Plasma / Fusion Space Weapons for T5?

[Scott Martin]

Dusting off my TNE / T4 books and looking at the ranges for high energy weapons, I remembered why I had never bothered with them: they have truly pitiful ranges. Short range for a 4 GJ plasma weapon in (updated) TNE or T4 is a paltry 6.3 km, while the short range for this monster in (original) TNE was 120 km, enough to threaten an "interface" craft (like an assault lander, which is what it was originally intended for)

Should Plasma / Fusion weapons be viable starship combat weapons (as in HG / MT) or should they be relegated to the (ground and low-level atmosphere) battlefields?

I'd like to see these as "knife range" space combat weapons: MT gave them "Planetary" range (50,000 km) while HG limited them to "short" range (insert abstract hand wave here) but the input energy for a plasma weapon in TNE to reach 50,000 KM is 2.5x10+14 joules, AKA about 75 kilotons of directed energy. This strikes me as a bit excessive...

So Plasma weapons in T4/TNE: broken, or should they be kept out of space?

Scott Martin

 

[Pickles]

Never did like Plasma/Fusion (especially Fusion) weapons anywhere, especially not on ships. They're just silly.

 

[Whipsnade]

Scott,

While the 'physics' of plasma/fusion weapons are rather silly, I quite like them as shipboard weapons.

I was wargaming well before I discovered roleplaying. It was wargames, like Chainmail, that actually introduced me to roleplaying. I suspect that after nearly 30 years I still look at roleplaying from a wargamers point of view.

Plasma/fusion weapons in HG2, and the other Traveller ship combat rules they appear in, let you cram a nice big bang into a smaller package. They aren't a wonder weapon by any means; they require more power plant output and aren't long ranged, but it's nice to have the option.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[mike wightman]

I'd like to see plasma/fusion weapons for short range space engagements and for point defence.

 

[Pickles]

"Two plasma bolts launched and running. Impact in twenty seconds!"

Sorry, that just had to be said. Regular thread topic will now resume ...

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
I'd like to see plasma/fusion weapons for short range space engagements and for point defence.

Sigg,

That's another reason I like them. They make for wonderful anti-missile batteries in those pre-damper and early-damper TLs.

As mush as I like them, Bromgrev's point is correct. They are silly from a pratical standpoint. Then again, lasers (without gravitic focusing) at Traveller combat ranges are silly too.

Did you know that, using the Mayday hexes to HG2 range band conversion, ships beyond Earth's 100D limit can shoot at ships in Earth orbit?


Have fun,
Bill

 

[mike wightman]

I'm all in favour of reducing the scale of ship combat to more "realistic" ranges.

I don't think the implications of gravitic focussing technology have been properly thought through.

A small device that can produce a gravity field strong enough to bend and focus light <snap...>

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
I'm all in favour of reducing the scale of ship combat to more "realistic" ranges.

I don't think the implications of gravitic focussing technology have been properly thought through.

A small device that can produce a gravity field strong enough to bend and focus light <snap...>

me, too!

the problem being that smaller scales make hits nearly assured.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Aramis:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
I'm all in favour of reducing the scale of ship combat to more "realistic" ranges.

me, too!

the problem being that smaller scales make hits nearly assured. </font>[/QUOTE]Me three, maybe

Nearly assured hits isn't a bad thing. Makes it more "age of sail" what with the "fire one across their bow" and such.

 

[aramis]

Nearly Assured Hits also means one other thing:

He with the longer range has a major advantage.

Shorter ranges also means either shorter turns or fewer turns...

 

[sgbrown]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Nearly Assured Hits also means one other thing:

He with the longer range has a major advantage.

Shorter ranges also means either shorter turns or fewer turns...

Unless you severely limit the ammunition, even without assured hits, longer range is a major advantage -particularly if it's coupled with the manuverablity to maintain that range.

There was a real old Mac computer game called "Ancient Art of War at Sea." The British had the advantage of long range cannon (weaker than the French or Spanish ships but longer range.) If you had favorable wind and and a British frigate you could take out a French or Spanish ship of the line every time - as long as you knew how to stear the ship and didn't get jamed up against land. However if the ship of the line got into position to trade broadsides, you were toast!

 

[robject]

Originally posted by SGB - Steve B:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aramis:
Nearly Assured Hits also means one other thing:

He with the longer range has a major advantage.

Shorter ranges also means either shorter turns or fewer turns...

Unless you severely limit the ammunition[...]

</font>[/QUOTE]Of course, ammo is relatively copious and free, except for missiles I suppose.

 

[Scott Martin]

Cycle time for monster huge plasma weapons gives you the same effect as "limited Ammo". I know if I just lost a cruiser to the equivalent of Star Trek's "Defiant" (a massively overgunned corvette) it would rapidly work its way up my targeting priority list...

Scott Martin

 

[Commander Drax]

I like what is most realistic! - In the modern age at least, the most effective way to deliver energy to a target is by firing something solid at it, a slug or a missile will do nicely. I think missile damage in traveller is seriously under estimated, after all the high speeds involved in vacuum combat should ensure awsome levels of destruction from even a single missile that makes it through to the target. Hence the importance of screens and point defence.

 

[atpollard]

Originally posted by Commander Drax:
I like what is most realistic! - In the modern age at least, the most effective way to deliver energy to a target is by firing something solid at it, a slug or a missile will do nicely. I think missile damage in traveller is seriously under estimated, after all the high speeds involved in vacuum combat should ensure awsome levels of destruction from even a single missile that makes it through to the target. Hence the importance of screens and point defence.

I believe that missiles in CT are proximity kill weapons, so they do not actually impact but detonate near a ship and deliver an energy wave to the ship (someone once explained how energy can transfer across a vacuum, I just don't remember the details any more.)

Kinetic Kill weapons are conspicuously lacking in CT. Where are the rail guns and Hypervelocity projectiles?

 

[robject]

Originally posted by atpollard:

Kinetic Kill weapons are conspicuously lacking in CT. Where are the rail guns and Hypervelocity projectiles?

TNE, right?

But CT missiles are probably intended to be kinetic.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by atpollard:
I believe that missiles in CT are proximity kill weapons, so they do not actually impact but detonate near a ship and deliver an energy wave to the ship (someone once explained how energy can transfer across a vacuum, I just don't remember the details any more.)

Missiles in Traveller can have proximity or contact detonated warheads - see Mayday, and Missiles special supplement.

Kinetic Kill weapons are conspicuously lacking in CT. Where are the rail guns and Hypervelocity projectiles?

A hypervelocity projectile would have a hard time hitting a target at the ranges Traveller ship combat usually take place.
Missiles coud be designed as kinetic kill weapons...

 

[sinbadsam]

Kinetic kill missiles or sub munition carriers have been designed for use in Traveller.

But to do it correctly you would need a mix of nuke dets, kinetic, and nuke prox warheads.

It is called saturating the point defenses of the targeted ship.

Look down at my sig. The Bubba and Little Bubba worked.

 

[Darq666]

If ships didn't have decent ranged weapon, why would space combat ever happen? It would require both sides agreeing to meet and trade fire. In the Wooden men & Iron Ships days, this happened because a ship could sneak up on another ship, or place itself infront of an important port etc. If a ship is in orbit and wasn't able to hit anything farther than they could spit, how could they ever blockade a planet, stop smugglers, etc. ?

 

[aramis]

Darq: The same constraints, to a lesser but more sharp extent, apply.

Ports of call are where you update the LS. So it's not starve if you don't hit port, but suffocate.

GG's and worlds provide fuel; without huge fuel reserves, a Traveller vessel is stuck in N-Space.

Let their needs draw them, and you can kill them when they are drawn.