Air vehicle combat
- Thread starter apoc527
- Start date
I don't really buy the whole "spacecraft are so much tougher because they have to be" argument anyway. If a society can create swarms of invulnerable 10 ton fighters, then why ever build a gravtank? There's got to be a reason the Imperium uses the Intrepid.
In atmosphere, a vehicular weapon is going to be as powerful as a starship one--the reality is that in Traveller, there's not enough size difference to justify a x50 increase in damage. A turret in Traveller isn't very large, yet you can cram three pulse lasers that do 50d6 (or 100d6 if using HG) in them. Compare this to a Fusion Z gun at 28d6. This is ridiculously underpowered by comparison. Why? Because the pulse lasers are mounted on a "spacecraft." That's not an explanation or a justification, it's a thinly veiled attempt to disguise an old and very bad design.
At any rate, there's no point in arguing over this because in MY campaign, the spacecraft WILL be vulnerable to missiles fired from jet interceptors because that's how it works in X-com...all I'm trying to do is find some way of using MGT to game that out.
In atmosphere, a vehicular weapon is going to be as powerful as a starship one--the reality is that in Traveller, there's not enough size difference to justify a x50 increase in damage. A turret in Traveller isn't very large, yet you can cram three pulse lasers that do 50d6 (or 100d6 if using HG) in them. Compare this to a Fusion Z gun at 28d6. This is ridiculously underpowered by comparison. Why? Because the pulse lasers are mounted on a "spacecraft." That's not an explanation or a justification, it's a thinly veiled attempt to disguise an old and very bad design.
At any rate, there's no point in arguing over this because in MY campaign, the spacecraft WILL be vulnerable to missiles fired from jet interceptors because that's how it works in X-com...all I'm trying to do is find some way of using MGT to game that out.
according to the wiki entry, the asm-135 was a kinetic kill infra-red homing vehicle.
It impacted its target at 24,140 km/hr ( or ~6705 m/s ) and it massed 13.6 kg.
305 Mj can do more than rip through foil, I think.
e= .5 * 13.6 * 6705^2, right?
the 2000kg target was reduced to 285 pieces of 'trackable' debris which were coated with soot from plastics that had been vaporized by the impact.
It impacted its target at 24,140 km/hr ( or ~6705 m/s ) and it massed 13.6 kg.
305 Mj can do more than rip through foil, I think.
e= .5 * 13.6 * 6705^2, right?
the 2000kg target was reduced to 285 pieces of 'trackable' debris which were coated with soot from plastics that had been vaporized by the impact.
Well, it's not so much an issue of volume as power. A type A fusion plant is 140 cubic metres in size and (based on previous products and the sort of power output needed to accelerate multi-thousand tonne vessels at multiple G's) is rated in Megawatts. Ship hulls do have to be tough and dense to deal with radiation and micro-mass collisions, so ship weapons have to match.
That's also why they are *expensive*. The cheapest space laser is Cr500,000.
Why build grav tanks? Good question. Most likely because they will, in most cases, be sufficient for the military role intended at a cheaper cost.
I would, however agree that traditionally Traveller has not really addressed the issue. Any Traveller military will have to deal with sub-orbital spacecraft and would design specific anti-ship weapon systems to deal with them. I would expect this would likely be in the form of ship-buster missiles and laser or energy weapon artillery.
Because of the much reduced ranges than normal space combat, these systems can be more efficient - lasers aren't going to have to worry about focal length diffusion issues, energy weapons will be operating at useful ranges, missiles will be able to carry larger warheads compared to fuel for the same size, ships will be FAR less maneuverable and slower than in space (though there has been some discussion on this point on this forum...).
That's also why they are *expensive*. The cheapest space laser is Cr500,000.
Why build grav tanks? Good question. Most likely because they will, in most cases, be sufficient for the military role intended at a cheaper cost.
I would, however agree that traditionally Traveller has not really addressed the issue. Any Traveller military will have to deal with sub-orbital spacecraft and would design specific anti-ship weapon systems to deal with them. I would expect this would likely be in the form of ship-buster missiles and laser or energy weapon artillery.
Because of the much reduced ranges than normal space combat, these systems can be more efficient - lasers aren't going to have to worry about focal length diffusion issues, energy weapons will be operating at useful ranges, missiles will be able to carry larger warheads compared to fuel for the same size, ships will be FAR less maneuverable and slower than in space (though there has been some discussion on this point on this forum...).
Ishmael said:
Right. My posts are in relation to the strength of a real spaceship. If you want to get an idea, figure the max velocity for a trav ship at 6Gs going from Earth to Neptune and the force of hitting a 1 gram micro-meteor... An unarmored traveller ship is designed to handle this.
Here's an example: 41,952,800,000 joules = hitting 1 gram during 6G trip to Saturn. 9160 km/s is your max velocity. As you can see, the missile from your example isn't enough to scratch the paint on an unarmoured Trav ship.
Which has got to be completely wrong. Perhaps Traveller ships have some kind of "structural integrity field" or magnetic shielding that deflects a lot of the micrometeorite particles. Or they use higher tech versions of whipple shields...or self-sealing hulls. Or they simply limit their velocity when doing long interplanetary voyages. I don't know, but you just made my point for me far better than I ever could.
Personally, I suspect that Traveller has simply never taken this into account. If you want to look at a version of Traveller that HAS, look at GURPS Traveller. All starships are minimally armored to DR 100 (which is equivalent to battledress I believe in GURPS) to protect against this sort of issue, but they are highly vulnerable to tank-mounted fusion guns.
I'm just saying--anything based off CT isn't very workable when it comes to ships vs. vehicles, rationalizations for ridiculously overarmored spacecraft or not.
Personally, I suspect that Traveller has simply never taken this into account. If you want to look at a version of Traveller that HAS, look at GURPS Traveller. All starships are minimally armored to DR 100 (which is equivalent to battledress I believe in GURPS) to protect against this sort of issue, but they are highly vulnerable to tank-mounted fusion guns.
I'm just saying--anything based off CT isn't very workable when it comes to ships vs. vehicles, rationalizations for ridiculously overarmored spacecraft or not.
Apoc527: Ignore DFW on this point if you wish. This has come up before; he insists that because a Traveller ship can theoretically reach such high velocities and the rules don't address it, that they MUST be armoured to this degree. Despite their armour value being quantifiably lower. My take on the issue is that there is a safe upper cruising *velocity* for any hull amour value for a ship to travel at (also dependent on the density of space hazards). I don't really want to start that debate again - pick a side or make up your own mind and move on.
What is not in dispute is that even boosting out to 100D and back at 1G will result in peak velocities in the 10,000's of kilometres per hour and thick, dense hulls are required to protect from micromass impacts. Plus, a thick hull is needed to protect from radiation.
OT didn't require armour per se (it was only introduced as a concept in High Guard), but certainly had hulls as being very tough. MegaTraveller required a minimum armour value of 40 for spacecraft and starships. Traveller New Era required 10 points of armour per G-rating (note that these were different scales, but in both cases represented heavy armour in ground scale terms). MGT seems to follow the MegaTraveller line, though without an integrated ground and space scale.
What is not in dispute is that even boosting out to 100D and back at 1G will result in peak velocities in the 10,000's of kilometres per hour and thick, dense hulls are required to protect from micromass impacts. Plus, a thick hull is needed to protect from radiation.
OT didn't require armour per se (it was only introduced as a concept in High Guard), but certainly had hulls as being very tough. MegaTraveller required a minimum armour value of 40 for spacecraft and starships. Traveller New Era required 10 points of armour per G-rating (note that these were different scales, but in both cases represented heavy armour in ground scale terms). MGT seems to follow the MegaTraveller line, though without an integrated ground and space scale.
Captain Jonah
Mongoose
Nice thick very expensive hulls with layers of armour, radiation damping polymer foams that self seal, flexible multi ply spall catching layers to absorb and spread kinetic penetration (think super kevlar). More layers of armour, more layers of the other stuff etc etc.
Ship hulls cost a mint as the sizes go up. Must be something to them more than just structure and bare hull metal.
Even without adding armour it wouldn't suprise me to find that counting all of this lot and the structural frameworks that your "basic" hull heads towards 50cm thick.
Lots of stuff still outside that though. You may not be able to penetrate the hull but you can "kill" the ship by taking out weapons/sensors/drives etc. Oh so tough starship at mach 10 takes a frag missile in the Drive plates. Contra grav may still be negating 95% of local gravity but it just became a sitting duck and it will be going down even if slowly at first.
Ship hulls cost a mint as the sizes go up. Must be something to them more than just structure and bare hull metal.
Even without adding armour it wouldn't suprise me to find that counting all of this lot and the structural frameworks that your "basic" hull heads towards 50cm thick.
Lots of stuff still outside that though. You may not be able to penetrate the hull but you can "kill" the ship by taking out weapons/sensors/drives etc. Oh so tough starship at mach 10 takes a frag missile in the Drive plates. Contra grav may still be negating 95% of local gravity but it just became a sitting duck and it will be going down even if slowly at first.
Captain Jonah
Mongoose
rinku said:
Yep and thats just the armour layer. The hull must be able to survive and project against all the enviroments that a ship finds itself in, acid atmospheres, radiation, micrometeorite hits etc. Laminates are the best way to do this till we get that all singing and dancing bonded superdense stuff
They tend to be less dense that pure metals but do a better job overall. Though they don't take up volume in the ship they are still there taking up space but not using the "useable volume" of the ship. The hull and structural famework are there, even if you don't see them other than as those dark blobs round the deck plans
apoc527 said:
Actually, Marc addressed this in MT after he realized it was missing from CT. See ship design rules for that version. MGT just screwed up by not explaining. Did you ever play MT?
Others have a different way of dealing with this by inventing rules that change the entire game like speed limits and such but, that involves changing the game to the point that it is no longer recognizable as Traveller. But, that's what house rules are. You don't have to play the game like it is 8 TLs above present day. It is hard for some to grasp as it would be like a caveman trying to understand TL 8 technology. It would seem like magic and impossible.
Well ultimately I'm not really playing "Traveller" at all as that term is being used here. I'm just using the rules, so the assumptions, constraints, and rationalizations of the OTU really don't apply. I'm only vaguely concerned with the TL system except as it directly benefits my campaign setting.
Damage concerns aside, anybody have any ideas for how to run a dogfight in MGT?
Damage concerns aside, anybody have any ideas for how to run a dogfight in MGT?
apoc527 said:
There aren't any rules in MGT for dogfighting that I've seen. MT has dogfighting rules in COACC book along with plane design. It is pretty accurate and scales to high TL grave based "adversaries". I don't think you'll like what you find as the TL 7-8 fighters will drop like flies against TL 10+ vehicles.
CosmicGamer
Mongoose
Off the top of my head, a dogfight is a one on one combat and thought of melee grappling. Perhaps a simple combatant A vs combatant B opposing roll (with a bunch of DM's, of course). When successful, instead of grabbing a person as in grappling, you have the other combatant "in your sights".
Lord High Munchkin
Mongoose
Of all things MRQ1 in 'Hawkmoon' had a reasonably concise system for ornithopters and dogfighting. Included things like tailing and tactical positioning to get shots in.
I don't have the book to hand though.
I don't have the book to hand though.
