MGT Only: Weapons Playtest - Second Round

[MongooseMatt]

Well, we have had an awful lot of comments on our proposed changes to shooting weapons in Traveller, and have spent some time compiling everything.

We now have a new weapons playtest document for you chaps (and chapettes!) to look through, which you can download here;

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/pdf/travshooting2.doc

As before, we are looking for all comments, especially on the weapons themselves - is there anything you would like to see changed, from Range to Damage to Cost, on any weapon?

 

[whulorigan]

Concerning AP

Concerning AP:

v1.0 of the rules-revision had said:

. . . if a weapon is listed as having Damage 3D6 AP2, it will ignore (3 x 2) 6 points of Armour.

(i.e. the AP value is multiplied by weapon's # of dice)


v2.0 of the rules-revision says:

. . . if a weapon is listed as having Damage 3D6 AP5, it will ignore 5 points of Armour when damage is rolled for.

(i.e. the AP value is straight points)


Is this a deliberate change, or an oversight? I prefer the v1.0 mechanic.

 

[whulorigan]

Shotgun

Should Shotguns be treated as "Weak" as far as AP goes? They have 4D damage dice, but should have lower penetration where armor is concerned.

 

[McPerth]

Concerning AP:

v1.0 of the rules-revision had said:


(i.e. the AP value is multiplied by weapon's # of dice)


v2.0 of the rules-revision says:


(i.e. the AP value is straight points)


Is this a deliberate change, or an oversight? I prefer the v1.0 mechanic.

Seeing that there are weapons with AP 20 (or even 60) I guess it's a deliberate change. This discriminates even more the damage from the armor piercing capability...

 

[McPerth]

DD weapons

When I first read about DD weapons, the weapon that come into my mind was the messon accelerator, I see now it's given as damage 2 DD, what makes sense to me.

The fact of PGMP and FGMP having also DD qualities (1DD and 2DD respectively) does not make the same sense to me, as this means armor is useless against them, as it makes them as powerful as the meson accelerator (if shorter ranged)¹.

See that if a ship is hit by a FGMP, if it rolls a 10+ (1/6 possibilities) for damage (less depending on the success level achieved if it is added before multiplying, as I guess) the ship would receive one space rated hit (I asume the 50:1 relation is kept), regardless its armor, and that makes it more powerful against an armored ship than even a ship's beam laser or a nuke in space combat (again, quite shorter ranged).

A platoon or FGMP armored troops can be quite destructive against a Merc Cruiser (800 dton, armor 4, 16 hull and 16 structure, and would easily destroy it in about 2-3 combat rounds, while it would be needed quite an amount of missiles or blazers to do the same (albeit, once more, at quite longer ranges) :CoW:...

See also Plasma C gun is very letal:12 DD (I guess we have a typo there...)

Note 1: Is there any practical reason to have PGMP and FGMP first listed for all TLs as combat stats and latter each one, with the same combat stats, I guess for price stats)?​

 

[MongooseMatt]

Is this a deliberate change, or an oversight? I prefer the v1.0 mechanic.

Deliberate - others suggested the current mechanic and it seems cleaner to me. It also unlocks AP from the number of dice rolled, which allows us to 'play' with things on a mechanical level.

Should Shotguns be treated as "Weak" as far as AP goes? They have 4D damage dice, but should have lower penetration where armor is concerned.

Good point - anyone else have thoughts on this?

 

[MongooseMatt]

See that if a ship is hit by a FGMP, if it rolls a 10+ (1/6 possibilities) for damage (less depending on the success level achieved if it is added before multiplying, as I guess) the ship would receive one space rated hit (I asume the 50:1 relation is kept), regardless its armor, and that makes it more powerful against an armored ship than even a ship's beam laser or a nuke in space combat (again, quite shorter ranged).

Remember, when scaling up, they lose their Destructive trait and therefore do _not_ ignore ship armour. They become 'normal' ship scale weapons.

Is that what you meant?

See also Plasma C gun is very letal:12 DD (I guess we have a typo there...)

Ah, this is why we have you guys look over the list Should be 2DD.

 

[McPerth]

Also about PGMP/FGMP:

1. How does this way the rule for Serious Firepower (CB, page 102) apply (if it does) under those new rules?
2. Will the nearly concept given in the FGMP (also CB, page 102) that need BD to avoid radiation damage be specified (10m? 20m?...)?

 

[McPerth]

Remember, when scaling up, they lose their Destructive trait and therefore do _not_ ignore ship armour. They become 'normal' ship scale weapons.

Is that what you meant?

Yes, it was that. Sorry, I just skip read the tables, and even more skip read the text. But at what scale do Destructive weapons affect starships?

If, as you say, they become "normal" ship weapons, then a FGMP would be as lethal versus a starship as a pulse laser or a nuclear missile (2d6), and quite more than as I told before, even against an armored ship (in this case, the FGMP would do 2d6 vs the same Merc Cruiser armor 4, one hit with a roll of 5-8, 2 single hits with a roll of 9-12, and (if the success level is high enough) even a double hit or 3 single ones are posible...

See also that those rules are a major disgression from the CB...

EDIT: And also, high energy weapons become quite powerful anti armor weapons, as they are quite letal against armor (tanks) regardless of how well armored they are...END EDIT

Ah, this is why we have you guys look over the list Should be 2DD.

And that's why I posted it. Glad to help.

 

[MongooseMatt]

If, as you say, they become "normal" ship weapons, then a FGMP would be as lethal versus a starship as a pulse laser or a nuclear missile (2d6), and quite more than as I told before, even against an armored ship (in this case, the FGMP would do 2d6 vs the same Merc Cruiser armor 4, one hit with a roll of 5-8, 2 single hits with a roll of 9-12, and (if the success level is high enough) even a double hit or 3 single ones are posible...

Bear in mind they still work at personal ranges, so a flying spacecraft still very much has the advantage. But one caught on the ground, defenceless but for its turrets? I am kinda okay with it being in real trouble - in the very least, it should lose a Hull point or two and have some systems damaged.

The easy 'fix' for this would be to say something like against scaled up Destructive weapons, spacecraft armour is doubled. Easy, but a bit of a kludge, and not exactly elegant (for what that is worth).

Happy to be convinced either way. As things stand, I think the spacecraft should be leery of high energy (and high TL at that) weapons, rather than sitting safe and secure on the ground thinking everything will just bounce off.

Would welcome arguments against though.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Also about PGMP/FGMP:

1. How does this way the rule for Serious Firepower (CB, page 102) apply (if it does) under those new rules?
2. Will the nearly concept given in the FGMP (also CB, page 102) that need BD to avoid radiation damabe be specified (10m? 20m?...)?

Didn't include this in the last post, as I wanted to give them some thought.

I can't see that these rules would be affected at all. The radiation damage is something seperate from Destructive, as are the cover rules, really. There _could_ be an argument that the target gets no cover if the weapon is ignoring armour anyway, but cover is more than just protection - it also represents not knowing exactly where (all) the target is.

So, I think these rules can stand without modification.

 

[whulorigan]

Bear in mind they still work at personal ranges, so a flying spacecraft still very much has the advantage.
.
.
.

Happy to be convinced either way. As things stand, I think the spacecraft should be leery of high energy (and high TL at that) weapons, rather than sitting safe and secure on the ground thinking everything will just bounce off.

Would welcome arguments against though.

But if a PGMP (1DD) or FGMP (2DD) are Destructive as listed in the table, that means in personal-scale battlefield combat, a Battledress-equipped Soldier/Marine (who would likely be carrying one, if not as primary, at least as a squad-support weapon) will be able to do 10 or 20 dice of damage, respectively, against a Battledress-equipped opponent, IGNORING ARMOR. That is a certain death sentence. PGMPs and FGMPs are powerful weapons, but Combat Armor and Battledress are designed to be protection against them and at least give a reasonable chance of survivability on the battlefield.

Note that on your table you have Plasma A/B/C Guns and Fusion X/Y/Z Guns also doing 1DD and 2DD respectively (the exact same damage as is listed for the PGMP/FGMP). A PGMP or FGMP is a much smaller (man-portable) weapon. I would leave the A/B/C/X/Y/Z Guns as Destructive, but make the PGMP and FGMP just high-damage-dice non-destructive weapons (ones which can potentially be stopped by Combat Armor/Battledress), perhaps with an appropriate AP-modifier.

 

[McPerth]

Bear in mind they still work at personal ranges, so a flying spacecraft still very much has the advantage. But one caught on the ground, defenceless but for its turrets? I am kinda okay with it being in real trouble - in the very least, it should lose a Hull point or two and have some systems damaged.

Or one being boarded that dares to challenge the boarding team...

Take a look on the example in Mercenary, where some infantry fires at a starship... IIRC (I have not it Handy), several FGMG were fired at the ship to achieve a result of 2d6 (space rated) against the ship armor. With those rules, thissame result will be achieved by each FGMP hit (and the effect would be added to each roll).

The easy 'fix' for this would be to say something like against scaled up Destructive weapons, spacecraft armour is doubled. Easy, but a bit of a kludge, and not exactly elegant (for what that is worth).

Happy to be convinced either way. As things stand, I think the spacecraft should be leery of high energy (and high TL at that) weapons, rather than sitting safe and secure on the ground thinking everything will just bounce off.

Would welcome arguments against though.

Another fixing would be to scale the ratio to 5:1 for the damage a Destructive weapon makes to a starship (if you want the danger to be higher, just round it up), so that it keeps with the 50:1 given in the CB.

IMHO this division should be done before subracting armor, so an armored ship would be quite difficult to damage with those weapons: to damage the armor 4 Merc Cruiser you'd need a very good success level and not a litle of luck, while an armor 2 ship it's likely to be damaged by a FGMP with a nice success level, and an unarmored ship is quite doomed if attacked by several so armed people and cannot flee.

 

[McPerth]

But if a PGMP (1DD) or FGMP (2DD) are Destructive as listed in the table, that means in personal-scale battlefield combat, a Battledress-equipped Soldier/Marine (who would likely be carrying one, if not as primary, at least as a squad-support weapon) will be able to do 10 or 20 dice of damage, respectively, against a Battledress-equipped opponent, IGNORING ARMOR. That is a certain death sentence. PGMPs and FGMPs are powerful weapons, but Combat Armor and Battledress are designed to be protection against them and at least give a reasonable chance of survivability on the battlefield.

I also thought this, but I guessed rolling 12-16d6 (for average results of 42-56 hits) against armor 18 (best BD) will be nearly as letal (as it means 24-38 hits after armor on average) as 10d6 (average 35) or 20d60 (average 70 hits). In both cases, death is quite likely (albeit more so with the new system, I concede).

For better armored vehicles, things change "a little", though (as said above), as the average damage would be two triple plus a single hits for a PGMP ( I asume effect 1 and average roll 10d6 being 35, for a total of 36) and two triple and 6 doubles hits for a FGMP (average for 20d6 is 70, so two triples for the first 33 and 6 doubles for the 37 remaining, assuming that the single ones per 3 extra hits are once those double hits are also taken, by the strict letter of the rules, they would be additive, so 12 single hits more...), all of this regardless the armor the tank has.

Note that on your table you have Plasma A/B/C Guns and Fusion X/Y/Z Guns also doing 1DD and 2DD respectively (the exact same damage as is listed for the PGMP/FGMP). A PGMP or FGMP is a much smaller (man-portable) weapon. I would leave the A/B/C/X/Y/Z Guns as Destructive, but make the PGMP and FGMP just high-damage-dice non-destructive weapons (ones which can potentially be stopped by Combat Armor/Battledress), perhaps with an appropriate AP-modifier.

In this case, the main difference is range. While man portable weapons are rifle ranged, support weapons have their ranges of 6-16 km. IMHO a significant difference...

 

[pendragonman]

Deliberate - others suggested the current mechanic and it seems cleaner to me. It also unlocks AP from the number of dice rolled, which allows us to 'play' with things on a mechanical level.



Good point - anyone else have thoughts on this?

Shotguns. Its AP value should be ammo dependent. Bird shot, buck shot should certainly have their AP lowered. On the other hand, what about slug? Police forces and military forces use those rounds to punch out deadbolts out of armored doors. And what about DS rounds? They should have high AP ratings.

Currently IIRC, shotguns do 4D across a wide area. My solution would be the wider the dispersal area, the lower the AP. So Birdshot has almost no AP (penetrate a leather jacket but not a flack vest), Deer shot has a chance to penetrate a flack vest, but doesn't cover as large a target area. Slug and DS only hit one target, slug having a good AP and DS having excellent AP.

 

[McPerth]

Also about PGMP/FGMP:

1. How does this way the rule for Serious Firepower (CB, page 102) apply (if it does) under those new rules?
2. Will the nearly concept given in the FGMP (also CB, page 102) that need BD to avoid radiation damage be specified (10m? 20m?...)?

Didn't include this in the last post, as I wanted to give them some thought.

I can't see that these rules would be affected at all. The radiation damage is something seperate from Destructive, as are the cover rules, really. There _could_ be an argument that the target gets no cover if the weapon is ignoring armour anyway, but cover is more than just protection - it also represents not knowing exactly where (all) the target is.

So, I think these rules can stand without modification.

In the case of the second question, what I was asking was not as much how the rule is affected, but to define what distance is meant as nearly (something quite ambiguous and not specified in the rules, AFAIK). I think those new rules would be a good place to specify it...

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

Bear in mind they still work at personal ranges, so a flying spacecraft still very much has the advantage. But one caught on the ground, defenceless but for its turrets? I am kinda okay with it being in real trouble - in the very least, it should lose a Hull point or two and have some systems damaged.

The easy 'fix' for this would be to say something like against scaled up Destructive weapons, spacecraft armour is doubled. Easy, but a bit of a kludge, and not exactly elegant (for what that is worth).

Happy to be convinced either way. As things stand, I think the spacecraft should be leery of high energy (and high TL at that) weapons, rather than sitting safe and secure on the ground thinking everything will just bounce off.

Would welcome arguments against though.

I aggree that a starship should not be immune to ground fire, just those ground weapons be on a simmilar scale to the starships own weapons. I think what "bugs" Mcperth and me is that, as he points out, a weapon system that is man portable (sorta) is able to pump out damage on a simmilar level to large, vehicle or starship mounted weapons, dispite being much, much smaller and at a simmilar tech level.

I'm all in favour of saying that, for example "a type X laser cannon is equivlent to a starship pluse Laser, and counts as one when shooting at starship scale targets".

But, at the moment, it's like a man running around with a RPG is able to do as much damage to a naval destroyer as another destroyers 5" guns can.

 

[mike wightman]

Which at TL12+ is fine.

Infantrymen today can carry weapons that can 1 shot main battle tanks, the plasm gun and fusion are similar in function but can be fired repeatedly; mind you they are as far away from our TL as the musket is from a TOW missile.

The battlefield of the 50th centre is not a place to trust your armour. Much better to avoid being hit.

Ship scale weapons have one advantage over man portable weapons - range.

I think that is Matt's point.

 

[McPerth]

Which at TL12+ is fine.

Infantrymen today can carry weapons that can 1 shot main battle tanks, the plasm gun and fusion are similar in function but can be fired repeatedly; mind you they are as far away from our TL as the musket is from a TOW missile.

The battlefield of the 50th centre is not a place to trust your armour. Much better to avoid being hit.

Ship scale weapons have one advantage over man portable weapons - range.

I think that is Matt's point.

Then what's the point of having tanks?

If a soldier with BD, high energy weapon and grav belt has the same firepower and movility and it's quite cheaper (aside from limiting losses when a shoot kills only one of them, instead of a full tank), why keeping building them?

My assumption is that if tanks keep being used is because they are more survivable, probably because armor would aslo be improved, and that they hold an advantage over infantry in firepower (to a point true, as they have support wepons) and survivalty in the field of battle. If any infantryman can knock out them with a shoot of his weapon, tanks are obsolete, again IMHO.

Now that I read what I myself have written, I feel like reading a Hans' post about Battleships in HG ​

 

[MongooseMatt]

Then what's the point of having tanks?

Not everyone carries tankbusting weapons. However, a big factor is mobility...