No grav tanks needed at higher TL's

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
sideranautae
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1412
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:28 pm

No grav tanks needed at higher TL's

Postby sideranautae » Wed Apr 30, 2014 6:43 pm

Looking over the rules (ground to spacecraft damage) and the reverse, it is safe to say that the battlefield would be dominated by armoured small craft over grav tank "vehicles" if they were available. Has anyone looked at this using the actual rules as written and come to a different conclusion?
Image
tuz_sen
Weasel
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2013 8:27 am

Re: No grav tanks needed at higher TL's

Postby tuz_sen » Wed Apr 30, 2014 7:03 pm

If you go over and read the "Weapons Playtest - Second Round" thread you find that to be one of the sticking points
CosmicGamer
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1181
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 2:45 am
Location: Central DE

Re: No grav tanks needed at higher TL's

Postby CosmicGamer » Wed Apr 30, 2014 7:03 pm

To the OP. Are you referring to the current rules or the proposed new rules that are being discussed?
sideranautae
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1412
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:28 pm

Re: No grav tanks needed at higher TL's

Postby sideranautae » Wed Apr 30, 2014 7:08 pm

CosmicGamer wrote:To the OP. Are you referring to the current rules or the proposed new rules that are being discussed?
I am looking at my rule books. I know nothing about as yet unmade rules.
Image
sideranautae
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1412
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:28 pm

Re: No grav tanks needed at higher TL's

Postby sideranautae » Wed Apr 30, 2014 7:09 pm

Okay, I take it that my conclusion was close enough to the mark to be a, Yes.

I don't have a problem with that part of the rules. Just extrapolating what certain force structures would look like.
Image
Nerhesi
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1525
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:46 pm

Re: No grav tanks needed at higher TL's

Postby Nerhesi » Wed Apr 30, 2014 7:10 pm

sideranautae wrote:Looking over the rules (ground to spacecraft damage) and the reverse, it is safe to say that the battlefield would be dominated by armoured small craft over grav tank "vehicles" if they were available. Has anyone looked at this using the actual rules as written and come to a different conclusion?
An armored grav tank is an armored small craft. The rules are currenlty being looked at to ensure that the translation from person/vehicle scale to spacecraft scale is done well.
Sigtrygg
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1360
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: No grav tanks needed at higher TL's

Postby Sigtrygg » Wed Apr 30, 2014 7:14 pm

This was recognised as far back as 1979 when LBB4 Mercenary was released.

In the equipment section it specifically states that at high TLs armoured grav vehicles (called gunships) are indistinguishable from spacecraft.

Why they keep calling them grav tanks even at the lower TLs (10-13)is beyond me - since they more closely resemble Apache helicopters with Abrams armour.
sideranautae
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1412
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:28 pm

Re: No grav tanks needed at higher TL's

Postby sideranautae » Wed Apr 30, 2014 7:15 pm

Nerhesi wrote:
sideranautae wrote:Looking over the rules (ground to spacecraft damage) and the reverse, it is safe to say that the battlefield would be dominated by armoured small craft over grav tank "vehicles" if they were available. Has anyone looked at this using the actual rules as written and come to a different conclusion?
An armored grav tank is an armored small craft.
No, not if the tank is designed using Vehicle rules.

But, maybe that will be the case with what ever rewrite comes about.
Image
sideranautae
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1412
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:28 pm

Re: No grav tanks needed at higher TL's

Postby sideranautae » Wed Apr 30, 2014 7:16 pm

Sigtrygg wrote: In the equipment section it specifically states that at high TLs armoured grav vehicles (called gunships) are indistinguishable from spacecraft.
Which MGT book is that in?
Image
Nerhesi
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1525
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:46 pm

Re: No grav tanks needed at higher TL's

Postby Nerhesi » Wed Apr 30, 2014 7:18 pm

Sigtrygg wrote:This was recognised as far back as 1979 when LBB4 Mercenary was released.

In the equipment section it specifically states that at high TLs armoured grav vehicles (called gunships) are indistinguishable from spacecraft.

Why they keep calling them grav tanks even at the lower TLs (10-13)is beyond me - since they more closely resemble Apache helicopters with Abrams armour.
I think the only difference is the type of Grav drive? I believe for whatever reason.. (Cost maybe?) They use some sort of inferior type that doesn't function more than 1D away from a gravity source or so? I can't remember.. there was something about those grav engines only taking you so far, I forget.
dragoner
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1715
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 8:37 pm
Location: Indiana, US

Re: No grav tanks needed at higher TL's

Postby dragoner » Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:09 pm

Nerhesi wrote:
Sigtrygg wrote:This was recognised as far back as 1979 when LBB4 Mercenary was released.

In the equipment section it specifically states that at high TLs armoured grav vehicles (called gunships) are indistinguishable from spacecraft.

Why they keep calling them grav tanks even at the lower TLs (10-13)is beyond me - since they more closely resemble Apache helicopters with Abrams armour.
I think the only difference is the type of Grav drive? I believe for whatever reason.. (Cost maybe?) They use some sort of inferior type that doesn't function more than 1D away from a gravity source or so? I can't remember.. there was something about those grav engines only taking you so far, I forget.
Whatever it is called is irrelevant. But if it looks like a tank, even if it has orbital capability, it would probably be called that; look at "ships" in Traveller. But a Tank, or AFV, just a chassis with grav module and a turret, could easily fit in small craft.
sideranautae
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1412
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:28 pm

Re: No grav tanks needed at higher TL's

Postby sideranautae » Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:28 pm

dragoner wrote: Whatever it is called is irrelevant. But if it looks like a tank, even if it has orbital capability, it would probably be called that; look at "ships" in Traveller. But a Tank, or AFV, just a chassis with grav module and a turret, could easily fit in small craft.
For what it's worth, a friend of mine who had direct access, closely measured an M1 MBT. It came out to ~5 dtons. Half the size of the smallest space craft in MGT.
Image
Wil Mireu
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 463
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:43 am

Re: No grav tanks needed at higher TL's

Postby Wil Mireu » Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:42 pm

This is for your own setting? What if you say that grav drives don't work on a planetary surface? (e.g. they only operate where the existing G-field is below 0.1g). Or that grav drives are huge and can't fit on vehicles? That way you won't have "grav tanks" anymore.

Though then you'll have the interesting problem of how spaceships get into space and land on planets (which could be solved by using something like HEPlaR or rockets for takeoff/landing, or gilding down from space like the shuttle)
dragoner
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1715
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 8:37 pm
Location: Indiana, US

Re: No grav tanks needed at higher TL's

Postby dragoner » Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:46 pm

sideranautae wrote:
dragoner wrote: Whatever it is called is irrelevant. But if it looks like a tank, even if it has orbital capability, it would probably be called that; look at "ships" in Traveller. But a Tank, or AFV, just a chassis with grav module and a turret, could easily fit in small craft.
For what it's worth, a friend of mine who had direct access, closely measured an M1 MBT. It came out to ~5 dtons. Half the size of the smallest space craft in MGT.
Stats are on the net, just don't include barrel length. Trained with both M60 and M1 at Knox, and they are bigger again than what was typical for ww2 as ww2 tanks are bigger than ww1 AFV's like the FT17, so the paradigm fits to make a grav tank 10 tons (Patton Museum is down there also, some days they even fire up old machines like a Hetzer). Gunship as a term is archaic, now I only have rarely heard it applied to the AC-130, the Longbow just gets called a Longbow as an Attack Helicopter.
sideranautae
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1412
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:28 pm

Re: No grav tanks needed at higher TL's

Postby sideranautae » Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:53 pm

dragoner wrote: Stats are on the net, just don't include barrel length. Trained with both M60 and M1 at Knox, and they are bigger again than what was typical for ww2 as ww2 tanks are bigger than ww1 AFV's like the FT17, so the paradigm fits to make a grav tank 10 tons

The current prototype for a new MBT is smaller than the M1.. ;)
Image
dragoner
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1715
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 8:37 pm
Location: Indiana, US

Re: No grav tanks needed at higher TL's

Postby dragoner » Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:58 pm

sideranautae wrote:
dragoner wrote: Stats are on the net, just don't include barrel length. Trained with both M60 and M1 at Knox, and they are bigger again than what was typical for ww2 as ww2 tanks are bigger than ww1 AFV's like the FT17, so the paradigm fits to make a grav tank 10 tons

The current prototype for a new MBT is smaller than the M1.. ;)
We going through with AIM for now, haven't seen anything to replace it.
sideranautae
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1412
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:28 pm

Re: No grav tanks needed at higher TL's

Postby sideranautae » Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:02 pm

dragoner wrote:
sideranautae wrote:
dragoner wrote: Stats are on the net, just don't include barrel length. Trained with both M60 and M1 at Knox, and they are bigger again than what was typical for ww2 as ww2 tanks are bigger than ww1 AFV's like the FT17, so the paradigm fits to make a grav tank 10 tons

The current prototype for a new MBT is smaller than the M1.. ;)
We going through with AIM for now, haven't seen anything to replace it.
Right. The roll out is many years down the road. But, it'll be smaller than the Abrams.
Image
dragoner
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1715
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 8:37 pm
Location: Indiana, US

Re: No grav tanks needed at higher TL's

Postby dragoner » Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:07 pm

Wouldn't necessarily count on that, but maybe; only things I've seen are tech test beds.
sideranautae
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1412
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:28 pm

Re: No grav tanks needed at higher TL's

Postby sideranautae » Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:12 pm

dragoner wrote:Wouldn't necessarily count on that, but maybe; only things I've seen are tech test beds.
I would. I know a person who is deep into the pjt. I give it a 90% probability.
Image
CosmicGamer
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1181
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 2:45 am
Location: Central DE

Re: No grav tanks needed at higher TL's

Postby CosmicGamer » Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:31 pm

sideranautae wrote:Looking over the rules (ground to spacecraft damage) and the reverse, it is safe to say that the battlefield would be dominated by armoured small craft over grav tank "vehicles" if they were available.
I'd say there is plenty of room for personal interpretation and what I call filling in the blanks the rules don't cover. Of course there is house ruling too.

Maneuverability
What is the maneuver drive in space craft (small or large) and how does it work? They are designed to produce thrust and these ships need to be streamlined to work in an atmosphere.
A streamlined ship is designed to enter a planetary atmosphere, and can function like a conventional aircraft.
One could say, like a aircraft, a small craft can not hover and a grav vehicle might have certain advantages.

Rate of fire
While certain publications have have clarified it (Mercenary: ship fire once every 3 rounds of ground combat), if you don't own them or don't want to adhere to them, there could be a vast difference due to a small craft with a 6 minute combat round, and a vehicles personal combat 6 second combat round. So a grav tank could possibly take out three targets for every one a small craft takes out.

Size of target
Weapons and targeting systems designed to hit ships which are rapidly moving and hard to turn might have trouble targeting a small nimble target. Possibly even trouble hitting a small stationary object. Can they even lock on to something the size of a man? I was thinking their would be size modifiers somewhere but I couldn't find them just now.

Stationary targets
Speaking of stationary targets, would this fall under ortillary for ships?

Other targeting modifiers
How do a ships weapon targeting systems function? Motion, heat, other energy emissions? Could they lock on to a man not generating much? Would energy emissions from a variety of sources in urban warfare be a problem? Ships typically are not bunched together, would their be trouble differentiating between friend and foe locked in close combat? (close for ship based ranges is 1-10km).

A grav tanks targeting systems may be sensitive enough to lock onto the heat of an individual, target gps coordinates, and otherwise target ground forces in ways a small craft can't.

EDIT:
Crewing
A Grav tank has a crew of 2. One can fly and one can shoot. A Light Fighter only has a crew of one and needs to fly and shoot. I forget where, but I think there is a rule for -DM due to trying to do two things at once. Even if there is no rule, it isn't breaking the rules for a GM to impose a penalty.

Scale
The rules use the term "Starship scale" when discussing modifiers. A small craft light fighter is 10 tons. A Grav Tank is 12 tons. Do the rules really mean for such a small craft to be considered on the same scale as a ship that is thousands of tons?

A Vehicle could be considered something other than personal scale. The rules already say that an attacker (people, other vehicles and ships too? or just people?) gets a +1DM to hit most vehicles because of their size.
Last edited by CosmicGamer on Thu May 01, 2014 12:31 am, edited 3 times in total.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Greysword and 40 guests