Ground Weapons VS Starships

[DFW]

Look, your right if you want to look just at the basic physics. But look, this is a sci-fi RPG, with FTL travel, reaction-less drives

Correct. So, I just handwave and say that hulls are that strong. What's the problem as that is the only solution that could work given the ship designs?
And, consequently, why those non-energy weapons in the book get divided by 50 when figuring damage. The rules account for the hull resisting at those speeds.

 

[Jeraa]

See, that wasn't to hard to figure out was it?

You say that like you have convinced me of something. I know what that table implies. I've known for years. And I also know, real-world physics has no impact at all on game physics. Apparently, you have trouble separating a game from reality.

 

[rust]

If anyone has ANY science based opposition let me know. Physics is physics.
If you travel that fast and hit something as small as 1/2 gram, the impact energy is what it is. It isn't what one wishes it was.

I agree from a science point of view, but disagree from a game point of
view. If we rely on "physics is physics" for a science fiction game, we
have to delete faster than light travel, gravitics, man portable laser wea-
pons in ground combat, cryogenic low berths, and a lot of other parts
of the game universe, and end up with a "modern" instead of "science
fiction" universe. I prefer to keep the level of "magic" very low in my
settings, but entirely without such "magic" they would cease to be sci-
ence fiction.

 

[DFW]

Apparently, you have trouble separating a game from reality.

Didn't mean to get you all upset.

 

[GJD]

Honestly, gents, adopting such strident tones and inflexible positions is not helping the debate.

It seems to me that there are a few contradictory statements in the rules which are being INTERPRETED by different parties in different ways.

The hull rules seem to indicate in the self sealing option that a micrometeroid impact is a minor event. The travel rules indicate a micrometeroid impact can do up to 12 damage. These two poistions are not incompatible.

Consider, if you will, a small craft heading between planets. Now consider to specs of dust, both traveling with the a slightly lower velocity but one ahead of the craft on the same course and one further out but closing rapidly on a directly opposite course.

The small craft hits the first one, the releative velocity is low, since it's actually catching up. The self sealing hull is penetrated but the micrometeroid does no actual damage.

The small craft then hits the second one and the reletive velocity is much higher. The self sealing hull fails and the ship takes damage.

Both situations still abide by the rules and both are possible.

It seems to me, and this is my interpretation, that the travel events table shows that ships are NOT armoured to be invulnerable to ALL micrometeorite impacts. Like any armouring they have a threshold up to which they will self seal, after which you are looking at an impact like that on the event table.

Without a strict design sequence something like (a corrected version of) FF&S, the rules seem to be too ill-defined to actually apply numbers to.

G.

 

[DFW]

I agree from a science point of view, but disagree from a game point of
view. If we rely on "physics is physics" for a science fiction game, we
have to delete faster than light travel, gravitics,

No, you just have to be consistent. The divide by 50 rules IS there to be consistent with super strong hulls. IF you get rid of that rule you then have problems.

 

[Jeraa]

In a hard sci-fi universe, DFW is probably right. But Traveller has never been, and still isn't, a hard sci-fi universe. It is harder than other examples (like Star Wars). But then again, mashed potatoes are harder than yogurt. Neither one is that hard.

 

[barnest2]

But then again, mashed potatoes are harder than yogurt. Neither one is that hard.

Snigger... I don't know why, just snigger...

 

[apoc527]

How can anyone argue that physics applies to this situation? We have no concept of reaction less drives, let alone how they might work. Many sci-fi settings posit these field effects that everyone has already mentioned. In that event, there would be no need to worry about these things. If it's a truly hard science setting, then it's unlikely for ships to reach velocities such that current technology (i.e. Whipple shields) wouldn't be sufficient to deflect or destroy micrometeoroids.

So, what this whole discussion should come down to is what the rules say. And the rules do not support DFW's position.

 

[rust]

The divide by 50 rules IS there to be consistent with super strong hulls. IF you get rid of that rule you then have problems.

Not at all. "Same weapon type with same power does same damage, no
matter where the weapon is mounted" and "Armour is armour, no mat-
ter whether on a starship or a tank" works perfectly well for me, as it
does for example in GURPS Traveller. At least my setting does not re-
quire starships to be invulnerable, and I have no problem if a hit from
a ground vehicle does seriously damage one.

 

[DFW]

Many sci-fi settings posit these field effects

We are talking about Traveller. Do try to not mix in other fantasy/fiction settings into a game rule discussion.

 

[Jeraa]

Correct. So, I just handwave and say that hulls are that strong. What's the problem as that is the only solution that could work given the ship designs?
And, consequently, why those non-energy weapons in the book get divided by 50 when figuring damage. The rules account for the hull resisting at those speeds.

Not just ballistic weapons. All weapons (energy too) have their damage scaled.

 

[DFW]

Correct. So, I just handwave and say that hulls are that strong. What's the problem as that is the only solution that could work given the ship designs?
And, consequently, why those non-energy weapons in the book get divided by 50 when figuring damage. The rules account for the hull resisting at those speeds.

Not just ballistic weapons. All weapons (energy too) have their damage scaled.

Right. All I'm pointing out is that (no matter the source) damage should be consistent based on imparted energy.

So, if a shell from a TL 7 MBT can put a hole in the hull, a micro-meteor within the parameters given, would destroy it.

That's all. And, IF you don't want that, you HAVE to make the hull VERY strong.

 

[rust]

I just asked our colony's resident astrophysicist, and he told me that in a
universe with a jump space all fast micrometeorites disappear into jump
space and rematerialize within the nearest star, so only very slow micro-
meteorites can survive long enough in normal space and hit a starship. 8)

 

[DFW]

so only very slow micro-
meteorites can survive long enough in normal space and hit a starship. 8)

Right, I know that rule/law. Which is why I figured into my calcs that the micro-meteor was stopped in space and not moving at all.

 

[rust]

Right, I know that rule/law. Which is why I figured into my calcs that the micro-meteor was stopped in space and not moving at all.

Ah, but the Second Law of Starship Survival demonstrates beyond reaso-
nable doubt that micrometeorites always move slowly away from all star-
ships, because a collision with a starship would increase their speed, they
would have to disappear into jumpspace and end up in a star - and they
want to avoid that at all cost. 8)

Edit.:
Yes, it is extremely silly, but I thought it could take some of the heat out
of the debate ...

 

[Jeraa]

But at least I believe we can all say that the damage scaling is by points, rather than by damage dice. At least thats what all the votes have been.

 

[DFW]

Right, I know that rule/law. Which is why I figured into my calcs that the micro-meteor was stopped in space and not moving at all.

Ah, but the Second Law of Starship Survival demonstrates beyond reaso-
nable doubt that micrometeorites always move slowly away from all star-
ships, because a collision with a starship would increase their speed, they
would have to disappear into jumpspace and end up in a star - and they
want to avoid that at all cost. 8)

 

[DFW]

But at least I believe we can all say that the damage scaling is by points, rather than by damage dice. At least thats what all the votes have been.

That would make the most sense.

 

[atpollard]

Except ships can't just ignore micro meteors, or the self-sealing armor option (page 106 of the core book) would be entirely pointless.

No the self sealing option if in case you get holed by a weapon. People aren't self sealing so if you have micro-meteors flying through the hull of a small craft you don't have living people or working drives and what not.

Pretty obvious when you think about it.

Unless you factor in that the odds of a random impact are 1 per 150 years for a 1 gram object and 1 per 150,000 years for a 1 kg object.

And 10-40% of objects that impact will hit a fuel tank rather than a critical space and another 50% will hit the cargo hold of a commercial starship - that's 1 hit from a 1 kg object to a critical system per 375,000 years of operation.

I suggest calculating hull strength from weapon damage or hull stress rather than (statistically) virtually unheard of impacts.