A hand with sand please.

[Delerium]

So I am thinking...


A ship zipping about in 3D(4d..) space at lightning speeds.

How on earth is a cloud of sand or whatever ever going to be in the right place at the right time, at the right angle,etc

And if used in defence by a stationary/slow ship, won't it mess up their chance to fire OUT?


mmmm

 

[rust]

In my imagination it is the same as with laser and many other weapons
in a space combat: You fire the sand where you think it may be useful
somewhen in the near future, and hope that your calculations are good.
And you better take care to inform the pilot that he should avoid any
maneuvres that might cause the sand to block your own fire ...

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

<Waves hands furiously> It works, don't loose sleep over it!

Actually, think of Sand as a Point Defense Weapon. It is fired at the last minute as a way to attenuate the lasers from particular target or small group of targets in the same general direction. Now, HOW could you possibly know when a laser is going to fire is left as an exercise for the student...

 

[Gentleman John]

Hmm. Not quite. As I remember things, the sand cloud had a velocity based on the initial velocity of the launching vehicle The tactic then was to come in behind the sand and allow it to degrade laser fire from an enemy in a known position. No need to know when your enemy is going to fire. But you do have to worry about it blocking your fire.

If you really want to go with sand being a last minute thing for laser fire, the answer is obvious. Just have a laser capable of operating in two modes: a low-power mode to paint the target and a high-power mode to damage it. If you detect the paint, you know you're about to be hit and launch the sand.

 

[rust]

Just have a laser capable of operating in two modes: a low-power mode to paint the target and a high-power mode to damage it. If you detect the paint, you know you're about to be hit and launch the sand.

Yes, but: Why should someone use an otherwise unnecessary method which only warns the enemy ? :?

 

[collins355]

Shall I cut and paste the arguments over sand on TML over the years? To say this topic has been done to death is the understatement of the century!

Not sure if this topic was deliberate trolling or not?

Next we'll have Phil reviving his Vilani topics (no Phil, this is most definitely not an invitation!)

 

[rust]

Not sure if this topic was deliberate trolling or not?

The OP has only 69 posts, so he may have lived up to now without rea-
ding all old debates on TML, I think. And I do not consider all those
previous debates as required reading for anyone posting on this board.

If you do not like the thread, why not just ignore it ? :roll:

 

[collins355]

Not sure if this topic was deliberate trolling or not?

The OP has only 69 posts, so he may have lived up to now without rea-ding all old debates on TML, I think.

If you do not like the thread, why not just ignore it ? :roll:

Message received rust. You won't here from me again on this board. Sorry for the offence caused.

 

[Gentleman John]

Yes, but: Why should someone use an otherwise unnecessary method which only warns the enemy ? :?

Being an old SFB player and naval wargamer, I am of the opinion that it is very difficult to aim a weapon at a far away target and hit unless you have some idea of where they are. Hence, most shipboard weapons systems would need an active fire director of some kind. Anything like that is going to paint the target with some kind of energy signature which will alert them.

RL example: many fire control systems rely on an active sensor contact with a target. Of course, if you have a radar set to "listen", then you will be able to pick up other radars of a similar frequency. Naval vessels will often operate under EMCON (emissions control protocols) so that they do not alert a target that they are looking for it and so they can "listen" for radars targeting them. Fighter aircraft are fitted with similar systems that give "tone" warnings when a missile radar locks onto them.

As for the laser example I used above, it makes perfect sense. Think of it as the equivalent of a coaxial MG loaded with tracers. You may not damage the enemy tank with it, but you might get off a shot that is just that bit more accurate by looking for the tracer impact.

 

[Gentleman John]

Not sure if this topic was deliberate trolling or not?

The OP has only 69 posts, so he may have lived up to now without rea-
ding all old debates on TML, I think. And I do not consider all those
previous debates as required reading for anyone posting on this board.

Seconded. Hell, I've played Traveller since the LBB days and only just decided to follow up on the 'net side of it until now. Most of these debates are new to me! :lol:

 

[rust]

As for the laser example I used above, it makes perfect sense. Think of it as the equivalent of a coaxial MG loaded with tracers. You may not damage the enemy tank with it, but you might get off a shot that is just that bit more accurate by looking for the tracer impact.

Ah, I get the point - I had a language problem.

Over here "painting a target" is normally used when one person or ve-
hicle "paints" the target to enable another person or vehicle to spot
and hit it, for example a forward observer "painting" targets for the
artillery or the airforce ground support - and therefore using the same
weapon to "paint" a target and then fire at it confused me a bit.

 

[Gentleman John]

If you had not asked, I would not have known. At least the confusion has been cleared up

 

[grymlocke]

SIMPLY PUT..

it works anyway you want it to work IMHO.

 

[Denalor]

And I do not consider all those previous debates as required reading for anyone posting on this board.

And that would take how many months ?
I'm also new to Traveller, so possibly many of my questions/issues have also been resolved ages ago... and I consider it practically impossible to check every possible forum for answers to my questions.
So newbies like me are always having the problem of starting each thread with something like "Sorry, I'm new, so I don't the answer to XYZ".

Well, onto my problem with sand in honest hope to get an answer.
I've checked the CT material (bought the CD) and found the vector-rules for space combat very interesting - or put in other words: I don't really like the rules in MGT (core book) concerning movement. Now, I've read somewhere that MG-High Guard is taking up the vector-movement again, which I find great.

As I remember things, the sand cloud had a velocity based on the initial velocity of the launching vehicle

That was also my understanding. However, I found no information whatsoever in regard to the size of that sand cloud you just fired. The CT rules state something like a sand cloud must be between the attacker and the defender... you do need the size of that cloud... especially after a couple of rounds with lost of clouds flying around.

So... can anybody tell me that size of a sand cloud, so it can be represented on the space battle grid ?

Thanks a lot

 

[Deniable]

One version I've read said that the sand is 'held' in place with magnetic or gravitic fields. It also said that the laser uses a low power mode like a laser range finder to lock on and this is when you trigger the sand. Basically, use whatever reasoning makes you happy.

 

[GypsyComet]

One version I've read said that the sand is 'held' in place with magnetic or gravitic fields. It also said that the laser uses a low power mode like a laser range finder to lock on and this is when you trigger the sand. Basically, use whatever reasoning makes you happy.

The magnetic/gravitic held cloud is a later edition thing (TNE, I think), but makes sense for situations where you aren't pulling out the minis and whiteboard table to do vectors. Simplification good, especially if the assumed technology supports it.

MGT sand assumes you know the beam is coming due to beam-pointer lock-on or similar. You can also run with the anticipatory cloud held around the ship that you replenish as it takes hits, though this isn't quite how the MGT rule is written.

 

[Deniable]

The magnetic/gravitic held cloud is a later edition thing (TNE, I think), but makes sense for situations where you aren't pulling out the minis and whiteboard table to do vectors. Simplification good, especially if the assumed technology supports it.

Most likely TNE. That's the system I've spent most time with. I remember it being a cone that had to be 'directed' over the incoming beam. This means the beam has to penetrate some amount of sand and explains the damage reduction. The cloud is also assumed to travel with the ship because it's held in the field and thus holds position relative to the ship.

MGT sand assumes you know the beam is coming due to beam-pointer lock-on or similar. You can also run with the anticipatory cloud held around the ship that you replenish as it takes hits, though this isn't quite how the MGT rule is written.

That's close to the TNE version too. Beam pointers and Ladar lock-on to provide range data gave the defender enough warning to throw sand.

The anticipatory cloud around the ship is also reminiscent of the shields from 2300AD.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Hmm. Not quite. As I remember things, the sand cloud had a velocity based on the initial velocity of the launching vehicle The tactic then was to come in behind the sand and allow it to degrade laser fire from an enemy in a known position. No need to know when your enemy is going to fire. But you do have to worry about it blocking your fire.

If you really want to go with sand being a last minute thing for laser fire, the answer is obvious. Just have a laser capable of operating in two modes: a low-power mode to paint the target and a high-power mode to damage it. If you detect the paint, you know you're about to be hit and launch the sand.

You are right. In the original LBBs, sand had a velocity and the cloud moved on the tabletop simulation with constant velocity when fired.

Under HG though, it lasted one turn and that was it. Probably an abstraction that assumes the ship is under acceleration and moves away from the protection of the cloud.

So, depending of it you are using a tabletop combat method or just a range method, would determine how the sand would operate.

The science is fuzzy, like a lot of things in Traveller, but it works for the game.

 

[Gentleman John]

Well, onto my problem with sand in honest hope to get an answer.
I've checked the CT material (bought the CD) and found the vector-rules for space combat very interesting - or put in other words: I don't really like the rules in MGT (core book) concerning movement. Now, I've read somewhere that MG-High Guard is taking up the vector-movement again, which I find great.

Great. This is actually a step backwards iom, seeing as the original HG was an abstract combat system for large fleets. So, does that mean we are going to get a Trillion Credit Squadron with the abstract rules in it for MGT?

That was also my understanding. However, I found no information whatsoever in regard to the size of that sand cloud you just fired. The CT rules state something like a sand cloud must be between the attacker and the defender... you do need the size of that cloud... especially after a couple of rounds with lost of clouds flying around.

So... can anybody tell me that size of a sand cloud, so it can be represented on the space battle grid ?

I finally found the answer in CT.Somewhere on the page that gives all th DMs for space combat it meantions that for every 25mm of sand, you get a -5DM. So, it looks like the obvious answer is that a cloud of sand equivalent to one canister from one launcher is 25mm across. What that translates to for MGT needs to be worked out.

 

[Cleon the Mad]

Do I dare mention launching a Sandcaster round in let's say a Starport, and asking what effect that would have?










(Actualy, I think Striker back in the CT days addressed that. In short, it was treated like a big flak cannister. I think. Or maybe like a big shotgun. I forget which way now)