Not they don't,
But, Mayday and Brilliant Lances use hexes to track range and vector lengths. With Mayday being the simpler implementation.
Rail Gun for Space weapon?
- Thread starter pendragonman
- Start date
Not they don't,
But, Mayday and Brilliant Lances use hexes to track range and vector lengths. With Mayday being the simpler implementation.
That's right. All of the ACS combat I ever did the PC's ship looked like Swiss cheese afterwards, but the PP was still up and running. Lots of money on replacing things like shot up air rafts and the like.
An RG seems like it would do 2 points of damage (maybe some other effects too) as per your rules, but would cost ammo.
An RG seems like it would do 2 points of damage (maybe some other effects too) as per your rules, but would cost ammo.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Yup, by TL13 lasers have moved into the x-ray frequency and thus are longer ranged. Fusion guns are now rapid pulse and plasma guns have reached the limits of their development. The railgun is now outclassed.
I agree though that the railgun will continue to be a civilian option, or even a naval auxiliary option.
Can't help but think sandcasters are based on railguns, and having a missile launched by a railgun may be a a weapon system worth developing...
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Depends on edition as always.
CT used vectors, except for ST which has a rather nice range band system.
MT - well it's best not to talk about MT space combat rules, you can use squares or hexes and completely ignore Newtonian movement.
TNE - BL used a complicated vector movement procedure on a hex map, BR went back to a much simpler Mayday like movement system also on a hex map.
CT used vectors, except for ST which has a rather nice range band system.
MT - well it's best not to talk about MT space combat rules, you can use squares or hexes and completely ignore Newtonian movement.
TNE - BL used a complicated vector movement procedure on a hex map, BR went back to a much simpler Mayday like movement system also on a hex map.
Another idea occurs with this point;
Have any of y'all considered a Smallcraft centric combat system? In this case the terrain is all the junk that could inhabit the Geocentric orbit around a planet. Consider Alastair Reynold's Glitter band.
Have any of y'all considered a Smallcraft centric combat system? In this case the terrain is all the junk that could inhabit the Geocentric orbit around a planet. Consider Alastair Reynold's Glitter band.
What, you mean like for air rafts and cars?
Small craft! You know Fighter and cutters and stuff, though I bet A lot of what I have in my head might be considered Vehicles rather than Smallcraft.
If you look at the various Ships rules most ships 100 tons and under are popcorn, one hit disables the boat.
So I was thinking that they could be a class all their own. One that crosses over between ships and ground craft.
I wasn't sure if that's what you meant or not. I think the basic CT system works for them though. Or did you have something else in mind?
I was thinking of a design and combat system all of their own. Really is would look a lot like COACC in implementation. As the envelope of engagement would be High Orbit to ground realistically.
Never did MT starship combat, and so never did any COACC either. It just seemed unreasonably complicated.
This brings up a sore point with me (I've been leveling some pretty nasty critiques on my favorite game system as of late); 1000 second game turns always seemed unreasonable to me. I can't remember who mentioned it earlier in the thread, but the analogy of waiting for roughly 12 minutes for an object that you can spot on your scanner / sensor-suite ... When I first read that back in ... what, 79? 80? -- I can't remember -- I couldn't help but compare it to Star Fleet Battles, or the other space combat games that came out in that decade; Starfire, Asteroid Zero Four ... you name it -- or even SFB. Game time, the turns were quick, but for a game like Traveller which had 15 second turn combat rounds, it just seemed like there was an extreme disconnect.
If you have a solution to that, or someway of mitigating the two, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.
This brings up a sore point with me (I've been leveling some pretty nasty critiques on my favorite game system as of late); 1000 second game turns always seemed unreasonable to me. I can't remember who mentioned it earlier in the thread, but the analogy of waiting for roughly 12 minutes for an object that you can spot on your scanner / sensor-suite ... When I first read that back in ... what, 79? 80? -- I can't remember -- I couldn't help but compare it to Star Fleet Battles, or the other space combat games that came out in that decade; Starfire, Asteroid Zero Four ... you name it -- or even SFB. Game time, the turns were quick, but for a game like Traveller which had 15 second turn combat rounds, it just seemed like there was an extreme disconnect.
If you have a solution to that, or someway of mitigating the two, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.
That pretty much describes MT from my POV as well, but in this case I was using it to display a zone of conflict.
A lot of this depends on what the model of Starship combat is in your head. I for one have the Maritime model in mine. Which is a lot of maneuvering to get your weapons in range, followed by brief intense moments of firing. Generally 1st with your missile launchers, firing as many missiles as possible to roll back the target's defences. The defence side starts firing point defence as soon as the the missile salvo is detected and is in range (note this is where railguns would be real useful, placing as much ordinance in the way of the missiles as far away as possible). Maneuver is more about getting your weapons in range while being out of their weapons range.
Now see this all hold for open space combat. In which long turns make sense.
Now for the Crowded space Model, say in around the High Port and the related Stations, satellites and other assorted orbital flotsam and jetsam, a much tighter turn scale and ground scale are called for. This is the scale I have been talking about throughout this thread. My core model with 5 minute turns and 1000 km hexes is all about this. Look at the standard Icosahedral planetary map each Hex is 1000 km, with a little tinkering one could run a combat over the face of a planet....
I do but it is all buried in the scale you are using to run your combat.
I suspect a lot of those bits were dictated by legacy and roleplay needs. Started out with fitting a planet into a single hex, then they decided there was this huge zone in which you couldn't jump, then they tried to make you traverse it running for unaffected space while fighting off a pirate. Long turns gave you a fighting chance. Short turns would've meant the battle was decided before you could get more than a few thousand klicks.
You could have more realistic ranges if you scrapped some of the other details that compel the big ranges, like deep no-jump zones and 6G drives. You could recalculate everything more or less by magnitudes, I think. Haven't actually run numbers.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
That's basically it. The speed of ships, distance to 100D, engagement ranges and DMs mean a shooting battle, the 1000 second turn is the time element required to have a 6G limit, 3 LS firing, a chance of surprise or military advantage with the sensors, several turns of shots, and potentially an escape.
They are all interrelated variables designed to create a specific game experience.
Consider just the simple business of switching to the several thousand km range like many are advocating to deal with mirror/railgun/heat/targeting/cinematic combat/shorter time round issues.
In one sense a much more satisfying battle emotionally.
But if you are allowing for vector movement, then depending on your sensor ability you will have different styles of combat avoidance.
If the sensors are MgT they are appropriately short to the weapons, but likely everyone will pass each other in space without seeing each other or firing a shot.
If the sensors are CT LS ranged, the ships will in most cases be able to enter onto an avoidance course and jump before entering combat range.
Only guaranteed combat is orbit/near orbit of planets, or close to other key facilities.
That's why I say the short-ranged weapon model either needs abstract range bands, or the sensors need CT ranges and M-drives greater speed to shorten the time to engagement/running down by superior speed ships.
My answer to this is a bit different- 100-second action rounds, and a power allocation/firing/maneuvering guessing game before the fatal shots are fired.
Yeah, I suppose that's true. But from a flavor standpoint, Traveller as intended, you'd need to simulate Star Trek, Star Wars, Space 1999 and whatever else, starship / spaceship combat. Because if you use the classic vector 1000s turn mechanic, then even once you get in range, you're still waiting twelve minutes to reload or recharge your guns.
Now, Traveller as evolved, has that 1000 second long game time turn as a holdover or grandfathered mechanic from what you described; i.e. most of your time your crew is jockeying for position to close range, get a shot, and avoid the other guy's fire.
I remember the first time I ran "Night of Conquest". The whole idea is for your players to get back to their Empress Marava class free trader, which has a turret that the book says can put down any TL5/6-ish native force. Eh, well, sure, but how are you (GDW) thinking that the Ref and players will navigate that should it be required that the players fire off a few rounds? And to be honest, Starship fire support from ACS, is never defined (maybe it is in HG, but I've not come across it).
And then there's the gray area with the Kinunir and its gun ports. If she pulls alongside a Zho, pirate or whatever, is her BD contingent going to poke their plasma guns out those gun ports and let the other ship have it? And if so, then what scale of turn do you use?
Just hallow grousing here. It does not appear to be an issue with players. I suspect that if it comes to that, you say "Our ship fires at the enemy troops" and that's kind of the end of the story. Oh well.
Now, Traveller as evolved, has that 1000 second long game time turn as a holdover or grandfathered mechanic from what you described; i.e. most of your time your crew is jockeying for position to close range, get a shot, and avoid the other guy's fire.
I remember the first time I ran "Night of Conquest". The whole idea is for your players to get back to their Empress Marava class free trader, which has a turret that the book says can put down any TL5/6-ish native force. Eh, well, sure, but how are you (GDW) thinking that the Ref and players will navigate that should it be required that the players fire off a few rounds? And to be honest, Starship fire support from ACS, is never defined (maybe it is in HG, but I've not come across it).
And then there's the gray area with the Kinunir and its gun ports. If she pulls alongside a Zho, pirate or whatever, is her BD contingent going to poke their plasma guns out those gun ports and let the other ship have it? And if so, then what scale of turn do you use?
Just hallow grousing here. It does not appear to be an issue with players. I suspect that if it comes to that, you say "Our ship fires at the enemy troops" and that's kind of the end of the story. Oh well.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
You don't fire once per space combat round, you just get about once chance to hit from all the fire in a turn.
In TNE a space combat weapon needs a RoF of at least 10 per space combat round.
So, in ground combat, you fire much more often than every 15 minutes. In CT Striker spacecraft weapons fire every 30 s round.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
All true Dilbert but that doesn't resolve the battle/maneuver scale vs. the emotional/character action scale.
BG, the trick in my 100s action to 1000s turn scale is that the shot is taken once the weapon charges- but it doesn't have to wait the full 1000s.
"Sir, the enemy battleship is charging it's meson spinal guns."
"Very well, allocate all power including agility and defensive batteries to our spinal weapon. We should be able to fire 100 seconds before he can, that should spoil their aim! Soon as we fire, go to maximum agility. What is the status of incoming missiles?"
"10 factor-8 missiles, impact 500 seconds."
"This will be tight people. After the enemy takes their shot, then charge our lasers and repulsors. Understood?" Assuming we are all still here.
BG, the trick in my 100s action to 1000s turn scale is that the shot is taken once the weapon charges- but it doesn't have to wait the full 1000s.
"Sir, the enemy battleship is charging it's meson spinal guns."
"Very well, allocate all power including agility and defensive batteries to our spinal weapon. We should be able to fire 100 seconds before he can, that should spoil their aim! Soon as we fire, go to maximum agility. What is the status of incoming missiles?"
"10 factor-8 missiles, impact 500 seconds."
"This will be tight people. After the enemy takes their shot, then charge our lasers and repulsors. Understood?" Assuming we are all still here.
Not for CT vector combat. I've not done TNE.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Sorry, I do not understand, what is not for LBB2 combat?
The rules don't say that 1000 seconds represent an exchange of fire. It just says that turn lengths are 1000 seconds long in game time. There's no mention of what this represents.
pendragonman
Absent Friends Margrave
Well, I have soaked on it for a couple of days...
and given that I am a small ship universe guy (therefore ACS ships only, i.e. no spinal weapons) here are my thoughts:
A) We begin by hypothesising that since no one seems to want to allow railguns to have the handwavium necessary for near regular rules laser ranges, then there is no handwavium for laser either.
B) As it has been established that for lasers below TL 13 the wavelength is in the ultraviolet range, without the handwavium of gravitic focusing we have a range of ~27 km for a 1 meter mirror (thanks Whartung). One meter radius mirrors would make it very tough to have multiple lasers per turret, so let's go with half that, so that we can have the traditional trip turret. Therefore Laser (mid) range is ~13.5 km . Either size mirror puts lasers at short range or less. We apply the damage as per the SRD, 2d6 for pulse with a -2 DM to hit, 1d6 for beam with beam available at TL 9.
No grav focusing would, by extension, also limit particle, meson, and fusion to short range or less as the grav focusing slows the dispersal rate of the energy mass. We apply the SRD damage rates for these weapons as well.
As has been mentioned, plasma seems to be what happens when you speed up a railgun to very near light speed, so plasma replaces rail guns at tl 13.
The result of this change is that space combat is of two ranges: a) long range missile exchanges ala Honor Harrington or b) very, very close.
C) Rail/Coil/Gauss weaponry:
As stated previously, these weapons are also limited to short range or less.
So lasers only advantage is no ammunition requirement.
Turret: we limit turret Gauss weapons to the VRF Gauss gun of G=carrier fame. If ship to ship (space) combat, strictly limited to the point defense role. Since the ammo used by the VRF is about the same size as the sand pebbles, it is equally useful against lasers and missiles.
The upside is the facility of these weapons as ground support. We already know their exact antipersonnel damage.
Barbette/small bay/large bay is exactly as listed in the SRD: 3d6/3d6 x 4/3d6 x 6 damage.
Ortillery variant railgun is a separate animal to the regular bay railgun. This bay launches larger, slower munitions. While all weapon systems can by used in an ortillery mode just by targeting the surface of a planetoid, the ortillery railgun does significantly more damage at the surface of the planetoid. The ortillery variant has no utility in ship to ship combat.
As a whole, this set of rules is a variation on the SRD/high guard.
Thoughts?
and given that I am a small ship universe guy (therefore ACS ships only, i.e. no spinal weapons) here are my thoughts:
A) We begin by hypothesising that since no one seems to want to allow railguns to have the handwavium necessary for near regular rules laser ranges, then there is no handwavium for laser either.
B) As it has been established that for lasers below TL 13 the wavelength is in the ultraviolet range, without the handwavium of gravitic focusing we have a range of ~27 km for a 1 meter mirror (thanks Whartung). One meter radius mirrors would make it very tough to have multiple lasers per turret, so let's go with half that, so that we can have the traditional trip turret. Therefore Laser (mid) range is ~13.5 km . Either size mirror puts lasers at short range or less. We apply the damage as per the SRD, 2d6 for pulse with a -2 DM to hit, 1d6 for beam with beam available at TL 9.
No grav focusing would, by extension, also limit particle, meson, and fusion to short range or less as the grav focusing slows the dispersal rate of the energy mass. We apply the SRD damage rates for these weapons as well.
As has been mentioned, plasma seems to be what happens when you speed up a railgun to very near light speed, so plasma replaces rail guns at tl 13.
The result of this change is that space combat is of two ranges: a) long range missile exchanges ala Honor Harrington or b) very, very close.
C) Rail/Coil/Gauss weaponry:
As stated previously, these weapons are also limited to short range or less.
So lasers only advantage is no ammunition requirement.
Turret: we limit turret Gauss weapons to the VRF Gauss gun of G=carrier fame. If ship to ship (space) combat, strictly limited to the point defense role. Since the ammo used by the VRF is about the same size as the sand pebbles, it is equally useful against lasers and missiles.
The upside is the facility of these weapons as ground support. We already know their exact antipersonnel damage.
Barbette/small bay/large bay is exactly as listed in the SRD: 3d6/3d6 x 4/3d6 x 6 damage.
Ortillery variant railgun is a separate animal to the regular bay railgun. This bay launches larger, slower munitions. While all weapon systems can by used in an ortillery mode just by targeting the surface of a planetoid, the ortillery railgun does significantly more damage at the surface of the planetoid. The ortillery variant has no utility in ship to ship combat.
As a whole, this set of rules is a variation on the SRD/high guard.
Thoughts?
Last edited:
