Assuming you have to pay for personnel (a reasonable cost is 50-100 kCr), BD in GURPS will easily chew up a similar cost in troops in combat armor. Even a Colom (low end battlesuit; GT:GF86) has better sensors, better stealth, better speed, and substantially better armor (impervious to smallarms; you can kill one with an FGMP or an anti-armor missile, and not really anything lighter) than troops in combat armor.
Marine TOE
- Thread starter BMonnery
- Start date
You're not getting my money that easy.
I agree completely; credit-for-credit, combat armor is better. Jump troops are one place where it starts to pay for itself, though.
In MTU, BD is reserved for jump troops and special guard units and those as much for show as any real reason. It's just too expensive and doesn't pay back the investment well.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
It would seem so, until you factor in the much higher ROF's of heavy weapons, which can be as high as 40 up to 160 in some weapons, coupled with advances fire controls, along with advanced burst area weapons as AA.</font>[/QUOTE]If you light up the sky with your AAA you do one thing that in an Airborne Drop, today, that doesn't make much difference but in a Marine Drop from Combat vessels in orbit makes a hell of a difference. When you fire those weapons from your ground sites you identify those weapons for lightspeed and near lightspeed weapons to engage and eliminate them. (Extreme Counterbattery fire.) While most of those ground weapons are incapable of engaging the craft in orbit. I would be tempted to dump a load of decoys on the objective just to take out the Triple A.
I would agree with that; look at the ROF's of even the smaller heavy Energy field weapons, and imagine what a single 50 to a 100 ton emplacement with the advanced targeting and fire control can do to even a huge air assault of troopers, Battledress is kind of puny against those.
Battledress doesn't give any better protection than regular combat armor at the same tech level, or even over several tech levels; it's still 18 at all levels up to 15, and tech 14 combat armor is the same.
</font>[/QUOTE]Depends on which version of Traveller you are playing. In T20 there is a huge difference between Battledress and Combat Armor. IN CT there were a couple of important differences. The important one being unlimited endurance. In CT you were only allowed to move full speed, or strike full blows in a fight a number of times equal to your endurance. So if your endurance was 8 you could only move full speed 8 times or strike 8 full strength blows or any combination of the two per combat encounter.
Again this would depend on the ruleset being used.
Those thoughts rely on five very important assumptions. The first is that you can attack the BD equipped troopers effectively from the vehicles, and they are in large groups instead of dispersed. The Second is that you are on a planet or in an environment that will allow you to deploy grav vehicles or Artillery. The third assumption is that you have space to transport these Grav Vehicles and Artillery pieces and ammo. The fifth is that these Grav Vehicles can stand up to Marine Multi-Mission Fighting Vehicles and Direct Naval Gunfire.
Grav vehicles are great. I love Grav APCs and G-Carriers myself. Howwever they don't work on the Highport. They don't work in an asteroid field. They don't fit in a typical Arcology or on a typical Orbital facility.They certainly aren't much use in a boarding action.
According to my set of MT rules, the life support for vacc suits doesn't exceed 48 hours, at tech-14. Grav belts at tech-15 have up to 4 hours at 300kg thrust. No mention anywhere of any longer endurance than a regular vacc suit in the CT and MT I have.
I didn't see anywhere where grav vehicle-0 skill includes grav belt, but it doesn't exclude it, either. In any case, jump troops are a seperate unit and specialty, according to the Rebellion or Referee's companion, I forget which, so I kind of doubt the Imperium is going to forgo grav belt-0 or more likely grav belt-1 as a qualification. I can strap on a parachute, jump out the door, and pull the ring as an 'unskilled OK' task; that doesn't make me air assault qualified.
I have CT and MT, and neither have anything that gives BD automatically to all Marines. In CT, unless it's some reference deeper in the LBB's I haven't run across, it isn't on the list of rolled up skills at all, until Mercenary, and vacc suit-1 is the minimum requirement in CT Mercenary, which even then doesn't allow you to use the weapon systems BD was designed to be used with without serious risk to life and limb.
While BD includes vacc suit, vacc suit is not a totally upwardly compatible skill. BD requires special training in both CT and MT.
In MT BD skill requires a roll of 7 on D6 to get, so it's rare even in the Marines and Commando both.
It's true Marines have more shots at getting it than regular Army, but given that the numbers of troops the Army is going to have over Marines, it becomes clear the Army is going to field far more jump troops and/or BD troops than The Marines, statistically, given the much smaller size of the Marines, in game terms. The BD system is more like the squad level Pigman, a heavy weapon specialist, with larger groups being special forces type commando and combat engineering units, going by economic and common sense trooper deployment.
</font>[/QUOTE]I didn't say the skill was automatic, I just said you are likely to get either Vacc Suit or Battledress. For most cases either will serve.
So the only case where the Vacc Suit skill isn't good enough is when the individual is also a PGMP or FGMP gunner. (Which is why, IMTU, the standard Marine Weapon is the Gauss Rifle and the PGMP/FGMP is the squad support weapon.
BTW MT has the skills read the same way, but T20 does not.
LBB1 says Air/Raft Skill applies to all Grav Vehicles. LBB4, LBB5 and LBB6 all say the same about the Grav Vehicle skill. LBB3 the Air/Raft is listed as having effectively unlimited endurance, requiring refueling every 10 weeks or so. Then says the Grav Belt has similar speed, and range performance to the Air/raft.
MT Players' Manual says that Grav Vehicle skill counts as Grav Belt skill -1, so I stand corrected. If you are using the MT ruleset you have to either have Grav Vehicle 1 or Grav Belt 0 to use a Grav Belt. (Not that Grav Vehicle skill is difficult to come by but it isn't universal.)
Also MT does limit endurance of a Grav Belt to 8 hours at TL-15, but it doesn't stop you from carrying a couple of spare batteries so you can go 24 hours between charges. In MT, Battledress, and Combat Armor for that matter, is extremely resistant to small arms fire. It takes either a PGMP/FGMP, a HEAP Ram Grenade or heavy vehicle weapon to penetrate it. And those same weapons also penetrate most light armored vehicles.
Again T20's Battledress as a vehicle changes the dynamics significantly.
Battle Dress only has one Traveller Meaning. I have never heard it refer to anything else besides Battle Dress. A specific powered armor.
I believe I agreed that it depends on the mission what combo of forces are deployed. I can find special cases for nearly everything; they don't prove a rule, though. The Army is going to be called in to control the ground and orbital air space, as per the Rebellion and COACC books, in most instances. The Marines will be used in limited actions, like Naval ops, or beachhead establishment, barring the availibility of Army units. </font>[/QUOTE]The problem is that Naval ships have limited space to transport Marines and Marine Vehicles. If these Marine Vehicles are limited to combat only under certain circumstances then the Navy is likely to require space saving doctrine. More general vehicles and equipment instead of specialized equipment. I am not saying the specialized equipment won't exist, just that the typical Fleet Marine Unit won't have it.
No they aren't all atmosphere 0. But lets take a peek. High Pop Worlds in the Imperium, in the Spinward Marches Sector. I counted 26 High Pop Worlds. Here is how they break down. Asteroid Belt/Vacuum: 1, Trace: 2, Very Thin: 3, Very Thin Tainted: 2, Thin: 3, Thin Tainted: 3, Standard: 2, Standard Tainted: 2 (Also 1 of these happens to be 100% hydrographics), Dense: 2, Dense Tainted: 4, Corrosive 2. So on these high pop worlds probably 25-30% of them will have traditional homes and villages, the rest will probably be some kind of arcology, hive, or other closed environment population centers. That percentage is actually a bit more skewed than I expected. I figured it would break close to 50-50. Being generous, 70-30? The Navy isn't going to carry armor that is relatively useless for more than 75% of Marine missions. (Rember Planetary Combat is only one aspect of Marine Missions.)
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
More properly it is TO&E. Table of Organization and Equipment. It is the list of how a unit is organized and equipped.
Table of Organization and Equipment.
Basically, it's a diagram showing how units are organized and equipped listing the personnel and defining their jobs and what hardware they carry.
@ Bhoins: It seems like any human habitat would have to have enough open space to allow heavy vehicular traffic; cargo containers, mining equipment, bulk shipments, emergency vehicles and so on.
While it's certainly true that you're not going to fight in vehicles room-to-room, the docking bay at a highport, the large pitmine in a belt and the parkland or warehouse area in an arcology should provide enough space to use vehicles. The firepower they carry would be useful in clearing and opening buildings and they could isolate and control roads and open spaces.
I'm not sure there would be that much need to fight in the artificial environments. These are relatively fragile places and probably very dependent on some form of outside support. The Imperium could probably compel surrender by using a combination of military and political tactics specifically targeted at denying the artificial environment what it needed to survive. I think fighting inside would be the last choice of all involved. One carefully targeted meson gun blast from a spinal mount would probably be enough to convince those in charge that the Imperium was serious about taking the place back and more than willing to destory it and rebuild it later if they needed to.
So, if you are going to be fighting, it is probably going to be on the surface of a planet where those types of presures are not going to work on the local government.
The question then is, who does that fighting? Is it the IM or the IA. If it is the IM, then you are probably going to have two distinctly different TOE; one for Jump units (infantry focused/vehicle light) and the other for Main Force (heavy/mech-armor) units. The majority of the IM will be Main Force units. If it is the IA, then the IM is basically there to gain a lodgement and open up the planet for IA troops to operate. In this case, the IM will probably be more evenly split between Jump and Main Force troops.
If the IA has its own Jump units, then there really is no reason for the IM to have any at all. I would go for that not being that case because I think part of the logic behind organizing the Imperium's military is to break up capabilities and make it hard for any one commander to operate independantly (to protect the throne from ambicious military leaders).
So, if you are going to be fighting, it is probably going to be on the surface of a planet where those types of presures are not going to work on the local government.
The question then is, who does that fighting? Is it the IM or the IA. If it is the IM, then you are probably going to have two distinctly different TOE; one for Jump units (infantry focused/vehicle light) and the other for Main Force (heavy/mech-armor) units. The majority of the IM will be Main Force units. If it is the IA, then the IM is basically there to gain a lodgement and open up the planet for IA troops to operate. In this case, the IM will probably be more evenly split between Jump and Main Force troops.
If the IA has its own Jump units, then there really is no reason for the IM to have any at all. I would go for that not being that case because I think part of the logic behind organizing the Imperium's military is to break up capabilities and make it hard for any one commander to operate independantly (to protect the throne from ambicious military leaders).
Good post. Jump troops are going to be a small special unit in any force. At the upper tech levels, cheap robots, RCV's, and warbots are going to phase out risking troops for most of the 'tunnel work' anyway.
It's the same in the U.S. today, the Army can do everything the Marines can do, and air power is the heavy firepower weapon of today and well into the future. (Yeah, I know I'll catch flak from the Corp diehards, because the Corps has had one of the best PR operations around for decades, but that's the reality of it all, John Wayne in 'The Sands Of Iwo Jima' was a great Hollywood movie; but those days are gone, so get over it. The Army did some large scale amphibious landing , too.)
The U.S. Army is getting it's own naval troop transports, I hear.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
True but enough open space to effectively use armored vehicles? Certainly not artillery. (HArd to fire a mortar or MRL when you have a ceiling. You might have enough space to move one down a main hall but that would be about the extent of it. YOu certainly aren't going to be able to deploy them in anything but modified column formations. Armored vehicles have limited uses and are very vulnerable in MOUT, closed environments are extreme MOUT environments. And one important thing to remember, you have to have a Gravity field to use a Grav vehicle. Aboard a space station, or an asteroid, or in a boarding action a Grav vehicle is useless. How do you get one to a docking bay, much less use one in there? (At least in my understanding of how a Traveller Grav Drive works.)
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
I am not so sure about that. After all, if all you really wanted to do was to pound a planet flat then rebuild, why use ground forces at all? A Historic Lesson on that would of course be Mounte Cassino Abbey. The place was pounded flat, not once but three times. Yet it still had to be bypassed. (Remember Anzio?) It took four or five times to finally take it. Airpower can rain down quite a bit of destruction, and these days very accurate destruction, but it still can't take or hold ground. That is why we still have and will probably always have ground pounders.
One other thing you have to consider, suppose it isn't the local government that you are fighting. Suppose that you are dealing with a Counter Insurgency operation on one of these high pop worlds of the spinward marches. You can't threaten to flatten the whole world just to go after 30K-50K insurgents, it doesn't work. You have to go in and dig them out. If Afganistan and Iraq, taught us nothing else, it has taught us that air power is impressive, and deadly, but you still have to send men in to clean up, take the ground and get the bad guys. (And in a Counter Insurgency, the most important asset isn't an aircraft, or a tank, it is good intelligence, especially HUMINT.)
I still see the Imperial Marines as vehicle light, mostly because they are shipboard assets first. Also they are the units tasked with securing the high orbitals, boarding actions, shipboard security, starport security, etc. Given the typical Marine mission you can't use vehicles in many of those missions. At least not full sized armor vehicles.
To take it a step further, does the 82nd (Airborne) or 101st(Air Assault) have a large number of armored vehicles? More importantly do they have many ground vehicles at all?
No, not because, if they had them they wouldn't use them, but because they have limited transport capability. You take the equipment into combat that you can get to the fight. Further for most of their mission parameters the vehicles are either not needed or can't be transported there. So instead they have non-vehicular workarounds where most other units would use vehicles.
The Imperial Marines are the same way. (Again IMTU, YTU may vary.) There is limited transport space, certainly for a typical Fleet Marine unit, because the typical Marine is not on a specialized transport but happens to be on a Cruiser, a Destroyer, a Drednaught, or a Corvette. These ships have a different main role than to take combat forces to a combat zone. Think back a few years to WWII, Marines were on Battleships, matter of fact usually one of the main gun turrets was usually manned by Marines. Speciality vessels were developed for assaulting beaches, but the majority of those were actually developed during WWII. Yes you, today, have ships like the Wasp or Tarawa, where you put a whole batalion+, including equipment on board, but those are relatively recent ships. Until fairly recently, US Marine units were light forces. Matter of fact it was the Marine Divisions that the US Army Light Divisions were based on, so while the Marines were getting heavier and more mechanized the US Army was deploying Light Divisions. Go figure.
As I recall the only country, until fairly recently, that had mechanized Marine Divisions, was the Soviet Naval Infantry. (And even their Airborne Divisions were Mechanized.)
You don't have alot of heavy equipment in the 82nd because you don't have the transport craft for it. There is a huge difference between lifting the 82nd and the 1st ID. (Not even sure if you could lift the Big Red One by air faster than you could get it deployed by sea, even if it was the only division in the world that you were trying to deploy at the time.)
Imperial Marines, by the nature of their primary missions and by the nature of their normal mode of transport, are more likely to be light forces. There will be heavier forces, even within the Marines, but they will tend to be lighter overall.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
The Imperium doesn't use Robots in that manner. No combat droids in the Imperium. (Could be cultural baggage from the Ancient warmachine wars on Vland.)
The Zhodani, which don't have a problem using combat robots use remote controlled robots with very simple brains. I guess all of Humanity, by the time of the 3I, has seen The Matrix Trilogy and/or The Terminator.
And who can forget the Kinunir. Giving a weapon system a brain is still apparently a bad idea.
In addition to the cultural considerations noted abouve, I don't think warbots are very cost efficient if you use Book 8; a simple non-mobile sentry gun with very low intelligence would cost atleast Cr30,000, anything bigger is going to cost ALOT. The Zhodani warbot shown as an example in Book 8 costs more than Cr400,000.
I don't know how T20 handles the robots prices, though.
I don't know how T20 handles the robots prices, though.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Think vehicle with a brain. (Since Battledress is a vehicle in T20, it is generally cheaper, since it doesn't need a brain.)
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
Bhoins,
You have seen these guys use non-vehicular work-arounds? I have spent some time with the 101st, and none of them looked like Zho to me.
Also, you CAN take care of an insurgency by flattening the planet, it just tends to make the rest of your populace nervous concerning your intentions for THEIR world!
You have seen these guys use non-vehicular work-arounds? I have spent some time with the 101st, and none of them looked like Zho to me.
Also, you CAN take care of an insurgency by flattening the planet, it just tends to make the rest of your populace nervous concerning your intentions for THEIR world!
It really depends on the environment. Some areas are certainly going to be large enough for vehicular operation because they have to be, as in the examples I gave. Armoured vehicles have been fighting in urban areas ever since Cambrai. There's no particular reason to think that will change, unless ...
I'll admit that this could be a show-stopper. I always assumed that grav vehicles slid down the same slope that M-Drives use and could operate anywhere. If either canon or YTU views this differently, that changes things dramatically.
Still and all, would you rather kick the door open or blow the front wall off the building with a Z gun?
The Imperium doesn't use Robots in that manner. No combat droids in the Imperium. (Could be cultural baggage from the Ancient warmachine wars on Vland.)
I think that's the case with AI's, not 'regular' bots. RCV Ops don't need AI, just memory enough for skills. An O-2 with Tactics-2, Rob Ops-1 and you have your 'tunnel rats'.
I looked back through Book 8, and will paly around with some numbers on the cost effectiveness, but I'm pretty sure bots are cheaper in the long run, whatever initial costs are. People are 'high maintenance', with life support needs, food and water, sleep, etc.
Ranger's post pretty much summed up the tactics used in the KnightFall adventure, isolating with surgical artillery bombardments, then offering surrender, siege tactics rather than room to room rat hunts.
There was a distinct air of unreality about a Tech-16 Hi Pop world falling so fast, but then DGW was busy destroying the 3I, and bringing out TNE.
As for gravs, 101 Vehices has a grav sedan suited for interplanetary travel, and there's all those grav vehicles for astroid miners running around, just off the top of my head. I'd assume grav rules don't keep grav vehicles out of orbit or general use around the solar system.
I think that's the case with AI's, not 'regular' bots. RCV Ops don't need AI, just memory enough for skills. An O-2 with Tactics-2, Rob Ops-1 and you have your 'tunnel rats'.
I looked back through Book 8, and will paly around with some numbers on the cost effectiveness, but I'm pretty sure bots are cheaper in the long run, whatever initial costs are. People are 'high maintenance', with life support needs, food and water, sleep, etc.
Ranger's post pretty much summed up the tactics used in the KnightFall adventure, isolating with surgical artillery bombardments, then offering surrender, siege tactics rather than room to room rat hunts.
There was a distinct air of unreality about a Tech-16 Hi Pop world falling so fast, but then DGW was busy destroying the 3I, and bringing out TNE.
As for gravs, 101 Vehices has a grav sedan suited for interplanetary travel, and there's all those grav vehicles for astroid miners running around, just off the top of my head. I'd assume grav rules don't keep grav vehicles out of orbit or general use around the solar system.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Which version of Traveller do you prefer? CT doesn't specify what either is, but there are differences or they would both be Maneuver Drives. (Or Grav Drives.) MT lists the difference as does T20. From what I recall of MT the dirve gets less efficient as it gets farther from the gravity well to no use at all at about 100D from the gravity well. (I don't have the book handy, sorry.)Originally posted by Piper:
I'll admit that this could be a show-stopper. I always assumed that grav vehicles slid down the same slope that M-Drives use and could operate anywhere. If either canon or YTU views this differently, that changes things dramatically.
Still and all, would you rather kick the door open or blow the front wall off the building with a Z gun?
T20 Defines Grav vehicles as having Anti-Grav or Contragravity Lifters. Which implies that they push off gravity. Again I remember that there is something about the 100D limit. Now an object without a significant mass isn't going to have an associated gravity well. Now an orbiting space station is likely to be within the gravity well, so technically the grav drive of an APC, for example, will work vs the gravity of the planet, but how does that work if the Gravity field in the station is of a different orientation? Matter of fact I would think Contragravity lifters and artificial gravity fields would seriously interfere with each other.
IMTU: The physics are already a mess so they simply aren't going to work in that environment. I am sure someone can point me to the right places in the appropiate rules.
As for whether I would rather kick in a door or blow the front of a building off? It would depend on how close I was to the building. Personally I prefer to breach the wall with a small directed shaped charge. Never go through an obvious entrance, if you can help it, in MOUT. If we are inside then I think firing that FusionZ might cause too much of a blast radius between me and the building.
It is true that armored vehicles have been used in Urban environments for almost as long as there have been armored vehicles. However one thing that has been noted is they are more vulnerable in a MOUT environment. Armor on an armored vehicle works mostly because it is heavier in the expected direction of attack. (Which is usually along the same plane that the armored vehicle is moving, and generally to the front.) It helps reduce weight, cost and size of the finished product. (All of which are important. Gererally the sides and rear are weaker than the front and the bottom and top are weaker than the sides and rear. In a MOUT situation the Armored vehicle is subject to attack from all angles and at much closer ranges than it was generally designed to withstand. (Throwing a satchel charge or Molotov cocktail on the back deck of the tank from a range of less than 30 meters is the kind of stuff armored vehicles were not designed to withstand.) Hitting the blow out pannels on the back of an M-1 Turret with a shaped charge may not kill the crew, but will cook off the ammo in an M1, rendering it, if nothing else, a mission kill. Satchel charges in the tracks is another mission kill trick. I am sure grav vehicles will have similar problems, though the bottom of the vehicle is unlikely to be the weakest armor on a grav vehicle.
As long as you are properly supported by dismounts your armor can be protected. However, why not virtually eliminate that vulnerability by replacing the tank with the personal tank. (Battledress.) You give up some, mostly antiarmor, firepower, but you gain maneuverability, survivability, dispersal and stealth. You are not limited to wide hallways and parks, nor are you limited to long streets or hallways for firing your main weapons. (Though I would still recommend being careful before unloading, with even a Gauss Rifle, in an enclosed area.)
Striker.
No effective difference between M-Drives and vehicular grav systems. Grav systems are *faster* in low-G environments because they use 1G just to stay up. No difficulties expressed or implied in low-G environments.
Also from Striker: Imperial Marine Grav APC (TL15) minimum armor value: 56 (rear deck and belly)
TL15 Battle Dress: armor value 18
FGMP-15 penetration: 34
TL6 bazooka penetration: 24
Basically, if the penetration exceeds the armour value bad things happen to the target.
I don't know anything about T4, T20, GURPS, or your particular universe. All I'm trying to point out is that it is completely canon and legitimate to have Imperial Marines (or anyone else) use vehicles in support in a wider variety of settings than you seem to allow.
You want to keep AFV's out of sealed habs? Cool. I could see where it would make for interesting games. If I want to recreate Stalingrad on an asteroid city, why not?
Everyone has a different view. All are equally valid.
BTW: The grav APC listed carries an A gun. Much less splatter to worry about.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Striker.
No effective difference between M-Drives and vehicular grav systems. Grav systems are *faster* in low-G environments because they use 1G just to stay up. No difficulties expressed or implied in low-G environments.
Also from Striker: Imperial Marine Grav APC (TL15) minimum armor value: 56 (rear deck and belly)
TL15 Battle Dress: armor value 18
FGMP-15 penetration: 34
TL6 bazooka penetration: 24
Basically, if the penetration exceeds the armour value bad things happen to the target.
I don't know anything about T4, T20, GURPS, or your particular universe. All I'm trying to point out is that it is completely canon and legitimate to have Imperial Marines (or anyone else) use vehicles in support in a wider variety of settings than you seem to allow.
You want to keep AFV's out of sealed habs? Cool. I could see where it would make for interesting games. If I want to recreate Stalingrad on an asteroid city, why not?
Everyone has a different view. All are equally valid.
BTW: The grav APC listed carries an A gun. Much less splatter to worry about.
</font>[/QUOTE]I never said it wasn't canon, nor appropiate. I never even said that IMTU Marines don't have armored vehicles. I said the Majority of Marines, and went on to define them as Fleet Marines, are vehicle light. Grav Vehicles don't work outside a gravity well. At least in any traveller rule set I have used. I know in CT that was definitely ill defined. I would also think that a Grav Vehicle would have tougher belly armor than top armor. (Weird that in Striker it doesn't.) In MT and T20 there is no weaker armor on any armored vehicle. However as you just pointed out in Striker Battledress is basically immune to small arms fire. (I always wondered where that 18 armor rating in MT came from.) In MT an FGMP can't quite penetrate an Astrin either. (But there are other toys you can use.)
My observations on Armored vehicles in MOUT environments comes from years of wargaming, (non-Traveller) and actually being MOUT certified in the US Army. (I was a MOUT Trainer at Ft. Hood, TX.) Then applying what I learned to Traveller, as far as what should and shouldn't work. Hell FGMP's in a boarding action require special care, in their use, (No matter which version of Traveller you are using.) using a Fusion Z or a rapid pulse X in a similar environment is going to cause all sorts of havoc and collateral damage. Not saying that collateral damage might not be a bad thing, but in many cases it is a very bad thing.
I, no matter the ruleset am not going to allow anti-gravity vehicles to properly function in a micro-gravity environment. And certainly not in an artificial gravity environment. Otherwise there would be virtually no reason to build fighters, especially light fighters. (Like there really is a reason to build light fighters in Traveller now?
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
One thing I forgot to mention about T20, unless you hang a bunch of sensors and esoteric communication devices on it, or load it down with internal weapons, Battledress comes in between KCr71 and KCr200. Which makes it quite cost effective, for the armor protection you are getting, and when compared to most APCs. (KCR576 for a G-Carrier to MCr6.7 for an Astrin.)
Since Battledress in T20 is a vehicle, the armor protection is equivalent to an APC, high end it is equivalent to a tank protection wise and because of size it is more difficult to hit than a typical Tank.
Since Battledress in T20 is a vehicle, the armor protection is equivalent to an APC, high end it is equivalent to a tank protection wise and because of size it is more difficult to hit than a typical Tank.
