Doing away with Meson Guns

[Bob Weaver]

OK, new question. (BTW, thanks to all who replied to my earlier question) How would warship design philosophy under HG2 be changed in a TU that had no meson technology at all, neither guns nor screens? Surely armor would be of greater importance to counter spinal PAWs. Would this change the nature of the battleship/battlerider debate? What about the meson/missile/rock thing?
The reason I ask is that the spinal meson gun seems to be the most unbalanced component of HG2, ahead of even the armor-21 buffered planetoid ship.
I might try some one-off HG battles using only PAW & Missile armed ships and see how it goes. Fewer one-hit kills, I suspect. What does everyone else think?


Cheers,

Bob Weaver

 

[flykiller]

using hg2, how will paws affect a larger armor-factor-21 target?

at tech 13 larger buffered planetoids with full armor will be almost completely immune. at tech 14+ they will be absolutely immune (unless you design them with two-meter-wide thermal vents so young fighter pilots can destroy them with one bomb). seems kind of pointless.

 

[robject]

Is that an error, or a feature?

(I'm leaning towards 'error' myself)

 

[flykiller]

Is that an error, or a feature?

neither. by design or accident hg2 is a very small and tightly-integrated system that works fairly well as a whole. take away a piece of it and it tends to turn hinky.

 

[boomslang]

OK, new question. (BTW, thanks to all who replied to my earlier question) How would warship design philosophy under HG2 be changed in a TU that had no meson technology at all, neither guns nor screens? Surely armor would be of greater importance to counter spinal PAWs. Would this change the nature of the battleship/battlerider debate? What about the meson/missile/rock thing?

Without M-guns, battleships become much more prominent, since it's hard to squeeze a large-armored-ship-killing-sized PAW into a sub-20Kton battle rider... ironically, planetary defense doesn't change much with the loss of Deep Site M-guns, since at Agility-0 and Size-Z, they didn't have much staying power to begin with...

 

[whartung]

Without M-guns, battleships become much more prominent, since it's hard to squeeze a large-armored-ship-killing-sized PAW into a sub-20Kton battle rider... ironically, planetary defense doesn't change much with the loss of Deep Site M-guns, since at Agility-0 and Size-Z, they didn't have much staying power to begin with...

Were there ever any rules for Deep Meson sites? I mean, how does a Meson Site differ from a Battle Rider, save having no M drive, and no Fuel (and, I guess, lots of armor).

PPlant, Meson Screen, MFDs, Bridge, engineering, gun crews, computers, work stations.

Yea, make them AGI-0, Movement 0, but their size should be basically as if they are spinal mounts in a spherical hull. So, if you have a 100m long mount, that's, what, 300K dTon ship? for size? And apply the appropriate DMs.

In theory, the Deep Site advantage is susceptibility to ONLY other Meson Guns, and, potentially, numbers. How many sites would a reasonable size planet have?

 

[boomslang]

In theory, the Deep Site advantage is susceptibility to ONLY other Meson Guns, and, potentially, numbers. How many sites would a reasonable size planet have?

A reasonable size planet could have as many as manufacturing capacity, budgetary considerations, and political gullibility allow. A reasonable governemt planet will put the money instead into proper high-mobility size-K monitors (and if the world has Hyd 3+, submarines are a good choice too), and forget about Deep Sites entirely.

A Deep Site M-gun is only good for about two hits; if M-screens broadcast telemetry to the other ships in an attacking fleet, after the second hit (penetrating or not), the location of the Deep Site should be calculatable from triangulation. Not to mention the subterranean heat signature. And then the Agility-0 dooms it...

 

[Anthony]

OK, new question. (BTW, thanks to all who replied to my earlier question) How would warship design philosophy under HG2 be changed in a TU that had no meson technology at all, neither guns nor screens? Surely armor would be of greater importance to counter spinal PAWs. Would this change the nature of the battleship/battlerider debate? What about the meson/missile/rock thing?

I doubt it changes the battleship/battlerider debate. For system defense you'll run into a lot of 8,000 dton buffered planetoids, which as of TL 14 can have armor-20, meaning they cannot be damaged by any weapon in the game (smaller planetoids can be cracked by automatic criticals from PA-Ts).

 

[Bob Weaver]

Heavily Armored Planetoid Problem

Personally, I never interpreted the buffered planetoid 'extra armor' rule that way - HG2 page 29 says "The added value of armor on a ship may not exceed the ship's tech level". I take this to mean that the combined armor (rock & metal plating) is still limited to the prevailing TL. Surely the designers did not mean to allow the construction of ships impervious to every weapon in the design system.

 

[aramis]

A fully armored TL14/15 Buffered Planetoid SHOULD be immune to almost anything in the short term.... Except "Magical Mystery Meson Guns."

Key wording, Bob, is "added"... the planetoid's armor isn't added, only what you add using the armor rules is.

 

[flykiller]

Were there ever any rules for Deep Meson sites?

nope. least, not that I've heard of. that meson weapon locations can be triangulated off of two detonations is unsupported, but reasonable - if there is only one defending gun firing. if there are more then triangulation may take more than two detonations, and if there are many then triangulation may be difficult. and I'd give it a die roll - say, target ship rolls computer size or less to accurately report the hit vector.

How many sites would a reasonable size planet have?

none if it can't build them itself, but the imperium should have quite a bit of naval money available to build and staff sites of its own at locations it thinks are important. louzy would have quite a few.

and immobile sites are agility 0, but the advantage of a site is that even under a two-shot-then-found rule the sites get two free shots. monitors aren't much better than sites, and they don't get free shots. as for submarine monitors, hydrostatic shock from nukes is severe and very broad so targeting a submarine monitor will require only its general location.

 

[atpollard]

If you treat the world as a giant planetoid, it is allowed only 1 spinal mount - just like any other ship. If the world is allowed more than 1 spinal mount, then how many spinal mounts is a 400,000 dTon planetoid dreadnought allowed?

 

[Anthony]

If you treat the world as a giant planetoid, it is allowed only 1 spinal mount - just like any other ship. If the world is allowed more than 1 spinal mount, then how many spinal mounts is a 400,000 dTon planetoid dreadnought allowed?

One. A world is a lot bigger than 400,000 dtons. A modest size (1 km) asteriod is 37,400,000 dtons. A size-1 world is 153 quadrillion dtons.

 

[boomslang]

Were there ever any rules for Deep Meson sites? I mean, how does a Meson Site differ from a Battle Rider, save having no M drive, and no Fuel (and, I guess, lots of armor).

It's in TCS somewhere originally, and then it shows up again (as only a passing reference) in maybe Broadsword...

A Deep Site is basically a fortified installation that's supposed to be hard to detect, but that doesn't seem practical (screen defensive fire control, thermal signatures, and later-versions-of-Trav densitometers notwithstanding) (Zhodani clairvoyants notwithsatanding, for that matter) (plus, spies with Bribery skill as the cheapest countermeasure); and besides, a rider/monitor under the polar ice cap can pull off the same trick without being stuck at Agility-0...

The main drawback to a Deep Site is that you cannot then keep your planet in the Reserve if using it in the Line; every city and soft target on it is vulnerable, unless you deploy screens/repulsors/sand/beams to defend them all. Better off to have monitors that than emerge from hiding and form a Line, I'd venture...

 

[flykiller]

It's in TCS somewhere originally

nope, no deep meson site rules in tcs. 'fraid we're on our own on this particular subject matter, and resolving it requires lots and lots of sensor rules, weapons rules, and arbitrary rulings on miscellaneous subjects that aren't covered in the main book rules and that will have lots of repercussions in any game that isn't mostly roll-playing.

enjoy.

 

[far-trader]

Well I'm sure DSM are meant as a last line defense anyway, after your line and reserve have been hammered. And it's not like they'll expose themselves by taking pot shots at inconsequential targets like troop landers. They'll wait for something valuable to come in range.

Meaning DSMs are part of the defense against the big ships coming in and blockading a world and they help in that an attacker is unlikely to just destroy the world when they can relatively safely land troops to limit damage and reduce the risk to their own forces and capture the world more or less intact.

How I see it anyway.

Now if you want to talk a different type or war, one where one side isn't interested in capturing and holding then yes, DSMs, or for that matter a defensive fleet of any kind, is pointless. The only way to fight such an enemy is to do the same to their homeworlds, faster and more thoroughly. And you don't need fancy weapons for that, any big rocks will do, maybe with an escort part of the way to insure they get close enough.

Of course that universe is going to be a smoking ruin in no time flat. Not much adventure in that setting

 

[boomslang]

nope, no deep meson site rules in tcs. 'fraid we're on our own on this particular subject matter, and resolving it requires lots and lots of sensor rules, weapons rules, and arbitrary rulings on miscellaneous subjects that aren't covered in the main book rules and that will have lots of repercussions in any game that isn't mostly roll-playing.

Perhaps it's Striker, then... something of that vintage...

 

[aramis]

Striker has battlefield mesons, which, reversing the conversion, are factor 1 meson guns, at under 10 tons...

 

[boomslang]

Striker has battlefield mesons, which, reversing the conversion, are factor 1 meson guns, at under 10 tons...

Albeit with significantly-reduced range compared to space weapons, due to the limitations of battlefield fire control and power input; still, they're great for Q-ships and other "boarding range" applications...

 

[The Oz]

Designing Deep Meson Guns

Personally, I never interpreted the buffered planetoid 'extra armor' rule that way - HG2 page 29 says "The added value of armor on a ship may not exceed the ship's tech level". I take this to mean that the combined armor (rock & metal plating) is still limited to the prevailing TL. Surely the designers did not mean to allow the construction of ships impervious to every weapon in the design system.

TCS makes it quite clear (p.12, under Armor) that the restriction on armor=TL only applied to added armor, and specifically says that a TL15 config-9 buffered planetoid could have factor-21 armor.

This was allowed because the design system (HG2) =has= a weapon able to defeat a heavily armored rock; it's called the meson gun....

Were there ever any rules for Deep Meson sites?

The closest thing to rules for DMGS (Deep Meson Gun Sites) ever given was in STRIKER, book 2, page 42, Rule 76: Planetary Defenses. In here it says that a DMGS is "effectively impossible to locate." Such weapons can only be silenced by taking or destroying their targeting sensors (which have to located on the planet's surface or in orbit).

Using HGS (thanks, Andrew!) I can get a factor-T meson gun into a DMGS at only MCr 5,100 in a 14,000 ton "hull." I used a regular planetoid hull and didn't bother adding any armor (the thing is a klick underground, it doesn't need armor!) and only gave it a Mod/9 computer (doesn't need the /fib circuitry, either).

For eyeballs I have also designed a 5,000 ton buffered planetoid (armor-20) fire control station, appropriately called the "Eyeball" class, with maximum passive defenses (meson screens, Agility, /fib computers) but nothing else. The "Eyeballs" try to pretend they are innocent little rocks as long as they can, and when they're discovered they use Agility-6 and factor-9 meson screens to stay intact as long as possible. It costs just under MCr3,000 for one of these.

That's fairly cheap for planetary defenses. Back it up with some expendable/mobile ground sensor stations and you have a tough nut to crack.