FGMP/PGMP Now heavy weapons according to CSC?

[nats]

CSC changes the skill requirement for Plasma Rifles, PGMPs and FGMPs to Heavy Weapons instead of Gun Combat. It does retain later Fusion Pistols and Fusion Rifles as Gun Combat skill but these are generally very high tech level items (TL 17+). I was just wondering what people thought about this?

I suppose the early plasma and fusion weapons are heavy weapons of a sort and are essentially military grade only but it would mean that skills in these would be a bit more difficult to obtain in other non military careers.

 

[barnest2]

Well the early plasma and fusion weapons are (IMO) normally either vehicle mounted or more likely to appear in a platoons support weapon units (akin to mortar squads in WW2)... so I would consider them heavy weapons...

And really what is the chance of encountering plasma and fusion guns in non military jobs?

 

[DFW]

I have no problem with it. Gun combat (rifle) wouldn't prepare you to effectively operate a man portable flame thrower either.

 

[BP]

For MgT this is not a change -

Core p. 55 - Heavy Weapons (Man Portable Artillery) - 'Man portable fusion and plasma weapons – the FGMP, PGMP and similar.'

Also described under the Heavy Weapons section p. 102

 

[nats]

For MgT this is not a change -

Core p. 55 - Heavy Weapons (Man Portable Artillery) - 'Man portable fusion and plasma weapons – the FGMP, PGMP and similar.'

Also described under the Heavy Weapons section p. 102

Sorry yes I was getting confused with Classic Traveller there in MGT they have always been heavy weapons.

 

[phavoc]

Makes perfect sense to me. There probably should be a separate skill for man-portable energy weapons anyway. Personally having a man-portable device capable of generating plasma discharges that can destroy armored vehicles... well, I for one would be very happy to know that the person who is shooting it damn well knows how you handle one is a damn sight different than shooting a rifle!

From my days in the military, shooting a rifle was not quite the same as shooting an M60 (they were just deploying SAWS at the time, never got to play with one... plus I was in artillery). We had a couple of .50 cals in our unit, but the cooks (!!) were the ones who got to shoot those since they were mounted on their deuce's.

I can see the logic in grouping some classes of weapons, but sometimes it gets TOO generic. It's like being a pilot for a 1,000,000 ton battleship is the equivalent of piloting a fighter. There's a slight difference, but only 1 skill for both. Oh well, it's just a game.. :lol:

 

[DFW]

It's like being a pilot for a 1,000,000 ton battleship is the equivalent of piloting a fighter. There's a slight difference, but only 1 skill for both. Oh well, it's just a game.. :lol:

You mean,3 different skills.

• Small Craft: Shuttles and other craft under 100 tons.
• Spacecraft: Trade ships and other vessels between 100 and
5,000 tons.
• Capital Ships: Battleships and other ships over 5,000 tons.

 

[far-trader]

It's like being a pilot for a 1,000,000 ton battleship is the equivalent of piloting a fighter. There's a slight difference, but only 1 skill for both. Oh well, it's just a game.. :lol:

You mean,3 different skills.

Or more

Add the differences for type of streamlining and operating in atmo too imo.

One skill could cover all those types when operating in space. There's really not much difference then. But when it comes to operating in atmo that is going to be much different than deep space, and much different by each type of streamlining and size.

I've often thought Pilot should be treated as simply for space operation and another skill (or more diffculty) should be applied for atmo interface operations.

But yeah, it's just a game, not a simulation

Oops, sorry. This is/was about guns, not ships

Back to the guns...

 

[BP]

I've kept the pilot specialties separated, but, using gravitics could simplify things a bit.

That handwave could make atmo/space piloting virtually identical, though situationally different at times in use, the skill required would have to cover the same essential aspects.

Bigger difference would be gravitic vs non-gravitic...

 

[iainjcoleman]

One option would be to use Flyer (Wing) skill for controlling a non-gravitic spacecraft in an atmosphere.

 

[DFW]

Since MGT says that both Standard & Streamlined space craft glide to a landing, how do they land on a vacuum world?

That must use the skill, Prayer 5 :shock:

I agree with far trader. It would be a different skill set to handle an atmospheric ship than one in space.

 

[phavoc]

Gliding is probably more akin to a slowed descent. Grav ships won't have aero-structures to maneuver, so they make do with thrusters. Think of the space shuttle coming in for a landing. It's a brick with wings. A ship fitted with gravitics would be able to hover, but for the most part its going to set its descent path a ways away from the landing zone.

Works the same in a vacum, but its a lot more controlled. With no wind to factor in should be a cinch for a pilot to bring his brick in for a landing. Assuming the local starport would allow for pilot-controlled landings. Some might require autopilots or even turning the ships controls over to a centralized air traffic system.

 

[BP]

Oops - left out a preposition in my previous post!

Meant that gravitics makes pilot specialties more equivalent - smallcraft to capital ships - certainly concur that atmo vs. space piloting would be quite different.

Could see specialties covering atmo/non-atmo piloting and gravitic vs non-gravitic.

Of course, similar logic can be applied to most of these sub-skill classifications. In my games I've been using house variants and situational skill DMs to cover this. I.e. a Pilot 4 might get Pilot 1 or 2 when handling another 'sized' ship class, not just Pilot 0, or a doubling of any time bonuses (i.e. a +2 for a time band move vs a +1, given the added related skill).

 

[DFW]

Works the same in a vacum, but its a lot more controlled.

That's logical but, the rules don't add up to that. Standard ships can't take off without expensive and extensive launch facilities. That means that streamlined ships take off like an airplane. Which in turn means, NO ships can land and then take off from the wilderness, especially on a vacuum world.

 

[phavoc]

Works the same in a vacum, but its a lot more controlled.

That's logical but, the rules don't add up to that. Standard ships can't take off without expensive and extensive launch facilities. That means that streamlined ships take off like an airplane. Which in turn means, NO ships can land and then take off from the wilderness, especially on a vacuum world.

I think we all know how closely the rules were checked before they were printed... A ship with gravitics should be able to maneuver, if only like a slug, using thrusters and it's engines. I envision it to be more like a heavier-than-air type ship, where the gravitics help offset gravity, but there is still that silly "mass" thing to deal with. So it does make some sense to have landing and launching vectors from a starport to allow a ship to gain altitude and velocity on their way to orbit, and descending to orbit.

Small ships, like a free trader, would be quite maneuverable (so to speak) since they are relatively small and faster on the helm than say a 10,000 bulk freighter coming in for a landing. I would suspect that large freighters would dock only in specific areas of a starport, or even in specific zones on a planet. The illustrations you see of many smaller starships taking off and landing with the megacity in the background never show big ships, just small PC-style ones.

It's kinda sad that by lifting whole sections of the rules from the previous publishers and canon, that Mongoose had to make so many minor mistakes and missed sooo many during the review process.

 

[Treebore]

Common sense, and what the GM wants to be true for his game, still rules. So I don't worry about such minor issues, they are easy to fix/hand wave. In fact, I have yet to find anything too screwed up to fix/hand wave.

I have always thought fusion and plasma guns should be considered Heavy Weapons since you typically needed them mounted or used the frame work of combat or power armor to support the majority of the weight.

That last bit about weight support isn't necessarily in the rules, but just basic understanding of weight/mass and what is likely true about combat armor, let alone powered armor, tells us that the frame work would support a lot of weight, making it so only taking steps gets harder and harder. Which is what would likely lead to powered assist suits in the first place.

Having highly mobile heavy powered weapons is a big tactical advantage. Which is why the Mech Warrior genre is so plausible. Yes highly expensive, but their armored mobility also makes them highly more survivable than fixed positions. So may be considered worth the investment.

So at the lower tech levels, I am definitely fine with them being considered "heavy".