To vector, or not to vector...

[Whipsnade]

Perhaps if your arguments were more logically-sound and coherent, it would help their comprehensibility.

Boomslang,

Nice try but no cigar.

Let's have a recap, okay?

Someone mentions mass drivers and you state they'll be banned because they can be used as kinetic energy weapons. I repeat your own statement, only replacing the term "mass driver" with "small craft", and point to a restaurant destroyed by an aircraft used as a kinetic energy weapon as a way of illustrating your statement's absurdity. You then reply with some rambling statement which includes nukes, non-existent detection rules, near-c rocks, and how small craft aren't easily "weaponized" pointing to the necessity of installing computers and weapons in order for them to be used as weapons. And that despite the fact that computers and weapons are not needed at all if the small craft itself is the weapon as it is in my original statement regarding their use as kinetic energy weapons.

Summing up in an easily read bullet list:

• You state that mass drivers are kinetic energy weapons and thus will be banned
• I point out that small craft are already kinetic energy weapons
• You state that small craft don't usually come with computers and weapons, so making them weapons is hard
• I point out that computers and weapons aren't required for a small craft to be a kinetic energy weapon
• You still don't understand
• I write this post
• You hopefully understand

Get it now?

Mass drivers will be used where and when they confer an advantage. The potential use of mass drivers as weapons and the potential damage caused by the misuse of mass drviers will not preclude the use of mass drivers.


Regards,
Bill

 

[boomslang]

Summing up in an easily read bullet list:

You have mischaracterized my position on a couple of key points.

This clarifies the root of the problem: as you imply in PM, we are miscommunicating and talking at cross-purposes, each being misunderstood by the other.

Because we are civilized sophonts, let us take it completely to PM until we get it sorted between us and are both on the same page.

 

[Whipsnade]

Boomslang,

There's no real need to sort it out. Let us instead drop the thread as you first suggested.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Cryton]

And back on topic.....

I use a vector thrust system with 1000km/inch/hex/square depending on my paper on hand, with five minuet turns. Both my players and I love it.

I also feel really sorry for the typical pirate that attacks a PC ship, as the PC ship WILL mount the best possible weapons and defenses for a ship its size, the INSTANT the PCs can afford to mount them. Something the GENERIC pirate ship will not have. I say GENERIC pirate because its probably a random encounter. Also any pirate ship that is as well equipped as a PC ship is probably a government backed PRIVATEER, some rich dilettante playing pirate for kicks, or a NPC rival/enemy I've placed in their path because my game called for a night of starship combat.

Finally, Why In the nane of the stars do you think the ASC would bring a sword to a gunfight?

 

[sabredog]

Finally, Why In the nane of the stars do you think the ASC would bring a sword to a gunfight?

You mean they wouldn't?

I guess it makes as much sense as saying mass drivers will never be used in the future because everyone will be afraid they'd be used as weapons. Besides, my whole rambling rant was just for fun.

 

[Ishmael]

to continue with the original topic....

In vector combat,
Should ships that use spinal mounts be placed at some kind of disadvantage in maneuvering to account for the fact that they must physically face their target when firing?
If they do not face their target for the duration of that turn when firing, should they have a negative to-hit dm to account for that?

Ships with turrets and bays ( which are just really big turrets...at least as stated in MT ), would not have to worry about that as turrets can track a target while the ship spins and twists to and fro whereas spinal weapons cannot. This is the trade-off for having a BFG.

How do people handle this?
No vector changes when firing the spinal mount?

 

[sabredog]

to continue with the original topic....

In vector combat,
Should ships that use spinal mounts be placed at some kind of disadvantage in maneuvering to account for the fact that they must physically face their target when firing?
If they do not face their target for the duration of that turn when firing, should they have a negative to-hit dm to account for that?

No, combat turns are long enough, and the distances at which spinal mounts are used far enough that it is a moot issue. And a ship can rotate it's center axis any direction offline from it's vector direction any time. Unless you house rule something different.

Ships with turrets and bays ( which are just really big turrets...at least as stated in MT ), would not have to worry about that as turrets can track a target while the ship spins and twists to and fro whereas spinal weapons cannot. This is the trade-off for having a BFG.

No it isn't, unless again, you house rule it. The size of a ship determines how many batteries will bear, and since only ships 10k tons + can carry a spinal mount this is already a penalty of sort.

How do people handle this?
No vector changes when firing the spinal mount?

If it is a situation that happens at all then it's happening within the context of something involving the players. So, it's a case by case thing.

 

[Dragoner]

The spinal mount issue is a good case for the agility rating, how fast it can spin on it's axis.

 

[aramis]

Any ship firing a spinal mount isn't going to get it's full turn's thrust... it' has to spend a chunk of time off-target to thrust usefully, and then spend some time swinging around to bring the spinal to bear.

Basic physics.

 

[Ishmael]

No, combat turns are long enough, and the distances at which spinal mounts are used far enough that it is a moot issue. And a ship can rotate it's center axis any direction offline from it's vector direction any time. Unless you house rule something different.

I'm not so certain about that. It would depend on what rules you're using. As far as I know, Bk2 and Mayday were the only real vector games and neither featured spinal mounts. So any game with spinal mounts AND vector movement sort of HAS to be house-ruled.

At the ranges that spinal mounts fire at, there is little/no real deviation permitted without missing completely which would constrain all the axis-spinning a bit. Especially if one were to use the rational that a single turn of firing is really multiple shots over the length of the turn where the to hit number gives the probability of one ( or more ) of those shots hitting the target.

Of course the ship can spin about its axis at any time along its vector, but main thrusters are used to *change* the vector whether its for maneuvering or evading. Spinning like a top without changing the vector is useless for evasion/maneuvering.

No it isn't, unless again, you house rule it. The size of a ship determines how many batteries will bear, and since only ships 10k tons + can carry a spinal mount this is already a penalty of sort.

Batteries bearing gives an idea of how many batteries can fire on a giving turn with the logic of it being, "batteries on the port side of the ship can't fire through the ship at a target on the starboard side of the ship". If the ship can spin about freely over the time periods long enough to never worry about how long its pointing at the target, then why can't the ship twist and spin about such that ALL batteries have a shot at the target?
Again, this is something that must be house-ruled as spinal mounts and vector based space combat in Traveller never really mixed.

If it is a situation that happens at all then it's happening within the context of something involving the players. So, it's a case by case thing.

In a wargame such as Mayday, it always involves the players.....

---------------------

Dragoner: Agility will involve more than how fast a ship can spin on its axis. It will be a combination of that and its rate of acceleration from its main thrusters. With only spinning, it won't change the length of its vector and with only main thrust it won't be able to change the direction of its vector.

----------------------

I kind of like the idea of allocating your thrust to
Aiming gives offensive dm's to spinal mounts )
Evasion gives defensive dm's
Maneuvering allows you to change your vector

Situation determines how you allocate this
Aiming does not change your vector and evasion just jinks around along the vector without changing it significantly

 

[sabredog]

I'm not so certain about that. It would depend on what rules you're using. As far as I know, Bk2 and Mayday were the only real vector games and neither featured spinal mounts. So any game with spinal mounts AND vector movement sort of HAS to be house-ruled.

At the ranges that spinal mounts fire at, there is little/no real deviation permitted without missing completely which would constrain all the axis-spinning a bit. Especially if one were to use the rational that a single turn of firing is really multiple shots over the length of the turn where the to hit number gives the probability of one ( or more ) of those shots hitting the target.

Of course the ship can spin about its axis at any time along its vector, but main thrusters are used to *change* the vector whether its for maneuvering or evading. Spinning like a top without changing the vector is useless for evasion/maneuvering.

SInce Matday and Book 2 are aimed at a small ship game involving players it is entirely suitable that they do not include ships the size of the spinal weapon equipped ones, and neither of those rules include the intricacies which may be involved in maneuvering and fighting ships that size.

A battleship such as the New Jersey may be "fast" relative to others in her class, and even to a lot of smaller ships, but she wouldn't have the same agility rating that smaller ships do. I think, that all other factors involving surface ships aside, the vectoring in this game doesn't take into account properly the mass of the ship in computing agility except that you need a bigger power plant and M-Drive to get the same "agility" as a fighter would have.

This has always struck me as not very realistic unless you figure that with the distances involved, and the time involved in a turn, agility really amounts to how fast can a ship accelerate in a straight line, and it allows it to make very small movements quickly. Small enough to be probably inconsequential relative to the size of the ship and the distance it travels, but enough to make it harder to hit at the large distances involved especially when firing weapons like meson guns and computing the detonation point inside the ship for maximum effect (as also reflected in the configuration modifiers for hitting with one of these weapons).

Batteries bearing gives an idea of how many batteries can fire on a giving turn with the logic of it being, "batteries on the port side of the ship can't fire through the ship at a target on the starboard side of the ship". If the ship can spin about freely over the time periods long enough to never worry about how long its pointing at the target, then why can't the ship twist and spin about such that ALL batteries have a shot at the target?

I understand your point and sympathize; originally it was configuration and not size that computed for batteries bearing which I think made more sense. But...if you figure that those ships large enough to be bothered by the restriction are also going to most likely the ones also carrying a spinal weapon then it can be handwaved away by saying that reason for the limit is because the spinal gun has to be pointing at the target so the ship's bulk masks some of the other weapons.

You could always house rule that if the spinal gun isn't used then all batteries may fire, or as I have ruled, all missile and sand batteries may always bear since they are not limited by masking from the ship's bulk.

Again, this is something that must be house-ruled as spinal mounts and vector based space combat in Traveller never really mixed.
In a wargame such as Mayday, it always involves the players.....

Yes, which is what i tried to explain before...but anyone have Brilliant Lances? I never played it so I can't say, but doesn't it have vector movement and how are spinal mounts handled differently in there?

 

[sabredog]

Of course the ship can spin about its axis at any time along its vector, but main thrusters are used to *change* the vector whether its for maneuvering or evading. Spinning like a top without changing the vector is useless for evasion/maneuvering.

Sliding laterally along the axis of the firer's point of aim is always going to make you harder to hit, and the farther away you are the harder you will be - especially if the firer has to move the bulk of his ship to point it's main weapon at you.

Also, spinning a sphere might now make much difference, but a long cylinder or needle would.

But I don't think they have to be really dramatic motions, just lots of small ones that make it harder to hit you - especially when all the other countermeasures are added in. And this is where the ship's computer rating really works as a -DM against the enemy: it computes the changes needed in small or large random motions to help throw the aim off of the other ship by taking into account all the factors of time, distance, motion, thrust, etc..

 

[Dragoner]

Any ship firing a spinal mount isn't going to get it's full turn's thrust... it' has to spend a chunk of time off-target to thrust usefully, and then spend some time swinging around to bring the spinal to bear.

Basic physics.

Aramis, yes, I totally agree with this.

Dragoner: Agility will involve more than how fast a ship can spin on its axis. It will be a combination of that and its rate of acceleration from its main thrusters. With only spinning, it won't change the length of its vector and with only main thrust it won't be able to change the direction of its vector.

I think the negative DM, and no changes to vector make the spinal mount use effectively ruled.

Isn't the numbered "G" of the the drive (ie 6G) is the measure of how fast a ship may accelerate? So agility counts in there somewhere else in my mind. Ever rotated on it's axis the ship is still moving in it's original path unless it is thrusting at the same time. That is definitely something to think about, evasion will mean not letting the pursuer line up on you even in a straight out run. You will want to make a 90 degree movement to the attackers axis.

 

[Matt123]

...snip...
This has always struck me as not very realistic unless you figure that with the distances involved, and the time involved in a turn, agility really amounts to how fast can a ship accelerate in a straight line,
...snip...

How fast a ship can accelerate is firmly the job of the MD. Agility IMHO is the ability to spin the ship to face a new direction. Aiding evasive maneouvres and I guess, aiming the spinal weapon.

 

[Tellon]

How fast a ship can accelerate is firmly the job of the MD. Agility IMHO is the ability to spin the ship to face a new direction. Aiding evasive maneouvres and I guess, aiming the spinal weapon.

Actually manuvering jets -- which in modern spacecraft are tiny Ion drives or "tea-kettles" so run by boiling water in old craft

So an MD is for main thrust in Direction A -- not the fine tuning, station-keeping moves which is to swivel your spacecraft to a different "facing" while your ship is still moving in direction A

 

[the angle]

I suspect that ships with spinal weapons would have a fundamentally different tactical approach to battle from ships outfitted primarily with turrets. WW2 battleships were not just big cruisers, and cruisers were not just bigger destroyers. They served different functions within naval strategy and fought different types of battles.

As an aside, battleships could often be more agile than cruisers, in terms of things like turning radius ("tactical diameter") at speed. Smaller size does not always mean nimbler or faster.

Steve

 

[sabredog]

How fast a ship can accelerate is firmly the job of the MD. Agility IMHO is the ability to spin the ship to face a new direction. Aiding evasive maneouvres and I guess, aiming the spinal weapon.

You left out the rest of what I said: that agility takes into account acceleration and the small maneuvers, aka jinking, to interfere with the targeting systems of the enemy ship.

 

[Matt123]

Actually manuvering jets -- which in modern spacecraft are tiny Ion drives or "tea-kettles" so run by boiling water in old craft

So an MD is for main thrust in Direction A -- not the fine tuning, station-keeping moves which is to swivel your spacecraft to a different "facing" while your ship is still moving in direction A

You are not taking into account the massive energy requirements needed for Agility without need for additional MD.

The problem with 'Agility' (thruster jets only get you so far & cost considerably less than the extra PP cannon requires) is that in spinning the ship to use the MD, the g's experienced at the extremities are high.

Throw the extra power into your grav compensators, you can spin fast without killing your crew with 6g forces (or more, are grav compensators limited to 6g?) at the extremities and use your MD-6 to power along the new vector (far more effective than 'maneouvre jets'). Before spinning back (at 6g in the extremities) and continuing your previous thrust.

I am sure all craft will have maneuver jets as well, for the fine tuning, station keeping purposes you describe. Super jets to give you Agility-6 however would be represented in canon as such, they would be substantial devices. Especially when you consider the Agility PP tonnage & cost such a device would be replacing.

 

[Matt123]

You left out the rest of what I said: that agility takes into account acceleration and the small maneuvers, aka jinking, to interfere with the targeting systems of the enemy ship.

Yep. I was responding to your statement that Agility amounts to straight line acceleration. In that I believe you are wrong, as I mentioned straight line acceleration is the job of the MD, no Agility is required.

 

[sabredog]

Yep. I was responding to your statement that Agility amounts to straight line acceleration. In that I believe you are wrong, as I mentioned straight line acceleration is the job of the MD, no Agility is required.

I didn't say it was only for straight acceleration...but that was why you snipped that part since you wanted to cherry pick to try to make your point. What I said was,

"This has always struck me as not very realistic unless you figure that with the distances involved, and the time involved in a turn, agility really amounts to how fast can a ship accelerate in a straight line, and it allows it to make very small movements quickly. Small enough to be probably inconsequential relative to the size of the ship and the distance it travels, but enough to make it harder to hit at the large distances involved especially when firing weapons like meson guns and computing the detonation point inside the ship for maximum effect (as also reflected in the configuration modifiers for hitting with one of these weapons)."