G/Carrier

[phavoc]

Without seeing the overall rules I can't tell for sure, but is the G/Carrier underpriced? The fusion gun alone accounts for 60% of the list price (3Mcr of 5Mcr).

Also, the original G/Carrier was supposed to be a para-military craft, not a front-line style APC. So it had less of a gun (like a VRF Gauss Gun) and was a lower TL.

Seems like the G/Carrier should be more along the lines of the original, so that true APC's would have the heavier armor, bigger gun and overall more protection to survive on the battlefield. A G/Carrier on a TL-10 world would still constitute front line equipment, but against a TL-14 or 15 force it would definitely be at a disadvantage. And if the idea is that some PC's may be running around in a G/Carrier, then you'd want true military gear to outclass and out-pew-pew them.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Happy to hear opinions on this.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I agree. The G-Carrier should be something a band of mercenaries are using, not a true APC.

 

[-Daniel-]

I always took the G-Carrier to be like the old M113 or the Saracen. Would still be useful against normal handguns etc but is not state of the art military. The G-Carrier is still used, but by back water militias or para-military organizations. Just my take.

 

[MongooseMatt]

I always took the G-Carrier to be like the old M113 or the Saracen. Would still be useful against normal handguns etc but is not state of the art military. The G-Carrier is still used, but by back water militias or para-military organizations. Just my take.

That is my take too, and what appears in the Core book (currently, at least).

 

[Nerhesi]

Yeah - currently it seems to try to be the top of the line personnel carrier, like and MBT with troops. It is a TL15 vehicle (so definitely not backwater anything), and it mounts the most effective cannon (Fusion Gun, 3DD vehicle scale). Yet it fails miserably I think due to the fact one shot from it's own cannon will go through 2-5 vehicles of its type (30-180 vehicle damage!!!!... against 6 armour and 20 hull...)

 

[MongooseMatt]

The Fusion Gun needs a tweak, certainly, but quite happy for it to be an eggshell armed with a hammer - I figure it is sold to lower TL governments who want to control uppity natives that do not have much high tech weaponry

Think of it as an export model.

 

[phavoc]

It's not uncommon for people to get eggshell type weaponry today, especially since it's usually used to awe people into submission. Look at some of the equipment little countries and dictators buy today.

But I just don't think the g carrier should be running around with one. It's supposed to be Para military, and thus needs a less front line sort of weapon. The only other option in the CRB is the heavy laser, but the VRF gauss gun would work well too. Except it's not in the CRB.

 

[phavoc]

It's not uncommon for people to get eggshell type weaponry today, especially since it's usually used to awe people into submission. Look at some of the equipment little countries and dictators buy today.

But I just don't think the g carrier should be running around with one. It's supposed to be Para military, and thus needs a less front line sort of weapon. The only other option in the CRB is the heavy laser, but the VRF gauss gun would work well too. Except it's not in the CRB.

 

[Nerhesi]

Even phavoc, should there exist something that is an egg shell running around with a massive cannon, there needs to be something that stands up to that cannon (at least in the sense of that taking a few hits before being "destroyed"). I can't remember if it was you or someone else who had pointed out to me how top of the line MBTs today experience DSAP shells bouncing off one another still... So definitely not anywhere near the one-shot destroying 4-stacked tanks scenario.

Matt just mentioned it'll be getting tuned down - I'm interested in seeing the next iteration of the rule book and the csc, and if they're addressed the larger problem of the multiplier and so on

 

[Anonymous]

Where a DSAP might bounce off there are missiles that will go straight thru the roof of a MBT like a hot knife thru butter. I think that historically the offencive leads the defencive.

Point defence lasers might counter missiles, mutli warhead saturation missiles might over load point defence. The trouble with the rules could also be they're not set up as a full on miniature style game which is in many ways what we're talking about, they're intended for role playing. OK, most Traveller PCs will arm to the teeth so the rules should allow them to blow sh!t up without being a full on miniatures game.

Back to the thread... The G/carrier is just one vehicle. It has it's flaws, OK, it's pretty disastrous one but an M113 can't stand up to Carl Gustav either and it's real easy to carry a CG and there are lightly armoured APCs with TOW missiles routinely mounted. The G/carrier is in someways an anomaly, as grav vehicles replace aircraft and the average vehicle level of mobility is upped to an aircraft level, all grav fighting vehicles should be heavily armoured or just stay way back away from the fight.

The other side of this argument is to see the G/carrier as todays lightly armoured vehicles are seen - part of a combined arms force. You need troops on foot in built up areas to protect your tanks, you need tanks in open areas to defeat other tanks, you need APCs to get your troops to where they support your tanks and you need artillery to rain death on everyone...

:mrgreen:

We're then into a fully fledged military game...

 

[Nerhesi]

Which is an option for a traveller game too, as indicated in the core book even. Just like battle dress is an option in games...

Ive been extremely busy as of late so I apologise for my lack of interaction lately, but I would just like to make sure that when playing scenarios that are military/merc in nature, things are just out of whack or unplayable (because a hit would insta-gib your entire group)

 

[Anonymous]

Hmm, there are different ways of seeing this, being a cruel and unusual GM I take the view that if you play with fire, you run the risk of being burnt and so yeah, insta-gib is an option.

Shooting people isn't nice. Nor is being shot.

Obviously.

Not that that stops Travellers...

 

[phavoc]

Keep in mind here that the fusion gun on this thing represents three fifths of its total cost. Most people can't afford to put such an expensive weapon in a vulnerable carrier. So it would make more sense to carry a weapon with a more reasonable cost.

 

[-Daniel-]

Keep in mind here that the fusion gun on this thing represents three fifths of its total cost. Most people can't afford to put such an expensive weapon in a vulnerable carrier. So it would make more sense to carry a weapon with a more reasonable cost.

That might be an interesting thing to do. Give the specs and costs minus the weapon, then have a small table with a few optional weapons and their costs.

Fusion Gun CrXXXXXXXX
VRF Gauss Gun Cr XXXXX
Hvy MG Cr XXXX
etc.

So the person buys the G-Carrier and then buys the weapon mounted on it. Just a thought. :mrgreen:

 

[phavoc]

That's a good point. A few of the other vehicles have no weapons, only the turret or a place for one. But the g carrier is more like the armed fighting vehicle instead of the atv. So some weapon mounted keeps it in line with the other.

 

[phavoc]

I went back to look at the Vehicles book and the description of the G-Carrier there. It's a light-armored and armed vehicle. Making it a true AFV doubles the cost by the books explanation.

It's also armed with a VRF Gauss gun (and 2 tac missiles). I can see not introducing the VRF gauss gun in the CRB (though it's not a bad idea to substitute the fusion gun for it), but the fusion gun also doesn't make sense. That's a pure military weapon, and players shouldn't be running around with pure military vehicles (or even ships) in the CRB. The have para-military equipment, ships and vehicles. That's always been the case with core Traveller. The add-on military stuff was for people who wanted to travel down that road, but most role-players tend to not run around in all that. Well, at least as far as I've seen or played. Being a soldier kinda sucks as a role-player, except when you are off-base.

If the laser is kept in the book, and the intent is to add some more firepower to the G-Carrier, I think downgrading it to the earliest plasma cannon would be better, as well as lowering the tech level to say 11-12 (or wherever the new TL for plasma guns and anti-grav coincide). It would also help address the issue of mounting the most powerful vehicle direct energy weapon in what is essentially an APC.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Still playing with Armour/Hull/Damage values for vehicles but yes, we'll take the Fusion Gun off the G/Carrier (and probably out of Core), and give it something more suitable.

 

[-Daniel-]

Still playing with Armour/Hull/Damage values for vehicles but yes, we'll take the Fusion Gun off the G/Carrier (and probably out of Core), and give it something more suitable.

I like this idea. Take the G-Carrier back to the "M113 with a .50 cal" feel. Good enough for the mercenary team or special uses, but not front line any more.