Imperial Marines and "Small Wars"
- Thread starter Father Fletch
- Start date
It's going to be possible to design anti-BD missiles light enough for the infantry to carry to.
This comes down to the difference between CT/MT/T4 battledress (advanced body armour) and TNE/ GURPS battledress (which are 2300 style combat walkers).
For players in the former universes, battledress is the standard body armour for TL-14+ troops, along with a grav belt, FGMP-14 etc. Battledress protects against small arms, but not modern infantry weapons (FGMP).
In the latter, BD infantry are essentially vehicles. Much tougher (comparitively) but BD is also restricted and most infantry are old style leg infantry with Gauss Rifles and RPG's.
It's worth noting that CT book 4 goes through the weapons changes at various TL's. Tube artillery is completely replaced by drones, which in turn are made obsolete by about TL-13. Modern (TL-15) artillery is mainly direct fire Fusion Cannon and indirect fire Meson Sleds, rockets and tube artillery are about as effective as a 12 pounder Napoleon.
Bryn (about to dig out his book 4 and find out stuff)
This comes down to the difference between CT/MT/T4 battledress (advanced body armour) and TNE/ GURPS battledress (which are 2300 style combat walkers).
For players in the former universes, battledress is the standard body armour for TL-14+ troops, along with a grav belt, FGMP-14 etc. Battledress protects against small arms, but not modern infantry weapons (FGMP).
In the latter, BD infantry are essentially vehicles. Much tougher (comparitively) but BD is also restricted and most infantry are old style leg infantry with Gauss Rifles and RPG's.
It's worth noting that CT book 4 goes through the weapons changes at various TL's. Tube artillery is completely replaced by drones, which in turn are made obsolete by about TL-13. Modern (TL-15) artillery is mainly direct fire Fusion Cannon and indirect fire Meson Sleds, rockets and tube artillery are about as effective as a 12 pounder Napoleon.
Bryn (about to dig out his book 4 and find out stuff)
Battledress in MT won't stop some of the RAM grenades, so any rifleman should be able to knockdon a BD trooper. Also, the FGMP is obviously a threat. As are shoulder launched missiles. So, we have very valuable Marines, few in number, which can be taken out by less armoured enemy forces. (Yes, they might just be able to kill lots of the enemy... maybe...)
I agree that in the later rulesets, BD is a different beast.
One of the problems with a "Fusion Canon" is that it isn't really artillery, at least in that indirect fire is not an option. The Meson gun *might* count, but it can't supply the wide variation of rounds that tube artillery can. Try to obscure sight of an advance with a Meson gun.... good luck.
Now, RPVs/UAVs and remote drone launch systems will offer some of the capabilities in question.
However, if everyone is controlling autonimous AI firing systems, God save you if your tacnet gets hacked. At least with human gunners, they might just say 'I don't think so, Bob'. Now, you can argue TL-15 tacnets, but you can also argue TL-15 computerized intrusion and decryption facilities. As well as the old fashioned methods...
The other interesting thing is the Imperium, as presented here with super elite super expensive marines, will suffer even moreso from the problem that the civilized world now faces in OOTW. That is to say, today when the US or UK loses a soldier, that's a huge loss of investment and a long training time. And look at Iraq.... guys with nothing more sophisticated that some C4 and a radio detonator (slight exaggeration, but not really) are scoring kills every day. (Sometimes without the radio detonator!). Take this to a case where your companies are 50 men large and where each marines is worth a whopping pile of bucks and you've got a very significant loss factor from these kinds of attacks.
Anyway, IMTU, IYTU.
I agree that in the later rulesets, BD is a different beast.
One of the problems with a "Fusion Canon" is that it isn't really artillery, at least in that indirect fire is not an option. The Meson gun *might* count, but it can't supply the wide variation of rounds that tube artillery can. Try to obscure sight of an advance with a Meson gun.... good luck.
Now, RPVs/UAVs and remote drone launch systems will offer some of the capabilities in question.
However, if everyone is controlling autonimous AI firing systems, God save you if your tacnet gets hacked. At least with human gunners, they might just say 'I don't think so, Bob'. Now, you can argue TL-15 tacnets, but you can also argue TL-15 computerized intrusion and decryption facilities. As well as the old fashioned methods...
The other interesting thing is the Imperium, as presented here with super elite super expensive marines, will suffer even moreso from the problem that the civilized world now faces in OOTW. That is to say, today when the US or UK loses a soldier, that's a huge loss of investment and a long training time. And look at Iraq.... guys with nothing more sophisticated that some C4 and a radio detonator (slight exaggeration, but not really) are scoring kills every day. (Sometimes without the radio detonator!). Take this to a case where your companies are 50 men large and where each marines is worth a whopping pile of bucks and you've got a very significant loss factor from these kinds of attacks.
Anyway, IMTU, IYTU.
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
At high TLs (13+) point defense is so common and so effective that the best way to get projectiles through to a target is to escort them with lots of decoys and jamming, plus taking a path that gives the point defense the minimum time to fire on the incoming.
That's why my Marines use drone missiles. They're more expensive, but the drone brains can guide the missile along the ground (staying out of line of sight/fire of the target) until the last possible moment, then they deploy the decoys, turn on the jammers, and make a high-speed run to the target.
The other way is the Hyper Velocity Missile. If you have a missile that accelerates at thousands of G's (even if only for a fraction of a second) it can get to the target before the point defenses can react.
That's why my Marines use drone missiles. They're more expensive, but the drone brains can guide the missile along the ground (staying out of line of sight/fire of the target) until the last possible moment, then they deploy the decoys, turn on the jammers, and make a high-speed run to the target.
The other way is the Hyper Velocity Missile. If you have a missile that accelerates at thousands of G's (even if only for a fraction of a second) it can get to the target before the point defenses can react.
marginaleye
SOC-12
Um...
Shouldn't there be unforeseen consequences for this kind of propulsion technology?
If you can install it in a man-portable battlefield missle, why not in, say, a missle used for ship-to-ship combat, or even in a rugged, fully-robotic, drone fighter? (or, assuming "tens of Gs" instead of "thousands," a *manned* fighter, with the pilot suspended in a coffin-like high-pressure acceleration tank, like the ones in Haldeman's "Forever War," controlling the fighter with some kind of direct neural interface ).
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
Well, here again we hit one of the differences between the OTU and MTU. IMTU I say that ship-to-ship missiles =do= reach such accelerations, and so when I game ship combat the missiles are launched and in the same combat turn they reach their targets, which then try to stop them before impact. The greatly increased ranges of space combat allow the defenses time to track and engage the missiles, even if they accelerate at thousands of G's.
But this way I don't have to keep track of missiles floating all over the map: they're just "point-and-shoot." Much easier. More abstract, less "nuts and bolts" which can be upsetting to some people used to a different style, but I'm more interested in keeping the story going than in tracking every last G of acceleration a missile might have left.
YMMV.
But this way I don't have to keep track of missiles floating all over the map: they're just "point-and-shoot." Much easier. More abstract, less "nuts and bolts" which can be upsetting to some people used to a different style, but I'm more interested in keeping the story going than in tracking every last G of acceleration a missile might have left.
YMMV.
OTOH ...
If I can make a man portable hyper kill missile, can probably make smaller hyper-kill PD systems. Right now, there are PD systems that will stop KE round from modern MBTs a good percentage of the time . Not just HEAP, but KE rounds. This trend is only likely to continue. Yes, you can try saturation, but if the defense only needs to deflect your incoming shot or shiver it or tumble it, then they can cover an area just about as easily. And the logic that allows you to aim and hit with a HKM will also allow a defense form. You've got lightspeed weapons, among other options, so building a defense against HKMs should be relatively simple.
Now, you can have whatever you want IYTU, no argument there. But I can see a minor technological consistency issue, or so it seems to me.
If I can make a man portable hyper kill missile, can probably make smaller hyper-kill PD systems. Right now, there are PD systems that will stop KE round from modern MBTs a good percentage of the time . Not just HEAP, but KE rounds. This trend is only likely to continue. Yes, you can try saturation, but if the defense only needs to deflect your incoming shot or shiver it or tumble it, then they can cover an area just about as easily. And the logic that allows you to aim and hit with a HKM will also allow a defense form. You've got lightspeed weapons, among other options, so building a defense against HKMs should be relatively simple.
Now, you can have whatever you want IYTU, no argument there. But I can see a minor technological consistency issue, or so it seems to me.
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
Yes, a fast enough, accurate enough point defense system might stop a HVM. But a HVM will have a better chance of getting through that point defense than a slower missile will.
There is no perfect offense, there is no perfect defense. It's a constant back-and-forth struggle. But HVMs would have their place. They aren't the only missile my Marines carry, but they are the one the missileers usually have locked and loaded.
There is no perfect offense, there is no perfect defense. It's a constant back-and-forth struggle. But HVMs would have their place. They aren't the only missile my Marines carry, but they are the one the missileers usually have locked and loaded.
Well, a slightly modern example. In Chechniya, the Russian Army found their PDS (using some sort of charge and I think some sort of doppler system to detect the speed of the incoming round) stopped something more than 90% of incoming ATGM/RPG attacks, on equipped vehicles. That's pretty effective.
Now, modern PDS stopping, disrupting, or tumbling KE is (IIRC from conversations with a guy I know who designs anti-armour weapons for a living) somewhere between 50 and 70% effective.
Now, a laser, to be an effective ZDS or PDS, has to be able to deliver a lot of power very quickly. But Trav lasers can. And poof goes the missile. Similarly, various charges just have to deflect or tumble the incoming missile or the munition. Not impossible by any means.
I take the point there is always a give and take. All I'm suggesting is that any high tech force needs a wide array of options for engaging enemy threats - HVMs, Meson Guns, Tube artillery, etc. - This all forms part of the arsenal. But you really do need the breadth of capability, not just one or two potent systems, because there will be threats they are poor at dealing with or defenses that can be brought on line.
Anyway, the thread has had a lot of good food for thought.
Now, modern PDS stopping, disrupting, or tumbling KE is (IIRC from conversations with a guy I know who designs anti-armour weapons for a living) somewhere between 50 and 70% effective.
Now, a laser, to be an effective ZDS or PDS, has to be able to deliver a lot of power very quickly. But Trav lasers can. And poof goes the missile. Similarly, various charges just have to deflect or tumble the incoming missile or the munition. Not impossible by any means.
I take the point there is always a give and take. All I'm suggesting is that any high tech force needs a wide array of options for engaging enemy threats - HVMs, Meson Guns, Tube artillery, etc. - This all forms part of the arsenal. But you really do need the breadth of capability, not just one or two potent systems, because there will be threats they are poor at dealing with or defenses that can be brought on line.
Anyway, the thread has had a lot of good food for thought.
Straybow
SOC-14 1K
The idea of mecha is fantasy, not scifi. Makes me cring to see such ludicrous things taking up ink or electrons in Traveller. In hard scifi mecha are naught but big, easy targets. In a looser scifi milieu mecha are somewhat useful targets (for the duration of their short battlefield lives).
You sound like you'd be a good player in Dirtside (1/300th scale wargame) from Ground Zero Games. In there, walkers are just exactly what you say. You can have them, they're just not a very efficient combat platform. They have a few advantages, but they do draw fire rather easily.
MT BD and vehicle rules, well, very little in the way of small arms will get Hig-Pen results... but most military arms will do damage. (Against a pen 6 ACR DS round, mmost vehicles (But not Armored combat vehicles) will take at least 1 point of damage on most rolls. (The minimum damage by margin of hit is AFTER all calcs... assuming te NoPen damage result is obtained and there are some forms of weak spot)
That DS round has a chance of damaging almost any civilian starship. Seldom will it do more than 1 or 2 points, but it can do damage. (as a house rule, I put the minimum for enclosed armor boxes, like ships and ArmCbtVeh, as 4+,1, 8+ 2, so as to represent the possibility of spalling.)
It will do much the same damage against the AR15-18 BD trooper...enough to hurt, not enough to disable. Most rounds will bounce, but a few (and with some shooter, most) will find those weak spots. Unlike a vehicle, however, that NoPen result canonically applies to Battledress, as BD is mentioned in the text!
That DS round has a chance of damaging almost any civilian starship. Seldom will it do more than 1 or 2 points, but it can do damage. (as a house rule, I put the minimum for enclosed armor boxes, like ships and ArmCbtVeh, as 4+,1, 8+ 2, so as to represent the possibility of spalling.)
It will do much the same damage against the AR15-18 BD trooper...enough to hurt, not enough to disable. Most rounds will bounce, but a few (and with some shooter, most) will find those weak spots. Unlike a vehicle, however, that NoPen result canonically applies to Battledress, as BD is mentioned in the text!
Straybow
SOC-14 1K
The problem with BD is an AP round with enough energy to penetrate will ricochet around the inside, multiplying damage a few times over.
[rolls dice] "It penetrated!"
Player: "Hah, just a flesh wound…"
[rolls dice] "and bounced"
Player: "another flesh wound,"
[rolls dice] "and another,"
Player: groans inarticulately
[rolls dice] "…and there goes your liver…"
No rules I've seen take that into account. This would be true for lasers, too. The excess energy above penetration has to go somewhere, and you are the energy absorption media.
[rolls dice] "It penetrated!"
Player: "Hah, just a flesh wound…"
[rolls dice] "and bounced"
Player: "another flesh wound,"
[rolls dice] "and another,"
Player: groans inarticulately
[rolls dice] "…and there goes your liver…"
No rules I've seen take that into account. This would be true for lasers, too. The excess energy above penetration has to go somewhere, and you are the energy absorption media.
Or, if it is a really nasty round, go right through.
There are historical examples of rounds penetrating both sides of a target vehicle without going off or tumbling or shattering. This could apply in some cases to BD. Of course, it will leave a channel through the intervening tissue.... (ewwwww!)
I thought with a laser also you'd get a nasty wound as the water in the tissues was instantly sublimated, perhaps even explosively. So a laser wound might *explode outwards* with a puff of steam, and nearby tissues might be cooked. Ugly looking, prone to infection, and far from a 'nice cauterized clean wound'.
There are historical examples of rounds penetrating both sides of a target vehicle without going off or tumbling or shattering. This could apply in some cases to BD. Of course, it will leave a channel through the intervening tissue.... (ewwwww!)
I thought with a laser also you'd get a nasty wound as the water in the tissues was instantly sublimated, perhaps even explosively. So a laser wound might *explode outwards* with a puff of steam, and nearby tissues might be cooked. Ugly looking, prone to infection, and far from a 'nice cauterized clean wound'.
Well, I've seen a few that did account for multiple bounce, but they were complex enough as to be unplayable.
The other problem is that for traveller, other than striker/AHL, penetration was not rolled for. Penetration was a fixed number in both MT and TNE, and armor effects were very predictable in both.
AHL/Striker has a different problem. High-damage rounds with low penetrations (EG, Hollowpoints, frangibles, dum-dums) don't model well (which is why DGP came up with the separate pen/atten/damage mechanism), nor do excess-penetrations... (BTW, pen 26+ should go in and out of an EMPTY suit of BD... in striker/AHL, it simply kills)
The other problem is that for traveller, other than striker/AHL, penetration was not rolled for. Penetration was a fixed number in both MT and TNE, and armor effects were very predictable in both.
AHL/Striker has a different problem. High-damage rounds with low penetrations (EG, Hollowpoints, frangibles, dum-dums) don't model well (which is why DGP came up with the separate pen/atten/damage mechanism), nor do excess-penetrations... (BTW, pen 26+ should go in and out of an EMPTY suit of BD... in striker/AHL, it simply kills)
One additional thought on "Mecha"
powered walkers, as combat machines, make little sense without extensive PDS's.
Powered walkers, as a means of working in certain hostile environments, make perfecct sense. For example, a 4 legged walker is far more stable than a 2 legger, and a 4 leg walker can climb mountains like a goat, if properly equipped.
And walkers are part of canonical traveller. MT. in fact. MT & FF&S have walker motive systems available.
Not "Mecha", per se, but a combat walker designed to support infantry ops. about 4m tall.
powered walkers, as combat machines, make little sense without extensive PDS's.
Powered walkers, as a means of working in certain hostile environments, make perfecct sense. For example, a 4 legged walker is far more stable than a 2 legger, and a 4 leg walker can climb mountains like a goat, if properly equipped.
And walkers are part of canonical traveller. MT. in fact. MT & FF&S have walker motive systems available.
Not "Mecha", per se, but a combat walker designed to support infantry ops. about 4m tall.
a few quick notes here:
mecha is really just shorthand for mechanical design and includes planes and cars and tanks as well as the stereotypical huge robots, the exoskeletons from Aliens, AT-ST's and AT-AT's, powered armorsuits, etc.
see most any illustration book for a modern or futuristic anime for examples of the range of mecha; a good descriptive-based toolkit for t20 is d20 mecha (http://www.guardiansorder.com/d20/srd/)
Battledress and Gundams (the latter as a general example of what most consider as mecha) are both directly inspired by the same thing...Starship Troopers
Some of the better examples IMO of more realistic futuristic designs are any of the more serious designs by Masume Shirow (Appleseed, Ghost in the Shell), Armored Trooper Votoms (the closest designs to DP9's Gears), Gasaraki, and the construction labors and police "car" in Patlabor
some of these are more utilitarian designs but a few are barely larger than humans and made for combat
/me off soapbox
Casey
mecha is really just shorthand for mechanical design and includes planes and cars and tanks as well as the stereotypical huge robots, the exoskeletons from Aliens, AT-ST's and AT-AT's, powered armorsuits, etc.
see most any illustration book for a modern or futuristic anime for examples of the range of mecha; a good descriptive-based toolkit for t20 is d20 mecha (http://www.guardiansorder.com/d20/srd/)
Battledress and Gundams (the latter as a general example of what most consider as mecha) are both directly inspired by the same thing...Starship Troopers
Some of the better examples IMO of more realistic futuristic designs are any of the more serious designs by Masume Shirow (Appleseed, Ghost in the Shell), Armored Trooper Votoms (the closest designs to DP9's Gears), Gasaraki, and the construction labors and police "car" in Patlabor
some of these are more utilitarian designs but a few are barely larger than humans and made for combat
/me off soapbox
Casey
The term mecha has multiple layers of meaning. Mecha Anime specifically means "Giant Robot" anime. AD Tank police isn't Mecha Anime, any more than Urusei Yatsura is. Yes, both feature mechanical fighting machines (UY in just a few episodes), but the term "Mecha" has come to mean "Large transformable, hominid, or animaloid combat vehicles."
Mecha gmes, as a genre, are specifically the giant robot kind... with ginant being relative (DP 9's Gears being 3-6m, Battletech's being 6-15m, Robotech's being inetween those extremes (4-10m).
the original derivation is meaningless under current useage of the term, Casey, even tho' you are dead on to its origins.
Mecha don't belong in traveller. Combat walkers (AKA ExHvy Battle Dress) might... 2.5m, comparable to Battletech's elemenntals. More wearable robot than body armor. Transformable to motobikes, not IMTU.
Where is the line drawn? Well, 12m tall hominids have no place IMTU. 12m tall wildfire-fighhting hexapod walkers, maybe. 2m tall warbots, sure! 2.5m Wearable Walkers, absolutely. As combattants, maybe. As cargo loaders, maybe. As sporting craft for the ridiculously wealthy, YUP!!!
Mecha gmes, as a genre, are specifically the giant robot kind... with ginant being relative (DP 9's Gears being 3-6m, Battletech's being 6-15m, Robotech's being inetween those extremes (4-10m).
the original derivation is meaningless under current useage of the term, Casey, even tho' you are dead on to its origins.
Mecha don't belong in traveller. Combat walkers (AKA ExHvy Battle Dress) might... 2.5m, comparable to Battletech's elemenntals. More wearable robot than body armor. Transformable to motobikes, not IMTU.
Where is the line drawn? Well, 12m tall hominids have no place IMTU. 12m tall wildfire-fighhting hexapod walkers, maybe. 2m tall warbots, sure! 2.5m Wearable Walkers, absolutely. As combattants, maybe. As cargo loaders, maybe. As sporting craft for the ridiculously wealthy, YUP!!!
There is a good reason large robots won't be viable combatants in most realistic sci-fi games - they make very easy targts, have a large surface area (inefficient shape for armour for the volume) and they'll suffer instability issues if they lose a leg (this is refering to bipedal walkers). Smaller walking bots might be useful in forests (somewhere I recall a walking forestry robot made in the Scandinavian countries... pretty impressive unit). But you'd have troulbe with larger bipedal bots (Shogun Warriors, Transformers, etc) because they'd make such good targets, always give away your location, and the whole idea of transforming... just think of the mechanical and electronic complexity and how easy it probably would be to inflict enough damage to cause serious issues.... not to mention the waste mass for the conversion hardware.
No, Traveller isn't (in the average canon universe) a good place for giant warbots. Besides, once you have grav vehicles, a giant warbot looks a bit silly, no?
OTOH, if you like it, IYTU. Fill yer boots.
No, Traveller isn't (in the average canon universe) a good place for giant warbots. Besides, once you have grav vehicles, a giant warbot looks a bit silly, no?
OTOH, if you like it, IYTU. Fill yer boots.
