Plasma Rifles

[Jame]

The plasma rifle is the logical extension of the Plasma Gun, Man Portable. It fires a bolt of plasma which is less powerful than a PGMP’s, but still very powerful; indeed, it is the unpowered infantry weapon of choice for cracking battledress. The rifle is introduced at TL 13, using advances made from creating the Plama Gun, Man Portable-13 to create a smaller, lighter and lower-recoil version of the PGMP for use by unpowered infantry. Unlike the PGMP and FGMP, it does not pose a radiation hazard when firing, but it also does not follow the Serious Firepower rules—it will penetrate any one human body that is wearing cloth or less, or any one vehicle or building that is equally armored, but will only penetrate to the next character and stop. The plasma rifle round does not undergo fusion at any Tech Level, although its penetration power does increase. However, the plasma rifle may only fire one shot a round, firing two rounds before it gets too hot to fire again, forcing the user to wait 3 rounds for it to cool enough to fire again.

TL 13; Required Dex 7, DM -2, Advantageous Dex 9+, DM +1. Price 7500, ammo 500; length 1500 mm, weight 4500 grams, ammo weight 500. 15 shots, damage 5d.
Nothing, Jack, Mesh +3, Cloth +2, Reflec -4, Ablat -3, Battle +0
Close -5, Short +1 Medium +2 Long +3 V.long +0
TL 14: Weight 3000 Grams. 30 Shots. Damage 5d+3.
TL 15: 60 shots. Battle +1. Damage 6d.
TL 16: Weight 2500 Grams. 75 shots. Battle +2.

 

[BlackBat242]

"Phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range".

 

[mike wightman]

The plasma rifle already exists in the MT tech tree at TL16.

 

[samuelvss]

IMTU, too powerful for too little cost.

Though I am a CT type, I think the MT TL16 introduction works best.

 

[Jame]

The plasma rifle already exists in the MT tech tree at TL16.

Yes, and I prefer it to be earlier. TL 13 instead of TL 16. (I actually prefer to have my tech progress a bit faster than Original Traveller does, and have been reading Eclipse Phase to boot.)

Why is it too powerful for too little cost though? (Edit: note that it is now -4 vs. Reflec, -3 vs. Ablat and +0 vs. Battle/combat, and then reedited to be a bit more expensive.)

 

[mike wightman]

Well if you use TNE then plasma rifles and pistols are possible at the TLs you propose, by TL15 fusion pistols and rifles can be built.

 

[Jame]

Well if you use TNE then plasma rifles and pistols are possible at the TLs you propose, by TL15 fusion pistols and rifles can be built.

Good timing, Mike; I read through my (so worn as to need replacing) copy of the core TNE book and came across a reference in the Barbarians adventure. I offer you a drink of your choice for your coincidence.

I should point out that in Traveller there in my view is a lack of computerization and especially miniaturization as tech proceeds. So there should be a plasma rifle at TL 16 as MT suggests, but it should be three or four generations better than my version - better performance against battle armor or greater damage, for example.

 

[iron warrior]

The existence of battledress power armor and it's effectiveness would certainly drive the development of a weapon that could allow non power armored troops to defeat it.

A single shot, slow reloading/recharging rifle might fit that bill. Generally anything as effective as battledress will drive the development of a counter weapon usable by normal troops. Look at long tanks were in vogue before the panzerfaust and the bazooka were developed

 

[mike wightman]

Using Striker/MT a fairly cheap man portable BD killer for normal troops is the RAM grenade launcher - no need for plasma or fusion weapons =)

 

[Dragoner]

The existence of battledress power armor and it's effectiveness would certainly drive the development of a weapon that could allow non power armored troops to defeat it.

A single shot, slow reloading/recharging rifle might fit that bill. Generally anything as effective as battledress will drive the development of a counter weapon usable by normal troops. Look at long tanks were in vogue before the panzerfaust and the bazooka were developed

Anti-Tank Rifles preceded the shaped charge warhead weapons you mention, as the developement of armor progressed, so did methods to defeat it. In CT, the gauss rifle can defeat combat armor/battle dress, as can ram HEAP grenades and the LAG. I like it, seems balanced, I don't want CA/BD too powerful.

 

[samuelvss]

It is, at TL13, fairly inexpensive, and weighs loaded about the same as an M1 Garand did empty, IIRC correctly. In short, if the mag were 10 shots at 1500 g, I would buy it as otherwise modified.

The Gauss is a little more powerful than I remembered in CT. I played more Striker, and so Striker-esque house rules, and I get the numbers muddled.

I am a huge fan of RAM Rifle grenades; there's a limited number one can carry, though.

A LAG firing DS does a pretty good job. I guess the message is that at extreme range, an unsupressed rifleman's got a really good chance of bringing down a troop in BD on the first burst.

 

[Dragoner]

It is, at TL13, fairly inexpensive, and weighs loaded about the same as an M1 Garand did empty, IIRC correctly. In short, if the mag were 10 shots at 1500 g, I would buy it as otherwise modified.

The Gauss is a little more powerful than I remembered in CT. I played more Striker, and so Striker-esque house rules, and I get the numbers muddled.

I am a huge fan of RAM Rifle grenades; there's a limited number one can carry, though.

A LAG firing DS does a pretty good job. I guess the message is that at extreme range, an unsupressed rifleman's got a really good chance of bringing down a troop in BD on the first burst.

Having done a lot of design work for military campaigns in other game systems such as Panzer General 2 (sort of like Panzer Blitz from Avalon Hill), one I have constantly tried to stress is the principles of warfare, especially logistics, which are the sinews of war. Striker always seemed broken in quite a few ways; the dominant artillery remains the gun, the average soldiers small arm cannot defeat the current body armor (gauss rifle vs. combat armor) and the 600 ton white elephant Imperial Grav APC that carries only a squad. With the APC's and Tanks, the recovery vehicles would have to have 1000 ton cranes, how are the grav systems worked upon? The ground pressure alone at 600 tons would mean the grav systems would have to be always on, otherwise it would sink into the earth and it only has enough fuel for 8 hours. Too many questions, plus the grav tanks exploitation phase is not covered well, nor the ability to hop over enemy lines. Infantry would still rule in urbanized/rough/forested terrain, though the mobility of grav vehicles would be a powerful change in warfare. I forget if reactive armor is covered.

I use a variant of Book 2 starship combat, using the non-starship table, it's quick and simple. Tanks should have some evade programs and anti-missile ecm, but most likely a hit would be incapacitating similar to today, at least at a similar tech level with a AT weapon that could do the job. As always crew survival is important, esp so in a role playing game.

 

[samuelvss]

My intention was to apologize for having some numbers a bit muddled, not to defend Striker. You say, however, a few things that are puzzling.

especially logistics, which are the sinews of war. .

I would agree, though the rest of your answer does not address logistics. Logistics is largely simplified in the OTU by energy weapons (no ammo), fusion (locally procurable/producable fuel), and grav. So the basics of what the sinews haul for "35mm," are reduced to "mm," which are themselves self-mobile.

Striker always seemed broken in quite a few ways; the dominant artillery remains the gun, the average soldiers small arm cannot defeat the current body armor (gauss rifle vs. combat armor) and the 600 ton white elephant Imperial Grav APC that carries only a squad.

As opposed to the progression of development from, say, halftrack, to M113, to M2, to M2A3, for instance? Continue that curve for 2,000 years or so, and tell me what you get

 

[samuelvss]

With the APC's and Tanks, the recovery vehicles would have to have 1000 ton cranes, how are the grav systems worked upon? .

Striker gives no minimum size for a grav module. Thus they can be small enough to be individually replaced. Hole in the hull knocks out a few; replacing the crew is a lot harder than replacing the few modules knocked out. Modular wiring harness, partially hardened against spalling, with parts replaced as necessary. The point is you have a system of systems with smaller parts than what you curently have, which don't all need to work. You lose one trackshoe on an M1, you're done. Lose 23 grav modules out of 1000, take care of it at the garage after showering, because that probably doesn't even deadline you.
That brings us to the powerplant, which would, as is currently done, be individually replaced. As to cranes, I would say the use of levers in the day of grav would be fairly minimal; individual grav units would be used to lift a framework that was designed for and slings the component that needed replacing. Each has just the necessary grav plates. Cables (THICK cables) run from the recovery vehicle lifting control panel, thence to its robust powerplant.

The ground pressure alone at 600 tons would mean the grav systems would have to be always on, otherwise it would sink into the earth .

Actually, if you work out the ground pressure between an M1A2 MBT, at 15.4 PSI (about 1.3 kg/cm sq), and assume the M1A2 weighed 1000 tons, but sat on its belly and a flat, non-porrous area described by the width of its tracks (call it 358cm x 875cm), then the ground pressure would be about 3.2 kg/cm sq. Higher, but far from untenable, especially when you consider this is not constant ground pressure, like the Abrams, but only that exerted at the place where the crew decides to set down. Sand, rock, gravel or dry clays and they're OK; loam or marsh might get a bit messy, but unlike our modern merkava's, they can fly right over the soft stuff. My old CO would have wished for that when he slid an M1A1 into a fish pond.

and it only has enough fuel for 8 hours.

I think this basic diversion from the LLB2/5 powerplants to Striker was the biggest problem.

Too many questions, plus the grav tanks exploitation phase is not covered well, nor the ability to hop over enemy lines.

That ability is inherently covered in the thickness, or lack thereof, in the belly, coupled with the infantry's penetration

Infantry would still rule in urbanized/ rough/forested terrain, though the mobility of grav vehicles would be a powerful change in warfare. I forget if reactive armor is covered.

I agree with your observation, and the validity of the effect it describes into the future. As to ractive armor, me too. Lost my Striker books last year some time/where.

I use a variant of Book 2 starship combat, using the non-starship table, it's quick and simple. Tanks should have some evade programs and anti-missile ecm, but most likely a hit would be incapacitating similar to today, at least at a similar tech level with a AT weapon that could do the job. As always crew survival is important, esp so in a role playing game.

It's a valuable simplification if you don't want to get in the weeds. Of course, you object to Striker by saying it leaves too many questions, then assume away ever so many more in the name of playability.

To get back to my original point, I'm a lot closer than I originally thought on your design.

 

[Jame]

The existence of battledress power armor and it's effectiveness would certainly drive the development of a weapon that could allow non power armored troops to defeat it.

A single shot, slow reloading/recharging rifle might fit that bill. Generally anything as effective as battledress will drive the development of a counter weapon usable by normal troops. Look at long tanks were in vogue before the panzerfaust and the bazooka were developed

Ten or fifteen shot plasma rifle, but one shot a round and fire twice or thrice, and then wait a round or two for it to cool before you can fire again. Hmmm... Gotta reedit my original post again...

EDIT: How does this sound?

The plasma rifle is the logical extension of the Plasma Gun, Man Portable. It fires a bolt of plasma which is less powerful than a PGMP’s, but still very powerful; indeed, it is the unpowered infantry weapon of choice for cracking battledress. The rifle is introduced at TL 13, using advances made from creating the Plama Gun, Man Portable-13 to create a smaller, lighter and lower-recoil version of the PGMP for use by unpowered infantry. Unlike the PGMP and FGMP, it does not pose a radiation hazard when firing, but it also does not follow the Serious Firepower rules—it will penetrate any one human body that is wearing cloth or less, or any one vehicle or building that is equally armored, but will only penetrate to the next character and stop. The plasma rifle round does not undergo fusion at any Tech Level, although its penetration power does increase. However, the plasma rifle may only fire one shot a round, firing two rounds before it gets too hot to fire again, forcing the user to wait 3 rounds for it to cool enough to fire again.

TL 13; Required Dex 7, DM -2, Advantageous Dex 9+, DM +1. Price 7500, ammo 500; length 1500 mm, weight 4500 grams, ammo weight 500. 15 shots, damage 5d.
Nothing, Jack, Mesh +3, Cloth +2, Reflec -4, Ablat -3, Battle +0
Close -5, Short +1 Medium +2 Long +3 V.long +0
TL 14: Weight 3000 Grams. 30 Shots. Damage 5d+3.
TL 15: 60 shots. Battle +1. Damage 6d.
TL 16: Weight 2500 Grams. 75 shots. Battle +2.

 

[Dragoner]

My intention was to apologize for having some numbers a bit muddled, not to defend Striker.

No, my apologies, I was just venting my criticisms of Striker, I did not mean for you to be seen as defending it.

I would agree, though the rest of your answer does not address logistics.

I should have separated that sentence, though I felt myself beginning to be writing a book, a book written a thousand times, much better written then I could do. I enjoy your responses, (then again I also enjoy books on the sinews of war by authors such as Mark Harrison or Martin van Creveld that it seems few else read) but I don't want to hijack Jame's thread on his Plasma Rifles.

 

[HiverLord]

(then again I also enjoy books on the sinews of war by authors such as Mark Harrison or Martin van Creveld that it seems few else read)QUOTE]

These sound like interesting reads. I'll have to look for them. Thanks for the lead.

 

[samuelvss]

Ten or fifteen shot plasma rifle, but one shot a round and fire twice or thrice, and then wait a round or two for it to cool before you can fire again. Hmmm... Gotta reedit my original post again...

EDIT: How does this sound?

SOLD!!

I think this fits rather well with what is already out there. Thanks for this, Jame. I think as modified it works for MTU.

 

[samuelvss]

I enjoy your responses

Likewise, and no apologies necessary. All in the (mostly ) civil interplay of ideas!

but I don't want to hijack Jame's thread on his Plasma Rifles.

I think we have greatly enriched Jame's thread, though! :rofl:

It all goes to the ecology of the battlefield, which fascinates me. Just how much does one weapon system, like the Plasma Rifle change everything? A few numbers make a huge difference.

 

[Dragoner]

These sound like interesting reads. I'll have to look for them. Thanks for the lead.

Those are just authors-editors, but I can recommend:

"The Economics of World War II" edited by Mark Harrison, also "Supplying War - Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton" and "Fighting Power - German and U.S. Army Performance 1939-1945" by Martin van Creveld.