Megatraveller combat questions

[Rupert]

You can have that in CT with Striker...

Or with Azhanti High Lightning, though Striker's weapon tables, etc. are more complete. OTOH, AHL has more complete small-scale combat rules. So, use both...

But I preferred MT's presentation (errata aside) to the tables Striker used, which were ugly. I also preferred MT's skill system and how it interacted with combat, and MT's rules for damage to characters. Oh, and it's chargen.

 

[aramis]

You can have that in CT with Striker...

Striker/AHL has a to-hit that is unaffected by armor, btu which also doesn't affect damage, and a separate penetration/damage roll - the higher rolled pen, the more damage.

MT the to hit ignores armor, but affects damage; penetration is unrolled, but a comparison which also affects damage. Note that the to-hit can allow damaging targets whose armor you cannot penetrate.

In both of my military unit campaigns run under MT (One merc LIR, one HIR)¹, high skill allowed dropping tanks with called shots to the gravitics... Even with the erratum from the MT GM Screen, which makes the trepida go from 2 to 20 damage in the lifters, Gauss Rifles could take down grav tanks. Kinda suicidal, tho, as the RP-Y can take down a squad a round... unless they're in Combat Armor or Battle Dress.

¹: Lift Infantry Regiment — all in BD with grav-mobility, mixed GIFV and Grav Belts — and Heavy Infantry Regiment — all in Cbt Armor, not all in BD nor all in grav belts. Co. A was BD, Co E was trepidas, Co B was CA+GB, Co CD were gravmobile in CA, with integrated Astrins as the nominal Plt 4, and Maintenance was Co F with shops and field hospitals in astrins.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

MT the to hit ignores armor, but affects damage; penetration is unrolled, but a comparison which also affects damage. Note that the to-hit can allow damaging targets whose armor you cannot penetrate.

In both of my military unit campaigns run under MT (One merc LIR, one HIR)¹, high skill allowed dropping tanks with called shots to the gravitics... Even with the erratum from the MT GM Screen, which makes the trepida go from 2 to 20 damage in the lifters, Gauss Rifles could take down grav tanks. Kinda suicidal, tho, as the RP-Y can take down a squad a round... unless they're in Combat Armor or Battle Dress.

OK, I'm not that good at MT combat, but how does a Pen:7 gauss rifle penetrate even a lightly armoured Trepida at Armour:40 (or 20)?


If we are trowing around Imperial TL-14 grav tanks, I guess we can assume CmbtArm, or else the enemy is just run over...

 

[mike wightman]

Why that is simplicity itself.

pen 7 vs armour 3.5 or lower is a high penetration hit - full damage
pen 7 vs armour 3.6 to 7 is a low penetration hit - half damage
pen 7 vs armour 7+ no penetration, 0.1 x damage (only to structure for a vehicle or robot, or an armoured target with some armour gaps)

Easy

Then there is margin of success on the to hit roll
+0 half damage (round down)
+2 double damage (min 1)
+4 four times damage (min 2)
+8 eight times damage (min 4)

You can specify a shot is a pinpoint attempt, but you must achieve a +2 margin of success to hit, if successful the target's armour is treated as half its value. The margin of success damage rules still apply.

There is a reason I stopped using MT combat resolution after a couple of sessions.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Why that is simplicity itself.

Sure, but a Gauss Rifle succeeding with a pinpoint shot at a Trepida is Pen:7 vs Arm:20, hence zero penetration, hence only minimum exceptional damage and only to structure?

There is a reason I stopped using MT combat resolution after a couple of sessions.

Yeah, I didn't get that far...

 

[mike wightman]

Sure, but a Gauss Rifle succeeding with a pinpoint shot at a Trepida is Pen:7 vs Arm:20, hence zero penetration, hence only minimum exceptional damage and only to structure?

Yup.

Yeah, I didn't get that far...

There are less cumbersome systems for sure.

 

[kilemall]

Why that is simplicity itself.

pen 7 vs armour 3.5 or lower is a high penetration hit - full damage
pen 7 vs armour 3.6 to 7 is a low penetration hit - half damage
pen 7 vs armour 7+ no penetration, 0.1 x damage (only to structure for a vehicle or robot, or an armoured target with some armour gaps)

Easy

Then there is margin of success on the to hit roll
+0 half damage (round down)
+2 double damage (min 1)
+4 four times damage (min 2)
+8 eight times damage (min 4)

You can specify a shot is a pinpoint attempt, but you must achieve a +2 margin of success to hit, if successful the target's armour is treated as half its value. The margin of success damage rules still apply.

There is a reason I stopped using MT combat resolution after a couple of sessions.

MgT runs options to do it, so I never learned MT but got the gist through version osmosis.

Doesn’t work for me, I prefer the armor by hit location Striker variant I run. For hits on something like a grav vehicle by a gauss heavy weapon, it would be roll to see what part was hit then see if pen gets through and roll adjusted damage.

Hmm that means bottom armor should probably be like glacis. Heavier on average since that is a primary likely hit location.

 

[mike wightman]

I draw the line a two dice rolls to resolve anything. One to hit roll and one damabe roll. Hit location can be determined by using different colored dice and either using the T2k4e method or use the dice as a d66 roll to get a hit location. Different dice colour can also be used to determine penetration and damage dice or damage reduction depending on how you want to do it.

Since grav vehicles can be hit from any direction every face has to be armoured to glacis standard.

 

[kilemall]

Since grav vehicles can be hit from any direction every face has to be armoured to glacis standard.

I’m not sure ANY version deals reliably with all armor all over. There is a reason both tanks and battleships have thicker and thinner protection. Fusion power does overpower any fossil fuel plant, but is not infinite.

 

[mike wightman]

The fact remains that the grav vehicle is going to be shot at from every angle and must armour every surface.

One weakly armoured surface will be what the californium drones go for.

I wonder what a fully armoured grav vehicle configuration would look like... how do you slope every surface...

two cones joined at the base perhaps

 

[kilemall]

The fact remains that the grav vehicle is going to be shot at from every angle and must armour every surface.

One weakly armoured surface will be what the californium drones go for.

I wonder what a fully armoured grav vehicle configuration would look like... how do you slope every surface...

two cones joined at the base perhaps

Then they are likely heavier then what presented designs assume and thus slower by the design sequence RAW.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Then they are likely heavier then what presented designs assume and thus slower by the design sequence RAW.

MT vehicles only have one armour value, no difference between glacis and deck, unlike Striker.

 

[kilemall]

MT vehicles only have one armour value, no difference between glacis and deck, unlike Striker.

Hmm not good for lower tech ground armor vehicle designs, but elegant for grav, assuming there is some multiplier for them.

 

[whartung]

The fact remains that the grav vehicle is going to be shot at from every angle and must armour every surface.

Not necessarily.

They can be treated as "air mobile" armor. Flying higher in secure areas, then dropping to 2-3 foot altitude. They need to press on with the infantry anyway.

It also changes the equation about missile and such. Modern Air-to-air missiles are more of a "get close" kind of design to attack thin skinned, light weight air craft. Not the armored hulks of a grav tank. While the bottom of the tank are typically "underarmored" in contrast to the fronts and sides, that doesn't mean they're UNarmored. They could likely easily take the shrapnel of an an AtA missile.

They would need to get a facing strike by an armor piercing missile (ala Javelin or some such).

Obviously if you're facing armored grav tanks, you don't just use AtA missiles, you use missiles designed for the job.

But even with those missiles, that job is harder due to armor, and they need to get better strikes.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Hmm not good for lower tech ground armor vehicle designs, but elegant for grav, assuming there is some multiplier for them.

No facing and no multiplier, IIRC. One armour value, just like spacecraft.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

They can be treated as "air mobile" armor. Flying higher in secure areas, then dropping to 2-3 foot altitude. They need to press on with the infantry anyway.

Agreed, as well armoured as they are, they are still very vulnerable to equal tech anti-armour weapons.

Fusion guns, plasma guns, lasers, and even large bore cannon will kill them. A TL-10 12 cm cannon will kill a Trepida...

Functional point defence means that missiles will be defeated, unless fired en masse.


Just like BD troops, grav tanks will hide in terrain if at all possible.

 

[kilemall]

No facing and no multiplier, IIRC. One armour value, just like spacecraft.

Not good then, mechanical suspension alone dictates a less then uniform armor for tanks, armor overall means a much heavier craft.

 

[Rupert]

Sure, but a Gauss Rifle succeeding with a pinpoint shot at a Trepida is Pen:7 vs Arm:20, hence zero penetration, hence only minimum exceptional damage and only to structure?

The pin-point shot rule is bad - you should always make pin-point shots because there's no downside. I just ruled that you took a step up in difficulty, which wipes out a lot of damage, so it's only worth it if you really need the penetration or to hit a particular spot.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The pin-point shot rule is bad - you should always make pin-point shots because there's no downside. I just ruled that you took a step up in difficulty, which wipes out a lot of damage, so it's only worth it if you really need the penetration or to hit a particular spot.

Yes, I've just realised how extreme MT vehicle combat is...

By default you are supposed to use pinpoint, and halve armour, and even if you don't penetrate that you do some damage.
The Trepida's pulse fusion gun does 30 damage, so would incapacitate the Trepida itself even on half penetration. The Trepida would need armour ~140 to survive, which is impossible. Even a TL8-10 laser or tank gun would incapacitate a Trepida with a single hit.

Essentially vehicle kill is automatic on a hit; armour is pointless.



I'm glad I never delved deeper in that mess...

 

[aramis]

Mike left out one other element: it's a difficulty shift up to target non-structure systems. You're not Sniping those trepidas, you're charging them and dumping ammo at the weak spots near the plates.

The No-Pen reflects three different phenomena:

• Shooting unarmored areas (open top/ride upon vehicles, body armor)
• Energy pass through flexible armors (body armor, certain low tech vehicles)
• Spalling (rigid armors)

The exact point where it happens is probably too generous for spalling.
The pinpoint shot hitting weak spots in the armor is what makes it practical; that the trepida is underarmored for its role... The gauss rifle is the best Interstellar tech general duty military longarm due to the combination of high pen and light ammo, plus almost no visual spectrum signature. (The barrel will have a relatively high heat... and many atmospheres will have cavitation causing visual artifacts - comparable, but much less visible, to contrails on high subsonic and faster aircraft.)

This means that an MBGT should have armor above 71.

The nice thing about MT combat for me is the combination of one-roll resolution and scaling to any scale military action on the ground. Including regiments vs regiments around, if you want. The ground combat rules even can be used for ship-vs-ship, if you hate HG...