Banned ship weapons
- Thread starter Jak Nazryth
- Start date
GypsyComet
Emperor Mongoose
Boneguard said:
Oh that's right. Mongoose misunderstood the Pulse Laser, didn't they...
Yes, it excels, or should, at things like point defense, but the pulse laser is supposed to be a little harder hitting in exchange for accuracy. Mining lasers are pulsers.
Not that this is the ideal place to bring up a question about why High Guard changes the beam laser/pulse laser dichotomy, but I'm going to do it anyway.
I personally don't like this change at all. A pulse laser is lower TL and cheaper and does double the damage of beam lasers. Plus, it has a bizarre -2 DM to hit (I understand it, I just don't like it).
So, I do what I always do when something in MGT doesn't feel right: I go to GURPS Traveller (heresy, I know, but I find GURPS to be the most internally consistent and logical of the Traveller versions that I own).
According to GURPS Traveller: Interstellar Wars, the weapons-grade military lasers are all beam lasers. Only civilian grade defensive and mining lasers (as pointed out) are pulsers. And they simply aren't as good.
Thus, in my games, I just use the CRB values for the two types of laser and also added heavy variations of each. YMMV, of course, but I just prefer the "beam laser" to be the more potent weapon.
I personally don't like this change at all. A pulse laser is lower TL and cheaper and does double the damage of beam lasers. Plus, it has a bizarre -2 DM to hit (I understand it, I just don't like it).
So, I do what I always do when something in MGT doesn't feel right: I go to GURPS Traveller (heresy, I know, but I find GURPS to be the most internally consistent and logical of the Traveller versions that I own).
According to GURPS Traveller: Interstellar Wars, the weapons-grade military lasers are all beam lasers. Only civilian grade defensive and mining lasers (as pointed out) are pulsers. And they simply aren't as good.
Thus, in my games, I just use the CRB values for the two types of laser and also added heavy variations of each. YMMV, of course, but I just prefer the "beam laser" to be the more potent weapon.
far-trader
Mongoose
GypsyComet said:
Well, to be fair, imo, CT got it wrong too
Beam Laser with its single attack and base to hit should be the low cost (Mcr0.5) point defense laser for anti-missile fire primarily for civilian ships.
Pulse Laser with its double attack but to hit penalty (made up for by military grade computers and programs) should be the expensive (MCr1.0) rapid fire combat laser primarily for offensive use by military ships.
...and so it is in MTU and has been for ages
The Mining Laser imo is more a cutting tool (and more a fusion tunneling gun per mining out asteroids for hulls than a laser). I figured the Pulse Laser in CT worked well enough though, you just didn't fire as rapidly and since the target isn't moving hitting it isn't an issue
Egil Skallagrimsson
Mongoose
Jak Nazryth said:
The unique advantage seems to lie with the bay mounted railguns, autofire.
Egil
Egil Skallagrimsson
Mongoose
apoc527 said:
Agreed. After a bit of a trial we went back to using the core book (pulse laser short range, 1d6 dam, beam laser md range 2d6 dam), much more logical than the HG alternative.
In terms of permitted weapons, in MTU, lasers and sand have an open permit and are allowed, other weapons need the ship owners to show an appropriate reason, to a sub-sector Duke's office, the IN, or even to a world government. Permits are issued for a fixed time, or the duration of a task, and usually relate to a clear astrographical area (typically one sub-sector, though a world government will only be able to issue permits for their system). Good behaviour and appropriate use clauses are included. So, on the borders of the Spinward Marches, a request to fit partical beams and missile racks before entering parts of District 268 will be acceptable, however, turning up at Glisten with said weapons will take some explaining (and will probably get you grounded until the weapons have been stripped out), using them to stake an asteroid claim there will get you into serious bother.
Egil
unless I'm mistaken...
For a given power input, each individual pulse of a pulsed laser will, depending on duty cycles etc., have a greater intensity over a shorter period than a continuous wave laser. Therefore, a pulse laser should do more damage if it hits. But because each pulse is so short in duration when compared to a cw beam, there should be a less chance for a hit occurring.
If only Trav would get rid of silly grav focusing. How many g's does a focusing field need to be to bend x-rays?
If you make Trav follow rw physics for lasers, railguns can look more attractive. Espicially if Trav were to follow rw physics for ship movement.....
For a given power input, each individual pulse of a pulsed laser will, depending on duty cycles etc., have a greater intensity over a shorter period than a continuous wave laser. Therefore, a pulse laser should do more damage if it hits. But because each pulse is so short in duration when compared to a cw beam, there should be a less chance for a hit occurring.
If only Trav would get rid of silly grav focusing. How many g's does a focusing field need to be to bend x-rays?
If you make Trav follow rw physics for lasers, railguns can look more attractive. Espicially if Trav were to follow rw physics for ship movement.....
GypsyComet
Emperor Mongoose
The true power of a pulse laser over a beam is unlikely to manifest outside of boarding range, as pulsers excel (relatively) at fixed point penetration while beams are better at scrubbing surface features off of more of the target per hit.
And really, if you still have weapons at visual ranges, *someone* made a big mistake.
And really, if you still have weapons at visual ranges, *someone* made a big mistake.
irrelevant.DFW said:
Imagine a laser that fires a 10 second beam and energy 100Mj/sec for a power usage of 1000Mw
A pulse laser firing a 1 second pulse will be 1000Mj/sec, or 10 times the intensity, for the same power usage of 1000Mw. Or else it will have the same intensity as the beam laser but use only a tenth of the input power.
But it has a higher chance of missing its target due to lower rate of fire, for example.
Traveller space combat is pretty abstract though.
This could also explain its prevalence at lower tech levels. It gives decent penetration for lower input power, such as low tech craft might have.
'realistic' lasers won't have the range listed in Traveller due to beam divergence.
I disagree with that, DFW - I think it'd use the same power, but instead of maintaining the beam, it only uses short beams to allow the heat dissipation systems to bring everything down to a safe heat level before firing the next. The overall effect is that it slows the rate at which the heat builds over the duration of the burst. This would mean that instead of "sweeping" the beam and causing one larger gash in the target, you'd instead cause 3 smaller gashes, thereby not causing as much damage. After firing the bursts, the system needs to cycle - the capacitors need to recharge and the cooling systems need the time to bring the system down to a safer level.
The main difference, I think, between the systems is that the beam laser has refined the laser systems so they use less power* and generate less heat and the cooling systems are better able to cope with that heat buildup.
To use an analogy, a modern (ie TL9?) computer is capable of "underclocking" itself to keep the heat levels at a safe level. Assuming that the beam cannot be reduced, it follows that the frequency dropping would be a good alternative to maintain safe heat levels and (possibly) power useage (the latter assuming that the capacitors for the system get a top-up charge between pulses from a steady power input).
*I'm assuming here that any given power rating is the output and not the power useage from the ship's power grid.
The main difference, I think, between the systems is that the beam laser has refined the laser systems so they use less power* and generate less heat and the cooling systems are better able to cope with that heat buildup.
To use an analogy, a modern (ie TL9?) computer is capable of "underclocking" itself to keep the heat levels at a safe level. Assuming that the beam cannot be reduced, it follows that the frequency dropping would be a good alternative to maintain safe heat levels and (possibly) power useage (the latter assuming that the capacitors for the system get a top-up charge between pulses from a steady power input).
*I'm assuming here that any given power rating is the output and not the power useage from the ship's power grid.
far-trader
Mongoose
Yeah, I think you have it backwards as well DFW. Unless MgT has really flipped the paradigm on its head but I'm not recalling it clearly at the moment and don't have the books handy. I don't actually recall a power allocation at all in MgT though so it's difficult to make any ruling.
It used to be (pre-MgT) that exactly the same power was used/required for a Pulse Laser or Beam Laser (and nice try on the distraction of different laser types
), and exactly the same type of laser in both cases.
For that equal power the Pulse Laser does twice the damage. It is in fact more powerful for the same dwell time on target.
At the same time it has a lower chance to hit because it is pulsed (hence the nomenclature) rather than a beam. It is less likely to intersect the target in a vulnerable area.
It should actually take more expensive bits imo to handle that higher energy output level (and thus why I think CT screwed up the costs, and the applications are so reflected for MTU as noted).
It used to be (pre-MgT) that exactly the same power was used/required for a Pulse Laser or Beam Laser (and nice try on the distraction of different laser types
), and exactly the same type of laser in both cases.For that equal power the Pulse Laser does twice the damage. It is in fact more powerful for the same dwell time on target.
At the same time it has a lower chance to hit because it is pulsed (hence the nomenclature) rather than a beam. It is less likely to intersect the target in a vulnerable area.
It should actually take more expensive bits imo to handle that higher energy output level (and thus why I think CT screwed up the costs, and the applications are so reflected for MTU as noted).
far-trader
Mongoose
Interesting and illuminating. I've had a chance to check my MgT and I was probably forgetting the Core rules on lasers because I accepted them as almost perfect, I simply changed the names around and they matched my long held conceptions from CT.
MgT Core:
Pulse Laser: TL7, Short range, 1D6, MCr0.5
Beam Laser: TL7, Medium range, 2d6, MCr1.0
...flip the names and you pretty much have my CT versions. Short ranged minimal damage cheap point defense lasers (Beam in MTU). Medium ranged superior damage expensive combat lasers (Pulse in MTU). Add the to hit penalty and TL change from HG and it's there.
MgT HG changes/additions:
Pulse Laser: TL7, Short Range, 2d6, -2 to hit, MCr0.5, Energy 1
Beam Laser: TL9, Medium Range, 1d6, MCr1.0, Energy 1
...which just messes things up imo by returning to the CT baselines, but still shows that pulse lasers handle more power per shot than beam lasers.
I suppose one could argue for a TL7 Beam Laser of short(er?) range to maintain some semblance of compatibility between Core and HG
So... my MgTU is:
Pulse Laser: TL7, Medium Range, 2d6, -2 to hit, MCr1.0, Energy 1
The pulse laser is the first successful military grade application for space combat. Firing rapid bursts of high energy it requires superior electronics and training to be effective in hitting the target but when it does the damage is serious. The price also generally puts it out of reach of most civilian ships when the beam laser is better suited to defense and cheaper.
Beam Laser: TL9, Short Range, 1d6, MCr0.5, Energy 1
The beam laser is a refinement of the pulse laser and primarily a point defense weapon on civilian ships as well as military. Firing a lower energy laser with longer duration than the pulse laser the beam version is better able to hit targets but restricted to a shorter range and lower damage potential, all of which makes it ideal for point defense use and far less useful as an attack weapon.
Beam Laser: TL7, Close Range, 1d6, MCr0.5, Energy 1
An earlier version of the beam laser commonly employed in mining and colloquially known as a Mining Laser this laser is not very effective as a weapon but can be pressed into a point defense role.
MgT Core:
Pulse Laser: TL7, Short range, 1D6, MCr0.5
Beam Laser: TL7, Medium range, 2d6, MCr1.0
...flip the names and you pretty much have my CT versions. Short ranged minimal damage cheap point defense lasers (Beam in MTU). Medium ranged superior damage expensive combat lasers (Pulse in MTU). Add the to hit penalty and TL change from HG and it's there.
MgT HG changes/additions:
Pulse Laser: TL7, Short Range, 2d6, -2 to hit, MCr0.5, Energy 1
Beam Laser: TL9, Medium Range, 1d6, MCr1.0, Energy 1
...which just messes things up imo by returning to the CT baselines, but still shows that pulse lasers handle more power per shot than beam lasers.
I suppose one could argue for a TL7 Beam Laser of short(er?) range to maintain some semblance of compatibility between Core and HG
So... my MgTU is:
Pulse Laser: TL7, Medium Range, 2d6, -2 to hit, MCr1.0, Energy 1
The pulse laser is the first successful military grade application for space combat. Firing rapid bursts of high energy it requires superior electronics and training to be effective in hitting the target but when it does the damage is serious. The price also generally puts it out of reach of most civilian ships when the beam laser is better suited to defense and cheaper.
Beam Laser: TL9, Short Range, 1d6, MCr0.5, Energy 1
The beam laser is a refinement of the pulse laser and primarily a point defense weapon on civilian ships as well as military. Firing a lower energy laser with longer duration than the pulse laser the beam version is better able to hit targets but restricted to a shorter range and lower damage potential, all of which makes it ideal for point defense use and far less useful as an attack weapon.
Beam Laser: TL7, Close Range, 1d6, MCr0.5, Energy 1
An earlier version of the beam laser commonly employed in mining and colloquially known as a Mining Laser this laser is not very effective as a weapon but can be pressed into a point defense role.
Egil Skallagrimsson
Mongoose
:lol: :lol:
With Far Trader's post I think we have covered every permutation except the higher tech upgrades in HG.
So, IMTU, and following the core rule book stats, pulse lasers are cheap and cheerful weapons, able to release short bursts of energy over short ranges, the beam laser is twice as expensive, but packs twice the punch up to medium range, because its beam is maintained longer.
Egil
With Far Trader's post I think we have covered every permutation except the higher tech upgrades in HG.
So, IMTU, and following the core rule book stats, pulse lasers are cheap and cheerful weapons, able to release short bursts of energy over short ranges, the beam laser is twice as expensive, but packs twice the punch up to medium range, because its beam is maintained longer.
Egil
Jak Nazryth
Mongoose
This is more a game mechanic question rather than "real world physics and a science fiction weapon), but why do the rules apply a -2 penalty to pulse lasers? If they are indeed point defense weapon, mostly to shoot down incoming missiles at point blank range, why on earth would they NEED to do 2d6 damage and be so unreliable in the accuracy department? Per the game rules, core page 149,you only fire at a missile once it is about to hit. (for arguments sake, I am going to assume the rules mean withing short range or closer-otherwise pulse lasers would be at an additional penalty at close or adjacent) If you hit the missile, it is automatically destroyed (no need to roll damage) if you make a successful attack on the first of a group of missiles, you can continue to roll attacks on any remaining missile until you miss, with each subsequent attack at an additional -2 penalty. Here has always been my problem with the way the game mechanics treat pulse laser.
Why would military or merchant vessels place such an inaccurate weapon in a turret who extra dice of damage isn't even needed in the first place for it's primary purpose... point defense?
It would be nice to do 2d6 damage to a fighter or a small ship... if they were dumb enough to get into close range (1 combat hex) AND not use their extra thrust to dodge your already horribly inaccurate laser. I'm kinda working on a house rule fix for this issue.
Beams are treated like the core books. 2d6 no modifiers
Pulses are treated like the core books. 1d6 with stepped modifiers (+1 for adjacent and close, +0 for short, -2 for medium, -4 Long, -6 for Very Long.
I think that makes it a more plausible point defense weapon.
Why would military or merchant vessels place such an inaccurate weapon in a turret who extra dice of damage isn't even needed in the first place for it's primary purpose... point defense?
It would be nice to do 2d6 damage to a fighter or a small ship... if they were dumb enough to get into close range (1 combat hex) AND not use their extra thrust to dodge your already horribly inaccurate laser. I'm kinda working on a house rule fix for this issue.
Beams are treated like the core books. 2d6 no modifiers
Pulses are treated like the core books. 1d6 with stepped modifiers (+1 for adjacent and close, +0 for short, -2 for medium, -4 Long, -6 for Very Long.
I think that makes it a more plausible point defense weapon.
I suspect it is just a not very elegant handling of the mechanics.Jak Nazryth said:
While it is true that a pulse laser is the equivalent of single shots
and the beam laser the equivalent of automatic fire, and the pul-
se laser therefore is less likely than the beam laser to hit a target,
the pulse laser should normally be the baseline weapon without a
modifier, and the beam laser should have a positive modifier.
