Percentage-based weapons allocations
- Thread starter robject
- Start date
Let's see: Do sand clouds stack? Yes, yes they do, as the modifier per Bk2 is "-3 per 25mm of sand..."
How can you target sand on a laser? Because the incoming laser uses a beam pointer to lock on. (At least, in TNE and T4.) Once the beam pointer is on you, then the beam comes next. This gives the sand fractions of a second most of the time. So, I don't buy it much more than HG's lack of description... but it is a thing.
How can you target sand on a laser? Because the incoming laser uses a beam pointer to lock on. (At least, in TNE and T4.) Once the beam pointer is on you, then the beam comes next. This gives the sand fractions of a second most of the time. So, I don't buy it much more than HG's lack of description... but it is a thing.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
And if I fire three sandcasters into the same 25mm does that make it -9 or -3? The size of the sand cloud is 25mm - hence -3, but I used three sandcasters... hmm
Last edited:
I do not see any reason why sand clouds would not stack.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
The rules say per 25mm not per sand cloud.
How about if I fit my 200t ship with 2 triple sand turrets and fire nine sand - does an instant -18DM to be hit sound right?
How about if I fit my 200t ship with 2 triple sand turrets and fire nine sand - does an instant -18DM to be hit sound right?
Nope; you will be firing 6 sand rounds for a total DM of -18, not -27.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I edited it almost immediately - you must have posted in the thirty seconds it went unedited 
So does a -18 DM work for you? It strikes me as being an incorrect interpretation.
So does a -18 DM work for you? It strikes me as being an incorrect interpretation.
Last edited:
It happens. :coffeegulp:
It works for exactly one turn of combat, both ways, until the cloud dissipates and needs to be recast next turn.
Note that if using vector movement, it is a simple thing for pursuers to flank their target and shoot around a 25mm-diameter cloud dumped by a fleeing quarry. Note also that a stationary target hiding in the center of a thick sand cloud will not be able to accelerate away from the combat, and therefore may be subject to a prolonged engagement that exhausts its supply of reloads.
To my understanding, sand seems intended to take the place of armor in the early versions of Traveller, at least as far as defense against lasers goes.
Neither can I. Noting that it's -3 per 25mm... I know guys who marked their sand templates so they could count actual distances across the counter... and others who measured; in both cases, they prorated:
≤9mm = –1
≤17mm = –2
I wouldn't have a problem with Sand stacking, up to some limit. But I'd argue it should also be ablative. In that for each shot it absorbs, it loses some effectiveness.
Because the sand cloud while it acts as a defense, it also hampers the ship. I don't recall which or where, but some systems limit sand to the next maneuver. That is, the sand is essentially cast and inherits the ships vector, but once the ship changes its vector the sand is lost.
If it's ablative, this works ok as well, since, in the end, the sand is limited by overall ammunition, whereas laser shots are not. So, inevitably, the sand simply buys you time. A persistent enough attacker can eventually overcome it. "Do you have enough sand to survive until you can Jump? Tune in next episode and…"
But when then you have to consider the larger ships. A ships with 10 triple turrets of sand -- that's a lot of sand to burn through, so there has to be some balance.
For a trader with one or two turrets, and a dozen rounds of ammo, I think it balances out. But at scale, I'm not so sure.
Because the sand cloud while it acts as a defense, it also hampers the ship. I don't recall which or where, but some systems limit sand to the next maneuver. That is, the sand is essentially cast and inherits the ships vector, but once the ship changes its vector the sand is lost.
If it's ablative, this works ok as well, since, in the end, the sand is limited by overall ammunition, whereas laser shots are not. So, inevitably, the sand simply buys you time. A persistent enough attacker can eventually overcome it. "Do you have enough sand to survive until you can Jump? Tune in next episode and…"
But when then you have to consider the larger ships. A ships with 10 triple turrets of sand -- that's a lot of sand to burn through, so there has to be some balance.
For a trader with one or two turrets, and a dozen rounds of ammo, I think it balances out. But at scale, I'm not so sure.
The original questions sparked a couple thoughts.
First, it looks to me like you're assuming a specific "amount" of weapon yields a specific weapon factor, regardless of what ship it's mounted in. It might be put together differently, or even expressed differently, but it amounts to the same thing. A size 3 ship with a size 2 weapon has the same rating as a size 4 ship with a size 1 weapon because both add up to 5.
Right?
Okay, so if you're assuming each ship rating increment is a power of 10, this means your weapon rating increment must also be a power of 10 to make the math simple.
It follows then, that the defense factor would work out the same - that is, a specific volume of defense system has a specific rating, regardless of what percentage of the hull it takes up, and each factor implies 10 times as much effectiveness and ten times as much volume.
When you pit offense against defense in this system, you can simply subtract defense from offense and use that difference to determine what the result is.
Now, I don't know about you, but to me, if something is 10 times as powerful as something else, I expect it to perform significantly better. A 16 inch shell will play hell with a destroyer 1/10th the displacement of the battleship that fired it, while the destroyer's 5 inch return fire won't often do much to the battleship.
Basically, at this scale, a difference of just 1 is catastrophic to the smaller unit, with little if any possibility of reply. Few if any players will want to be on the wrong end of that stick.
My own preference, instead of the bel scale (1 bel = 1 power of ten) is the decibel (1 bel = 10 decibels = 1 power of 10). Every 10 increments is a power of ten, but each individual increment is 25%. (A further convenience is that a difference of 3 is a doubling.)
Instead of ships sized 1 to 1 million tons being rated 0 to 6, they are now rated 0 to 60. A power difference of 25% is a lot more believable as a survivable fight than a 900% (nine hundred percent) difference.
Of course, you might not like dealing with numbers as large as 60, in which case you can use other scales (such as each factor being a power of 2 or 3), or you could restrict yourself to ships sized between, say, 100 and 5000 tons and divide that into however many increments you want.
But wait, there's more!
In TNE (and similar design systems), they made it pretty clear that the amount of damage you do is usually related to the square root of the power requirement, and by extension, the size of the weapon (and its reactor slice). This means that a weapon is actually HALF as effective per increment... assuming, of course, that defenses don't hold to the same power law (which they usually don't). This also extends the range of factors which are capable of reasonably engaging each other.
At that point, all you have to do is halve the Offense factor before you subtract the Defense factor from it, and you use this number to decide the result of the attack.
Of course, the exact meaning of that number is up to you to decide.
If this has already been discussed, I apologize for not reading the entire thread to find it.
First, it looks to me like you're assuming a specific "amount" of weapon yields a specific weapon factor, regardless of what ship it's mounted in. It might be put together differently, or even expressed differently, but it amounts to the same thing. A size 3 ship with a size 2 weapon has the same rating as a size 4 ship with a size 1 weapon because both add up to 5.
Right?
Okay, so if you're assuming each ship rating increment is a power of 10, this means your weapon rating increment must also be a power of 10 to make the math simple.
It follows then, that the defense factor would work out the same - that is, a specific volume of defense system has a specific rating, regardless of what percentage of the hull it takes up, and each factor implies 10 times as much effectiveness and ten times as much volume.
When you pit offense against defense in this system, you can simply subtract defense from offense and use that difference to determine what the result is.
Now, I don't know about you, but to me, if something is 10 times as powerful as something else, I expect it to perform significantly better. A 16 inch shell will play hell with a destroyer 1/10th the displacement of the battleship that fired it, while the destroyer's 5 inch return fire won't often do much to the battleship.
Basically, at this scale, a difference of just 1 is catastrophic to the smaller unit, with little if any possibility of reply. Few if any players will want to be on the wrong end of that stick.
My own preference, instead of the bel scale (1 bel = 1 power of ten) is the decibel (1 bel = 10 decibels = 1 power of 10). Every 10 increments is a power of ten, but each individual increment is 25%. (A further convenience is that a difference of 3 is a doubling.)
Instead of ships sized 1 to 1 million tons being rated 0 to 6, they are now rated 0 to 60. A power difference of 25% is a lot more believable as a survivable fight than a 900% (nine hundred percent) difference.
Of course, you might not like dealing with numbers as large as 60, in which case you can use other scales (such as each factor being a power of 2 or 3), or you could restrict yourself to ships sized between, say, 100 and 5000 tons and divide that into however many increments you want.
But wait, there's more!
In TNE (and similar design systems), they made it pretty clear that the amount of damage you do is usually related to the square root of the power requirement, and by extension, the size of the weapon (and its reactor slice). This means that a weapon is actually HALF as effective per increment... assuming, of course, that defenses don't hold to the same power law (which they usually don't). This also extends the range of factors which are capable of reasonably engaging each other.
At that point, all you have to do is halve the Offense factor before you subtract the Defense factor from it, and you use this number to decide the result of the attack.
Of course, the exact meaning of that number is up to you to decide.
If this has already been discussed, I apologize for not reading the entire thread to find it.
Last edited:
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
I had a weird thought prompted by this thread.
It has elements of that HG maneuver game I have been working on so bear with me.
The idea would be to use CT:HG2 system interaction, but builds in a different way and not so much difference between bays and spinal weapons.
There would be three ranges instead of two- CLOSE, SHORT and LONG.
All turrets and barbettes are considered Minor Weapons and can only fire at targets at CLOSE range. 50 and 100 ton bays as in the chart do not exist.
CLOSE range resolves as per SHORT, except computer DMs are not applied (too close for spoofing/maneuver/superior predict to matter, everyone can see and hit).
All larger weapons are considered Major Weapons and are built as per ship size code- so a Factor 1 Meson Gun is 100 tons, a Factor 8 Particle Accelerator is 800 tons, and a Factor A Missile Bay is 1000 tons.
Any weapon system can be a Major Weapon, including Lasers Energy Weapons and Missiles, and Meson Guns and Repulsors MUST be Major Weapons.
Nuclear missile turrets and Major Weapons cost 10x as much (which covers their ongoing ammunition and handling expenses).
Major Weapons use ratios for EP and per ton cost per TL- at each higher TL, the system gets cheaper in both power and cost.
There is no limit to weapon builds other then cost or EP available.
Missile bays and laser/energy weapons larger then 9 are treated as 9 for the purposes of defensive energy weapon/sand/repulsor penetration (hence there is no point to building any defensive system larger then 9).
Resolution is done as per the surface/interior/radiation mechanism, ignoring the critical hit per ship size rule and applying the +6 armor rule to just the turrets and barbettes. Ignore the damage numbers after the system.
Nuclear weapons eliminate the +6 armor adjustment, and all nuclear missile attacks from minor or major weapons are treated as +5 added to their factor.
As each system is hit, the number of tons the factor represents is applied as damage to the system in question.
If 50% but less then 100% the system is treated as half factor, at 100% the system is disabled. Less then 50% damage is ignored. Only internal critical hits destroy systems beyond temporary repair.
If all eligible surface systems are disabled and fuel gone, each natural 2 rolled by a major weapon against that ship's surface reduces the armor by 1 and that ends the major weapon's damage resolution.
If there are more tons 'left' of damage then 100% of the disabled system, roll again for another system. Keep rolling until the 'tonnage damage' of the successfully firing weapon is used up or hits a system with less then 50% damage
Fuel is the lone exception, tonnage is lost as per remaining available damage tonnage.
Turret and barbette systems are treated as though they are a high factor major weapon (so factor 9 is treated as 900 tons), but with the +6 armor DM as noted.
Turreted sand and missiles have only 3 shots before they must spend a turn reloading. Major weapon missiles have 10 shots and then must spend two turns loading.
Smaller ships can act as protective escort for larger ships and fire sand/lasers/EW/repulsors against incoming energy and missile fire. They must be allocated to this role to qualify.
It has elements of that HG maneuver game I have been working on so bear with me.
The idea would be to use CT:HG2 system interaction, but builds in a different way and not so much difference between bays and spinal weapons.
There would be three ranges instead of two- CLOSE, SHORT and LONG.
All turrets and barbettes are considered Minor Weapons and can only fire at targets at CLOSE range. 50 and 100 ton bays as in the chart do not exist.
CLOSE range resolves as per SHORT, except computer DMs are not applied (too close for spoofing/maneuver/superior predict to matter, everyone can see and hit).
All larger weapons are considered Major Weapons and are built as per ship size code- so a Factor 1 Meson Gun is 100 tons, a Factor 8 Particle Accelerator is 800 tons, and a Factor A Missile Bay is 1000 tons.
Any weapon system can be a Major Weapon, including Lasers Energy Weapons and Missiles, and Meson Guns and Repulsors MUST be Major Weapons.
Nuclear missile turrets and Major Weapons cost 10x as much (which covers their ongoing ammunition and handling expenses).
Major Weapons use ratios for EP and per ton cost per TL- at each higher TL, the system gets cheaper in both power and cost.
There is no limit to weapon builds other then cost or EP available.
Missile bays and laser/energy weapons larger then 9 are treated as 9 for the purposes of defensive energy weapon/sand/repulsor penetration (hence there is no point to building any defensive system larger then 9).
Resolution is done as per the surface/interior/radiation mechanism, ignoring the critical hit per ship size rule and applying the +6 armor rule to just the turrets and barbettes. Ignore the damage numbers after the system.
Nuclear weapons eliminate the +6 armor adjustment, and all nuclear missile attacks from minor or major weapons are treated as +5 added to their factor.
As each system is hit, the number of tons the factor represents is applied as damage to the system in question.
If 50% but less then 100% the system is treated as half factor, at 100% the system is disabled. Less then 50% damage is ignored. Only internal critical hits destroy systems beyond temporary repair.
If all eligible surface systems are disabled and fuel gone, each natural 2 rolled by a major weapon against that ship's surface reduces the armor by 1 and that ends the major weapon's damage resolution.
If there are more tons 'left' of damage then 100% of the disabled system, roll again for another system. Keep rolling until the 'tonnage damage' of the successfully firing weapon is used up or hits a system with less then 50% damage
Fuel is the lone exception, tonnage is lost as per remaining available damage tonnage.
Turret and barbette systems are treated as though they are a high factor major weapon (so factor 9 is treated as 900 tons), but with the +6 armor DM as noted.
Turreted sand and missiles have only 3 shots before they must spend a turn reloading. Major weapon missiles have 10 shots and then must spend two turns loading.
Smaller ships can act as protective escort for larger ships and fire sand/lasers/EW/repulsors against incoming energy and missile fire. They must be allocated to this role to qualify.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
SO..... fighters and small craft can close and try conclusions with at least frontier level warships, turrets mean something but aren't major weapons beyond protective roles, nukes are scary, the situation of having some supership's maneuver drive shot off by puny shots is unlikely, lower tech forces are likely to move to CLOSE range whenever possible to even the odds, speed matters as a result both for lower AND higher tech ships, and there is a wider range of ship types and missions possible.
I'm not sure this is what the OP had in mind- I suspect more like an expanded Imperium-style resolution with much simpler big fleet lite ship builds, but this is what I was inspired to make so I'm throwing it out there.
I'm not sure this is what the OP had in mind- I suspect more like an expanded Imperium-style resolution with much simpler big fleet lite ship builds, but this is what I was inspired to make so I'm throwing it out there.
Similar threads
