Questions about MegaTraveller Starship Combat

[AnotherDilbert]

This was discussed long ago, and, while I agree with you, most people seem to think it was meant TLx5 limit to be over 40 (so, the first 40 armor points not counting). That gives truly invulterable ships (except to MG), as it does not use tonnage....

It's incoherent either way:

Interpretation A:
Max _0 + TL × 5, we can't achieve effectively infinite armour (DM -20). [Good!]
Max 50 + TL × 5 for planetoid, we can achieve infinite armour at TL-10 (earlier with buffered).
Planetoids are presumably not intended to add Armour 50 (DM -10)

Interpretation B:
Max 40 + TL × 5, we can achieve effectively infinite armour (DM -20) already at TL-12 (earlier with planetoids).
Max 50 + TL × 5 for planetoid, we can achieve infinite armour at TL-10 (earlier with buffered).
What's the point of having a max if we can almost always use as much as we want anyway?

Creative Interpretation C (informed by CT HG):
Max _0 + TL × 5, we can't achieve effectively infinite armour (DM -20). [Good!]
Max 10 + TL × 5 for planetoid, for an additional DM -3 as in HG. Still can't achieve infinite armour. [Good!]
Definitely not what the rules actually say.

Creative Interpretation D (informed by CT HG):
Max 40 + TL × 3, we can't achieve effectively infinite armour (DM -20). [Good!]
Max 50 + TL × 3 for planetoid, for an additional DM -3 as in HG. Can achieve infinite armour at high TL.
Definitely not what the rules actually say.


It is effectively an academic discussion as very heavy armour makes the craft extremely heavy, precluding useful agility, making the craft a sitting duck to mesons.

 

[mike wightman]

Armour 0 in HG = AV40 in MT.
A starship must have an armour value 40 hull as a minimum in MT.
Armour in addition to this is TLx5 therefore the maximum armour for a TL15 BB (non-planetoid) is AV115.

It's a mess because the folks at DGP were trying to combine Striker and High Guard and made some 'interesting' interpretations, then got some stuff wrong, then tried to fix it in various magazine articles.

Ship construction and ship combat in MT remains the low water mark for such systems.

 

[Ahmad Romanov]

Armour 0 in HG = AV40 in MT.
A starship must have an armour value 40 hull as a minimum in MT.
Armour in addition to this is TLx5 therefore the maximum armour for a TL15 BB (non-planetoid) is AV115.

It's a mess because the folks at DGP were trying to combine Striker and High Guard and made some 'interesting' interpretations, then got some stuff wrong, then tried to fix it in various magazine articles.

Ship construction and ship combat in MT remains the low water mark for such systems.

That could be true, but the RM language doesn't appear to support the idea that the TL armour limit is "in addition to" the minimum, just going by the language of that one book. It could very well be an error, or a poorly thought out rule, or fatally misworded, or contradictory to everything that came before or after, or a contravention of human rights, or detrimental to the enjoyment of the game or anything else, but that is nevertheless the plain meaning of the text as far as I can tell, for whatever that is worth.

 

[mike wightman]

It was discussed many times and was clarified in DGPs MT magazine - maybe Challenge as well. The rules don't mention building multiple powerplants so you can optimise for a few hours of combat while using much less power while out of combat, but that is eventually where MT warship designs ended up.

Like I said, the rules are a mess.

 

[Spinward Flow]

CT Armor 0 = MT Armor 40

That is your baseline starting point for ALL ship construction.

Planetoids and Buffered Planetoids get "extra, free" armor value on top of that as their baseline (+3 and +6 respectively in CT) which do not count against the TL limit of design additional armor.

CT rules:
TL=15 metal hull = Armor 0 to 15 (so up to +15 added)
TL=15 planetoid hull = Armor 3 to 18 (so up to +15 added)
TL=15 buffered planetoid hull = Armor 6 to 21 (so up to +15 added)

After that, it's just a matter of interpolation to whatever system MT was using (I lack familiarization with MT at this point), setting CT Armor 0 as being MT Armor 40 and then working your way up from there.

When in doubt, start with CT and extrapolate from there.

 

[McPerth]

Armour 0 in HG = AV40 in MT.
A starship must have an armour value 40 hull as a minimum in MT.
Armour in addition to this is TLx5 therefore the maximum armour for a TL15 BB (non-planetoid) is AV115.

While this is true, the max armor DM you can achieve in HG (on planetoid ships) is your TL (so ,at imperial levels, -15), while the maximum you can achieve in MT is (TL x 5/3), so at imperial levels it is -25...


OTOH, if you don' t count the 40 (minimal) first AV points, you have (planetoids excluded):

1. ships with enough armor to be durable at space appear at TL8 (consistent)
2. maximum DM due to armor is TL x1.66. So, at TL 9 it is 1, while at TL10 it is 3 and at TL 11 it is 5. So armor DMs are lower at any TL (at TL 15, armor DM is -11)
3. as a consequence of 2, all weapons except MGs ar more destructive, so MGs are not theonly effective weapons against heavily armored ships.

If you allow 40 + armor:

1. no minimal Tl to have durable ships in space (as the first 40 AV are "free "
2. at TL 8, ships may have up to AV 80 (armor DM -13)
3. at TL 12, AV 100 (armor DM -20)
4. At TL 15, AV 115 (armor DM -25)

So, with the interpretation 40 + Tl x 5, MGs become the only useful weapon, and PA Spinals and nukes useless in Battleline. Fighters are fully ineffective against any heavy armored ship.

With the interpretation TL x 5 (including the first 40) most weapons have some effectiveness, and PA Spinal battleships are a viable option, while MG Spinal armed one sar an "all or nothing" option (they either kill, if they hit and penetrate defenses, or are ineffective).

Add to this that those ships would rarely have any agility due to their enormous mass. (more so with the (40 + TL x 5), so making MGs more effective....

Which option is more logical? Wich one more appealing?

I guess both options will have defenders and detractors...

 

[mike wightman]

No, this is clarified in TCS, you can add up to your TL to the starting armour of a planetoid or buffered planetoid hull.

ARMOR
The added value of armor for a ship may not exceed the ship's technological
level. In the case of planetoid hulls, an automatic hull armor factor is already
present (3 for planetoids; 6 for buffered planetoids). The armor restriction only
applies to armor added to the hull.
As a result, at any specified technological level, planetoid armor may exceed
its technological level by 3 and buffered planetoids may exceed their technological
level by 6.
For example, a buffered planetoid already has an armor factor of 6. If that ship
were to be constructed at tech level 15, then it could add up to 15 points of armor
to its hull. The resulting planetoid ship could conceivably have an armor factor of
21 (6+15).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Armour 0 in HG = AV40 in MT.
A starship must have an armour value 40 hull as a minimum in MT.
Armour in addition to this is TLx5 therefore the maximum armour for a TL15 BB (non-planetoid) is AV115.

Then why bother with a maximum? Just let people add as much armour as they want, that is the effect anyway... More than armour 100 is fairly pointless.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Then why bother with a maximum?

Because there is a TL limit to how much armor can be --> ADDED <-- to the baseline of a hull (whatever that baseline is determined by hull type/configuration, such as metal, planetoid or buffered planetoid).

It's not that difficult of a concept to grasp, people.
Stop trying to make it harder than it actually is.

 

[Ahmad Romanov]

You don't start with 40 armour though, you start at 0. You need a minimum of 40, but that isn't where you start. That much is very clear from the RM.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It's not that difficult of a concept to grasp, people.
Stop trying to make it harder than it actually is.

Why have a rule saying I can have a maximum of 115 or 131, when I no use for more than 100? It's just a pointless rule and a waste of ink.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It was discussed many times and was clarified in DGPs MT magazine - maybe Challenge as well.

You wouldn't happen to have a link or quote? I can't find it but I don't have all issues of TD.

 

[McPerth]

--> ADDED <-- to the baseline of a hull

Sure, but the baseline may be zero, as you can build a craft with zero armor...

If you build a ground car, you may add 4 armor, and that does not mean it would be armor 44...

 

[Spinward Flow]

Sure, but the baseline may be zero, as you can build a craft with zero armor...

If you build a ground car, you may add 4 armor, and that does not mean it would be armor 44...

Can you build a starship with zero armor?
Isn't the required minimum for a starship ... 40 armor?

Ah people trying to confuse ground cars with starships ...
That's like saying because eggs have hard shells, so should grapes. I mean, they're both round shaped food, right? So what's the difference?

 

[McPerth]

Can you build a starship with zero armor?
Isn't the required minimum for a starship ... 40 armor?

Ah people trying to confuse ground cars with starships ...
That's like saying because eggs have hard shells, so should grapes. I mean, they're both round shaped food, right? So what's the difference?

Are rules only for starships? They're not, as sfar as I know...

See that the same rules apply to starships than to a bike, in the MT craft (not just starship) design rules.

As someone said

It's not that difficult of a concept to grasp, people.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Ah people trying to confuse ground cars with starships ...
That's like saying because eggs have hard shells, so should grapes. I mean, they're both round shaped food, right? So what's the difference?

The MT design system applied equally to ground vehicles and starships, the same rules and systems are used.

 

[Ahmad Romanov]

I feel like this is spinning off into a tangent… in order not to derail things further, I will post here again if I have any further questions about starship combat! Thanks all for the advice and input so far.

 

[whartung]

I'm not that familiar with MT design, but I was looking at it.

Are the power requirements for the spinal mounts in the Referee's manual in MW? They seem awfully high.

I know the FSotSI is notorious, but, for example, there's a CH-15 Cruiser with a 88,118 Mw fusion reactor, but it's mounting a T Factor spinal PA. And according to the the Referee's Manual a T factor PA has a Power value of 250,000. Are the designs THAT awful?

Mind, when you go in to TNE, the MW for spinal mounts is in the 10's of MW. 55MW for a TL-15 PA.

So, my honey deprived Pooh brain is having issues reconciling.

"Tut, tut, looks like rain!"

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Are the power requirements for the spinal mounts in the Referee's manual in MW? They seem awfully high.

Same as CT HG: 1 EP = 250 MW.
A laser uses 1 EP = 250 MW in MT.
PA-T uses 1 000 EP = 250 000 MW in MT.

I know the FSotSI is notorious, but, for example, there's a CH-15 Cruiser with a 88,118 Mw fusion reactor, but it's mounting a T Factor spinal PA. And according to the the Referee's Manual a T factor PA has a Power value of 250,000. Are the designs THAT awful?

Hopefully it's just a spelling mistake, the CH-15 needs well over 1 000 000 MW.
But, yes, that is FSotSI...

Mind, when you go in to TNE, the MW for spinal mounts is in the 10's of MW. 55MW for a TL-15 PA.

TNE is a completely different game.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Are rules only for starships? They're not, as sfar as I know...

However, the rules for starships are for starships.

Tautology is tautological.

Really shouldn't have to be explaining this ...