, I have got to believe that bringing a gun to a missile fight is almost as daft as bringing a knife to a gunfight. Hmm, that was the original topic, wasn't it?

[This message has been edited by Uncle Bob (edited 30 June 2001).]

 

[Tanuki]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
Back to aerial fighters, briefly. I just checked the Air Combat page.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, Uncle Bob, that's what I get for repeating unsubstantiated rumors that I heard a zillion years ago. Boy am I embarrassed.

Thanks for checking that out.

BTW my wife used to fix F-4s in the Air Force Reserves (aircraft electrician and ABDR (aircraft battle damage repair) instructor/assessor). She worked on F-16s after they retired the F-4.

 

[FlightCommanderSolitude]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>After all that, I have got to believe that bringing a gun to a missile fight is almost as daft as bringing a knife to a gunfight. Hmm, that was the original topic, wasn't it?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sort of.

I agree that blades (knives etc) allow PCs to avoid law level problems, but that hardly seems justification enough to include them in the game.

The question I'm more concerned with is, "How did my scout end up with Pike-1?" Or the more general question, what is the social role of blades in the official Traveller universe and/or how have people dealt with blades in their own games?

-FCS

 

[DaveShayne]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FlightCommanderSolitude:
The question I'm more concerned with is, "How did my scout end up with Pike-1?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously she was stranded on a low tech planet and got in a situation or two of a less than gentle nature. Not being in a position to manufacture a laser rifle she adapted to the local norm for armament.



------------------
I am increasingly of the opinion that RPGs are by the nature of their creation subjective phenomenon. due to the interaction between game designers, game masters, and game players all definitions, rules, settings, and adventures are mutable in acordance with the uncertainty principle as expounded by Heisenburg. This is of course merely my point of view.

David Shayne

 

[hunter]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I agree that blades (knives etc) allow PCs to avoid law level problems, but that hardly seems justification enough to include them in the game.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<LI> They don't puncture hulls or domes
<LI> They don't ricochet
<LI> They don't possibly destroy the computer/jump controls/etc if you miss your intended target...

Hunter

 

[Darium]

When defending your ship its always better not to shoot it up. The attackers can always wear armour but its heavy and bulky , and in a ship's corridor being clumsy is a death sentence. The are other ways to attack or defend a ship but they require time , money and forthought to set up.