Unarmed PC starships?

[rancke]

I wrote up an unstreamlined 400 T merchant with deckplans (in J1, J2, and J3 versions; same hull, different interiors) for JTAS Online once. Being unstreamlined, it only serviced routes where the starports had orbital components. With a high correlation between enough traffic to rate an orbital starport and enough revenue to fund decent system defenses, it was usually unarmed, but it did have the hardpoints for installing turrets. Also, the huttle had fuel scoops and a collapsible fuel tank in case of misjumps. When it became old enough to dispose of, the new owners could install turrets and take it into the backwaters. It did take 11 or more shuttle trips to load/unload a full cargo, but as free traders tend to spend five days in each port, that wasn't so much of a problem as it would be for a regular freighter.

Here's the link: http://jtas.sjgames.com/login/article.cgi?792


Hans

 

[aramis]

I think the Millenium Falcon has a lot to answer for. A simple merchant ship with two heavy, anti-aircraft guns capable of taking out military fighters!? I never batted an eyelid when I was a kid (and still don't really when it comes to Star Wars) but the idea of civilian merchant ships being armed is actually quite odd when you think about it.

During WWII and during the age of sail, many merchantmen were armed.

WWII, mostly AA guns. Often with Navy gunners to man them.

Age of sail, a few light canons, to discourage piracy.

 

[DaveChase]

I require all ships to have a min of 1 hardpoint per 500t installed.

Does not mean that they have to have weapons but they must have the capacity to do so.

Most ships put on a min of a duel turret, with a laser and sand caster.

Dave Chase

 

[samuelvss]

I think the Millenium Falcon has a lot to answer for. A simple merchant ship with two heavy, anti-aircraft guns capable of taking out military fighters!?

Nothing about the MF was supposed to be simple.

Also, it depends where and when. A few hundred years ago, armed merchants were the norm. There are spots in every sector where one can be safe from pirates in the OTU; there are spots in every sector, indeed every subsector, where one can not. That means that pircacy is not 21st century, but 16th in the OTU. The responses are likely to be similar.

 

[Patron Zero]

Self-Defense

I've always been one to suggest the option of defense over offense concerning weapons on commercial-privately owned starships.

IMTU, I've allowed for 'mini turrets' that are essentially pop-up CIWS to intercept inbound ordnance or deploy counter-measures to confound-confuse said threats. Roughly figure mounting two DS (defense symmetry) mini turrets in the space one 'standard' offensive (full sized) turret allotted per 100 dTons. A house rule and not to be consider canon in any official Traveller universe but such presented for consideration all the same.

To balance the 'lack' of offensive turret weapon placement, torpedo tubes are as commonly found on select vessels as are fixed mount (micro-sized spinal mount) rail guns. Each offering pros and cons for installation and applications, often the choice decided by reasons of design than personal preference.

I'm also in favor of 'traditional' static defenses, Traveller versions of flares, chaff and 'smoke' fired from various locations on the ship's hull may sound archaic but in the long run may be quite cost-efficient, which seems to be the summary of justifying the absence of offensive weapons in general.

 

[aramis]

Patron: your defense turrets still need significant range to be effective against incoming missiles. Even fragments of missiles are a significant threat, and you need to be able to cause them to fail such that they have time to disperse and/or for the ship to maneuver out of their flight path. That's going to require a lot longer ranges than current wet-naval CIWS, due to both the much higher speeds of the missiles and the lack of friction to help slow and disperse the remnants of the missile.

 

[sabredog]

Given the velocities of the ships in combat how about just throwing bales of tinfoil out the airlock mixed with ball bearings? One nixies the missiles and the other turns the target into a collander.

But seriously, I have cannister loads allowed IMTU for close-in defense against missiles and just figure that since it's the explosives with expanding rods and focussed force that causes the missile damage against a ship, if you can just neutralize the thing by blasting it pieces with cannister that ought to be enough. I mean, c'mon, how dense is a missile going to be? In space they don't have to be all that sturdy at all - and they aren't that big either; It's not like a supersonic missile the size of a Cessna cartwheeling into your ship while trailing a big fireball. I just figure they are made from a lightweight plastic to save mass.

 

[Patron Zero]

[QUOTE =sabredog;301784]Given the velocities of the ships in combat how about just throwing bales of tinfoil out the airlock mixed with ball bearings? One nixies the missiles and the other turns the target into a collander. [/QUOTE]

That's the essence of how I interpret-allow for the aforementioned CIWS to operate IMTU, I had not been applying the description of such as canister loads but it's very apt and accurate as to the mechanism and intent.

As to the range issue, as mentioned by aramis, again referring to my inhouse adoption of a CIWS systems, such parallels the effectiveness of sandcasters against beam weapons and applies a similar 'curve' as to successful interception.

And in the category of 'static' defense would also be the defending ship's torpedo tubes being used to deploy a sort of reverse depth charge, more of a cluster bomb in operation, that scatters sub-munitions to discourage a pursuing vessel.

By no means would any defensive system found onboard a non-military starship, such as PCs might operate, foil a dedicated missile strike from a true warship. My examples meant to be read as 'lesser' ordnance available to-used by non-military forces such as pirates or encounters with other hostile elements.

 

[sabredog]

...and it does say in LBB2 that missiles passing through anti-laser sand shot from 'casters have a chance of being eliminated w/out endangering the target ship, so I think the cases for CIWS or cannister that are specifically made for taking out incoming missiles safely are plenty valid.

Besides, its a game, the more action and drama the better. Tension= "Incoming missiles, sir!"
"Fire anti-missile lasers"
"Still coming!!!"
"ECM?"
"Yikes, a couple are still coming in!"
"Fire chaff and cannister (or the CIWS railguns) and evasive maneuvers!"
A collective sigh of relief among the crew as the debris from the incoming missile barrage bounces harmlessly off the hull....

 

[BlackBat242]

That's why all my PC's merchant ships have at least one beam laser (hits easier, less damage vs ship) and one sandcaster.

If they have a 3rd weapon in the turret, it is a missile launcher (no, Customs Officer, that's not an offensive weapon... all of our missiles are loaded with 6-part anti-missile warheads*).

If there is a second turret, then we can go to the pulse lasers (multiples match beam lasers' weapons factor at that "2-turret sweet spot").


* the warhead has 6 sections, each an independently-self-targeted flechette canister.


Of course, the above is the "official" load-out...

 

[sabredog]

So what are the stats on that anti-missile missile? It sounds like a good addition to my game.

 

[aramis]

all of our missiles are loaded with 6-part anti-missile warheads*).

* the warhead has 6 sections, each an independently-self-targeted flechette canister.

Why does that make me think SFB? :devil:

 

[jrmapes]

Of course, the above is the "official" load-out...

Why does this remind of,


Just because you're Paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you!


:rofl:

Good to see you again BB

Jerry

 

[dccarles]

A thought:

Escort services.[1]

Basically, the local mercenary without a ticket hires out his cruiser for small convoys. (Eight triple laser turrets will punch holes in just about anything this side of a thousand tons.) Most routes would be low risk (if it were high-risk, why wouldn't the Imperial Navy be involved?) but low pay.

Me, I'd charge about what a basic gunner costs, per 100 tons of (unarmed) escorted shipping, per turret. So, Cr80/dton. Not much. But if I'm going that way anyway, why the heck not?

And some routes might be more lucrative - say, anything going outside the Imperium, or "gold rush" situations where a lot of speculative trade opens up all at once.

If you happen to score an old CE instead of your mercenary cruiser, even better! Pirates do not like to tangle with particle accelerators - few pirates have /fib computers...or frozen watches to replace radiation casualties.

--Devin

[1] No, not that type of escort service, you've been reading too much Fark.com. Shame on you!

 

[aramis]

Rules for Starmerc escort contracts appear in MegaTraveller's Hard Times.

 

[Drakon]

Basically, how viable do you think a starship engaging in a trader-style campaign might be, if it simply doesn't bother with turrets at all? Would it be manageable within more civilized (i.e. less pirate-plagued) subsectors, or is it simply asking to be blown out of the sky no matter what?

The biggest problem with running around unarmed is that space is big. Very very big. You may think its a long walk down to the chemists, but that is nothing compared to space.

Police and other government services would be spread pretty thin. Tracking down piracy is going to be very tough, meaning very easy to get away with. The easier it is to get away with, the more prevelent it will be.

Besides which, police can only investigate after a crime has been committed. Frankly I would prefer to not to be a victim in the first place.

 

[rancke]

The biggest problem with running around unarmed is that space is big. Very very big. You may think its a long walk down to the chemists, but that is nothing compared to space.

Police and other government services would be spread pretty thin. Tracking down piracy is going to be very tough, meaning very easy to get away with. The easier it is to get away with, the more prevelent it will be.

Besides which, police can only investigate after a crime has been committed. Frankly I would prefer to not to be a victim in the first place.

The problem with the problem is that while space is indeed big, it's a very limited subsection of space that needs to be protected to make certain types of piracy very difficult. Ships jump from the 100 diameter limit of one world to the 100 diameter limit of another. If the planetary population is big enough to support a few SDBs, simply stationing one at a specific spot on the jump limit will give arriving merchants a safe place to jump into a system.

Jump masking did introduce complications that helps a pirate a bit, but the fundamentals of vector movement makes detecting and intercepting a victim a tricky business, even... that is to say, especially over long distances.

Piracy in places away from a mainworld with decent defense is another matter. As long as the victim isn't armed and about as powerful as the pirate... Unfortunately, those are the kind of encounters that are fun for players. That is, the kind that gives them a decent chance of fighting off the pirate and leave him with battle damage that'll cost him millions to repair.

Back to the original question. If the ship limits its peregrinations to certain worlds, there's no reason why being unarmed would be any problem. Whether it can make a living if it is restricted to those worlds is another question.


Hans

 

[Dagrill]

Hi,

I would say unarmed ships are viable, the pirates that go around killing the crews of defenceless vessels would be swiftly hunted down.

However, I'd like a sandcaster at least and a beam laser if there was sufficient power, on any ship I was a PC crewmember of.

Regards

David

 

[rust]

Whether it can make a living if it is restricted to those worlds is another question.

In my setting almost all new merchant ships are designed for specific and
reliable trade routes, because without a sound business plan that guaran-
tees a sufficient monthly profit no bank would give a loan to someone wil-
ling to buy a starship.
Only old ships without a mortgage to pay off are likely to become tramp
ships that do not have to serve a specific route and therefore can travel
where the crew expects to make a higher profit (or find adventure).

As for piracy, it is almost nonexistent in my setting. There are rare acts
of piracy by crews of merchant ships, and there was some commerce rai-
ding during the few armed conflicts of the setting's history, but piracy as
a career would be a suicidal idea.
The Federation Patrol and the Federation Fleet would actively hunt any
known pirate ships and blockade any planet known to support pirates, and
the Merchants' League would immediately boycott any world suspected to
harbour pirates.
Although there would of course be some blockade runners, they could not
replace the entire interstellar trade, and so the economy of the planet in
question would be ruined within a few months.

 

[Ran Targas]

It's tough to justify weapons to the authorities, admiralty insurers, or even your accountant when there is a strong military presence. Particularly if you are only jumping between Class A or B starports along a primary trade route. I'm sure the sector duke would want to protect a lucrative trade spine and would dedicate forces to patrol it sufficiently to discourage any pirates. Now on the frontier, maybe not so much.

Another application where ship's weapons would be a liability is diplomatic or humanitarian transport, even first contact may be a mission area where weapons would be very unwelcome. Of course, this does depend on how dark your version of the Imperium is; perhaps your first contact scenario involves a show of military strength and a willingness to use it.