• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

Core Traveller Rules Question

On page 151 the insert at the bottom states that starship weapons do 50X damage to regular vehicles. Even a lowly pulse laser with 1d6 can therefore vaporize a main battle tank (hull 35/Structure 35) in a single blast, yet its effect on other ships is marginal at best.

How then do vehicle weapons function against starships. Do we devide by 50? If so, then a 75mm main gun off a tank (8d6 damage) cant hope to even scratch the thing, even if its unarmored.

How do you handle the situation where a vehicle opens up on your ship while its trying to take off?
 
Yes, you read it well and applied well in your conclusions (or at least as well as myself and reached the same conclusions).

Never forget that (at least on CT, from which MgT is taken in most points) a ship's laser is a 250 Mw weapon. In contrast, a laser in clasic 2300 needed only 1 Mw dedicated from the PP.
 
Starship vs Personal Scale

My books are packed for a move right now but I think High Guard had an example. Basically the personal scale is reduced by a certain factor when attacking ships. Also, ship to ship weapons cannot be used for vehicle combat - hence the introduction of anti-personnel weapons on ships (think of the Millenium Falcon when it blasts out of Mos Eisely and the auto blaster that dropped from the hull).
 
My books are packed for a move right now but I think High Guard had an example. Basically the personal scale is reduced by a certain factor when attacking ships. Also, ship to ship weapons cannot be used for vehicle combat - hence the introduction of anti-personnel weapons on ships

In MT, where the same scale was used for armor and values for starship weapons were given, the true result was if you're hit by a starship weapon, begin chargen anew.

(think of the Millenium Falcon when it blasts out of Mos Eisely and the auto blaster that dropped from the hull).

Was it in Moss Eisley or in Hoth that it used the auto blaster?

I saw it a long time ago...
 
In MT, where the same scale was used for armor and values for starship weapons were given, the true result was if you're hit by a starship weapon, begin chargen anew.



Was it in Moss Eisley or in Hoth that it used the auto blaster?

I saw it a long time ago...

Hoth.
 
True, one has to wonder what those quad mounted laser turrets would have done to the assault troops. Still... 50 seems like a crazy big modifier, and turns even small ships into juggernauts, which is really counter to the "NASA" feel of 2300. Im visualizing a 30mm gatling cannor ripping right through a frieghter, perhaps not so easily against an armored starship though.

Maybe 20? 10?
 
I guess when you try to adapt something as 2300 to something as Traveller, due to the diferent paradigms, settings and assumptions, you must either change the rules or change the settings.

I'll use MT as traveller comaprison due to being the only system I have access to where the armor/weapons is (or pretends to be) integrated for vehicles, personal armor and starships (and yet it has no system to use personal/vehicle weapons against starships, while there is for using starship weapons against personnel/vehicles, except some hinting poorly explained in HT).

In MT, even those ships considered unarmored (AF40) are quite heavy armored compared with most vehicles, and starship weapons (as told before) are quite heavy against any vehicle. A starship laser or plasma weapon are 250 Mw, an a fusion one 500 MW, while the heaviest vehicluar weapon is (RPC-15) is 89 Mw (there is a heavier one, but being TL16 I discarded it for comparisons). IT seems those 250 Mw weapons are the smallest able to seriously damage a starship.

In 2300 most starship weapons are 1 Mw, and they are able to damage a starship (as already discussed in This thread), hinting that ships are not so heavily armored.

Another key difference is that in Traveller (AFAIK all versions) most starship weapons are usable in atmosphere, while in 2300 they are specifically unable to do that. This is very important as 2300 weapons are not usually usable as ortillery. So its use against infantry/vehicles is not as important, while, most starships being unstreamlined, the use of infantry/vehicular weapons against them is quite less likely.

All this said, the factor 50 seems logical to me for Traveller, due to the assumed armoring of the ships, while probably it could be too much in 2300, where the ships seem less armored and starship weapons quite less powerful.

IMHO, the main message in all those rules is Never confront a starship without another starship, as you cannot dream to seriously damage it, and if it fires to you, you go to CharGen again.

After all, if we take WWII as an example, how many ground weapons were able to seriously damage even the smallest ship, or how many vehicles were able to survive naval bombardment if hit?
 
Last edited:
I think, oddly, that stutterwarp is the problem. All spaceborne weapons in 2300 are designed to bracket targets at several hundred thousand kilometers travelling at rediculous speeds. This makes then a whole different "critter" (if you'll excuse the Texan coming out in me.)

Its not simply a matter of scale but of function, and without detail it makes comparisons difficult. Are starship weapons more powerful? If able to blast targets a couple light seconds away or are they just more accurate and their targets more sensitive. Is a starship a really tough target requiring a bad a$$ weapon to damage it or is it just fast and hard to hit. Stationary ships in classic 2300 are given a positive modifier to hit but thats it.

Before one assigns rules to a given situation one has to have a thorough understanding of that situation and Im not sure classic 2300 went much beyond how it played as a wargame in that department. The simple act of assigning a multiplier of some sort to the vehicle weapons/starship weapons comparison depends on this.

As I mentioned in that other thread, I can see starship weapons being massive engines of destruction, but I can also see them being accurate surgical instruments of great range and accuracy but having little effect on a tank as they are designed to damage comparitively vulnerable spacecraft.
 
I agree warp drive has some influence. If we asume, as also told in other threads that there is some safety that does not allow a tunneling object to end where there's another mass, it makes useless any kind of mass drivers, even as anti-missile systems, as missiles are also warping.

Another key is the abscence of gravitics. This has a two fold effect:

one effect is that most ships in 2300 are incapable to enter in atmosphere, and mass is very important for those able to, as they need reaction drives whose fuel needs is mass dependent.

the other effect is that (IIRC) gravitics are very important in the developement of superdense materials, and so armor. This precludes relative low mass armor.

Both effects coupled, along with having no need (in most starships) to endure atmospheric reentries, IMHO, will lead to less armored ships (at least for the non-military ones) than in traveller, where the relatively low weight armor, the need for atmospheric reentry (be it to land or to refuel in a GG) and the relative low importance of mass to land where gravitics make reaction drives obsolete lead to very resistent hulls.

As lighter armored hulls in 2300, your need for very powerful weapons to damage them. You no longer need 250 Mw to damage the hull, and now is more a matter of accuracy than brute power.
 
Last edited:
True, one has to wonder what those quad mounted laser turrets would have done to the assault troops. Still... 50 seems like a crazy big modifier, and turns even small ships into juggernauts, which is really counter to the "NASA" feel of 2300.
Maybe 20? 10?

This is another misconception. Starship "armor" is actually radiation shielding. Tank and battleship armor is built to withstand strikes from kinetic and explosive shells, whereas space combatats are armored against x-rays and particle beams, hence the radiation shielding.

The materials used would be slabs of borated polyethylene and various aerogels. NASA is testing a new material called RXF1, made of graphite, polyethylene, and epoxy. This "armor" is very fragile incomparison with that of tanks and battleships. Heavy machineguns and 20 mm guns would rip it to shreds.
 
Some comments about your OP:

On page 151 the insert at the bottom states that starship weapons do 50X damage to regular vehicles. Even a lowly pulse laser with 1d6 can therefore vaporize a main battle tank (hull 35/Structure 35) in a single blast, yet its effect on other ships is marginal at best.

According to MgT:LBB2:HG, Pag 47 (under Changes to Core Rules):

• Pulse lasers inflict 2d6 damage and have a –2DM to hit and
beam lasers inflict 1d6 damage. Beam lasers become available
at TL9.

And, according to Aramis, at least in play testing, the effect was also added to starship damage rolls (I didn't find any reference to it in MgT, though)...

McPerth: you're forgetting one aspect of MGT - margin of success adds to damage. A 1D laser with a good gunner can get a good shot and pen that armor.

(and subsequent posts in the same thread)

So your tiny pulse laser inflicts 2d6 x 50 hits, meaning at least (on a roll of 2) 100 in the vehicle table (two triple hits and 11 double hits), and each point of damage more means 7 double hits more.

Even your sandcaster would do 1 spaceship scale DP (so 50 personal/vehicle scale) at close distance (being space distances, that means up to 10 km away). If you fire it to a GCarrier (MgT:CB page 103), having 25 points of armor, you will "only" inflict it a triple hit and a double one. Not enough to destroy it, but enough to ruin you the day. And I asume, being a fixed 1 DP, effect would not be added if it does in other spaceship weapons...

How then do vehicle weapons function against starships. Do we devide by 50? If so, then a 75mm main gun off a tank (8d6 damage) cant hope to even scratch the thing, even if its unarmored.

Put simply, they at most scratch the paint.

Even a TL 15 FGMP does 16d6 + effect of damage (average 56 + effect points). This will mean 1 DP in starship scale. At most you will inflict 96 points + effect (still a single hit)

So, if you fire it to a Scout or Free trade (armor 4), you need to inflict 250 personal scale damage points to do 1 starship DP to it (which will mean a single hit in the damage table).

See that a corsair, being unarmored, may be really damaged with that same FGMP.

How do you handle the situation where a vehicle opens up on your ship while its trying to take off?

From the point of view of the firer, being frustrated out of anger, from the ship's POV, either by laughting or by returning fire (just with your sandcasters if you're not feeling bloodthristy).
 
Last edited:
Exactly my thoughts where a comparison of starship weapons and conventional systems is concerned. A transatmospheric fighter with a gatling gun and a few ballistic missiles might just scare the hell out of a slow orbiting stutterwarp vessel discharging its coils. Unless that ship's laser mount is doing 50X damage back, and at essentially unlimited range and automatically hitting.

At some point a few hard decisions have to be made.

1. A system capable of targeting accuracy and rapid fire capable of bracketing a manuevering stutterwarp vessel at a couple light seconds should pretty much hit anything slower and closer at well. YES/NO

2. A weapon system capable of damaging a starship at this distance is either
a) very powerful against stout starship construction
b) relatively weak but designed to hurt vulnerable spacecraft

3. Conventional weapon systems are therefore
a) somewhat to very effective against vulnerable stutterwarp craft
b) limited in effectiveness against tough stutterwarp craft
 
From the point of view of the firer, being frustrated out of anger, from the ship's POV, either by laughting or by returning fire (just with your sandcasters if you're not feeling bloodthristy).

I find that not only counter to any sort of drama one would desire in a game but absurd from a believability stance. I think, as is, it reveals a real flaw in the game.

No I cant speak for the Imperium setting and all, I havent played classic traveller, but from a 2300 perspective its entirely counter to the feel of the setting. A small freighter lifting off the pad only to see an armored vehicle approach and begin shelling them with anti-tank rounds should be terrifying, and potentially disasterous, not comical.
 
I find that not only counter to any sort of drama one would desire in a game but absurd from a believability stance. I think, as is, it reveals a real flaw in the game.

No I cant speak for the Imperium setting and all, I havent played classic traveller, but from a 2300 perspective its entirely counter to the feel of the setting. A small freighter lifting off the pad only to see an armored vehicle approach and begin shelling them with anti-tank rounds should be terrifying, and potentially disasterous, not comical.

I was answering from the rules POV, not about my opinion.

About my own opinion, it would be as terrifying as a sea ship leaving the port and seeing a tank coming firing at it. If it is a freighter, it may be in danger. A modern destroyer may also be hurt, but it may fire back. A WWII destroyer would not have been too scared from a tank gun, while the tank would be quite scared from the ship's guns.

After all, the destroyer's guns, usually in the order of 4-6", being about the smallest on warships, were heavy artillery for ground troops. The heaviest guns deployed on ground (AFAIK, and excluding naval defense batteries) were 203 mm (8")", that were "only" cruiser weaponry, and guns over 155 mm (about 6") where very rare on ground, while quite common on ships.

We're really talking about two diferent scales of weaponry, and naval fire uses to be quite devasting against ground troops, while the return fire uses to be quite ineffectual.

In 2300 there is no ground weaponry able to damage orbiting ships, and once orbital supremacy is acheved, only reinforcements can save the planet, as the ground troops have no way to respond fire. Beams (lasers and PAs) cannot be to battle planet vs ships, as long as the planet has atmosphere, space missiles are useless inside the planet's gravity well and messons and space rated high energy weapons do not exist.

In CT/MT/MgT, there are weapons able to fire against ships from ground (laser batteries, missiles, deep meson guns...) and vice versa (ortillery is specifically told about, using from lasers or missiles to high energy weapons to meson guns). In MgT there is not restrictions (at least that I've read about) for PAs to be used from/against atmosphere, so they could be added to this weaponry (and being quite lower TL and not requiring EP/Mw they will be more common).

About atmospheric/interface fighters, in 2300 they are either planes or, at most, interface planes, that could well be armed with lasers (missiles would again be out of place inside the gravity well), while in CT/MT/MgT they are gravitic spacecrafts fully armed as so. So, while in CT/MT/MgT the same fighters may be used as space, interface or atmospheric fighters, in 2300 you need a diferent craft for each role, but the ones for atmosphre/interface are not warp equiped, and so easy targets for space ships (at least from the moment they leave atmosphere and are vulnerable to their weapons, and before that, they cannot either damage the orbiting ships).

As told in other occasions, I had not the opportunity to read MgT2300, so IDK how Colin has matched those paradigms while trying to convert 2300 setting to MgT rules. To keep the 2300 setting, starship weapons must be ineffective against atmosphere, while if MgT rules have prevailed acheveing orbital supremacy is no longer having won the battle, as your ships are no longer safe from planetary fire while in orbit.

As I already told in another thread, in 2300 the only way an interface plane could reach the orbiting ships to damage them would be by having very heavy armor (as Martels have) and "a little" luck, and even so the orbiting fleet could just abort stutterwarp discharge and leave orbit while the interface ships are climbing.

All this said, from the drama POV, I agree with you all this is unfortunate.
 
Last edited:
I was answering from the rules POV, not about my opinion.

Understood

About my own opinion, it would be as terrifying as a sea ship leaving the port and seeing a tank coming firing at it. If it is a freighter, it may be in danger. A modern destroyer may also be hurt, but it may fire back. A WWII destroyer would not have been too scared from a tank gun, while the tank would be quite scared from the ship's guns.


But these arent world war two destroyers, or transports for that matter. They arent designed to repel incoming 6" shells, torpedoes or even machinegun bullets. I honestly dont take issue with well-armored military spacecraft. Its the inherent and assumed toughness of even the most civilian luxury vessels, simply because its a spaceship, that seems odd. But even then, when considering the armor of a military craft- what is it armored against? A modern day APC is designed to withstand small arms fire, machinegun fire and have half a chance against RPGs. They arent designed to take on a APFSDS large caliber round. Would our starcraft of the future really be designed to take ballistic hits? What do they sacrifice in the way of weight in order to do so, if they did?

In 2300 thre are no ground weaponry able to damage orbiting ships, and once orbital supremacy is acheved, only reinforcements can save the planet, as the ground troops have no way to respond fire. Beams (lasers and PAs) cannot be to battle planet vs ships, as long as the planet has atmosphere, space missiles ae useless inside the planet's gravity well and messons and space rated high energy weapons do not exist.

Why cant the ground troops return fire? They cant hit cowardly stutterwarp attackers circling out there at a light second but they they cant be hit by them either. They can however fire blue-green lasers or what have you at incoming troops transports or assault ships. Space missiles (I assume you mean the stutterwarp driven, nuclear pumping kind) can work in the gravity well sure but what about the good ole homing, ballistic, explosive warhead variety? Unless we assume that all future planetary assault is simply a matter of gaining spacial superiority then starving the planet out with a prolonged siege, there has to be an exchange, in orbit, in the atmosphere and on the ground, and some equipment has to translate.


As told in other occasions, I had not the opportunity to read MgT2300, so IDK how Colin has matched those paradigms while trying to convert 2300 setting to MgT rules. To keep the 2300 setting, starship weapons must be ineffective against atmosphere, while if MgT rules have prevailed acheveing orbital supremacy is no longer having won the battle, as your ships are no longer safe from planetary fire while in orbit.

The stutterwarp invaders are only safe beyond the .1G threshold, assumedly they give up their impervious nature when they have to drop their speed to more conventional levels. If they are beyond this altitude then yes, I see that your disignated starship weapons cant work against them (although now that I think about it, the rules do state that the starship weapons cant work in an atmosphere but there is nothing stating some other form of planetary laser cant, and also have the ability to track and fire on stutterwarp targets like their own weapons can) They dont list any of these weapons but then they dont list many large weapons types period.


As I already told in another thread, in 2300 the only way an interface plane could reach the orbiting ships to damage them would be by having very heavy armor (as Martels have) and "a little" luck, and even so the orbiting fleet could just abort stutterwarp discharge and leave orbit while the interface ships are climbing.

All this said, from the drama POV, I agree with you all this is unfortunate.

Im not certain the space plane would have to reach the orbiting ships. Unless the invaders plan to just sit and wait them out, they have to make landfall, and that means a fight.
 
But these arent world war two destroyers, or transports for that matter. They arent designed to repel incoming 6" shells, torpedoes or even machinegun bullets. I honestly dont take issue with well-armored military spacecraft. Its the inherent and assumed toughness of even the most civilian luxury vessels, simply because its a spaceship, that seems odd. But even then, when considering the armor of a military craft- what is it armored against?
  1. Radiation (mostly cosmic)
  2. Micrometeorites and debris
  3. Atmospheric reentry (for ships capable to)

Why cant the ground troops return fire?

Because Star Cruiser states starship weapons cannot be used in atmosphere

They cant hit cowardly stutterwarp attackers circling out there at a light second but they they cant be hit by them either. They can however fire blue-green lasers or what have you at incoming troops transports or assault ships.

Ground troops cannot be hit either by orbiting ship's beams, but can by deadfall bombs and other similar ordnance, or by submunitions used as nukes (after all, that's what they are).

Of course, assaulting ships may be fired unpo by atmospheric weapons (those left after orbital bombardement) once in atmosphere (or at least once not warping),

Space missiles (I assume you mean the stutterwarp driven, nuclear pumping kind) can work in the gravity well sure but what about the good ole homing, ballistic, explosive warhead variety?

Weren't you who said any shot against non warping ship was a sure hit?

How many of those missiles would reach the orbiting ships, if they can be targeted once they leave atmosphre?

Unless we assume that all future planetary assault is simply a matter of gaining spacial superiority then starving the planet out with a prolonged siege, there has to be an exchange, in orbit, in the atmosphere and on the ground, and some equipment has to translate.

Not necessary a prolongued siege. Deadfall bombs can shorten it quite a while, but you're right that some troops whould have to be landed if you wan to capture something intact, as deadfall bombing can only destroy (even the will of the defenders).

The stutterwarp invaders are only safe beyond the .1G threshold, assumedly they give up their impervious nature when they have to drop their speed to more conventional levels. If they are beyond this altitude then yes, I see that your disignated starship weapons cant work against them (although now that I think about it, the rules do state that the starship weapons cant work in an atmosphere but there is nothing stating some other form of planetary laser cant, and also have the ability to track and fire on stutterwarp targets like their own weapons can).

If starship weapons are allowed to fire through atmosphere in MgT2300, then the setting has changed in this important point from T2300/2300AD, and then you're right, the ground defenders may fire at the orbiting ships and vice versa (but as the orbiting ships can well warp while the defenders are inmobile, guess who will hit first the target).

They dont list any of these weapons but then they dont list many large weapons types period.

None of the weapons I told about existed (at least in starship scale) in T2300/2300AD, and about high energy weapons (plasma and fusion) neither do they exist in MgT at turret level (there exists the fusion bay).

Im not certain the space plane would have to reach the orbiting ships. Unless the invaders plan to just sit and wait them out, they have to make landfall, and that means a fight.

Probably it wouldn't need to reach the ships, but it would need to exit atmosphere (at least in T2300/2300AD, not so sure in MgT2300), and from this point on it would be free game, and I understood we agreed firing against not warping ships would be a turkey shoot.

All this said, from the drama POV, I agree with you all this is unfortunate.
 
Last edited:
What I take from this discussion is similar to the comment made on another topic regarding 'instant kill' situations in which characters are subject to fate and luck and have no power to affect their own survival. The comment was that although completely realistic and logical (such as anti-vehicle missile hitting and destroying a small civilian vehicle instantly killing the occupants) its counter to the 'fun' element in the extreme.

When I try and accept that a stutterwarp ship can park well out of range of a planet's defenses, (Not the DeathStar 2300 mind you, just a small frigate perhaps) and reign supreme over any attempt to threaten it aside from another stutterwarp vessel, it just feels wrong. Any launched ordinance can be instantly picked from the sky, any approaching ship instantly vaporized by overwhelming firepower of a single laser mount, and any ground-based gun installation powerless to fire beyond its own atmosphere, it just seems wrong.

What if it werent a stutterwarp vehicle? What if its not classified as 'spacecraft weaponry' as the rule in SC eludes to. What if its a conventional laser weapon, used to bring down satellites or orbiting craft? Is its inability to fire on the stutterwarp vessels due to its extreme range, its difficulty to track or simply that a weapon capable of doing so has some problem with atmosphere? What about a world without atmosphere? Gun batteries are possible then right? Now we have ortillery and exchanges of fire into and out of orbit. Dont we?
 
What I take from this discussion is similar to the comment made on another topic regarding 'instant kill' situations in which characters are subject to fate and luck and have no power to affect their own survival. The comment was that although completely realistic and logical (such as anti-vehicle missile hitting and destroying a small civilian vehicle instantly killing the occupants) its counter to the 'fun' element in the extreme.

Agreed. Unfortunately, reality and physic laws care little about fun. Of course, game rules must, so we must choose which is the point where we must tweak reality and physical laws on aras of fun.

When I try and accept that a stutterwarp ship can park well out of range of a planet's defenses, (Not the DeathStar 2300 mind you, just a small frigate perhaps) and reign supreme over any attempt to threaten it aside from another stutterwarp vessel, it just feels wrong. Any launched ordinance can be instantly picked from the sky, any approaching ship instantly vaporized by overwhelming firepower of a single laser mount, and any ground-based gun installation powerless to fire beyond its own atmosphere, it just seems wrong.

Well, the panet defense fighter may still exist. You just must design a heavily armored ship with atmospheric capability and without stutterwarp. As it uses ship rules (it's a spacecraft, not a vehicle) it's not so vaporized by starship weapons, and its weaponry it's enough to damage the orbiting spaceship, while its heavy armor may whitstand enemy fire.

Having no stutterwarp, it will be quite inexpensive, so you could have several of them to confront the orbiting ship (even deadstar was taken off by fighters ;)).

Of course, the stutterwarp ship will always be able to flee, but who has won then?

What if it werent a stutterwarp vehicle? What if its not classified as 'spacecraft weaponry' as the rule in SC eludes to. What if its a conventional laser weapon, used to bring down satellites or orbiting craft? Is its inability to fire on the stutterwarp vessels due to its extreme range, its difficulty to track or simply that a weapon capable of doing so has some problem with atmosphere? What about a world without atmosphere? Gun batteries are possible then right? Now we have ortillery and exchanges of fire into and out of orbit. Dont we?

Of course, if atmosphere is taken of the equation, things change, but, what atmosphereless planet is truly important in 2300 setting?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top