Laser, Missile, Sand

[kilemall]

Rather then recreate the scissors/rock/paper of our youth, improve it.

• Missiles can be anti-missiles, perhaps needing a more specialized warhead/detonator in hitting a small agile target rather then punching through starship hull
• Lasers get progressively weaker and conversely much stronger closer in
• Missiles can pick up those SS3 damage multipliers with speed and contact on target so vee counts in large amounts
• Lasers can switch to an anti-missile gatling mode with low power/multiple shot capability
• Spinal lasers
• Sand is just an option, there are sandcasters against every weapon system but meson guns
• Sandcasters are more normally used for countermeasures, deployed light sand/magnetic/chaff/IR/gravspoofers/charged particles designed to interfere with an accurate target solution and thus degrade ANY weapon's chances for hitting the ship (think TL12 chaffroc)

 

[robject]

I like ideas from the last two posts. All of this sounds good, and it seems like you're both working closer to Marc's vision for T5 than I. Thanks for this.

I think I could live with L-M-S as it currently is if we do work in boarding actions. Missiles then become the "kill the target I don't care to know the details" weapon [for the defender].

[Pirates need] to get in close and 'take out the masts' (to continue the Age of Sail analogy) and then board to take the ship as intact as possible [...] heavy on the lasers; partly to screen for the merchants lobbing missiles at them, partly to disable crucial components (drives, weapons) when they get close. They want to get close to board anyway; now they can use close range ship-damaging weapons effectively. The rules as written (IIRC) do allow targetting of hotspots on the ship.

We would then just need to work in a rule for boarding in a similar way that there is a rule for ramming. [...]

Sand then becomes very relevant for merchants alongside lasers to counter the lasers taking out weapons, drives and power.

[FONT=arial,helvetica]

• Missiles can be anti-missiles, perhaps needing a more specialized warhead/detonator in hitting a small agile target rather then punching through starship hull
• Lasers get progressively weaker and conversely much stronger closer in
• Missiles can pick up those SS3 damage multipliers with speed and contact on target so vee counts in large amounts
• Lasers can switch to an anti-missile gatling mode with low power/multiple shot capability
• Spinal lasers
• Sand is just an option, there are sandcasters against every weapon system but meson guns
• Sandcasters are more normally used for countermeasures, deployed light sand/magnetic/chaff/IR/gravspoofers/charged particles designed to interfere with an accurate target solution and thus degrade ANY weapon's chances for hitting the ship (think TL12 chaffroc)

[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]

[/FONT]

 

[kilemall]

Marc's vision for T5? I don't even own it so I don't know what that is, but Traveller is Traveller and it's Shotguns Sand and Starships dammit.

Possibly Sandals too, if you make the Imperium Roman.

 

[mike wightman]

Some thoughts from the 'no more magic missiles' campaign.
If lasers have a gatling mode for point defence then they should work more like a screen - any missile that gets within autohit and autokill range is destroyed. Perhaps you should look to Striker for the number of missiles a point defence mode laser can kill per turn, only way to get one through is to saturate the laser defences.

If you can hit a 9g evading ship at fractions of a light second ranges then as the target gets closer the chance to hit goes up until you can not miss, and the damage you do should go up too. A missile being much smaller is a harder target to hit but the last part of its trajectory is a known variable, it is trying to intercept you, so autohit should be guaranteed at a few thousand km.

An alternative missile drive system could be proposed where the missile is capable of 1-9g like ships for crossing distances, but once within intercept range they accelerate at much higher g to try and get to the target before being killed by the lasers. Or the missile needs to be bigger and carry a lot of independently accelerating impactors for the last stretch.

Or you have to nerf the range, accuracy and damage of lasers, but that would make them useless for ship to ship combat at Traveller ranges.

Civilian fire control is not going to be as good at point defence as military fire control.

 

[whulorigan]

Not to get too off-topic, but since the topic of PAs was lightly touched upon:

And a trader that needs to pack a punch to back-up its missile launcher will take the space and cost hit and install a Particle Accelerator barbette. I don't see why not. It's survival.

Under CT/HG, a Particle Accelerator delivers both a physical hit and a radiation hit. While the T5 description of PAs mention both physical and radiation damage, is there a specific way under T5 that both of these damage types are reflected and/or inflicted upon a target, or are they both just abstracted together under the standard damage for a barbette-sized weapon? In other words, do a barbette-laser and a barbette PA both do the exact same undifferentiated damage of 5D? Or does a PA-barbette do 5D of physical damage in addition to some additional radiation effect?

Also, is it still possible to "mix" weapon types in a dual, triple, or quad turret (other than K-M-S & L-M-S) under T5 the way you could in CT? And if so, is their damage still based on the turret type rather than the number of weapons of a type in the turret (this also applies to the K-M-S & L-M-S turrets as well - does a laser shot from one of these do 1D or 3D, since the mount is a triple-turret)?

 

[robject]

While the T5 description of PAs mention both physical and radiation damage, is there a specific way under T5 that both of these damage types are reflected and/or inflicted upon a target, or are they both just abstracted together under the standard damage for a barbette-sized weapon?

This is worthy of a new thread.

 

[robject]

So I am slowly coming around to thinking that T5 has two styles of space combat.

(1) long ranged, standoff combat, where you're lobbing missile salvos at each other.

(2) "knife fighting" of the sort reserved for fighters and boarding action-style maneuvering.

This from the rules, because there are two kinds of weapons: those intended for close work, and those intended for longer-ranged work.

 

[mike wightman]

Do you want cinematic or 'Traveller realistic'?

I have noticed a tend over the past few years to introduce more and more cinematic ship combat - what does Marc want?

There are consequences to the weapon systems in previous versions of Traveller.

TNE came the closest to a 'most realistic' ship combat system with Brilliant Lances and Battle Rider.

 

[flykiller]

Do you want cinematic or 'Traveller realistic'?

traveller realistic - reasonably realistic while still including role-played gaming characters - no question. if I want cinematics I'll go to the cinema.

 

[mike wightman]

'Traveller realistic' up to now is laser ranges measures in tens of thousands of km (it used to be light seconds) and fire control that is capable of tracking agile targets at those ranges, not to mention engaging multiple targets in point defence mode.

Civilian ships may not be allowed point defence fire control software... now there is a thought for mixing the old and the new

 

[robject]

'Traveller realistic' up to now is laser ranges measures in tens of thousands of km [...] and fire control that is capable of tracking agile targets at those ranges, not to mention engaging multiple targets in point defence mode.

Marc definitely sided "Traveller realistic" here. Typical maximum range for lasers is 50,000 km -- and that's unlikely to score a hit.

(it used to be light seconds)

And he's clearly "CT-cinematic" here, since long-ranged weapons can reach closer to this.

So: he's clearly non-ideological, which means he has a particular outcome in mind: he deliberately set lasers to be shorter-ranged. So he intends them to be used at short ranges; e.g. knife fights and missile defense.

If "knife fighting" is a valid ship combat scenario, then lasers might not be relegated to anti-missiles, and sandcasters might retain some value. (Indeed, sandcasters at really long "CT style" ranges may not have ever made a lot of sense. But that's of little or no concern.)

Since sandcasters exist in T5 ship design, Marc probably intends for lasers to be important as well; hence short-ranged space combat.

How that all works out is "key", I suppose.

 

[whulorigan]

So: he's clearly non-ideological, which means he has a particular outcome in mind: he deliberately set lasers to be shorter-ranged. So he intends them to be used at short ranges; e.g. knife fights and missile defense.

If "knife fighting" is a valid ship combat scenario, then lasers might not be relegated to anti-missiles, and sandcasters might retain some value. (Indeed, sandcasters at really long "CT style" ranges may not have ever made a lot of sense. But that's of little or no concern.)

Since sandcasters exist in T5 ship design, Marc probably intends for lasers to be important as well; hence short-ranged space combat.

How that all works out is "key", I suppose.

Getting behind Marc's thinking:

We can probably divide most ships into two broad categories: Military/Paramilitary/Naval and Commercial/Private. In general, Commercial/Private vessels are not supposed to be shooting at each other, they are supposed to be engaging in trade, commerce, and transport. But the Traveller space-lanes being what they are ("Age of Sail" analogy), such vessels need to be able to defend themselves against marauders or other potential hostiles and unknowns (especially on the frontiers). Thus they have armaments at need. But for commercial vessels cost is at a premium:

1) How much can a Free Trader reasonably expect to spend on weapon systems?
2) Missile racks need ammunition replenishment, which is a cost-issue,
3) Barbette weapons take up additional hull tonnage, and
4) Bay weapons (aside from being expensive) take up significant and valuable cargo space.
​

The primary tactic of the private or commercial vessel in general should be to avoid or outrun a potential adversary (i.e. get to the jump point or to the port before a hostile can close weapons-range), and fight only when that is not possible.

Military/Paramilitary vessels, OTOH, are designed for attack, and generally have a higher budget to spend from. BCS ships will be primarily dependent on their Spines (which are not dealt with in these rules), and are generally the province of the Imperial Navy. The ACS military/paramilitary vessels detailed here are likely what one would expect in Colonial and Planetary Navies. Such vessels are going to want to have the longest range weapon possible so that they can (ideally) get an enemy vessel within their targeting range while staying outside of their opponent's range.

All that being said, consider the prices of the various weapon systems. If we look specifically at those weapon systems of TL15 or less (i.e. those with which we are familiar from prior published Traveller settings):

WEAPONS (T5.09 - p.301)

Range-Type	TL	Mount	MCr
FR-Mining Laser	8	Turret	0.5
FR-Pulse Laser	9	Turret	0.3
FR-Beam Laser	10	Turret	0.5
FR-Plasma Gun	11	Barbette	1.0
FR-Fusion Gun	12	Barbette	1.5
FR-Slug Thrower	9	Turret	0.2
AR-Missile	7	Turret	2.0
FR-Jump Damper	14	Barbette	15.0
FR-SandCaster	9	Turret	0.1
AR-Hybrid S-L-M	10	Turret	1.0
LR-Particle Accel	11	Barbette	2.5

[TC="4"][/TC] [TC="4"] Beams [/TC] [TC="4"][/TC] [TC="4"] Missiles [/TC] [TC="4"][/TC] [TC="4"] Exotic [/TC] [TC="4"][/TC] [TC="4"] Special [/TC]

Note that (aside from the Exotic "Jump Damper" which we will set aside for the present discussion), by far the most expensive weapons are the Plasma/Fusion Barbettes, [FONT=arial,helvetica]PA Barbette, [/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]Missile Rack, and Hybrid SLM/SKM (which are likely more expensive because of the missile launcher). So both the Missile and PA are considerably more expensive (and the PA much more of a "tonnage-hog" than the other systems as well) - these are both of the long range attack weapons. And the [/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]Plasma/Fusion Barbettes, while close-range systems, are both expensive and [/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica]"tonnage-hogs" as well.

My guess is that the PA and the missile are seen as the long-range military weapons that a [/FONT][/FONT]military/paramilitary vessel would need for its mission, but which a commercial vessel "ought" not to need. The [FONT=arial,helvetica]Hybrid SLM/SKM turret, however, is a nice option for the merchant or private owner who has some extra cash to spend to give them a little more "punch" should combat unavoidably arise (and be able to hit that corsair unexpectedly at long range with missiles).
[/FONT]

 

[robject]

I think your guess is correct.

Two thoughts though:

(1) is the Missile Launcher MCr 2? I thought it was much cheaper.

(2) A PA in a 3 ton barbette is MCr 5.5. Yes, it may be close to 10% the cost of a far trader... but really, if it's a matter of survival, spread over a 40-year mortgage with simple interest, longer range, more damage? Where do I sign.

The traditional option -- like a triple beam laser turret -- is MCr 1.5 and 1 ton. Surely I can pony up another MCr 4 and give up 2 tons.

 

[whulorigan]

(1) is the Missile Launcher MCr 2? I thought it was much cheaper.

I double-checked my PDF of T5.09, and it definitely says MCr2.0.

(2) A PA in a 3 ton barbette is MCr 5.5. Yes, it may be close to 10% the cost of a far trader... but really, if it's a matter of survival, spread over a 40-year mortgage with simple interest, longer range, more damage? Where do I sign.

The traditional option -- like a triple beam laser turret -- is MCr 1.5 and 1 ton. Surely I can pony up another MCr 4 and give up 2 tons.

I would seriously look into the PA-option as well.

But also consider: A typical Free Trader will get only 2 hardpoints. For two Hybrid SLMs I can get two missiles flying in the black (with several different warhead options) while at the same time readying my Laser for close in fighting if it comes to that (as well as for picking off any inbound hostile missiles). And I still get my defensive sandscreen option. The Hybrid turret gives me versatility over a range of possible situations. The PA gives me the long range punch while still giving me short range fire as well, but I lose the defensive option of the sandscreen from the sandcaster as well as the point-defense fire ability of the laser (PAs are not listed on Table A2 in the defenses section as a Defensive Weapon option). And Free Traders have limited hull armor.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Right on!

I double-checked my PDF of T5.09, and it definitely says MCr2.0.

I would seriously look into the PA-option as well.

But also consider: A typical Free Trader will get only 2 hardpoints. For two Hybrid LMSs I can get two missiles flying in the black (with several different warhead options) while at the same time readying my Laser for close in fighting if it comes to that (as well as for picking off any inbound hostile missiles). And I still get my defensive sandscreen option. The Hybrid turret gives me versatility over a range of possible situations. The PA gives me the long range punch while still giving me short range fire as well, but I lose the defensive option of the sandscreen from the sandcaster as well as the point-defense fire ability of the laser (PAs are not listed on Table A2 in the defenses section as a Defensive Weapon option). And Free Traders have limited hull armor.

This right here! That is exactly why I even bother, the utility outweighs the crappy Mod the single weapon gives.

 

[aramis]

I think your guess is correct.

Two thoughts though:

(1) is the Missile Launcher MCr 2? I thought it was much cheaper.
.

It was much cheaper in CT.

 

[David Johansen]

I've been looking and as far as I can find, it's a single missile. That's a pretty big limitation next to a laser that can fire repeatedly.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

What's a single missile?

I've been looking and as far as I can find, it's a single missile. That's a pretty big limitation next to a laser that can fire repeatedly.

I am confused as to this reference.

To my admittedly I find these days even with Hans and Don gone limited Traveller knowledge there was a missile in the launcher, three ready rounds in a turret for each launcher and then either haul missiles from magazines/cargo or have been smart enough to have an auto-loader between the emplacement and the magazine so there are always ready rounds till the mag runs dry or you win or strike your colors. Or die. It happens. So, it isn't like missiles are the retarded cousin of smart lasers, they can dish some fifty-one missiles into the fray with one launcher and a one-ton magazine. Twenty-six for a double and just under eighteen (17.6666667) for a triple. That is a lot of shots in one fight, sure with a triple missle turret it probably pays to install another magazine, but for the double not so bad and that single is busting caps like it was Holiday.

Just saying, I have given this a lot of thought ad a Naval Architect.

 

[aramis]

CT was 3 rounds in each launcher, plus up to 9 in the turret, and a gunner. A triple missile launcher had 3 battery rounds ready of 3 missiles each, plus 3 more battery rounds in the turret. A single had 12 battery rounds... but a gunner could only slap a few per round in.

 

[Wol]

traveller realistic - reasonably realistic while still including role-played gaming characters - no question. if I want cinematics I'll go to the cinema.

Hmmmm 'realistic'. I have got no idea what might be realistic in such a far future. Alternatively I have about as much idea as Xerxes probably had about anti-satellite weapons. I would only be hoping for internal consistency. Not a complaint - but it does seem a matter of picking one possible world amongst many without any real basis other than aethetics.