Doing away with Meson Guns

[aramis]

Further, a Striker/CT/MT ship's meson can just about obliterate any serious knots of troops, so high cover with meson means NO massed formations of ground troops. (A factor A is a 100m sphere of death every five minutes...)

Given that it's readily built under TNE... the battlefield meson is mostly limited by the fire control there, so that matches Striker.


Of course, I built a suit of BattleDress for TNE with an integral meson gun and beam pointer sufficient for about 1/2 a hex. (It was slow... it was effectively a mini-mecha... and it did 1d damage... but hey, it can do that to just about anything!

 

[soloprobe]

Wouldn't it be more fun ;If instead of doing away with meson guns ,we did away withSand Casters?

 

[GypsyComet]

I think DMGS installations are addressed in one or both editions of FF&S, which *also* allow for larger construction, adding additional range advantages to such installations (in editions of Trav that use more than "Line" and "Reserve" for range).

 

[whartung]

Well, that's why I mentioned a 100m Meson Gun, as, in FF&S, length == range and power for a meson gun, so you need a rather long one to be able to reach out and touch someone. My FF&S is AWOL at the moment, or I'd look it up.

If the DMGS is merely 14K dton and 5,100 MCr, then I'd expect there to be a LOT of them on any reasonably populated world. I would like to think that they could be mothballed (and restored) reasonably efficiently, so ongoing maintenance would be low.

Any ship could handle targeting duties, and they could be moved from ship to ship (plus ground stations).

Certainly any fleet that gets within Meson range is going to be dangerous (I mean, why target meson sites if I can target command bunkers as well). Meson Guns are the ultimate bunker busters.

Yup, all sorts of interesting tactical and strategic conumdrums with Meson Guns in play.

 

[avi.hecht]

Is it possible to Target Ships with a Meson Guns

Well back to doing away with Meson guns - I never liked them due to the problem with targeting at long range.

Missiles self correct their targeting solution.
Lasers/Particle Accelerators fire long lines that connect at the end.

But Meson guns have to fire in the correct direction AND decay at the correct
time (distance). so their fire solution is limited and much more complex.
Now when they fire at slowly moving targets they can probably calculate a spread of solutions - but firing at highly mobile targets?
As Meson hits are the most dangerous on the battlefield ships will make sure their movement vector has some unpredictability in it to make hitting them very difficult.

 

[aramis]

Well, keep in mind: A meson gun has the largest "window" of any of the cannical weapons... the decay is a sphere with a diameter in meters equal to 10* the USP. (Striker).

 

[boomslang]

But Meson guns have to fire in the correct direction AND decay at the correct
time (distance). so their fire solution is limited and much more complex.
Now when they fire at slowly moving targets they can probably calculate a spread of solutions - but firing at highly mobile targets?

Although they require both angle and ranging, via indirect fire control, this isn't that difficult a problem for LADAR-based targeting sensors, and the possible delta-vee towards or away from the firing ship that even a 6-gee vessel can make in a maximum of 4 seconds (2 ls out for the reflected ranging laser, then 2 ls back for the incoming Meson fire) is not all that great, especially compared to the effective "burst radius" of an M-gun spinal mount. Plus, the firing ship has ~1000 seconds to "walk in" the fire each turn...

 

[The Oz]

A quick look at the combat tables in HG shows that the meson gun is the most inaccurate weapon in the game. At factor-1 you need a 9+ to hit with a meson gun, which is the same as a factor-1 PA (which I do find curious) but you only need a 6+ to hit with a factor-1 missile, and an 8+ to hit with a beam weapon. Then look at factor-9. Missiles hit on 2+, beams on 4+, PAs on 4+ and mesons on 6+, which is by far the worst.

So the difficulty of a 3-D firing solution (which you are quite right, and meson guns do need bearing and range to target, unlike missiles and beams) is already factored into meson gun combat.

 

[boomslang]

So the difficulty of a 3-D firing solution (which you are quite right, and meson guns do need bearing and range to target, unlike missiles and beams) is already factored into meson gun combat.

The other thing about taking M-guns off the table is that it turns space combat into a potentially properly-drawn-out affair -- in HG2 terms, Size-Q-or-better-and-Armor-6-or-better battleships become true Queens of Battle because they stop taking Critical Hits ftrom enemy spinal mounts. They get their weapons and M-drives flailed away surely enough, but then they retreat to the Reserve to frantically repair the gravitics and the main gun and then rejoin the fight subsequently... so it can become a contest turning upon Engineering staffs and missile magazine depletion... and breakoff attempts get very interestimg then, too...

 

[Jame]

Wouldn't it be more fun ;If instead of doing away with meson guns ,we did away withSand Casters?

I'd buy that for a dollar! (We really out to play one of the space combat games of Traveller some day.)

 

[boomslang]

I'd buy that for a dollar! (We really out to play one of the space combat games of Traveller some day.)

Without sandcasters, gameplay would be very simple: the laser-armed Intruder always wins, because the Native doesn't survive until his first Return Fire Phase.

Please remit the sum of US$1.00...

 

[Jame]

Without sandcasters, gameplay would be very simple: the laser-armed Intruder always wins, because the Native doesn't survive until his first Return Fire Phase.

Please remit the sum of US$1.00...

Well, now it makes sense.

If you wish to receive the sum of U.S.$1, please either identify the origin of the line or contact soloprobe.

 

[The Thing]

Further, a Striker/CT/MT ship's meson can just about obliterate any serious knots of troops, so high cover with meson means NO massed formations of ground troops. (A factor A is a 100m sphere of death every five minutes...)

Given that it's readily built under TNE... the battlefield meson is mostly limited by the fire control there, so that matches Striker.


!

Something like this might explain why the imperial marines place such emphasis on the individual trooper, and trains marines to act as individuals and small team when necessary.

As to eliminating meson guns, pardon my ignorance but wouldn't that basically force you to toss the history of the IW because one of the main reasons the vilani caved was when the terrans invented meson cannon?

 

[jec10]

Further, a Striker/CT/MT ship's meson can just about obliterate any serious knots of troops, so high cover with meson means NO massed formations of ground troops. (A factor A is a 100m sphere of death every five minutes...)

Given that it's readily built under TNE... the battlefield meson is mostly limited by the fire control there, so that matches Striker.


Of course, I built a suit of BattleDress for TNE with an integral meson gun and beam pointer sufficient for about 1/2 a hex. (It was slow... it was effectively a mini-mecha... and it did 1d damage... but hey, it can do that to just about anything!

But in CT/Striker, the Battlefield Meson Gun is an indirect fire weapon, which kinda limits its usefulness. You need a spotter, who can communicate back to it, who is high initiative, and you want a high initiative gun crew so they respond in a timely fashion. Then it just obliterates a chunk of terrain. Big deal, so does an MLRS.

 

[whartung]

Without sandcasters, gameplay would be very simple: the laser-armed Intruder always wins, because the Native doesn't survive until his first Return Fire Phase.

Please remit the sum of US$1.00...

Welcome to "realistic" ship-to-ship combat. Boring, uninteresting, and most likely pre-destined before a shot is fired.

 

[whartung]

But in CT/Striker, the Battlefield Meson Gun is an indirect fire weapon, which kinda limits its usefulness. You need a spotter, who can communicate back to it, who is high initiative, and you want a high initiative gun crew so they respond in a timely fashion. Then it just obliterates a chunk of terrain. Big deal, so does an MLRS.

Well, actually, it may have been deployed operationally as an indirect fire weapon, but it is, in fact, a direct fire weapon. What makes it an indirect fire weapon is simply LOS issues. It's not as if the terrain is going to stop the weapon. Meson guns are the perfect "bunker buster".

It has high lethality, large area of effect, ignores intervening terrain, and has perfect accuracy. They also have fast cycle times, and no flight time. When the Forward Observer calls in a fire mission, he won't get an "on its way" message, he just gets a bright flash. If a ground based observer is calling in missions from an orbital platform, there's no need for that firing ship to have any LOS at all with the target. With every other ordnance, the ship would need to literally be above the battlefield. Not so with mesons, the ship can be on the other side of the planet, assuming the gun has the range (and all ship board guns have the range).

Infantry can hunker down in rough terrain and have a chance of survival against an MLRS, but that won't affect a meson blast. High powered battle dress can have an affect against shrapnel and concusion effects. But not against a meson blast.

Finally, just to sweeten the pot, there's not counter battery fire against a meson gun. You light off an MLRS and counter battery sensors will pin point the launch site in a heartbeat. With meson guns, you just get bright flashes in bad places. The mesons literally simply "show up" and obliterate everything.

Meson Guns: When you want to reach out and touch someone, and send the very best.

 

[whartung]

Well back to doing away with Meson guns - I never liked them due to the problem with targeting at long range.

Missiles self correct their targeting solution.
Lasers/Particle Accelerators fire long lines that connect at the end.

But Meson guns have to fire in the correct direction AND decay at the correct
time (distance). so their fire solution is limited and much more complex.
Now when they fire at slowly moving targets they can probably calculate a spread of solutions - but firing at highly mobile targets?

Umm...

Lasers have the exact same problem. At very likely ship velocities, and at the typical engagement ranges (10ths of light seconds), the Laser firing solution is just as 3-D as a Meson solution. On land, it's a differnet story, simply because of the ranges, and light speed weapons just work wonderful at short ranges.

But when you have a ship firing on another at 5 10ths of a light second range (i.e. 150K km), then you have a tricky firing solution.

Let's say you have a Free Trader that has 3 turns of 1G acceleration. In TNE, a turn is 30 minutes, so after 3 turns of acceleration, he's going ~54km/sec. A Free Trader is only 43m long. So, that ship will pass any specific point in space in roughly 1/1000th of a second. So, a laser burst needs to be at the same point in space at the same 1/1000th of a second that the ship is when it flies by in order to do damage, and you also have to take in to consideration the 1/2 sec of travel time for the laser (5/10ths light second range).

So you can see how this is pretty much the same problem that a meson gun has. Being in the right place, at the right time. Now, you can fire the laser for a second, which means you only need to be within 54kms (along the ships vector, of course, so it's kind of a thin space) of the target ship, and it will just run right through the laser burst like a kid running through a sprinkler. The meson gun may well not have that kind of advantage.

The amusing thing is that if the ship were travelling twice as fast, then the laser would do half as much damage (depending on bearing to the target, of course)...but none of the rules take that in to consideration.

As Meson hits are the most dangerous on the battlefield ships will make sure their movement vector has some unpredictability in it to make hitting them very difficult.

You do realize that "unpredictability" involves changing the ships vector within the time frame of detection and adjusting the mount that's doing the firing, correct?

Going to the previous problem with the Free Trader at 1/2 light second range, if you combine flight time for the laser and the time for detection, you get 1 second (1/2 sec for the EM radiation of the ship to reach the attacking vessel, plus another 1/2 for the laser to travel to the target). Next, you have the propagaton delay of getting the information from the sensors to the gun mount. Assuming that the attacker is "tracking", i.e. like a shooter shooting skeet, you see the shooter lead the gun and follow the path of the target, you will lower the adjustment time for the mount (which really only has to track a few thousands of a second of arc anyway).

Considering you need to physically MOVE (ie. turn, that is thrust the body of the vessel) to change vector (Are M-Drives gimbaled? I don't think they are), how fast do you really think you can change the vector of your ship? Can you make a meaningful change in less than 5 secs? Because that's probably the largest window you've got to move that 200 ton trader of yours. About the only thing you might be able to do is flick the drive off and on randomly, which will change the length of your vector, but not its direction.

 

[Rover]

Considering you need to physically MOVE (ie. turn, that is thrust the body of the vessel) to change vector (Are M-Drives gimbaled? I don't think they are), how fast do you really think you can change the vector of your ship? Can you make a meaningful change in less than 5 secs? Because that's probably the largest window you've got to move that 200 ton trader of yours. About the only thing you might be able to do is flick the drive off and on randomly, which will change the length of your vector, but not its direction.

The engines wouldn’t have to be gimbaled to cause variation in their predicted trajectory. In space there is no atmosphere to fight against, so attitude jets could turn ship 90 degrees on one or even two axes in a short span and start accelerating in on whole new vector.

Say you are accelerating at 1G in direction A and have reached a velocity of 50,000 KPH. (Numbers pulled out of thin air.) You realize that you are under attack and fire attitude jets changing orientation 25 Degrees in the X-axis and 62 on the Y-axis. You would still be moving 50,000 kph in direction A changed by accelerating along the new vector at 1 G.

Even a small window of 5 seconds will cause a displacement of 125 Meters at 1G. (1/2 A*T squared) That is well over a ship length. That may not be a lot, but it is enough to cause a miss.

 

[whartung]

Say you are accelerating at 1G in direction A and have reached a velocity of 50,000 KPH. (Numbers pulled out of thin air.) You realize that you are under attack and fire attitude jets changing orientation 25 Degrees in the X-axis and 62 on the Y-axis. You would still be moving 50,000 kph in direction A changed by accelerating along the new vector at 1 G.

And at what rate are the attitude jets firing? Certainly attitude jets can adjust the vector, there's effectively no difference from the acceleration generated by the main drive and the acceleration generated by attitude jets.

Well, there's one detail being that the main drive can produce 1G of acceleration whereas the attitude jets can generate, well, how much can they generate? The key is how long it takes you to change orientation to 25 deg X-axis and 62 on the Y-axis. Once reoriented, the main drive will adjust the vector appropriately. But if the attitude thrusters don't have much power (and they most likely won't), those changes may well not happen fast enough to dodge a light speed weapon.

 

[far-trader]

Attitude change is going to happen very quickly for small ships, not so quickly for large ones. Angular momentum and material stresses and felt Gs for the personnel being limiting factors. But this (annoyingly at times but necessarily) is ignored in Traveller.

So any ship can pretty much change it's orientation, under any conditions, instantly. It is ignored for effects. Turn 1 you can thrust your full Gs in direction x1,y1,z1 and Turn 2 you can thrust your full Gs in direction x2,y2,z2.

Of course Traveller turns are long so one may presume all such changes are done over the turn.

Don't forget that, except for missiles, attacks happen over the same long turn. I figure it's multiple shots fired into a probable cone of where the ship may be and the damage represents how many of those shots hit. a lot like the way D&D combat is abstracted. You roll for one effective hit which represents a lot of attempted strikes.