Primitive and Advanced Spacecraft.

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3868
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Primitive and Advanced Spacecraft.

Postby AnotherDilbert » Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:55 am

Linwood wrote: Baifhammer, can you point me to the Broad Spectrum EW rule?
HG, p63.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4790
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Primitive and Advanced Spacecraft.

Postby phavoc » Wed Feb 27, 2019 4:33 pm

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 4:25 am
Mongoose can issue errata. We can only make house-rules.
The first step in errata is pointing out the error.
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 4:25 am
phavoc wrote: Though in this case it's pretty clear a missile hardpoint with missile racks will only hold 12 missiles (so the Tardis properties are less than proposed) -
CRB p157 - Each turret with one or more missile racks holds 12 missiles and costs Cr250000 to refill. It takes one round to reload a missile rack (see page 161).
HG changed that to:
HG, p25 wrote:Each missile rack holds 12 missiles (missile racks on Firmpoints hold four missiles).
Note that that includes fixed mounts and firmpoints.
So the question remains, is the CRB correct, or is HG correct? Before you state HG came later and it overwrites CRB, HG refers back to CRB for some issues. A further example of HG not agreeing with itself:

HG25 - Sandcasters - each sandcaster holds 12 sand cannisters and costs CR25,000 to refill.
HG31 - Sandcasters - Sand cannister refills cost Cr25,000 for 20 cannisters.
CRB157 - Each turret with one or more sandcasters holds 20 sand cannisters and costs CR25,000 to refill

HG has two entirely different definitions within six pages, and CRB definition has half and half agreement. Based upon what is presented a person can take any of the interpretations and be within the rules. HG itself refers back to CRB for combat rules. Ergo the need for clear, concise definitions.


AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 4:25 am
EW is done in the Action Step.

So, if the missile salvo does not have a hang time, it can't be EW'd.
This contradicts what is stated in Missile Combat section, which includes the point defense section. The rules for missile combat should govern missile combat by default since they refer to this specific area. The other section is generic.


AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 4:25 am
With a triple laser turret and a reasonable civilian gunner PD kills 2D +2[triple] +2[skill] -8 for an average of 3.11 missiles killed per turret.
Combined with thrust/reaction thrusters it's more than conceivable. It's actually quite reasonable. Pirates need to have better and faster ships than their normal prey.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 4:25 am
Frag missiles have a well-defined effect: 3D damage. With enough armour you can basically ignore it, whether small craft or ship.
Indeed they do - per the rule book they are designed to attack small craft - "Fragmentation Missile: This missile is designed to target small craft." It's very clear.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 4:25 am
Against an optimised almost-warship a MCr ~50 merchant is obviously chance-less.
Against an optimized warship most pirates AND freighters are dead. The point of a pirate is to survive AFTER attacking it's prey. Our trusty Type P is 400 tons. But pirate ships can technically be any class or make. One would reasonably expect a crew turning pirate to do at least minimal upgrades for a life of crime on the spaceways. Failure is rather deadly for most.
AndrewW
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4259
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:57 pm

Re: Primitive and Advanced Spacecraft.

Postby AndrewW » Wed Feb 27, 2019 6:32 pm

Linwood wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:20 am
Baifhammer, can you point me to the Broad Spectrum EW rule? I’m having trouble tracking it down. I’ve got an upcoming space battle to run where it could be really important.
High Guard (2nd edition), page: 63.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3868
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Primitive and Advanced Spacecraft.

Postby AnotherDilbert » Wed Feb 27, 2019 7:04 pm

phavoc wrote: So the question remains, is the CRB correct, or is HG correct? Before you state HG came later and it overwrites CRB, HG refers back to CRB for some issues.
We (both of us) discussed this in beta, and it was clarified, e.g.:
Nerhesi wrote:
Tue Feb 23, 2016 6:22 pm
Internal space has never been an indication of external space. Example: Triple missile turret holds 36 missiles for 1 dton VS A single missile turret holds 12 missiles for 1 dton as well.
AndrewW wrote:
Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:37 pm
Annatar Giftbringer wrote:Do they? I thought the text said that any turret fitted with (one or more) missile tubes include space for 12 missiles, not 12 missiles per launcher?
High Guard Page: 27 wrote:Each missile rack holds 12 missiles (missile racks on Firmpoints hold four missiles).

phavoc wrote: HG25 - Sandcasters - each sandcaster holds 12 sand cannisters and costs CR25,000 to refill.
HG31 - Sandcasters - Sand cannister refills cost Cr25,000 for 20 cannisters.
CRB157 - Each turret with one or more sandcasters holds 20 sand cannisters and costs CR25,000 to refill
Yes, that is a contradiction in HG on the price. I would have to assume it is kCr 25 for 20 normal canisters as detailed in p31.

phavoc wrote:
AnotherDilbert wrote: So, if the missile salvo does not have a hang time, it can't be EW'd.
This contradicts what is stated in Missile Combat section, which includes the point defense section. The rules for missile combat should govern missile combat by default since they refer to this specific area. The other section is generic.
I agree that the specific overrules the generic, but I don't see any contradiction.

The Missile section says that EW and PD can be used against missile salvoes. The generic rules describe when and how. The Missile section still note that EW is an action.

phavoc wrote:
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 4:25 am
With a triple laser turret and a reasonable civilian gunner PD kills 2D +2[triple] +2[skill] -8 for an average of 3.11 missiles killed per turret.
Combined with thrust/reaction thrusters it's more than conceivable. It's actually quite reasonable. Pirates need to have better and faster ships than their normal prey.
I don't understand what you mean. What does thrust have to do with PD?

phavoc wrote: Indeed they do - per the rule book they are designed to attack small craft - "Fragmentation Missile: This missile is designed to target small craft." It's very clear.
It may be designed to target small craft and missiles, but is still has an effect on ships. The assertion that they are fully effective against 95 Dt Shuttles, but has no effect on 100 Dt Scouts, without being explicitly stated, strains my incredulity beyond the breaking point.

In my example I used frag missiles since they are cheap and thrust 15. We can just as well use Long Range or Advanced missiles.


phavoc wrote: Against an optimized warship most pirates AND freighters are dead. The point of a pirate is to survive AFTER attacking it's prey. Our trusty Type P is 400 tons. But pirate ships can technically be any class or make. One would reasonably expect a crew turning pirate to do at least minimal upgrades for a life of crime on the spaceways. Failure is rather deadly for most.
Agreed.

But a pirate is still a business. Refitting your ship with every expensive goodie in the game is unlikely. A Patrol Corvette should be enough to defeat a Free Trader, but not a Planetoid Trader. A pirate should identify its target before attack, and refrain from attack if the target is too strong. Hence a Patrol Corvette or similar ship should avoid attacking the Planetoid Trader, which is the point of the Planetoid Trader.

With a good enough pirate ship the Planetoid Trader is just another prey, of course.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4790
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Primitive and Advanced Spacecraft.

Postby phavoc » Wed Feb 27, 2019 7:50 pm

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 7:04 pm
Each missile rack holds 12 missiles (missile racks on Firmpoints hold four missiles).
When presented with illogical conflicting explanations I tend to go for the one that makes the most sense. Magically creating space to hold ammunition is an example of illogic. The CRB explanation is more logical than the HG one, and since CRB can exist and operate without HG, but not vice versa, the explanation in CRB is the one I follow.
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 7:04 pm
Yes, that is a contradiction in HG on the price. I would have to assume it is kCr 25 for 20 normal canisters as detailed in p31.
This is an example of why I follow the logic listed above.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 7:04 pm
I agree that the specific overrules the generic, but I don't see any contradiction.

The Missile section says that EW and PD can be used against missile salvoes. The generic rules describe when and how. The Missile section still note that EW is an action.
The action steps provided (maneuver, attack, action) are generic, but non-specific. The missile section is specific to missile combat. The generic rule is overly generic, and also provides conflicting statements. For example, CRB p156 states - "Firing Weapons - When a ship attacks another, it declares it is going to attack and selects a target. The target may then choose to dodge the incoming fire. The Traveller on gunner duty for the weapon being fired then makes an appropriate skill check and, as normal for any skill check, if he scores 8+, the attack is successful and damage is dealt to the target (see Damaging Spacecraft on page 158)."

If a ship can dodge a light-speed weapon (when all sensors, including visuals, are lightspeed as well, thus your first notification of a laser being fired is the laser hitting you, well, I'm gonna have to say that a sensor operator would always have the ability to react to an object that isn't a light-speed weapon, aka a missile.

Like you state, I see no contradiction in that. Dodging is an action, point defense is an action, yet both are allowed in the attack step. The sample action steps are repairing damage, jumping, or launching craft. EW fits within the attack step, not the Action step.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 7:04 pm
I don't understand what you mean. What does thrust have to do with PD?
Using reaction drives to keep the distance open on missiles.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 7:04 pm
It may be designed to target small craft and missiles, but is still has an effect on ships. The assertion that they are fully effective against 95 Dt Shuttles, but has no effect on 100 Dt Scouts, without being explicitly stated, strains my incredulity beyond the breaking point.

In my example I used frag missiles since they are cheap and thrust 15. We can just as well use Long Range or Advanced missiles.
We have other rules that are just as arbitrary yet are accepted. It's not at all unreasonable to take the text at face value. 3D damage would be applied against small craft. That keeps within the letter of the rules, per the description, and the spirit.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 7:04 pm
But a pirate is still a business. Refitting your ship with every expensive goodie in the game is unlikely. A Patrol Corvette should be enough to defeat a Free Trader, but not a Planetoid Trader. A pirate should identify its target before attack, and refrain from attack if the target is too strong. Hence a Patrol Corvette or similar ship should avoid attacking the Planetoid Trader, which is the point of the Planetoid Trader.

With a good enough pirate ship the Planetoid Trader is just another prey, of course.
Yes, piracy is a business. Target identification is always a good thing when you are a pirate. But with so many variables it's a toss up. The planetoid trader could be a Q-ship. I'm not sure that any pirate would be dissuaded from attacking a potentially easy morsel that can't run away.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the ship as it stands (the planetoid trader I mean). It's meant to be cheap. Using a planetoid gives it some armor at a cost to cargo. Using fixed mounts gives it some weaponry at a cost to utility. Using all missiles gives it some teeth at the cost of utility. As with all designs that are min/max there is a tradeoff somewhere for the things you want. The same goes with a 'pirate' ship.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3868
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Primitive and Advanced Spacecraft.

Postby AnotherDilbert » Wed Feb 27, 2019 10:52 pm

phavoc wrote: When presented with illogical conflicting explanations I tend to go for the one that makes the most sense. Magically creating space to hold ammunition is an example of illogic. The CRB explanation is more logical than the HG one, and since CRB can exist and operate without HG, but not vice versa, the explanation in CRB is the one I follow.
I see no difference in logic. Both alternatives use the same logic: 1 Dt is consumed inside the ship for the turret socket, the rest of the turret is outside the hull. Even in the minimal case a turret can contain a crew station, a weapon and 1 Dt ammunition so something has to hang out the side. The difference between a turret with 12 missiles and 36 missiles is how much hangs out the side, not if something hangs out the side. I see no difference in logic, just quantity.

phavoc wrote:
AnotherDilbert wrote: Yes, that is a contradiction in HG on the price. I would have to assume it is kCr 25 for 20 normal canisters as detailed in p31.
This is an example of why I follow the logic listed above.
Again I see no difference in logic. One page says 12 canisters for kCr 25, another page says 20 canisters for kCr 25; both are equally logical or illogical. I would use the specific over the generic, so I use the price from the ammunition list.

phavoc wrote: Like you state, I see no contradiction in that. Dodging is an action, point defense is an action, yet both are allowed in the attack step. The sample action steps are repairing damage, jumping, or launching craft. EW fits within the attack step, not the Action step.
There is a significant difference: Evasive Action ("Dodge", p160) is a Reaction, described in the Attack Step, whereas EW (p161) is an Action described in the Action Step.

You may want EW in the Attack Step, but that is not how the MgT2 system work. House-rule it if you want.

phavoc wrote:
AnotherDilbert wrote: I don't understand what you mean. What does thrust have to do with PD?
Using reaction drives to keep the distance open on missiles.
You can only PD once, so hang time of the salvo is irrelevant?

phavoc wrote: We have other rules that are just as arbitrary yet are accepted. It's not at all unreasonable to take the text at face value. 3D damage would be applied against small craft. That keeps within the letter of the rules, per the description, and the spirit.
I agree that there's a lot of arbitrary rules.

The rules say it's designed to attack small craft, not that is does not affect ships.
HG, p30 wrote:Fragmentation Missile: This missile is designed to target small craft. It explodes shortly before interception, throwing out a wall of high veolcity shrapnel. ...
If they were unable to target ships I would expect something explicit, like:
HG, p31 wrote:Ortillery Missile: Specifically designed for planetary bombardment, ortillery missiles are powerful but too slow to be used effectively as anti–ship weapons unless the target is not expecting an attack. Ortillery missiles suffer DM-6 to hit any moving target.

phavoc wrote: There's nothing inherently wrong with the ship as it stands (the planetoid trader I mean). It's meant to be cheap. Using a planetoid gives it some armor at a cost to cargo. Using fixed mounts gives it some weaponry at a cost to utility. Using all missiles gives it some teeth at the cost of utility. As with all designs that are min/max there is a tradeoff somewhere for the things you want. The same goes with a 'pirate' ship.
So we agree.
Old School
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 789
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:41 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Primitive and Advanced Spacecraft.

Postby Old School » Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:59 am

Can I suggest a bilateral disarmament?
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4790
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Primitive and Advanced Spacecraft.

Postby phavoc » Thu Feb 28, 2019 3:18 pm

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 10:52 pm
I see no difference in logic. Both alternatives use the same logic: 1 Dt is consumed inside the ship for the turret socket, the rest of the turret is outside the hull. Even in the minimal case a turret can contain a crew station, a weapon and 1 Dt ammunition so something has to hang out the side. The difference between a turret with 12 missiles and 36 missiles is how much hangs out the side, not if something hangs out the side. I see no difference in logic, just quantity.
We'll agree to disagree on this I suspect. You have previously indicated you prefer the written rule to anything else. You are free to choose from your own contradiction.
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 10:52 pm
Again I see no difference in logic. One page says 12 canisters for kCr 25, another page says 20 canisters for kCr 25; both are equally logical or illogical. I would use the specific over the generic, so I use the price from the ammunition list.
Again, you are free to choose which contradiction you want.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 10:52 pm
There is a significant difference: Evasive Action ("Dodge", p160) is a Reaction, described in the Attack Step, whereas EW (p161) is an Action described in the Action Step.

You may want EW in the Attack Step, but that is not how the MgT2 system work. House-rule it if you want.
No, I was pointing out the inherent flaw in the rule (which you choose to ignore). If you can dodge a light-speed weapon in a "reaction", you can certainly "react" to non-light speed weapons. If PD using gunner skill be considered a reaction, so should EW be as well. Not to mention the order of the rules and description. It's not a house rule. It's using the rules as written. As has been pointed out there are other contradictions within the section.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 10:52 pm
If they were unable to target ships I would expect something explicit, like:
HG, p31"]Ortillery Missile: Specifically designed for planetary bombardment, ortillery missiles are powerful but too slow to be used effectively as anti–ship weapons unless the target is not expecting an attack. Ortillery missiles suffer DM-6 to hit any moving target.
Assuming there wasn't another error in the text, sure. As we've seen that is not always a reasonable expectation to make.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3868
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Primitive and Advanced Spacecraft.

Postby AnotherDilbert » Thu Feb 28, 2019 7:38 pm

phavoc wrote: We'll agree to disagree on this I suspect.
OK.

phavoc wrote: No, I was pointing out the inherent flaw in the rule (which you choose to ignore). If you can dodge a light-speed weapon in a "reaction", you can certainly "react" to non-light speed weapons. If PD using gunner skill be considered a reaction, so should EW be as well. Not to mention the order of the rules and description. It's not a house rule. It's using the rules as written. As has been pointed out there are other contradictions within the section.
RAW is clear: Evasive Action and PD are Reactions in the Combat Step, but EW is an Action in the Action Step.

You may consider that a flaw, but it is still RAW.

If you don't like it, just house-rule it?

phavoc wrote: Assuming there wasn't another error in the text, sure. As we've seen that is not always a reasonable expectation to make.
You can, of course, disregard or change any rule you feel like. I call that house-ruling.
baithammer
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 912
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Primitive and Advanced Spacecraft.

Postby baithammer » Fri Mar 01, 2019 8:36 am

phavoc wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 3:18 pm
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 10:52 pm
I see no difference in logic. Both alternatives use the same logic: 1 Dt is consumed inside the ship for the turret socket, the rest of the turret is outside the hull. Even in the minimal case a turret can contain a crew station, a weapon and 1 Dt ammunition so something has to hang out the side. The difference between a turret with 12 missiles and 36 missiles is how much hangs out the side, not if something hangs out the side. I see no difference in logic, just quantity.
We'll agree to disagree on this I suspect. You have previously indicated you prefer the written rule to anything else. You are free to choose from your own contradiction.
The vehicle handbook does a good job of explaining how turrets work.

1.) Small Turrets bolt on to the exterior of the ship and have a limited amount space / displacement within it at 4 spaces / 1.0dt maximum. ( Also is remote operated and takes up 1 space/ 0.25dt in the ship.)
2.) Large Turrets take up space in the ship ( 4 spaces / 1dt) and like drop pods take up displacement outside the ship equal to its components, so each weapon takes up 1 space / 0.25 dt and a gunners seat takes up 1 space / 0.25dt.
3.) Weapons are assumed to have there displacement include a single reload of ammunition, any more requires more displacement.

Ammunition section in Vehicles Handbook pg. 45
Each Space set aside for ammunition allows an extra
magazine (as defined by the weapon’s own entry) to be
directly attached to a weapon, allowing it to be used
without the need to reload.
Linwood
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 518
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:41 am

Re: Primitive and Advanced Spacecraft.

Postby Linwood » Fri Mar 01, 2019 10:54 am

AndrewW, AnotherDilbert - thanks!!!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests