Spinal Mount Weapons vs. Ship Size

[mightymozenrath]

I just finished reading both the Fighting Ships of The Imperium and the Fighting Ships of the Solomani. The "history" story for the Solomani Rim War was nice, but I have a real problem with the logic that all Spinal Mounts, no matter the ship size (tonnage), all do 16 dice of damage. True, the bigger ships get a better chance to hit, but come on, bigger ships have more energy to put into a Spinal Mount weapon than a small ship with a smaller power plant.

Query: What is the logic behind the 16 dice damage stats? Is it just like so much of what I have read from the game designers that basically tries to say "war is bad" and reflects an unique mind set politics wise?

The books say the Solomani ships are lighter armored and faster, yet the two books show most Solomani ships are better armored than their similiar Imp cousins. True, Imp ships carry a lot more missile launchers and missiles, but that's it.

Please give some feedback on Spinal Mounts as I am re-writing them for my Traveller universe. My players are involved politically to stir up the pot for the Solomani in year 989 in the Gateway Domain and personally, I have a problem with the whole Spinal Mount issue.

-Mozenrath

 

[robject]

Classic Traveller assumed that the value of spines was the ability to inflict a "critical hit", and that higher-rated spines could do more critical hits. So it's not the number of dice of damage in CT, but rather how many rolls on the critical hit table you could deal. In fact, that was pretty much the whole point of squadron combat in High Guard, and it was generally the most important kind of damage you could do.

 

[sabredog]

One reason for the armor differences could be because Meson weapons ignore armor. You also have dampers to neutralize nuclear missiles, laser batteries to intercept missiles, and repulsors to further reduce missile damage. You only have the meson screen (unless Black Globes are in use) and ship configuration to reduce potential meson gun damage. So if your primary threat is the meson gun why load up with lots of armor when the space could be used for weapons and other things?

Not in all cases, but it's a thought.

As for the damage thing, to expand on what robject said, spinal weapons do an extra number of critical hits equal to the difference in size codes of the weapon vs. the ship size. So a code A spinal weapon hitting a 200 ton ship is going to get (on top of the regular damage) an extra 8 critical hits. And that's just a relatively small spinal weapon.

 

[robject]

[...] to expand on what robject said, spinal weapons do an extra number of critical hits equal to the difference in size codes of the weapon vs. the ship size. So a code A spinal weapon hitting a 200 ton ship is going to get (on top of the regular damage) an extra 8 critical hits. And that's just a relatively small spinal weapon.

It seems to be a fast way to figure damage.

 

[rancke]

It seems to be a fast way to figure damage.

It's more than just damage. It's critical hits. Half a dozen of those will ruin your day quite effectively.


Hans

 

[shadowdragon]

*snip*

As for the damage thing, to expand on what robject said, spinal weapons do an extra number of critical hits equal to the difference in size codes of the weapon vs. the ship size. So a code A spinal weapon hitting a 200 ton ship is going to get (on top of the regular damage) an extra 8 critical hits. And that's just a relatively small spinal weapon.

Except damage isn't figured this way for T20. A USP 27 PAW Spinal is +27 to hit, 16d12 damage plus 16d10 radiation damage, threat for crit on 12+ and has a ridiculous range. A ship with AR 15 or more will only take 1d12 damage exclusive of rad damage, but with a high likelyhood of the damage being critical, which then ignores the AR of the target.

Which brings us back to the original question- does anyone know what the reasoning behind limiting all spinal weapons damage to 16 dice was?

 

[aramis]

Being able to hold the needed dice in a single roll. Yeah, 2 hands wil be required.

More seriously, no non-anchients OTU ship will have more than Armor 16, which means worst die-1 damage, except planetoids. (Which can be 16+6=22, IIRC)

 

[shadowdragon]

Being able to hold the needed dice in a single roll. Yeah, 2 hands wil be required.

More seriously, no non-anchients OTU ship will have more than Armor 16, which means worst die-1 damage, except planetoids. (Which can be 16+6=22, IIRC)

Actually it would be best die, minus from 1 to 7, damage, as the damage dice are pulled from lowest value to highest.

Another question that I have though, why is there a TL 8 PAW spinal when there is no way to have a ship large enough to carry it until TL 10? How was it tested as a spinal rather than a planet based weapon? Or is this another indication of the play testers missing yet another error?

 

[far-trader]

Another question that I have though, why is there a TL 8 PAW spinal when there is no way to have a ship large enough to carry it until TL 10?

That one intrigued me And I had a thought right off, did a quick design check and it looks doable...

...you build a planetoid monitor.

Arguably you don't need a computer which is the impediment I think you spotted. A large enough hull would require a computer beyond TL8 right?

But even if you won't grant that you can build a model/2 bis, functionally equal to a model/3 for Jump and Flight, at TL7, allowing up to a a 9,999ton planetoid, giving you 7999tons to work with. And that is enough room to put a TL7 fission 500EP power plant, for the 500EP TL8 Spinal PAW, with the computer, a bridge, and a little left over for quarters and maybe even a maneuver drive and some other weapons on the remaining 44 hardpoints. I didn't bother with a full build, just the minimum monitor needs for proof of concept.

And that's not even looking at the custom computer build rules to make a lower tech higher model (which istr is doable... but could be thinking some other rules set).

 

[shadowdragon]

Unfortunately, according to the rules, while yes at 9999 Td you would only need a model/3 computer, and yes a model2/bis is functionally the same as far as avionics and jump goes, the hulls table for both manufactured and planetoid hulls requires a full model/3 for anything above 5000Td, which is TL 9. So it still is not possible according to the computer requirements just for size. The model/2bis only allows for upgrading the hull streamlining at TL8 since j-1 is TL9.

Soon I will be posting my analysis of a comparison between the computer construction rules and ships computers. A few glaring issues come to light there. I also have a solution but I think it may not go over well, as it really has the potential to make the game unwieldy.

 

[aramis]

Actually it would be best die, minus from 1 to 7, damage, as the damage dice are pulled from lowest value to highest.

Another question that I have though, why is there a TL 8 PAW spinal when there is no way to have a ship large enough to carry it until TL 10? How was it tested as a spinal rather than a planet based weapon? Or is this another indication of the play testers missing yet another error?

16 dice, -15 dice = 1d with 1 left, and that is the DM -1. Planetoids are seriously abusive under T20. And really, the don't factor. (pun intended)

 

[far-trader]

Unfortunately, according to the rules, while yes at 9999 Td you would only need a model/3 computer, and yes a model2/bis is functionally the same as far as avionics and jump goes, the hulls table for both manufactured and planetoid hulls requires a full model/3 for anything above 5000Td, which is TL 9. So it still is not possible according to the computer requirements just for size. The model/2bis only allows for upgrading the hull streamlining at TL8 since j-1 is TL9.

I guess we'll have to disagree on the interpretation of "to run the ship"

I figure it means to fly it (avionics) so a model/2bis will work. You're taking the table itself to mean only a model/3 will work. That's cool. I see points for both. Until an official ruling comes along I prefer mine since it makes the TL8 Spinal PAWS work Though I can easily see it (TL8 Spinal PAWS) might be simply a mistake. And with a simple fix (scratch that line from the table).

Soon I will be posting my analysis of a comparison between the computer construction rules and ships computers. A few glaring issues come to light there. I also have a solution but I think it may not go over well, as it really has the potential to make the game unwieldy.

Yeah, I had a look at the computer rules. Didn't see the stuff I was recalling so it was from another set of rules. MGT I think, or TNE. Or both.

Yeah, the computer design rules are messed. Been trying to get an official answer on that for ages. Some unofficial suggestions are on the board somewhere...

I'm curious and interested in your solution, when you're ready. One person's unwieldy is another person's nice detail

 

[shadowdragon]

16 dice, -15 dice = 1d with 1 left, and that is the DM -1. Planetoids are seriously abusive under T20. And really, the don't factor. (pun intended)

Abusive or not, they are there. So an AR 16 buffered planetoid will have AR22, and that is 16 dice -15 = 1 die with 7 left so a DM of -7.

I guess we'll have to disagree on the interpretation of "to run the ship"

I figure it means to fly it (avionics) so a model/2bis will work. You're taking the table itself to mean only a model/3 will work. That's cool. I see points for both. Until an official ruling comes along I prefer mine since it makes the TL8 Spinal PAWS work Though I can easily see it (TL8 Spinal PAWS) might be simply a mistake. And with a simple fix (scratch that line from the table).



Yeah, I had a look at the computer rules. Didn't see the stuff I was recalling so it was from another set of rules. MGT I think, or TNE. Or both.

Yeah, the computer design rules are messed. Been trying to get an official answer on that for ages. Some unofficial suggestions are on the board somewhere...

I'm curious and interested in your solution, when you're ready. One person's unwieldy is another person's nice detail

I could live with that interpretation of the hulls table minimum computer model, but then again since the details of any programs used to actually "fly" the ship are non-existent i have an issue with any ship requiring more than a model/1 regardless of size. Definite negatives to flying in an atmosphere and maybe an additional limiter to agility for using computers smaller than the "minimum" size but it should be allowed. I mean, just look at the computer that took Apollo to the moon. Model/0 IMHO.
My analysis is complete and too long and complicated for a post so i will be uploading it as a pdf. I need to have it vetted first as it may be too detailed in the construction process details to be posted - i showed actual numbers and all that.

 

[aramis]

The Avionics table:
Minimum
Ship Size Model #
1-600 tons Model/1
601-1000 tons Model/2
1001-4000 tons Model/3
4001-10,000 tons Model/4
10,001-50,000 tons Model/5
50,001-100,000 tons Model/6
100,001+ tons Model/7
100,001+ tons Model/8
100,001+ tons Model/9

So that 9999 ton ship needs a model 4 avionics. If it's had it's streamlining RAISED from default to Streamlined, it needs a model 5 avionics, and if it was raised from default to Airframe, it needs a model 6 avionics. That means a model 4/5/6 core, respectively. It's bloody clear. Don't have it, you can't perform ship actions.

FLIGHT AVIONICS
The size of a spaceship or starship determines the required Model of Flight Avionics
that must be installed to be able to properly fly the craft. Streamlining and Airframe designs will also further increase these requirements to allow for complete control while operating within an atmosphere.​

THB002, p263 (T20 2d ed)

Complete control is the key. If you don't have enough, you don't have complete control... the GM may have the ship go all haywire on you...

 

[far-trader]

Oh yeah, the Avionics table. I'd forgotten about that one.

 

[far-trader]

Just for your possible interest, while searching the site I stumbled on this...

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=9538

EDIT: In fact it looks like the problem is even a little worse. You can't build a TL9 Spinal PAWS ship either from the looks of it. It looks like a minimum TL10 for the model/4 computer. I wonder if this is a legacy flaw from HG1... (wanders off mumbling about finding HG1... )

...hmm, nope, not doable in HG1 either. Same problem there. TL8 and TL9 won't support enough computer to build a ship big enough for the TL8 or TL9 Spinal PAWS. Talk about your long enduring design flaw

EDIT 2: Strike the above. TL9 Spinal PAWS ship is doable, in HG at least. Didn't run T20 but since it calculates minimum computer differently* I don't think it'll work there.

* at least by the way I've always interpreted the minimum computer rule for HG, and HG Shipyard agrees with my interpretation (for whatever that's worth )

 

[shadowdragon]

House rules to the rescue!!!!!!