Capital Ship 500 and 1000 Ton Bay Weapons

[barnest2]

Well either way, if the barrage rules don't work, just attack with each bay individually.

If one half of them hit, and they all do average damage, they will do 800 damage to the Tigress class... I think that is quite enough without figuring out the barrage rules.

(note, that damage is 35-15=20x40)

 

[billclo]

I was understanding the barrage damage rule more like this from Rikki Tikki's example here: http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=46856&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Die roll + (damage dice of weapon) - range + firecontrol - dodge -armor.

Say a die roll of 8. Using the example of a 100-ton Particle beam bay at long range with a damage dice of 9. An 80-particle bay attack (assume they all bear) would go thusly:

8+9+0+4-2-15 = 4 on the barrage table. This = 25% damage. 720 is nominal beam damage (80x9). 25% of this is 180.

Boy the barrage rules sure are written poorly if hardly anyone can agree on how they work. :?

 

[barnest2]

Huh. That one is quite good as well. I like it.
(dammit, now I have choices )

 

[billclo]

Barnest, I noticed in your example of the barrage calculations, you listed a -3 from sandacasters. I thought sand was ineffective versus particle beams and only worked against beam lasers and missiles?

 

[barnest2]

Barnest, I noticed in your example of the barrage calculations, you listed a -3 from sandacasters. I thought sand was ineffective versus particle beams and only worked against beam lasers and missiles?

Eh, I use it against any non solid weapon, beam lasers, pulse lasers and particle beams.
It's not a big deal either way.

 

[rust]

Eh, I use it against any non solid weapon, beam lasers, pulse lasers and particle beams.

I think sand should indeed have some defensive value against particle
accelerator weapons. The particles "fired" by the accelerator have mass
and travel through space, so some of them should collide with the parti-
cles of a sand cloud in their way, which should at least reduce the dama-
ge caused by the remaining particles.

 

[DFW]

Well, I have tried to follow this, and like each time I try to understand the
barrage rules it resulted in a severe headache and utter confusion. :lol:

Not just you.

I ditched the barrage rule in favor of rules consistency & logic.

 

[apoc527]

Huh. That one is quite good as well. I like it.
(dammit, now I have choices )

The math is the same, it's just a slightly different order of operations. My method follows the order of operations in High Guard though, that's the only difference.

Here's the example being used as I understand the rules:

Tigress: 15 armor
Heavy Particle Bay: 9d6

(In the standard rules, sandcasters don't work against P-beams, so I'll go with that.)

So, total defensive DM is 9 (individual weapon damage)-15 (armor) = -6 DM. (Ignoring dodges, and in this case sandcasters)

Assume a roll of 8 on the 2d6 +4 fire control +3 crew skill (Elite for dreadnaughts) = 15-6 = 9 = 150% damage.

So, assuming the 50 or so bays from earlier, thats 50*9*150% = 675 damage or 337 damage to two sections. A Tigress has 2500 hull and structure in each of 5 sections. It can take quite a beating at that rate, but it will die in about an hour of combat.

Note that that is pretty close to what the heavy particle bays would do individually.

If you allow sandcasters and get a further -3 DM, the 9 becomes a 6, which is 75% damage, which is 337 damage cut in half to two sections.

 

[barnest2]

AH, I made a mistake with your system. Still works though

 

[apoc527]

Yeah, now combine 80 of them into a barrage, and use a good fire control system. I showed an estimate of 50% damage below, after all modifications, and that is 360 damage (that estimate includes armour).

It might have been rude, but it wasn't undeserved. You seem to not understand the way the barrage rules work. I'll show you


Say I roll 8 for my barrage. Lets add +4 from fire control. that gives me a total roll of 12.

Okay. -15 from armour, -3 from sand casters. That gives a total of -18.

12 - 18 is - 6. 12-6 is 6, which is a damage roll of 75%.

So 9x80= 720, 75% of 720 is 540 damage.

There you go. Large particle beam bays do massive damage to a tigress class.


(See here for an explanation of the barrage rules http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=46856 )

You appear to have added a step.

Rather than subtracting the total defensive DM from the attack roll and then subtracting that result from the actual attack roll (which I think creates some confusion), subtract Individual Weapon Damage from Armor and use that number as a DM, without changing the sign. So, when Armor > IWD, you have a -DM to attack, and when Armor < IWD, you get a positive DM. Then apply the other defensive DMs as negatives separately (dodging, sandcasters, lasers, etc).

Collectively, we've made this seem more complicated than it really is. But collectively, we shall prevail and figure it out! 8)

 

[apoc527]

AH, I made a mistake with your system. Still works though

Yep, you get the same results, it just takes an extra step. No worries!

 

[Solomani666]

I was understanding the barrage damage rule more like this from Rikki Tikki's example here: http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=46856&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Die roll + (damage dice of weapon) - range + firecontrol - dodge -armor.

Say a die roll of 8. Using the example of a 100-ton Particle beam bay at long range with a damage dice of 9. An 80-particle bay attack (assume they all bear) would go thusly:

8+9+0+4-2-15 = 4 on the barrage table. This = 25% damage. 720 is nominal beam damage (80x9). 25% of this is 180.

Boy the barrage rules sure are written poorly if hardly anyone can agree on how they work. :?

Same calculations I get when you take out the sandcasters.


.

 

[barnest2]

Same calculations I get when you take out the sandcasters.
.

So you concede that a battery of 100 tons bays can kick the ever-loving poop out of a tigress?

 

[BP]

...Collectively, we've made this seem more complicated than it really is. But collectively, we shall prevail and figure it out! 8)

And, then post it so the fatally missed flaws can be pointed out and the whole show can start again! :lol:

You can't polish a turd! It ain't complicated - its broke!

[Seriously, though, good luck. Looking forward to seeing what finally results...]

 

[apoc527]

I'm actually 100% satisfied with the Barrage rules as written using the interpretation in the thread I started about them.

They work just fine as an abstraction.

I think all the confusion in this thread stemmed from several people doing the same thing but explaining it differently. Obviously, the rules aren't crystal clear, but once you find an interpretation that works and stick to it, they DO work pretty well (IMO).

 

[billclo]

I was trying yet again to understand MGt's method of computing a barrage attack versus Rikki's method, and boy am I confused now.

I was trying to duplicate the attack listed in the High Guard book, page 74. 200 nuclear missiles attack a ship at long range, and each does 2 dice damage.

Listed as: 200-nuclear missile - long - 2 barrage.

Attack modifiers:
Crew + 3, Firecontrol +4, target dodges -2, final modifier = 5
Die roll is a 7, so 7+5=12.

Defensive DMs:
-2 for armor (2 pts), laser protection -1, and -4 for level 2 nuke damper. Total is -7.

Hence attack - defense. 12-7=5. Use the 5 row on barrage table, yielding 50%. 100 of 200 missiles hit, doing 2 dmg each. Total damage done is 200 points.

Using Rikki's method:
Roll 7, +2 (attack strength), +3 (skill), +4 (fire control), -2 dodge = 14.

Defense modifiers:
-2 for armor, -1 laser protection, -4 (level 2 nuke damper) = -7
Attack - defense = barrage table row.
14-7=7, yielding 100%.

100% of missiles attacking hit? Or 100% of potential damage (200 msls x 2 each) = 400?

I seem to be getting alot more damage with Rikki's method. What am I doing wrong or mis-understanding?

 

[Jeraa]

You can't polish a turd!

[ThreadDerail]: The show Mythbusters on the Discovery Channel (here in America, not sure if it is available over seas) has proved that you can indeed polish a turd. Why anyone would want to is another matter, but it is at least possible. YouTube link [/ThreadDerail]

 

[apoc527]

I was trying yet again to understand MGt's method of computing a barrage attack versus Rikki's method, and boy am I confused now.

I was trying to duplicate the attack listed in the High Guard book, page 74. 200 nuclear missiles attack a ship at long range, and each does 2 dice damage.

Listed as: 200-nuclear missile - long - 2 barrage.

Attack modifiers:
Crew + 3, Firecontrol +4, target dodges -2, final modifier = 5
Die roll is a 7, so 7+5=12.

Defensive DMs:
-2 for armor (2 pts), laser protection -1, and -4 for level 2 nuke damper. Total is -7.

Hence attack - defense. 12-7=5. Use the 5 row on barrage table, yielding 50%. 100 of 200 missiles hit, doing 2 dmg each. Total damage done is 200 points.

Using Rikki's method:
Roll 7, +2 (attack strength), +3 (skill), +4 (fire control), -2 dodge = 14.

Defense modifiers:
-2 for armor, -1 laser protection, -4 (level 2 nuke damper) = -7
Attack - defense = barrage table row.
14-7=7, yielding 100%.

100% of missiles attacking hit? Or 100% of potential damage (200 msls x 2 each) = 400?

I seem to be getting alot more damage with Rikki's method. What am I doing wrong or mis-understanding?

RTT's method is just a restatement of the way I described the rules in the original post in the thread entitled Apoc's Hyper-Lawyered Take on Barrage (or something like that).

My argument is that the example you cite is simply wrong (in the book, not as you typed it), and that it SHOULD result in your modified result. I see no reason mathematically NOT to use RTT's slight variation (which is just adding Individual Weapon Damage to the Attack roll), other than that what the book says is somewhat different.

As to damage, you simply take the number of DICE of damage in the barrage and multiply it by the result on the table. The missile example is further screwy because I don't know if it's 200 missiles or 100 missiles. If it's 200 nukes then the barrage size is 400 dice, so 100% damage is 400.

 

[rust]

... but once you find an interpretation that works and stick to it, they DO work pretty well (IMO).

The problem with this is that different people arrive at different interpre-
tations with different results ...

 

[billclo]

Okay, thanks Apoc for re-explaining it to me. Jeeze, Mongoose can't even use an accurate example of their own combat system. No wonder no one can figure it out.

I cannot believe there have been no significant re-wordings or errata published over this.

I'm getting a headache with this "New and Improved Traveller Game" that Mongoose put together. There's some really nice and neat stuff they added, and then there's this. Accurate examples and better editing would help as well. I'm not quite so enamored with my $80 purchase as I was when I started to be sure.

Apoc, having re-read it multiple times, I think your method is closer to what the book says, even though their example is for crap.