MGT Only: Visually hiding that Barbette

[hurrahbro]

Going through the new Mongoose Highguard and I rather like the Ion Cannon.
It would be perfect for a campaingn idea I have involving the players working as Repromen for the bank, they would have access to a custom ship.

Surface wise, the ship would look like a Boewulf trader, scuffs and all. But its insides are tricked out (upgraded the M drive, powerplant and computer, added Brig, med bay and towcabel, Emission Absorbsion Grid). Now the Ion Cannon looks perfect for the job, but as a "heavy Turret" would be rather visually distinctive. Enoght to give the players away to any ships they are stalking. How would you go about hiding this untill it is used? I'm willing to lose upto 180 degrees of traverse.

Note tech level 12 max on your ideas.

OK Hive(r) mind , over to you. How would YOU handle such a request.

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

quickest solution: Invoke Rule 0*, and house rule that you can apply the pop up turret rules from the 1 ton standard turrets to the 5 ton barbette, so for (say) 10 tons, they can have it appear to be a blank hard point.

or maybe, for (say) 7 tons, the pop up disguises the barbette as a standard 1 ton turret, in case people wonder why the ship goes around in such dangerous places with only one turret.




*Rule 0: All other rules are subject to the GM, and the GM can change or ignore the rules, when it improves the play of his game.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Mongoose has said no to pop-up barbettes in the 3I-setting, but Rule 0 of course overrides that.

I would guess a 5 dT protruding from a 200 dT hull would be difficult to hide, but it could be disguised as something else, such as an air/raft or small craft strapped to the hull.

Reasonably everything can be hidden. Install it as a fixed mount in the frontmost stateroom on the passenger deck? One each in the fuel scoops in the nacelles (giving up fuel space)?

You could even install a bay in the cargo hold, and fire through an open cargo door?

 

[McPerth]

I would guess a 5 dT protruding from a 200 dT hull would be difficult to hide, but it could be disguised as something else, such as an air/raft or small craft strapped to the hull.

The first I think about it is that pop-up turrets are mostly to hide your weaponry when you're in a starport or similar situation.

In space when lurking for an ambush, if they come to a visual range where they will see it, it's too late for them to flee without combat. I guess the sensors are not enough detailed at large distances to distinguish the turrets, less so if you try to disguise them as you suggest.

I guess we forget all too often that ships in combat don't use to see each other, working only on sensors' readings, far away from visual range...

You could even install a bay in the cargo hold, and fire through an open cargo door?

Unless it is a meson bay, that can fire through matter (and so you wouldn't even need to open the cargo doors) it would limit your fire angle, probably too much.

WOuldn't be easier to fill your cargo hold with fighters and (if needed) quarter modules for their crews?

 

[mike wightman]

Mongoose has said no to pop-up barbettes in the 3I-setting, but Rule 0 of course overrides that.

Ion cannons don't exist in the 3I setting either - they are a rip off from Star Wars and are misnamed if they are supposed to work as described

Particle accelerators firing charged particles are ion cannons, the 'ion cannon' that MgT decided to introduce is better described as an electromagnetic pulse cannon... I actually quite like the idea of direct fire electromagnetic pulse cannon since there is a weapon in the Culture universe that does this.

Pop-up turrets are definitely a thing in the 3I setting, the x-boat tender has them. I see no reason why a pop-up barbette couldn't be included, but I would double the space required from 5t to 10t (in CT terms).

 

[mike wightman]

Going through the new Mongoose Highguard and I rather like the Ion Cannon.
It would be perfect for a campaingn idea I have involving the players working as Repromen for the bank, they would have access to a custom ship.

Surface wise, the ship would look like a Boewulf trader, scuffs and all. But its insides are tricked out (upgraded the M drive, powerplant and computer, added Brig, med bay and towcabel, Emission Absorbsion Grid). Now the Ion Cannon looks perfect for the job, but as a "heavy Turret" would be rather visually distinctive. Enoght to give the players away to any ships they are stalking. How would you go about hiding this untill it is used? I'm willing to lose upto 180 degrees of traverse.

Note tech level 12 max on your ideas.

OK Hive(r) mind , over to you. How would YOU handle such a request.

Could you have it as a fixed mount hidden behind the cargo bay doors?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Ion cannons don't exist in the 3I setting either...

Are you sure?

Canon seems to be in a bit of flux, since e.g. meson bays are not supposed to exits in the 3I setting any longer.

 

[Condottiere]

It's implied that Marc nixed them as bays, problem seems to be that retconning that directive didn't extend to the carrier examples in the current incarnation of High Guard, and I'm not too sure about meson/battlefield sleds, which if they do manage to deSchrodinger themselves, I would emplace in smallcraft attack ships.

 

[whartung]

If you're going to make it a "pop-up", even with "Rule 0", I think that whatever tonnage is normally outside the ship needs to be accounted for inside the ship for when it's "popped-down", plus some surplus for machinery, plus some time to activate/deactivate (i.e. can't fire until popped up, takes a turn to transition either way).

 

[whulorigan]

Under T5, Meson Guns can be mounted in 200 ton "Main Weapon" Bays. It is curious that this does not carry over to MgT2 High Guard.

And T5 does have electronic and magnetic "scramblers", which have a vague resemblance to the MgT2 Ion Cannon in function, if nothing else.

 

[hurrahbro]

The first I think about it is that pop-up turrets are mostly to hide your weaponry when you're in a starport or similar situation.

In space when lurking for an ambush, if they come to a visual range where they will see it, it's too late for them to flee without combat. I guess the sensors are not enough detailed at large distances to distinguish the turrets, less so if you try to disguise them as you suggest.

I guess we forget all too often that ships in combat don't use to see each other, working only on sensors' readings, far away from visual range...



Unless it is a meson bay, that can fire through matter (and so you wouldn't even need to open the cargo doors) it would limit your fire angle, probably too much.

WOuldn't be easier to fill your cargo hold with fighters and (if needed) quarter modules for their crews?

Fighters seem useful, but launch and recovery takes time.

Why that configuration of ship? well, they are available, and the company, operating across the Imperiums boaders has reletively easy access to them.

Yeh, it is mostly to hide the offensive capability of the ship in a starport that I am thinking of. The Company will use this ship to move teams about, and act as support in case the target does a runner and hits space (pending clearance from the local law etc).

IMTU outside the imperium, just about everybody who can build star ships, builds Beowulf’s, and there are many variants, including combat versions. These are built in small early-mid stella states that want force projection on the cheap and can re-use commercial shipping yards. The idea has evolved and has been refined over centuries, starting with 2 turrets, then someone put in a bigger powerplant, then someon hot-rodded their engine, then someone added armour etc (you get the picture?) The ships either have a 2nd turret or a fixed forward triple missile turret (old Solomani style) in the ventral position, upped armour, upped power plants and computers, M3 or M4 drives, all the best tech level 9/10/11 can offer . They have been given the nickname Hrunting types by the Imperium (after the sword Beowulf uses in the poem). Go a few parsecs outside the Imperium and you start to run into these.

Alone one is a trouble and a nasty suprise but usually can be handled, but they are usually never alone (they have a reputation of being pack hunters). To the point that the Imperial Navy's equivalent of a Kobayashi Maru test is to have cadets man a simulated 400 ton PT cruiser going in against 2 Boewulf Pirates attacking a freighter (and when they are in range, the pirates then power up to M4 and let loose 3 missiles a turn at them, the once overconfident cadets now find themselves in an almost fair fight). The Hrunting types are a controlled design within the imperium (you need a license to have one, you need a reason for that license, that reason is that you are a state government that needs jump capable police/customs ships, a corporation that needs asset protection in outlying areas etc).

So this ship is being based on one of those (asset recovery of an imperium based bank, that property might be outside the Imperium) that a company acting across the Imperium’s boarders happens to own at least one.

Why do these discussions always end up with meson guns?

 

[mike wightman]

Are you sure?

Canon seems to be in a bit of flux, since e.g. meson bays are not supposed to exits in the 3I setting any longer.

Meson bays have been canonical in the OTU since '79 HG1
'Ion' cannons do not appear in any version of the OTU nor the sample ships in MgT HG2e - where as meson bays do.

This whole meson bays don't exist anymore is a misunderstanding. T5 doesn't have them because the rules for capital ship design don't exist yet. It's like saying there are no meson bays in the 3I LBB2 universe because there are none in that book.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

This whole meson bays don't exist anymore is a misunderstanding.

That is not what Mongoose is saying:
http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?p=889635#p889635

Canon directive, they are to be spinal mounts only.

Meson bays have been canonical in the OTU since '79 HG1

Yes, but now someone seems to have changed his mind?

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=35735

1. It is, at any given moment, what Marc decides.
2. Marc reserves the right to change his mind.
...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I guess we forget all too often that ships in combat don't use to see each other, working only on sensors' readings, far away from visual range...

Yes, I absolutely agree!

But we do have telescopes and according to MgT2 visual and thermal sensors are the long ranged sensors of choice. Even a densitometer will reveal external structure at Medium range.

In an unsavoury neighbourhood a prudent captain will take a close look at anyone coming into range of his ship.

So, even in space, it is probably a good idea to camouflage a barbette if you want to look unthreatening, and in the reverse mock up a false barbette if you want to discourage pirates.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

IMTU outside the imperium, just about everybody who can build star ships, builds Beowulf’s, ...

If that is all they build a single Ion barbette might be enough. An Ion barbette will often stun a Free Trader, but even a Far Trader has a good chance to retain some power. A Subbie will often have power for both M and J drives after a hit.

Two ion barbettes or a small bay are much harder to resist.

 

[mike wightman]

There is too much extant Traveller canon of the meson gun bay's existence to casually retcon them out of the setting :CoW:
HG1 - meson bays
HG2 - meson bays, including S9
MT - meson bays
GT - meson bays
TNE - meson bays
T4 - meson bays
T20 - meson bays
MgT HG1e - meson bays
MgT HG2e - meson bays included in the legacy S9 designs included in the book

Until I see a definitive statement from MWM to say they have been retconned out of the setting - which is a pretty major revision - I will continue to put it down as a misunderstanding by the MgT design team and the water cooler conversation that has been misinterpreted
The fact they include them in the 3I designs speaks volumes.

There is not existing 3I setting canon for the existence of the Star Wars rip off misnamed 'ion' cannon.

Doesn't stop people using them, and the equally ridiculous tachyon cannon and death star laser if they want them in their setting.

The day they are included in an official 3I OTU book is the day I give up on the 3I setting If I want to play/run games in the Star Wars universe, or even my interpretation of the Culture universe I will/do use them.

As to visually hiding barbettes, the CT corsair has configurable panels that can alter its whole appearance to disguise itself, so hiding a barbette should be doable.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

There is too much extant Traveller canon of the meson gun bay's existence to casually retcon them out of the setting :CoW:

Isn't that a rather minor detail? Since they have generally been completely stopped by screens, they have been of marginal use anyway?

All editions have their quirks.

 

[aramis]

Isn't that a rather minor detail? Since they have generally been completely stopped by screens, they have been of marginal use anyway?

All editions have their quirks.

Let's check that... Using Bk5:HG-80
on 2d6+(A_Comp–T_Comp)–T_Agl+(T_Size), noting that T_Size is ±2...

TL	MS	1C B	1C B TP	Spine	SpineTH
11	0	0	n/a	B	Auto
12	1	0	n/a	K	5+
13	3	1	16+	P	4+
14	6	5	16+	S	4+
15	9	9	16+	T	5+

The 100 Td bays are pretty worthless against any ship with a working Meson Screen.

But one without? TOAST.

Note also: the battlefield Meson Artillery from Striker is a factor 1 weapon of only about 15 kL and 15 tons mass. TL15. Given that the striker ship's laser is 16 kL... it's the same size as a ship's laser.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

But one without? TOAST.

You have to hit, penetrate configuration. E.g. at TL14 (factor 5) you hit a reasonable rider with Ag 6 on 7+6=13+, oops you can't hit...
Let's take an enemy cruiser instead (that somehow forgot its screen): You hit on 7+6-1=12+, and penetrate configuration 1 on 11+, so you have a 1/36×3/36 ≈ 0,2% chance of doing damage.
Each meson bay hit will do 3/36 crew damage (and some easily repairable damage). So to mission-kill a ship with 10 frozen watches you need to fire (10+1) / 3/36 / 3/36 / 1/36 = 57024 bays. That is 57024 × (100[bay]+400[EP]+200[fuel]) ≈ 40 million dT of payload. I would prefer 11740 spinal Meson E guns with the same payload.

Meson bays are only a threat on TL15, but then all major combatants will have screens.

But things look up if we are firing on lower TL ships, e.g. Imperial against Zho or Solomani.
Take a TL15 bay (100+200+200=500 dT). It would hit on 6+6-1=11+ [3/36], penetrate on 14-1=13+ [0/36] and 10-1=9+ [3/36]. Without the screen it would roll for damage 3/36 × 3/36 = 1/144 ≈ 0,7%. Not good enough...

At TL15 a meson bay takes a payload of 100+200+200=500 dT. A spinal J takes a payload of 1000+900+900=2800 dT. A spinal is much, much better than 6 bays.

I still consider Meson bays basically useless, even without screens.

Note also: the battlefield Meson Artillery from Striker is a factor 1 weapon of only about 15 kL and 15 tons mass. TL15. Given that the striker ship's laser is 16 kL... it's the same size as a ship's laser.

Yes, that one is extremely useful, and will be sorely missed. But it also has, presumably, a short range, so useless in space combat.

 

[mike wightman]

I would suggest that the main use for meson bays is orbital artillery.