MGT Only: Weapons Playtest - Second Round

[mike wightman]

Then what's the point of having tanks?

There isn't, they no longer exist at TL15 having become indistinguishable from smallcraft to paraphrase original LBB4.

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?

Why bother with the battledress at all once you have the FGMP15, use combat armour and save the credits.

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.

Are tanks obsolete today? An infantry heavy weapons squad has the weaponry to one shot anything on the battlefield, at a fraction of the cost. Yet we still build tanks because they are useful against lower TL forces that don't have the latest generation of on shot zot weapons. Same will be true in the future.

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

lol

 

[McPerth]

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

High Energy weapons are assumed to be quite common in high TL troops, and mobility can be achieved in combat zones by grav belts, and in non combat zones by APCs (quite cheaper than tanks).

 

[McPerth]

Why bother with the battledress at all once you have the FGMP15, use combat armour and save the credits.

Because you need it to use the FGMP (at least some of them)...

Because of the combat improvements it gives (built in computer, enhanced strength, etc)...

See that already in CT/MT the protection value of a BD and a CA were the same (and in MgT:CB difference is minimal), the main difference being already those improvements...

Are tanks obsolete today? An infantry heavy weapons squad has the weaponry to one shot anything on the battlefield, at a fraction of the cost. Yet we still build tanks because they are useful against lower TL forces that don't have the latest generation of on shot zot weapons. Same will be true in the future.

How many of those weapons are deployed today and how many FGMP are assumed in Traveller?

And, as today, the mobility factor you already said is a major factor, as we have no grav belt equivalent to give this mobility to the individual soldier (at least, AFAIK).

 

[aramis]

Because you need it to use the FGMP (at least some of them)...

Because of the combat improvements it gives (built in computer, enhanced strength, etc)...

See that already in CT/MT the protection value of a BD and a CA were the same (and in MgT:CB difference is minimal), the main difference being already those improvements...



How many of those weapons are deployed today and how many FGMP are assumed in Traveller?

And, as today, the mobility factor you already said is a major factor, as we have no grav belt equivalent to give this mobility to the individual soldier (at least, AFAIK).

The only real difference is the augmentation to strength/endurance, and the ability to socket PGMP13's and FGMP14's.

All the other nifties can be added to combat armor.

 

[whulorigan]

Then what's the point of having tanks?

There isn't, they no longer exist at TL15 having become indistinguishable from smallcraft to paraphrase original LBB4.

Agreed that LBB4 says they have become merged with gunships.
But then what is the Imperial TL15 Trepida-Class Grav Tank?

 

[pendragonman]

Agreed that LBB4 says they have become merged with gunships.
But then what is the Imperial TL15 Trepida-Class Grav Tank?

A heavy gunship.

 

[McPerth]

The only real difference is the augmentation to strength/endurance, and the ability to socket PGMP13's and FGMP14's.

All the other nifties can be added to combat armor.

In fact, in MgT this ability to socket PGMP13 and FGMP14 is not specified, only a minimum strenght needed for using them, without distinction to the TLs (and it's said that is usually achieved by using a BD).

And while FGMP are told to irradiate and that their users (and in fact everyone in the "immediate vecinity", while what does this mean is not specified) need radiation protection, neither there is specified what protection is needed (Hostile environment vacc suit? Combat Armor? Battledress?).

See that in the BD description (CB, page 88) is told to have "full protection against environment hazzards - incluiding NBC shielding - as if it was a HEV", so it seems a HEV would be enough, while a Combat Armor (not incluiding this protection in its description) would not .

 

[McPerth]

Agreed that LBB4 says they have become merged with gunships.
But then what is the Imperial TL15 Trepida-Class Grav Tank?

A heavy gunship.

But using the vehicle damage scale (not that a 10 dton fighter stands much more chance to survive a FMGP hit as those rules stand, though, but the fighter, using ship damage scale, is impervious to non DD weapons...).

 

[mike wightman]

Agreed that LBB4 says they have become merged with gunships.
But then what is the Imperial TL15 Trepida-Class Grav Tank?

Another example of the game designers not reading their own stuff.

 

[mike wightman]

But using the vehicle damage scale (not that a 10 dton fighter stands much more chance to survive a FMGP hit as those rules stand, though, but the fighter, using ship damage scale, is impervious to non DD weapons...).

And this has long been a problem with Traveller, integrating personal combat with vehicle combat with ship combat.

Only T4 ever came close with one scale for them all, although MT made a good stab at it with the vehicle scale combat rules for ships.

What you should do is work out how your armour is going to scale from ind-veh-ship across the TL scale and then you can try to fit weapon damage into that.

I suppose what I'm suggesting is that instead of designing a personal/vehicle scale combat system with a separate ship combat game you should design all three at once to work with each other, not try to fudge one to fit the others.

 

[aramis]

And this has long been a problem with Traveller, integrating personal combat with vehicle combat with ship combat.

Only T4 ever came close with one scale for them all, although MT made a good stab at it with the vehicle scale combat rules for ships.

MT, it worked. T4, not so much.

 

[simonh]

Regarding armoured vehicles and high penetration personal weapons at high TL.

An FGMP may well be able to penetrate a high tech tank's armour, but they are only effective at personal combat ranges. Vehicles provide a highly stable platform, more capable targeting systems and weapons with much greater range and overall destructive power than an individual soldier, or even a group of soldiers can deploy. Vehicles can also accelerate and manoeuvre effectively over greater distances than even grav belt equipped troops. So vehicles provide capabilities at range and scale that grav bely equipped FGMP wielding troops don't.

Even if an FGMP can damage a fighter, how are you going to hit one with it?

The other factor is that TL 14 or 15 troops aren't going to always be pitted against similarly equipped opponents. Sure the Imperial forces need to be able to go toe to toe with similarly capable Zhodani forces, but they will also spend a lot of their time against much less well equipped opponents against whom their high tech tanks/gunships are much less vulnerable.

I've fired a LAW 80 in training and scored a hit at 200m. I was pretty pleased with myself, but I found scoring hits with training systems against moving targets almost impossible. Yes it is possible to kill a tank with a man portable weapon, but pretending that this makes such a weapon in any way equivalent to a laser targeted stabilised computer guided 120mm gun on a rapid traverse turret mounting with a coaxial 20mm cannon is pure fantasy. I realise an FGMP is going to be a lot more effective than a LAW 80, but it's not actually an artillery piece and the kind of stabilisation and targeting support you get with it isn't going to be nearly as capable as what you get on a vehicle.

Simon Hibbs